The policy of Parks & Recreation has been to distribute 50% of revenue brought in through Belle Isle for itself and 50% would go into Parks & Recreation funds to be used across the city. This is how the contract for the upcoming Orion Music and More Festival has been structured. The festival will be bringing $100,000 in 2013, $100,000 in 2014, and $250,000 in 2015 for two days of concert use of Belle Isle. The contract also has provision for additional revenues from the concert based on thresholds being met for sale of additional materials. A seemingly missed opportunity in the contract
is to extend park hours beyond 11am-10pm, and provide overnight camping on the island. This is something that will be heard about in the press before and after the festival and would be smart to address in advance - it would generate more money for Detroit and encourage partnership as the host location for this and other festivals. Perhaps it would offer the ability to move the Techno Festival onto Belle Isle since the city has been dismissing Hart Plaza as a destination over the past year.
is to extend park hours beyond 11am-10pm, and provide overnight camping on the island. This is something that will be heard about in the press before and after the festival and would be smart to address in advance - it would generate more money for Detroit and encourage partnership as the host location for this and other festivals. Perhaps it would offer the ability to move the Techno Festival onto Belle Isle since the city has been dismissing Hart Plaza as a destination over the past year.
Belle Isle Task Force
November 9, 2010 the findings of the Belle Isle Task Force were released. This document coupled with the Belle Isle Master Plan are to be presented to Mayor Bing, requesting action taken be taken.
The State of Michigan laid out plans to lease Belle Isle in the Milestone Agreement attachment to the Consent Agreement (approved April 4, 2011 by six members of City Council). In September a lease proposal went through a few rounds of modification and was then withdrawn - heavy opposition from the public was evident.
State of Michigan Proposed Lease
We recently saw the following letter from Jack R Smiley of SMLC (Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy) regarding the proposed lease of Belle Isle.
Dear Detroit City Council member:
As a brief introduction, my name is Jack Smiley and I have lived in Detroit for most of my life. Although I have recently moved, I am still involved with Friends of Rouge Park and I still maintain a deep interest in the preservation and revitalization of the City. I founded and led the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy for over 20 years, and have protected nearly 3,000 acres in southeast Michigan. I am also a licensed Michigan Real Estate broker (over 30 years experience) and have read numerous real estate contracts and leases.
In my personal and professional opinion, the proposed Lease of Belle Isle to the State of Michigan is one-sided in favor of the State and does not have sufficient protections for the City of Detroit or for all of the people who cherish and enjoy Belle Isle.
My biggest objections are:
The DNR could, in fact, be a good steward of the historic and environmental resources of Belle Isle, but the City of Detroit has no assurance that it will--and even no say in the matter. Paragraph 2.12 calls for an "Advisory Committee", but an advisory committee is just that. Why not create a joint City-State "Authority" to run Belle Isle? Does the City really need to give up ALL rights to assure the continued preservation and maintenance of Belle Isle?
- Length of the Term. THIRTY (30) years is simply too long. The City of Detroit should not enter any agreement which would bind it for more than TEN (10) years. The State may argue that it needs more time to recoup its investments, but any investments are for the benefit of the people--not for the benefit of City or State government.
- Automatic Renewal. Lease language in Paragraph 4.1 indicates that renewals are AUTOMATIC, unless the City specifically takes action ahead of time. Lease renewals should NOT be automatic, but should require deliberation and a vote to extend the Lease, the same as is required to enter the Lease.
- Lease Termination Rights. Paragraph 4.3 gives the State the right to terminate the lease upon 18 months notice. The City of Detroit should have that same right! (Perhaps after an initial 5 or 10-year period.)
There has been talk of giving the City the right to back out of the lease every ten years, but no language to that effect is in the Lease posted on the City Council web site. It only states that the City can get out of the Lease "for cause"--meaning a clear breach of the Lease by the State. Different--or even inappropriate--management may not be cause for termination of the Lease.- Sub-Leases. Under Paragraph 6.3 (as well as Paragraph 7) the State can lease property on Belle Isle to others ("Lessee has exclusive authority over all aspects of current and future Park leases..."). This would allow a lease similar to what happened in Jean Klock Park in Benton Harbor--where public park land was leased to a private golf course developer. The City of Detroit would have no say in the matter.
Paragraph 7.1 allows the State to lease Belle Isle for uses inconsistent with the Lease--but the City must provide written consent "which shall not be unreasonably withheld"!- Management of Belle Isle. The State is claiming that the DNR would be a good steward of Belle Isle, but there is no guarantee that would be the case. The sole statement in Paragraph 2.3 that Belle Isle is to be managed "in a manner consistent with other state park operations" provides little insight as to how Belle Isle will actually be managed under this Lease. Will woods be cut down (as the DNR did in Highland State Recreation Area) to provide temporary parking for travel trailers? Will expensive marinas be constructed for the benefit of a few and blocking access to the river for many? Will historic structures be torn down in favor of "new" ones? Will Belle Isle be overrun by travel trailers, as is the case in so many state parks?
Belle Isle is a natural jewel in the Detroit River. It does not need a lot of expensive "development" to make it better. Money from the State may help--but it could just as easily detract from the natural character of Belle Isle and its accessibility to all. The Lease is simply silent on what is in store for Belle Isle's future should the State take over.
At this point, I would urge you to vote NO on the proposed Lease--or seek MAJOR modifications which will give the City of Detroit some say in the matter, and give the City ample opportunity to terminate the Lease--or, at least, give it the same termination rights held by the State.
I would be happy to answer any questions or to review future drafts of the proposed Lease. (I don't believe your City attorneys are doing a good enough job in protecting the City's interests.)
Sincerely,
Jack R. Smiley
Mr Smiley's letter addresses the faults of the proposed lease in a manner the mainstream press is not likely to print. Neither City Council or Research & Development failed in their review of the lease. They did not act to block the mayor. They rejected the proposal due to deficient construction of the lease. Additionally it was stated by Councilman Ken Cockrel Jr that spending time on "saving" $6.2 million dollars on this issue which ignites public defiance is an inappropriate use of time.
The Revised Belle Isle Lease as of January 22, 2013
The revised lease was analyzed by Research And Development (RAD) and a number of flaws were brought forward in the analysis. Free Detroit No Consent provided these documents through a post titled "The Belle Isle Giveaway" on January 24.
The Voice of Detroit article on January 23 covered the analysis document, however the greater public has slim chance to view these unclassified documents with less than a week notice. Each point in the analysis should have announced at the public hearing. These should have been addressed by Attorney Goldman when he brought the lease to the table for approval the day following the public hearing.
Ultimately City Council saw the flaws of the lease and chose to vote 6-3 in denying the proposal. The State of Michigan has chosen to remove it from the table.
 |
| From the Voice of Detroit January 23rd article |
What About Belle Isle Roads?
The State proposed in September placing Belle Isle's land with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and roads with Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), however this was not made evident through the lease offered in January. The most recent lease only addresses land through DNR. Why would a project have disjointed lease contracts? Could this have to do with provisions in the contract toward subleasing of land? Perhaps that subleasing arrangement wouldn't be in the MDOT lease?
The prior lease arrangement would place the roads under MDOT trunkline budget. Does that budget have a minimum improvement level required? Is the intent to move these park roads into service roads for commercial / residential interests not disclosed?
What about provisions for a bus / shuttle for those taking mass transit up to the entrance at Jefferson and Grand? If such a shuttle were established would its revenue be used for Belle Isle operations?
The prior lease arrangement would place the roads under MDOT trunkline budget. Does that budget have a minimum improvement level required? Is the intent to move these park roads into service roads for commercial / residential interests not disclosed?
What about provisions for a bus / shuttle for those taking mass transit up to the entrance at Jefferson and Grand? If such a shuttle were established would its revenue be used for Belle Isle operations?
No comments:
Post a Comment