# Traverse City withdraws bid for ESPN outdoors event



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

TRAVERSE CITY: City withdraws bid for ESPN outdoors event 
TC may try again in 2006 or 2007

TRAVERSE CITY - Plans to entice ESPN to hold a major target-shooting, timber, dog and fishing competition in Traverse City have been shelved because city officials objected to a three-week use of the bayfront open space.
The Traverse City Convention and Visitors Bureau wanted to host the ESPN Great Outdoor Games in 2005 and 2006 but needed city support to complete the bid.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/apr/17espn.htm


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

That figures, these people in the council just can't get out of their own way. Lets not forget they also wanted to ban trapping within the city limits, even though there are more than enough muskrats.


----------



## live2fishdjs (Sep 9, 2003)

Sounds like a win win for the community and the state...exposure and an influx of non-residents would be a good thing-no?

I cannot see why T.C. would not want to promote tourism, I guess I was under the impression that the town thrives or dies because of it??

 :SHOCKED:  :tdo12:


----------



## Hunter333 (Jan 19, 2000)

Hard to understand it not knowing it all but..... Can you imagine the amount of revenue that 60,000 people would bring the area over a three week period?!! Must be more than we are able to read based on that article..... Too bad though, I would have gone up there to see those events!!


----------



## snakebit67 (Oct 18, 2003)

Not only the initial monies brought in but the residual effect as well, ie.. people returning to vacation at a later time. Sounds like a win-win to me. But what do I know. I'm stuck in the ghetto :lol:


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

You would have to understand the mind think of these people, I won't go into it here, but trust me on this. It is their opinion that we have enough tourism here now, and the fact the Cherry Festival would have just ended they are just not wanting to jump into another event right away. I quess it makes some sense, but they aren't looking long term, and thats troubling. Yes we have traffic problems now, and that won't change for awhile due to people from environmental groups wanting to fight a bypass. So who really knows the way they think, but then again, perhaps we are only assuming they can think.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

The economy in Traverse City is moving beyond tourism. People that buy second homes or rent houses on the water for a week (which helps people afford the second home) contribute to the economy. But someone who comes up stays at the holiday inn, buys a t-shirt, ice cream and goes to eat at Red Lobster doesn't do all that much. Do you think you can raise a family working retail or cleaning rooms?

I not saying tourists don't pump money into the area but look at all the big $ homes with year round residents. There are not making their money selling fudge.

Traffic sucks and it's going to get worse. Nothing you can do. But the so called highway bypass don't get me started! The road commision wants to put a 4 lane bridge over the boardman river. Where else can you go for some quick fishing after work or in the evening just outside of town. Every time i fish it i think that even though the rest of TC is going to hell at least here is this wooded area open to the public right next to town. Rather than improve keystone road and an existing bridge that everyone allready uses as a bypass they want to trash a great public area. Why. because a real bypass would bypass all the businesses on US -31 S. Small town politics at its best.

Unfortunately TC is turning into another crappy downstate town with miles of stripmalls. ( no offense). Watch out Toto everyone is going to move to Benzie!


----------



## Fishfoote (Jan 2, 2001)

TC, I hear what you are saying, but have to disagree to some extend. Money has to come into that community somehow - and it's location is a determining factor in what is reasonable. Some people do make a living in retail and cleaning rooms, though much of that is part of a two income scenario. Also, someone owns those businesses that serve the tourist population, and others own businesses that serve those businesses. I could be wrong, but I see tourism as being a constant "significant" part of that community's economy. I work for a company that owns a retail complex in TC. Our people are well paid - and managers within the complex make what I would call a decent living (factor in the quality of life up there and I'm jealous at times).

TC is much more developed than Hubbard Lake (where I vacation), but this ESPN thing shows a similar mind set from those in charge at least from someone on the outside of the political areana. In Hubbard Lake, it is abuntantly clear that things are run by some pretty short-sighted people. There have been opportunities turned down because "that will bring more people here - more crime, more stress on our little corner of the world." The problem is that if the people don't come, neither does money, jobs and infrustructure improvements. Businesses struggle in Hubbard Lake because there's no growth initiative. I've only had a place up there a few years, but in that time, the only marina on the lake closed, the hardware closed, a convenience store closed and several businesses are for sale at depressed prices.


----------



## Rat Fink (Feb 20, 2001)

TC-Fisherman you are so far from the truth it is utterly disgusting. This is exactly how the "Misinformed public" Not in my back yard (NIMBY) attitude has taken a hold in this community. Rather than basing development and growth on studies, scientific facts and environmental issues you base your ideas and so called facts on how you "feel". This is not the way to get things done properly and it just spreads amongst others like a disease. You need to get your facts straight on the bypass issue because blasphemy only causes more confusion and misinformation in the long run. If I can muster up enough time this afternoon I will try to prepare a short report to show the facts as they are right now so people dont start jumping to uneducated conclusions.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

> Rather than basing development and growth on studies, scientific facts and environmental issues you base your ideas and so called facts on how you "feel".


How about DNR, US Fisf and wildlife, deq not allowing permits. Did they base their decision on how they Feel?

Why does everyone drive out keystone to chums corners now trying to bypass the traffic? Why not improve that road and bridge? 

in twenty years when the whole area is developed will everyone be happy that the public land has a four lane highway going through it? Once its gone its gone for good.

I would love to see some "facts" why keystone can't be widened? I can't wait to see what "facts" you can find. 

here are a few:

TRAVERSE CITY  The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has wholly rejected as seriously flawed several basic conclusions of the scientific and environmental study that the Grand Traverse County Road Commission relied on to justify building a four-lane highway and bridge across the Boardman River just south of Traverse City. 

In a letter made public today the state DEQ said the road commissions study, which was completed three years ago at a cost of $1 million, used an erroneous assumption to reject a credible and less damaging citizen-based transportation plan that it was obligated by law to thoroughly evaluate. 

I guess seriously flawed science is okay with you. 

What are they trying to build?

Its size and scale: The four and five-lane highway, with an 80-foot-wide median in places, would accommodate 55 mph traffic. A four-lane bridge, more than a football field long and 70 feet wide, would loom just 10 feet above the Boardman River. The rest of the valley directly under the bridge would be filled to support the road. About 30,000 cars and trucks a day would race across it. 

The sound in the valley would exceed that heard in a typical commercial zone; within a few hundred feet of the bridge it would be like standing near a gas-powered lawn mower. The bridge's price tag has ballooned to an unprecedented $40 million, $10 million more than what the Grand Traverse County Road Commission said it would cost just nine months ago. U.S. Congressman Dave Camp, a Republican, is seeking federal funds for about half that amount. The state would cover another third  $16 million  and residents of Grand Traverse County could pick up the rest  $6 million.

Constructing the bridge requires dredging and filling about five acres of wetlands  all directly connected to the Boardman River. It would make this the largest project impacting the water quality of the Boardman River that I can recount, wrote Grand Traverse Baykeeper John Nelson, of the Watershed Center, in a letter of concern to the DEQ. Since some 30 percent of the water discharged into Grand Traverse Bay comes from the Boardman River, the water quality of the Bay is also directly impacted. 

What are they destroying?

The 420-acre Grand Traverse County Nature Education Reserve currently runs along the Boardman River for 2.5 miles from just south of Beitner Road to just north of the Sabin Dam. Its full of trout and anglers, songbirds and birdwatchers, bald eagles and nervous rodents, water snakes and wide-eyed paddlers. The park is fabulous and full of vitality. And its about to gain 80 acres and 1.5 more miles along the river  an amazing increase in its size and ecological value. 

The Boardman River is the quintessential northern Michigan river: Cold, clear, lively; paved with gravel and sand; home to trout, otter, beaver, and mink; lined with mature white cedars, said author and angler Jerry Dennis, who grew up fishing the river and in 2002 formed Anglers of the Boardman to protect it from the proposed bridge. That a lovely stretch of the river flows through a quiet, undeveloped valley of wetlands and meadows within walking distance of Traverse City is an amazing stroke of luck. The Boardman between Sabin Dam and Boardman Lake is a priceless treasure, and we owe it to our children to preserve it.

Tell me how this is


> so far from the truth it is utterly disgusting.


 ?


----------



## Rat Fink (Feb 20, 2001)

I love how liberal tree huggers always try to hide the real facts. Heres one for ya. As I sit here at my desk currently working on this project I have in front of me the"seriously flawed" report that the DEQ not only was involved in but they initially endorsed it. Under pressure from people like you and other Land Use Institute followers they then backed away from their endorsement of the study which they were a part of( you didnt mention this, HIDING THE FACTS) to keep pressure off of themselves. They are now not opposing the project to nearly the extent that you describe because they were part of the study themselves. So what you put as FACT was a huge face saving effort by the DEQ.

I also never said that the proposed bridge was the best solution. Or that keystone road would be a bad choice either. But this must be known to all ANTI BRIDGERS that oppose this project on the basis that it is bad for the environment and will produce noise, air, and water pollution. You have forgotten to weigh in one major factor. By building a high efficiency bridge it is ESTIMATED that we COULD reduce our emissions by up to 30%. So please explain to me how the bridge is such a bad idea now?

Also for your information the proposed crossing area is NOW and WILL be in the future OPEN SPACE. And the surrounding vicinity if it is not already designated open space, much of it will be in the near future. Hard work is being done currently to make a continuing public open space corridor from the bridge at Beitner rd. to the South Airport Crossing which includes trails and open areas for animal and fish migrations. It is hard to get these facts out because so much focus from the ANTI BRIDGERS has been placed on the wetlands issue which I agree is very important. However I also feel that with mitigation and the possibility that the river may be restored to its natural state, that damages will be not only manageable but minimized as we all know the advantages to this project far outweight the disadvantages for the community as a whole. Community good is where the emphasis should be placed not for the appeasement of a FEW.

I extend to you an open invitation to sit down and chat about this. The only way for projects like this to work for the people they are meant to service is for all people to be on the same page. Please send me a PM if interested.


----------



## Fishfoote (Jan 2, 2001)

"ANTI BRIDGERS" Now that's an interesting phrase! I'm totally uninvolved in any of this - but how can a bridge affect emission? Reduce height and thus drag on the vehicle? Makes sense I guess.


----------



## east bay ed (Dec 18, 2002)

fishfoote,
what i don't unnderstand is why alpena has not tried to bring it here.

long history of logging, they hold the riverfest with logging events every year.

two gun clubs just outside of town, fletchers and the alpena sportsmans club, just a little more then a mile from each other,the sportsmans club also has a 3 d archery range.

a underrated smallmouth fishery in thunder bay. 

a very nice arena and a ampitheater right on thunder bay.

a airport just 10 minutes from downtown alpena.

just off hand i can think of three streams that could hold the fly fishing contest.

add that to the 10 or so hotels in the area, the convention center, numerous eateries.
seems like a good fit.
maybe it's just me.


----------



## Rat Fink (Feb 20, 2001)

Lowering the emissions comes from keeping vehicles moving instead of the sometimes 30-45 minute bumper to bumper traffic that occurs during the summer months on a few of our major thoroughfares. Less time driving means less emissions and more efficient movement by all. What should take 5-10 minutes to commute now takes 15-20 and in the summer will take 35-45 minutes. These times are just my experiences and observations not scientific data. I do have traffic studies on all of these major thoroughfares but I just dont have time to regurgitate the numbers right now. Also I didnt want to turn a completely unrelated post into a whine fest but I am just sick of Misinformation being put out to the public.


----------



## snakebit67 (Oct 18, 2003)

I watched last years games. Did you know Milt Wilcox has a jumping dog (can't remember the exact term, sorry.}


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

> I laugh at your type!





> I love how liberal tree huggers always try to hide the real facts.





> I extend to you an open invitation to sit down and chat about this. The only way for projects like this to work for the people they are meant to service is for all people to be on the same page. Please send me a PM if interested.


Sit down and chat with me or laugh at me. Aaaa maybe not. By the way I am a fish hugger not a tree hugger. Make that fish eater.

Nice attitude in your post before you edited it. Here is a reply in kind.

Where in the h*ll does the *unelected* road commision get off deciding on the future of the county?



> Also for your information the proposed crossing area is NOW and WILL be in the future OPEN SPACE.


Putting a 4 lane highway through the area will be open space? I guess under that definition you would consider the median strip on I-75 open space.




> By building a high efficiency bridge it is ESTIMATED that we COULD reduce our emissions by up to 30%. So please explain to me how the bridge is such a bad idea now?


Let me count the ways.

*Estimated* who's estimate? 
*COULD* so is that a maybe? 

Did you get the estimates from the flawed study?
What is the estimate of reduced emmisions for improving keystone road?



> I also never said that the proposed bridge was the best solution. Or that keystone road would be a bad choice either.


if the proposed bridge isn't the best solution why build it? 
Take a look around the county. At the current pace of development whats it going to look like in 20-30 years? One subdivision and mall after the next. Nothing is going to change that. 

So lets take the remaining public land that has a river flowing through it and destroy it by putting a 4 lane highway through it. Yea that makes sense!

Tell me why its so necessary to trash the boardman river when there are other options.


----------



## Rat Fink (Feb 20, 2001)

I am very short on time so here is a brief and to the point Reply.

Point A: Open invitation is still there. I would much rather sit down and talk about it as we would both benefit much more than trying to justify ourselves to each other on here.

Point B: Yes I edited my previous post. I found I had two minor spelling errors. :lol: 

Point C: Yes the Road Commission is UNELECTED but they are Appointed by people YOU elect. Thats how governments work.

Point D: Yes the bridge would cut through a section of public open space BUT I-75 and their median space? Come on seriously, thats just ridiculous that you would try to compare hundreds of acres of CONTINUOUS public open space to a 75 mile an hour freeway designed for NO vehicle and pedestrian interaction at all. The trails that will be installed on the public open space would be designed for a safe and minimum impact and interaction for all. You must understand that in todays world these things can be done.

Point E: Yes the emissions are estimates. But common sense tells you that less time driving = less emissions . PERIOD

Point F: No the estimates are not from the flawed study and no I have never seen or heard of any estimates for a BEITNER Rd. crossing. ( I take it you are not up to date on your road names. )

Point G: I think you have assumed that I defend only that location for a bridge. Well you are wrong. That is why we are PLANNING this project out currently. Another location may arise that will be better but for the way things are right now it is my opinion that this place IS the best available and will have a much lower impact than what people believe.

Point H: I look at development everyday, it is my job. I do see where the community is headed 20-30 years down the road. It's called visioning. The area under question is susceptible to development and my guess would be that it will be developed in 20-30 years. It will most likely include higher density residential, commercial, specialty small industrial and probably offices. This development will occur with or without the bridge and it will be sustainable.

 Point I: I beg to differ on your comment about one subdivision and mall after the next, "nothing is going to change that". Yes that can be changed. And it is being changed AS WE SPEAK. That area is currently under review for changes in the Garfield Township Comprehensive Plan. If you are a land owner in that area I'm sure you must have gone to one of the meetings that have been held in the last few months. From what it looks like the land will most likely end up being used for higher density residential and smaller commercial ventures, NOT sprawling subdivisions and shopping malls.

Point J: I encourage you to take a walk along the west side of the river in the proposed crossing zone.Nothing but INDUSTRIAL WASTE. Yes there are trees, bushes, grasses etc. But kick around a little bit. There is a serious contamination issue there with old industrial wastes including metal scraps, tires, fluids etc. Some truly beautiful stuff to have along the banks of the river you said would be trashed by building a bridge, which by the way would still occur wether it is built at Hartman or Beitner Rds.

Point K: You talk about the remaining public land like it is disapeering at a rapid rate. Well you forgot to mention that it is being added in one large continuous system as fast as grants and acquisitions can be made.

Point L: You are way off base on some of your assumptions regarding where this community is headed from a development standpoint and I just encourage you to put down the LIBERAL story twisting Record Eagle and do some other research into this subject because I KNOW you will find it very enlightening.

I would like to say I am very glad you brought this subject up and I am hoping our debate will get more people thinking about this subject. I also must add that is is very hard for me to keep up on this here and if this discussion is to continue lets take it to another forum. I will try my best to keep my eye on here and post when time allows. Thats also why my open invite FOR ANYONE is still open to sit down somewhere and discuss ideas about this subject.


----------



## unregistered55 (Mar 12, 2000)

I have followed this thread with more than a little head shaking. The same old/same old. TC fisherman is a voice crying in the wilderness. Progress based on growth. development, and the economy always has and always will be THE focus of those in government and business. THEY WANT MORE INCOME!!! To try to preserve and protect habitat can never compete with the need for more housing, roads, shopping, and small businesses. I am required to drive through Traverse City on business regularly, and I will say that it is a nightmare. I hit heavy traffic miles from "town." It would be nice to SEE the water, but unfortunately it only comes in quick glimpses between the hotels, motels, restaurants, houses, etc. Govey Granholm was on TV recently grinning as she PROMOTED T.C as a great place to start a business. See? T.C. is overloaded with businesses, traffic, and people, and she wants MORE. It's the same with every town in the state, from little ones all the way up to Grand Rapids and Detroit. More, more, more....ad nauseum. TC fisherman, teach your kids to shop, race, play video games, watch birds, golf, ski, ride a bike because that's what the future holds. If your quality of life depends on hunting, trapping or fishing, your kids are going to be S.O.L.


----------

