Welcome to the Long Beach Town Crier!

Welcome to the Long Beach Town Crier!




If you have something to sell or looking to buy just go to the RONNIE's page and enter a comment about what you have for sale or are looking for. Remember, one person's trash may very well be another's treasure!

This blog is intended to be a means of sharing information, ideas and thoughts about our great community and to just have FUN. To make this a "live or virtual" newsletter I encourage readers to share their thoughts, news that may be funny or serious and tell us about upcoming events.

This is not a vehicle to gain internet data or cookies etc. from our visitors. The design and oversight of this site is being done by a Long Beach resident. If you have a topic that you would like to share and have discussed, make a comment in the "Sound Off" or Community Fridge Notes" sections. You can also email me at longbeach24@yahoo.com . A "posting" or "comment" can be added under an anonymous name if so desired.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

"Sound Off" Corner ...

I would like to share my thoughts and ideas with you.  Please see my comment ,,,

156 comments:

  1. Just watched the Town Council meeting in Feb and it is clear Byvoet was the bully at the meeting. He does not have his facts straight. He said the homes on LSD do not meet the new floodplain rules...totally false. The elevations for the homes are above the requirements.Not even close. Byvoet recommends a new building commissioner who is a builder...what a conflict. He is on the witch hunt for the lot coverage rule of 35%. Again misleading. Take the legal description for the lots and all the new homes are less than 35% coverage. Seems like Town Council member Byvoet should be more careful with his statements and know the facts...and not mislead the public.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our building oversight process has been a disgrace for the last twelve years. At the February 2014 commission meeting Mr. Fifthian read the minutes of the previous building commission meeting. The amazing fact was the last public meeting was April of 2013. Does this mean that the commission conducted its business behind closed doors or did they never meet. In the same February meeting, Fithian stated that the previous building commissioner never approved building permits. Then who was signing building permits? A screwed up system has existed for a long time and this must be corrected. In 2002, the building code was amended to allow homes to be taller. Who was the planning commission head, a contractor who has built many of these monster homes. Mr Angelo, why were you not squacking about the fox in the chicken coop then? Not sure how you feel, but I know who I am holding responsible for our building oversight issues. Non-existent leadership at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So what "awful decisions" has Mr. Fithian made that:

    1) Violate our current codes and ordinances?

    2) Adversely affect any property owner in Long Beach?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish building requests were discussed and approved in regularly scheduled public meetings.

      Delete
    2. TOTALLY AGREE...lets work toward that goal !

      Delete
  4. Yesterday's meeting it was suggested that the stop 31 issue be tabled due to new information presented at meeting. It was voted down by Mr. McDonald, Mr. Schaeffer and Dr. Angelo. After the meeting I asked Schaeffer why could this not be tabled with this new information coming to light. I was told very emphatically "I have all the information." These meetings are a farce. Dr, Angelo,Mr. Schaeffer and Mr. McDonald's for some reason their minds are made up before discussions even happens.
    My question is has there ever been an issue where these three men have not all voted the same way? If so please respond to this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peggy, Pat McDonald should recuse himself from any vote that appears to be sympathetic with county's desire as in this case at 31. He has zoning issues with the county on the parcel he owns on Mich. Blvd. right? How can he pretend to be independent?

      Delete
  5. Can someone tell me when the corporate boundaries of Long Beach came to include the beachside of Stop 30 and now all the way into Stop 31??? The hillside and interior of 30 were always in Long Beach. I have an aerial from the assessor's office dated 1998 that shows this to be true. What did I and how did I miss this annexation? Folks better government groups have rated the licensing and regulations of surveyors in Indiana as an "F". It seems like the lines on properties and now the town change depending on whoever is paying the surveyor. Anyways, back to my question, does anyone know when these lines all changed????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. And it seems to me that Jane is the only one asking questions about all of this. If you were at the town council meeting earlier this month you will see that the strongest case the builder's attorney could make is that prior owner's at Stop 31 had been assigned to LB community center polling place. What about LB residents that were assigned to Pott Park last election. Is there property now in Pott Park? And yet McDonald, Schaeffer and Angelo seem to take it all in as if it the Word of God. Are any members of the town council conflicted with respect to the attorney representing the builder?

      Delete
  6. It astounds me how this town jumps when a contractor snaps his fingers. It should be the other way around where we hold the contractors to the highest standards possible and things will not be rushed for their benefit.

    Keep in mind that many of the new homes going up are spec houses.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you talk to LaPorte County Contractors and Builders....many will tell you without pause that Long Beach is now an easy target....they feel that $ gets you in and then the rest is mcmansion history.....but all that is about to come to a screeching halt.....as we speak. new building commission appointees are gearing up to work with a new building commissioner that will be chosen soon from several qualified applicants.
    The news is good

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here is another failure to communicate on part of town.. Obviously, there is a delay in leaf pick-up which was previously mandated by Pat McDonald that we had to have leaves out by the street Easter weekend (nearly two weeks ago). Now the leaves are blowing everywhere including back into everyone's yards. So why not post an explanation on the website? Why not have an electronic newsletter where by e-mail we could get updates on items such as this or other items? Why are there repeated failures to communicate by this town and its employees and administrators????

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you can respond with an e-mail to tolbt@comcast.net with your name, I can add it to the small list that I already have in my town e-mail address book. Please encourage others who wish to get electronic e-blasts when we have town projects to send addresses to my town e-mail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Bill.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Bill, I think it is a great idea. Maybe you could ask water department to add to their monthly bills a note asking people to supply e-mail addresses. Thanks!

      Delete
  10. I see the local gas thieves have started there summer time weekend price jumps already!

    ReplyDelete
  11. download gasbuddy app on your phone. It will give you gas prices of all stations. Usually Family Express out on Johnson Road/20 has the lowest prices.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I need 'wallet buddy' to afford these prices!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't understand why some people take issue with people protecting their properties by building seawalls. As I watch the lake today with huge waves crashing on the beach I believe that if the lake levels were anywhere near they were in the eighties those without seawalls would be having a major problem. As for those who approve of the low and unobtrusive walls at Stop 20,21, I do not believe they will provide much protection from storms like today's if the lake levels were any higher.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It was mentioned at this week's meeting that two council members are being sued. It sounds like the legal action is directed at the two individuals and not at the Town. Which council members are involved? Who will pay their personal legal expenses, the taxpayers? Will we get some sunshine on this one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pete and Jane are being sued as individuals along with Jim Neulieb. The suit was filed by Oakley Home Builders. Pete, Jane and Schaefer voted to have the Town's counsel represent them. That fact plus the fact that Jane made the motion for the Town to pay for her personal suit is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the Town.
      Jane, Pete and Jim need to pull up their big boy and girl pants and defend themselves for the mess they've created personally. Oakley didn't due the Town.
      There's your sunshine since there isn't any coming from Jane.

      Delete
    2. The towns attorney determined they were acting in the capacity of a town official.

      Delete
    3. Total waste of time and a frivolous lawsuit. I wish there was some recourse against such foolishness.

      Not only a waste of money for the town taxpayers and the plaintiff, but a waste of time for the court as well.

      Delete
    4. Schaeffer, McDonald and Angelo will lay down for any builder as was evidenced by the Oakley matter and Stop 31 and.....That is the only reason they were not named in the suit. I'm glad to see that someone is standing up to the OUTSIDERS interested in a quick and a fast buck. We need three more candidates to ride tall with Pete and Jane.
      Stop 23 in Long Beach is now being referred to as "Schaumburg on the Lake" or "Schaumburg Beach" due to the densely packed cookie cutter Mcmansions slapped up on the shoreline.

      Delete
    5. Jane and Pete are doing exactly what they were elected to do. Thanks to these two for their stewardship of Long Beach.

      Delete
    6. Jane and Pete were elected to try and keep Oakley from taking over the private property they and their families used as their private beach without paying for it.

      Delete
    7. U are joking right what an ignorant comment No matter your personal prejudices....the town of Long Beach voters...your fellow citizens voted and the majority spoke.....peace

      Delete
  15. I am confused....What is going on with the seawall at Stop 20 or 21? I saw this seawall for the first time this morning and it is horrendously ugly. Is it possible that construction was stopped on the wall because of legal issues: I cant imagine a homeowner wanting that wall in his/her view. Does anyone have an objective understanding of the problems involved? Seems like summers beach problems are being revisited and I would like to hear both sides of the story



    ReplyDelete
  16. I heard that the old beach guy who has been at the center of the beach issue has filed another law suit in state court. I hope the "Alliance's" lawyer knows enough law to get it kicked up to the federal courts.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The same issue went to the supreme courts in Ohio and Michigan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A federal question is involved, and the case should be in federal court. I only hope that the Alliance's lawyer understands what I am talking about.

      Delete
    2. What is the federal question? Is if different in Ohio and Michigan? I thought that the state of Michigan has the longest coastline of any state and that all of its beaches were public.

      Delete
  18. I believe it is not Ethical for Jane and Peter to vote on a motion that pertains to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree - it seems an obvious conflict of interest . However the few - but very vocal will spin the truth till your head spins off.

      Delete
    2. !!? Really ? What planet do you live on LOL

      Delete
  19. Every city or town is negligent if they do not protect their elected officials. Who would ever run for elected office if every time someone didn't like their vote they would sue them? This is a democracy and must be protected from frivolous lawsuits to shut down the democratic process. Citizens elected them to do these actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with the statement above.

      Delete
    2. Considering the source (lawyer) of the lawsuit, it should come as no surprise. Even lawyers know who the bad seeds are amongst themselves. Oakley has found one of the worst.

      Delete
  20. If you are interested in asking the Long Beach Town Council to accept no compromise anything short of total removal of the improperly placed seawall at Stop 21 please consider signing the online petition by following this link:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petitions-to-remove-entire-seawall-at-2060

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interpreting the seawall is regulated by the View Ordance is pure Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the view. As long as the seawall is built above the HWM it is legal. Quite trying to practice law in Indiana without a license

      Delete
    2. Anyone who can read the English language is entitled to their opinion as to how a law should be viewed. Ultimately it is up to a trier of fact. In the meantime, having and expressing an opinion on a message board does not constitute the unlicensed practice of law, anywhere in the U.S.

      Delete
    3. DAmn once and for ALL,,,,THAT CRUMMY SEAWALL IS ON A HOME AT STOP 20 NOT 21....DONT PUT THAT ON US

      Delete
  21. Newspapers and all citizens have a friend in public servants like these two leaders recognized today, said Steve Key, HSPA executive director and general counsel.
    He added, “Town Councilwoman Neulieb embodies how local elected officials should conduct business: in full view of the friends and neighbors they serve.”
    I'm sure Jane will conduct herself in accordance with the O'Bannon Sunshine Award she received and recuse herself from voting on any issue pertaining to the Oakley case.
    http://www.hspa.com/two-receive-obannon-sunshine-awards/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You quote an article that is more that 14 months old. I'd be interested to know if Mr. Key has actually seen Mrs. Neulieb in action since he made that statement. Since "in full view" is the way he believes business should be conducted, how about Mrs. Neulieb release all of her correspondence since she was elected including communications using her husbands email? As far as her actual conduct at meetings she's been an embarrassment. She could use a refresher on Robert's Rules.

      Delete
    2. That is not the way recusal works. If so, it would allow any party to stack the jury by suing council people opposed to their agenda. Certainly, that can't be what Oakley planned.

      Delete
    3. Jane is doing a magnificent job. Just because she doesn't follow Robert's Rules of Order, doesn't mean she's not doing the right thing. We should have an ordinance that dissolves the council and puts Jane in charge of the town. Could this be done by acclamation? She should get a handsome salary to boot.

      Delete
  22. I am disappointed that council members Angelo, McDonald and swing vote Schaefer have let contractors walk all over them and the town. The sad part is they do not realize it. The town jumps when a contractor snaps their fingers. This is not the way it should be. I feel Jane and Pete have been trying to get it to the point where the town is in the drivers seat. Angelo and McDonald through their complancey and go with the flow approach to things.

    I would not be surprised if many of the negative comments written about Pete and Jane were authored by actual contractors. They do not want things to change.

    Thank you Pete and Jane for your efforts in making our Town better.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I would not be surprised to discover that the above positive comment thanking Pete and Jane as written by Pete and/or Jane.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This positive comment is by a resident of LB who found Pete's comments about the financial side of the town interesting. He mentioned that the town would be looking at the agreements for police protection for Duneland Beach and Michiana Shores. I was taken back by the costs he presented. The cost for police protection for LB residents is $510 per household whille Duneland Beach cost per house was $215 and Michiana came in at about $185. This is a huge differential, do they receive less coverage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if Pete can find out how much Michigan City police cost per household? Maybe it would be a lot less expensive to just become part of Michigan City.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Pete for this analysis and disclosure. And at what cost to LB residents is this expanded coverage is the other side of the coin. I called in a suspicious character last summer and after 10 minutes called again and when the police showed up a total of over 20 minutes after my first call I was told he was patrolling in Duneland/Michiana that is why it took so long. My neighbors returned and their garage had been broken into with tools taken.

      On a related note, the only time I see the police is when they are parked on Karwick trying to catch speeders or on beach patrol. Meanwhile Wed-Friday I am weaving across lanes of traffic trying avoid illegally parked landscaping trucks that apparently are never ticketed or warned because they are still there.


      Delete
    3. I hate to tell you this but they are not parked on Karwick trying to catch speeders they are there because they can hook up to an internet hotspot. I'd hate to guess as to what they are viewing!.

      Delete
  25. Wouldn't be surprised if the author of the comment above was a contractor.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It looks like the Moon Valley issue may arise yet again. A few years ago, Tom Moss tried to get Long Beach to allow him to build a road so he could sell a couple of lots he owned in Moon Valley. Moss is now apparently bankrupt, but surveyors are busy at work surveying the lots that Moss owned.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Moon Valley has been sold. The "new owner" remains a mystery. The "Alliance," supposedly not a one issue group, is either unaware of the sale or does not care: "Our fight is just over where we can sit on the beach."

    It is time to elect some people who care about all of Long Beach, not just the beach issue.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Two comments appearing on the Long Beach Community Alliance’s Facebook page:
    Roger Gansauer: If Neulieb and Byvoets were /are acting in their capacity as town council members how can the town not provide for their legal defense? The 1% beach front owners have money to burn. Let's help them have a bonfire!
    Anthony Johnson: You can't own the beach dumb ass screw lake front owners
    Is the Alliance’s Facebook page a forum for neighborly exchanges or a receptacle for just plain hate speech?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 30% of the homes are on the beach side of LSD.

      Delete
    2. to "30%'er"

      I'd suggest you get your facts straight before you post. Less than 12% of the homes in Long Beach are on the lake side of LSD.

      Did you just make up your information for fun?

      Delete
  29. Police Action a Sorrowful ThingJune 9, 2014 at 10:05 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Police Going to FarJune 9, 2014 at 10:26 PM

    Tonight I was shocked when our police chief seemed to take pleasure in reading a text and announcing that any cars parked illegally were being ticketed. This is a blatant illustration of the towns arrogant and cocky police department! The council president should have told the audience to give him any written tickets and then dismiss the chief and ticketing officer. Are the cops writing tickets to contractors and landscape companies that blackout streets ? We all know that answer, The cops do not care for the residents of this town. People in the audience may have thought his announcement was cute, I thought it was an embarrassment and the Council just sat there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right....what the ======

      Delete
  31. Many residents attended Council meeting last night to witness adults (two council members acting like little children). The towns attorney, after review, gave her opinion that Byvoets and Neulieb were acting in their capacity as elected officials. When it came down to a vote if the twon should cover their legal costs in a pending lawsuit by a contractor; Angelo and McDonald voted no. No explanation why they just mumbled naye.

    The Council five years ago should have held a vote on paying legal costs to defend a lawsuit for the Stop 21/22 seawall that Angelo authorized and now needs to be removed. Man-up Mr Angelo, if you want to vote no on an inmportant matter like this, I feel the community deserves to know why.

    If we have contractors that are troublesome and want to sue our town and council members the Town should consider removing them from the approved contractor list because in the long run they are costing the town thousands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are potential conflicts of interest involving the town attorney and two council members. Our legal counsel recommended defending Pete and Jane, despite a denial of coverage by the insurance company. And of course the two members being sued, concurred. However, before the town provides an open checkbook to the firm of Harris, Welsh, & Lukmann , the insurance broker should appeal the claim denial and if the decision stands,then require a written opinion from the insurance company's legal department. If the actions are deemed to be of an individual nature, aka, active members of the Beach Alliance and not in the role of town council affairs then the good citizens of Long Beach should not all be held financially responsible.

      Delete
    2. The two council members who are acting like children and 'nay' voting the legal representation of their fellow council members are an embarrassment to the town, our system of government and not the least their families.

      These two nincompoops should either resign or be impeached.

      Does anyone know if they can be impeached? That would be the best thing for our community.

      I'm surprised they don't wear bags over their heads when they venture outside their homes.

      Delete
    3. Once again that DASTARDLY SEAWALL is at Stop 20
      not 21 or 22...get it straight if you are going to bellyache about accuracy in this town !!!!!

      Delete
    4. The embarassment to this town is Jane and her supporters. They talk in circles. We vote to defend their "freedom of speech" and then they crucify those who vote their conscious, but don't agree with them. Can't have it both ways this is a democracy isn't it? We've been told many times that "this is a democracy" (just as long as you agree with me). Why didn't Schaefer vote ? That's the real question. Cannon needs to CC all of us in his emails to the town council. Those emails are all public information and demonstrate all the influence the alliance has with certain council members. All this talk about special interests ie the contractors, the lakefront, what about the alliance which is just another special interest group. They don't represent the town, not the town I know, not the residents I know. Unfortunately this town has fallen into the hands of a few. Is that what this lesson in democracy was all about, just a power grab?

      Delete
  32. The person who failed to act in their proper capacity was Town Council President Bob Schaefer. There's an old saying "Lead, Follow, or Get the the hell out of the way". Leaving the tie-breaker vote on the legal defense cost issue to the Town Clerk, Bob made the wrong choice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. TAKE HEART LONG BEACHERS.... both cynics and romantics.....Long Beach now has a very straight forward Building Commish and a few Building Board members who are raring to go and want to have YOUR best interests at heart....they are willing to go the distance to serve YOU (what a concept) and will be
    AVAILABLE for YOU and ALL YOUR CONCERNS not just that of the political factions (bless them all ) or the builders or private concerns.....a new day is dawning in Long Beach....come along...have faith....believe....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is "you" and "your" ? Shouldn't you have the best interests of the Town of Long Beach in mind and not a particular " you" or " your".

      Delete
  34. Sorry, I stand corrected. The seawall in question is in front of the residence immediately West of the Stop 21 steps to the beach. The technical address is 2060 Lake Shore Dr, parcel ID 460115401032000023. Hope that clarifies matters, have a wonderful day!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Council People Get this Police Department Under ControlJune 10, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    I was also at the meeting last night when the police chief said cars outside were being ticketed for parking violations. What blew me away was that the council members just sat there and did nothing. Ticketing residents car for limited parking due to an overflow crowd was over the top. Lack of any corrective action indicates they were condoning this action. The police did this before when there was a large meeting at the old school. I have a feeling the police do not care for residents coming to together to observe our local government in action. It feels like they are bullying us to stay away. Police intimidation, harassament who knows but it is getting a bit old. In the long run they could be shooting themselves in the foot.

    Last month it was reported that police protection costs the town about $800,000 a year. The rsidents of this town deserve to be treated better than their performance last night. The council might need to reevaluate their fringe benefits, take home squad cars, disptacher employees all costing big bucks. Council members, get this police department reigned in and under control.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If Bob S. made the motion in favor of representing Pete and Jane, why didn't he vote?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Perhaps Council Members Angelo and McDonald had no choice but to vote no when their legal counsel asked them to vote twice even though there is only one lawsuit. For those that do not understand why there were two votes here is the answer. First they voted for Jane and she had to recuse herself so the tie vote was deFuniak. Then they votes for Byvoets and he had to recuse himself. How cleverly planned one lawsuit yet they votes as if there were two. I think MISS Paulson may need to explain this deceptive act at the July meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms. Paulson did the right thing. These letters against Jane, Pete the Alliance, and beach access all sound familiar. The writing style is the same and it reeks of the same intolerance of the law over and over. There are 3 people being sued. Each has to be represented by a lawyer. so it is 3 lawsuits. Get it straight!!

      Delete
    2. Monday night a large amount of people saw how flagrant disrespectful Bob Angelo and Pat McDonald are to this community. Never explaining why they have an opinion, they even put their hands up mirroring each other. They didn't even smile at the Boy Scouts. It was hideous.

      Delete
    3. Deceptive act? It sounds like she was doing her job: avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest.

      Delete
  38. Did the towns legal appointee recommend this manipulation of the vote? Or did the idea come from a disbarred attorney with no ethical background? Ask for copies of all emails before they disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have no idea why there was a need for a vote. If the town's attorney had determined that were acting within the scope of their office, there should have been no question as to whether the town would "defend them" in the law suit. Under state law, the town has the legal obligation to defend any town officials in any law suit where the officials were acting in their elected capacity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the issue..."where the 2 officials acting in their elected capacity representing the Town's business". Ask the question...where they acting on-behalf of the Town's Agenda...OR the "Alliance's" Agenda??? Hmm

      Delete
  40. At this point I can only hope that there are qualified people willing to run in the next town council election so we can replace McDonald and Angelo.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But were they? That is the $64,000 question. Or are these the actions of private citizens who are active members of the Alliance? Two of which are council members.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It would be wonderful to hear what Mr Angelo and McDonald think at a council meeting. They just there in silence with their heads down.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Council members only officially act when the council is in session. Individual rogue behavior should not be supported by our tax dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Attacking Angelo & McDonald is the misguided focus. Think back...The Alliance is created, Jane and Peter get elected, Town now spends over $100,000 in legal fees. The Alliance has created unnecessary discontent within the Long Beach Community. So Who or What is the Real Problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lines were drawn in the sand before Pete and Jane were elected. Remember the May newsletter where the town was staking everything between the seawall and the water. I hold Mr. Angelo responsible for many of the issues we are dealing with today. His non-confrontational leadership style allowed the Indians to run the town and poor decisions were made.

      Delete
    2. Yes there are lawsuits. Thanks to Jane and Pete Long Beach people finally feel they have an allie to fight builders who came to our town for one reason, to make money! The fight is to keep the town of Long Beach the unique special town along Lake Michigan as we know.

      Delete
    3. It would have been settled without a lawsuit - jane fanned the flames until there was no other choice for the homeowners but to stand up for their private property rights.

      Delete
    4. June 18 @7:32 Is English your second language?

      Delete
  45. Voice of Reason says that when Jane voted in favor of Pete and when Pete voted in favor of Jane, this quid pro quo exchange may have arguably defeated their recusals during their own votes. This is the same issue, regarding the same acts and seeking coverage per the same policy. Both Jane and Pete still had an interest, a vested interest, in the outcome of the vote on Monday, June 9th. The better ethical behavior/response would have been that neither Jane nor Pete should have voted on the issue in which they are both named defendants. As such, there would have been no majority to vote in favor of providing the defense.

    In addition, Jane and Pete wrote many e-mails in support of the OHWM as the dividing line between public and private property in the beachfront lawsuit. However, the Town positioned their e-mails as from PRIVATE citizens and not the actions of the Town Council. Now in the Oakley lawsuit the Town has taken the exact opposite position to claim that its two council persons were acting as council persons when coming on private property to check on (harass???interfere???) the builder. There are laws that allow for the Building Department to check on builders, not council members and not other private citizens. Even council members, just like private citizens, do not have carte blanche to trespass on private property.

    The Town should not have it both ways; should not be so hypocritical and should soon be held accountable for all its actions including the rouge actions of JANE NEULIEB and PETE BYVOETS.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As they used to say the old comic books: "Zounds! thwrarted again."

      The Beach-side people thought that their lawsuit could turn Jane and Pete into zombie like officials like an ex shop teacher or a dentist.

      Delete
  46. How did a seemingly good guy like Bill de Funiak get caught up in this mess? Who's the playwright of the theater-of-the-absurd fiasco?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jane, Pete, Bob and Bill are working with our lawyers to feather Mr. Lukmann's nest. Many towns have adopted ethics ordinances that mirror that of the state. Think this council led by Bob Schaefer and advised by Lukmann could enact such legislation? If not, it would be a great platform to defeat all 5 of these knuckleheads and our town clerk in the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Voice of Reason says I read the Long Beach Community Alliance ad on page 35 in the June 19, 2014 edition. Just want to clear up a few things regarding the lawsuit against the Town of Long Beach. As previously stated we all know Jane Neulieb and Pete Byvoets as council persons advocated that the dividing line between private ownership and public trust property is the OHWM. They and many others in the Community Alliance touted Judge Alevizos' Order as a victory. Well I also read the Order and what they are telling folks in not the truth. In fact Judeg Alevizos said that all lots north of LSD abut Lake Michigan. Look up the Order and then look up what the term "abut" means. The issue is not access, we all have access to the beach via each stop. No one seeks to prevent access. The issue is ownership as shown by the deeds. That is what Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin based their final decision on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. It takes someone with an understanding of the English language to bring the clarity that is sorely needed into this conversation

      Delete
    2. I would also suggest you ponder what "Lake Michigan" means in the judge's order. If the lake bed extends to the OHWM, which is far from a unique contention, then the lots "abut" the OHWM.

      Delete
  49. Whoever is writing about the rouge actions? Are you talking about makeup? Rogue has been used in a few posts. All caps? Now is that necessary? Jane and Pete are the watchdogs for our town, they take their job and responsibility seriously. No letter or suit is going to scare them into silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right no lawsuit will silence them, but they should be held accountable for their actions. Being a council member does not "entitle" a person to slander an individual or trespass on private property. That's when these "council" members should be "stripped" of their title and held accountable just as you or I would be. Was Ms Neuliebs husband also acting as a council member? They were acting as individuals who just happen to be council members.

      Delete
    2. I once had a ROUGE action, growing up in Long Beach I was delivering newspapers and on collection day one of the more 'distinguished' older ladies answered the door and I thought it was Halloween! I ran down the street after having been scared by the ROUGE action!

      Delete
  50. Anonymous 10:37 AM

    Your statement regarding Jane and Pete being watchdogs for the town is unadulterated bull. They are puppets for a constituency that includes Albers, Cannon, King, and Wall, all of whom believe they know what's best for our community. Exclusionary politics will not win out in the long term. But the carnage and expense from it may damage LB beyond repair.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jane and Pete have proven over and over that they stand for good government. Why do you think these fine leaders of the community, that you listed, wouldn't like and support the same thing. These fine people, Albers, Cannon, King and
    Wall have all proven their love of this community. They all have shown nothing but selfless service to Long Beach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not in all instances but often controlling personalities often wear the cape of "selfless service"

      Delete
    2. Give it a rest. Either put your name on your droning posts or stop wining using the anonymity of the internet as your sword.

      do you actually think that anyone gives much credence to any posts on here that are not signed (including this one)?

      To sit behind a keyboard and bash individuals by name says more about your character, or lack thereof, than anything you could possibly write.

      Delete
    3. The Alliance was founded by and is led by selfless individuals who are thinking not of themselves but others as they expend energy, emotions and OPM ("Other People's Money") on an issue that has popped up in isolated cases over this life of Long Beach. As Dave Albers said here sometime ago. It used to be that if someone objected to you being on the beach adjacent to their property, you moved your towel down 60 feet and everyone was happy again. Now vis a vis the founders and leaders of the Alliance, we are led into believing that these isolated situations define the entire beachfront when in fact the majority of Long Beach has and continues to harmoniously enjoyed the beachfront.

      Also, I have a question. Is it indeed the case that The Alliance was named in the same lawsuit with Jane and Pete? I don't know if this is rumor or truth.

      Delete
  52. Voice of Reason says re-read Judge Alevizos' order. The LSD lakeside homes abut Lake Michigan and not the OHWM. Please do not confuse the facts as stated in the Order with what the Alliance leaders would like to believe what was in the Order. Perhaps the better reading assignment would be to read what the Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin Supreme Courts had to say about private property rights. They made their decision based on what is in the deeds. Voice of Reason believes our Supreme Court will do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voice of Reason, please note that the statement by the judge that the lots abut Lake Michigan was not a judgment that the lots extend to the water's edge. It was a generic statement of their location. In item 8 the court adduced numerous prior decisions that strongly indicate a consensus by those courts that the OHWM delinates public from private ownership. In item 9 the judge says that he does not reach the question of ownership, saying that it is better dealt with by the Indiana Legislature or an appellate court where the State is named as a party. This is now happening. In sum, Judge Alevizos did not say that the lots abut Lake Michigan and not the OHWM; he said that they abut Lake Michigan, but that the question of where Lake Michigan is defined is not reached. The appellate court will have to perform some interesting gymnastics to come away with a decision contrary to Carstens, which in turn has precedent going back to Garner and Lake Sand.

      Delete
    2. Voice of Reason says: Thank you for reading and paying attention to what Judge Alevizos actually wrote and did not write. You do admit Judge Alevizos did not declare the OHWM is the dividing line for the Indiana Public Trust. There was no VICTORY for the LB Community Alliance. That is a good start.

      Take the next step. The exact quote from Judge Alevizos stated it is the "bed" that belongs in the public trust and that "bed" means land covered by water. The Judge wrote "In Lake Sand Co v. State, the Court ruled that the bed of the lake, that is, the land covered by the water of Lake Michigan is held in trust by the state for the citizens of the State, Lake Sand Co., v. State 68 Ind. App. 439, 446(1918)." Judge Alevizos, Conclusion #8, December 26, 2013 (bold added). This means that the BED which belongs to the state is land covered by the water of Lake Michigan and not any land not covered by water.

      Delete
    3. Voice of Reason, feel free to cherry pick your way through that decision, but if you are so inclined, read the Garner and Carstens decisions. Garner: "By virtue of 43 U.S.C., Section 1301(a), the State of Indiana acquired title up to the ordinary high water mark." Carstens: "...the beach area between the ordinary high water mark, and the edge of Lake Michigan is public land not owned by any person, entity, or municipality." The bed of Lake Michigan extends to the OHWM. And you can characterize the judge's order however you want, but when the plaintiffs get their rear ends handed to them in summary judgement and have to go to Plan 2, that is good for the defendants in the original case. I hope the plaintiffs have fun throwing more of their money away to pay their clearly underqualified counsel.

      Delete
    4. Voice of Reason says: Thank you for referring to the CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAW regarding this issue. 43 USC 1301(a) plainly provides two conditions regarding the public trust. 1) UP TO the OHWM if 2) covered by nontidal water. Garner properly stated up to the OHWM but left out the condition covered by non-tidal water. You quoted only part of the law—let everyone ask you why? Read it yourself: 43USC 1301(a) plainly states, “When used in this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter—

      (a)The term “lands beneath navigable waters” means—

      (1)all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective States which are covered by nontidal waters that were navigable under the laws of the United States at the time such State became a member of the Union, or acquired sovereignty over such lands and waters thereafter, up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction.”



      No cherry picking here, just asking you and the Courts to accurately state the law. Look it up!

      Delete
    5. Voice of Reason, that is a valiant effort--very interesting. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs' position, it looks like the Great Lakes are pretty much considered nontidal waters. Look up the term with respect to riparian issues: oceans are regularly characterized as tidal waters, but the Great Lakes are usually characterized as nontidal, subject instead to other long-term fluctuations. Now, one could say that ALL water is subject to tidal forces; but if you look at how courts, legislatures, and coastal engineers have used the terminology, tidal means oceans, with their bays and parts of their estuarial waters; non-tidal pretty much means the rest. I have found the term "non-tidal" applied to the Great Lakes over and over again in publications going back to 1888. The Michigan Supreme Court used the term to apply to Lake Michigan. I think I've accurately characterized the law, though I'm still open to rebuttal.

      Delete
  53. Voice of reason is correctly stating the law in this area. It is so often misinterpreted by those so quick to "cherry pick" what they want from a statute or ordinance and disregard the entire meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Finally... a civil discussion of the issue at hand by two people who know the law. It is a pleasant change and one I look forward to following.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Voice of Reason says: Now that we all know there are two conditions to the public trust— land UP TO the OHWM IF covered by nontidal water and that Judge Alevizos has defined the “bed” of Lake Michigan held in trust means land covered by the water….. we can all see the error from the line quoted in the Carstens’ opinion. Before I show you the error, note that the construction/interpretation of laws is governed by the “plain meaning rule”. Judge Alevizos wrote, “That is, an ordinance [applies to any law] must be interpreted as a whole, giving all words their plain, ordinary and usual meaning.” Judge Alevizos, Analysis #2, December 26, 2013.



    The Carstens line quoted in this stream (the dicta Judge Alevizos warns us about) "...the beach area between the ordinary high water mark, and the edge of Lake Michigan is public land not owned by any person, entity, or municipality" plainly omitted the two acknowledged conditions from the Submerged Land Act 43 USC 1301(a). It chopped up the Submerged Land Act. It cut out the condition covered by nontidal water and it cut out the simple word “up”. Note that this line from Carstens comes without a cite to any law (there is none in support). It failed to include ALL the words from the law. Once our Court of Appeals puts back in the words in the Submerged Land Act, it will conclude that the public trust is the land covered by nontidal water up to the OHWM. This is the same exact “bed” as determined by Judge Alevizos.



    Judge Alevizos knew that Indiana’s public trust was merely in the bed, the land covered by the nontidal water of Lake Michigan, nothing more. Now you know this as well. Please ask permission from the owner of the land not covered by nontidal water—those beachfront owners whose lots abut Lake Michigan, before going on this land. It is private property.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voice of Reason, I believe you are emphasizing an antecedent (nontidal water), when we want to get to the consequent (the OHWM, which defines the landward extent--the punch line, if you will). 43 USC 1301(a), once again, with feeling: "The term 'lands beneath navigable waters' means (1) all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective States which are covered by nontidal waters that were navigable under the laws of the United States at the time such State became a member of the Union, or acquired sovereignty over such lands and waters thereafter, up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction..."

      Thus, the bed of Lake Michigan = land beneath nontidal waters up to the ordinary high water mark as modified. Well, in 1985 the OHWM was defined, pure and simple. We don't have to guess at the landward extent of the area that 43 USC 1301(a) is concerned with. It doesn't say, it's just where there is "wet water" (as my little brother used to call it); it defines it with reference to a distinct benchmark, the OHWM. Until they change it, and who knows when that will be, it is 581.5 IGLD 1985.

      That is the delineation that courts in Indiana have recognized, that the DNR recognized, and for that matter that the US Army Corps of Engineers uses as a jurisdictional benchmark for administering its regulatory program.

      I agree that anyone seeking to go on the land area not defined by 1301(a), that is, the area not defined as being subject to nontidal water and described as going to the OHWM, should ask the private property owner of that land for permission to pass. OHWM to right-of-way line of LSD--private in ownership and use. OHWM towards the lake--public in ownership (I believe) and in use (certainly).

      (I will try not to get too long-winded on the issue of where the right-of-way of LSD begins and ends...most of those signs on the roadside parking areas that say "Private Property" are wrong, but since I can walk to the beach, I am content to just smile at those warnings as I pass.)

      Delete
    2. Why I certainly will...I'l tell them that I read it on a blog post by an anonymous keyboard lawyer, chief cook and bottle washer that told me I should!

      Delete
  56. Voice of Reason says: Regarding the admin set OHWM at 312 IAC 1-1-26, the consequent has a condition precedent from the Submerged Land Act and Lake Sand: the state holds in trust the bed UP TO the OHWM IF covered by the nontidal waters of Lake Michigan. The consequent OHWM is not the ownership line when the water is below it; however the consequent OHWM is the terminus of the lake (and public right) even when the water is above it.

    The OHWM does not change the riparian owner. The Submerged Land Act ("SLA") anticipated this moving line; the Michigan Supreme Court refers to it as a movable freehold; the SLA stated "up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction." The moveable freehold is consistent w Judge Alevizos' statement that bed of Lake Michigan is the land covered by the nontidal water of Lake Michigan.

    Again the public trust is only in the bed covered by water; does not reach the OHWM (581.5) unless or until the water reaches the OHWM (admin set or otherwise).

    Still consistent; still private land abutting Lake Michigan. All may access the lake via the public stops, however the land east or west of the stops is private while the lake bed, land covered by the water is held in the public trust.

    Remember that all words in the law must be included-see the SLA; must be covered by water and then the line of the public trust could be as far as the OHWM.

    I believe the SLA gets us right to the consequent and will be what the Indiana Supreme Court will include in their ruling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess the question for Hoosiers is: are we Michigan, or Ohio? Thanks for laying out plaintiff's thinking in such detail.

      Delete
    2. Ohio's Attorney General wanted the private beach property available to the public. He lost. The Ohio Supreme Court decided that riparian property owners' property extended to the water.

      In Michigan their Supreme Court found that riparian property owners owned to the water but that anyone could walk by down near the water. The public right was just to walk by, not sit down, not bring in chairs and umbrellas, not start a fire....just walk by.

      In Long Beach the beach property owners offered the Michigan solution, that is to allow people to just walk by.

      The Alliance and the Town of Long Beach would not accept the "Michigan solution". They have even got the Republican Indiana Attorney General to defend their position in the Gunderson lawsuit.

      I wonder if there's some legal way to place bets on the outcome?

      Delete
    3. The problem with the solution offered to the Town and Alliance is that such an agreement would not control anyone not an employee of the Town or member of the Alliance. For example, if such an agreement had been made, and then I walked in front of your house and stopped to comb the beach for an hour looking for a Petoskey stone, and assuming I was not affiliated with the Town or Alliance, how would that agreement affect me? I don't think it would. For that matter, in the first case, if the LBLHA didn't include all the lakefront homeowners, they wouldn't have been bound by such an agreement, either. The only way to keep people from "trespassing" by stopping in front of a lakefront lot is to claim ownership; and if the ownership claim is not recognized, then you have to claim it against the other presumptive owner, which in this instance could only be the State. So now the second case is at least lined up with the correct party.

      Delete
  57. As of 2007 the Army Corps no longer uses 581.5 alone for jurisdictional purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Maybe I am just being "nosey" but I cannot help but wonder if the deeds to the properties that have been sold since this ruckus began contain the transfer of the littoral rights that have been owned by the seller? Is there a public information right to this knowledge or is it private?

    ReplyDelete
  59. This is ridiculous. Lots of rumors from Long Beach Alliance. Folks I can guarantee you that if the leaders of the Alliance would write a sincere apology to plaintiffs and acknowledge that their actions provoked the lawsuit, that this thing would help resolve things. But I think this matter is about control by the Alliance. It's definitely not about what is right and best for the community although that is its cover. If you don't agree with the Alliance then you will be bullied. Well now one of the bullied kids is fighting back. This case is not about beach rights/ownership. It's about not allowing yourself to be bullied by the Long Beach "protectors".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guarantee? Who are you? How can you guarantee anything when you won't even sign your name?

      Delete
    2. I totally agree with you and it is time for us to stand up to these people. They did not become populists until after their elitist status was taken away by the sale of the Stop 23 property. To that point they had that beach all to themselves as most people thought they owned it. Well they didn't, and as a result went on a rant to try to stop the person, who legally purchased that property, to use it as he was fully entitled to. Now we have this mess with the Alliance trying to portray themselves as guardians of the beach, not so, they don't give a darn about the rest of the residents in Long Beach, They just want to continue raising money to continue to make sure that they won't have to pay the legal costs themselves of a lawsuit that should never have been brought in the first place. If you don't purchase a property, pay taxes on it, well you don't own it, and trying to claim it is ridiculous.

      Delete
  60. Voice of Reason says: Happy Fourth of July to all. Hope all have a safe holiday with family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Unofficial July 4th AwardsJuly 6, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    Most Drunks (Adults not kids!) Stop 23/24
    Most Crowded Stop 28

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who made you LB alcohol cop? Get a Life!!!!

      Delete
  62. There are a couple hundred photos from the 4th of July Parade available to see here on LaPorteCountyLife.com:
    http://photos.ideasinmotionmedia.com/Festivals-Parades/Long-Beach-4th-of-July-Parade-/

    ReplyDelete
  63. Do the police hand out tickets for glass bottles on the beach or is it selective?

    I see nothing but beer bottles (not cans) that people are drinking. Why no tickets?

    ReplyDelete
  64. The Town Council should demand that the 30 day rental law be enforced by police.

    Weekly rentals would be a diaster. Ask someone who lives near one of these homes where the law is being broken and weekly rentals are done. Better yet, ask the police for the number of calls to these weekly rentals!

    Finally, multi-family units are not allowed. If someone is renting space in their home and also living there the law is being broken.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The proliferation of weekly rental activity is a significant contributor to overcrowding of the beaches. Unless it is a trafficviolation, dog on the beach or a bonfire violation the police don't enforce the town's ordinances.

    ReplyDelete
  66. We need everyone one to fight the weekly rentals. The police and Town do not even enforce the 30 day rental. We have a person on the building commission that is/was renting weekly. These people are not even paying the LaPorte County Inn's Keeper Tax. I spoke with the county and only a few houses are in compliance. These homes are not. How is the Town going to enforce the Weekly? I see people renting daily. I saw the Fire Department show up at a house that had a Natural Gas leak two weeks ago and the house was evacuated. We tried to find the homeowner but he was not around because the house was being rented illegally to weekly renters. This is a dangerous mess the town is getting into. I wonder if the board members that are in favor of this have a stake in the weekly rentals? The last time I read the law, they could not vote on this because of a conflict of interest. Here we go again with the lawsuits...... ugh!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. The reason the council passed the 30 day rental law was because the rental situation, weekly, was a problem and regular attendees of council meetings years ago were complaining.

    We need to fight and enforce the less than 30 day rental. ENFORCE, ENFORCE, EBFORCE!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 30 day rental ordinance is a fine example of rule by the seat of your pants. A few people complain at a council meeting and before you know it an ordinance is passed. Lets face it, this is a beach community folks, and to change things midstream is and was quite unfair. Taxes need to be paid, mortgages need to be paid, and unless a bunch of foreclosures is what you are looking for there is a need and a place for weekly rentals. The same rules apply to rentals as they do to full time and seasonal residents. The Police need to respond to complaints of loud noise, excess drinking, whatever may be disturbing the peace, and enforce, enforce, enforce.

      Delete
    2. You couldn't be more delusional. This community from day one was laid out and designed as a single family residential community. The original design and subsequent zoning laws are designed to keep it so. There was no change midstream.

      If you cant afford to buy and maintain a home here, then you shouldn't be here. Plain and simple.

      Is you can't afford to pay the freight then sell instead of ruining our community.

      Delete
  68. But once again it comes down to who is going to enforce it? I think complaints on specific properties should be made which would then force the town council to direct enforcement. If members of the council choose not direct enforcement then these officials should be placed under arrest for violating Indiana law which requires them to abide and direct enforcement of ordinances whether they agree with ordinances or not! To encourage or foster transients is not in any resident's well being.

    ReplyDelete
  69. What's the difference between Bob Schaefer and Barack Obama? Neither is okay with enforcing laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It goes beyond the council president. The entire council should demand that our police department should enforcing the laws that have been overlooked. If they will not then changes need to be made in that area also.

      Delete
  70. Voice of Reason understands that a copy of the First Amended Complaint filed on June 26, 2014 by Oakley Home Builders, Inc. was sent to Mr. Lukmann (Long Beach Attorney) on July 1, 2014. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint clearly resolves the question of the capacity in which Jane Neulieb and Peter Byvoets have been sued by Oakley Home Builders, Inc. I would hope that the Long Beach Town Council will take another vote on whether or not to expend our already strained resources defending Jane Neulieb and Peter Byvoets for personal allegations. It will be interesting to see whether or not Mr. de Funiak gets to vote this time.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Watch the last Long Beach Town Council meeting from July. www.alco.org Go to the end at public comment and watch Pat McDonald and Bob Angelo attempt to communicate their lies as their schills, the lakefront Uminski and Sylvester ask them leading questions. It is precious.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Voice of Reason says: Things will get darker before the dawn. Lawsuits, yes; Shrill and Sullen council members, yes; Roberts Rules out the window, yes; now name calling regarding public meeting comments. Priceless. No respect for private property; no respect for public debate; no respect for hardworking, honest, people—only name calling. This puts the “community” in the LB Community Alliance. Is this who you really are? Voice of Reason has grave concerns for the schism that is occurring in our beautiful beach community.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The Town needs to thank any individual who questions the actions of the Town Council - if the questions are deemed inappropriate by a certain alliance of individuals, the democratic process is to intimidate and repress any questions. It would be refreshing if Byvoets and Neulieb would answer direct questions and not wait to respond under council comments and make cheap shots at individuals attending the meeting. Democracy in action JN style!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your animosity toward Pete and Jane are very revealing. You need to see someone about this obsessive diatribe against innocent people.

      Delete
  74. July 18 at 9:22 am sad for Long Beach to read a post like that. It is obvious if people don't agree with you - they must be lying. I hope by now the rest of Long Beach is sick of your intimidation and bullying in disguise. Questions will be asked and answers will be expected. This is an open government of the people and the Indiana constitution calls for it - so I've been told.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Writer, We know that you are part of the LBLHA who wanted us to pass a resolution in LB to say 99% of the residents could only walk on the beach in a "carrying place" (not stop, not sit, not disembark from a boat). That's where you went wrong. We know why you want to shut up Pete, Jane, the Long Beach Community Alliance. They are the ones that were most verbal to stop you. Your attacks result in more enemies and strengthens the 99% who want to enjoy the beach as always.

      Delete
  75. Congratulations to the Higdons and all the participants in the July 4 run. Biggest donation yet ($735.00) to the LB Comm Ctr. We'll try to make the contribution meaningful and not just offsetting maintenance costs.

    ReplyDelete
  76. To Harriet

    Please, Please, Please stop posting anonymous comments from people who call out individuals by name and don't have the conviction in their remarks or the self esteem to sign their posts. This is turning into a kindergarten playground match .

    ReplyDelete
  77. You've just named Harriet but not yourself. Go back to your playground.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Voice of Reason says: If you understood the “offer” then you should understand that the offer represented the most favorable court ruling for the non-owner. Ohio held that the owner owns in fee to the water’s edge and can prevent all trespassers; no one in Ohio can “stop, sit, disembark from a boat” on the land abutting the water. In Michigan, the Court held that the owner owns in fee to the water’s edge but that citizens could travel across, below the OHWM (definitional, not 581.5) but still no one may stop, sit, or disembark from a boat—in short may not occupy a space but for the time it takes to walk by. The offer was to agree to the most favorable court outcome to date for the non-owner and settle without continuing the litigation for years. The most favorable court outcome to date for the non-owners was rejected by the few who want to occupy the privately owned properties and bully the grandfatherly and grandmotherly owners who are too polite, too old and too non-confrontational to take on those bully occupiers. Shame on the bully occupiers.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VOR, this continued talk of an offer of settlement continues to mystify. Who would the parties to such a settlement have been, and upon whom would it have been binding? The LBCA, for example, has no power to bind any other property owners to any agreement they might reach.

      Delete
  79. After the events of this weekend, I think we can all agree that this has all gone to far. Some of our neighbors will not be enjoying their homes for a long time (if ever) and someone will be spending the next few years in prison instead of college. It is truly a shame that we as a community have let this situation devolve. Like any dispute, there are valid concerns/issues on all sides. The question is as a community, how we address the issues.

    It is time for real dialog. Not online sniping. If you agree, reply in the affirmative. I'd like to see if my hunch is right and there are many on the sidelines that don't understand how we have gotten here. When we have strength in numbers, we will start using our names. We need baby steps to rebuild the "community".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happened this weekend?

      Delete
    2. I have no idea what happened this weekend - has my head been the sand? Neighbors not being able to use their homes for a long time? I know that we have had three homes broken into and one set on fire but obviously from your post something else went on. I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. Our town has been turned into an ugly place, no matter the beauty of the scenery. I am no longer sure who my friends are and that is sad. I hope that this truly nasty situation can be brought to a reasonable conclusion but I have reached the point of doubt. The well of bitterness is turning into a sinkhole and we all lose. I agree that many of us just want to live our lives as we used to, however, I cannot see a starting point.

      Delete
    3. I am not an insider; I don't belong to the Alliance, the Country Club or have kids in Notre Dame. As a result, I do not understand many of the cryptic comments made on this forum.

      I received the State Police warning on the breakins, but I don't know how those breakins relate to the mini-war between the townies and the beachies. Can someone explain exactly what happened this weekend without dog whistle comments to either the beachies or the townies?

      Delete
  80. “After the events of this weekend, I think we can all agree that this has all gone to [sic] far… It is truly a shame that we as a community have let this situation devolve [sic].
    It sounds like this poster is blaming the people opposing the people who want to kick people off of the beach.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Would anyone care to share the details of this weekend's events?

    ReplyDelete