We’re engaged in a great debate in the Township about who we want to be. We’re pretty sure we want to “maintain our rural character,” and as the designated Character of suburban Eastport, I am glad to hear it. But what does that mean exactly? A community of lakefront retreats? An agricultural horn o’ plenty? An enchanted forest? A small town without a town? An assisted living facility? A place where we can keep horses in the back yard? Or boats? Or a woodworking shop? Gravel roads past orchards? Asphalt roads past lawns? Sandy two-tracks through the woods? And what about the highway? A commercial artery? A parkway? The fastest way from Traverse City to Petoskey?
The whole Grand Vision process radiated out from Traverse City, with focus groups and colorful maps and game pieces representing commercial centers and forests, highrises and farms. The Township Board is getting ready to do another survey. The Recreation Committee is supposed to come up with a Recreation Plan. The Planning Commission is reviewing every section of the Zoning Ordinance. The business development group is trying to get a handle on building better mousetraps. We’re all in a frenzy of asking each other what we think about practically everything. So I thought I’d ask you, and that guy over there, and a couple of other people, what you think is important about the Township, and write about it on Torch Lake Views. Maybe we can have a quiet little conversation about who we think we are, and should be, and might be, given half a chance. Consider it a Modest Vision. Stay tuned.
Torch Lake Views 
George Watkins
March 27, 2009
I think we are already, in many ways an attractive, healthy, progressive and cohesive community, but we must always strive to improve our vision for the future.
I believe that Torch Lake Township should always work to preserve its natural scenic beauty, have a business-friendly attitude, promote our exceptional agricultural resources, and build a strong sense of community to create a high quality of life for all residents and visitors. The people, businesses and government of the Township should work together to create opportunities for recreation, social interaction, jobs, education, and beautification.
Gerry
March 27, 2009
Good morning, George! Thanks for taking part in the conversation. The question I’m raising, really, is whether we can arrive at a consensus on what constitutes “scenic beauty” or “business friendliness.” How do we reconcile competing visions when they bump up against each other? I thought I’d start with what we like about us and the land we live on. So – what are your personal two or three favorite things about Torch Lake Township? Be specific.
George Watkins
March 27, 2009
Thanks for the note, Gerry. I don’t believe that “scenic beauty” and “business friendliness” have to be competing visions. Yes, I do think that their can be a natural tension between the two, but properly managed with good sound community planning can help preserve the rural character of the Township.
Increasing economic development and maintaining and/or improving the quality of life for Torch Lake Township residents go hand in hand. I maintain that the residents of the Township always want improved services (i.e. Eastport Market, Sonny’s Market) to increase their quality of life. Attracting clean low impact businesses to the area will also help address the employment needs of our residents.
My three favorite things about Torch Lake Township are:
• The extensive woodland and open space, wildlife diversity, and the abundant supplies of clean water and air;
• The large number of active farms, the amount of acreage and the excellent farm markets;
• And, a strong sense of community.
Gerry
March 27, 2009
You’re welcome, George. I see I wasn’t clear. I meant there are competing visions of scenic beauty (manicured parkland, deep woods or cherry orchard?) and there are also competing visions of business friendliness.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think we, as a community, have a working definition of “rural character.” Most of us, I’m pretty sure, would say that we value the “rural character” of Torch Lake Township. We tell the Planning Commission that’s what we want. We all nod our heads earnestly and go home, secure in the knowledge that we have defined the goal . . . leaving the poor Planning Commission to tend to the devil entrenched in the details.
I like your favorite things. Here are some of mine:
Breakfast at Sonny’s
Walking for miles on the shore of Grand Traverse Bay
Watching the shifting blues of Torch Lake
Eating the Kings’ peaches and apricots and apples and Seth Merrifield’s blackberries and corn and the Romeyns’ peas and kale and potatoes and Sonny’s Swedish potato sausage and – well, you get the idea
Being able to see the stars – lots and lots of them
peculiarhabitats
March 28, 2009
Torch Lake Township is all of those things, and more. In many ways, the Township is defined by its physical location situated between Lake Michigan and Torch Lake. The lakes are a major factor that defines what Torch Lake Township is today, and of course, what it will always be in future.
People will also continue to define what Torch Lake Township is and will be. Recognition must be given not only to the people who live in the Township today, but also to those who will live there in the future, and the many visitors who swim, boat, golf, and play in the Township. Oftentimes, visioning or master planning sessions look inward, inadvertantly forgetting the assets that attract people to the area.
The three things that I like about Torch Lake Township:
1) Access to water
2) Access to wooded areas, parks, and trails
3) Scenic drives where I can see grazing cows and Lake Michigan
Gerry
March 28, 2009
Thanks for adding another perspective, Peculiar. You raise an important issue. We are Locals and Perma-Fudge (year-round people further divided into retirees and younger families still in the workforce), Summer People (Township property owners who live in Florida or other warm places over the winter), Tourists (valued visitors like you) and Guest Workers (valued seasonal help in our agricultural enterprises).
There’s a lot of overlap, and we often like the same things – but there are clearly competing interests, too. For example, there are people who tell the Planning Commission that they do not want to attract people to the area, on the grounds that there are quite enough people here already. There are others who say that they do not have children in the local schools and deeply resent the taxes they pay to support those schools. Pity the poor Planning Commission having to reconcile these points of view with those of tourism-dependent business owners and parents of school-aged children!
From my perspective, visioning and master planning sessions in northern Michigan generally begin with the assumption that tourism is the driving force of the economy, and that investment in infrastructure to support the year-round enterprises and families is sometimes given short shrift. But I think all of us are committed to protecting our water resources, our woodlands, and our pretty scenery. Of course, one person’s lovely view is another person’s idea of the perfect place for a new condo development.
peculiarhabitats
March 29, 2009
Oh yeah, there is overlap, big time. And in fact, there will always be competing interests. There’s not much the Planning Commission can do (there are also other agencies – and of course – citizens, elected officials, and other community leaders who contribute to the development of the “community” as well) beyond accepting this fact and trying their best to balance competing interests. This may seem like a cop out, but for any Planning Commission, the Master Plan is their guide, and the decisions a Planning Commission makes – whether site plan review approvals or rezonings – should be based (not wholly, but should be used in conjunction with the zoning ordinance) on the document. Not sure what’s going on in your neck of the woods, but good luck.