By: Diane Benjamin
If anybody still reads the Pantagraph, they have what looks more like a hit piece against the City of Bloomington than reporting: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/government-and-politics/trespass-some-lake-residents-may-lose-their-boat-docks/article_3263bf43-a08b-5c85-90d3-5314b7417024.html
Some of the people making comments on the Pantagraph site are clueless!
Homeowners on Lake Bloomington are leasing the land – Bloomington owns it. They are paying property taxes to Bloomington – the big difference is they have no representation on the Council.
When I moved to this area in 1980, Bloomington-Normal was a hick town. Route 51 was a two lane road. There was nothing east of Veterans Parkway and most of the luxury houses on Lake Bloomington didn’t exist. The area consisted of lots of summer homes people used before air conditioning and fishing shacks.
Few homes were lived in year-around. I don’t think it’s hard to believe that verbal agreement for docks was given to some people decades ago. I hope the Council is smart enough to realize that. I hope the department heads Hales hired from out-of-state realize that too. Penalizing homeowners of decades old docks would show the City has no interest in anything but tyranny.
The problem, according to a resident I talked to, is people who have constructed docks without permission on City property when they have no adjacent property. One person even constructed a dock and put a No Trespassing sign on it:
The staff and Council needs to consider each dock individually. It shouldn’t matter that paperwork doesn’t exist for a decades old dock. Recent additions like this one are the problem.
Will the Council be clueless or think for themselves?
That answer will show how far left the Council will operate for the next 2 years.
Renner controls this council and therefore the council is clueless.
Just ANOTHER ploy to take our minds AWAY from the streets, sewers, garbage fees, etc, et, al. That OR the Pantagraph just couldn’t find anything worth while to write about?
Pantagraph has two recent articles about this issue. The link below mentions that each dock will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
http://www.pantagraph.com/lifestyles/city-looks-to-limit-dock-permits-at-lake-bloomington/article_b435b976-443b-54e6-900e-1b9349429d8a.html
I suppose the paper is just notifying the public that there will be a meeting on May 3 because the issue with the docks is old news.
This is like me building a shed on my neighbor’s property and assuming that he should let me keep it up because I spent $10k to build it. Additionally, just because the person you bought the house from did something illegal, doesn’t mean the city has to honor you not properly researching the issue. If the later buyers of these properties have issues, take the previous owners to court.
Or, they could be capitalists and say to the city, “How much would it take to get a permit for X years to keep my dock here?” With the current financial position of the city, you know they have a price.
When I see comments like this: “When my husband and I purchased the property, we just assumed there was precedent set and we also would be allowed to keep a small boat there.” and “We don’t have a problem with the new process, but we struggle with that they would come along and take away a dock that has been there for so long,” he added.
1.) What if I just assumed I could go to your house and build something on the property? Since that’s the precedent you want set, shouldn’t the same apply to me?
2.) Just because something illegal has not been reported or remedied for a long time does not mean it should be allowed. If there is a factory in town that has been putting sludge into our water supply for 10 years, should we let them continue to do it because it “has been there for so long”?
Your example is extreme! Property rights are handled differently in the eyes of the court.
Let me summarize the story: Most people who live at the Lake are (or are perceived to be) affluent. Therefor, the Rennerite Communists who run the Town hate them and want them dead. So they will create a phony issue and harass them at any opportunity. People be warned…those of you who live in the nicer subdivisions IN TOWN are next on the list!
The Grove is constantly a target!
Yet, I’ll bet that many residents of The Grove voted for the thug. Remember what Lenin said about “Hanging them with their own rope”?
Renner lives in one of those nicer neighborhoods East of Veterans. He shouldn’t be complaining about outlying subdivisions.
I bet the Grove is only a mile from his house with lots of development south of the airport. He makes it sound like it’s out in the country.