From staff reports

For some of us, the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico seems like nothing more than a story on the nightly news — a calamity happening on the other side of our continent. Of course, it does affect us all, and it ought to force us to consume less oil — in the name of environmental protection here in the United States, and also to avoid financing corrupt oil oligarchies in foreign lands.

Imagine, if you will, an oil disaster of these proportions happening off the coast of Sleeping Bear. What would it do to our great lake; our beaches and ecosystems; our tourism economy? The provocative website www.IfItWasMyHome.com lets you enter your hometown as “ground zero” and imagine the damage. If a deep-sea rig blew up in Sleeping Bear Bay, the oil slick would spread from Minnesota to Gaylord, Manistee to Newberry.

As we hold BP, our government, and the parasitic oil lobby accountable, however, we shouldn’t single out the Empire gas station that flies under the “BP” banner. The local station on the corner of M-22 and M-72 is owned by Bear Lake-based Blarney Castle, which gets its crude from BP as well as a host of other immense oil companies. In truth, they’re all to blame for our nation’s current oil addiction, as are we, every time we fill up our tanks.

Dear editor,

With fundraising beginning by TART Trails for the Leelanau Scenic Heritage Trailway project, it’s time for people to learn the true nature of the project before they give their money.

The route goes from the Leelanau-Benzie county line at Manning Road south of Empire to Good Harbor Bay at County Road 651 north of Little Traverse Lake, a length of 27 miles, through the heart of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

The route does not stay along existing road corridors for the most part but veers into pristine forests, wooded wetlands, and fragile dune scrublands that are supposed to be protected forever by our National Park Service.

Many, many trees will be cut out and fragile forest soils will be dug up and replaced with six inches of sub-base rock and two inches of asphalt.

Large heavy equipment such as bulldozers, asphalt mixers and heavy rollers will be constructing this so-called trail, leveling the terrain as much as possible.

Wildlife habitats will be destroyed and affected by invasive construction and increased human traffic.

The width of the paved portion of this “road” (calling it what it is) will be 10 feet, with two-foot crushed rock shoulders on each side, making a total width of 14 feet, which is wider than a normal freeway lane.

This is going through the entire length of a national park. The scope and extent of this paved bike trail is unprecedented in the entire National Park System. While other national parks, such as Cuyahoga River National Park and Cape Cod National Seashore, have dedicated bike trails, they follow pre-existing rights-of-way, an old canal towpath in the former and a railroad in the latter.

Grand Teton National Park, a much larger park with more visitors, has a paved bike trail of only eight miles; it goes along the side of the main road into the park in an area of open sagebrush, not interior heavily forested areas as is the case here in Sleeping Bear.

There are already many fantastic bicycling opportunities in Leelanau County, and the county is well known as a great bicycling touring area. The National Lakeshore has a popular ranger-led bicycle tour program in the summer months. The Sierra Club sponsors a bike ride through the Lakeshore, calling the rural roads “picture perfect.” Then why did the National Park Service go along with this very expensive, unnecessary project?

One reason proponents say the trail is needed is because there are no bike trails “in” the park. Yet there are many county roads, paved and gravel, great for bicycling, that are surrounded on both sides by the national park. The only reason they are not considered “in” the park is because the Leelanau County Road Commission retains title to them. (Cape Cod National Seashore’s rail-to-trail bike path is technically owned by the state of Massachusetts, but I don’t think Cape Cod is claiming that it doesn’t have any bike trails.)

We must remember that Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is a national park, not a national recreation area. In fact, it is lower Michigan’s only national park. Can’t we let just a small bit of Michigan remain as natural as possible?

Contact the Lakeshore (231-326-5134 or slbe_superintendent@nps.gov) and remind them of the original stated purpose of the National Park Service: “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Tell them that the Scenic Heritage Trailway project is unnecessary and contrary to the principles of the National Park Service.

Not only is it destructive to the very environment that the National Park Service is supposed to be protecting, it’s also an expensive waste of money that could be better used for more rangers and interpretative programs.

Sign the Don’t Pave the Forest Petition at www.thepetitionsite.com/1/dont-pave-the-forest.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Miller

P.O. Box 187, Glen Arbor, MI 49636

No asphalt

Even though they call this a multi-use trail, it is not. This is a bike trail funded by bike enthusiasts. Even though the trail surface has not been officially determined, this group is already moving ahead to fundraising. Never mind that someone who is asked for money for this project might ask some details about the trail. Ahh, surface doesn’t really matter anyway.

The Park Service has sold us out to TART who is going to build suburban bike trails through our National Lakeshore. There is no concern on behalf of TART that this is a National Lakeshore. Just put in a 14-foot wide asphalt trail. Don’t worry about the impact of asphalt in the National Lakeshore. Don’t research any other option for trail surface like packed earth. There is plenty of money to spend.

Building asphalt trails in a National Park is unprecedented to date. Why was the Park established anyway if park officials are going to cave in to outside influences? Doesn’t it matter what the mission of the National Park is? If they consider putting in hard-packed earth trails, I would consider donating money, otherwise, if asphalt, no way.

Respectfully,

Nancy Mueller

Submitted via GlenArbor.com

By Jim MacInnes

This piece was originally published in today’s Traverse City Record-Eagle

[The Grand Vision will hold a Citizen Action Expo on Monday, May 10 at the Hagerty Center in Traverse City. Learn more here.]

In the fall of 2008, I joined 12,000 of my neighbors across six counties and filled out the Grand Vision Scorecard to develop a vision for the future. On Monday evening, I am going to the Grand Vision Citizen Action Expo at the Hagerty Center to find out what I can do to make that vision a reality. I hope you’ll join me.

I am a big fan of the Grand Vision and believe that a healthy region, like a healthy business, needs a game plan for what it wants to be.

At Crystal Mountain Resort and Spa we have worked hard to develop a strategy for keeping our business prosperous. We built that vision around the core principles of economic and environmental sustainability.

The people of northwest Michigan have developed a vision and it’s built upon a common understanding that it makes sense to grow in a way that protects what makes this place so special. It’s a vision we created together around a powerful set of principles: we need to grow economic activity and housing in our existing cities and villages, and connect these towns with an integrated transportation system that expands public transit, walking, and biking.

And we need to push this vision forward with special consideration to use energy wisely, protect natural resources, and grow our farm economy.

My support for the Grand Vision is not just philosophical, it’s practical.

At Crystal Mountain, our most important resources are the hundreds of people who work here. These people live in the region. They have homes and families. They need reliable transportation to get around. They buy food and supplies from local businesses. They want to enjoy the natural resources. They want to plan for their children’s future.

Pushing the Grand Vision forward helps to make sure our staff members and their families have choices for these basic life necessities.

Ultimately, the Grand Vision strengthens the economy and keeps our region such a terrific place to live. That’s important to me. That’s important to Crystal people. That’s important to all of us.

It’s up to all of us to seize this important moment and do our part to make the Grand Vision a reality in our communities. Please join me at 5:30 p.m. Monday at the Hagerty Center in Traverse City to learn about the progress being made to implement the vision and how you can get involved. You can find out more at www.thegrandvision.org.

Jim MacInnes is chief executive officer and president of Crystal Mountain Resort in Benzie County. He has long been involved in energy issues and serves on the state’s wind energy council.

In our opinion,

We object strongly to the proposed Glen Arbor sign ordinance amendment that has been recommended by the Glen Arbor Township Planning Commission and has support from Township Board members. The ordinance as currently written states that any vehicle “used as an instrument of conveyance in transporting passengers or merchandise by land, water or air,” … (is) “parked on public or private property off-site to the business, and used primarily as a static display for the purpose of advertising a business or directing one to a business” would be regulated.

Try to interpret that one. The amendment, in our view, is a far reaching and unenforceable attempt to target one person/business, entangle us in extended litigation, and step on the First Amendment rights of any business or individual with a sign on an auto or truck — or even a boat anchored — in Glen Arbor. This proposed amendment is taking us way in over our heads, and should not be approved. The only result will be a lawsuit that is indefensible and wasteful of precious township resources.

Commercial trucks and personal vehicles of all sizes and shapes, with signs advertising their businesses, park in Glen Arbor 24 hours a day. Let us pursue this for a minute:

• Would they put a timer on each vehicle or boat with a sign of any kind to find out how long it was parked on any street or dock away from their premises in order to be considered “static?”

• What would be the exact definition of an advertising or directional sign? Would it be on a commercially licensed vehicle with any writing, bumper sticker or whatever? Or would they try to regulate any vehicle — commercial or personal — with an advertising sign, including a personal bumper sticker suggesting the purchase of something?

• What would they do about vendors who must park on a Glen Arbor street for an extended time for construction, repairs, or delivery that is away from their official place of business? How would their “purpose” be imputed? Don’t they, too, intend for someone to come to them for future business?

• Or would it be applied only to commercial vehicles that belong to businesses with addresses in Glen Arbor but happen to be “off-site?” And, if yes, how can they justify this to all the businesses that would be affected in town, let alone the courts, that they wrote a violation to everyone just so they could pursue one business?

• Township guests for whom some say they want to save the street parking often have signs on their vehicles advertising a business, too, and they are far off-site from their businesses. Then what? Don’t the guests/visitors have the signs so that someone, no matter how far away, may want to engage their business someday?

• Would Township officials print and make available passes for certain exemptions, how in any way would it be decided who could and who couldn’t have one, and would there be extra township staff to accept applications/distribute in all the hours necessary?

• If we understand correctly, the Zoning Administrator would be charged with making the decisions on issuing violations, and defend the tickets in court. Are we going to pay him to patrol the streets (and docks?) every day to look out for the offenders of this egregious ordinance since it would have to be applied equally and not just to the one that is being target.

Need we go on? No “legislative sausagemaking” can fix a vehicle sign ordinance that is flawed in its fundamental premise. Please, please Township officials, think more clearly about the ramifications, ethics, and costs involved.

We know Township Supervisor John Soderholm to be a reasonable and quite visionary man. But we know, too, that there are those in our township who seek to lead something that is not in keeping with our community. We urge Mr. Soderholm to take the leadership to temper this pursuit and step away from the vendetta.

Best regards,
Patricia and Larry Widmayer
Glen Arbor Bed & Breakfast and Cottages

Op-Ed By Keenan May

Glen Arbor, Michigan’s once dichotomous sister village, Glen Haven, is a restored logging village and maritime station that boasts an experience of true authenticity. Glen Haven’s utilitarian identity is a picturesque example of what attracts most people to this area. Over 100 years ago, a $5 boat fare from Chicago’s pier initiated a secondary source of income for the timber-dependent economy. This archetype was to be followed by generations until the depletion of natural resources stranded the industry and shifted the primary land use to tourism. The rustic setting revived the American Dream, which was negated in urban environments, by allowing an ideal opportunity for home and land ownership. This is a place where one can come to face the natural beauty of one’s surroundings, escape urban life, and most importantly become part of a community.

Reason to Leave/Come

The sentimentality of the phrase “Up North” has spread like a wild fire. What is now an American ideology and branded into every other local business, the phrase describes an ambiguous movement that has been directing families into areas like Glen Arbor for over a century. The need for such geographical change is a byproduct of any ingrained lifestyle, however suburban culture demands it like none other. Most suburban environments appear more comical than communal, an affect of the disposable architecture and immoral planning of the1970s and ‘80s. This has made “Up North” a necessary refuge for humanistic revival.

Current Situation

To this day, quaint but ostensibly young, the area may still appear as an emerging town. Surrounded by miles of forest and lakefront, Glen Arbor, Michigan is tightly woven into the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. It’s a beautiful condition that has made the village into an idyllic rural setting. Homes scatter across the township, speckling ridgelines and hugging lakeshore. Of the 36 square miles of land in Glen Arbor Township, only six are privately owned and able to be developed. The township’s population has seen an increase of more than 20 percent in the past 10 years, and due to “Baby Boomer” retirees, the number of year-round residents is expected to double in the next 20 years.

How to grow

While these numbers may sound inspiring to those hurting from the current decline in real estate value, the growing population worries a lot of locals. How do we double the population of an area with such physical constraints? More importantly, how do we do so without harming the general aesthetic of the land and maintain its image as a sanctuary of Michigan tourism? Historically, the tourism industry simply adapted to the minimal infrastructure that the township had to offer, and over decades of inhabitants, the village began to take shape.

Unforeseen Limitations

Proper growth should spur from the town center outward, however the density near the center of the village is not much different from what is sprawling five, or even 10, miles away. The past 20 years of growth reflects disdain for public space and the absolute adoration of private space. This is the definition, by characteristics, of a suburban mindset. What was created in auto-centric microcosms of Detroit and Grand Rapids is slowly being reproduced “Up North”. It’s a battle that is nearly impossible to win. Glen Arbor’s obsolete planning grid is unable to accommodate suitable neighborhood development. Consequentially, many new multi-home developments completely reject the opportunity to support future density and pedestrian connectivity within the community.

Density and Planning

Expect Glen Arbor to build more like a tiny city than a suburb. Instead of pushing out into the countryside, edges of growth that are not already National Park boundaries should be envisioned impermeable. The core of the township has plenty of room for growth and agricultural land should not be sacrificed for unnecessary use. As the decline of the automobile becomes more apparent, residents will want to be closer to resources. Future planning assumes improved mass transit will have a stop in Glen Arbor that will connect residents to the surrounding villages and to Traverse City. Density within the downtown will support healthy living habits and create an even more desirable village. The community’s integrity is built by daily interactions, for example a walk or bike to the coffee shop and grocery store. Simplicity and efficiency will go a long way in the venture that is creating a sustainably attractive Glen Arbor.

Neighborhood Development

South of Glen Arbor is one of the area’s newest housing developments, Empire’s “New Neighborhood”. As an extension of the historical grid, the village has an authentic vehicular, pedestrian and spatial connection to future homes. The sizes of the lots are proportional to the small village of Empire and will allow for increased interaction and community growth without acting as a single entity. Amazingly, this is a privately developed part of the community that doesn’t look like a gated community! One of the developers, Bob Sutherland, has recently built a new home in Glen Arbor that is just steps away from his local business, Cherry Republic. This is one of the most recent homes to incorporate a retail space in its first floor, honoring a progressive requirement for residences within the business district. Sutherland’s New Neighborhood and home should be seen as models for new development in or around downtown Glen Arbor.

Density and community

As the village is increasingly realized as a home instead of a destination, those who have been “grandfathered in” might demand peak population. Density can be an intimidating term to use. It may be what the vacationer is attempting to escape when going “Up North”. However, the dynamic created between locals and tourists allows for a friendly close-knit atmosphere among crowds, different from the interaction among strangers in urban environments. You will most likely never see dads and daughters dancing while out to eat at Applebee’s; you may see this on the deck at Boone Docks, however. Density here equates to community and it is a sense of public unity that brings strangers together. Without building density, you might never create the convergence necessary to even know your own neighbors.

It is crucial to the integrity of Glen Arbor to not only respect its iconic role as a natural conservation area but also that the village has the ability to change and continue to grow. Encouraging smart growth and sustainable development will keep Glen Arbor on the map as not only a resort destination but also a beautifully kept centerpiece for the Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore.

A copy of this letter was also sent on July 3 to Park Deputy Superintendent Tom Ulrich

Dear editor,

I was flabbergasted when I read about the proposed tunnel at the (Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive) lookout (“Park’s Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive Environmental Assessment available for public review,” June 11 edition). This is the most hare-brained, ridiculous, spendthrift and stupid scheme yet hatched by park employees, and the person who came up with this idiotic scheme should be summarily fired. Spending $900,000 to save $10,000 annual maintenance expenses (in removing sand from the current walkway) will generate a 90-year payback on this taxpayer investment.

Let me take you through a likely “life of the tunnel project” scenario.

2009: The $900,000 tunnel project is approved by the park. The project garners national publicity with a first-place ranking on several “idiotic spending of public money” lists and is ridiculed on the David Letterman show, including a featured “10 reasons to build a 150-foot tunnel in the middle of a sand dune” presentation.

2012: After three years of delay due to environmental reviews and several lawsuits by an outraged local citizenry, construction starts. The outlook is closed for an entire year for safety reasons during construction.

2013: Four months into excavation, a nest of the endangered North American White Worm is discovered, and construction stops.

2014: Construction resumes after a seven-month delay for endangered species review, and a redesign of the tunnel to skirt the White Worm nest. Revised estimate for cost of construction is now $1.4 million. Of course, all of this is duly noted on the Letterman show.

2016: Tunnel construction is completed after several schedule delays, which are blamed on weather and equipment problems. Public access to the overlook is further delayed for two months to allow for vegetation replacement on the excavated areas.

September 15, 2016: A formal dedication ceremony is held, attended by 30 park employees and, of course, a Letterman camera crew. After the ribbon is cut, the public is allowed access to the overlook platform for the first time in over four years. Unfortunately, no “public” is present, so the park employees stage a little self-congratulatory parade to the overlook. One observes how nice the park seems, without the public present.

2017: An article in the Observer notes that various animals used the tunnel as a shelter during the winter, and it reeks of the smell of urine and droppings, in spite of $15,000 spent to clean the tunnel in the spring. Nightly visits by assorted wildlife make morning travel through the tunnel an exercise in minefield crossing, and in spite of daily sweepings by park personnel, the reeking smell persists. Visits to the overlook are now only 20 percent of pre-tunnel levels.

2018: Visitors to the tunnel complain of teenagers loitering and having sex in the tunnel. An interview with several teenagers reveals that sex in the tunnel has become something of a local rite of passage, similar to the “mile high” club. All duly noted on the Letterman show.

2019: The first tunnel robbery is reported. The tunnel has now graduated from the Letterman show to Fox news. Park visitors report fear of using the tunnel, and bypass the dunes overlook stop altogether.

2022: After countless complaints and numerous lawsuits, and continuing adverse national media publicity and ridicule, the National Park Service convenes a special commission to investigate the problem, which has given a black eye to the entire NPS. After a six-month commission review at a cost of $350,000, removal of the tunnel is recommended and a request for funds submitted to congress.

2023: After emergency funding is approved by congress, the tunnel is removed and the area returned to its pre-tunnel condition. Cost of removal: $2.3 million. The current park superintendent, Gomer Peebles, notes that a more effective way of solving the problem of human encroachment on sensitive areas would be to simply ban all humans from the park. This recommendation is put on schedule to be taken up at the next planning session.

The message above is obvious. Just don’t do it.

Yours truly,
Bill Dotterweich

No cheap shots at MDOT

All of us in the Glen Lake area share your enthusiasm in welcoming the new owners of the On the Narrows Marina (“Narrows Minded: Marina wide open for summer,” June 11). We are excited to have the McCahills with us, and hope they’re here for many summers to come.

However, you say that folks are learning to ignore the MDOT “inaccurate construction signs regarding road closures.” They are, in fact, quite accurate.

The one at the turn (between Boone Dock’s and Anderson’s IGA) says “Road closed to thru traffic,” which it is. (You cannot get to Empire from there, unless you swim across the narrows. That’s what “thru traffic” means.) There is ALSO a big bright orange sign, right next to the “road closed” sign, that says “M-22 open to businesses north of Glen Lake,” which it is. There are also a variety of signs leading up to the turn that warn travelers that the Glen Lake Narrows Bridge is closed, which it most decidedly is.

MDOT has, in fact, been quite responsive to the Glen Arbor business community in getting accurate signage in place. I personally have had multiple conversations with the MDOT people, they’ve come out here several times to adjust things, and they’ve erected extra signs (the Chamber split the cost of the extra signs with them) to address our concerns. MDOT has worked hard to accommodate our requests … within the strict confines of Michigan State Law under which they operate.

I’ll grant you that the closure of the bridge is a nuisance, and that the signs are irritating. However, your cheap shot at MDOT is undeserved.

We all want to do everything to encourage traffic to the businesses along M-22, especially the Narrows Marina folks in their first year. Encouraging people to ignore MDOT warning signs is not the way to do that.

David G. Marshall
President, Glen Lake Chamber of Commerce

Promote local research

I enjoyed reading (the previous issue of the Glen Arbor Sun) because it presents well-written material about local interests. This applies to your caterpillar piece (“Yuck! It’s a tent caterpillar year,” June 11) except for using a (University of Delaware) reference when we have well qualified authorities at our own Michigan State University, both on campus and in the Agricultural Extension Service. Michigan does some things right so let’s promote our fine University when we can.

George D. Wilson

“I read the letter from Rhonda Reems in the June 12 issue of the Glen Arbor Sun regarding Mike and Becky Sutherland’s putt-putt golf course. I’d like Ms. Reems to know that it is really a wonderful place. I’ve never played any kind of golf and didn’t think I would ever want to. But this place is different. It is family-, environmentally-, educationally- and historically-oriented, not to mention beautiful, peaceful and fun. I’ve been told that it reminds people of the old Green Pine Miniature Golf course that used to be next to the old school/hardware on the west side of Oak Street. The Sutherlands have resurrected the idea and given it a new life and name. They call their place The River. It’s on the east side of Oak. I hope Ms. Reems, and anyone who is in Glen Arbor, takes the opportunity to see it.
Amy Peterson
via e-mail

(more…)