Still Matty’s park

By Joel Thurtell

Amazing how people, especially legally-trained people, can take a picture that is perfectly simple and turn it into a mind-dizzying maze.

I watched something like that happen Thursday, December 4, 2008, in Detroit’s 36th District Court when an attorney from the city of Detroit, John Nader, explained to a judge how the business titan who owns the Ambassador bridge, one Manuel “Matty” Moroun, took over parts of a city park. Nader was asking Judge Beverly J. Hayes-Sipes to evict Matty and his Detroit International Bridge Co. from a section of Riverside Park that runs alongside the bridge and from the park’s public boat launch.

Nader was looking for a simple “notice to quit” proceeding, but Matty’s mouthpiece, Jeffrey Stewart, had something far more complicated and dramatic in mind. He’s asked the judge to stage a jury trial so he can bring on witnesses to testify why the bridge needs part of the park to be a “buffer zone” protecting the bridge against possible terrorists.

If Stewart gets his trial, he explained to Judge Hayes-Sipes, the Channel 7 television crew recording the proceeding would have to turn off their camera. Because it would involve testimony about national security, “We would ask that there not be a public record,” Stewart said.

Hmmm. No public record. Does that mean that humble blogger though I am, I too would be shut out along with the TV and newspaper reporters?

Nader explained to the judge that after 9/11, Matty’s people asked the city to let them block off parts of several streets near the bridge for security reasons. The City Council approved a resolution, maybe, but the resolution that may or may not have been passed and may or may not have expired never gave Matty permission to park construction materials on city property nor fence off part of the park.

Stewart talked of a possible easement and maybe moving the case to Wayne County Circuit Court for further action. He argued that the dating on the council resolution was ambiguous and might actually mean the measure still is active.

According to Nader, the date is not really relevant, since the council never approved Matty using park land. Further, the resolution required Matty to have insurance in case anyone were hurt on the streets he blocked off. Matty never got the insurance. And the resolution strictly forbade him from placing construction materials on city land. He disobeyed that one, too.

Stewart conceded the construction materials should not have been parked on park land and announced that 80 percent of the stuff had been removed in the past 24 hours and the remainder would be removed soon.

All the back and forth seemed to be confusing the judge.

While Nader in his written complaint asked the judge to order Matty not to padlock the public boat launch at Riverside Park,  Stewart denied the bridge people ever closed the  boat ramp. Later, bridge company president Dan Stamper told me the boat launch had been locked by county or state workers — not by bridge workers. The county or state, he wasn’t sure which, wanted to safeguard a sewer pump or maybe a drain. The padlocks weren’t put there by the bridge company.

That’s not what Jack Teatsorth told me, Dan Stamper, metrotimes editor Curt Guyette and tug boat Captain Wade Streeter back in October. Teatsworth is chief of security for the bridge.

On October 3, I reported:

But according to Dan Stamper’s companion, bridge security director Jack Teatsorth, the city closed the ramp in 2001 after 9/11 and declined to re-open it in spring 2002, citing lack of funds.

Nothing to do with Matty.

Hmmm. Bit of a contradiction here. I need to put this question to city officials. I’m trying to file a Freedom of Information Act request for records about the park.

Meantime, I wondered, whose sign is on the gate leading to the boat ramp? It looks identical to the fake Homeland Security signs festooned on the chain link fence Matty placed on what used to be a public park a couple hundred yards north of the boat ramp.

“We put that sign up,” Teatsorth said. After the city closed the ramp for lack of money, he said, Matty’s people offered to put up one of their custom-made “DUE TO HOMELAND SECURITY NO TRESPASSING” signs to absolve the city of liability in case some unauthorized person went in and later sued. “The sign would be great for them.”

Okay, I said. Whose padlocks are on the gates?

“We put the padlocks on the gates,” Teatsorth said. Bridge workers need to get into the launch area to have access to a bridge tower.

Uh-huh. But the fence and gate belong to the city, right?

Well, not exactly, Teatsorth said. “In oh-two, someone hit the fence. The city didn’t have funding to take care of it. We fixed it. If that’s not trying to do something good,…”

To sum up, then, the city closed the boat launch — according to Matty.

But the “HOMELAND SECURITY NO TRESPASSING” sign is Matty’s.

The padlocks are Matty’s

The gate is Matty’s.

Okay, I think I get the picture.

The  picture was far from clear to Judge Hayes-Sipes. She adjourned the hearing and told the lawyers to return at 1:30 p.m. on February 18 next year after clarifying dates of council action and figuring out what the resolution says.

It seemed possible that the Detroit City Council may have to act if the city is to rid Riverside Park of Matty Moroun.

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com