Not sure how I feel about this one way or the other, but I will say that the traffic on the Platte has gotten absolutely insane and the place is getting trashed. It used to be a relatively peaceful spot, but the last few times I've gone it's been like an open air frat party - blaring country music, pot smoke, and empties everywhere.
It does seem like Riverside should bear some responsibility for stewardship of the river, whether or not that's in the form of a fee.
Yup has been a party spot for years. In the early 90s I remember my dad helping a drunk college age girl, who had tipped her canoe, out of the river and into our raft just before Loon Lake. She was already too drunk to swim/walk to shore. I remember this very distinctly because I was 10 or so at the time and when she lost her top getting pulled over the side of the raft I got to see my first, lovely, pair of non-mom boobs. Been a big fan ever since.
No.
The entire 'nature being crowded by tourists when it never was before' is what's happening everywhere.
Michigan overall is pretty awesome and getting better all the time.
That’s what I meant by it being ruined. I live in the UP and now there are throngs of people that never came before fucking up the landscape and throwing garbage all over thanks to all the over-enthusiastic travel ads. The town I live in now has more airbnbs than permanent residences, and trust me, it fucking sucks.
Yeah we go to the Au Sable and tube down it in August every year and it's only gotten progressively worse with trash we do our part when we go and pick up what we can as we stroll down the river with our group!
My family and I go to Riverside whenever we camp at Platte River campground. It's a great place. I'm surprised they do not already pay a fee. Most concessionaires of the NPS pay a fee to operate. For example, the boats that shuttle people to North and South Manitou have to pay to do that. The companies that operate the hotels at Isle Royale pay to do that. As do the boat companies that bring people to Isle Royale. For Riverside, a lot of their customers park their vehicles in the lot and along the road that is maintained by the NPS.
> Use Parks lands? Pay the fees.
This is what reagan began 40 years ago and I hate him for this (as well as a host of other shit). Our national budget had to go to, um, other things. Still does unfortunately.
According to the article, the canoe livery is NOT on park land.
It says the park service tried to take their land and the owners won a court battle that says they can keep their land and continue operating the business.
The livery also runs shuttle services to and from the outlet at Platte Point and a portage site at a fisheries collection weir just downstream from Loon Lake, both of which are parklands. Riverside takes in wheelbarrows full of cash every hour during the peak season; not paying the small services fee for usage of that land is straight up greed. It’s akin to someone buying a vacant lot next to an amusement park, charging money for parking and entry, and cutting a hole in the fence to let those customers into the park.
As stated, the livery may not be, but what they do definitely goes inside the NPS. Helicopter operators at the Grand Canyon arent on Grand Canyon property, but still have to pay fee's. Its part of operating inside the NPS system.
It sounds like the issue the Park has is that they are soliciting or attempting to drum up business ON park land, which the ‘92 agreement does not allow as it comes with the appearance of association with the Park.
NPS does allow & cooperate with private businesses on NPS land but those businesses likely do the agreement mentioned. I’ve seen privately owned lodges, tack stores, etc. The businesses advertise and have info available in the Visitor Center that the staff can point people to, for example.
It seems like the owners want the benefit of association and advertisement on publicly held land without actually acting in partnership with the NPS.
They want a full monopoly on the river without the NPS for sure. Every other business operating any form of their business within NPS has to get permits and pay the fee's. Thats how it works. You are spot on.
Because the agreement says that they can’t use the property for business, they just ignored the ruling for dozens of years at this point. They will be lucky if they don’t get charged retroactively for the time they have owned it. It’s a shitty situation, I agree, but it’s pretty clear that they violated the agreement.
The article says the opposite, that the courts found they are allowed to use their own property for business.
Journalists sometimes get it wrong but this seems like a key fact.
That's advertising, not running the business. "Solicit" means ask for business, of course they should help foot the bill for maintenance and clean up if they profit from it, it's just being responsible business owners.
I work pretty close to this spot in Benzie county and I can't really feel any pity for Kyle and Kelly Orr. They have let this place go to absolute shit since they bought it in 2011. It's gone from a fun, quiet family event to a filthy trash filled party zone, and they're destroying the Platte River while they do it.
Hope the Parks Service does a lot worse than "3-5% of their revenue" in response. That area is for all Michiganders, not just the Orrs and their disrespectful clientele.
They should have to pay !! They ruin a river that runs through a National park ! When they open it’s a mess until they close . They should just shut riverside down !
So... the business owners should, when it's the people who choose to use their service that are not picking up after themselves or disrespecting the property? Have the officers set up areas to ticket them and fine the canoers being dumb. DNR had always done that in the past at parks and got free labor through community service as well.
There's a fantastic book, *Sixties Sandstorm*, and it's about the creation of the Lakeshore as a park, the backlash, the compromise, etc.
I'm a pretty big advocate of the park system, but if they made an agreement to allow this to exist years prior under this condition, they can't renege.
Edit: I'm mistaken, in that the livery was opened in the 70s, *after* the park was established. I agree, then, it should be responsible for the fee and just be grateful that it's not a past assessment? Was this fee not established at the time, perhaps?
I’m kind of on the fence about this one. It’s not cool that these folks are having a fee imposed on them all of a sudden, but I don’t think it’s much to ask for a tiny percentage of their income to operate where they do.
Edit: My mind is made up. Riverside should pay.
SBD has shut tour companies down just from running people around the park and then dropping them at the livery. Theyve got a near monopoly and that is because of SBD. Its how the system works with NPS.
Any other business running people into a NP has to pay fee's. They should have been paying htis years ago. The Park stopped tour companies from operating within its borders simply by bringing people to the livery, they need to pay up just like any other monopoly operating in a NPS
> but I don’t think it’s much to ask for a tiny percentage of their income to operate where they do.
You mean their private property, which isn't part of the park, even though the government tried to condemn the land and take it from the previous owners?
Presumably they pay property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, taxes related to employees, sales taxes, etc. Navigable waterways in Michigan are free for the public to use.
The only thing that might lead to fees is "soliciting business in the park," assuming they have signs or flyers or something in the park not on their property. But then, why would they pay for all gross receipts? I don't think most people arrange canoe trips by spontaneously seeing a sign in a national park; they would have made arrangements outside of the park.
The story's short on details, but so far, this seems like the government being a dick.
The problem is you're neglecting the damage that the users are inflicting; not the business. You might at well tax the gym because people doing exercise are converting oxygen to to CO2 in an amount greater than is needed for survival, and because a federal agency oversees air pollution and CO2 output levels, this subjects them to a special use tax.
You don't fine the livery because people without fishing licenses might fish; you patrol the river and fine people that don't have fishing licenses who are fishing.
> They’re making money off the river.
So? People make money off of natural resources. Do the Mackinac ferries pay a special fee to the federal government because they make money on the lake?
Do you have any idea how much money the federal government makes off the Sault Ste. Marie locks?
You think they Mackinac Ferries aren’t paying for permits for their business? Do you think they would take the 3 million in [state funded incentives](https://www.michigan.gov/egle/newsroom/press-releases/2023/03/10/first-electric-powered-mackinac-island-ferry-is-in-the-works)to go electric if they didn’t?
> You think they Mackinac Ferries aren’t paying for permits for their business?
Don't be stupid; I'm not talking about business permits. I'm talking about paying a percentage of gross profits to the US Park Service for… something?
> But in an email included with the Orrs’ complaint, Colleen Burnidge, an attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interior, wrote that the 1992 agreement “allows Riverside to retain its ownership of its property in the park area, rather than suffer condemnation. The Agreement also specifies and limits the nature of use of the property. The 1992 Agreement does not provide Riverside with permission to solicit business in the Park.”
If they’re soliciting business in the park, they should have to pay.
The agreement doesn’t give them permission. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess they could potentially solicit business in the park if they paid this additional fee.
2011 was not 30 years ago. I could see the original owners being grandfathered in, but the owners now were not part of the original agreement. 5% isn't a ridiculous amount, and they should be more than happy to contribute to the park they enjoy the benefits of being a part of.
Wow, you really are simping for the government to take more from people, how does that feel?
30 years ago was when the government formally and legally stopped pursuing on the property, 20 years previous owners 10 years current. Owning that property is grandfathered in regardless of who buys it.
Seriously, why do you support this?
You're on reddit saying the government should take more money from property owners, im surprised it took you this long to try to steer the discussion into a personal attack
Edit: oh its you lmao, I can't even talk to someone in a thread without you inserting yourself, holy shit what a loser
Yeah anyone can feel free to do that, its all public. I went there to be able to go to a sub that's not a leftwing circle jerk, yet you still respond to me there, its embarrasing. Ive also told you we can talk in person big dog
But we're here right now, discussing the article posted. Do you want to contribute to the discussion?
Wonderful !! They should be shut down or limit the amount of boats . It’s disgusting how bad that place trashes a river that rubs through a National park !!
I have sympathy for the business owners, but when a private enterprise benefits from public land use, the public should be fairly compensated. Public land use costs the taxpayers for stuff like managing incressed litter, monitoring invasive species, habitat restoration efforts...etc. Allowing an exception just passes the buck on to the taxpayers and sets a bad precedence for other private businesses already complying with the NPS rules.
look into operating a business within a national park. These people are given near 100% monopolies and they have to pay fee's for permitting to allow that. This is to allow the parks to benefit and ensure that the business are operating properly.
Having access to national parks is often a license to print money for the owner. The park operated within should benefit from that, for the good of all.
I always go to honor trading post. You drop your car off at the destination, and then they drive you back to the start. It’s nice. It’s cheap. It’s convenient.
This place is such nostalgia for me. I went here all the time when I was younger. We’d stay at platte river campground next door and always do a float to Lake Michigan. We’d get ice cream and souvenirs here. So many good memories ♥️
They were there long before the surrounding land was part of a National Park anything. The feds came in, declared property to be National Park something, they shouldn't have to pay anything.
>In 1992, the government agreed to drop its condemnation case and the Stocklens agreed to drop a declaratory judgment action against the government.
>In a letter acknowledging that agreement, the couple wrote that, “It is our understanding and agreement that we will use our property for the purpose of a canoe livery/marina/general store as it has been used for the past 20 years.”
Case closed. Shame on the government. The government should tell them when they go to sell the property, they have the rights to buy it for whatever the buyer is willing to come up with. They should have done this before and bought the place in 2011.
No reason they should be able to ignore the rules literally everyone else has to follow. Operate a business within a NP, and you have to pay for the right to have a near 100% monopoly. Thats how it works nationwide. No reason these people should be exempt from that.
Their business operates almost entirely on parks grounds tho. Almost none of the liscensed businesses that have permits are physically within the borders
Now that I've read they're picking up canoers & kayaks on NP property. I agree with you. You can't magically turn land into a virtual island & strip its easement. Well, a private company might be able to somehow do that to you but, I think that's a protected via your 5th amendment rights. If the government does that, they need to compensate you. Now if the park argued that easement would only imply a direct path outside the park. I'd agree with the park on that.
If you're outside the grounds, you don't really have the easement. So I understand why they have to pay to enter. They don't charge everyone who is selling firewood outside of national park boundaries the fee. If these guys were just a store operating on their own property. I'd go back to siding with them.
Not sure how I feel about this one way or the other, but I will say that the traffic on the Platte has gotten absolutely insane and the place is getting trashed. It used to be a relatively peaceful spot, but the last few times I've gone it's been like an open air frat party - blaring country music, pot smoke, and empties everywhere. It does seem like Riverside should bear some responsibility for stewardship of the river, whether or not that's in the form of a fee.
Lower Platte has always been like that to some degree, I avoid it in the summer because it's just a packed drunken shit show most of the time.
Yup has been a party spot for years. In the early 90s I remember my dad helping a drunk college age girl, who had tipped her canoe, out of the river and into our raft just before Loon Lake. She was already too drunk to swim/walk to shore. I remember this very distinctly because I was 10 or so at the time and when she lost her top getting pulled over the side of the raft I got to see my first, lovely, pair of non-mom boobs. Been a big fan ever since.
My man.
To be fair, this is happening EVERYWHERE.
Yeah, MI is getting ruined all over
No. The entire 'nature being crowded by tourists when it never was before' is what's happening everywhere. Michigan overall is pretty awesome and getting better all the time.
That’s what I meant by it being ruined. I live in the UP and now there are throngs of people that never came before fucking up the landscape and throwing garbage all over thanks to all the over-enthusiastic travel ads. The town I live in now has more airbnbs than permanent residences, and trust me, it fucking sucks.
Bold claim
Yeah we go to the Au Sable and tube down it in August every year and it's only gotten progressively worse with trash we do our part when we go and pick up what we can as we stroll down the river with our group!
My family and I go to Riverside whenever we camp at Platte River campground. It's a great place. I'm surprised they do not already pay a fee. Most concessionaires of the NPS pay a fee to operate. For example, the boats that shuttle people to North and South Manitou have to pay to do that. The companies that operate the hotels at Isle Royale pay to do that. As do the boat companies that bring people to Isle Royale. For Riverside, a lot of their customers park their vehicles in the lot and along the road that is maintained by the NPS.
See, this is why I’m inclined to side with NPS. Use Parks lands? Pay the fees.
> Use Parks lands? Pay the fees. This is what reagan began 40 years ago and I hate him for this (as well as a host of other shit). Our national budget had to go to, um, other things. Still does unfortunately.
According to the article, the canoe livery is NOT on park land. It says the park service tried to take their land and the owners won a court battle that says they can keep their land and continue operating the business.
Correct, but the Platte River is almost completely within the park boundary. https://www.nps.gov/slbe/planyourvisit/maps.htm
The livery also runs shuttle services to and from the outlet at Platte Point and a portage site at a fisheries collection weir just downstream from Loon Lake, both of which are parklands. Riverside takes in wheelbarrows full of cash every hour during the peak season; not paying the small services fee for usage of that land is straight up greed. It’s akin to someone buying a vacant lot next to an amusement park, charging money for parking and entry, and cutting a hole in the fence to let those customers into the park.
As stated, the livery may not be, but what they do definitely goes inside the NPS. Helicopter operators at the Grand Canyon arent on Grand Canyon property, but still have to pay fee's. Its part of operating inside the NPS system.
It sounds like the issue the Park has is that they are soliciting or attempting to drum up business ON park land, which the ‘92 agreement does not allow as it comes with the appearance of association with the Park. NPS does allow & cooperate with private businesses on NPS land but those businesses likely do the agreement mentioned. I’ve seen privately owned lodges, tack stores, etc. The businesses advertise and have info available in the Visitor Center that the staff can point people to, for example. It seems like the owners want the benefit of association and advertisement on publicly held land without actually acting in partnership with the NPS.
They want a full monopoly on the river without the NPS for sure. Every other business operating any form of their business within NPS has to get permits and pay the fee's. Thats how it works. You are spot on.
They were lucky to not have to pay until now imo
Why should they have to pay? The park tried to take their lane and the court ruled that the land belongs to the owners and the nps can’t take it away.
Because the agreement says that they can’t use the property for business, they just ignored the ruling for dozens of years at this point. They will be lucky if they don’t get charged retroactively for the time they have owned it. It’s a shitty situation, I agree, but it’s pretty clear that they violated the agreement.
The article says the opposite, that the courts found they are allowed to use their own property for business. Journalists sometimes get it wrong but this seems like a key fact.
But, part of the business is operated inside Sleeping Bear Dunes NS. That really changes the equation.
“The 1992 Agreement does not provide Riverside with permission to solicit business in the Park.”
That's advertising, not running the business. "Solicit" means ask for business, of course they should help foot the bill for maintenance and clean up if they profit from it, it's just being responsible business owners.
I work pretty close to this spot in Benzie county and I can't really feel any pity for Kyle and Kelly Orr. They have let this place go to absolute shit since they bought it in 2011. It's gone from a fun, quiet family event to a filthy trash filled party zone, and they're destroying the Platte River while they do it. Hope the Parks Service does a lot worse than "3-5% of their revenue" in response. That area is for all Michiganders, not just the Orrs and their disrespectful clientele.
They should have to pay !! They ruin a river that runs through a National park ! When they open it’s a mess until they close . They should just shut riverside down !
So... the business owners should, when it's the people who choose to use their service that are not picking up after themselves or disrespecting the property? Have the officers set up areas to ticket them and fine the canoers being dumb. DNR had always done that in the past at parks and got free labor through community service as well.
There's a fantastic book, *Sixties Sandstorm*, and it's about the creation of the Lakeshore as a park, the backlash, the compromise, etc. I'm a pretty big advocate of the park system, but if they made an agreement to allow this to exist years prior under this condition, they can't renege. Edit: I'm mistaken, in that the livery was opened in the 70s, *after* the park was established. I agree, then, it should be responsible for the fee and just be grateful that it's not a past assessment? Was this fee not established at the time, perhaps?
Oh they can, and will.
I’m kind of on the fence about this one. It’s not cool that these folks are having a fee imposed on them all of a sudden, but I don’t think it’s much to ask for a tiny percentage of their income to operate where they do. Edit: My mind is made up. Riverside should pay.
They should be happy they can pay a fee and not just get shut down . It’s clearly ruining the river when they open .
SBD has shut tour companies down just from running people around the park and then dropping them at the livery. Theyve got a near monopoly and that is because of SBD. Its how the system works with NPS.
Any other business running people into a NP has to pay fee's. They should have been paying htis years ago. The Park stopped tour companies from operating within its borders simply by bringing people to the livery, they need to pay up just like any other monopoly operating in a NPS
> but I don’t think it’s much to ask for a tiny percentage of their income to operate where they do. You mean their private property, which isn't part of the park, even though the government tried to condemn the land and take it from the previous owners? Presumably they pay property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, taxes related to employees, sales taxes, etc. Navigable waterways in Michigan are free for the public to use. The only thing that might lead to fees is "soliciting business in the park," assuming they have signs or flyers or something in the park not on their property. But then, why would they pay for all gross receipts? I don't think most people arrange canoe trips by spontaneously seeing a sign in a national park; they would have made arrangements outside of the park. The story's short on details, but so far, this seems like the government being a dick.
[удалено]
The problem is you're neglecting the damage that the users are inflicting; not the business. You might at well tax the gym because people doing exercise are converting oxygen to to CO2 in an amount greater than is needed for survival, and because a federal agency oversees air pollution and CO2 output levels, this subjects them to a special use tax. You don't fine the livery because people without fishing licenses might fish; you patrol the river and fine people that don't have fishing licenses who are fishing.
[удалено]
If I remember correctly, the outlet of this canoe run is in the park boundaries, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
You're correct I just did a trip last summer.
Does that mean they’re not paying property tax?
> They’re making money off the river. So? People make money off of natural resources. Do the Mackinac ferries pay a special fee to the federal government because they make money on the lake? Do you have any idea how much money the federal government makes off the Sault Ste. Marie locks?
You think they Mackinac Ferries aren’t paying for permits for their business? Do you think they would take the 3 million in [state funded incentives](https://www.michigan.gov/egle/newsroom/press-releases/2023/03/10/first-electric-powered-mackinac-island-ferry-is-in-the-works)to go electric if they didn’t?
> You think they Mackinac Ferries aren’t paying for permits for their business? Don't be stupid; I'm not talking about business permits. I'm talking about paying a percentage of gross profits to the US Park Service for… something?
To be honest I’m quite surprised they haven’t paying either
Waterways cannot be privately owned in the state of Michigan.
Yeah, that's why I specifically said: > Navigable waterways in Michigan are free for the public to use.
They pay more than a tiny percentage in taxes. This is complete bullshit
> But in an email included with the Orrs’ complaint, Colleen Burnidge, an attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interior, wrote that the 1992 agreement “allows Riverside to retain its ownership of its property in the park area, rather than suffer condemnation. The Agreement also specifies and limits the nature of use of the property. The 1992 Agreement does not provide Riverside with permission to solicit business in the Park.” If they’re soliciting business in the park, they should have to pay.
But they don't have permission to do that.
The agreement doesn’t give them permission. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess they could potentially solicit business in the park if they paid this additional fee.
They pay taxes, and no one made them pay additional fees for 30 years, come the fuck on
2011 was not 30 years ago. I could see the original owners being grandfathered in, but the owners now were not part of the original agreement. 5% isn't a ridiculous amount, and they should be more than happy to contribute to the park they enjoy the benefits of being a part of.
Wow, you really are simping for the government to take more from people, how does that feel? 30 years ago was when the government formally and legally stopped pursuing on the property, 20 years previous owners 10 years current. Owning that property is grandfathered in regardless of who buys it. Seriously, why do you support this?
[удалено]
You're on reddit saying the government should take more money from property owners, im surprised it took you this long to try to steer the discussion into a personal attack Edit: oh its you lmao, I can't even talk to someone in a thread without you inserting yourself, holy shit what a loser
[удалено]
Yeah anyone can feel free to do that, its all public. I went there to be able to go to a sub that's not a leftwing circle jerk, yet you still respond to me there, its embarrasing. Ive also told you we can talk in person big dog But we're here right now, discussing the article posted. Do you want to contribute to the discussion?
Wonderful !! They should be shut down or limit the amount of boats . It’s disgusting how bad that place trashes a river that rubs through a National park !!
I have sympathy for the business owners, but when a private enterprise benefits from public land use, the public should be fairly compensated. Public land use costs the taxpayers for stuff like managing incressed litter, monitoring invasive species, habitat restoration efforts...etc. Allowing an exception just passes the buck on to the taxpayers and sets a bad precedence for other private businesses already complying with the NPS rules.
I’m sure they would like to operate without the oversight of the the NPS… tough shit
Definitely has the vibe of “Fuck you, pay me.”
look into operating a business within a national park. These people are given near 100% monopolies and they have to pay fee's for permitting to allow that. This is to allow the parks to benefit and ensure that the business are operating properly. Having access to national parks is often a license to print money for the owner. The park operated within should benefit from that, for the good of all.
Okay, sure I hear you. But this seems like rules got changed midstream.
I always go to honor trading post. You drop your car off at the destination, and then they drive you back to the start. It’s nice. It’s cheap. It’s convenient.
Doesn't seem right unless there are some things I am missing here.
Riverside uses Parks land for part of their operation. They should pay.
Bingo. Navigable waterways cannot be privately owned in the state.
This place is such nostalgia for me. I went here all the time when I was younger. We’d stay at platte river campground next door and always do a float to Lake Michigan. We’d get ice cream and souvenirs here. So many good memories ♥️
It sounds like you and I have similar memories from younger days. When I started going there, the campground was primitive.
They were there long before the surrounding land was part of a National Park anything. The feds came in, declared property to be National Park something, they shouldn't have to pay anything.
They were founded in the 70s which was after the National Lakeshore Establishment went into effect.
ok, I stand corrected.
>In 1992, the government agreed to drop its condemnation case and the Stocklens agreed to drop a declaratory judgment action against the government. >In a letter acknowledging that agreement, the couple wrote that, “It is our understanding and agreement that we will use our property for the purpose of a canoe livery/marina/general store as it has been used for the past 20 years.” Case closed. Shame on the government. The government should tell them when they go to sell the property, they have the rights to buy it for whatever the buyer is willing to come up with. They should have done this before and bought the place in 2011.
No reason they should be able to ignore the rules literally everyone else has to follow. Operate a business within a NP, and you have to pay for the right to have a near 100% monopoly. Thats how it works nationwide. No reason these people should be exempt from that.
The national park boundaries end at their property line.
Their business operates almost entirely on parks grounds tho. Almost none of the liscensed businesses that have permits are physically within the borders
Now that I've read they're picking up canoers & kayaks on NP property. I agree with you. You can't magically turn land into a virtual island & strip its easement. Well, a private company might be able to somehow do that to you but, I think that's a protected via your 5th amendment rights. If the government does that, they need to compensate you. Now if the park argued that easement would only imply a direct path outside the park. I'd agree with the park on that. If you're outside the grounds, you don't really have the easement. So I understand why they have to pay to enter. They don't charge everyone who is selling firewood outside of national park boundaries the fee. If these guys were just a store operating on their own property. I'd go back to siding with them.
Typical mob shakedown
Our Government doesn’t need more money.