Kronprinz Member Username: Kronprinz
Post Number: 628 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 11:53 pm: | |
Get the federal government to approve The Rosa Parks National Park. Paterson could teach Detroit something http://www.usatoday.com/news/n ation/2007-10-21-landmarks_N.h tm?csp=1 |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 303 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 12:08 am: | |
I'm not sure I see your point. Detroit has more concentrated, natural greenspace than it knows what to do with (Belle Isle, Rouge Park and Palmer Park spring immediately to mind). It'd be nice if we had 77-foot waterfalls, but there isn't a whole lot we can do about that. Am I missing something? |
Kronprinz Member Username: Kronprinz
Post Number: 629 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 12:39 am: | |
Your missing the fact that it could be turned over to the federal government, leaving Detroit with monies to spend elsewhere. And, look at the economic development that it has spawned in Denver and other places. The Rosa Parks angle alone would generate interest in the minds of many people who otherwise wouldn't visit Detroit. |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 306 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 12:50 am: | |
I agree that it would be nice if the federal government would maintain our parks for us, but why would they agree to do it? From the article, it sounds like the national park designation in Paterson is because the falls are the second-largest east of the Mississippi. I can't think of a natural feature of comparable significance in Detroit. The Denver part of the article didn't talk about national parks at all, just about a greenway project being undertaken at the local level. |
Kronprinz Member Username: Kronprinz
Post Number: 631 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 1:12 am: | |
The greenway project in Denver is a federal project. As to the lack of a comparable feature in Detroit, that's where the Rosa Parks angle fits in. Detroit could market itself as the national leader in African American advancement, and that would warrant a National Park for African American studies, or culture, or whatever. Think of a Washington Mall type project but with monuments to Rosa Parks, or Harriet Tubman for example. All paid for by the federal government but all benefiting Detroiters. |
Bvos Member Username: Bvos
Post Number: 2232 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 1:23 am: | |
The National Parks Service already puts a considerable amount of money into the Automotive National Heritage Districts in Detroit, Ypsilanti, Flint and Lansing. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3526 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 1:24 am: | |
Unfortunately, the NPS is way underfunded as it is. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5551 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 1:48 am: | |
Doesn't there have to be some special or unique "natural feature" for a park to even be considered being added as a National Park? It don't think that merely a waterfront site, playscape, trees, paths or fountains will cut the mustard, no matter what the park name it receives... Even Mackinaw Island was decommissioned as the nations 2nd oldest National Park. |
Kronprinz Member Username: Kronprinz
Post Number: 632 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 2:01 am: | |
Gettysburg isn't a natural feature, something important happened there. Detroit could make the case that something important happened in Detroit, important to the millions of African Americans throughout the United States |
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1077 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 7:30 am: | |
I've been to Patterson. What we could learn from them is how to duck when a gun is pointed at you...and we already know that. |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2826 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
I think getting the entire Detroit river designated as a national heritage river is a much better project than a small national park. The river was designated as such by both the US and Canada. I think this designation will draw far more federal money into Detroit and the region than the little park in NJ will ever draw. It has already drawn money for improvements on Belle Isle, the Detroit riverwalk and the purchase and maintenance of the humbug marsh in Gibralter. http://www.mac-web.org/Project s/AHR.htm http://www.cooperativeconserva tionamerica.org/viewproject.as p?pid=643 http://www.epa.gov/rivers/98ri vers/detroit.html http://www.tellusnews.com/ahr/ home.shtml |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 1003 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 10:45 am: | |
cough...underground railroad...cough.... |
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez
Post Number: 475 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 1:59 pm: | |
cough....National Underground Freedom Center...Cincinnati...cough... .. |
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa
Post Number: 1734 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
Anyone been to the Tuskegee NHS lately? Last time I was there it was a double wide trailer in the middle of the airfield. I'd say they need to focus on dumping money into what they have right now instead of what they could have in the future. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1964 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 2:30 pm: | |
If historical sentiments were gonna save Detroit then "it would be like Paris right now". |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2505 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 2:31 pm: | |
"Detroit could make the case that something important happened in Detroit, important to the millions of African Americans throughout the United States" To what are you referring? |
1953 Member Username: 1953
Post Number: 1472 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 4:28 pm: | |
No more stuff named for Rosa Parks. Please. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2509 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 4:37 pm: | |
"No more stuff named for Rosa Parks." I second this. If you want to stick to naming stuff only after blacks, not only does she have enough stuff named after her already, but there are plenty of better choices. Compare what she did to what someone like Charles Drew did and see if you can tell me with a straight face that you honestly think her contribution to society was more significant or more difficult to achieve. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2991 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 9:19 pm: | |
except we tear down stuff on National registries... |
321brian Member Username: 321brian
Post Number: 483 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 10:38 pm: | |
Aren't national parks supposed to be named after geographical features of an area? Stop naming things after people. Period! |