More than a dozen Muskegon residents and local stakeholders filled the commission chamber and phoned in to press competing views on a proposed land-swap and development that would alter waterfront access at Fisherman’s Landing and the 3rd Street Wharf.

Opponents — including long‑time campers and nearby residents — said the proposal risks eliminating Fisherman’s Landing campground, transferring maintenance and contamination liability to taxpayers, and lacks binding commitments from the private partner. Lisa Beal, who said she has worked at the campground’s office for eight seasons, told the commission the plan “would eliminate the campground” and close amenities such as the pavilion and dump station, and questioned why pre‑COVID 2020 foot‑traffic data had been cited to justify the change.

Supporters, including the CEO of Greater Muskegon Economic Development and downtown business owners, said the swap would “reclaim shoreline,” increase public access and catalyze private investment. Trevor Friedeberg urged the commission to “seize this rare moment” to connect downtown to the lakefront; Jamie Cross, representing neighborhood interests, said the additional Verplank purchase makes the concept more attractive as a long‑term economic and environmental opportunity.

City staff and the city manager outlined the updated agreement terms. The draft provides a two‑payment structure tied to appraised values: an initial payment to reimburse the city’s acquisition of the 3rd Street parcel and a second payment described as a prepaid lease that effectively purchases the conversion property. The agreement includes a 50‑year lease for the campground with an optional 40‑year extension and three structured options for obtaining the conversion parcel (mutual purchase with the developer, a city unilateral purchase that would require greater upfront funds, or a later developer purchase with a five‑year repurchase window for the city under an early‑termination fee). Assistant city counsel clarified the deed mechanics would ensure the city is the fee‑simple owner of the full parcel in the third option, and the city would pay a pro‑rata early‑termination amount to reclaim the 25‑acre park portion.

Commissioners repeatedly asked for more concrete fiscal detail, remediation plans and explicit written commitments before voting. Several speakers and commissioners pressed for specifics on remediation oversight (whether EGLE has been involved), cost estimates for dredging and cleanup, and how revenue‑sharing or grant funds would cover remediation and long‑term maintenance.

No final vote on the land‑swap occurred. The manager said the item is expected to return for further consideration at the Dec. 9 general session; staff was asked to provide additional fiscal comparisons, grant and remediation status, and clearer draft contract language before that date.

The public comment record gathered during the meeting — both written forms and phone comments — will be part of the commission’s packet for future discussion.