Michigan Radio News

NPR News

« Interview: Vincent Duffy - 4/21/2008 | Main | Interview: David Plank - 4/22/08 »

April 21, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It would have been nice if Mr. Lessenberry had devoted half the time he spent discussing "race," to a simple explanation as to why the Harbor Shores developers feel that they have a stong public-interest case for their project. He chose not to.

As it turns out, Michigan Radio listeners who heard the interview with Vincent Duffy and then read Mr. Lessenberry's primer on race relations was likely to NOT have been informed of the following;

~The small portion (22 of 90 acres) of Jean Klock Park to be developed into approximately 3 holes of the 18-hole course (all other holes located outside present Park boundaries) is currently that portion of the park where now sits the parking area.

~No beachfront property is to be lost to public use. The development will not impinge upon the present beachfront in any way. The public will not lose any portion of the beach they now enjoy; no portion of the beach will ever be restricted in any way, shape or form to "rich people."

~The golf course is, beyond question, essential to the rest of the non-park (i.e,., the vast majority) portion of the development.

Presumably, if John Nellis Klock had been a good newspaperman in his day, he'd have expected his reporters to report both sides of the story, even if those reporters had their own viewpoints or prejudices. In this case, it would have been as simple as posting this link:

https://www.harborshoresdevelopment.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=27

Anonymous, your comment that the development would only use 22 acres of the park contradicts the "Save Jean Klock Park" website, which claims:

"Although Harbor Shores say they
will be using only 22 acres, the proposed development would take nearly 75% of the
73 remaining acres of parkland which includes the globally threatened dunes, marsh
and interdunal wetlands."

https://www.savejeanklockpark.org/

They also point out there are 27 golf courses within a 30 mile radius of Benton Harbor. It seems redundant to build another golf course when there's no shortage, and it's also worth noting that golf courses are experiencing rough times across the country and a number of them have closed up shop because revenue is down. One recent report said young people aren't golfing - it's become an old man's game - and it's also too pricey for most of our young people.

All that aside though, in my opinion the Klock's wishes should be honored. They wanted the area set aside as a park so all families and children could enjoy the area. To use the land for any other purpose dishonors their wishes.


First of all, the notion that there may be technical differences of opinion, and expressions of different values by the developers on the one hand and the "Save Jean Klock" folks on the other hand does not surprise me. What did surprise me was Jack Lessenberry's one-sided portrayal of the issue.

You and I could probably simplify the substantive debate by merely cutting-and-pasting the opposing sides' competing web pages.

Anyway, there do seem to be some very different facts being used by the two sides. The developers say that it isn't in their interest to destroy beautiful dunes; the existence of beautiful dunescapes is something that is basic and essential to the development. The developers further say that they will not touch the marsh on the property, which seems to be a credible claim if you look at an aerial view of the property. The "Save Jean Klock" folks have apparently conceded a point on which the Lessenberry report was seriously misleading; only "parkland" (land that is inland, and to the east of, the main dune ridgeline) will be used for the three golf holes. No "beach" will be taken away from any member of the public.

And, the Harbor Bay development people lay out in some considerable detail the million-dollar improvements that will be made to the Park's infrastructure with new parking, refurbished structures and improved beach access. Money from the developers from a small part of the park will be utilized to vastly improve the usability of the rest of the park. This doesn't sound much like shopping mall construction or strip-mining to me.

Lastly, the notion that there are enough/too many golf courses and there is no need for another; it is a really dumb argument. If there were no market for this kind of development, the developers wouldn't be risking millions of their own money on the project. If you think that a golf course is a golf course is a golf course, you don't know much about golf. And you probably have no business opining on the best business model for golf course developments.

I apologize. Only the anonymous ideologues of the far right should be able to pronounce on how land should be stolen from poor black people.

Well, there you have it. Jack Lessenberry's thoughtful contribution to the debate.

Good to know, isn't it, that the University of Michigan and Michigan Radio provide Mr. Lessenberry with the appropriate electronic soapbox from which to throw charges of racism in from left field? In the public interest, of course.

WOW!! I am not the only one who knows Jack's true nature..BTW I am a Black activist who is supposed to affirm white liberals like Jack..

Mr. Lessenberry, I didn't realize the park in question was frequented by poor black people, but now I understand why they want to build a golf course there. Right-wingers are rich, white men who only think about themselves and their rich investors. They could care less if minority children have a park on lake front property.

Incidentally, the NY Times recently ran an article - "More Americans Are Giving Up Golf" - that reported the following:

" Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.

The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.

More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.

The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation."

Hmm...this reminds me of "Field of Dreams." Does the developer think golfers will come just because he builds it? Or maybe the intent has nothing to do with golf. Maybe the intent is to push minorities out.

Frankly, the question that should be asked is whether there is any evidence that people with money are going to buy luxury condos in Benton Harbor. They are having difficulty selling them in Charlevoix. Apart from violating the public trust, there is a considerable chance the whole thing will go belly up and leave an empty development,after having ruined public land.

The conversion proposal submitted by the City and developer to the National Park Services contains this statement: "The conversion area includes part of the park's sand dunes."

Seems pretty clear.

Two previous sales of the park's beach front - one in 1998, the other in 2004 - have not improved the City's finances to any great extent, if at all. Furthermore, the 2004 development is not selling, and the properties are right at the lake, some with a lake view, though not lake frontage.

None of the proposed residences associated with the Benton Harbor golf course development would have a lake view. The golf course would use the dune crests which would offer very dramatic views of Lake Michigan. Of course the views are free at the present time to one and all

This is a trickle down fantasy which has been in the works for a very long time. Granholmm is a fool from both an economic perspective and an ecological one. Engler Jr. I call her. And all the Repubs from Whirlpool who gave her campaign cont's? Who are they supporting for Pres? Hillary, you say? No. John McCain.

She really is a disaster.

Gosh, what a lot of nonsense from people who have never been involved in golf or development work.

Other than the moonbat fringe, (who apparently believe that developers would spend millions of private dollars to - what? - kick poor black people out of a dilapidated public park?) does anyone have a shred of evidence that there are ANY serious racial concerns or biases in this project? (The public park is getting a million dollars of fixup, the city is getting the park's upkeep paid for, and the developers are providing 40 replacement acres for the 20 that are needed for the golf course!)

Does the person who suggested that there will be looming McMansions built on the dune crest overlooking the public beach understand that the only construction occurring in the park boundaries would be the construction of three golf holes BEHIND the dune from the beach? Virtually invisible from that beach?

Does anyone seriously think that the Democratic Governor, the Republican Congressman, and the bipartisan city and county leaders have all been 'bought off' to enthusiastically support this project?

Once again, good reporting on this subject might have silenced some of the nuttier theorists. But instead, Mr. Lessenberry found it irresistible to play the race card. This is about as much fulfillment of his role as a reporter as it was for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in his role as a clergyman, to suggest to his parishoners that AIDS/HIV was a government conspiracy.

"the Harbor Bay development people lay out in some considerable detail the million-dollar improvements that will be made to the Park's infrastructure"

The state and federal government have already invested millions of grant dollars into improvements to the park. The Harbor Shore (not Bay) so-called improvements are unneeded and are window-dressing on a deal that takes from the public to reward well-connected business interests. The 40 "replacement" acres of parkland are a fraud as well. Prime beach and dune land is taken for private use while the public is given useless scraps of property scattered around the city, of little value and in some cases, appear to be contaminated.

The Harbor Shores advocates can continue to spin their tale of lives but people are not stupid. They can see this for what it is, a theft of public lands, a theft assisted by the various government players, to enrich business interests in the area at the expense of public resources and public access. The truth speaks louder than the Harbor Shores lies.

The Anonymous poster immediately above says, "Prime beach and dune land is taken for private use..."

That is flatly incorrect, is it not? No beach land is taken for the Harbor Shores development. The only "dune land" that is taken is land to the east of the main dune ridge line behind the beach.

Look, I'd be a fool not to accept that there are some contentious points to be advanced on both sides of a public land-use controversy.

What I find unreasonable, however, is the notion that Mr. Lessenberry so recklessly inserted issues of "race and class" into an otherwise neutral discussion of development options. It is a deliberate political inflammation, and one of a type that goes more or less unchecked on Michigan's public radio network thanks to its sole "Senior Political Analyst."

The golf course holes will, indeed, be built on top of the dunes. Not just on the existing parking lot. The beach will remain open to the public, however they will not be able to let their children scramble up the dunes behind the beach lest they disturb the golfers. Essentially, they'll have their beach, hemmed in on three sides by new development and Lake Michigan on the fourth. The beach will be open. The experience will be substantially different.

A Question: If this trust agreement of Mr. Klock's is amended to facilitate this project, what validity or legal standing do other trusts and conservation easements have? I donate to some land conservancies. Can the land they buy with my money be "exchanged" whenever some developer decides its a good place for golf?

Another question: I don't know the project engineering enough to answer this question, but why can't this this massive development, which the golf course is only one part of, find a way to place their 3 holes on property that isn't deeded forever to the public? I can't imagine 22 acres of public land would be an all-or-nothing proposition for Harbor Shores.

I hope the project goes forward because it would be a terrific boost for BH. But I expect all these smart people and top-flight engineers can do it without taking the dunes away from the citizens.

Finally, why is everyone afraid to post their name with their opinions here?


Mr. McDiarmid asks the question as to what technical aspects of the development plan necessitate the use of 22 acres of the inland side of the Park. That's an appropriate question, for which there is probably a technical answer, having to do with the infrastructure needs of the development combined with the routing of the golf course.

But of course I have already conceded that there might be some sound technical arguments both pro and con as concerns this development. I say again that my main objection to Mr. Lessenberry's report was the needless race-baiting and class warfare injected into an essentially technical problem. Mr. McDiarmid hasn't seen the need to play the race card, I note.

Mr. McDiarmid also protested that:
"The golf course holes will, indeed, be built on top of the dunes. Not just on the existing parking lot. The beach will remain open to the public, however they will not be able to let their children scramble up the dunes behind the beach lest they disturb the golfers." With respect to Mr. McDiarmid, I suggest that he is largely incorrect, and that anyone with doubts go to the Harbor Shores link I posted above and view their video. It is a bit cheesy, to be sure, but it graphically depicts the extent to which the golf course is removed from the beach. Practically all of the golf course is out of view from the beach. A few of the back tees, and one green (the Seventh, I think) will be built into the dune ridge, on the east side of the centerline of the dune ridge. I do not share Mr. McDiarmid's understanding that children will be somehow prevented from running up and down the dune ridge on the beach side. I suggest that was an incorect presumption by Mr. McDiarmid. As was his pronouncment that the beach would be newly "hemmed in on three sides with th lake on the fourth." The beach is presently "hemmed in," for what that is worth, by a water plant and its own dusty parking lot.

Finally, Mr. McDiarmid asks:
"If this trust agreement of Mr. Klock's is amended to facilitate this project, what validity or legal standing do other trusts and conservation easements have? I donate to some land conservancies. Can the land they buy with my money be 'exchanged' whenever some developer decides its a good place for golf?"

The answer is quite simply, "No, they can't do that." And, that's not what is happening in Benton Harbor. Virtually every level of elected public official in Michigan, from the Mayor of Benton Harbor to the Governor, has agreed that this is not a sellout to developers, but instead represents a good use of public lands, in the public interest. Like Mr. McDiarmid, I'm not familiar with the trust documents and deeds, but I presume that before the enthusiastic city, county and state approvals for this project, it was determined that this use of the park, with the land swap included, was consistent with the desires of the grantor, the trustees and the public at large. So, yessir, Mr. McDiarmid, when you put all of that together, sometimes trust properties can be "exchanged."

The golf features are in the dunes, not behind them. The cheesy video is one thing; the reality is another.

The enthusiastic support from the City - the first line of defense, so to speak - was a result of no one actually reading the legal documents first time around AND the same lawyer representing both sides of the complex deal.

It's about as crooked as they come, but as someone remarked, "The people are like a flea on a dog on its way to the pound - happy as all get out - until ..."

Jobs and prospserity and inclusion are wonderful - - - but the prosperity and jobs parts are pretty uncertain and have been dramatically scaled back from the original plan. Rare public land should be maintained as such. The City has intentionally neglected it for years awaiting Whirlpool Santa Claus to take it off their hands. Put the golf course elsewhere, and Good Luck!

Here is an interesting link; to an MSNBC story on how the restoration of the East Lake Golf Club in Atlanta revitalized a failing, mostly black, neighborhood.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24185797/

What is important to note in connection with that story is that the theory behind the East Lake restoration was to make it not just another golf course, but to do what it took to make it a world class course. And that decision has paid off handsomely for the neighborhood. And it isn't even a daily-fee course, as the Harbor Shores development will be! East Lake, an old private club is still very limited-access. But performing a world of service to its neighborhood.

One last point; Vincent Duffy scoffed at the notion of "caddy jobs" for the people of Benton Harbor. He shouldn't have. Perhaps no one who is a father of four will be a caddy. But teenagers might. They ought to, if they are interested in a scholarship. Just ask the many Evans Scholars on campus at the University of Michgian and Michigan State University.

It is far too delicious not to share these additional links with two of Michigan's great old-fashioned newspapermen, Jack Lessenberry, and Hugh McDiarmid Jr.

Mr. Lessenberry began this eassy with a recollection of John Nellis Klock, the Benton Harbor newspaperman who entrusted the park to the City.

By the circuitous route that follows many newspaper names, the heir to Mr. Klock's turn-of-the-century newspaper, the Evening News, is now known today as the Herald-Palladium. You can read the very interesting story as to how mergers and acquisitions have followed the lengthy history of Mr. Klock's newspaper here:

https://www.heraldpalladium.com/index.php?pSetup=heraldpalladium&pageToLoad=e_history.php&nav=history&curDate=20060827

Flash forward to 2008, and the controversy over Jean Klock Park. What would John Nellis Klock do, today, if he could revisit the Park? No one knows, of course. But what would the editors of the Herald-Palladium do? They are in a sense, the professional heirs of Mr. Klock, 100 years later. Well, it turns out we know how the editors view this subject from an editorial this very month! They favor the development and what it will mean to their City. This is a copyright April 2008 "In Our Opinion" editorial from the Herald-Palladium:
*****
IN OUR OPINION
Harbor Shores: Growing Consensus Seems to Favor Development Plan

Ask and ye shall receive.
In the case of the National Park Service, it has sought – and is receiving – abundant public input about the controversial plan to utilize a portion of Jean Klock Park in Benton Harbor for the planned Harbor Shores development.
Though the public comment period is not over, it appears that the majority of public opinion favors approval of the development plans, which would have the city lease 22.11 acres of the park for use as three holes of a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course.
Last week, by more than a two-to- one ratio, people who spoke at the park service’s public hearing favored plans to lease parkland to Harbor Shores. In letters to the editor on these pages, a large majority is voicing the same opinion: Let’s get on with the project.
Granted, this all amounts to anecdotal evidence and not scientific polling data. Still, it is compelling anecdotal evidence that park service officials should strongly consider as they decide the fate of this project.
Many Twin Cities residents rightly recognize that Harbor Shores, backed strongly by a substantial investment from Whirlpool Corp., is the best opportunity to come along in decades to further revitalize Benton Harbor, which for far too long has been ravaged by formidable economic and social forces.
We understand well that leasing parkland to Harbor Shores is not an ideal proposition. Public park space is precious. But we believe this plan also does much to revitalize Klock Park , which for decades has seen a steady and sad decline.
Above all, however, it is the prospect of economic gain for Benton Harbor and the area – long stagnant – that has galvanized support for the plan.
Time’s a-wasting. The park service should approve the plan without prolonged deliberations.
*****
So, Messrs. Lessenberry and McDiarmid; while we don't know what John Nellis Klock would do, we at least know what Benton Harbor newspapermen, like Klock, are doing today.

A few points:

1. The photograph in front of me (taken last week off the developer's signs at the park) clearly shows that the post-development dunes will be separated from the beach by a road and/or the new parking lot; and that at several points the golfers will be virtually, if not literally atop the dunes' peak. Inconceivable that the golf course will allow screaming young urchins to frolic a stones throw from duffers playing at $250 a pop.

2. Can't really speak the the independence or integrity of the local paper. But it's troubling that they write that supporters who spoke last week outnumbered opponents by a "more than 2-1 margin" My count was 26 for; 20 against; 4 unable to determine or plain crazy. I did miss about a dozen speakers, I'd guess. I suppose if every one of them were pro, and the crazies counted as pro, you might get there!

3. The NPS determination was that the "exchange" was clearly one sided, and that it essentially was a taking of the park from the public. This from an agency under George W. Bush.

4. Compensatory "exchanges" of several parcels of land downtown in trade for the 3.8 acres of park land taken by developers in 2004 have proved a ripoff. Those plots are currently rock-and-trash strewn vacant lots with crappy signs that say "City of Benton Harbor Open Public Space"

5. The dune acreage was valued, for purposes of the exchange, not at its highest and best value; or even as its value as a golf course. It was valued at well under $1 million using a computation as an undevelopable public trust land.

6. That's why the developer can argue that a string of unconnected patches of scrub brush and wetlands - some of them contaminated with industrial waste and others already owned by the city -- could conceivably be a fair trade.

7. If this is the "exchange" that's adequate to satisfy a trust agreement or conservation easement, we're all in a whole lot of trouble.

8. Race is an incendiary issue in any forum, but let me suggest that this is at the very least a social justice issue regardless of race. Perhaps if BH was predominately white, and just as poor, this scenario would play out exactly the same. Perhaps not. But were it a shoreline park in an affluent community, or even a middle class town, you damn well know this wouldn't have seen the light of day.

I know that a lot of smart and influential folks who are charged with protecting the citizenry have signed off on this.

I'm just at a loss to understand how they did so in good conscience.

I still hope developers can attain their vision without taking the public's dunes. And, if such a huge project is so tenuous that it's success or failure hangs on 22 acres of public land, perhaps it isn't ready for prime time anyway?

Thanks for listening

Ahh yes, after the race card, the "George W. Bush" card...

There are an awful lot of federal regulatory agencies doing an awful lot of screwy things in the country, without any meddling from the White House.

Funny that no one has asked yet why the National Park Service has its clutches on Jean Klock Park to begin with. Because the Klocks didn't give the land to the Park Service or their Uncle Sam; they trusted it to the City of Benton Harbor, whose elected Mayor and Council pretty much know what they'd like to have happen.

The only reason that the project is now tied up in federal red tape as far as I am aware is that many years ago, the impoverished and dilapidated park accepted some federal grant money to try to fix itself up. Hence, federal control in perpetutity.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? "We're from the federal government and we're here to help you."

If the city didn't want the strings that went with federal money, they shouldn't have taken it. Who forced them to take the money? No one. As for the claims of the "impoverished and dilapidated park", where did the millions in state and federal grant dollars go that were to be used to improve the park? If city officials mismanaged those dollars, can they be trusted to make a decision about the future of the park?

The issue of race and economics has come into play because everyone knows that the developers would never attempt this kind of move in St. Joseph or Saugatuck or any other largely white, largely affluent community in SW Michigan. They went to Benton Harbor where they knew opposition would be limited by the lack of financial resources and they could play on the need for jobs to encourage the surrender of the parkland so that they could reap the rewards.

Does anyone really believe that Whirlpool/Harbor Shores is operating in good faith? If they wanted, they could buy up land elsewhere on Lake Michigan to provide their golf course view. But why pay for what you can steal from the public?

Go read the Harbor Shores web site - St. Joseph gets more of the tax base than Benton Harbor does from this development. A project to help Benton Harbor or taking from Benton Harbor to enrich St. Joseph? You decide!

This development is to enrich Whirlpool. Some St. Joseph residents and officialdom think it's secretly about enriching their town, but when Whirlpool comes calling for something they own and want to keep, the precedent has been set.

Interestingly, a save the park petition drive covering both towns last fall resulted in about 7 out of 10 people in both towns willing to sign. Many, many were in St. Joseph.

This is a media/corporate extravaganza where most non-investors or non-insiders see the plan for exactly what it is - a land grab on the cheap.

Your town could be next. If the economic problems prove to be severe in the US - - - affluent becomes middle class becomes ... Benton Harbor.

And who would be left standing holding a checkbook?

Right. Corporate America.

Greedy Rich Corporations?

Probably...but foundations are involved too

99% White Too?

Yes...probably.

At least the Habor Shores development is attempting to change the face of Benton Harbor for the better.

These defenders of the status quo have done nothing the last 30 years to stop the erosion of Benton Harbor into the cesspool of drug infested hoplessness it is today.

These same people whine and bitch about the great divide between St. Jo. and Benton Harbor. And yes...that divide is indeed horrible and as plain as night and day.

Now it is again these same people who stand in the way of what could be truly something great. Something that could erase this nasty divide over time.

This whole debate is about much, much more than this park.

The "Save The Park" people use the park in the same way the Animal Rights people show pictures of baby seals to tug at our heart strings.

After all...how could any person with half a soul be against saving such a "beautiful" public park named after the deceased infant of the family who donated it?

But this really has nothing to do with the park itself. The park angle is just the most legally and politically expediant first step to block the project.

If they win here and "save the park" the same people will be off to the next "historic" building somewhere and put up a similar defense until the whole project goes down the tubes.

So this issue is about much more than just the park. It is about the entire Harbor Shores development and the future of Benton Harbor as a whole.

In my opinion the developers plans to improve the park and integrate it into a beautiful multi-use area are much more respectful of the memory of Jean Klock. I also think it is more in line with the original intent of the land donation for public use.

After all...I'm part of the public too and would rather use the park in its proposed improved state.

I'd be much more open minded if these detractors had others ideas or plans that would even remotely offer the similar potential for positive change of Harbor Shores.

But they don't do they?

The fact is, this park was donated with certain deed restrictions, and then improved with public money, which put additional deed restrictions on the park. These restrictions have been completely disregarded.

Parks are always a target for development, since the land is "vacant" and is owned by one entity. It is much easier, and usually cheaper, for a developer to develop a park than to amass a set of parcels owned by various owners.

Parks are often in desirable location, and they were often given or purchased in order to preserve that location.

Jean Klock Park clearly falls into this category: a nice parcel of lakefront property owned by a pliable government.

If parks, and Jean Klock Park, are not defended each and every time that a city tries to sell them, it just makes it easier for the next city, the next time.

Parks belong to the citizens and are held in trust for all of us (not just the residents of Benton Harbor). The National Park Service deed restrictions on Jean Klock Park were placed on the park in recognition of this trust. That is why we invest federal dollars in local parks - because parks belong to all citizens.

The fundamental rule is that parks are not a land reservoir for developers, no matter how wonderful the project (all projects are always in the "public good", when a developer wants a park).

Parks belong to the people. We must not sell our parks.

To Christopher Reader:
Someone reading your comment, without any knowledge of the situation, might think, "Gosh, they are developing a park into a luxury golf course? That's terrible!"
Except that interpretation isn't even remotely true.
In all fairness, the developers are taking one under-utilized portion of Jean Klock Park, vastly improving the rest of Jean Klock Park, and then creating even more public-use parcels in other areas of the city. There won't be an "end" to Jean Klock Park. There will still be the same beach, with better amenities for the members of the public who wish to use that beach. No one will be "losing" Jean Klock Park.
If you claim that you are "defending" Jean Klock Park, it might be worth asking what you are defending it from. You aren't defending the beach, because that will remain untouched. You aren't defending the "public use" of the beach, because the public's use will be enhanced and improved by what the developers have planned for improved structures and fcailities.
So in the end, what you are defending is not a park, or a public use right, but the "status quo" and nothing more.

Jean Klock Park is not just a beach. It is fragile coastal forested dunes with wetlands. The strip of beach will be saved with an added 3.87 acres of asphalt put on the beach for parking. While Net 18,000 cubic yards of fill (roughly 900 truck loads) will be brought in to fill the back of the dunes to create turf grass. Not to mention how many acres of trees will be taken down, including the original 90 year old trees. Oh and let's not forget the golf tees on manmade islands set in the wetland so the fertilizers, herbicides can leach into the existing wetland and completely alter the native flora and fauna. All you have to do is look at a map to see that the horse shoe shaped 22 acres
will enclose a large portion of the park into a PRIVATELY owned golf course open to the public for a hefty fee.
Whoever wants to talk about facts should read more than Harbor Shores PR. - perhaps the lease agreement or the DEQ permits or the Upjohn Institute Report (hired by Harbor Shores), who do not recommend using Jean Klock Park. For that matter, read the original rejection letter from the NPS and ask what has changed - nothing.
Educate yourself with the facts, not PR from a developer who is cashing in on Brownfield money to do this development. As taxpayers, you should be concerned. When the golf course fails, the land will not revert back to Jean Klock Park. It will revert back to the city and will more than likely be sold off to the highest bidder. Where will our PUBLIC park be then.
Get a clue.
If this were happening in a 97% white rich community, it would be an absolute outrage.
They are using the people of Benton Harbor to get prime real estate on the lake.

The comments to this entry are closed.

A Production of

***UPDATE 9/2/09: Read the user agreement, effective immediately.***

The Podcast

RSS

April 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30