The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians added another plaintiff and defendant Friday to its search to stop the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ South Fox Island land exchange.
The exchange would be between the state and landowner David Johnson.
The amendment to the lawsuit named Johnson, an MSU alumnus, and his Mirada Ranch as defendants and the Michigan Land Use Institute as co-plaintiff in the tribal group’s lawsuit.
The changes came from a recommendation by Circuit Judge Thomas G. Power, the county judge who ruled on the injunction hearing, planner for the institute, Jim Lively said.
“We’re not out trying to get Johnson, we understand he has a right to ask for whatever he wants,”he said. “Who we’re disappointed in is the DNR.”
Mirada Ranch and Johnson are looking for an end to the issue, which has gone on too long, vice president of Mirada Ranch Cameron Piggott said.
“The exchange clearly benefits the public so that’s not only the feeling of Mirada Ranch, but also the feeling of the DNR and many other people,” he said.
The institute will serve as a representative of Michigan residents, Lively said.
“If you don’t have the facts, the hard research that says this is a fair trade, then you probably should be listening to the public,” he said.
The 400-acre land exchange was approved in December by DNR director K.L. Cool after a failed federal land exchange.
Shortly after the approval the tribal group filed paperwork for a temporary stop to the exchange, which was denied, and a permanent end, which both parties are preparing for court.
In the lawsuit the plaintiffs make two claims: that the land exchange is not equitable and that the land to be received by the state has property claims that cloud ownership and violate state law.
“It’s not as if we were just trading 200 acres for 200 acres of maples,” Lively said. “The state didn’t do any analysis of the natural resources on the land.”
The DNR disputes the claim the state would lose valuable natural resources in the exchange.
The exchange was favored by the agency because it simplified confusing property lines and provided easier public access, said Brad Wurfel, DNR spokesman.
“Clearly it is (equitable) or we would not be going to court,” he said.
The lawsuit’s second concern may prove a bit more ambiguous.
The attorney general’s office is also looking into property claims.
“(The DNR’s) decision is going to be influenced by what we tell our client on the title issue,” Assistant Attorney General John Mack said. “And I don’t know how that’s going to play out.”
