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 ,,,

195 comments:

  1. First, the new overpriced, ticky-tacky, fast-buck-built house at Stop 23 has an industrial-style seawall worthy of ArcelorMittal. Now, the owner of the old but lovely Dr. Scholl Mansion nearby is building something that looks equally ugly, despite the fact the mansion already has a seawall that's stood the test of time. What's this craziness all about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The house that was torn down next to the ticky-tacky house is a tragedy waiting to happen. There is no protection at site to keep children away.
      Also, I hear there was no permit to tear down house. What builder doesn't know you need a permit. I hear this is same builder who built ticky- tacky house.
      In a year stop 23 has gone from one of the most beautiful beaches in Long Beach to a disaster area. Thank you Building commission!

      Delete
    2. Don't we have ordinances not allowing advertisement using hand made signs on property? Long Beach is looking very tacky!

      Delete
    3. The work at the old doc scholl house is being done to increase the square footage of each individual lot to make each 40' wide lot large enough to sell as a buildable lot.

      While this is not illegal, it is typical of what will take place without the town council getting off their duffs and changing zoning rules to prohibit such non community minded development.

      The same holds true for all of the recent 'overbuilding' of Long Beach, it could all be stopped by establishing community building and community minded zoning rules.

      Delete
    4. The use of the term "ticky-tacky" is derogatory and negative. Harriet said "she" would not publish such negative labeling. This hurts the entire community of Long Beach.

      Delete
    5. You have the exponential property taxes to thank for this activity.

      Delete
  2. Perhaps the owners of these two homes have heeded the dire predictions of certain posts concerning previous lake levels and are building seawalls to protect the investments they have in their property. Their property ... not yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Scholl mansion already has a fine seawall and has survived countless storms and high-water events. Building this new seawall and the other one at Stop 23 does nothing but make the LB beachfront look like NIPSCO. Private property is one thing, a public disgrace is another. A question for Town officials: Who has granted permission to the contractors to use the Town-owned beach at Stop 24 to get their heavy equipment down to the beachfront at 23? Did the property owners in between give their permission for the equipment to traverse "private" property? Did the Town issue permits for this work and access? Did the Town collect any revenue from these permits? Is anyone in charge here?

      Delete
    2. The Scholl seawall is almost 90 years old. It is built on wooden pilings and is totally inadequate. A similar seawall design experienced a catastrophic failure in the mid 1970's at Stop 22. Luckily no one was hurt when it collapsed. If the new seawall design is not up to your standards, maybe you and the citizens of LB can make a cash donation to the owner so he can build a more aesthetically pleasing wall. Otherwise, it's none of your business. I wonder what your house and property looks like. Maybe your casa is not up to community standards-especially when compared to the Casa Del Lago.

      Delete
    3. There is (are) a (many) reasons why this house has been on the market for 7 years and hasn't sold.

      Delete
    4. To Anonymous 9/27 3:23.

      Your information is completely wrong.

      The Scholl seawall has been updated twice in the 50+ years I have lived here. The concrete walls sit on top of steel sheet piling that toes into clay well below wash the line. There are concrete wingwalls that sit on top of steel sheet piling that runs all the way back to LSD on each side of the property. This property has one of the best protected and fortified seawalls in the entire beach community. The concrete sidewallks that extend from the seawall to the house are 24" thick at the wall and 12" to 18" thick at the house.

      I don't know where you got your info but it is incorrect!

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the correction. I didn't know the wall had been retrofitted or originally built with steel pilings. I thought I saw cement on top of wood pilings when the lake was up several decades ago. My main point-why is someone's private property and the improvements they make to it seemingly everyone's business? Why the spotlight on private property along the beach? Why are people along LSD under this extra scrutiny? Isn't there more to Long Beach than that narrow strip of land? Maybe not. I think there are lots of people that regard the beach as their pubic park-that someone else is paying for.

      Delete
  3. Regarding the beach lawsuit, I heard that there's going to be a verdict on this case September 30th. Is that the case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. The 9/30 hearing was cancelled. The next hearing is 10/17. This is all per the LaPorte County courts site (Odyssey)...you can find it by searching LaPorte Odyssey, click on "Trial Court Case Search" (under "Searches"), then in the drop-down box select LaPorte County, then click "Civil, Family and Probate Case Records," then click the drop-down that is set by default to "Case" and change it to "Party," enter the last name "Gunderson," type the characters required in the box near the top (to prove you are a real person and not some machine), then click the Search button at the bottom left. You will get the case history to date.

      Delete
    2. Also, it is supposed to be a decision on the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs. Summary judgment should only be granted when there is no reasonable dispute as to the facts. If there are triable fact issues, then it should go to trial. As I understand it, there have been several responses to the motion for summary judgment, all of which will be heard on 10/17 (unless it gets kicked again).

      Delete
  4. The beach front residents may have just opened a can of worms they should have left closed. Looks like they may not even own the property their houses are sitting on.

    See:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/171224840/Affidavit-of-LBCA-Land-Surveyor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A local retired attorney once said long before any of the current beach controversy " lakefront property owners wouldn't like the outcome of any ownership challenge" Maybe he had done the same kind of research?

      Delete
    2. Wow. If that is the case the government owes me a big property tax refund check. You mean for all these years I have been paying taxes on property that I don't even own? (@$30,000 this year). That is a can of ....

      Delete
    3. It's scary to think where this could end up. It's a shame that a few lakefront owners could not live with the ordinary high water mark! It was a compromise we all could have lived with. Because of a few who insisted on throwing people off beaches and bringing on law suits this outcome could have far reaching consequences!

      Delete
    4. I believe you are entitled to a tax refund. But the citizens are entitled to 100 years of rent for your use of state property. I say we call it even.

      Delete
  5. Good morning. I was told this blog is speculating about the new seawall at Casa del Lago. As present owner I thought it may be useful to provide some comments.
    I restored the home in the 90’s. We have enjoyed the home and all its property during the past 23 years. Now to answer your question “Why the new seawall”.
    The answer is “High Taxes”. Yes, my property taxes have more than tripled in the past 10 years.
    My benefit did not increase, but my cost did…because of wasteful government spending. One example is the Town of Long Beach spending tax payer’s money regarding beach property rights which they should not be a party to this issue. After all, the town should represent all of us…not just some of us. This money would be better spent on fixing up the water works building with bathrooms with a safe drop off area.
    Now, back to the seawall. The property has been for sale with no buyers…because of the high taxes. Many interested buyers loved the home but not the taxes.
    It became necessary to reduce the 280 feet of beach front property to smaller lots…therefore lower taxes and now interested buyers. In order to build a new home on a lot, the lots need a new seawall so the property can be developed with sufficient depth behind the seawall. By the way…when the new seawall is completed, I believe you will find it very attractive.
    Perhaps there are better causes to write about…like how to reduce wasteful spending by local and county government so our taxes can be reduced. Let’s try to follow the money and find out where OUR money is being spent.
    I hope these comments were helpful.
    from, Ted Reese

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ted, your points are well taken, but the Town of Long Beach is not spending money in the current lawsuit because it elected to do so; it was named as a defendant (inappropriately, in my opinion) in a complaint filed by some residents. Named as a defendant, they are, willy nilly, a party. I think we can agree that LaPorte County taxes are a mystery; the largest line item on your tax bill is for education. The Town of Long Beach gets a fairly small share of the total bill. Best wishes, Kevin Byrnes

      Delete
    2. Hey dude....arent you "renting "out your house for like 17.000/month....lets be honest about what that house is really used for to each his own but lets be honest....

      Delete
  6. Ted, Your comments on the ills of high taxes faced by the entire beach community should be a common pain felt across the entire LB community. Everyone has seen there taxes double, triple or more in past 6-7 years. While there is perceived waste by the Town of LB both on legal and operating fronts, the town's portion of the tax rate is the smallest component. MCAS and the county rate are the two drivers of the rate. While MCAS are improving they only provide service to a small number of beach families. The town and its residents are probably among the most under-served by county services. At some point, anyone writing a check for property taxes (lakefront, hillside, part-year, full-year) needs to get together to address this monster. If you look at budget proposals, there will be an ongoing effort to impose more taxes on LB and the other beachside communities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all the uncertainty about lake property ownership, whether it's the high water mark or maybe even state property all the way past the houses shouldn't Ted Reese and others who are building be ordered to stop until this whole controversy is straightened out?

      Delete
    2. Shouldn't you get a life? Seriously.

      Delete
    3. great Questions

      Delete
  7. Question 1
    based on the latest town council meeting
    when will they start paving
    2
    are we in court tomorrow over the lake/beach situation
    3
    will you post photos of the members of the police dept ...not just their names...so we can "see" who is on our community police force
    4
    do we know who the "suspect" is who was breaking into out homes around the stop 19 20 and 21 areas...when will we know the name of the "suspect"
    5
    why are we being told to build disability ramps to the beach....although it surely is a wonderful idea....why suddenly now
    6
    who gave permits to the stop 23 builders so they could desimate that lake front just so they could build 2 plastic houses and put them right up for sale immediately.......(dont you dare turn down any building permits anywhere in LB after this debalcle !!)who the h......is in charge of this !!!
    6
    what happened to the plans for stop 24 are we just out of $

    ReplyDelete
  8. no more "FISCAL CLIFF" for now...we dems are besides ourselves !!

    ReplyDelete
  9. lets do get answers to 6 questions

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saw several buses today being given police escort to members of the USC football team, thru Mikchigan City today...they usually stay at an Inn here and have in the past practiced at Ames Field here , to avoid hassling if they had bunked in South Bend...big rival game tomorrow...USC NOTRE DAME....good luck !

    ReplyDelete
  11. TODAY Saturday is FRACKDOWN DAY !.....Join us.....because fracking is unregulated and is coming to LaPorte County and SW Michigan....and so is the shale PIPELINE Canada.....want to see it....go up Hwy 12 thru 3 Oaks Mich about 6 miles to "Red Bud Trail" then to Orange (L) and (R) to Bertrand Tr and you will see the PIPELINE being
    retrofited in your ground as it creeps closer to LaPorte County....last week over 10 million gallons of oil was leaked in pristine farmland and ranchland by a pipeline in the West....do you remember millions of gallons of oil almost made it to Lake Michigan here via a pipeline break further up in Kalamazoo....the same pipeline being "attached" to us here.....WAKE UP.....do your research....and beware.....rent "Gasland " its not a joke...when you see that documentary.....it will shock you into reality of the situation coming to us here....Europe is rejecting fracking and we have fought wars over the pipeline thru Iraq and Afganistan....did you rally think our conflict there was over anything else WAKE UP its coming here......look up !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. nothing in the News Dispatch about the proceedings in LaPorte on Thursday. However, for those who are interested, the Post Tribune has a long article which I read online. It is worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Resident complained about lack of disability access to beach in violation of ADA law. It appears that ADA is not unreasonable with small communities, so we may have some federal patience. If project is approved, we have until next beach season to find funding - also need some engineering studies. Volunteers??

    ReplyDelete
  14. I find it interesting that the flow of comments from the lakefront owners has subsided immensely. I have not seen anything in the papers about the outcome of the court hearing. Can anyone provide an update?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The comments have been subdued from BOTH sides lately - good. The matter is before the Judge. Opinion pending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's interesting that every time "compromise" is mentioned, the question becomes why don't the lakeside owners "compromise. How 'bout this ... why don't the locals compromise by recognizing private (deeded) property rights?

      Delete
    2. The compromise would be to strike a fair balance between private rights and long established public rights to Lake Michigan.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. This is the crux of the matter and you are SO spot on. The small A-lie-ance gang wants all the private properties near Stop 23--properties that they were totally uninterested in taking or affording...until on which they were were obligated to stop squatting. The small A-lie-ance gang never had any sort of financial or otherwise (costly) interest in those private lots--even though they KNEW--for at least FIFTY years--that those properties were, in fact, just that: private...not public. The A-lie-ance crowd pointedly decided to not EVER include any copy of any lake property deed in ANY of their website postings to their donors OR to the public, even when asked repeatly to do so. Ask =yourself= why that would be.

      Delete
    4. Someone has been living under a rock. The time of compromise is over and it is now in the hands of the judge.

      Delete
    5. Neither ignorance nor arrogance are positions that lend themselves to compromise.

      Delete
    6. Your problem is most evident in your use of the term 'locals'.
      Do you believe yourself to be of higher status than other people?

      Maybe an introspective look may be in order.

      Delete
    7. OUCH....both sides just SHUT THE HECK UP...for the peace and sanity of the silent majority who think you are all wacked....its in the courts ......time out for Fall nature and normalacy that most of us subscribe to .....thank you sincerely !

      Delete
    8. I think the earlier post meant "loco's"

      Delete
    9. really people ....stop bickering and name calling.....you sound like a bunch of immature children......the courts have taken this case as YOU have asked through lawsuits.......and newsflash....we still have to live side by side so let us proceed into the cold winter months with warmth in our hearts for each other shall we....."love thy neighbor"....its possible

      Delete
    10. EXACTLY OUR POINT

      Delete
  16. Tnank you to all responsible to the repaving of Avondale/Okenwald

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yesterday construction trucks were blocking LSD between stop 24 and stop 23. Nothing was done by the LBPD. Ticket was given because golf cart was being used to drop elderly parents off at the beach. Maddening!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your tax dollars at work.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Part 1:

    I offer knowledge regarding societal use-rights that may be key to peoples’ comprehension of the claims made by both sides of this beach-use dispute. I’m a concerned neighbor, but not a party on either side. I’m not an attorney, so this is not legal advice. My offer is Love-based. It pains me to observe conflict. I am knowledgeable about the history of the USofA, and about the two forms of public Trust under which people may associate. The people associated as residents of Long Beach may be particularly interested in what I offer here. Attorneys may not be allowed to disclose this information, and most of them have never learned it (no offense intended). BTW: I humbly offer, the function of an attorney is to act to turn an entitled ‘ownership’ use-right over to the party with the legitimate use of the right, title or interest. [Does any attorney dispute that this is the job-description?]

    The pertinent law underneath the merits of the lawsuit about which people are debating is Trust law, in so far as the determination of peoples’ rights and obligations according with their standing. People on both sides of this dispute are with standing in Commerce, and have only privileged-rights. No man or woman I’m aware of is with contract (private) standing under protection of the “organic” laws of the Union: Decl. of Indep., Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance; The “Constitution of the United States” for The United States of America (which was/is a business plan primarily enacted to form a more perfect Union, because the new Trust required the states to timely pay their share of the revolutionary war debt).

    The organic societal laws stem from and uphold the laws of God – the Lawgiver – practiced by people who were/are ‘resident in God’. The founders of the public Trust stiled: “The United States of America” termed the governing public law: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Land use-right was exchanged for peoples’ energy (promise to settle the land) and sometimes in the medium of Money or as consideration for prior service in the military.

    Commercial law is private, copyrighted law – the Uniform Commercial Code, to which all State Codes/Statutes/Ordinances must conform. The rules of societal engagements of people who are ‘resident in the commercial Trusts: LBLHA and TOWN OF LONG BEACH’ are governed under these man-instituted maritime rules (admiralty law brought on land via a public Trust opportunity).

    People situate in the commercial Trust have only privileged and regulated societal use-rights, a.k.a. “Real Estate Property Rights”, which is a conceptual use of the land and water that does not apply to the physical land; it only seems that way because the use-right in physical land has been abandoned. The word ‘property’ means ‘use-right’. People resident in the organic public Trust are with God-granted ‘right-of-soil’ – dominion over the earth’s physical soil and water as singular stewards; this is what has been abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Part 2:
    People commercialize their societal rights (knowingly or not) by endorsing the private credit offered by international banking entities, per means of a public Trust instituted by the Congress upon passage of the Federal Reserve Act appointing as Trustee the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. That public Trust established the means by which the people of the several states of the Union could choose to commit their energy/labor to bond fiat currency for receipt of commercial Benefits, as shareholders of a corporate-form of association. Because the Congress could not force people into involuntary servitude, the Fed Act includes a clause (Section 16) that allows people to demand to handle Money of exchange (U.S. notes) instead of endorsing promissory notes of account (Federal Reserve Notes). The capacity to handle Money creates the capacity to privately contract. In contrast, the corporate form of association is a municipal, or guardianship, form of government; rights and obligations are communal and the currency is just circulated within the closed association.

    Under the original, organic Trust, the people are the Directors of societal life, and office-holders are the servants (a.k.a. the peoples’ Trustees). The Benefice from this God-centered Trust is Peace, allowing prosperity. Under the corporate Trust, the office-holders are the Directors, as Trust administrators for the Trustee: FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. Do I need to add that the people are thus the servants?

    I can relate the foregoing to every statement found within the lawsuit that I quickly perused (the first few pages anyway). As to gaining self-responsible use-right in God’s ownership of soil and water, I can only suggest that people choose to rely on and exercise their higher societal use-rights, and there would be no need to pray to a commercial Trust administrative-judge for a fair/equitable JUDGEMENT & ORDER.

    If anyone would rather engage with me in a private discussion, I can be contacted at ministryofnewbuffalotownship@gmail.com

    Cheryl Marie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will never get back the time it took to read this.

      Delete
    2. Did you consider posting the time it took You, Anonymous, as a contribution to your fellow-man?

      Delete
    3. OK ...that was an impressive dissertation...but consider this..
      in the ORIGINAL DEED OF LONG BEACH ...JEWS AND BLACKS were NOT ALLOWED....times have changed Dear....GET WITH IT

      Delete
    4. Race and religion and many other classes are protected under the civil rights act. I don't think it includes sunbathers.

      Delete
    5. race and religion was not protected in the early 1900's when Long Beach was being established.....read up on your history...local and national

      Delete
  21. Thanks for the "Love-based" diatribe concerning "God's ownership" of property for which I pay taxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you missed the love-based suggestion for relief from taxes. You pay taxes for Choosing to engage in a taxable activity.

      Delete
  22. Oh my Cheryl, thank you so much for making the rest of us now seem totally normal.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ok TIME OUT FOR CHRISTMAS...and BLESSINGS FOR ALL IN LONG BEACH.....peace on earth goodwill to men and women and pets and roaming deer and possums and racoons and all you Grinches out there...time out for GOODWILL :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. When does the Judge make his ruling?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Are all of the new homes and seawalls being constructed along Lake Shore Dr within the 106.66 feet requirement set forth in the view ordinance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does the "view ordinance" have to do with seawalls. Or is this another interpretation to impose rules on beach owners by the Non beach owners?

      Delete
    2. Per the zoning code, 154.060, "No dwelling, accessory use, building or structure shall be located any closer to Lake Michigan than 106.60 feet from the zoning lot line abutting the public right-of-way known as Lake Shore Drive." Is a sea wall a structure?

      Delete
  26. Some are questioning whether the sales of the two new lakefront homes published on market at $2.5 are related party "sales" resulting in inaccurate sales information. I don't know if this is true but certainly those prices seem to be beyond reason for those two properties.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A big thank you to the LB Police for catching the bad guys recently during a home robbery!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. really. where was the 'home robbery' located

      Delete
  28. The ordinance spells out the details I just hope the building inspector has used a tape measure to check for compliance. This is just another example that it is imperative to check on building projects regardless if on lakeshore drive or inside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what building inspector...do we really have one and if so....what are his credentials...the permits are all over the place arent they

      Delete
  29. Happy Holidays to the Long Beach Community!

    Through the efforts of members of the LB fire department and funding from the LB Park board the ice rink has been setup.

    It is on the tennis courts at the town center. This year it has been enlarged and we might add a kiddy rink in the park area for use when a hot hockey might be underway.

    Peace to All and have a Safe Holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I may be unaware,but I didnt know the LB Town Council appointed Pete and Jane to be the Chief Information Liason to the newspapers and community.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I believe a seawall is included and should be within 106.67 feet.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Now that the judge and judicial system has ruled on the beach issue. Can we play like big boys and girls in the sand box now?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The trial court judge saw an easy way out of a tough case and simply jumped on the Federal Court Magistrate's opinion. When I read the Magistrate's opinion, and the cases he relied upon, I concluded that his reasoning was strained.

    While I hope the 7th Circuit upholds the lower court's decision, I will not hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I admire Judge Alevizos greatly ....he is a very intelligent thoughtful methodical mindful beneficent compassionate judge and a former state representative that saved this County back in the 90's when we were almost bankrupt again and outfoxed all the foxes to bring a casino here as opposed to other cities vying for their dollars.....don't underestimate his judgement...he knows what he is doing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really think that Blue Chip has saved LaPorte County? Did you see the article in last weeks paper where the Mayor declared a state of emergency until December of 2014? Our City is borrowing millions of dollars from the Redevelopment Commission. We need manufacturing jobs not casino jobs to save our County.

      Delete
    2. Blue Chip creates jobs...whatayugot

      Delete
    3. You are living in the past if you thinks MC can attract manufacturing jobs.Who would want to relocate their plant here...with high taxes and a low grade school system. The attraction is the water. Improve Trail Creek with development... large boat slips, condo's, restaurants, grocery store...that will be the future and thank goodness the city has fresh cash from Blue Chip to fun this growth. But this will not happen because the elected "leaders" don't see the real future.

      Delete
  35. The decision was expected. With no negativity towards Alevizios, but with compelling arguments on both sides, it is not likely that any local elected judge would have ruled otherwise. Appellate level and Supreme Court present different dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you read the ruling again? The Judge ruled on the merits of the case based on law. Judge Alevizos is an expert in law and his role as a judge. That is why he is elected by the people. We can rest assured that whether elected or not our judicial system is alive and well!

      Delete
  36. Time out for something else besides arguing.....
    Today in the midst of a DEEP FREEZE (and we don't mean, between the beach haves and the beach have nots)
    we had 7 beautiful deer in our yard, lounging in the snow, munching on bird seed, frolicking among the evergreens...then to our surprise...while the squirrels, and the birds were watching...a beautiful blond and redheaded fox came up to our door and pranced about our property....now we know why they call them 'foxy'.....beautiful!
    Just another day in beautiful Long Beach :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Congratulations to Michael Bergerson who just announced his bid for Judge of Superior Court 1....he is a native of Long Beach and would make a wonderful asset to a fair and balanced court. The primary is approximately May 16th....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dave Albers, Long Beach Fire ChiefJanuary 19, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    BEWARE OF DANGER!

    Since we have had a long stretch of cold weather shelf ice has presented itself on our Lake Michigan shoreline earlier than recent memories. People should NOT venture out on this ice under any circumstances!

    If you see people on the ice please call the police so they can request their exit from the dangerous ice flows using the loudspeaker of the squad car.

    Visitors may not comprehend the DANGER the SHELF ICE presents.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dave,
    Great advice! I witnessed people on the ice last year and did call the police and was told " there is nothing we can do, we can not tell people to get off the ice" Needless to say I was very disheartened by their response.
    Bottom line is STAY OF THE ICE!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We reported that Lake Michigan is 65% frozen and Lake Erie is 95% frozen over...and today it was 56 degrees in Alaska....go figure lol

      Delete
  40. LB Police

    To Serve and Protect ?????

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thank you for placing signs at the Stops creating an awareness of shore ice danger.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear Chief of Police of Long Beach....can we please add the PHOTOS of ALL OF THE OFFICERS ON OUR FORCE ...PART OR FULL TIME......we want to know who is working here and what they look like .....dear Town council members and members of the Police Advisory Board....kindly add the PHOTOS of ALL POLICE MEN AND WOMAN working in our community full or part time...even the dispatchers.....we want to know who is here serving and protecting.......Michigan City Police are putting together a brand new website as we speak......we need to follow their lead and be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT....dont you agree !!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Long Beach-Where Transparency Goes to VacationFebruary 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    You mean just like the transparency we were promised during the last election? Remember the promises of e-mail communications and newsletters...still waiting on that!

    ReplyDelete
  44. OMG Building Commission ShowFebruary 13, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    I have read on this blog over the past 2 years about the Town building commission and the building permit process. The vast majority of those opinions were indicative that change was needed.

    Tonight I watched the Town Council meeting held this past Monday, February 10th on Access LaPorte County (http://accesslaportecounty.org/).

    I was amazed at the child like behavior of Mr. Angelo. Now I can understand why the building commission might be in need of some new blood. No wonder we have had so many issues and law suits if these two gentlemen are in charge. Watch it yourself and you decide if we need change.

    Go to AlCo and click on the Meetings tab then go to the second page for the LB meeting. This link may take you direct, http://alc.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=130714278afa9957bd9a5868d4c68e63 .

    You may want to fast forward; the good part begins at the 49:00 minute mark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched and tremble at the thought that Bob Angelo, Pat Mcdonald and Paul Fithian have no accountability. When do they make decisions? Why won't they answer the questions? These are simple and honest questions. Why is this allowed to continue year after year Mr. Schaefer?

      Delete
  45. WOW, the only professional behavior or even adult behavior was from Bob Schaffer and Bill DeFuniak. Thank you gentlemen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The truly responsible words are from Mr. Byvoets and Ms. Neulieb. They are representing the people of Long Beach who care deeply about their community. Thanks Pete and Jane for standing up for what's best for LB.

      Delete
    2. You have got to be kidding! Ms. Neulieb makes no sense. Mr. Byvotes ignores the rules and then grandstands. What exactly is he in charge of and does he accomplish ?

      Delete
  46. Life is a Beach (but you can't sit on it)February 15, 2014 at 8:16 AM

    Where are we town council, back at the beginning of kindergarten where we learn to share and get along? I was appalled at this display of childish behavior at Monday's council meeting.We, the townspeople, voted you into office so you need to step up, get over your petty indifferences and work together for what's best for the town of Long Beach.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bob Angelo, I heard you comment on the video tape that you did not care for Pete Byvoets vision for our community. As a long time resident I am not happy with the lack of vision and leadership under your regime as a building commission member and council president.

    It appears that so many things were decided or neglected in behind the door meetings in order to avoid a public discussion. I would be curious in knowing how many public building commission meetings were held in the last 13 years. I bet you could that number on one hand.

    Seeing the behavior of Mr. Angelo and McDonald I feel we need to enlarge and enhance the knowledge base of the building commission. Everyone get off your pedestal and quit attacking each other personally. You need to grasp what the true mission of being a building commission member and consider the entire community when making decisions. What we have now it not clicking on all eight cylinders.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Does the building commission check every new building permit for the 35% coverage rule? The building code states that the total square footage of a house footprint, decks, patios cannot exceed 35% of the total lot square footage. I look at some of the monster size homes built recently and wonder if they comply with that rule?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no 35% rule...its an illusion perpetrated by a phoney building set of rules that only exist if you arent looking ....get it

      Delete
  49. Transparency At WorkFebruary 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM

    Public Building Commission meeting this Friday, February 21st at 9:00 am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can't meetings be at a time when more people can attend? Most are working at 9:00 am.

      Delete
    2. I agree Peggy, you would think this commission would take steps to go the extra distance to offset some the cristisms that have been leveled at this group concerning the lack of being more public.

      I am afraid it comes down to what is more convenient to the commission members versus the residents. They are just making matters worse and they will feel the impact.

      I guess the bright side is they have been forced to go public!

      Delete
  50. It is frightening to realize that the business of our town in in the hands of these men and that there is nothing we can do about it until the next election. They refuse to obey the laws regarding public meetings with total impunity. We need a complete change in this area and if that means paying someone with a proven record of competence then lets do it before things get any worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a thought, the size of the building commission could be increased to by two residents. This would inject some new life into the building commission and strenghten its ranks.

      We need to have new input in this area and more public meetings where open dialoge can be heard.

      Delete
  51. The Town Council needs to make getting the building/zoning process on the right track the top priority for 2014.

    I realize the current members might be defensive but hopefully they will have broad shoulders and be part of of the solution and not a road block.

    All one has to do is look at the law suits and legal costs incurred over the last 10 years related to building issues as an indicator. Building commission members who spoke at Monday's meeting, I felt embarassed for you after watching the tv

    ReplyDelete
  52. I would be interested to know how much we have paid in legal fees fiscal 2013 and 2014 ytd.
    Where can we find a list of committees and membership of those committee?
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Contact the Town Clerk. It is all a matter of public record.

      Delete
  53. 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
    Replies
    1. You are entitled to your own opinion but I feel Pete Byvoets is attempting to make things better. I would like to see more council members energized to do good things for the community we live in. If nothing else have open dialog about the pros and cons of thnigs. Over the years town leadership has stuck their heads in the sand far too often. Just another viewpoint.

      Delete
    2. I watched the meeting and I didn't think Pete Byvoets was acting like a bully. But Bob Angelo was definitely acting like a child. Hopefully everyone will play much nicer on Friday, the first public building commission meeting to be held in how long? If you look on the town website the last set of minutes posted for a building commission meeting was in December, 2012. Time to get busy and figure out just what are the facts. I'm totally in favor of adding at least two residents to this commission. How can that be accomplished?

      Delete
    3. Is having a builder for a building commissioner really a conflict? Isn't our current building inspector a builder? As long as they are honest and not profiting from their position I think it would be a plus to really understand what they are "commissioned" to do. In fact, instead of appointing someone why not just HIRE a building commissioner so hopefully they would do it right.

      Delete
    4. Byvoets is doing his job by asking these questions. The wall of houses on LSD are against code and the master plan for Long Beach. Plain and simple. Mcdonald, Angelo and Fithian have let these violations grow and grow. It is such a shame.

      Delete
    5. What part of the code is the 'wall of houses' against?

      Just curious.

      Delete
  54. It is sad when people walk up to you who live in Michigan City and say they saw our Town council in action on Channel 97 or 99 and ask the question, what is wrong with them?? I just shrug my shoulders and think tomorrow will be a better day.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The best answer to all this fighting is to be annexed by Michigan City. Our neighbors in Sheridan Beach aren't having any problems that I know of. They have cheaper water and they don't need to finance a new firehouse and fire engine. They also have nicer policemen. I'm not sure how it's done, but I know that it's possible. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It Boils Down to Strong LeadershipFebruary 19, 2014 at 8:53 PM

      This community is over 90 years old and it has persevered. To even consider annexation is a silly notion. Think your property taxes are high now? Take your property value and use the Michigan City tax rate as a multiplier. You will back down from annexation talk real quick. We just need strong effective leadership on our council.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure you're correct about this. I believe that we wouldn't for instance have to pay for sewers. Also our water bills would drop dramatically. Maybe we should hire a consultant to see whether it would be better to be annexed or better to stay as we are. As we are is not currently very attractive. Maybe it would be worth paying more to just stop all the fighting.

      Delete
    3. I believe the maximum property tax in the state of Indiana is 1% of assessed value, regardless of location. That said, perhaps a larger municipality with economies of scale could provide more benefits and better services than our present, possibly outdated, model of government for the same money.

      Delete
  56. If there is one take away from all of the blog activity is that people to care about the impact of new construction and are concerned where it is heading. This blog has been quiet over the last few months. I think it is a good thing to share views and opinions. To call it fighting is a bit much, heated discussion is more appropriate because people care!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. This is what happens when the Building Commission has to answer to no one. Pretty soon the Building Commissioner is more than happy to please the builder rather than protect the taxpayers and their town. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  58. We are currently paying taxes for schools now in Long Beach. I am in favor of looking into annexation. That will definitely eliminate some of the power that is abused within our lovely community. Why do we need a new firehouse and truck? How many large fires do we have on an annual basis? Why would we not look into contracting with Michiana Shores for fire protection services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michigan City Please Save UsFebruary 20, 2014 at 10:13 PM

      I agree with looking into annexation also. Michigan City Fire would provide coverage so you would not have to contract out fire protection. Michigan City police would provide coverage so the cost of our police officers, dispatchers and squad cars would be an additional savings. The savings to not stop with these items either because the Michigan City street department would do the winter plowing and the Michigan City water department would cover the water system. Sounds like a win-win right??

      Delete
    2. It might look like a win-win to you but it will be a lose-lose to your pocket book. Your property taxes would be much higher.

      Delete
    3. That is incorrect. Property taxes, if you are an Indiana resident, would be the same. They'd effectively be capped at 1% thanks to legislation introduced and passed under Governor Daniels tenure. Checked this out with the assessor and the auditor before responding.

      Not sure whether we should become part of Michigan City, but your tax bill, unless you're a FIP, would remain the same. Services would probably go up.

      Delete
  59. I think it is time to establish a Review Board to establish what our building commission has, or has not, been doing over the last few years. The town council could approach people like Steve Glidden, Richard Mignery, and Larry Wall who could together take an objective look at this mess. They are all extremely well regarded in their field. I realize that it probably would be an imposition on these gentlemen but they have lived here all of their lives and can surely see that we need professional help. It can't hurt to ask

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These gentlemen are great .but I think it would be a conflict of interest as they are all current builders in the community with the exception of Mr. Mignery.

      Delete
    2. Go to LaPorte County first to investigate and if they dont comply ....go directly to the State !

      Delete
  60. What's the story with the old Ye Old
    Benney's? Is was supposed to open last May.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My speculation is that the death of Jim Maroney, who with his wife owned Redamak's, might have had something to do with it. Charley Maroney, who with his wife has been working on opening Maroney's in the old Benny's building, is a grandson of the Redamak's owners. Maybe the summertime passing of his grandfather required some attention to the operation of Redamak's, though that is purely my guess. I've heard that they encountered more issues with the old Benny's building than they anticipated, which is quite plausible.

      Delete
    2. Now this is just what I heard from a reliable source, I haven't seen any of this. I heard that he bar was so heavy that it fell through the floor and in to the basement.

      Delete
  61. I find it appalling that at the meeting at the Town Center that Ms. Neulieb had to be told twice to stop talking and interrupting the meeting. She needs a refresher course on Roberts Rules of Order. I think it would be better for the community if the LB Alliance could work together to achieve results than all the bullying they do of council members. Just an interested observer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the real problem is that many of our Building Codes are being violated and I want that to be made public and remedied.

      Also, on the subject of a few postings, I believe annexation would NOT benefit Long Beach due to this fact: The tax rate for Long Beach is 1.3397 and the tax rate for Michigan City is 2.7401. This number is the rate of taxation on each $100 worth of taxable property.

      Delete
    2. No...she needs a course on good manners....

      Delete
    3. I watched that video, and while various points of etiquette can be raised with respect to several participants, this is what happens in public debate. I was more interested in the content, especially regarding the building committee. Unfortunately, that part of it was not a pretty picture. The building code needs to be properly applied by diligent commissioners who are duly appointed to the task. Someone further above commented on the 35% lot coverage ratio. With respect to beachfront lots, the lot coverage should not be a percentage of square foot site area, but a percentage of front footage. This is because the distance from Lake Shore Drive towards the lake can vary substantially over decades; but the linear distance along LSD will stay pretty much the same over a long time period.

      Delete
    4. Jane is great ....stop the stupid dialogue....your same boring comments about her are totally transparent to who and what you are really about and who you are hiding behind !

      Delete
  62. I am not a member of the Alliance and I have lived here for a number of years. It is very apparent that the Council is not a cohesive body. I have been very disappointed in how the members act and trat each other. It takes two to tango and I can assure you that the other members do a good job of picking on Jane. I am not sure if I would have put up with the garbage she has. Unfortunately I do not see things getting any better. The next election will be November 2015.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Have they scheduled the PUBLIC Building Commission workshop yet?

    ReplyDelete
  64. On Feb. 25th Jane Starr Neulieb wrote "I believe annexation would NOT benefit Long Beach due to this fact: The tax rate for Long Beach is 1.3397 and the tax rate for Michigan City is 2.7401. This number is the rate of taxation on each $100 worth of taxable property."

    What Jane forgot is that the effective tax rate for each $100 worth of taxable property for an Indiana citizen is capped at 1.000. Therefore, it does not matter whether one lives in Long Beach or Michigan City from a tax rate point of view. This 1% cap resulted from the efforts of past governor Mitch Daniels and the legislators during his term.

    Ms. Neulieb's understanding of the tax rates is not unlike her understanding of many other aspects of our town governance and points towards annexation or merger by/with Michigan City as the way forward. We should join together with Michigan City and hire a consulting service to assess the pros and cons of a merger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie the annexerMarch 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM

      Annexation would be the worst thing that could happen to our town. Without even considering taxes, by far the largest cost would be the installation of sewers and the subsequent monthly charge for sewage to Michigan City. While sewers are an inevitable, they would, or should, be contemplated by our own town government and voting citizens at the proper time.

      If you think our water bills are high now wait to you annexation fools figure out the true cost of what annexation would mean to all of us as community members. Not just in dollars but in loss of our unique community feel.

      This subject comes up every few years and is usually fueled by people (one issue wonders) that are ignorant to the true facts of what our town provides as services to our community.

      Delete
    2. What a joke! You must be a consultant looking for payola!

      We don't need any outsider telling us what we need to do. Go back to whatever rock you crawled from under.

      Delete
    3. That 1% has a limited shelf life
      read up on it if you have forgotten

      Delete
  65. You are making the assumption that every parcel in Long Beach is at the 1% maximum cap. Many of the interior residences are not at the cap, mine included. To advocate something as silly as annexation by Michigan City would increase my taxes! Please do not take more dollars out of my pocket that necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you do not have the homeowner's exemption (it must be your principal residence), the cap is 2%; but in effect, most of the latter type are around 1.5%, due to the current tax rate--I mean, 2012 pay 2013, which our illustrious county has just caught up to.

      Delete
  66. Just in the past month many 'homeless' cats have been popping up in the Stop 20 21 and 22 area...here are the descriptions:
    one small tuxedo cat
    one small tortoiseshell cat
    one medium yellow cat with white stripped tail
    one black cat
    ALL WITHOUT COLLARS
    AND ALL SEEM TO BE NOT NEUTERED
    if YOU should SEE any of these animals
    be kind
    try to capture them
    take them to a veterinarian
    have them NEUTERED OR SPADE
    "CATCH AND EITHER ADOPT OR RELEASE"
    do not let the cat population multiply
    we have worked very hard to try to help control a former 'out of control' animal population largely due to some second home owners who bring kittens for the summer and then dump them in our community when they go back to the city......this has been going on for decades and that is the truth.....we full timers are left to sort it all out....try to show some compassion and do what you can to make a difference....we are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG - "second home owners" seem to be the scapegoats for all the ills of Long Beach! By the way, it's 'spayed.'

      Delete
    2. Bridge players feel that having 7 spades is usually pretty good. Having 7 spayeds is not so good.

      Delete
    3. (Why wont you print our reply to the above 2 comments....third time submitted ).....THE PROBLEM OF HOMELESS ANIMALS IS REAL....try some compassion instead of wise cracks......and pitch in to help these animals if you find them in your neighborhood....cats can rapidly multiply if they are not a part of the 'catch and release' program....or better yet call the local animal lovers rescue group for assistance...and have a heart, not a 'laugh'
      We care ! in this community....so should you !

      Delete
  67. Building Rules QuestionsMarch 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM

    I was in attendance at the Long Beach council meeting last night and walked from that meeting with a few questions.
    If a home was built 60 years ago and does not meet the current building rules such as setback distance, height etc. it would be considered a non-conforming structure? I heard the words, legacy and grandfathered used when discussing the issue at hand.
    I have always been of the understanding that if home has a major remodel done, even if it was torn down to the foundation it would still be considered a non-conforming structure but grandfathered. The critical ingredient, did the old foundation remain?
    If the foundation was removed then the game rules change. The grandfather protection disappears and the home has to be built to meet the current rules.
    Am I correct in my thinking, just curious?

    ReplyDelete
  68. And in all of this you have to ask if someone lives in a non-conforming structure: " How did it get built in the first place?". People jump the gun and blame the building commissioner(s) of years past but it is more likely that an erroneous survey was done and once that error is made many surveyors will just repeat that error as opposed to doing a just survey based on the legal description. In Long Beach many lot lines don't meeting up because of right of ways that were designated back in the 1920's but are not visible on a plat drawing until you match it up to lot dimensions from the legal descritpion..

    ReplyDelete
  69. I watched the LB council meeting on ALCO last night . My question to Team Neulieb is why are they continually harasssing Oakely Builders? Could it be because he is the builder at Stop 23 and she sits there all summer on their property? She doesn't seem to be interested in any other builder in the community.Is that how we treat 3rd generation Long Beachers? I wish Jane would do half the work (free) and have half of the degrees Paul Fifthian does.It is curious that the only permits she looks at are the ones at Stop 23. It just doesn't pass the smell test. My other question is when is the planning Committee going to meet? It hasn't met in 2 years! He sure is butting his nose in everyone else 's business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This just may be the dumbest post ever posted on this site!

      Delete
    2. Jane Starr NeuliebMarch 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      Anonymous, Your accusations are false. I have inquired about blatant building violations at stops 16,19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29 and 31. Residents want someone to get this Building Commission to do their job. If builders in any other community made these many problems their licenses' would be pulled from that jurisdiction. Bob Angelo, Pat McDonald and Paul Fithian have to do their jobs. Long Beach deserves to have accurate and steady code adherence. It is what I am working towards. It is as simple as that.

      Delete
    3. Janie,
      We thank you for your diligence concerning this matter!!!

      Delete
  70. The building commission needs to be overhauled with some new people involved. For the last 10 years our community has dealt with some major building issue snafus. Watching Pat McDonald and Bob Angelo who are members of the commission, they seem to be at a loss for answers when questions are asked. I would like to see Pete Byvoets who is on the planning commission become a member of the building commission also. That move might add some cohesiveness to the process. Either Angelo or McDonald would need to leave their post on this committee.

    When problems continue to persist management needs to take steps to fix the process which begins with the building commission.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The dust-up regarding the new house near Stop 23 is a bad joke. The builder got the necessary permits and now that it is almost finished the petty tyrant on the town council wants to do what-have it torn down? Force the owners to spend thousands of dollars because the Town made a mistake and granted a problem permit? If the Town made a mistake then the Town needs to eat it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think much of this responsibility falls on the builder. This is same builder who did not realize he needed a permit to tear down this same structure. Too many errors by this builder for supposedly an experienced builder.

      Delete
    2. The builder should have a complaint filed with the state. The builder absolutely must know the codes, and understand that they go ahead and build something for a client knowing that it it is contrary to published code--regardless of what some airhead with the town told them--then they have betrayed their duty to their client.

      Delete
    3. No one made a mistake . but Jane. Mr.Fifthian did his due diligence with regard to the house at Stop 23. We can all sit back and watch as Jane and Pete cherry pick the ordinances,

      Delete
  72. Building ConcernsMarch 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

    The Town, through its building commission, may have erred with the tear down and rebuild house on Lake Shore Dr at Stop 23. Watching the Town Council meeting from this past Monday I heard the building commissioner say this property wa grandfathered and had legacy rights I believe.

    That may be true if a substantial portion of the original house remained. I drove by this home this week and did not see any remnants of the old house still there. I noticed a brand new poured concrete foundation wall protruding up from the ground.

    If this is a totally new house, then the house should meet all of the required rules and the grandfathered considerations have disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Mrs. Neulieb,

    As an elected official, you agreed to be held to a higher standard than the typical Beacher. You gave up the right to lob hand grenades at everyone with whom you disagree. And if you feel the need to take a particular position on an issue, please, let it be based upon facts and not an opinion or interpretation. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  74. It seems Council Woman Jane's actions are more destructive than constructive. Lake front home owners are spending their money to improve their properties...yet the Town of Long Beach owns large amounts of lakefront property at Stop 24 and Stop 28 and are doing Nothing to improve those properties for Long Beach residents. Jane...why not focus on some constructive projects the Town owns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane Starr NeuliebMarch 17, 2014 at 11:14 AM

      Dear anonymous, We are hard at work focusing on all land that the Town of LB owns. We have had beach clean up days, garbage cans at every Stop, an expanded Skating Rink and a new staircase built at Stop 21. We have kept Oriole Trail Park mulched and a new swing set installed. New programs have been started for adults. The Youth Summer camp has been popular and well organized. Many more projects are slated. We are waiting for the tax revenue to return to normal so we can expand projects to Melrose Park and at the stops. Please attend a LB Park Board to see what we've done and plan to do. Sincererly, Jane Neulieb

      Delete
    2. Kudos to Mary Joy for all her hard work!

      Delete
  75. I contend that the building permit and oversight process has been in need of fixing or updating for more than 10 years. In years past, inexperienced and unauthorized individuals were signing building permits. Building commission member(s) serving at that time continue to do so today.

    We need some new members on this building commission. It would be nice to be a bit more proactive and solve the problems confronting us, because there are some.







    ReplyDelete
  76. The permit was signed by a legal rep of the Town. This all falls on the Town. Are all the code problems along the lakeshore? Are there only problems with homes near the beaches that Jane likes to camp out on? What about the rest of Long Beach? No problems with codes?? Oh, there was one problem with a boat storage issue-she quickly got that resolved. How about high-density short term rentals? Hello?

    ReplyDelete
  77. There are issues that pre-date Jane's term in office. Jane has the guts to question the current system thus she comes off as the bad person unfortunately.

    Examples of issues of the past:

    - Deck on Oakley Ct ordered to be removed still stands

    - Contractor improves an alley to provide homeowner access to rear of home. Contractor sold house to new owner. Town was clueless about the brazen encroachment

    - Seawall placement issues at Stop 28 and Stop 29

    = Council president/building commission member verbally okays seawall at Stop 21. Later goes to court and homeowner is ordered to remove seawall and it still stands.

    Once again Jane and Pete are trying to get things on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Last year we were told by Pat McDonalsd that federal law required replacement of all street signs at a fairly significant cost to the town. The street department has started on the project. If you "Google" the topic you will see that while the mandate was issued by the feds the feds have backed off on the requirement and it is no longer a mandate. But it was an excuse to drop money into the unaccountable black hole of spending under Mr. McDonald's supervision. While we spend money and staff time on unnecessary projects like this, Mr. McDonald continues to stonewall on a comprehensive solution to removing dead tree limbs and in some instances the trees themselves from town property where they continue to pose hazards, especially during storms. Broken beach stairs go unaddressed because the street dept has no time. Storm drains remain unrepaired because...because...But those street signs are unnecessarily being replaced because Mr,. McDonald claimed it was still a mandate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say that Pat McDonald is dropping money down an "unaccountable black hole" yet you admit that at least in the beginning it was indeed a federal requirement as he said. Seems like you are just a blamemeister seeking to trash a hard working public official for whatever your own private purposes are. Funny though, I don't remember us having any of this rancor and slander before Jane and Pete joined the Town Board!

      Delete
    2. We certainly didn't have any noise before because very little was ever done. And what was being done was not done in public meetings or according to the law of the land!

      Nice try

      Delete
    3. It's called checks and balances. Thanks to Jane and Pete we now have them.

      Delete
    4. It was no longer a mandate as of 2011. Two years later (last year) it was presented to the town and its town council as a mandate. If you find the facts to be "rancor and slander" then this means you are uncomfortable with the facts.

      Delete
    5. Thanks Randy Rancor. Build me a garage will you? And it's not called checks and balances, it's called rudeness and personal political ambition.

      Delete
  79. I agree that rudeness shows itself from time to time; however, I think the source of that rudeness is the persistent stonewalling by the 2 Bobs and McDonald..

    ReplyDelete
  80. As long time resident and frequent wathcher of the council meetings, I am in total agreement with this comment. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  81. New subject......is your tap water cloudy....can someone comment on why this is happening
    thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to read someone else noticed this as well. I called water dept. 2 weeks ago and they knew nothing about it but would check with Ron. Have heard nothing since.

      Delete
    2. All the frozen pipes this winter. Some people just on line this week after many weeks of no service. Even newer lines build up sediment when idled and then re-started.

      Delete
  82. Has any work been done on your street? New water main to a house? Frozen line to a house? Call the water department and ask them if any work has or is being done around your area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks for the info.....however our water is still cloudy and has a slight iron taste.....the women at the H20 office said to run the water and flush the pipes but that does not work.....perhaps someone could bring this up at the next town meeting....we will be out of town then....thank you

      Delete
  83. Thank you to the person who submitted a comment about homeless cats that need help We have seen several in our area and they really had it tough this winter......someone else made some silly comments here last month here but this is a serious problem and we need to try to help ....If you encounter these homeless cats....please contact animal lovers group out of Three Oaks Michigan for help to get them a home
    This is not a joke....these animals are suffering and need our help

    ReplyDelete
  84. We have had a nice streak of no snow weather here that will likely continue. So I wonder when Mr. McDonald will allow the street dept. to get going on all the necessary projects. Also, when will Mr, McDonald present a comprehensive plan to start trimming dead limbs off of trees or removal of dead trees on town property? It has been more than two years that this has been discussed. He and the town have been aware of this issue for sometime. Why is McDonald given so much authority over street department? Makes no sense. Why shouldn't streets report into the clerk-treasurer?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Where is the Leadership in Our Town?April 14, 2014 at 9:59 PM

    Just returned home from the Town Council held tonight and brought my better half up to speed on the events that transpired. I mentioned that elected officials and commission members need to quit attacking each other personally. There are issues at hand, all I heard were ridiculous innuendos thrown back and forth. This type of venom which will not lend themselves to a smooth resolution of the issues at hand. A bit more professionalism and addressing the facts will go a long way to making things better.

    I was appalled when the building commissioner held up a sheet with photos of what he said were 28 violations of the Town’s laws. When a Council member asked where those violations were the commissioner told the council member he could go around the community on his own to find them like he did. Does he realize by his statements tonight that he knows of violations and by all indications, intends on doing nothing about them?

    To all of our elected officials and commission members you are embarrassing our Town. Some may sit there and say nothing, but their silence and lack of leadership adds to the problems also. Everyone, please start acting like adults and look out for the best interest of our ENTIRE community!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot to mention the rest of what was said. The Neuliebs are trying to selectively enforce a portion of 154.049 against the Building Commissioner, even though they have applied for a variance.

      The Building Commissioner position has never attempted to enforce ordinances not related to building permits or structures.

      Delete
    2. I believe you are expressing the sentiment of 95%+ of our community. Instead of guiding our town as a council, we have what appears to be four controlling personalities guided by vested interest in two different camps. Enough is enough. Resolve your issues before the meetings so we can avoid the grandstanding. And yes Paul Fithian's resignation/replacement process should have been concluded by now. If Paul has time to make note of twenty some violations then why wasn't more time spent on issues in the past?

      Delete
  86. Pure and simple, put the personalties in a closet and deal with the issues!

    ReplyDelete
  87. This Town needs to figure out who is responsible for enforcing laws. It seems obvious to the casual eye but in real life there seems to be selected enforcement of the laws. Not a good thing to have happening. If the building commissioner is aware of violations outside his or her area of responsibility I feel it is their obligation as a town representative to report it to the appropriate people.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Can Stop 22/23 and form their own town and leave the rest of us to Long Beach?

    ReplyDelete
  89. last night at the town council meeting, Oakley Builders is once again trying to get his ugly seawalls built on our beautiful beach. He wants LB to annex his property at stop 31 so he can have Paul Fithian as the person who sill sign his building permit. Jane and Pete are trying to slow down this fast moving train wreck. The other 3 Schaefer, Angelo and Mcdonald want to hurry this through. The 3 amigos voted to suspend the rules so they could give Oakley whatever he wants when he wants it. It will go to second reading so therefore many people need to let the 3 that we do not want anymore huge seawalls of iron. Do not annex!!

    ReplyDelete
  90. The Town seems to jump through hoops for contractors, everything is in a hurry-up mode. The Town needs to slow the process down and make sure every i is dotted and t crossed. In doing so they will be looking at doing things in the best interest of the residents of this community.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The Council president should replace current building commission members with new appointments and then use an engineering firm to advise the new building commission on new home building plans. It is no different than having a town attorney advising the council. There needs to be a majority of new minds, energy and ideas on this commission.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Town should do its due diligence on Oakley including getting an explanation as to how and why their most recent project at Stop 23 has been contingent on MLS for nearly 6 months now at a sq foot price that is 40% more than market. Something isn't right.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Last night at the Council meeting. Dave Albers, the fire chief, did a presentation showing all the huge 3+ story homes that have been built that are a fire hazard. He took pictures and while giving this presentation the 3 amigos were talking away, whispering, not paying attention. Why do these 3 Bob Angelo, Pat Mcdonald and Bob Schaefer think they are without fault, without needing to listen to the fire chiefs warnings. No, they bend backwards trying to help Oakley builder build their messes. It was so offensive that they did not even respond to Dave Albers. Watch it on alco.org, you won't believe it until you see it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Folks, New Buffalo paid the price several years ago when the big "baby face" developer went unchecked and inflated comps on their property sales by setting up related party sales to fool the banks and community that their projects were worth more than they actually were. We need to be vigilant about all developers invading our community. Also, years ago Bill Kennefick and the town took on some speculative building and shut it down because then the law of our land was that the construction had to be owned by the intended occupant. What has changed? And why are these speculative projects being allowed anywhere in our town???

    ReplyDelete