On January 24, city commissioners voted no on an amendment to the development agreement with Parkland Marina, LLC which originally terminated public access to a break-wall with a walkway, railing, and scenic views of Muskegon Lake in 2021.

This comes as a lawsuit has been filed against the city by the adjacent land-owner Mart Dock, which alleges that the city improperly gave the land away without consideration. This lawsuit was determined by the circuit judge to have enough merit to continue to litigation, and it was expressed at the meeting by the city’s legal council that they had a limited time to address the lawsuit’s claims before litigation would proceed.

The amendment was thus a concerted effort to address the issues highlighted in the lawsuit. In short, the agreement stipulated public access to the boardwalk and the walk itself, and that Parkland, “may relocate the path of the public access to a comparable location, to facilitate its development of the Property.” This process of relocating public access would have to be reviewed and approved by city council before a building permit would be issued for it. It also would have reinstated the same access as was available under the previous public access dedication, “until Parkland commences construction of the Project.”

The rest of the amendment attempted to address other legal concerns, first by raising the amount of money given to the city for the land to $25,000 instead of $2. It explained that the new price is still low because 1) The land is under an easement that only allows access to Parkland anyway, 2) the land is contaminated, and 3) Parkland is legally required to invest millions into the property. Finally, the amendment would have required that the short road that leads to the boardwalk be vacated, to address Mart Dock’s allegation that the road was a public street, which could not be given away without some higher level of consideration. The City considered that road to be a driveway.

The council meeting all told was 4 hours long including other business. Most notably, the public comment section included over seven members of the public urging commissioners to vote no on the amendment. In every case it was clear that commenters wanted public access to the walkway, but not clear what about the amendment they specifically disagreed with. A few took issue with the idea of a boat storage business on the property at all. One gentleman was so passionate that after lapsing his time, he continued to speak over the mayor’s gavel and threats to have him removed. Channel 13 did have a camera present.

The city commissioners seemed to be at a loss over the amendment. They wrestled with passing an amendment so hotly opposed by a room of concerned citizens, or rejecting it and thus denying any access at all. In the end, all but the Mayor seemed to believe that inaction would be better than passing the amendment and accidentally creating a bigger problem down the road. The Mayor, Ken Johnson, voted for the amendment, believing that it provided sufficient access while safeguarding it into the future. All the while legal council was very adamant that there would be great l risk should the lawsuit continue. With no amendment now, the future is unclear.

OPINION: Everyone involved wants public access. Parkland wants it in a way that will help its business. Commissioners want it for the public. The Mayor and city civil servants want it and want to avoid a lawsuit. Mart Dock probably wants it so that they can trade the adjoining parcel for Fisherman’s Landing (although Parkland’s owner alleged in the meeting they were suing to hurt their business competition.) The real question is how we are going to get it. The biggest issue with this amendment was that it was written by the city manager primarily to address a lawsuit. It wasn’t crafted with public input, or debated and discussed before it was introduced. That may have been a result of the limited time afforded by the lawsuit. Either way, we are now at the mercy of this lawsuit, which may hopefully end in public access someday, and will certainly cost the city money that should really be going to something better than defending a poor decision. I can only hope that Mart Dock will come to some agreement quickly that codifies public access.

One thing I will say is that the Mayor wants public access too, and has pursued it even before it came into the public eye. He bore the brunt of a lot of anger on Tuesday. The amendment, though imperfect, seemed to come under a disproportionate amount of opposition because it was difficult to understand, or because people really don’t want a boat storage business there at all. I am proud of how many people really care about our access to this beautiful lake. As one commenter put it, we’re “lake people.”