By Joel Thurtell
shack n. A small, crudely built cabin; a shanty
— answers.com
Back in the eighties, I was called upon by me editor at the Detroit Free Press to write an article about development in the western Wayne County suburbs. I decided to contrast the appearance at the corner of Ford and Canton Center roads of a Meijer megabox store and a country general store still sitting opposite the Shifty Acres. I described Julian’s Store as “dilapidated,” and the presses had hardly rolled before the owner of that long-gone store called to protest. I countered that his store WAS dilapidated, rundown, and in dire need of scrubbing and paint.
“Dilapidated” might have been a better word for the Free Press to use in describing the Lafayette Bait and Tackle Shop near the Ambassador Bridge in its February 7, 2010 article attempting to summarize the situation various governments representing the public find themselves in when dealing with billionaire trucking magnate Manuel “Matty” Moroun.
Instead, the Free Press called the bait shop a “shack.”
Three times, the article used that word. I quote:
1) Meanwhile, Walter Lubienski, owner of the shack that houses the Lafayette Bait Shop, has sued the City of Detroit and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency over how his tiny parcel was all but cut off amid the Gateway ramps.
2) In hopes of clarifying the mess, here’s a guide to the main disputes:Lafayette Bait ShopBusinessman Walter Lubienski and his partners in a company called Commodities Export own the shack that houses the Lafayette Bait Shop that for decades has operated off 23rd Street north of Fort.
3) A few years ago, Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel (Matty) Moroun’s Detroit International Bridge Co. offered a reported $1.7 million for the shack and the other small parcels.
“Shack”? I find that usage curious. I’ve stood outside that “shack.’ I’ve walked inside that “shack.” And I gotta tell ya, that “shack” ain’t no shack.
It is a two-story, wood frame house with a facade that is old and worn.
Maybe dilapidated.
It is not a “cabin.”
It is not a “shanty.”
“Shack” it is not.
Why, then, would a reporter use that word?
“Shack” is the word, I’m told, that Matty’s lawyers used to describe the bait shop. Now, that I could understand. Lawyers wanting to cast a pejorative likeness of something will hunt for some word that denigrates. But wouldn’t a reporter try to distance himself from the lingo of partisans?
“Shack” would be a fine word for an attorney who wants to implant bias against the bait shop, resulting also in prejudice for whomever might want us to think unkindly of the place.
Who might want to taint the public mind against the little nondescript vendor of angle worms and fishing tackle?
Why, that would be none other than Matty. who tore up the streets leading to the shop and made it almost impossible to reach the store through a maze that points the unwary to Canada. Matty did this in order to build a gas station and duty free store which a judge says he built illegally on city-owned property.
Why would the newspaper go along with this jaded description?
In a photo taken by me a year or so ago, the store looks like what it is — an old but still serviceable building. Detroit has lots of buildings worse than this that are still in use.
I stood in the bait shop and looked at the minnows swimming in tanks of water; at the showcases with artificial lures; at the racks of fishing poles and reels on the walls.
If it’s a “shack,” why would Matty offer to pay a million point seven smackers for it?
Drop me a line at joelthurtell@gmail.com
Wonder whether Matty would refer to his Michigan Central Depot as a huge “shack” . . . At least the bait shop is inhabitable and usable — which is more than can be said of the present condition of the depot.
And Matty now claims to worry about the Delray neighborhood that he and his bridge traffic have devastated, turning the area into a collection of shacks and dilapidated buildings.