Save Our Pocket Park speaks at Michigamme Township board meeting

MICHIGAMME — Members of the group Save Our Pocket Park in Michigamme gathered Monday evening to protest the park’s potential sale and to voice their opinion to the township board. 

A citizen recently purchased a piece of property adjacent to Pocket Park, which overlooks Lake Michigamme. The Michigamme Township Board is currently investigating whether or not the park can be sold to that individual.

Save Our Pocket Park is made up of people in the community who want the park to remain public property. They rallied Monday night at the park before the township board’s scheduled meeting to show the board how many people are against the private sale of the park.

“We’re going to speak during public comment and make our voices heard,” said Save Our Pocket Park member Jerry Roach. “We have some information for the board that we’re going to share, and we hope that they will see that it makes sense to keep the park.”

Despite a formal request to put this matter on the evening’s township board agenda, Pocket Park was not listed as a topic of discussion for the board. When members of Save Our Pocket Park saw that their concerns were not being addressed in the next board meeting, they decided to speak before the board themselves.

Several people prepared statements on why the park should not be sold, what the park means to them, and their disappointment at the park not being addressed by the board at Monday’s meeting.

“My granddaughter is the seventh generation in my family from Michigamme,” said Save Our Pocket Park member Larry Frisk. “We have used this public space for 147 years, and I do not want to see this given away to an individual where we’d never ever be able to use it again. I’d like to see another seven generations from my family use this. We’re not here to make enemies. We’re just trying to conserve a little bit of green space in the center of town where people can walk to and access this lake.”

William Seppanen, Michigamme Township Supervisor, says that the matter is still under investigation by the board. He did not reply to any of the statements made during the public comment portion of the board meeting, saying the board usually does not do that for any issue.