Northville Psychiatric Hospital Grounds Could Be Opened to Public
Township police made nearly 200 arrests for trespassing on the property last year, but now the grounds could be free to use.
Photos
Northville Township hopes to address the trespassing issue at the former Northville Psychiatric Hospital property by opening up the grounds for recreational use.
Township Manager Chip Snider said he wants to make the Seven Mile Property grounds open to the public for their enjoyment.
"I would like to open it up to encourage and inspire - to get people involved, to get enthused about utilizing the land," Snider said.
Snider said the township does not have a finalized plan, yet, but several volunteer groups have stepped up and would like to begin creating bicycling, mountain biking and walking paths on the property as soon as this spring—and at no cost to the township.
>>Read about the township's $82.6 million park plan for the property
Snider said the township needs to change its philosophy about the site from zero tolerance for trespassing on the 349-acre site to thinking of the area as a place that residents can use freely.
He said the Northville Board of Trustees seems to be in support of the change.
"Philosophically, I think the board agreed that we should relax on it a little bit," he said.
While the grounds will become open to the public, the hospital buildings will still be strictly off-limits until they are knocked down in a few years.
Snider said the buildings are dangerous because they contain friable asbestos, which looks like talcum powder. Trespassers who walk in it can stir up the asbestos and possibly breathe it in.
"To go in there is dangerous to yourself, to your lungs and to others," Snider said.
Snider added that the township will looking at a way to better mark the buildings so people know they are toxic and environmentally unsafe.
The township is also looking at a way of highlighting the areas on the property that would be safe for people to enjoy activities.
"There's no reason why we can't allow access to some areas of the park," he said.
The township police will still maintain a presence at the property to keep people out of the buildings, but people will not be charged for trespassing for going on the property.
In 2011, the township made 63 arrests for trespassing on the property and made 213 additional runs to the property on reports. In 2012, the township made 193 arrests, 22 of which were juveniles, and made 608 runs to the facility.
>>Read more about trespassing issues on the Seven Mile Property.
"Until those buildings come down, we're going to have to live with the reality that they're an attractive nuisance. They are a magnet to some people," Snider said.
Several websites and blogs draw in curiosity seekers, photographers and ghost hunters to the property frequently.
"We're just going to let 'em come on out and look around and enjoy the day," Snider said.
Read More:
Brandon Kekich
8:43 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
First - it's not like the township police force is over burdened and has to choose (too much) between catching dangerous criminals and arresting these trespassers. There are signs that say "no trespassing." If they trespass, arrest them and collect the revenue from the fines.
Second - this will Encourage more physical trespassing and make it more difficult for the officers to discern the difference between somebody walking around looking at the building and somebody breaking in. So it could potentially mean MORE time spent there, by our officers.
Third - Most important - What about the safety of our cops? Now, the officers have to wait to arrest them until they're in the building???? The same "dangerous building" that the Township leaders discussed in this article? Are they going to spend money giving them special training and Haz Mat suits? I'm being serious.
I think there needs to be a LOT of discussion on this before they push this through.
Mark Oliver
9:48 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
This is a wonderful idea. There is plenty of safe unused land there that could be enjoyed by the public.
Mark Anderson
10:29 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea about how this would work - but if you posted signs that say NO TRESPASSING and others that warn about TOXIC - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, could you skip arresting people for trespassing? Anybody that enters the building is then liable for their own safety, with no ability to come after the township if they get injured or at worst die? Then open up the eyesore of land to the public so you at least have some positive activity in the area....
Stephen Emsley
10:44 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
This was brought up for the first time at a study session, TWO nights ago by Mr. Snyder. Instead of presenting Director Werth's plan (to those the citizens, the Board has it), he presented his own to the Study session. Thats fine but thats all that happened. The Board made NO DECISION on this and Supervisor Nix straight out said they would make no decision at that time. I was in the room and saw no one from the PAtch there... I didn;t see much agreement at all from the board on this ide except from Banner but she doesn't count. After all, she spearheaded the "BUY THE LAND" campaign and no acts SHOCKED that there are trespassers in the public nuisance she encouraged people to purchase. Its disturbing no one holds her responsible for PUSHING a yes vote on this and now acting like all the crime on the site was essentially unpredictable.
There are open hazards all over the property. Like man hole covers stolen by scrappers. A lot of things need to be addressed before Chips plan could be implemented.
Your headline is wrong. This was just Chip's "creative idea". Replace the word "to" with "could but probably will not be",
If the Patch is going to "report" on things like this PLEASE show up for the meetings and report on them in full so I can stop feeling like if I don't go no one will be in the room.
The Twp. is getting Tee'd up for an overreaching Bond issue. Its so easy to see.
Rebecca Jaskot
11:54 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Thanks for your comment, Stephen. I see your point about the headline and have changed it to "could" since there is no finalized plan, yet. From what I understand, the board does not have to vote on this to approve it, but I will double check and keep everyone updated.
Stephen Emsley
12:56 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
I don't know if they need to pass a resolution or if Chip can just unilaterally implement the recommendation. I do know that Supervisor Nix said "We will not be making a decision on this tonight". Implying it was the Boards decision to make but since it was only a study session I don't think they could have passed a resolution anyway. Not very clear on the process and why Mr. Snider seemed to be presenting an idea for approval if the Board does not need to "approve it". Someone should ask.
Mr. Snider should be able to clear up who actually makes the decision to open sections of the property.
The Board obviously had serious misgivings about opening parts of the property to the "general public" and less concerns about "selected volunteers". I would be interested in knowing how thy will decide who is and who is not trespassing. Mr. Snider seemed to say he wanted to ticket no one on the land who was not in a building.
No response was given to me in regards to open hazards on the property like missing man hole covers and such.
Finally, several of them said (paraphrasing) "OH NO when this hits "the blogs" tomorrow or when its passed and hits "the blogs: people will show up in droves" as if they didn't want to just put it out to the public. That was interesting because there were only 3 citizens in the audience, not like me and the two older gentlemen were going to take it viral.
Stephen Emsley
10:47 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Mark Anderson... Some of the buildings are very dangerous. Open elevator shafts, borken glass everywhere. To ignore people trespassing in the buildings would amount to gross negligence, probably. Of course we would need to wait for someone to get hurt or worse and then see what a judge has to say. Is that a risk we are going to take?
Again, not up to me but people really should go to the "study sessions" and ask about the legal risks, security benefits, etc. because there were literally 3 residents in attendance when this was all talked about and no media.
Mark Anderson
11:33 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
@ Stephen - I understand there are dangers, to trespassers and officers alike. I was simply wondering if there's something in the system that would disallow anybody trespassing from coming after the township after getting hurt/killed. In this ridiculously litigious world, I doubt it, but I hold out hope...
Stephen Emsley
12:44 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Yes mark, in general if it is a posted hazard it is the trespassers fault, they can file suit and should lose... Unless the Township is found to be grossly negligent by not taking steps to secure it or remove clear and present dangers or whatever else a Lawyer and Jury can come up with.
Any attorney or Board member pretending they can predict the outcome of an accidental death jury trial in those buildings is blowing smoke...
Stephen Emsley
11:22 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
finally, on the topic of asbestos:
Snider said the buildings are dangerous because they contain friable asbestos, which looks like talcum powder. Trespassers who walk in it can stir up the asbestos and possibly breathe it in.
"To go in there is dangerous to yourself, to your lungs and to others," Snider said.
Since there is so much "friable asbestos" and so many broken windows, how much blows out all over the neighbors?
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/7383C46948F649B7CA2579FA001AA20E/$File/asbestos-02-web-(8may12).pdf
Bailey M
12:36 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
You need to understand that most buildings, built before 1972, in the metro area have asbestos. As for any substance, Time Weighted Average (TWA) and Threshold Limit Values (TLV) are the key to a potential hazard. There is no credible study that would show an increased risk associated with a neighborhood exposure to friable asbestos pipe-covering and block. You probably have a greater risk of injury from crossing 7 mile than being exposed to unacceptable levels of asbestos.
kevin k
12:50 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Well I walked around this thing before and those elevator shafts are definitely the biggest danger I didn't go near them. But I can see kids wanting to look down them. They need to block them up and call it a day
. This was a great spot for urban spelunking. I understood the risks I took and it was worth it to me. the property was beautiful I seen a fox and a beaver cross the road while I was walking in. They should open it up. I didn't go in every building so I don't know of any other real dangers but it was an amazing experience to see and a piece of history if you ask me. We didn't break or take anything but I did see a few things I would pay for if the city would take offers and repurpose doors and such. This place would make a awesome post apocalypse movie back drop you feel like a zombie is gonna walk out at any time. I know its a nuisance to most. The property is a waste of taxes if its not being used and arresting a kid for playing the woods is wrong, and almost a lost thought to most kids. They need to fence the building and open it up for public.
Stephen Emsley
1:41 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Kevin, you are in a group of people the Township is "less" concerned about. They pointed out three groups.
1. People using the property not going in the buildings.
2. Curious people in the buildings exploring.
3. Criminals in the buildings scrapping, looting and destroying things.
You fall in group two...
I think chips whole idea is by having #1s on the property #3s especially will be deterred and hopefully a lot of #2s. I think everyone agreed fencing would not accomplish much, if anything at such a high price.
What was very unclear is if group #1 would include everyone, if not everyone than who is allowed. Is it the whole property, part of the property, if only part how would it be "partitioned"?
Group #2 is where liability issues would be the highest from what I understand. A criminal stealing pieces of steel is going to have a harder time getting an award from a jury than a curious and injured 14 year olds parents.
Almost all of the buildings have serious hazards: Ceilings in danger of collapse, "open pit" areas for mechanical and tunnel access, the tunnels themselves, soft roofs, and on and on... and those pesky piles of asbestos Mr. Snider refers to. All of this was known or obvious when the purchase was endorsed by members of the previous and sitting Board, specifically Abbo, Banner and Shadko(CFN). There were more.
Why there was no plan for this before it became a ballot initiative should concern the citizens.
Adam Goldsteinburg
5:41 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
This sucks, I just started sneaking my dirtbike back there cause of all the amazing trails, and now a bunch of people are gonna be jogging and bicycling and hiking. Ya know....really blows my fun.
Debbi Notemilie
8:42 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Hipster heaven ,youll have another packard plant.
Jerry Thompson
10:09 am on Saturday, February 9, 2013
An oozing sore brought to us by the great deinstitutionalizer ENGLER. AKA the creator if the largest tax increase in MI history. With a scrapped hospital system and huge taxes where'd all the money go ? Certainly not to the roads which Granholm finally got done. Now we hear the gun factory lobby wanting govt institutions like this to open back up and solve the gun massacres by locking up people vs guns. INSANITY! You reap what you sow. Elect these short term thinkers, you get wasted facilities and public nuisance. Sorry to see all the fear and "can't do" spirit in Northville but how long have they let this facility and surrounding rec area rot? Just saying ...
Llewellyn Khokhlachev
9:22 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
Why would the township want to relinquish such a great source of income?
Bob Loblaw
10:04 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
"Snider said the buildings are dangerous because they contain friable asbestos, which looks like talcum powder."
Interesting comparison, but I myself might have gone with "Snider said the buildings are dangerous because they contain friable asbestos, which looks like King Arthur unbleached baking flour."