Once again HCMA tells the city to screw off

[johnsmith]

I assume [[and may be wrong) that your locality is the exception, not the rule.

That may be, as many localities understandably don't want to lose tax revenue [[revenue that was largely due to the effect of a housing bubble in the first place.) Maybe mine doesn't want to deal with the lashback of residents fighting their assessments, so they're being more reasonable, upfront and honest about it. A relative in a neighboring community hasn't had such a drastic decrease from the bubble assessment years, at least not yet. Although he has seen at least a 25% decrease so far from 3-4 years ago.

[jt1]

That may be, as many localities understandably don't want to lose tax revenue [[revenue that was largely due to the effect of a housing bubble in the first place.) Maybe mine doesn't want to deal with the lashback of residents fighting their assessments, so they're being more reasonable, upfront and honest about it. A relative in a neighboring community hasn't had such a drastic decrease from the bubble assessment years, at least not yet. Although he has seen at least a 25% decrease so far from 3-4 years ago.

Good to hear that some communities are taking the high road and doing what is fair for taxpayers.

[Novine]

"Most of the land acquired by the HCMA is along the Huron or Clinton river valleys, which is why it's called the Huron-Clinton Metropark Authority. It has nothing to do with the law, I'm not sure where you got that from, but it is historically accurate."

Wrong again. The name existed before the parks were acquired and created. Thanks DY archives!

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1162490524

As Jt1 noted back in 2006, the hypocrisy is that suburbanites have no problems with Detroit tax dollars subsidizing the development of regional amenities when it's out in the suburbs where a good percentage of Detroit's population has no means to even access those amenities. But when the shoes on the other foot, suburban taxpayers cry foul.

[ferntruth]

Let Ferndale take it over.

What makes you think that those of us in Ferndale would want that albatross around our neck?
Besides, we already "stole" The Blue Nile from Detroit [[according to some posters on DY - even though Blue Nile's parking and other problems with the city are well known as the primary reason they left Detroit). I wouldn't want Ferndale to be accused of stealing another of Detroit's "precious jewels", afterall.

My solution would be to allow Detroit to "opt-out" of paying taxes to support HCMA. Of course, the other side of that would be that Detroit residents should then not be able to use the parks that they would no longer be helping to support.

Somehow I don't think that would pass legal muster.

[Detroitnerd]

What makes you think that those of us in Ferndale would want that albatross around our neck?
Besides, we already "stole" The Blue Nile from Detroit [[according to some posters on DY - even though Blue Nile's parking and other problems with the city are well known as the primary reason they left Detroit). I wouldn't want Ferndale to be accused of stealing another of Detroit's "precious jewels", afterall.

My solution would be to allow Detroit to "opt-out" of paying taxes to support HCMA. Of course, the other side of that would be that Detroit residents should then not be able to use the parks that they would no longer be helping to support.

Somehow I don't think that would pass legal muster.

Seems sort of like divisive rhetoric. Too bad we don't all work together and function like a region. Abolish more than 400 redundant governmental organizations and we might have enough money for stuff. Might even see stuff like State Fair Park as an asset, not as a financial hot potato.

Well, at least we have the entertainment of finger-pointing, blame and denial. That's pretty sweet.

[bailey]

"Most of the land acquired by the HCMA is along the Huron or Clinton river valleys, which is why it's called the Huron-Clinton Metropark Authority. It has nothing to do with the law, I'm not sure where you got that from, but it is historically accurate."

Wrong again. The name existed before the parks were acquired and created. Thanks DY archives!

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1162490524

As Jt1 noted back in 2006, the hypocrisy is that suburbanites have no problems with Detroit tax dollars subsidizing the development of regional amenities when it's out in the suburbs where a good percentage of Detroit's population has no means to even access those amenities. But when the shoes on the other foot, suburban taxpayers cry foul.

Again... where is the outrage at Bing's office? Stop the anti suburb rant for a second and read today's paper.

Commissioners approved another resolution to enter into discussions with Detroit to turn the fairgrounds site at Woodward and Eight Mile into a park. But Jayne Miller, the Metroparks executive director, said Mayor Dave Bing opposes the concept.
Through a spokesman, Bing pointed to Meijer Inc.'s tentative plans to open a store at the site, adding "the fairgrounds hold great potential for economic development in Detroit ... we have to capitalize on the opportunity to bring additional jobs, retail and investment."

Perhaps the thread should be titled "Once again Detroit tells HCMA to screw off"?

[JBMcB]

Wrong again. The name existed before the parks were acquired and created. Thanks DY archives!

So the name "Huron Clinton Metropark Authority" has nothing to do with the fact that most of the original land acquired was along the Clinton and Huron river valleys? I don't quite understand what you are objecting to. It's called H.C.M.A. because that's where the original parks were. That's *why* the parks are there - because it was the original plan.

suburbanites have no problems with Detroit tax dollars subsidizing the development of regional amenities when it's out in the suburbs

As I said before, the parks were created when there really weren't any suburbs to speak of, and the bulk of the metro area's population lived in the city of Detroit proper. They didn't have a problem with the Metropark's location back then, why is there a problem now?

But when the shoes on the other foot, suburban taxpayers cry foul.

I don't know of anybody who is against pumping taxpayer money into various improvements in the city of Detroit. Pretty much everyone I know is dead-set against just handing the city of Detroit a bunch of money and letting them handle the project themselves.

So, was that the arrangement in the State Fairground deal? Was the HCMA going to take complete, independent control of the State Fairgrounds? With Bing against the idea of a fairgrounds Metropark, I doubt it.

The fairgrounds would have made a lousy Metropark, anyways. The whole purpose of the Metroparks is conserving existing green spaces as much as possible. The fairgrounds is a heavily developed site - getting it back to nature would take decades. I'd be all for a Metropark on Belle Isle, or Rouge park, which I've heard as an idea.

[Detroitnerd]

The whole purpose of the Metroparks is conserving existing green spaces as much as possible.

Really? So what's up with all them water slides?

[RO_Resident]

Not to mention the disparity in the taxable value of most homes in Detroit versus most of Oakland county. I can't find numbers beyond 2003 in my brief search, .

You can find some taxable value/SEV values for 2008 and 2009 here:
http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...acity_2009.pdf

Within the PDF is a link to some spreadsheets with values associated with communities. Delete St. Clair and Monroe Counties and you will come up with the relative contributions by county or community.

[Novine]

"I don't quite understand what you are objecting to. It's called H.C.M.A. because that's where the original parks were. That's *why* the parks are there - because it was the original plan."

I'm objecting to the distortions you were making about the history. The name pre-dated the parks, not the other way around, as you originally claimed. Was there a plan that led to this name? If so, please share it with us. Back in the day, HCMA was going to build a series of roadways to interconnect the various parks. That's why HCMA owned a series of land corridors throughout the western suburbs, parcels that they've largely divested themselves of over the last 20 years. It's also why HCMA was given authority to build roadways in their enabling legislation. That plan belies a claim that it was simply to build parks along the rivers. It's not germane to the current discussion but if you're going to make claims about the original intent, at least back it up with real historical facts.

[DTWflyer]

The HCMA's mission is to provide parks that are more or less, a destination and offer a variety of recreational activities. The State Fair Grounds does not fit the mold of other Metroparks.

The Metroparks were created as a place were people could go and spend the whole day outside, recreating, and enjoying their leisure time. They aren't meant to be neighborhood parks where you go for 30 minutes.

Most of the parks reside on a body of water, most are several thousand acres, have golf courses, paved trails, nature trails, picnic areas, beaches, etc.

The State Fair would've been a completely different type of property that most likely would not have added a significant amount of revenue from entry fees and instead added in a lot of costs into the system.

The Metroparks are adding features to attempt to modernize with the times. Many of them were built in the 1950's and 1960's and have aging infrastructure and ammenities.

The Metroparks ARE one of the region's gems. They offer one of the best regional park systems in the country and we are fortunete to have them and keep them well funded for their upkeep.

[Det_ard]

It's not a money-loser, Bailey, it's a public function. In other words, we spend our tax money on fostering a more united state. Show me one state fair that makes a profit, anywhere. I'd like to hear of it.

Well, since the State Fair of Texas is run by a private non-profit it can't be said to make a profit, but it receives no state, local or federal funds. No tax dollars to subsidize the largest state fair in the country. There's something to shoot for.

And since we're all outraged by the lack of a metropark in Detroit, let's be fair and move the taxpayer-funded state fair out of Detroit to some place more centrally located, like Lansing or Mt. Pleasant.

[Russix]

Could we not raise the Detroit mil in exchange for making Belle Isle and State Fairgrounds metro parks? I think an authority that specializes in running parks would do a better job and Detroit’s operating costs would actually decrease even with the raised mil.

[Quonset Hut]

So you're telling me that your taxable value has dropped 30-40%? I highly doubt that your taxable value has dropped at the same rate that the value of your home has dropped.

Not the OP, but my Taxable Value in Farmington Hills for 2010 is 67% of the 2006 amount.

[bailey]

"I don't quite understand what you are objecting to. It's called H.C.M.A. because that's where the original parks were. That's *why* the parks are there - because it was the original plan."

I'm objecting to the distortions you were making about the history. The name pre-dated the parks, not the other way around, as you originally claimed. Was there a plan that led to this name? If so, please share it with us. Back in the day, HCMA was going to build a series of roadways to interconnect the various parks. That's why HCMA owned a series of land corridors throughout the western suburbs, parcels that they've largely divested themselves of over the last 20 years. It's also why HCMA was given authority to build roadways in their enabling legislation. That plan belies a claim that it was simply to build parks along the rivers. It's not germane to the current discussion but if you're going to make claims about the original intent, at least back it up with real historical facts.

Since you're talking about "facts"....no comment on the Bing Administration's scuttling of the discussion?

[Novine]

The land is owned by the state. The park would be run by HCMA. The Bing administration has no power to scuttle any deal. I'm sure the city's position was taken into consideration but ultimately, HCMA can do whatever it wants to do at that site.

[bailey]

The land is owned by the state. The park would be run by HCMA. The Bing administration has no power to scuttle any deal. I'm sure the city's position was taken into consideration but ultimately, HCMA can do whatever it wants to do at that site.

Yeah, because the HCMA would really walk into ANY city and take over the land in that city over the objections of its leadership. HCMA didn't have a buy in from the city, why are you not outraged at the city here?

[Novine]

I'm giving the Bing administration the benefit of the doubt because it's unclear to me what was being proposed. In the past 4 weeks, I've seen at least 3 separate proposals in the papers for the state fair property. From what I've read, the Bing administration has been putting the brakes on any of those proposals until they get a better idea of what they want to see happen there. That being said, if HCMA wanted to go to the state fair property, they could have sent a signal with a vote that they were interested. They've made it clear that they are not interested.

That also doesn't change my view that HCMA should be looking at opportunities to better serve Detroit. Belle Isle is one location. An earlier suggestion for Rouge Park is one that would fit well into HCMA's profile and mission. I'm not an advocate for HCMA taking over the State Fair. But I do think that for the tax dollars that go to HCMA from Detroit, there's been limited return for that investment for Detroiters.

[bailey]

I'm giving the Bing administration the benefit of the doubt because it's unclear to me what was being proposed. In the past 4 weeks, I've seen at least 3 separate proposals in the papers for the state fair property. From what I've read, the Bing administration has been putting the brakes on any of those proposals until they get a better idea of what they want to see happen there. That being said, if HCMA wanted to go to the state fair property, they could have sent a signal with a vote that they were interested. They've made it clear that they are not interested.

Regardless...as the article says, with out the Administration on board, it's a tough sell.

That also doesn't change my view that HCMA should be looking at opportunities to better serve Detroit. Belle Isle is one location. An earlier suggestion for Rouge Park is one that would fit well into HCMA's profile and mission. I'm not an advocate for HCMA taking over the State Fair. But I do think that for the tax dollars that go to HCMA from Detroit, there's been limited return for that investment for Detroiters.

I absolutely agree with you and I completely agree that Belle Isle is right in the HCMA's wheel house operationally. But you do understand that the second the HCMA takes over a park in the City, a little toll booth goes up at the entrance...just like everywhere else.

I find it strange that the mere mention of charging to get on Belle Isle [[or into Rouge Park) is tantamount to a declaration of war on the poor and a seizure by "the suburbs" of a Detroit jewel, yet now that is not only being welcomed, it's being actively demanded?

[Detroitnerd]

I find it strange that the mere mention of charging to get on Belle Isle [[or into Rouge Park) is tantamount to a declaration of war on the poor and a seizure by "the suburbs" of a Detroit jewel, yet now that is not only being welcomed, it's being actively demanded?

Not necessarily. But it's just a matter of being aware of what somebody's reasons for wanting the fee are. If it's to raise money for the park, most people don't object. But there are often thinly veiled racial overtones and code words, such as "An entry fee would discourage hoodlums and encourage use by families."

What does the public want for Belle Isle? They want it cleaned up. How it gets that way is open to honest, informed debate.