ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"
LuAnne did not say Keith Charters is thick
skinned; if you read her post again, you will see that she is quoting Keith
Given the rampant housing you quote, it
seems ridiculous that the state would surrender the chance to preserve some
wild area in the middle of it.
It also seems impossible that wildlife has
completely left 570 acres. I know that we have much smaller wooded areas in
urban Grand Rapids, and we often see deer and wild turkey on the edges of them.
Finally, even with the 400 foot set back,
if the entire area was surrounded by houses, you would still have 410 huntable
So, we have a huntable “fairly
sizable parcel” of mostly wetlands in an area becoming increasingly
developed. It seems to me that the preservation of such an area is of utmost
In my opinion, when the state comes into
the possession of land, especially wilderness or parkland (or land that can be restored
to wilderness), the state should make every effort to hang on to that land. We
have little enough as it is, especially with the development pressures. This
plays into a whole host of issues. One is that we cannot continue to build at
this incredible rate. Our urban areas can surely use infill development. And most
of the growth is not managed; parks, wilderness, and open space are often not
planned for. Isolated parcels, such as Proud Lake, will become our parks of tomorrow (or now).
Finally, we need to acknowledge the value
of undeveloped land. If the state continues to hold onto this 570 acres, it should
not be considered wasted, but preserved. It should be held as valuable open
space resource for all citizens of the State of Michigan (and especially the
citizens in that area of the state). I don’t think the state acknowledges
this value. I think the state sees undeveloped land (park or not) only as
resource to develop. And that, I think, is the real danger to our remaining
Friends of Garfield Park
firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Graham
Sent: Thursday, May
18, 2006 9:42 PM
To: LuAnne Kozma;
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: E-M:/ Michigan parkland
on the chopping block
Hi, LuAnne --
Again, though this time to the list as a whole, I have to take exception to
your point of view.
Keith Charters is one of the finest NRC Commissioners to ever serve. His
integrity is impeccable. To imply that he is "thick-skinned"
against bona fide issues and points of view in regard to the Land Consolidation
Strategy is completely erroneous. He is and must be thick-skinned against
those who are unreasonable in their assertions.
In the case of Proud Lake, the fairly sizable parcel now outside the boundary
(about which you are complaining) are lands once owned by the Federal
government, used for years as a nuclear missile (NIKE) launch site.
When that activity was mothballed, the land was purchased by Michigan
hunter funds, and added to Proud Lake Recreation area as a hunting
property. This was done even though it is quite some distance away and
isolated from the bulk of that parkland. Hunting was good there, in those
days, so perhaps it seemed worth it.
Then came rampant housing development, now completely surrounding this
property, over the last 25 years.
Given a 400 foot setback requirement imposed as state law for no hunting zones
near residential houses -- this land has become out of bounds for hunting.
Given that wildlife has departed the area, the issue is mute anyway.
So now comes the MDNR looking for practical ways to make sense of their land
holdings, via their quite important to do "Land Consolation
Seeing that this property is a piece they are legally bound not to use for any
purpose but hunting, seeing that it is land that is isolated and quite apart
from the rest of the Proud Lake resource they must steward -- they conclude
they will place it outside the curret view of practical boundaries. In
some of the first steps of disposing of such land, they have offered it to
local communities to use as park land. A school site is planned on part,
a locally owned and operated park may happen on the rest of these lands.
These negotiations are much under way.
What would you do, observing the constraints?
If it were me and it is the MDNR, I would find a local government and school
that needs and wants the land for their park or school purposes, and sell it to
them. Then I would take the money (though these things most often work
without money but in trade), and find land that is big enough and suitable
enough to allow the original purpose of having the State owned land in the
first place, to be better sustained.
This is what is happening.
I must say I do not understand what you are talking about, why you continue to
so object without good reason, and why you would be so critical of Keith
I bring my concern up to all on this list so that they are aware someone, at
least, does not see eye to eye with you.
At 02:58 PM 5/18/2006, LuAnne Kozma wrote:
Enviro-Mich message from LuAnne Kozma <firstname.lastname@example.org>
More on the violation of the public trust, and sale of
public lands being sold off to the highest bidder
right here at home--
Below are the links to today's articles in the Detroit
News and the Detroit Free Press about the Proud Lake
State Recreation Area parkland being fast-tracked
outside of the Land Consolidation Strategy.
DNR staff and Mr. Keith Charters, chair of the NRC,
gave an update on the strategy to senators at a
committee meeting earlier this week, which I attended.
I heard the DNR's power point presentation, talking
about inholdings, wanting to sell off "small" parcels
here and there, and how totally public it was. A
clever graphic showed replacing a 40-acre outholding
with a 40-acre inholding. When asked if there was any
controversy and if they were listening to the public,
Mr. Charters replied that the NRC (or he) has "thick
If the public could trust the DNR, the State of
Michigan, and Legislators again to hang onto the
parkland the public owns, maybe some of those
inholding owners would gladly donate to a careful
steward like the State of Michigan, knowing that for
all time, they would keep the land a park.
Laura Berman's column: State recreation area land sale
may violate public's trust
Detroit News May 18, 2006
Sides clash over land's possibilities
Commerce Twp. residents see rare open space, but DNR
looks to sell
Detroit Free Press May 18, 2006
Parks for Sale? Detroit Free Press editorial
Defense of Place
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives
Postings to: email@example.com
For info, send email to
firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of
L. Graham, ASLA
(734) 975-7800 (O)