 
Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 4:58 pm: |    |
considering my neighbors house has been for sale for two years.
^your neighbor needs to lower the price then. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 185
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 5:08 pm: | |
Chip, chip, chippin' away! It won't be long before there is nothing left to remember in Detroit.
WHAT YOU DRIVE, DRIVES AMERICA! |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 331
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 5:09 pm: | |
I was generally thinking the same thing.
Given the number of cheap empty lots, vacant high-rises, and empty neighborhoods, who is going to buy a small park?
Then I realized that the target market is city residents who already paid for the parks and maintenance through taxes but will end up buying them anyway. You know, this is actually kind of classic. |
Troy
Member
Username: Troy
Post Number: 209
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 5:50 pm: | |
where is this list of parks? |
Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules
Post Number: 238
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
One of my friends said the Green Acres Park was mistakenly on the list. They got some sort of a note from the mayor's office that it was not meant to be on the list. He lives there and was complaining about it this morning to my wife. |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 98
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 6:06 pm: | |
I would think....
...that a selling point for those individuals who would hypothetically rent/buy in a neighborhood would be that there is a public greenspace within walking distance where folks can hang out and kids can play.
The parks should be seen as assets to a community. The park should be a point of community pride. It should be a centerpiece of the neighborhood.
Parks should be pitched to would-be developers as one of the reasons why they should construct in-fill housing in that neighborhood. They should build around the parks, not over them. Parks should be one of the focal points of the new community.
What I am perplexed about is why Scripps Park is one of the endangered parks?? It is on the edge of the Woodbridge neighborhood, which is supposedly a strong and lively neighborhood. It is also adjacent to a public library, which I would think that Woodbridge residents would patronize.
So my question is WHY AREN'T WOODBRIDGE RESIDENTS USING THEIR NEIGHBOORHOOD PARK???? |
Pussygirl313
Member
Username: Pussygirl313
Post Number: 46
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 7:57 pm: | |
Well said Masterblaster.
The management of Detroit is such a joke.
Selling our parks. Giving tax relief to the rich, (or people who don't deserve it) I'm talking about the hardship tax being giving to folks who can afford to pay. What next?
Lets sell Belle Isle to developers while we are at it. Charge a entry and exit fee for the River Walk. Sell the Mayors Mansion to. Sell that bitch and put a park there, or expand the tiny park that is next to it. |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 449
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 8:34 pm: | |
Park land is prefered by developers, since it is clean and easy to develop. Exisitng lots have complications from existing infrastructure, varying property owners, and more. But even still I don't know who would buy these parks anyway.
It would be nice if this wasn't happening, but I don't think it's the end of the world. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 371
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 8:39 pm: | |
Well maybe they can turn the vacant lots into PArks then X-P. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 524
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:06 am: | |
Parks are a community asset, There is SO much more Detroit can do than sell off VALUABLE assets to developers. The reason families move to an area is so their kids can play in a nice area.
Someone is pulling the wool over the eyes of some people if they are trying to convince the city council to sell off park land to make a few bucks.
The locals needs to rally because this would totally fuck up the existing neighborhoods more than it is now.
IMO - Short term gain long term fuck up!••••••(I would buy Belle Isle though if is it for sale |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 6046
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:11 am: | |
Privatization is generally good. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 531
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:46 am: | |
generally maybe true, not in this case. |
Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules
Post Number: 240
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 2:38 am: | |
If the parks aren't being used and the city said they are putting money into other used parks what is so bad about that? Developers like to buy "virgin" land. A few years ago we helped out a group to do a vegetable garden in the city. It was hard finding a good vacant lot as they had lots of debris under the dirt from the old structures that were there. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 6077
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 2:41 am: | |
Why not in this case? It would be one thing if they were left to stagnate. If someone is going to buy them, logic indicates that they have an intended use for them. |
Ramcharger
Member
Username: Ramcharger
Post Number: 483
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 7:41 am: | |
quote:"Privatization is generally good"
It may be good for all you greedy, money-grubbing apprentice want-a-be's, but as for your average working class American it’s not so good.
The attitude of this "MBA" generation makes me sick! |
Terridarlin
Member
Username: Terridarlin
Post Number: 38
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 8:24 am: | |
Inspirational story about Fletcher Playground. It took the people to take matters into their own hands and make a change. Great job. |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 250
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 8:47 am: | |
"The attitude of this "MBA" generation makes me sick!"
Oh get the bleep off your high horse. Maybe if Detroit had a little more of that attitude it wouldn't be in this position to begin with. |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 338
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:38 am: | |
Privatization of park ownership has major drawbacks. First, you have to start paying taxes on parkland. Second, you lose government immunity. Third, you become ineligible for many grants. Fourth, your insurance rate will likely be higher.
However, partnering with non-government organizations and volunteers for the maintenance of parks is often a workable solution. Some might consider this a partial privatization. |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 552
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:09 pm: | |
Its not really privatization of a park if the person who buys it is a developer and builds something there, that means its no longer a park. |
Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba
Post Number: 5581
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 7:49 pm: | |
I'd rather have a fire station so my girlfiend can slide down my brass pole. Any of them for sale right now?
jjaba. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 6079
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 9:42 pm: | |
Privatize, or sell, both positive moves from stagnation. |
321brian
Member
Username: 321brian
Post Number: 485
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:10 pm: | |
$1 would be about right.
If public bus services were allowed to live in the free market they would not survive for long.
They are heavily public subsidized.
If they had to support themselves fairs would go through the roof and become unaffordable for the average user.
You are an idiot and a one trick pony. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:28 am: | |
There are far too many people on this forum who read a headline and pass an opinion on things "Detroit" without really knowing Detroit. Now, initially hearing that a city is willing to sell off parkland sounds like a terrible idea. However, if you live near these parks or frequently pass them, you would know that many of them are in bad shape or are rarely used.
The park discussed in the article at Forest and St. Aubin is one that I pass frequently while visiting my parents. It is near where I went to elementary school. It has been years since I last saw children playing in that park. Also, a housing project that had children that used the park is now vacant. The few homes that are in the area are mostly owned by elderly citizens so unless they have grandchildren visiting, there isn't going to be a lot of activity going on at that park. In addition, it is unlikely that the housing stock in the area is going to increase anytime soon. Holding on to the "dream" that the area is going to rebound and therefore the park is needed for future residents is just that, "a dream." The reality is if the city can unload the parkland for a commercial business or residential development that would be the best use for the land, period.
I wrote on this forum a year ago, when the city was contemplating the sale of some parcels of Rouge Park, that selling some parkland is not a sacrilegious idea. Like someone mentioned earlier, it is actually cheaper and easier for a housing developer to build on parkland because it is "virgin" land. In many of the areas where these 92 parks exist, there are many vacant lots. It would make more sense to build new housing or whatever on parkland and then create new parks on the vacant lots around the park, since digging up ground would not be necessary.
There is a park off of Fenkell and Telegragh called Eliza Howell Park. It is a strange park in that there is only one entrance into the park and vehicle traffic travels a one-way lane around the picnic and athletic areas. You can not see the park from any other direction except for its entry point. The park never appears to be very active, even in the summer. The one activity that does appear to go on a lot in the park is illegal sex between the prostitutes who walk Fenkell and their Johns. Because it is so isolated, the park is perfect for this kind of activity. Not the kind of place you want to bring you family to.
Now, if the outer parts of the park, especially the western and southern edges were sold to developers to build housing, while keeping the inner part with the picnic areas and athletic fields, you would have the witnesses needed to deter the prostitution going on in the park. You would eliminate the prostitution as well as increase the use of the park now that new residents have moved in.
Detroit, whether you want to believe it or not, has some tough choices to make regarding maintaining its existence as a big city. Some of the choices might mean abandoning not only parkland but neighborhoods altogether. Selling parkland is not as radical an idea as people might think for a city in desperate straits. Besides, who's going to buy the parkland to build houses if people abandoned the area around the parks to begin with. There had to be a reason why the people left, right?
What's odd in all this talk about city parks is that Detroit has many more parks than many major cities. However, in some areas of the city there are no parks within reasonable walking distance of some residents. Where I grew up, there were a total of six parks within seven blocks from my house. Travel along Curtis Avenue(6&1/2 mile road) between Livernois and Schafer and there are no parks within reasonable walking distance of anyone living along Curtis, unless you count three school fields(Mumford High, Bagley Elementary, and Schultze Elementary, but no official parks). Bagley is just a big gravel lot. Mumford has a track and a football field that is open to the public but the two baseball diamonds are only available for sanctioned baseball games. Schulze has a field of grass that's maybe big enough for a small football field and it has a basketball court with two rims. Maybe this is enough for some people but not for me. I want to live near a park that has a ballfield and an area for basketball rims, swings and a jungle jim. Not too much along Curtis that fits this description. However, the area along Curtis is full of occupied homes and therefore one of the most densely populated areas of the city, yet no official playground or park.
Selling parkland in Detroit can be a positive endeavor. the city definitely needs to shrink its inventory of land in order to save on maintenance costs. If the city can get people to buy up city property and pay taxes on it, then what's the big loss?
BTW, I've noticed that in working class neighborhoods in Detroit there are many more parks than in upscale or ritzy neighborhoods(no parks in Indian Village or Palmer Woods). I guess the well-to-do just drive to the country for recreation or relaxation.
(Message edited by royce on October 28, 2007) |
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 543
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 9:24 am: | |
Soon Detroit will get more freeways and more people will move out. Then more parks will close. Soon, there won't be much left of Detroit.
And then the cities of Detroit and Livonia will both become slums with nothing left but big box stores and Wal-Marts all over and people driving Chinese cars because they can not afford large red Lincoln Navigators.
We need to think like a region. We are are a region called Michigan. But our leaders in Lansing and at SEMCOG want us to think as a region called Southeast Michigan instead, so they can impose large new tax increases.
In Michigan, it is the trucking industries and Wal-Mart that are most important to our present leaders.
It is you DY'ers that cost Livonia our bus service and not us. You all failed to get the leadership in Lansing we needed to keep SMART by not voting or voting in the wrong people who do not care or care very little about protecting state and federal money for community transit and public line bus services. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 708
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 9:31 am: | |
Why not leave the parks in the hands of a non-profit citizen run conservancy????
Buffalo did this with over 70% of their parks, and the results are amazing. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 199
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:32 pm: | |
Doesn't the city already own thousands of lots through tax foreclosure, etc.? Shouldn't it focus on reducing that inventory before looking to sell off parkland?
Ideas like this and the fact that some are willing to embrace just show that we don't have a clue what to do about Detroit. Who thinks that encouraging a few new homes in an otherwise blighted area (IF such homes were ever built) by building on an existing public park is a good idea? It shows a lack of any serious thought about how to rebuild neighborhoods. Instead, it looks like what it is, a desperate gimmick designed to look like action while actually being a terrible step backwards. Doesn't Detroit have any comprehensive plans and strategies to rebuild neighborhoods? This just sounds like pulling ideas out of one's backside and throwing them to the wind to see what sticks. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 3:06 pm: | |
Novine, you didn't hear it mentioned that parkland is a lot easier to sell off because there is only one owner(the city), as opposed to trying to gather vacant lots that may be owned by others besides the city? Novine, you didn't hear that parkland is "virgin land" because it doesn't have old basements and other infrastructure and as a result is more attractive land to purchase and develop because the costs to develop it would be a lot cheaper than using previously built-on land.
When what you have been doing doesn't work, Novine, you think about or even try something else. Don't act so shocked at the ideas here. How many cities in history have lost a million people that wasn't caused by a natural disaster or war? The city of Rome still exists today but clearly isn't the same Rome that thrived during the Roman Empire. Cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and St. Louis continue to lose population. What are they doing to stop the trend? Are their solutions to ending this trend better than Detroit's?
Older northern U.S. cities had relatively small populations in 1900 than they did in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. With the exception of NYC(growth continued mainly because of immigration), most northern cities grew because manufacturers were in the cities and they needed workers. Where did the workers come from? They came from the outlying farmlands, from the south, and through immigration of immigrants from Europe.
Well, those days are over. Now, manufacturing in this country is disappearing, and the challenge for cities that grew because of manufacturing is to come up with an alternative source of jobs. The question to remember here is this: "What was in the cities before manufacturing arrived?" Well, not much. Therefore, the decline in Detroit and other northern cities that relied on manufacturing is really nothing to be surprised about. Therefore, the solutions to the problems in Detroit won't be things that we've seen before. Desperate times require desperate measures.
Novine, you act as if those of us in favor of the city's plan to sell parkland think it's an ideal plan. No, it's not an ideal plan, but it is a plan that could save the city some money. Therefore, it should not be put to the side as being totally shortsighted. Detroit has to make some tough decisions, and not all of them are going to be liked by everyone.
Serious thought has been given to this issue. Perhaps, Novine, it is you that hasn't given this plan serious thought. I don't hear you offering any solutions. So, what would you suggest? |
English
Member
Username: English
Post Number: 598
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:46 pm: | |
This thread made me think about a business opportunity in the COD for interested and enterprising entrepreneurs -- environmental cleanup and brownfield revitalization. Anyone currently doing this kind of work? |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:00 pm: | |
When you give businesses opportunities, they grow. That's why in metro Detroit we have one of the largest clusters of -- demolition contractors. |
Bratt
Member
Username: Bratt
Post Number: 695
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
True...why not donate them to different organizations or companies who would keep them up. Or do we need the money to pay for his lawsuit? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 200
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 11:06 pm: | |
I would suggest that one of the reasons Detroit is in the position it is is that people grab at whatever half-baked idea sounds good at the moment versus looking at areas as a whole and working out all of the pieces that have to come together to make an area work. We love to jump on whatever bandwagon rolls into town and then spend years undoing the damage done by such short-sighted thinking. Do we need to recount them? Freeways through neighborhoods? Casinos on the riverfront? Ren Cen as fortress, not as part of a downtown? Poletown?
The parkland for housing plan is just another half-baked idea. Seriously, what do you expect to accomplish with such a plan? And what does that do to help the whole of Detroit in the long run? |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2414
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 1:39 am: | |
Again, Novine, you are not offering any alternatives. If the selling of parkland is such a half-baked idea as you think it is, then what full-baked idea do you have for bringing vacant property back to the tax rolls for the city?
(Message edited by royce on October 29, 2007) |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 203
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 9:50 am: | |
Is your only goal getting property back on the tax rolls? Or do you want to actually rebuild neighborhoods? How low are you setting the bar? |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2415
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 10:55 pm: | |
Rebuilding neighborhoods in Detroit is definitely
a desired outcome of mine. However, you can't just build homes and spruce up the parks if no one can afford the homes or no one wants to live in the area because of crime, poor city services, or poor schools.
If selling the parkland to developers, because it is "virgin" land, puts the property back on the tax rolls, then that's a welcome scenario. As you mentioned before, Novine, with all the vacant lots in Detroit, a new park could be created from the vacant lots that have their old basements and infrastructure. Losing the park to development is only a temporary loss.
The real issue here is: "Are there enough takers out in the world willing to buy parkland for some kind of development? As I mentioned in an earlier post, the areas where most of these parks are located are run-down and offer very little positives for those who want to invest in them. Is it worth the investment to purchase the land if the buyer can't do anything with it?
Detroit, at some point, has to make a decision on what it is going to do with all of the vacant land that covers this city. It sounds like it is trying to do something with these rarely used parks, which, if rarely used, is only more vacant land. On the surface the selling of parkland doesn't sound like a great idea, but history might look back and say that this idea was one of Detroit's best. We shall see.
(Message edited by royce on October 29, 2007) |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 11:08 pm: | |
Why not make developers actually do remediation? Aw, they might not like that. Too much trouble. Instead, let's follow Detroit's long history of expediency in the name of "development." Let's just give them away.
Bad idea... |
Eric
Member
Username: Eric
Post Number: 971
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 12:21 pm: | |
I don't think this as bad some you are making out of be, this isn't some wanton fire sale. It makes no sense to keep up he number of parks for a city twice Detroit's current population. Moreover the city will allow neighborhoods facing the loss park space to step up and keep them.
"Department spokeswoman Jennifer Roberts notes, however, that the city would be willing to spin off some of the parks to neighborhood groups or other levels of government if they wish to maintain them, so all of the parks on the city's list may not simply be sold for other purposes"
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/O PINION01/710310340/1008 |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 560
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 9:39 pm: | |
Where the hell is the master plan to all this garbage quick buck fire sale to people in the know?
What the hell is this city to become after the land grab.
I see no long term planning or forethought on how this will affect the neighborhoods. Another golden goose in the cooker. |
Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 9:53 pm: | |
"Detroit, at some point, has to make a decision on what it is going to do with all of the vacant land that covers this city."
What would you do? I'd like to hear some ideas people have for how the city should do things since they are experts |
Tponetom
Member
Username: Tponetom
Post Number: 161
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 7:30 pm: | |
Disgusting Detroit,,,or discussing Detroit?
Selling the “City Parks” got my juices going
Sometimes I get confused, but at my age (79, come Nov. 13,) I quickly overcome that condition. I forget about being confused, among many other things.
When I discovered this web site in June, ‘07, I became energized. However, after a couple of months, I became enervated.
“How to restore, recreate or reincarnate, not the image, but the body of Detroit that used to be.” That was the question that intrigued me. And I thought it was the prime purpose of the Forum to discuss that.
I did not allow for the preponderance of youthful opinions about where all the Kroger Stores have been dislocated. I did not allow for the enthusiasm of spending an evening or a weekend in downtown Detroit.
On the flip side there were some straight forward observations/suggestions as to what Detroit needs to expand and prosper. Lets start from there.
Detroit will never regain the prominence that it had in the Forties. It could be greater.
In its ‘heyday,’ the City of Detroit was never an independent enclave. Detroit was never observed as being bounded by Eight Mile road and Telegraph Road and that zig zag southwestern boundary.
Detroit was the nucleus and the adjacent suburbs, Grosse Pointe, St. Clair Shores, East Detroit, Roseville, Warren, Royal Oak and dozens of other communities made up what was formally known as the “Metropolitan Area of Detroit.” I do not recall anyone, ever, referring to it as such.
We always thought of “Detroit” as being just the sum of its parts. A homogenous mixture. We inner city people accessed the suburbs for whatever pleasures or needs that they supplied and reciprocation was manifold. Hordes of suburbanites made their living in Detroit as well as making it its entertainment venue.
And today, what? Sell the Parks? I do not have an immediate opinion on that question.
Royce, Novine, Vizion Eric and a dozen others, offer some grist for the mill. There is no simple solution but some of the opinions are provocative.
City Parks occupy a special place in my memory bank.
When I was seven years old, the ten years old kicked my ass out of the park. When I was 12, the teenagers kicked my ass out of the park. When I was 16, I kicked those pesky kids out of the park. Well, not really. But at every age, you had to make your bones.
I followed the World Series this year but only because Boston was playing. I always had this thing going about Ted Williams.
The preponderance of Black and Hispanic players did not surprise me. These are the kids that are using those parks. They probably cannot afford computers and I-pods and cell phones and all the other paraphernalia that takes priority over the thrill,,,of just being a kid.
My first immediate thought is this. Yes, sell the parks and cement them over , for whatever reason, and when anyone asks the question. “What used to be there?” We can reply, “Oh, it is just another crypt, preserving part of our history.” |
Lombaowski
Member
Username: Lombaowski
Post Number: 70
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 7:27 am: | |
Some excellent posts in this thread by Royce. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.