Follow-up to January 18, 2007 meeting
As we heard the input from participants in last Thursday’s session, four use themes emerged: recreation, agriculture, arts, and community use. Most all of the ideas appear to fit within one or more of these themes. There were also development principles expressed by many of the small groups, including mixed and multiple use, minimizing parking through pedestrian design and use of alternative transportation, maintaining the natural features and topography, and utilizing sustainable technology, including alternative energy sources.
What do you think about mixing all these themes (rec, ag, arts and community) together on the Barns property under a series of development principles that each use must follow?
February 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
We have enough artsy stuff in this area.
There is very little economical & fun things for young families to do. They took away our lovely zoo.
I encourage those in power to consider combining a zoo, arboretum, etc. something that a whole family can do, something new & different for the Grand Traverse area.
Let’s put our heart into it!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I just wanted to weigh in to both say thank for the use of 1 of the out buildings and to be sure that every one is aware of the positive impact that the facility has on the most impoverished of the area. The storage facility allows us to serve the housing assistance issues for the most impoverished of the 5 county area. we use the facility to store donated and extra materials to more affectivly serve.
I think it is exciting to know that the barns area all though open to all to use is surely underused by the population that we serve and yet the facility allows us to serve that population in a way that we would have great difficulty with out the use of the facility.
Again I say thank you on b half of the board of Freedom Builders and more importantly the most desperate of our community
February 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I stated this at the March meeting, but I would like my concerns to part of the “public record”.
I believe that a very important “given” has been excluded: That the use of the Barns and property be consistent with the limitations and expectations of use put forth in the ballot language. Specifically, the “Open Space and Natural Area” ballot language states…”to purchase and improve land to preserve open space and scenic views of the Bay and protect wildlife habitat and natural areas…(and)…for the purpose of open space and scenic view preservation and wildlife habitat and natural areas protection by purchasing and improving land for public parks including West Bay Waterfront property, the Barns at the Commons, and the property next to Hickory Hills”.
When the Recreational Authority was formulating the package of properties to put on the ballot, all the meeting materials re the Barns focused on the conditions of the sale from the GTCRC, the improvements needed, and the fact that the end uses for the Barns would be determined once they were in the public trust. It was very evident that the renovations, improvements, and uses would stay within or very close to the Barns (and the area already developed NE and East of the Barns) and not include drastic changes to the Open Spaces and Natural Areas of the property.
The other component that has been ignored in this process is the campaign material that was distributed to every registered. The campaign worked closely with the Recreational Authority and shared its themes and material content with them before materials were disseminated to the public. The campaign material included four postcards, each of which was mailed to every registered voter leading up to the election and posters that were displayed in the windows of area businesses that supported the ballot proposals. Here are the most relevant excerpts from the campaign material:
Postcard#1– cover shot is of two families with children hiking in the meadow on the Barns property. The text on the back reads “…For a limited time, there are agreements in place to purchase three great properties for public use. They include West Bay waterfrontage and over 160 acres of meadows, woods, wildlife habitat and trails…”
Postcard #2 – cover shot is boy running in the snow with dog at Hickory Meadows. The text reads “…These properties represent what we value – the waterfront, open spaces to play, natural areas to find solitude, unspoiled wildlife habitat. Together…over 160 acres of land for hiking, biking, snowshoeing and plain old family fun for generations to come…”
Postacrd #3 – cover shot is girl at beach. “…In order to balance growth, it is essential that we set aside the opens spaces and natural areas the enhance our quality of life…which include West Bay waterfront and over 160 acres of open spaces, natural areas and trails…”
Postcard #4 – cover shot is older man and girl walking together. “If we do not act now to save our remaining bayfront, open spaces and natural areas, they will be lost forever…They include West bay waterfront and over 160 acres of meadows, woods, wildlife habitat and trails…”
NOTE: Hickory Meadows is 108 acres, West bay waterfront is .5 acres, Parcel RR’/Barns and Commons property is 56 acres. Total = 165.5 acres
Clearly the ballot title, ballot language, and campaign material all encompassed common themes. These are the themes that folks considered when they voted to increase their own property taxes to purchase the properties for public use. There was a clear spirit and expectation that was communicated to our electorate.
These themes are also consistent with the uses allowed for under the Recreational Authorities Act and the uses allowed for SubAreas 6 and 7 in the District Plan. While the representatives from the Recreational Authority and the consultants present at the meeting have told folks that proposed uses have to be consistent with the Recreational Authorities Act and the District Plan, in the same breath they note that both the Recreational Authorities Act and District Plan can be amended, somewhat negating the presence and importance of these guiding doctrines.
Private interest groups have now surfaced and proposed uses for the areas west of the Barns that are clearly inconsistent with the ballot title, ballot language, campaign material, Recreational Authorities Act and District Plan. Uses that include: exclusive pay-to-use privileges on portions of the property west of the Barns; building multi-acre buildings in the meadow; fencing off most of the areas west of the barns so that wildlife can not use it, to name a few.
Please honor the ballot title, ballot language, campaign material, Recreational Authorities Act and District Plan when setting parameters, brainstorming uses, and ultimately deciding on the use of the Barns and open space and natural area west of the Barns.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am
It is a great idea to inculde the Botanic Gardens in the plans. There is already amazing flora and flauna on the sight. It is within walking or biking diatance of so many of us…including me. I would go there for sure! It is also a wonderful respite and spiritual setting for those in need from Munson or the nursing home nearby. Please strongy consider this in your final plans! Sharon Lund
March 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Including the botanic gardens in the barns property would give us something to be proud of. Adding beauty and helping to preserve and show the importance of this property could be accomplished by this. When I think of what city to visit, the first thing that comes to mind is where is a botanical garden? This outlook could favorably impact our tourism industry. I could see a large botanical garden, where any one could walk or exercise and stop and smell the roses at the same time.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I strongly support the idea of a botanic garden site somewhere on this property. It would be a great opportunity to promote education and recreation for all families. The natural areas could be enhanced with paths for anyone to view the wonderful trees in the arboretum, wildflower areas, mixed gardens, formal type gardens–in other words, something for just about anyone who enjoys nature at its best. And…the best part is that it would be located close to downtown rather than out in the boondocks somewhere. It automatically becomes more accessible to a greater number of people and showcases our beautiful community.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
The Barn woud be an ideal place for a botanical garden. The location is central and the property would be perfect. The educational opportunities would be wonderful, especially for children.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I would like to echo the comments made by Matt McDonough concerning the “public record”.
-That the use of the Barns and property be consistent with the limitations and expectations of use put forth in the ballot language. Specifically, the “Open Space and Natural Area” ballot language states…”to purchase and improve land to preserve open space and scenic views of the Bay and protect wildlife habitat and natural areas…(and)…for the purpose of open space and scenic view preservation and wildlife habitat and natural areas protection by purchasing and improving land for public parks including West Bay Waterfront property, the Barns at the Commons, and the property next to Hickory Hills”.
My main concern is that the the free public use of the land is preserved.
Please do not make this a pay-to-play area.
Thank you.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
This is to affirm my strong support for permitting the Northwest Botanical Garden Society to use at least a significant part of the barns property for its efforts. There would be terrific environmental benefit from the Society’s stated goal of creating a formal garden from native plantings so that home gardeners and professional landscapers as well would be able to see just how attractive a native plants garden could be. The potential positive impact of such a demonstration garden would be considerable. Since native plants host the insects that support our bird population, particularly during the nesting season, any native garden would undoubtedly attract a much larger number of nesters than an equivalent garden filled with beautiful exotic plantings. The Society’s plans to restore wetland habitat is equally positive.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I would like to say that i strongly share the ideas stated by Evan Miller and Matt MacDonough. I think that it is very important to keep in mind the terms that were set out when this proposal was voted on, and on which it was passed. I believe that use of the open field and surrounding area by or for a gardan society would result in the loss of natural habitat. they may be using native species but it will be highly managed area which would get increased use by the public which would have a negative effect on the use of the area by any wildlife. I feel that the area where the Zoo was would be a much better place for a botanical garden. It would see much more visitors and could be a center piece of the city. I feel that the intent of these conversations about what to do with the barns was to find uses for the barns themselves and not what to do with the surrounding area and it seems like people have lost site of that bit. I don’t think the current recreational use of the fields on the hill behind the barns or the area within the edge of the hardwoods shown on the map should change in anyway. They should remain open to the public for free, and people should be able to hike, bike, ski, snowshoe etc. without having to pay to enter a botanical area or center for the arts etc. We need to respect the original information that was released to voters and their intent for the land. And not forget that it was intended to be a open space/natural area open for public use and recreation not a highly managed garden.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Dan…
OMG! I cant beleive it….
August 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
art wear eye glasses…
Brainstorming the Barns » Blog Archive » Follow-up to January 18…
January 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Renovation…
What renovations/additions can I do to my (600sqr ft) condo to make the property value rise?…
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
soma…
soma 24hr pharmacy…
June 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
cymbalta…
cymbalta drowsiness provigil…
June 28th, 2008 at 10:11 am
ephedrine…
buying ephedrine…
July 17th, 2008 at 6:47 am
synthroid…
levothyroxine synthroid 03…
July 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
deltasone…
deltasone more drug uses…