Yes! Long overdue! The State of Michigan should have torn it down years ago when they vacated it!

Does anyone besides me remember how we weren't going to have to spend one more penny for this property after purchase? It was all going to be paid for through the brownfield? Now we not only have an improvement plan with an estimate of $84 million, but we're siphoning money out of other areas (Allen Terrace) to demolish buildings. Gee, I wonder how this happened? Yeah...

OK, Boiling, so why is brownfield money not being used for this? Here is the definition of a brownfield from the US EPA site: " A brownfield site is real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Yes, "redevelopment" and "reuse". We were EXPRESSLY told that the money would come from the brownfield. Now the money to CLEAN UP the property isn't even coming from a brownfield.,

At the rate the twp. is going, the $84 million estimate will probably double by the time anything is done (no matter the scope). Clean it up and leave it alone. Northville is surrounded by park land - why do we need more? It's going to cost the taxpayers money just for the liability insurance on that property - already is. We don't need to pour millions into it.

Why do we need DEVELOPED park land? We have all of Hines plus Maybury plus the existing twp. parks. How much park land do we need? Yes, I attended every meeting about this, from the onset of the big bad Livonia takeover (the very stupid impetus for the whole thing - talk about a "fool-hearted ploy to bring fear"!) We paid WAY too much for the property to begin with - we essentially bailed Shostak out and he kept the plum commercial portion. Such a deal. I don't know what you mean by the liability being "nonresistant" - we own it, we're liable, How is stating that a "fool-hearted ploy"? I am not interested in paying any portion of $84 million to give the Farmer's Market a home. It has one, in town, where it should be, and whether or not you think it meets some unknown aesthetic criteria for farmer's markets. But I will ask the same question AGAIN (and the one you ignored) - why are funds, other than brownfield funds, now being used to demolish buildings? Do you know that there are something like 54 buildings on this site? Are we going to keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul (ahhh, shades of the federal government, right here in little 'ole Northville)? Did the taxpayers agree to that? I don't THINK so. I think we should get a few Eagle Scouts projects to create walking paths and be done with it. I don't want man-made streams and ponds and botanical gardens and sculpture gardens, ad nauseum. Make it park-able and walk-able and be done with it!

OH, Boiling: clearly YOU don't understand. Yes, I get that the brownfield comes from the tax money generated by the commercial portion. So why aren't we waiting until there IS a commercial tenant (they're working on it right now!) and use the money from THAT, the way we were told it would be. Yes, I am plenty p*ssed that money is being diverted from one use for another, for no justifiable purpose that I can see (or are you one of the people who originally bought in Maple-whatever and then called the twp and asked when the smokestack was coming down? duh) since we have what? One or two down, 52 to go. The whole thing is one big money pit.

Yes developed park land. The Township has a couple of parks that are “Sports” parks. They are tailored for the Sports enthusiast, and these sports opportunities are limited at best. Hines and Maybury parks are also limited in their scope. Hines is seldom mowed and Maybury offers limited recreational opportunities, including the farm which is really independent, poor hours of operation and a fee to visit. I only used the Farmers’ Market as a point to reference. Darn that auto correction, liability on government property is practically nonexistent, otherwise municipalities would not own, or be responsible for these types of property. The buildings need to come down. You should recall that at the presentation that introduced the future of the property that one of the priorities was to demolish ALL of the buildings. Yes I know what the property has on it, more like 20 buildings with roads, dumps, and connecting tunnels……yes I have personally (legally) toured this site. The CDBG money is grant money that when it expires it is returned to the issuing agency, this would be a poor way of using the CDBG money. The Township had open meetings that had discussion on the use of these funds; the Township Constituents had an opportunity to speak. I do understand: During the whole process it was brought up when would these unsightly buildings be razed? The residents of Maple Hills and Northville Trails have a right to ask, and even demand that these unsightly structures be removed!

Absolutely my opinion is mine. But let me correct one of your "facts": when this deal was finalized, things were NOT at the upper end of value. In fact, they were plummeting. Everywhere you looked (and continue to look) there was empty commercial space. So which of my ill-gotten "facts" are you correcting again? The "investment", as you put it, to tell Livonia to stop was one hell of an "investment". As for the number of buildings on the site, I just recently read - either here or in the newspaper - that it was 54. Maybe you're right and the paper is wrong - doesn't really matter. The point it, it's one down, many to go and we're using other than brownfield funds. If the money does revert if not used, then I would agree - I guess (more tax money just being used for the sake of being used?). And yes, Maple HIll and Trails residents have a right to ask that these "unsightly" buildings be razed, but I don't have any sympathy there: these are the same people who were apparently happy to build a house in their shadow in the first place, whether through naivete or being aesthetically-challenged to begin with. Oh, and one more question: You don't want to pay a "fee" to use Maybury but you're willing to spend MILLIONS to develop the psych. property? Could it be you're looking for the "Rec. Bldg" a.k.a. the private Rush Soccer facility? Good luck with that.

Oh, and one more thing: those "squatters" we paid 20-something million to evict? They weren't squatting - they were legally there by way of a public servant who screwed up.

I remember that I read it in the Wreckord, because Abbo was quoted on the demolition of the smokestack being around $70K - but gosh, don't quote me because I might be off a bit and can't prove it to you. Abbo was also quoted as saying the the (expensive) projected demo costs were too high. This was probably 4-6 months ago. The Record said "structures" which could include a lot of miscellaneous stuff (which still needs to be removed, though) while the Patch article says "buildings". Perhaps a distinction - pardon me while I don't waste time counting blobs on a map (what is this, a story problem?) I remarked on it to my husband about doing the matha; # structures x demo cost = 1 big whopper bill. My point is that we have A LOT of buildings/structures/old stuff to take down and this is only the beginning - if we were on building 19 it might make more sense. This is going to be one expensive operation, whatever the final number.

You're the one who brought up the residents of those subs, not me. I simply said I have no sympathy for someone dumb enough to buy a house with a view of the power plant and then complain about it. Duh. Well, if it's not the free-to-a-private-soccer-organization you're interested in, please do tell: what is it you want on this piece of property that you can't get elsewhere? And let me correct you: I understand that everyone makes mistakes, but the fact that Shostak was able to move residents into those trailers was because a public servant did not check the box. Gee, I just need to call you out when you are putting out misinformation. Yes, I am angry because the economy is in the toilet, but here we go again: blithely talking about man-made streams and ponds (with man-made maintenance), botanical gardens, terraces, etc. At least we nixed the wedding chapel and the boutique hotel.

Wow, Judge and Jury, Boiling. What's that about glass houses? You're the one pointing fingers. Misleading "the Readers"? I'm not writing an editorial column here. OK, touche, I made a comment about some of the residents of the sub who live in the shadow of the smokestack. What about it? Oh, and stop your stupid and insipid comments: " You remember that you read this, but can’t count to 20?" I'm sorry - who does this reflect poorly on (your wording - don't end a sentence with a preposition)? I DID read the article, I told you what it was about and I told you approximately when and where I read it. If you would like to go to the library and look it up, more power to ya - the Wreckord archives online only go back 30 days. Do I need to prove this, too? Besides, this issue of how many buildings there are is what has your shorts in a knot? Oh, and now you're admitting the public servant made a mistake when you took me to task for blaming them (gee, Boiling, I guess I was stating a fact there, huh?) Then you go on to say the courts rule on the law, when in a previous post you said to follow the money? I'm losing track of your "facts" here...OK, and now I am VERY confused: you like that the area doesn't have a shopping center, sub, trailer park, etc. Yeah, me too. So why, then, do you want to DEVELOP it?

I, too, have lived here for many years (27 - ok, ya got me beat!) and I have watched a lot of money spent on a lot of questionable things. I'm not interested in spending millions on another giant sucking machine. What is "my" agenda? Non-development? Yes, I guess it is, and in case you haven't noticed, the economy IS IN THE TOILET. I don't get your point about what is going on with your handyman and restaurants. Great, but what does it have to do with this topic? I'm not spending tens of thousands on landscaping my home because prices are IN THE TOILET, and I don't see why the twp. should spend tens of MILLIONS for the same reason. We've already spent too many millions to acquire the property - let's just let the deer and antelope roam for a while. How are my concerns about tax money expenditures "ramblings"? Oh, and just for the record, I think the word you are looking for is "flippant", not "flipped" - just another of my flippant comments, but then, we wouldn't want to mislead the reader, would we? I've NEVER been able to do a flip.

Oh, oh: one more thing about your comment, because I am a stickler for grammar: "Your right, if you can’t prove it, don’t quote it!" The word is "you're", the contraction of "you are". Yes, I do have rights, but in your sentence it is not mine. May I add: You're right; if you can't spell it, don't type it. It reflects poorly on you.

Vivi,
You are correct! Boiling needs to go back to Grammar school. He/she probably works for Northville too.
Boiling, I totally disagree with you. You are obviously one that can't see the big picture. Purchasing the Property did not make good Business sense! It will be the Twp. and the taxpayers biggest nightmare. ALL Improvements need to come from income, not tax dollars. The Brown Field was the supposed "income".

Well, yes, stats, there has always been a weird affectation in this community that somehow the rules don't pertain to us. Economy in the pits? Assessments down? Tax revenues down? No problemo - we just keep on spending it, because we DESERVE it. I don't know if Boiling has lived here too long and is too insulated, but there definitely seems to be some kind of an agenda; Boiling has STILL not stated what it is he/she would like to see on this property that can't be found in other park facilities in the area. When someone is pushing development, why wouldn't they make the case for the kind of development they would like to see? I can agree to disagree with someone on the type of activities they would like to see there. However, when it's my tax dollars being spent, I want to know how much, why, where and when.

I agree that the buildings have to be removed - they are an eyesore and a liabillity (no matter what Boiling says (who is going to be sued if someone is severely hurt there?). My point is, however, that we need to do it with the brownfield money and not be unnecessarily swayed by people who live within view of it (hey, their choice). If the funds being used for this one demolition would be otherwise lost, I guess I can go along at this point. I am NOT interested in spending MILLIONS, however, to duplicate that which we already have in other parks, nor to create all kinds of manmade things which will just continue to cost the taxpayers big $$$$ in terms of maintenance. This isn't the 90s - it's not a bottomless $$$ well (never was, as we are only now too aware). The economy DOES need to push the agenda. I just think we need to be financially prudent. Any spending on this project right now, other than the very necessary and justifiable, should be put on hold. None of that development concept is a need - it is simply a want.