Trespassing at site of old Tiger Stadium

[MCP-001]

Everything that is on the books is there because democratically-elected officials decided that they should be there. That is what society has decided is the norm. When you start to depart from that because you [[personally) think it's pointless to obey the law, you're not just flouting the law - you're also telling your neighbors [[and representative democracy) to go to hell. And you would have no legitimate reason to complain when someone puts a brick through your car window to steal something because he thinks that petty larceny is excusable. A lot of what has happened here came about because everyone treated the city's law as optional and the city itself as disposable. Where there is no respect for [[or awareness of) the limits between your property and rights and those of others, the result is far worse than a couple of acres of un-mown ball field.

And we as the people who put those elected officials there in the first place, are the final arbiters of whether or not those laws are really what we want.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_la...lification.pdf

If the land in question was private property, then your argument would have merit.

The thing here is [[at least last time I checked anyway), the land is city property, and literally a vacant lot.

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

[dookie joe]

Stay off Mike Ilitch's lawn.

[Detroitnerd]

Mike Ilitch spent years turning that ballfield into a vacant lot. The last thing he wants is people playing baseball on it! You might start a new league or something.

[Huggybear]

Wow. Glad I didn't cheat off you in Government class. Citizens elect legislators who make the laws, and judges and juries enforce them. Aside from voting, individuals have no role [[in any modern society) as the arbiters of laws [[they don't even have that role on juries, where they can only decide facts). Citizens do not have any right to bypass the system by deciding what laws they should and should not obey. If you accept that premise, you would also have to accept that someone could murder you and walk because he concluded "[i] as the [person] who put those elected officials there in the first place, [am] the final arbiter[] of whether or not [the law against homicide is] really what [i] want." Have fun with that, Judge Dredd.

[[By the way, the suburbanites featured in the article can't even vote in Detroit, so you couldn't even argue that they are even arbiters of the law.)

And you're also dead wrong on the distinction between public and private property. That the City owns something does not mean that it is open to the public. Governmental entities [[and things like the DDA) own property just like you or I do, and they also have the right to control access. Even if you had never heard this directly, you should have been able to divine this from the fact that the City owns numerous facilities where access is restricted to certain hours or prohibited to the public. The DDA owns the Book-Cadillac garage, but you can't park there for free. In fact, Tiger Stadium was owned by the city for the last 20 or so years of its existence - did this give you the right to break in and wander around during games or after hours? The sole exceptions are areas dedicated to public use.

The "damage" is to the system - and I guess you proved my point about the lawless attitudes that Detroiters and suburbanites have.

And we as the people who put those elected officials there in the first place, are the final arbiters of whether or not those laws are really what we want.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_la...lification.pdf

If the land in question was private property, then your argument would have merit.

The thing here is [[at least last time I checked anyway), the land is city property, and literally a vacant lot.

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

[daddeeo]

I guess they take their cues from their elected officials. The old trickle down effect.

[cman710]

The "damage" is to the system - and I guess you proved my point about the lawless attitudes that Detroiters and suburbanites have.

I can understand your point, and personally, I am not approaching this issue through the framework that these people should be able to do what they want because the land is city property. In fact, I am in no way disputing the city's right to kick these people out or to cite them for trespassing. The law is the law. What I am arguing is that, in a city with an awful crime problem with inadequate enforcement, it is silly to spend resources to provide incentives againt private citizens improving a piece of land in a way that harms no one.

[EastsideAl]

What a bunch of hogwash Huggybear is throwing off here. And as a city resident, who was born and raised in the city, I truly resent his repeated implication that it is only suburbanites who care about, and are 'trespassing' on, the Tiger Stadium site.

Look, if the 'rule of law' in Detroit could somehow be magically restored by chasing people off of the Tiger Stadium lot I might, just might, have some sympathy with Huggybear's position. But to make what is essentially a 'broken windows' theory argument that lumps people who are mowing grass and playing baseball in with running red lights and public drunkenness is to stretch that theory well past its breaking point. Particularly in the case of the City of Detroit, which really does have more than enough truly dangerous crime to deal with, with police resources that constantly state they are too thinly stretched even to respond to violent crime calls at some times.

If the City administration were to suddenly decide that the many people around the city who are technically breaking the law to maintain and make productive use of city-owned vacant property are the great enemy of public order, it would in large measure be a campaign of harassment against the very people who are trying to make this a better place. I don't see how that result of the enforcing of some supposed "law and order" value would be beneficial to anyone.

Nor do I see how a lot full of weeds in a prominent public spot is an improvement for any city or any neighborhood, unless one is so resentful of whites [[characterized above by Huggybear as "suburbanites" and "crackers" by definition) that you think they should have no role at all in the city, even if that role is to improve and maintain things. It would be far far better, of course, to reach some accommodation that would allow the people who care about the site to also care for it. But, much as with the people out here in the neighborhoods who are doing the same [[most of whom, I would not be to bold to point out, could not reasonably be characterized as "crackers"), the city government has proven to be a very unwilling partner to both its citizens and its friends.

I'm with Professor Scott here. The next time I have a crime committed on me or my neighbors and can actually get a police car to show up, or can actually have a crime investigated and pursued [[hasn't happened, even when I know who the perpetrator is and have pointed him out to the police), is when I may give them some break for engaging in this sort of [[politically motivated?) petty and useless harassment.

[Detroitnerd]

Good points, Eastside Al. If you were to argue that mowing weeds and hosting activities on the Tiger Stadium parcel was lawbreaking and damage to law and order, would you say the same about mowing grass and hosting blues concerts at the Carpet House?

[MCP-001]

Wow. Glad I didn't cheat off you in Government class. Citizens elect legislators who make the laws, and judges and juries enforce them. Aside from voting, individuals have no role [[in any modern society) as the arbiters of laws [[they don't even have that role on juries, where they can only decide facts). Citizens do not have any right to bypass the system by deciding what laws they should and should not obey. If you accept that premise, you would also have to accept that someone could murder you and walk because he concluded "[i] as the [person] who put those elected officials there in the first place, [am] the final arbiter[] of whether or not [the law against homicide is] really what [i] want." Have fun with that, Judge Dredd.

Too bad you didn't.

I aced all of my civics and Poli Sci classes, you might have actually learned something.

Try reading the link before posting next time.

[Whitehouse]

Is there anyone who can take picture in the weekend? Would be nice to see the current state of the pitch.

[Magnatomicflux]

Only problem I see [[with all due respect to these people)

what a stupid place to dump someones ashes!!!!!!!!!!!!



".....it's been 6 months since Grandma was forever connected with the site of a baseball team she lov....that she loved so mu.......what? screw off and lemmie fini..........what do you mean? i thought it would stay like that for.......well, well they can't develop that site .......my grandma is there.........well that's bullshit. Someone should have told me this might happen. Where are they taking the dirt?....."

GOD people.....THINK!


I think it's great that poeple are doing this. Yeah the law is being broken, but really the city should just let up on that and let some people keep that spot alive.
What these people are doing is exactly what Detroit needs in ALL its neighbourhoods. One house, one block, one street at a time.

[CLAUDE G]

Only problem I see [[with all due respect to these people)

what a stupid place to dump someones ashes!!!!!!!!!!!!



".....it's been 6 months since Grandma was forever connected with the site of a baseball team she lov....that she loved so mu.......what? screw off and lemmie fini..........what do you mean? i thought it would stay like that for.......well, well they can't develop that site .......my grandma is there.........well that's bullshit. Someone should have told me this might happen. Where are they taking the dirt?....."

GOD people.....THINK!

I see no issues spreading ashes on the site, a matter of fact there is 15-20 other people who have had their ashes burried on the field since the stadium closed.

The problem is that there is no clear plan for the site.... For all we know the DEGC has struck a deal with Walmart to build a new store on the site.

What is this lady going to do if they tear up the field and build a parking lot there for a Walmart?

We had a lady during the demolition that wanted access to the site so she could dig up her grandfather who she placed his ashed in a hole near pitchers mound serveal years ago with the help of Mayor Archer

Great idea, but now is not the time to be be spreading ashes of someone you love at the field at Michigan and Trumbull.

[Magnatomicflux]

I see no issues spreading ashes on the site, a matter of fact there is 15-20 other people who have had their ashes burried on the field since the stadium closed.

The problem is that there is no clear plan for the site.... For all we know the DEGC has struck a deal with Walmart to build a new store on the site.

What is this lady going to do if they tear up the field and build a parking lot there for a Walmart?

We had a lady during the demolition that wanted access to the site so she could dig up her grandfather who she placed his ashed in a hole near pitchers mound serveal years ago with the help of Mayor Archer

Great idea, but now is not the time to be be spreading ashes of someone you love at the field at Michigan and Trumbull.

Well sure, I would like to have mine spred somewhere I loved as well. But like you said, there's no clear plan. If there was I would be all for it. I wouldn't want to be buried in something subject to change based on nickels and dimes. Spread me on a mountain, if it wants to kick me off it can go ahead and landslide. But noones gonna be building a Walmart on me.

[Meddle]

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

[eno]

If the City has a fence around the field restricting access, why don't they put the field into use for the ball players and families to visit and play on until another plan of use is established. The City could charge a nominal fee depending on use. This plan wold allow those who cherish the history of the field to legally make use of the field and play out their fantasy. It would bring people into the city who would avail themselves to the restaurants, party stores and bars in the area.

[manualshift]

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

You are WRONG.

I would love to hear your theory as to why the City of Detroit does not enjoy governmental immunity from personal injury lawsuits under the Governmental Liability Tort Act.

Under Michigan law, no permission is required to enter land that is not attached to farmland and marked "no trespassing" or fenced in. I.E. Not trespassing. Under Detroit law, climbing on city or private structures without permission is a crime. I would love to hear your theory why I would have to get permission to enter ANY other land in Michigan.

[MCP-001]

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

If that's the case, then Detroit should padlock EVERY baseball diamond located within the city. Why, who knows what horrible disfigurement could befall someone playing....baseball?

On your other point, jail space is at a premium right now. Would you rather have [[pick one: drunk driver, car thief, assault & battery, pedophile) locked up? Or someone committing the heinous crime of a pick-up base ball game on the corner of Michigan & Trumbull?

I like eno's idea.

Fence off the area and charge people a diamond fee to play there. They can use the revenue from that to have someone police the area and run a lawn mower over it once in a while.

Who wouldn't want to play a game of baseball where Tiger Stadium once stood?

[Detroitnerd]

Who wouldn't want to play a game of baseball where Tiger Stadium once stood?

Attachment 7012
He wouldn't. And what's good for Mikey is good for the rest of us.

[EastsideAl]

Eno's idea is a very good and sensible one, which is why it will never come to pass. There seems to be some hostility and defensiveness in the city government, and in the DEGC, towards the Tiger Stadium site and its possible use. It is almost as if they would prefer that everyone forget the stadium was ever there, which ain't going to happen for a very long time.

[jcole]

Man, for someone who's only 80, he's not looking so good

[RickBeall]

That's how 80 year old people used to look jcole.

[Pam]

Man, for someone who's only 80, he's not looking so good

So you don't think the hair dye is helping?

[Huggybear]

@cman710: There are actually three different questions. One is resource allocation. I don't disagree that if there are conflicts between enforcement of particular types of crimes then as a practical matter, police should go for the most serious. The second, and necessary question is whether there is contention for resources. We have a certain number of police cars allocated to patrol activities, and looking for illicit activity and correcting it is precisely what they are supposed to be doing. The chances of catching people attempting to use a fenced site on a major trunk road is an order of magnitude greater than being there to prevent, say, the average of one homicide and change that occurs in a 139 square mile area in a day. Major crimes are done in minutes. The goal is to solve them, punish them and therefore deter them - but even the shortest response times in the universe makes that more detective than patrol work. The third issue is the decrease in the aggressiveness of the police department about addressing things that are going on right in front of its eyes.

@EastsideAl: the reference to suburbanites is to the people shown in the article. We are all aware that some Detroiters are into Tiger Stadium. The reason I mentioned suburbanites in the second post was that MCP.001 asserted that "we" are the ultimate arbiters of the law. My point is that people who live outside the city have no authority [[whether electoral or everyday) to control what the city does to enforce its laws, even if you bought MCP.001's arguments. Don't get all wound up about a point that no one was trying to make. Whether someone is actually a Detroiter or not would bear on MCP.001's argument, but it's otherwise meaningless. And in the end, isn't the solution petitioning City Council or the Mayor's office - not simply breaking the law in the first instance?

@manualshift: you are referring to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The concept of governmental immunity comes from English law and did not require any statute. The Michigan Act, which put that in writing, actually defines exceptions to governmental immunity, one of which is exercise of a "proprietary" function. A "proprietary" function is "as any activity conducted primarily for pecuniary profit, excluding activities normally supported by taxes or fees." The Act also makes dangerous conditions in buildings an exception to immunity. So it is not at all a stretch that an accident on that site could precipitate a lawsuit. Whether it would succeed is another matter, but no one wants the city law department spending time or money defending even frivolous lawsuits.

@MCP.001: where to even start here? I missed the link - and when you called it my attention, it brought up a PDF that [[a) was written by something that politely could the Montana Mountainmen Law Review [[read its mission statement);* [[2) asserts the right to 'jury nullification,' based on constitutional provisions that Michigan lacks; and [[3) advocates something that the Michigan Court of Appeals has held is not a defendant's right and that the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has laughed off. But even if juror nullification were the law, you're not a juror when you simply walk onto a property, you're not even at the stage of being this kind of "arbiter." You would actually be the one who has to convince 6-12 other people to nullify the law. I'd think twice before doing that. In all of this discussion of citizen-level decisions, I would have expected to see a link to something on Thoreau, Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, or King - though the concept of civil disobedience usually calls for some higher human cause than the desire to occupy land once used to play a sport.

*There is some academic discussion on the subject [[well, there was in the mid-to-late 1990s), but it is not coming from these crackpots, who are the same people that would tell you that paying your federal income taxes is unconstitutional or that the bank can't collect on your credit cards due to violation of some obscure 18th century banking act.

@Magnatomicflux: this is for the men of Hill 364!

[jcole]

So you don't think the hair dye is helping?

That or the Caesar cut.

[jcole]

That's how 80 year old people used to look jcole.

My mom is 90 and incapacitated and there are days that she looks better than he does.