# Pitch to sell state parks stirs Lansing



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Pitch to sell state parks stirs Lansing 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-27/113784216422730.xml&coll=6

Saturday, January 21, 2006 By Ted Roelofs The Grand Rapids Press

With assets that range from sparkling lakes to towering sand dunes to remote hardwood forests, Michigan's state parks rank among our most prized resources. 

But in these cash-strapped times, a free-market think tank is floating a novel idea: Why not sell off and "privatize" 14 state parks, including Interlochen, Newaygo and Mears near Pentwater? 

Not so fast, says state Sen. Patricia Birkholz, R-Saugatuck. Birkholz considers the proposal rash and ill-founded, prompting her and a colleague to introduce bills to protect state parks from any "knee-jerk" sale.

"I don't think it's a good idea. I just don't think the helter-skelter selling of our state parks makes sense. They are an important part of our tourism economy," Birkholz said. 

The plan is offered by the Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative champion of smaller government and privatization. The proposal was authored by Russ Harding, a senior policy analyst for the center and former director of Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality under Gov. John Engler. 

Harding argued that Michigan's park system -- now encompassing 97 sites -- has expanded into "something quite different" than that envisioned by lawmakers early in the 20th century. 

"Michigan has acquired many state parks over the years that are not unique in either their natural resources or their historic value," Harding wrote. 

He said the sale of those parks he identified as "good candidates for private ownership" would reap several benefits: It would raise funds, cut competition with private campgrounds, put properties back on the tax rolls and let the state focus on its "truly outstanding natural and historic sites." 

But Birkholz's measure would preclude the Department of Natural Resources from designating land within a state park as surplus. According to Birkholz, Michigan law allows the DNR to declare any land it owns as surplus and put it up for sale. 

A companion bill by state Sen. Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township, would require approval by three-fourths of the Citizens Committee for State Parks before any sale could be presented to the Legislature.

One member of that advisory body called Harding's proposal "a ridiculous idea." 

"When you really start looking into it, (the plan) really doesn't make sense," said Thomas Bailey of Harbor Springs, executive director of the Little Traverse Conservancy, a land conversation nonprofit group. 

"As our manufacturing takes it on the chin, it's going to be more important to rely on (tourism) to help get through these tough times.

"It's like saying when your credit card bills mount up, you sell your house." 

When longtime Grand Rapids camper Robert Stauffer, 59, heard about the sale proposal, he had a simple reaction: "Stupid." 

"I think it's taking a wonderful asset and giving it to the private sector. 

"I think it's wrong for the state to do that." 

Over the years, Stauffer said, he and his wife, Becky, have camped throughout Michigan, including stops at Mears, Ludington, Holland, Hoffmaster and Grand Haven state parks. 

He can't imagine peddling any of them. 

"This is land that has been entrusted to the state for a lot of years. All you would get is a short-term effect."


----------



## enfield (Apr 13, 2003)

Sounds good to me -- sell 'em all!


----------



## snaggs (Jul 20, 2005)

enfield said:


> Sounds good to me -- sell 'em all!


 State Parks have been in Michigan long before many of us were born...Who is anyone to come up with the absolutely ...STUPID....idea of selling off a State Heritage...which so many have worked so hard to provide for so manyto enjoy our ''''''GREAT STATE OF MICHIGAN"""...In my opinion ..those so called Politicians..should be put on a list of ""DO NOT VOTE FOR"""and these are probably...REPUBLICANS...who want nothing more than to cash in themselves on...Prime Land" already set aside and paid for by .....TAXES...from we ..MICHIGANDERS...."""""DON'T LET THESE POLITICIANS.....RAPE....THE STATE OF MICHIGAN...and...WE THE PEOPLE.. Once again we see what some of our elected official try to do with their ...POWER.........LET's Take away their POWER ...by our disproval and also at the POLLS.....Make a list who they are....not just Names but the PARTY THEY REPRESENT.....  :rant: :evil: :sad:


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Selling Michigan public land a lame idea

Friday, January 27, 2006 By Howard Meyerson The Grand Rapids Press

Bad ideas just never seem to stop coming around. The issue of selling public lands for some alleged greater good is one of them. Unfortunately, it has surfaced twice in the past several months. 

It appeared in September when Rep. Richard Pombo, R-California, the chairman of the House Resources Committee in Congress, proposed selling 15 national parks and other National Park Service land, fully 23 percent of its holdings. 

And more recently when the Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy floated the idea of selling or privatizing 14 state parks in Michigan.

The first turned out to be a ploy. Pombo, who got trounced by the media and public-land supporters, later said he was attempting to leverage a vote to open oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. His committee was charged with finding $2.4 billion in budget savings. It was a manipulation. He would say, in essence, parks or oil. You pick. 

Approach with due caution 

The more recent Michigan proposal also has many detractors, including the level-headed legislators such as Sen. Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, who has introduced legislation to prevent "knee-jerk" park sales. 

Birkholz and others recognize that selling parks is an open door you approach only with due caution because of the slippery slope on the other side of the threshold once public lands are viewed as cash reservoirs for short-term budget fixes. 

That's what Russ Harding would have us do. He's the senior policy analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, well known for its conservative agenda, which advocates smaller government and privatization. 

It was Harding who floated the idea of selling the parks. His contention is that it would raise funds in cash-strapped times, cut competition with private campgrounds and put the properties back on the tax rolls. Doing so would allow the Department of Natural Resources to concentrate on its "truly outstanding natural and historic sites." 

Engler split DNR

That's no stretch for the man who was chosen by Gov. John Engler to head the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality when it was formed. You may recall that Engler cleaved the DNR in two, splitting off its environmental-protection programs and moving them to the DEQ, a move that many inside and outside of state government would come to see as a lame-duck agency. 

"What would Interlochen State Park be if it wasn't a state park?" asks Steve Arwood with a belly laugh. "It would be private property. 

"Harding says they don't have any natural resource value, but Interlochen (one of the 14 proposed for sale) is on Green Lake and we should sell it because it has a high dollar value and someone would pay dearly for it." 

Gallows humor has a way of fading quickly, but it leaves a scent in the air. Faint. Unmistakable. 

"The problem is once they are gone, they are gone forever," said Arwood, the 

executive director for the Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy in Lansing. 

Arwood represents the concerns of 22 land conservancies in Michigan. He is a former member of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. He knows the value that the public places on having green and open spaces. 

Arwood believes that more education is needed. Term-limits, he says, have had an adverse affect on policy makers. That's because legislators come to the state capital with short-term thinking. They never develop a sense of the true and diverse value of public lands. 

"Today everything is budget driven" he said. "Public lands are just viewed as low-hanging fruit. People just say: 'We have large tracts of land. Just sell them.' But we are trying to show and demonstrate the value of conserving the lands." 

To that end, Arwood says his group is looking for funding to underwrite that kind of economic study. There is little hard economic data. 

But there are obvious and dramatic indications, he said. A recent random survey by his group of 666 Michigan residents found that 70 percent had visited an outdoor recreation area on public land in the year prior. Seventy-two percent felt it was important for the state Legislature to take steps to protect recreational spaces and public lands from development. 

"Protecting some strategic resource was not the only intent state park founders had," said Arwood. "The intent was a multi-use system. Now that the park is there it has a greater value. If it wasn't for the state park would people have access to Otsego Lake or Green Lake? What's that worth? 

"The interesting thing about Harding's proposal is the response he got from the Adrian area when he suggested selling Hayes State Park," Arwood said. 

"He can say it has no value, but most of the negative response came from local business and the Chamber of Commerce." 

They must know a bad idea when they see it.


----------



## enfield (Apr 13, 2003)

It's obviously a devious plot of the Michigan Taliban!!!


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Aside from the enfield the Taliban the rest of the forum can have a intelligent discussion on the sale of the parks.

With economic woes, divesting of some state parks worth discussing

Sunday, February 12, 2006 Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237
[email protected].

It was only a 700-word document, but it has ignited a firestorm. 

Russ Harding, a former chief of the Department of Natural Resources' parks division during the Engler administration, has sparked controversy with a report suggesting that Michigan begin divesting itself of some state parks. 

Writing for the conservative Mackinaw Center think tank, Harding identified 14 state parks that he thought were ripe for divestiture, either to other units of government or for privatization, which is a consistent rallying cry of the Mackinaw gang.

The ink had barely dried on Harding's report before state senators Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township, and Patty Birkholz, R-Saugutuck, offered a bill requiring a three-fourths vote of the Legislature before the DNR takes such action on any park -- regardless of the fact that state officials are hardly saluting Harding's proposal. 

Harding said he identified parks that he thought were small or isolated or of no special natural resources significance. And he emphasized that he did not recommend the parks be closed, just that they be sold to local or regional authorities or privatized under conservation easements so they couldn't be developed. 

Harding has a point. The state park system, which is entirely independent of tax dollars for its sustenance, is facing crippling budget problems. What if some of the lesser parks were dealt and the money used to refurbish the remainder? 

"It seems like we can't invest in the parks as we should," Harding said. "The worst thing you can do is hide from it and not discuss it. The overall quality of our parks is going to decline if we don't have the money to manage them." 

And we don't. The DNR recently identified a need for $42.1 million to get parks up to snuff, $35.5 million of which is for maintenance. This is on top of a recent 10 percent personnel reduction. 

Ron Olson, who runs the Parks Division, says his correspondence on the matter has been 100 percent against Harding's proposal, from both citizens and communities. 

"My view is not to make decisions that dramatic under stressful economic circumstances," Olson said.

OK, fine. But if not now, when? We all saw what Ford Motor Company did recently? Should government be immune to economic reality? 

The disintegration of our state parks system is just another example of the Engler legacy, when good governance gave way to political doctrine regardless of the damage it did to quality of life. 

Back in the 1990s -- when the sun was shining as brightly as it ever has on this state -- we might have made hay. Instead, Engler cut budgets to the bone. We're seeing the consequences now.

The DNR has done what it can to generate revenue, raising camping fees at its most popular parks. And Olson points out that reservations through July for the upcoming season are running almost 5 percent ahead of last year, indicating that people will pay what it takes for a quality experience. 

But, it will take way more than that to balance the parks budget and the Legislature's unwillingness to commit general funds to the effort illustrates how exasperating the situation is. 

Harding's thinking is clearly outside the box, but the this problem is so extreme, that may be what it takes. 

The state currently has a citizens committee studying parks issues and though it hasn't finalized its report, I will all but guarantee you it will call for increased general fund money for state parks. And if the Legislature refuses? Then Harding's suggestion must be considered. 

Despite the divergence of opinion between Harding and Olson on this issue, there are two patches of common ground on which both agree: Something has to be done to shore up the crumbling state parks system, and ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away isn't going to cut it.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Email to HR:

Senate Bill 971, ostensibly intended to protect Michigan state parks from being sold, passed out of committee last Tuesday, March 14, with a completely different substitute that seriously compromised the original intent. It will probably go on the senate floor early next week (March 21).

I gave testimony last week at the senate subcommittee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs hearing on behalf of Defense of Place, the only organization in the nation devoted to assuring that parks are protected in perpetuity. (www.defenseofplace.org)

While some of the changes in the substitute now being drafted are going in the right direction, I am not in favor of this substitute (S-4). The original language of the bill, which you can view on the Michigan Legislature website, is much stronger protection, while still falling short of offering any kind of
permanent protection.

I remain very concerned that even with the changes, the substitute bill is a complicated recipe for negotiating sales of parkland that sends a clear and
disturbing message that parkland is for sale. It suggests that sales of more than 15% of a state park are even contemplated. 

I am in favor of an amendment that would return to the language of the original SB 971 as introduced which would:

1) ) make all proposals to sell parkland go through the same process, requiring full approval of the Legislature, noticing the public through newspapers with statewide circulation as well as local papers, and requiring public hearings. Make no mention of percentages. And,

2) require a 3/4 vote of the Citizen's Committee on State Parks before any proposal goes through to the Legislature.

If you think our Michigan State Parks deserve better ... please contact your senator early next week.

For more information, contact us.
Defense of Place www.defenseofplace.org


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

Thanks HR for these posts. I haven't been on this forum lately. I heard of this initially and let my legislators know my concerns with this lame idea but the add'l info you shared is appreciated.


----------



## chrome_steelhead (Mar 21, 2006)

getting rid of our state parks would be a dumb idea. If we did this it would probably continue on until there are no state parks. Then what would the state do???


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

March 21, 2006

Action Alert from Defense of Place

Michigan State Parkland at Risk

ACT NOW: TELL YOUR STATE SENATOR TO OPPOSE SENATE BILLS 971 and 972 and the substitute S-5 for SB 971.

Please call your state senator before 10 a.m. tomorrow, WEDNESDAY MARCH 22 and urge him or her to vote no on Senate Bills 971 and 972 and the Substitute 5 for 971. These bills will be voted on in the Senate on March 22 at the session beginning at 10a.m.

(Find your State Senator by going to
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm)

You can also tell Governor Jennifer M. Granholm to not support these bills: Phone: (517) 373-3400; fax: (517) 335-6863

Senators original intentions were to try to create a public process and legislative oversight for proposals to sell off parks. Instead, these two bills were seriously compromised in a substitute version now being voted on for SB 971:

The Substitute S-5 for SB 971 would:

--continue to treat our state park system as tradable, saleable lands, not protected parks

--spell out a process for how parkland can be sold by the Department of Natural Resources or by the Legislature, depending on the size of the parkland parcel

--allow sales of large amounts of state parkland without any public or legislative oversight (up to 100 acres or 15% of any state park, whichever is less)

--make the sale of larger amounts of parkland quite simple for the administrationand difficult for citizens to stop such salesby allowing parkland sales to occur in 60 days if the Legislature does not act to stop the sale.

--fail to provide permanent protection for any parks or parkland in perpetuity, including wilderness and designated natural areas.

--easily facilitate the transfer of state parkland to other public entities

Michigan citizens deserve permanent protection for our state parks that guarantees that future generations will be able to enjoy the parks as we have, not complicated laws that contain formulas for how to sell them. The original language of SB 971 was stronger protection, while still falling short of offering any kind of permanent protection.

Please urge your state senator to vote no on SB 971 and 972 and the Substitute S-5 for 971.

For more information contact:

LuAnne Kozma 248-473-5761 [email protected]
Jason Kibbey [email protected]

Defense of Place
www.defenseofplace.org

Defense of Place is the organization in the United States devoted solely to assuring that parks, open space, and wildlife refuges stay protected forever.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Email to HR:

These bills include huge loopholes which could do more damage to our parks system than Russ Harding's original proposal, which called for the sale of 14 of our 97 state parks.

The worst of the provisions are those dealing with the sale of parkland less than 100 acres or 15% of the total park acreage. The proposed language would allow the sale of state park property up to 100 acres or 15% of the total park acreage, whichever is less, 60 days after providing notice to the Legislature. That's it. No other public notice or input is required. 

100 acres/15% might not sound like much when discussing the Porcupine Mountains 59000+ acres. But consider the impact on popular parks like Mackinac Island State Park (1800 acres) or Holland State Park (142 acres) or Saugatuck Dunes (1000 acres). Besides being popular with Michigan residents and visitors alike, all three are located in areas where there's extreme demand for lakefront access and development. Imagine what developers would promise in dollars to the DNR to secure 14 acres of lakefront property in Holland or 100 acres of land on Mackinac Island or at Saugatuck Dunes? Are we ready to allow our State Parks to be parceled off to the highest bidder without even public input? 

Can we really support a process that could allow such deals to go through with only the bare minimum of legislative oversight? Don't our parks and our residents deserve better? As LuAnne asked, don't our parks deserve permanent protection, not an expedited process to sell them off? Good intentions can lead to bad legislation and while these proposals are a start in the right direction, they have a long ways to go before they are really meeting the needs of the public.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

It reminds me of people who no have come upon hard times and they cash out all the equity on their home to pay off debts. Now they have nothing to fall back on and it hasn't changed their spending habits and it didn't change the amount of income coming in. So a big problem is going to get dire in the near future. This is exactly what Michigan is proposing. It does not adress cutting costs or bringing in more revenue on an annual basis. So until they resolve annual costs and annual revenue, I don't want to see a one year solution.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Email to HR:

Park bills pass out of senate

Thanks everyone who contacted senators at the last minute to press for better protections for state parkland. Unfortunately, Senate Bills 971 and 972
passed on the floor of the Senate today. They now go to the House. You can now view the contents of these bills on the Michigan Legislature website.


----------



## chrome_steelhead (Mar 21, 2006)

So are we loosing some state parks???


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

State Senate OKs oversight of selling state land

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060323/NEWS01/603230350/1001/news

March 23, 2006

LANSING - The Michigan Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to approve legislation that would give the Legislature oversight of proposals to sell state parks or other state land.

The legislation would require the State Park Advisory Committee to study proposals by the Department of Natural Resources to sell a state park. The DNR also would have to hold a public hearing before proposing a sale.

The DNR has been thoroughly reviewing its vast properties to determine what land to keep, what to sell and, in some cases, what to buy. The DNR is holding public hearings as part of the process.

DNR officials have said the review will not be used as an excuse to sell off land in an era of difficult budget times.

But lawmakers want to ensure land isn't sold without their OK.

"There should be some accountability and an opportunity for the public to share their thoughts and concerns," said Sen. Cameron Brown, R-Sturgis, a sponsor of one of the bills.


----------

