Ft. Gratiot Transfer Put on Hold

by **NoahG** » Thu May 07, 2009 11:55 pm

http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs ... ckcomments

Yup........

by **Grover1** » Fri May 08, 2009 2:55 am

Trying to be prudent in difficult times ...

I only passed through once and am not all that familiar with the area but perhaps the answer could be a cooperative regional (rather than just Port Huron) approach coupled with some sort of corporate partnership ... Seven structures seems a rather large burden to place just on Port Huron

The article implied "negotiation" is possible. The article said this has been going on near six years. Maybe we see it in our lifetime ... or maybe our children will

by **LighthouseNews** » Fri May 08, 2009 5:42 am

Where in the NHLPS transfer requirements and deed does it give a timeline? It doesn't. They've already blown a $400,000 grant that was just awaiting the transfer, and what about the $27,000 recently raised in the fundraiser?

The city manager appears to be clueless and bull-headed. Reading through the comments on the site, the majority seem to feel the same way (strangely enough considering Michigan's economic state).

I don't believe the NPS will "renegotiate" the terms of the deed. And there should be no reason to do so. The lighthouse can be repaired immediately, and the other buildings put on hold until further funding becomes available.

On the one hand we've got Emmett County returning a lighthouse to its original state and into public use, and then we have Port Huron, who is refusing to accept their historical gem. :roll:

by **NoahG** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:44 am

The biggest problem I've seen is the scare tactic use of the $4 Million dollar mark. That's obviously a 10 - 15 year plan. I don't try to name drop but the PHM Director is a close family friend of ours and he is very realistic about the economic situation of Michigan and what Port Huron is capable of. Historic preservation is possible even in these times, but I preach to the choir here, and thus I digress...

It is rather interesting the dichotomy between Emmet County and Port Huron. It's frustrating to no end.

by **NoahG** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:21 am

A note about the other buildings. The housing on site is currently home to Coast Guard families. The museum has no problem with their continued residency in the houses after the transfer, as they would provide for a pair of eyes as well as someone to care for the houses interim. I'm not sure the sticky details but its a possibility.

by **NoahG** » Sun May 10, 2009 10:50 am

An Editorial was published a few days ago:
http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs ... 9905080311

by **Grover1** » Sun May 10, 2009 11:56 am

A wise thought expressed in the editorial ...

Neighboring townships and county government might help, too. If rescuing the lighthouse isn't a goal worthy of regional cooperation, then what is?

A wise thought expressed in this very thread ...

... perhaps the answer could be a cooperative regional (rather than just Port Huron) approach coupled with some sort of corporate partnership ... Seven structures seems a rather large burden to place just on Port Huron

by **Grover1** » Wed May 13, 2009 5:59 am

From the "Talk to Me" column of The Times Herald

Greg from Port Huron: "Concerning the lighthouse restoration: Why doesn't the city ask for volunteers to do some of this work? I know I would. I know there is some work that needs to be done by professionals. But some can be done by anyone with a little guidance."

by **Terry_Pepper** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:18 am

Frustrated museum officials seek new partner after City rejects deed:

05/14/09 Port Huron Times Herald article:
http://www.thetimesherald.com:80/article/20090514/NEWS01/905170301/-1/NEWSFRONT2/Museum+seeks+new+partner

by **NoahG** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:10 pm

Ok, so is there, or is there not, a restoration timetable mandated by the government? A lot of people seem to think their is.

by **Terry_Pepper** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:42 pm

None of the NHLPA deeds that I have seen contain any temporal restrictions. Unless something has changed very recently. From my experience, the only way that there would be a timetable would be if the group which applied for the lighthouse laid out a very specific timetable in their proposal, which was then echoed in the deed.

I will see what specifics I can find out about the Fort Gratiot deed tomorrow.

by **Terry_Pepper** » Fri May 15, 2009 12:24 pm

I made a call to the GSA today, and it appears there are indeed time stipulations in the deed prepared by the GSA. These stipulations were carried through onto the deed only because they were part of the original NHLPA application. I have as yet been unable to obtain a copy of the deed itself, but am still awaiting a phone call from another party, and hope to have a copy in my hands within the next couple of days.

I am very familiar with the deeds the GSA prepared for the Cheboygan River Front Range Light and the St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) lighthouse, and can report that were no such time stipulations included in the NHLPA applications for these two lights, and as such there were none carried through into the GSA's deeds. There is a definite lesson to be learned here by any entity applying for a lighthouse under the auspices of the Act.

I will post later when I am able to shed more light on this continuing, and unfortunate, situation.

by **LighthouseNews** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:08 pm

Terry,

I appreciate your taking the time to look into this. I'm curious if the GSA will enforce that part of the contract. Please keep up posted.

by **NoahG** » Fri May 15, 2009 2:21 pm

That's incredible. Never have I heard of any NHLPA contract having a binding time table. Me and Lighthousenews might be eating our words..

by **LighthouseNews** » Sun May 17, 2009 5:06 pm

Museum still says the timeline is "fluid."

Anyway, editorial in PH Times Herald:

Lighthouse Better Off With County

If St. Clair County is indeed offering to step up, I would think the switch would need to be approved with the GSA and/or NPS. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ft. Gratiot Transfer Put on Hold

Who is online