By Joel Thurtell
An October 3, 2008 letter from Detroit city attorney John Nader to Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Company, explains the city’s position in trying to get the bridge company, aka Ambassador Bridge, to take its padlocks off the Riverside Park boat launch and vacate a section of park bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun’s henchmen have fenced off to the public.
For several years, bridge owner Moroun has occupied the east part of the park extension, using it to store construction materials. It’s fenced off and bogus “Homeland Security” signs have been attached, falsely warning people out of public property. Moroun also had the public park boat launch padlocked. He’s claimed Homeland Security authority, but federal Homeland Security spokesmen have denied he has it.
Turns out, according to Nader, Moroun never had authority from the city to use the park and block access to the boat launch. Seems after 9/11, Matty asked the city to let him block some roads near Riverside Park “temporarily, due to a perceived terrorism threat.”
In the letter, Nader TOLD Stamper/Moroun, “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU AND YOUR CMPANY(IES)ARE ORDERED TO IMMEDIAATELY VACATE RIVERSIDE PARK, INCLUDING THE EXTENSION AND BOAT LAUNCH.
On July 14, 2003, the Detroit City Council authorized temporarily closing streets, but the council’s “resolution said nothing about closing off certain parts of Riverside park, nor does the resolution specifically mention Riverside park,” Nader wrote.
“The drawing attached to the resolution does not include the park. Further, the resolution specifically prohibits theplacement or storage of materials within the temporarily closed public rights-of-way or the adjacent berms.”
“Additionally,” Nader continued, “the resolution required certain conditions, i.e.,: that DIBC was to provide the Finance Department with a Law Department approved indemnification agreement; that the DIBC was not to use the fenced area as a staging area for their construciton, nor use the fenced area for storage; that only certain streets were to be used, etc.”
“To date, the DIBC has continued to use the site long after the expiration of the City Council resolution, and without everey having complied with the conditions of the resolution. Thus, pursuant to the notice to quit, the city hereby revokes any authority given to your company to occupy or use any portion of Riverside paark, including the extension and boat launch. Kindly, withiin the time stated in the notice to quit, relinquish possession of and vacate all of Riverside parak, the extension and boat launch. Further, pursuant to the terms o the resolution, restore Riverside parak, including the extension and boat launch, to the condition that it was inprior to your use and occupancy of the pakr, including, but not limited to, removing all fences, barricades, etc., that your company installed or erected.”
Next step: Court.
Stay tuned.
Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com
