12 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To The Green Lake Blog
Posts
Comments
About Me
- Chief Highknocker
- You aren't local until you have at least three generations in the cemetery.
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
Tell Other Readers Where You Are From!
130 comments:
The developer is petitioning the state to override the Town of Brooklyn's "no" votes (the state is probably going to go along with it, given the history of these petitions). The developer has also changed its plans and is asking for an additional 32 lots on top of the ones already proposed. Also, an additional 20 boat slips are being requested and several golf greens are probably going to be moved, which will definitely affect golfing at Lawsonia next summer. Basically, all the original plans have changed.
Just kidding. Man, that would be interesting though.
Watching, are you trying to confuse us, or are you just a moron?
I am afraid the morons are the Lindenwood development guys, ted and doug. When you put the cart before the horse it never works. we all need to remember that these guys have never been "luxury" home builders. They each owned low to mid-end building companies in Neenah and have never built a "luxury home" much less been developers. They were awarded the cntract out at the GLCC, that is all. We can all tell now that they had no idea on how to go about a development. It is laughable, except for the people that put dwn payments on the land. It has been quite amusing to watch them fall all over themselves and yet they have managed to scam downpayments on land parcels at the gLCC. Next we will see them bankrupt their company and come in under another name. Mark my words!
Chief - Here's the facts we know and the rumors we've heard. First, the facts. The town (in August) and the county (this week)rejected Lindenwood's plats and denied the required zoning. The reasons given included too much confusion over multiple plats submitted and lack of compliance with many statutes. Many reports now indicate that Davel has asked the town and county to return all his drawings, plans and plats.
Rumors include that Davel, among others, is still owed money by Lindenwood and/or ABA. Other rumors say that Lindenwood is considering suing the town and the county, or suing the ABA, or possibly moving to Door County.
Other facts include that the house at 7 Gables, which Lindenwood had extravagantly rehabbed and used as a sales office, is for sale - at least there's a for sale sign out front. Another fact is that the road widening at the 7 Gables entrance to ABA is occurring right now - a road to nowhere or a sign that the developers have not given up?
Hey, last post, that's exactly the problem with this forum and Green Lake as a whole. Everyone relies on rumors to create their opinions. Let's have some more proof other than wild accusations with no backing.
myth buster, you are an idiot. What part of the last post didn't you understand? The writer clearly stated what was fact and what was rumor.
The only problem with this blog is that some people don't have brain cells. There were no wild accusations. Read it again.
My point, anonymous, is that it's irresponsible to print rumors, even if you identify them as such. All it does is get people worked up for what may be no reason at all. If you can't prove something, don't post it for people to read and get confused by.
I'm just curious about one thing. Everyone is so worried and upset about the possible ABA development yet right across the road there is some kind of development going in on the corner. Has anyone noticed the road going into the woods? And what about the constant burning that has been going on? They sure have cleared out a bunch of trees. So what's going on?
I believe it is an expansion of the campground.
That's going to be an 80 site: "Exclusive Seasonal Only Gated Camping Community" Oh my gosh!! A gated community! It says on their website a 24/7 gated community. How will those poor people survive at the beautiful Whispering Oaks "Gated" camping community? (my guess is very well) How will the emergency vehicles get in, what if those folks need services? This is deplorable... who let this happen? Will that gate be staffed by a person 24 hrs per day, I sure hope so. Imagine, 80 families living behind a gate. Come on people, why wasn’t their any concern over this?
So it's OK to rip up the woods, displace wildlife, cut down whatever tree you feel like (Their website says they have Chestnut trees, did anyone check this out?) build roads, install utilities, and do all those other "development" related issues, as long as it's just a campground? Which we be made up of 80 or so "park model" permanently parked style trailer homes, with porches and decks, set on 65' wide x 80' deep lots. This is not a transient campground, but a long term seasonal use situation. It sure seems like “campgrounds” are definitely held to a different standard.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great campground development, I hope they are very successful. The double standard here is so obvious it’s laughable.
I am so tired of everyone in Green Lake freaking out about everything. 99 percent of the things that people get all up in arms about are either (1) none of their business or (2) nothing that would ever affect them anyway. If the Green Lake Conference Center wants to build a development, even a gated community, let them do it. It's their land, not yours. Good grief, give it up. Let's stop the hysteria and go back to living our own lives and minding our own business.
How in the world did that campground get approved? Talk about a double standard. Go to the Green Lake Campground webpage to see what is going on. You'll be amazed! I'm ashamed to admit I live in the town of Brooklyn and had no idea that was going on. How come they were able to get all their permits without all the township meetings and county meetings and gossip that the ABA people have to go through? Must be because the poor animals that lived there didn't have a voice to complain about not wanting anything to change in their neighborhood.
Does this mean that I will be able to go out on the golf course and watch some hairy guy in boxer shorts scratching himself outside his camper? How lovely.
I guess the good ole GLA and all their informers were asleep at these meetings... Must be if it's not on the lake, located at the ABA or "pristine" farmland, it's not worth their time!
Quick, let's get the GLA and throw in those grouchy Illinois homeowners from ABA, with their lawyer in tow over there and check this out! What that campground is doing could lead to growth in our community and be good for their business. There might be more folks in town spending money, eating in restaurants, playing golf, supporting businesses. Ask any business owner in town, if they could use a few more customers. This might even lead to some job creation… how could we let that happen?
What the Green Lake Campground is doing is trying to grow his business to survive. More power to them! Same thing the ABA tried to do, but for some reason, they are not allowed to. Oh I know, lot sizes, the eagles, the American Chestnuts, although most folks wouldn’t know a Chestnut tree if it fell on them. I’m not knocking their preservation, that’s very important.
It seems to me most of us live on ½ acre or smaller lots and unless you built a house in the middle of a field, chances are you cut down a few trees to build your home. If you did build you house in a field, you might have destroyed some sensitive native grasses, shame on you. You probably also displaced some wildlife.
It never gets published, but I have heard ABA officials say time and time again, the American Chestnut trees are not in the development area. What part of this are you not hearing? If you don’t believe them, perhaps you ought to call them up and go see where the trees are. Perhaps they will show you the dozens of other chestnut trees on the grounds that their volunteers have grown and preserved for more than 20 years now. How many of you have done that, how many of you even cared?
At the last township meeting that guy from the Lindenwood development said the DNR only restricts work within a certain distance from the eagles when chicks are in the nest. Aside from that, eagles seem to do just fine. Seems to me, those eagles live on a golf course with noisy mowers, tractors and a constant stream of golfers. Noise and people must not be a concern for them.
Some people just like to oppose change, it makes them feel important, it gives them something to talk about like they really give a shit.
The same people pretend to care about the planet - wildlife and global warming - then they drive two blocks to the bar in a 6 liter V8.
They talk about having a "vested interest" in the area like they know what that means. They think their responsibility to the town, the community and commerce in the area, is to stop us from becoming like the Dells and Lake Geneva....they have no clue what that really means, you can tell from the expression on their faces that they've probably never been as far south as Lake Geneva. I'm sick and tired of hearing this from people around here.
Take a drive around the State sometime and notice how little towns like GL are shriveling up and dissapearing from the map, while more progressive and forward-thinking communities are growing, developing cultural centers and bringing in a greater share of the tourism dollar.
You guys had better wake up and stop hiding behind the fear of becoming successful.
Achmed
>>>Anonymous said...
How in the world did that campground get approved? Talk about a double standard. Go to the Green Lake Campground webpage to see what is going on. You'll be amazed! I'm ashamed to admit I live in the town of Brooklyn and had no idea that was going on. How come they were able to get all their permits without all the township meetings and county meetings and gossip that the ABA people have to go through?
October 9, 2007 12:39 PM
In response to this post:
Actually, from one anon to another, the campground did go through the proper channels. They appeared at two town meetings, and there was an article in the GL paper. I think this approval happened last year, if I recall.
Town meeting agendas are published in the GL paper, and are posted at the recycling center and at the town hall, if you'd like to stay more informed on what's going on.
Yes, but don't you see the irony in all this, the double standard? I remember reading about the campground approval process. They had some hoops to jump through. But, they are still packing 80 families, potentially into a small space on campground roads, in a gated community, and that's not a concern, because it's a campground. I thought the township was trying to avoid high density housing, I guess not?
Have you ever heard, if it walks like a duck....? I can hear you now, go ahead an tell me it's not the same thing, And how is that? Does the campground plan to dissolve in five years, I don't think so, I hope not, they're in for the long haul. It's nothing but a small housing development, that closes in the winter.
Please read the excellent article about Lawsonia Estates... in the FALL Vol. 35 issue of the times and tides Green Lake Association Quarterly Publication just out. It explains the situation and facts in a succinct manner. Many thanks to Nancy Hill for the fine article!
I did read Nancy's article. I'll agree it is a good article, well written, presenting facts according to what Nancy has heard and discussed within the circles she travels. However, to do a really good article, you have to take the time to step out of those circles. I wonder if Nancy took the time to sit down individually with Town Chairman Mike Wuest, The representatives from Lindenwood, ABA officials, solicited DNR comment, etc. If she did, it's not obvious in her article. If that had been done and if she had tried to write from a non-biased position, which is very hard to do, it could have been a real eye opening article. By this I mean there is so much involved here, that we as outside bystanders, even attending all the meetings, cannot understand all that is involved. That's true for a lot of what's happening in the Green Lake, with the school issues, the court house, development projects, etc.
The line in Nancy’s article when she quotes Sara Mueller is right at the heart of this situation. Sara states "Emotions run high when a treasure of this kind comes under consideration for change". That line really nails it. You have emotions on one side saying, we don't want change, I don't want my backyard or the place I talk my walks to change... On the other side, you have an organization trying to run a business, which they are emotionally tied to. They need to change for their business to survive in the future. All businesses need to change. If they don’t they normally go out of business or are bought by someone who either picks them apart or initiates their own form of change. Any business, the ABA is an operating business, (pull the emotional thing out of it for now), they are a business and businesses do not normally try to sell or invest an asset, especially a valuable one like land just because it sounds like a good idea. And when you sell or put an asset to work for you, you make a financial investment and you MUST have a positive financial return on that investment. If not, you have wasted your money and the asset that you had, you now have lost forever.
Now, on the other hand, you have the township and some angry neighbors, who think they have an asset worth protecting, specifically the township and what goes on in it. If you hold fast to policies and such that limit what a business can do, you may bring another form of change upon yourself, such as; the ABA goes broke and disappears. Most of us hope this never happens, some folks have told me they could care less, but is it a possibility you are willing to accept, to hold to your policies? I’m not saying throw your policies out and let the winds of change dictate your future, that’s happened here long enough. You should consider if your policies or emotions are imposing undue hardships on an organization that, as Sara Mueller states, is a "community treasure".
I'm certainly not trying to get ABA or Lindenwood off the hook. There are things they need to consider and consider also if their requests and desires are placing undue hardships on the township. The township, I think, would yes, they are.
Chief, would you please add the Nancy Hill 'Times and Tides' GLCC article link to your website, if available? For those of us who'd like to get our hands on it. Thankx.
Lindenwood and the GLCC have now petitioned the city for annexation, the reason being that the city allows smaller lot sizes than the Town of Brooklyn.
In addition to the petition for annexation, Lindenwood and the ABA/GLCC have filed a lawsuit against the Town of Brooklyn and the Plan Commission asking that their ruling be overturned. It looks like Lindenwood is trying anything and everything all at once - must be pretty desperate.
So if the GLCC becomes part of the City of Green Lake, even though it is over a mile away from the city limits, who will pay for sewer and water for the Lindenwood development? How will the loss of GLCC affect the finances of the Town of Brooklyn? Seems like the City is trying to do a land grab from the Town of Brooklyn.
Bravo and hats off to Lindenwood and the City of Green Lake. The Town of Brooklyn deserves to lose this piece for the inept way they handled the situation.
The Town of Brooklyn's engineers determined over 50 items that were not properly addressed by Lindenwood and asked for clarification. This is routine. Not all of those items have been addressed by Lindenwood.
It is the responsibility of the township to properly vet a proposal. The consequences of not doing so are potentially costly and long term. It is the responsibility of a developer to come forward with plans that fit an area's code, and the comprehensive plan, which is the outline for how the majority of us want the area to grow.
The ongoing fallout of the housing bubble should caution all of us.
The Town of Brooklyn got exactly what they deserved from the Lindenwood housing development — nothing. The developer was treated with nothing but suspicion and accusation by a bunch of small-minded, afraid-of-change know-it-alls. The developer tried everything it could to accommodate these rubes, and all it got was more suspicion and more denials.
Apparently, Brooklyn doesn't want a multi-million-dollar housing development to add to its tax base. So consequently, Lindenwood Development said "Fine, screw you guys" and decided to seek annexation. The Green Lake Conference Center basically did the same. Brooklyn didn't want this development anyway, so now they've lost it, and the millions in property taxes will instead go to the City of Green Lake. As a city resident who watched all this unfold, I think it's fantastic.
And for those of you who claim this is a "land grab" by the city, remember — Lindenwood Development and the Green Lake Conference Center requested this themselves, so claims of a "land grab" are baseless.
Lets have a little order in the play pen.
Nothing is annexed yet, it is highly unlikely that the GLCC will be able to annex to GL. It is all wait and see now isn't it children???
Anyone stopped to see all the properties that are FOR SALE lately in and around Green Lake? Too many to count.
And they want to build how many houses? LOL
We sit back and smile and just wait it out.
This is the best entertainment we have had in years. Notice that no local contractors want to be associated with these Lindenwood guys. Hmmmm....
As they say, you're not talking apples to apples here. Have you noticed a little difference between the homes Lindenwood is proposing and what is available in the city for sale? Are the homes in Green Lake city on a golf course, offer lake access, provide security, privacy, exclusiveness? (a few do) All the things that folks who have the cash are looking for either the first retirement home or a weekend get-a-way. Believe it or not, there are a lot of folks who are not just trying to scrape up a downpayment on a 1200 square foot ranch home in Green Lake. Some of them actually want 1200 square feet, finished nicer than many homes, just to park their cars and water toys.
And lets hope some of their cash filters down to us "have nots" so we can buy that 1200 square foot ranch.
Hey anonymous, two posts up, what do you mean it's "highly unlikely" GLCC will be annexed into the city. On what autority do you make this statement? Have you not heard of lawyers, or are you one?
I'm betting the city smells money like a shark smells blood. Don't write this off as not passing just yet.
As a city resdident, I say the city needs this to pass. all those new homes with the dollar value they're talking, us city residents should be rallying behind this big time.
Amen to -Wait a minute- As a city resident who relies on home improvement to make a living I say bring it on. I could use some of those toy dollars so I can pay for my 1200 sq. ft. ranch. The people of the city of Green Lake do not do any home improvement. I must rely on all lake and business owners for my work. Maybe I can catch some of that GLCC work.
Do you think the Town of Brooklyn will play dead over this proposed financial loss for them?
One community in Wisconsin has been in court for three years now over a township/city annexation situation like this one. The lawyers are going to have a field day.
If I were to build a new house, I would check the zoning code in the area where I lived to find out the restrictions BEFORE I drew up plans. Why didn't Lindenwood do this? The Town of Brooklyn code isn't hidden away somewhere.
I'm reading a lot of posts from people who want ANYTHING to go forward so they can make some money. Be careful what you wish for. Once Green Lake is totally privatized, what then?
In my opinion, it is very low of the developers to be doing this, since they couldn't get their way with the town and have their smaller lot sizes. That's what this is all about. The town of Brooklyn was right in sticking to their comprehensive plan, that is why they have it in the first place.
As a city resident, I too would like to see more tax money coming into the city, but not if it means having this shyster developer get away with this unethical behavior. Besides, who would pick up the tab for running city sewer and water all the way out to the ABA? That would be one very expensive project. It's not like my property taxes will go down if the city annexes the ABA and the Lindenwood development, so I would rather that it stays part of the township.
The cost of extensions for sewer, water or other utilities is normally off set by the increased income from a development or area that the utilities are being provided for.
Regarding lot sizes, I think if you call the county today and ask them what their minimum lot size is, you might still hear it is 20,000 sf. At least that's what I heard when I stopped at the zoning office and asked about buying and building a lot in Town of Brooklyn early this past spring. No one said anything to me about a one acre minimum lot size. I don't want to take care of a lot that big! I never heard of a comprehensive plan until a friend referenced me to this blog. I've done nothing about buying and building, as it's highly unlikely I'll be able to sell my 1100 square foot home w/ one car detached garage in the city of Green Lake anytime soon.
Why doesn't the Town of Brooklyn take an "innovative" approach here. Compromise, offer some incentives, and woo back the business. Get er done. ORRRRRR will they continue to drag their feet, hide behind attorneys, and run from their shadow? Will leadership emerge, finally, from these board members? Surprise us with some positive progress.
The Town of Brooklyn's focus is clearly not business success. Sure, they plopped their new building near the cities industrial park, but that's a joke. The city ought to annex them! Can the town provide city services that most businesses desire? I think the township office just wanted to be on a road that actually gets plowed when it snows, but that's another issue.
The town has demonstrated clearly they want preservation, not positive development that might actually bring jobs and more customers to our area businesses. Oh, that's right, you can come, as long as it's on our terms, seems to be the implication.
Somehow there's a mind-set that the township will always remain a rural area. Wake up, you can't stop growth! The city has to grow and the only place it will go is out into the township. We've heard folks complain for years now, that we lost our grocery stores (I know we have a nice one now), we lost our pharmacy; we've lost our hardware, etc. The only way you'll ever get these things back is by letting the area grow. If your comprehensive plan is causing problems already, you better start revision #1 really soon. You can bet for certain, if the ABA gets annexed, the next piece of land adjacent to it won't be far behind. As a business owner who could use some more customers, I say bring it on!
and I say once again. Talk is cheap...so Lindenwood pulled out a sneaky albiet probably smart move here. But it is not done, the annexation has not passed..lets settle down with our toys here folks.
Don't ever think that the town of Brooklyn or the old money sitting out at the ABA is done. Far from it. Does everyone want to play surprise? Okay then!
Watch.
In my lifetime, Green Lake's REGULAR money came from tourism. The increasing privatization of Green Lake, coupled with the suburban look of much of what is being built, is going to end or severely restrict that trade. It was our bread and butter.
We ought to at least talk about what direction we want to go. When these expensive houses are completed, there's not much more money there, other than the vaunted tax base, which may turn out to be more problem than profit. Bigger communities with much more tax base say they are broke, too. It's an efficiency issue.
The more we have built in the last six or seven years, the more buisness in general has declined. Something's not right.
It would be far better to put the emphasis on family housing, people who might actually shop at the grocery store 12 months a year, and put their kids in our fading school system. And to take another look at tourism and how to regenerate it. I'm betting our (former) rustic look is going to be very in vogue again. We better assess what's left and be more creative with it.
how does building homes with a suburban look, bring an end to toursim?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear, but I meant that the ambience changes when so much wooded, wild land is cleared for subdivision.
Also, as regards the Conference Center, Shore Drive is the last great drive along the lake that is open to the public. The developers are proposing closing this road. Besides not wanting to lose it personally, how does this help in the long run? A scenic drive like that one is exactly what people come here for.
I read in the Ripon paper the annexation would expand the city by over 60 percent. What a great boon for the city's tax base. Too bad Brooklyn didn't want the Lindenwood Development!
What if a quality developer came to the table with a proposal, platts, with some building/development experience. Was respectful to the board, land use, preservation, I'm sure the Brooklyn board would listen. Did you see or hear the Lindenwood/ ABA song & dance... ridiculous... a true business person, can see- smell this one a mile away. GL, Brooklyn deserves better... is Green Lake city enjoying all the "millions" of dollars of tax revenue from Maplewood these days? ...sure brought in a lot of business to the city, eh? Lake font lots, one could build 1200sqft anything they want there- ... the housing boon is over, Neuman Homes just went bankrupt, and how is it little Lindwood is going to bring $$$$ to GL?
Shore Drive has been a private road for over 100 years. In that time, not one dime of tax money has gone to support it! Now, for some reason, you think you have the right to restrict the business operations of the GLCC and tell them what they can do with their road... why is that?
It's GLCC's Rd, it's their land, let them do what they need to do and get over it! Nobody else cared about a road along the lake, oh, that's right, they built their homes near the lake? Now what is it GLCC wants to do? But again, for some reason its not OK for them.
I have an annual pass for the ABA. I walk in there regularly, from what I've been told I'll still be able to walk Shore Dr or ride my bike along it. If you've gone in there, you know that where Shore drive is supposed to end, is where it now turns away from the lake and follows the golf course. So if you want to drive along the lake, you will still be able to do that.
Also, I'd bet, I admit I haven't checked, but the now infamous comprehensive plan or shoreline protection act would probably never allow for a road like Shore Dr to ever be built again, but we all love it. Isn't that ironic? I'm fairly certain that the shoreline protection act says absolutely nothing within 75 feet of the lake. Shore Dr would definitely be within the high water mark. We planned that we don't want roads like that anymore, yet we love it and want to protect it. Just proves we don't know what we want.
This whole annexation idea is ridiculous. I'd like to see the city of Green Lake say "thanks, but no thanks" and tell the Lindenwood develpers to blow off. The town of Brooklyn DOES deserve better, and this "developer" has no morals. Why would we (I live in the city) welcome them with open arms? I don't care about their tax dollars, the heart of this is not about money. This is a matter of integrity, and I hope to God that something can be done legally to stop the annexation. Mayor Parise and city officials, here is my plea to you: please don't allow the annexation to happen. Stand up for what is right and just. The town of Brooklyn is in the right, and Lindenwood development people are blatently wrong. It's that simple.
To Shore Drive...
Yes, I believe you will still be able to walk on Shore Drive in the ABA - the real question is whether you - or anyone else - will still want to. To see what it will look like after Lindenwood gets started, look at Maplewood (lots of wide roads and fire hydrants, a few big houses, a few remaining small sad trees)and imagine the whole east side of the ABA/GLCC looking like that. Still want to stroll around?
I walk around the paths at Maplewood all the time, almost every day on the new walkways they installed, I don't find it offensive at all. Wide roads, fire hydrants, doesn't bother me a bit. Isn't that what people want these days? Safety, ease of access, lighted walkways, etc.
No! What people I know want are natural, environmentally friendly, "green" places to enjoy! Heidel House displays it's naturalness and so does Lake Lawn Lodge, and neither has anything to offer that matches Big Green Lake near and on the ABA grounds! Let us protect what is there that belongs to all the folks in the GL area. It is an asset that needs to be protected and used wisely for generations to come and enjoy. Have you heard of Smart Growth???
Please look at Smart Growth Network at: www.sustainable.org
Oh wait a minute... you say the ABA "belongs to all the folks in the GL area" How in the heck could you make a statement like this? The ABA is a treasure that by reading the posts in here, too many folks have taken for granted, with zero concept of what it takes to support such a beautiful property and ministry; millions and millions of dollars just to cover annual budgets for sure. You obviously have never been in business and have no concept of today’s costs! Or what it takes to make difficult decisions to survive in today’s market. Maybe the ABA should send invoices out to all the people of the Green Lake area to help cover skyrocketing costs and needed repairs. It seems as though waiting for "all the folks" to send a charitable contribution isn't working.
I for one am praying very hard that their development goes through and they can survive for many years to come, because they are a treasure, and some homes along the lake and on their golf course will not change that one bit.
There are many folks who would LOVE to see an honest accounting of ABA's invoices and whole Budget!
What a great idea!
The ABA was stolen from private owners during the depression. Purchased for pennies on the dollar. Now the religious benefactors want to cash in some of those multi-millions they have accumulated. I don't blame them, but as a full time resident of the city of Green Lake I want something in return. Like some work off the development and the right to freely access the grounds without paying a fee.I don't pay now but I should not have to sneak in.
And I want to see it developed properly. With the present plans, that is, 100 foot lots, most of the trees and all of the ambience will be gone. There is no need to do that. And Shore Drive must remain open.
They have been putting up buildings every year, and now they are broke? Perhaps fresh leadership is in order.
Fresh leadership indeed! Amen to that, brother. If the ABA were a privately owned "business", the manager would have been fired long ago. I don't understand why they didn't get someone in there years ago who knows how to run at a profit. Sadly, in addition to losing money, they also let the place fall into a shameful state of disrepair. Now, much of it is so far gone it would be far too costly to repair. I still would rather see the place sold to a corporation that turned into a subdivision. Nature should be preserved for future generations, but the ABA only cares about saving their own sorry ass.
"The ABA was stolen from private owners during the depression." Let's see, my book says the ABA was bought in 1943 when it was in receivership and held by the bank. And that's called stealing? True, they got it for pennies on the dollar, and that practice is still done in the business world today, so I guess a lot of organizations “steal” businesses. I’ve stolen stuff myself from bankrupt contractors at local auctions for years. I never thought I owed anyone for it, I thought I paid the asking or negotiated price. And hadn't the country pretty much pulled itself out of recession by 1943?
Prior to the ABA purchase the land was a private club and only members were allowed to enter. Now, for a very modest annual fee, anyone can enjoy the grounds at their leisure. But now that's a bad thing and some folks admittedly "sneak" in. Where I come from, that's called trespassing. Last I checked it was still an illegal practice.
Don’t worry, I’m sure if they development goes forward, there will be plenty of work for local contractors, I’m hoping for some of that myself. Some local crews have been handling the initial road work. And a lot of the folks who build in there will be calling whoever they want. The Lindenwood developers aren’t big enough to handle all the work, some will go to others.
I wonder what the opinion is by the readers out here of other developments which are currently built-out in the City of Green Lake/Town of Brooklyn area. Two such developments which would be similar in lot size to what Lindenwood is suggesting are Robinhood and Lac Verde Circle. These are both approximately 20,000 square foot lots which is similar to what the ABA and Lindenwood are proposing for their plat. Is the consensus out there that these developments are hacked up subdivisions without any "green" feel to them? If you feel that these are nice locations and were built with minimal invasive planning, is it not possible that the ABA development could end up being another nice area of greater Green Lake to live and work? Both areas at one time prior to development were large parcels of land that were developed (probably against local wishes)and yet today, one might assume these subdivisions are considered to be valuable assets to the area with regard to living in and around them. These communities have allowed many fine families to experience the wonderful life that is possible when one has the opportunity to live in this terrific area. I believe that many of the local tradesmen will become involved in the build-out of this proposed development as the owners will have a choice who they will use and Lindenwood does not have the ability to meet what is expected with regards to demand. I would think most people will agree, the ABA and Maplewood are two very different properties and in the end, I think sales will support that.
Curious ? - You are right indeed. This is what I am thinking but you have put the words down for me. Thank You.
Lindenwood is out of money.
Simply put.
Let's watch.
It all takes money
Yeah, and the ABA is out of money too, not just Lindenwood. Which is why they are trying to do this development in the first place.
The guy in charge of the ABA built a bunch of new buildings but forgot to fill them up with paying guests and kept on building. He also borrowed a lot of money from the banks so he has a lot of debt to cover. That's what is driving all of this. It's not about choosing Brooklyn or Green Lake because it doesn't really matter to them.
The financial situation is desperate and this development is a desperate attempt to find a way out.
Hey Chief - any word on when the GLCC annexation petition will be going before the City Council?
The annexation meeting was cancelled because the Lindenwood/ABA petition for annexation did not have enough signatures. I do not know if it has been rescheduled.
To Curious, I agree that Robinhood and Lac Verde Circle are attractive, but they were built quite a while ago. Are you confident that that style of a moderate size home on an attractive, shaded lot will take place at Lindenwood? I'm not.
Maybe local contractors will get some work, but once it's done, it's done. What then? We need to focus on those things that bring trade here on a repeat basis. Great public places do that.
Dear Anonymous,
I guess none of us will be sure until the project gets OK'd and the first house is built and finished. Here is what I believe (keep in mind I used the word believe versus know) I have seen the plat, pricing for the lots and documentation regarding lake access options. So I do have some insight into the project that maybe others don't.Based upon the current pricing (which I don't see increasing based upon the current market conditions) will not allow for modest houses to be built. There are minimum size requirements along with an architectural committee to oversee and approve plans prior to anything being built. The eastern phase will be built which is where all the nice/expensive lots are. Because of the nature of the areas where the lots reside (very wooded) I believe the final result will be similar to Robinhood but even more secluded because the lots are almost in pods of six to eight homes and then another pod completely separate of that versus them all being strung together. Of course, I guess Mr. T could be a possible investor in which case I would be more concerned with the tree density (see article on Lake Forest home) These homes are going to range in the price of $400K on the low side to $3M+ on the high side with the average home costing $750 to build (average lot price plus average cost per square foot to build a 3000 sq. ft. home) Obviously I am taking out the lake front lots as they will skew the pricing considerably. At these prices I don't see a lot of modest homes being built. The people who will be attracted to the ABA/GLCC will be those people who either like the tranquility the property offers (1000 acres of green space along with the lake) avid golfers, lake enthusiasts or a combination of the three. I know a lot of people are upset with the idea of a development taking place in the ABA/GLCC. Hell, I have been running around those grounds like many of you who read and respond to this site for 40+ years (are you sure there is no liquor allowed on the grounds. My memory serves me differently) But I digress. I could get all upset regarding the development, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Nor did it for sliding rock (Emerald Shores today, Camp Robinhood. Any of these locations are private property, not state or local owned by municipalities and as such they are allowed to do whatever they wish withing the confines of the rules and regulations set forth by the governing bodies (another issue at another time) So, as long as the developers/ABA/GLCC stay within the rules as they are set before them, not much we can do. It is not our property to decide what to do with. If my neighbor paints his house pink (sorry to any pink home owners out there) I certainly won't like it, but unless there is something in my bylaws that requires approval by a committee or some such rule, I am SOL with regards to having anything to say about it. The ABA, not unlike Norton's has been a mainstay in the GL area for a long time. One has been tested and the other is currently being tested. In either case, change could/will take place. Everyone was so excited when Norton's didn't become condos. But it could have. As long as it would of complied with the zoning/planning commissions requirements or the developer would of being willing to make the necessary changes to insure that it did, we all would be sipping our lakeside drinks from another local (not many left) Only Mike and his family known his long term plans for Norton's but I wouldn't be surprised (based upon the recent price change) to see the property next door becoming "annexed" thru acquisition to Norton's. It only make sense from investment standpoint to bring those two parcels back together again with respect to future possibilities. With that acquisition, certainly there would be the possibility of a sizable hotel/restaurant/condo complex in the making. Change is going to happen regardless of what any of us want. There are bigger things to be concerned about than this. GL's shrinking retail environment, lake front via boat for food/drink/entertainment, increasing tax costs, school system reforms, affordable housing for locals, attracting new job producing business to the area, health/medical infrastructures for the community. And this is only the Tuesday list. You should see it by Friday. Most importantly, the number one issue to address before anything else hits the docket-Escalating drink prices....since when was Pabst and $4.00 suppose to be in the same sentence ?
In summary, don't get hung up in the have's and the have not's fighting over whose/gun/wallet/car/penis/lake home/driver shaft/ski boat engine or steak is bigger/better/nicer or well equipped. To quote Bill Murry in Caddie Shack , "It just doesn't matter" The development will happen and the costs of the lots will force it to be nice. The rest is just about lawyers getting richer during the process. So, let's get to work on the important stuff.
Anonymous-
One last item on your question regarding what Lindenwood will end up building on the lots. I concur with the statement/idea of little is know of the quality/type of builder Lindenwood may be. Anyone who buys a lot will have a choice on who/m they wish to build it. As we have all learned, choice does come at a cost. But the cost (based upon my previous e-mail) will average about $15/ per foot more. Based upon the $$$ these investors will be spending on their new homes, I don't think that will be enough to sway them away from something/someone they are comfortable dealing with as their builder/contractor. Most if not all of the people who will invest in the "Estates of Lawsonia" will be educated people who will hold Lindenwood (as they would any builder) accountable for their work and final product. It will be up to Lindenwood to sway any potential homes being built away from the local contractors. I believe this may be their biggest hurdle. The lots will sell themselves. The homes will be built. The biggest unknown is who will end up building them. My gut feeling is it will end up being a custom home development supplied by several builders over the course of the build-out. If Lindenwood is smart they will insure (through very aggressive lot/home pricing) they build the first couple homes so they can show their abilities to others. At the moment, they are at a disadvantage in that regard.
Why do we have zoning laws in place and plat laws/restrictions and the like if they are disregarded, not addressed or skirted around?? What good are these laws if they are changed, altered, and ignored? Lindenwood ignored all that has been put in place by the Town of Brooklyn. This is not an emotional statement, this is factual. They put the cart before the horse on this entire development and it is our belief that this will cost them the development. The comprehensive plan that the Town of Brooklyn worked so hard on is nothing but a worthless piece of paper in the eyes of Lindenwood. Why do we go through such pains, such detail when people/developers/contractors do not abide by what has been put in place?? The issue then becomes spot zoning which does not work as we all know and developers often use spot zoning to get what they feel that they need.
I doubt that you will find a local contractor willing to whore themselves to work with this development if it does somehow pass. There is one such local contractor out there who has not even been paid for their original work done for Lindenwood early in the summer!!! And Lindenwood can't pay because they have no money, just as the GLCC has no money.
This is just beginning to get ugly. Let the fireworks begin.
Dear Curious... thanks for writing some of the most accurate intelligent comments that have appeared on any of the blogs on this site in a long time.
To the annonymous ranter who wrote above, my two cents is, the Towns comprehensive plan and other zoning regs are written with the interest of those folks who live here now and they do not consider the reality of the future of this area. This area is attractive and it is going to grow. I see the towns plan as a good way to try and shut the door on others who may want to move here, unless you're willing to come under the terms of the plan and again, is the plan realistic for the area?
It seems to me that the developer and aba deserve some kudos for the savy approach being taken here. They have stayed away from the rumor and mudslinging and quietly gone about their business. One door closed (uncooperative town of brooklyn) and another opened (city of green lake). This is how effective business people function. They don't quit, they persist, adjust, compromise, and methodically work to conclusion. All the talk of financial difficulty, incompetence, etc. is pure speculation. Others can be distracted by the rhetoric while they press on. After all, has anyone posted financial statements? The city will work cooperatively with the center/developer and a better product will be put out for Green Lake. The attorneys are salavating over the fees from another good fight. I am sure the aba cares deeply about their property. It goes hand in hand with their ministry, their resources, and proper stewardship of both in a dog eat dog world. At the end of the day, the city and glcc will get the job done and move forward together.
lets just say I am in banking. The financial statements of Lindenwood? Non existent. We asked, they did not produce.
remember i said "lets just say" which could mean any number of things.....
The comprehensive plan is not in place to shut down growth, but to direct it so that the rural character of the area remains intact; so that services can be provided efficiently; and to prevent environmental degradation.
I'm tired of hearing developers/contractors/realtors complain about it.
Those of us who are not develpers, etc., have a stake in how the area changes, too.
Therer is not a whole lot that has happened here in the last six or seven years that we can point to with pride, for its beauty and for what it offers us for the future. This is scary.
It is sad that there is such a lack of creative vision and willingness to work together.
The Lindenwood development makes a lot of people nervous because it is a very special place, and very important to drawing people to Green Lake. When it's gone, it's gone, and another part of Green Lake's history is not only flattened, but privatized. The ABA/Lindenwood have displayed a signal lack of sensitivity to that, and great defensiveness. A different tone, a greater willingness to work with area government and existing rules would have gone a long way toward preventing so much money going to lawyers, again.
Any rules and regulations that become "law" hopefully have had a considerable amount of time and effort put into them prior to them going into effect. But like most instances, they are designed for the majority of potential applications but certainly not all. As such, each and every situation requires thoughtful perspective to insure one is not always trying to put the proverbial square peg in the round hole. The cause and effect should be studied, reviewed and decided upon. Let's face it, we all know of plenty of rules/laws out there that may be law, but aren't necessarily "good laws". Look at the recent instance where the junior high school girl got two days of detention for hugging two of her friends at the end of the day prior to the weekend starting. Or the Maine school district who decided they should start supplying "the pill" to their female students. I would think I would be considered pretty liberal but please.....is this what things have come to? We live in a world of business and $$$ makes the world go round. May not be right, but only a fool would not agree (at least to him/herself) So, regardless of "in-place" laws, there are lawyers "waiting in the wings" to assure their parties get what they want and regardless of the issue, it will be sold under the guise of "every person/business has the right to representation". If you will, just picture the large flower/plant in the movie "Little Shop of Horrors". Try and remember what the flower/plant continually yells out when it is hungry, remove the "d" and I think you will get the picture. Also, remember what the plant likes/needs to eat.
Every day, a new battle begins between cities/municipalities/governments and private enterprises regarding their wish to "do business" within the confines of the public geographical boundary's. This is not going to change. Each party wants something for conforming to a plan other than what is each sides Nirvana. Developers end up getting what they want because they in turn give something that the public sector wants (green space, school land, service contract(s)and oh, let's not forget $$$$. I think the mistake that was made by the town of Brooklyn was they thought, based upon the "speculated" financial condition of the ABA/GLCC and their need to make this development happen, eventually, they would conform to the comprehensive plan versus the "ordinances" as they read today. I am afraid that, if in the end, the ABA/GLCC becomes annexed into the city of green lake, there will be "hell to pay" by someone for letting this development slip thru their hands and into the city. Granted, the town will receive 5 years (I believe) of off-set tax loss they would have received if the ABA/GLCC would of remained with in the town of Brooklyn's borders. But the long term effect will be very difficult to replace (being that it is currently, according to record, the town of Brooklyn's largest contributor of tax based revenue). I don't perceive that this "land struggle" will go easily and it is not without reason that Green Lake, in the near future, will have their own version of the "Hatfields and McCoys" (see reference to plant in Little Shop of Horrors)
I cannot speak with regard to Lindenwood. Only the ABA/GLCC know why, in the end, they chose them to partner with respect to the development of the property. It would be safe to assume, that it had something to do with $$$$. My guess, other more reputable developers, who have handled projects of this size, were a more comfortable choice to the ABA/GLCC because they would of just contracted to purchase the land and provide a "lump sum" to the ABA. Unfortunately, the lump sum offed was less than what the ABA/GLCC needed/wanted. Lindenwood probably sold them on the idea of we will market/sell the lots for you at a "retail level" which would over time provide more revenue for the ABA/GLCC. I'm afraid, the ABA/GLCC may have not fully understood the benefit of compounded interest opportunities on that size of investment. Oh well, they have picked their horse and I'm sure they are going to continue to ride them regardless of the win/place/show potential. If the annexation takes place, two things most certainly should follow; the city of Green Lake tax rate should go down considerably (at least after the fifth year) and look for other fringe properties who had been offered "annexation" in the past to opt to do so now based upon a reduced tax rate/increased services.
One last comment: I have mentioned Robinhood and Lac Verde as two developments that might represent a similar "feel" to what might take place at the ABA/GLCC. In reality, I believe the development will become even a higher standard than those just based upon the fact that there are more in-place conditions that a buyer must adhere to than back then and the entry costs to build will bring a certain standard required by the investors/owners. The density will be far less, even though the lots sizes are similar because of all the additional green space that will surround them. Many have heard the saying, " Fat Pigs get Slaughtered". The way the ABA/GLCC has currently platted "The Estates of Lawsonia" is not overly intrusive to what exists there today. They are allocating approximately 10% of the land to this development. OK. You have the people who currently reside within the ABA who have homes there and are upset at the change. All I can say is this. Unless you have some written document (from the ABA) that states without question, that the only reason you purchased a lot (to help out the ABA of course) in the ABA was because they provided a written statement that there would not be any future development/sales of land within the boundaries of the ABA. If not, you are SOL. You can hide behind the guise of we want to protect the chestnut trees, the eagles, the single legged scarlet jumping frogs and whatever else you can come up with, but in reality, when it comes right down to it, I am pretty sure, it's all about protecting your turf. Nothing wrong with that. But let's cal a spade a spade. You bought a lot. You have rights to the quiet enjoyment of that lot. But that's pretty much it. Anything else you have received as a bonus of using the additional grounds of the ABA has been a significant bonus to date. I can understand your defense of your current position. You don't want change. Understandable. Most people don't. Unfortunately, it's not a very realistic approach to life. To some, change is something that periodically accumulates within the pockets of their clothing. To others, it is an everyday occurrence. Everyone is going to be considered self serving based upon an adopted perspective. I think we all understand that. I think what everyone seems to be missing is the bigger picture. What happens when the ABA/GLCC for whatever reason isn't allowed annexation and goes back to the drawing board and comes up with one of the following plans of action:
1) Secure a different (much less expensive) piece of property some where else (potentially completely away from Green Lake and sells the entire ABA/GLCC property to a large resort developer (Hilton/Hyatt/Marriott). Remember my statement about the current plat only using about 10% of the ABA/GLCC's total land amount. What do you think the Hilton/Hyatt's of the world would do? If you don't think they would be flashing some large amounts of $$$ in front of the town of Brooklyn and or the city of green lake to get "things the way they want them" you may want to stop taking your " Alice in Wonderland" daily supplements. And don't think the ABA couldn't find one of these "resort developers" who wouldn't "drool" at the chance to build a destination resort on the premises. Especially with all the shore line they have and the two in-place top 100 golf courses that already exist.
2) The ABA/GLCC re-plat and come back with a conforming plat with 250 1+ acre lots.
All of a sudden, that initial plat is starting to look pretty good isn't it.
I want to see this project done correctly as much as anyone else I think. The difference is, I feel it could be much worse that what is being asked for at the moment.
So Town of Brooklyn, current residents of the ABA and any others who are deadly against this project taking place as requested today. Be careful of what you are asking for, because you may very well get it. And then some.
PS. On a similar note, why aren't more people concerned about the investment company that is buying up all the property in Ripon. I don't know how many people have bought into the idea that this investment company "just likes Ripon" because of one or more of them had fond memories of the town while they attended Ripon College. Remember, it's all about business and something doesn't make sense. Someone mentioned to me last weekend that "they had heard" that the same investment company had recently entered into discussions/contracts regarding the purchase of Harbor Lights and Two Chez. They seem to really be concentrating on the restaurants and bars. Why ? Liquor licence control ? I don't know, but something doesn't smell right....
I believe the reason an investment firm is buying up all the real estate buildings in Ripon is because they are living in the real world. They know what it costs to build buildings. They know that Ripon is less than a tank of gas away from mega populations. They know that there are people outside of Ripon that will pay for good food and entertainment. They are acting before all the others discover the little known secret that "if you build it they will come". Apparently all the local investors are not smart enough to act upon this over the many past years so they will only criticize. So now I would love for this to bleed into Green Lake. I am so sorry that I can not partake in the lousy food at the G.L. restaurants. There can only be improvement for the uneatable food at Harbor Lights.
I must correct a recent statement from yesterday. It was Bill Murry who stated, "It just doesn't matter" but the movie was "Meatballs" and not "Caddie Shack" although my guess is to most of you it "Just didn't matter"
Just to support the good comments that "Curious?" wrote, there can be no more truthful statement "don't ask for what you want in life, you might get it". Tread cautiously here folks.
Just hearsay, but I heard the outfit buying up Ripon is strongly opposed to alcohol establishments due to a sad family incident that involved alcohol. Rumor says their plan is to buy all the bars in Ripon and shut them down. Imagine Ripon and GL as a dry towns? I can hear the Princeton bars cheering that on! Although I have a hard time seeing the Norton's crowd in the Buckhorn?
Again... USE CAUTION, this is just rumor and hearsay, don't take it for fact or anyhting else. Does anyone out there have first hand accurate info to share on this?
This IS a fact. Lindenwood has the "exclusive" rights to building homes at ABA. And just how long will it take to build out?
Would you consider 31 homesites grouped together a "pod"?
I will concur that 31 homes is not a "pod". I forgot about that stretch that goes from the road that parallels 23 and then heads south and then back up again. The elevation of that land drops considerably from the road towards the water and is very wooded so although there are more than 6-10 homes in it, they are sort of grouped where one area of 9 homes and then another area of 18 homes even though they are contiguous. The lots on the north side of the road that parallel 23 will have to be given away for anyone to be interested in them. They are far too close to 23 for most investors to be interested in even at a reduce price, so I think in the end, those 10 lots, although platted, will not be built on. The water lots, have been reduce down a few as have the ridge lots. So what currently shows as 101 lots, will probably end up something closer to 86 I would guess.
With regard to Lindenwood's "exclusive" marketing rights I will say the following:
According to Lindenwood's pricing, they offer the lots two ways- One price for the lot if they build the house, and a higher price for the lot if you buy the lot and have someone else build the home for you other than Lindenwood. This allows the ABA/GLCC to generate revenue regardless of who ends up building. It also allows Lindenwood to make some money on the land purchase just in case they can't sway the investor away from their favored contractor/builder. Keep in mind who is driving this deal. The ABA/GLCC. They want revenue, and they would like it sooner than later. So, if they were smart, they put some language into their contract with Lindenwood, along with some incentives (Lindenwood gets whatever $$$$ is up and above the agreed upon pricing for each lot) which insures there would not be any road blocks or delays for an investor who simply wants to buy a lot and use their own builder. Obviously, Lindenwood would prefer to build every lot. Based upon build-out expectations, this could/should take them up until they are ready/prepared for retirement. This is a small community and word will travel very, very fast if their work is anything less than exemplary. I think the big thing is to insure all the infrastructure(roads,utilities,sewer,services, etc) is brought in and completed. The city/town (depending on what ends up happening with the annexation request) should require some sort of surety bond that will cover the costs of all these things so that if it is platted and approved, at least any investors (as well as the city/town) will be protected in case, for some reason, the development goes south. Once the infrastructure is in, the ABA could always sell the lots themselves, although that would probably change their tax position.
NOTHING is approved so you are in dream land!
Do you really expect the city to deny this? Do you not see the potential benefit in tax base? Can you do the math... tax base on 80 homes valued at at least $500,000+ each on an average. This is the best thing to fall in Green Lake's lap in years.
Yes, you other folks in annexation ripe areas, be prepared. The City of Green Lake has to grow and its coming to a neighborhood near you soon!
Tourism will not carry us into the future. It barely carries us now. This sleepy hamlet had better wake up soon; other towns have taken our guests. While the "no change" party has beat their drum! Our town is full of empty homes. The golf boom is over and in decline. Rumor has it that ABA is ready to dump Lawsonia to other investors.
Our industrial park shows more potential for a future in Green Lake than six good weeks of tourism does. Tourism, business growth, job creation and tax base income are good things!
Be careful what you wish for. I have read that the cost of providing services to new areas (in Wisconsin) is running about about 5% more than the taxes received. We ought to explore the idea of greater government efficiency before we bulldoze everything that has brought visitors here for 150 years. Most of those visitors wanted a sleepy, friendly hamlet.
The old "you don't want any change/wake up and smell the coffee" argument is tiresome and gets us nowhere. It also doesn't frame the issues accurately. These changing times are really tough; none of us knows what is coming next.
Perhaps the drop in housing prices will allow GL to atrract more middle class families to live here, and we can become a more balanced community again. That's good for local business. But for most of us, I think, the big money won't ever be here, in a very small town in rural Wisconsin. Have to go to the cities for that, and put up with city living.
The best future for us is to preserve the wonderful character of our area while exploring new options for attracting people to visit. Second, we have to have a balanced approach to housing to keep a vibrant community life, a business district and a school. Third, government has to be really sharp and innovative in how it functions. Fourth, we need to pool our creative thoughts without all this rancor. It's so tedious and nonproductive.
3 3:41 pm writer: AMEN !!!
which utopian society were you rejected from?
Here we go again the; let's wait, let's study this some more, maybe people will move here, we don't know what the future will bring, etc. Geez, we've heard this long enough while our down is dying.
It's time to grow!
What does that mean?
I think Ready to Grow meant... "while our town is dying"
Will some you you negative thinkers PLEASE take the time to investigate Smart Growth Network at: www.sustainable.org ?
Since I assume I’m being grouped into the category of “Negative Thinkers” I did look at Sustainable Growth.org. I even downloaded and read the 32 page document “This is Smart Growth”. What is in there over and over again is pictures and talk of compact, easily walkable neighborhoods, located near stores and other services type neighborhoods. Affordability is also an issue, but it is a relevant term depending on the clientele you intend to attract. $500,000 is affordable an attractive to some, while others have to stretch for the first $100,000 home. Where is it written that all neighborhoods have to be built for the average middle income person? Some of our area neighborhood are, others are not.
Much of the sustainable growth work is focused on revitalization of downtown issues and bringing folks back into the community to live and shop. So what do you do here in Green Lake? In which circumstance should we build it so they will come? Build homes, and then rebuild the downtown with some snazzy upscale shops and boutique style apartments or vice versa.
The section in the document that speaks to the importance of protecting “working lands” or farm lands is important to our area. Around here our wetlands seem to be fairly well protected by state and local authorities, Grand River Marsh, The large amount of public hunting grounds, the marsh between Princeton and Berlin (white river?) and our own city wetland areas out along union and north streets. The fairly new approach to water collection in retention ponds and not just allowing run off is also positive. But our farmlands are getting built on at an alarming rate. Yet we say that is OK as long as it is a one acre minimum but not more than 5 acre lot. Either way, the “working” part of the land is lost. Yet can we force a farmer to keep his land that has become unproductive to him, just because we like to see open farmland?
Since this blog seems to be created to attack Lindenwood and the ABA, I have to say I don’t see a lot of what’s in the sustainable growth web page, that is being ignored by their development plans. They offer compact development areas, surrounded by green spaces, golf course and walking trails, with park like settings, attention to run off and environmental concerns are addressed. Where is the problem with this?
Since the issue appears to be bigger lots, many who have posted on this blog seem to be of the opinion, that as long as you build on a big lot, you have done a good thing and lessoned your environmental impact. Whereas the counter argument is that if you build in compact area, with adequate open green space in between, you have accomplished the same results.
"Ready to Grow" points out several important things and the correlation to the farm land was spot on. Only the ABA and their book keepers know their real financial condition so we have to assume the reasoning behind their wish to sell a portion of their land is legitimate. That being said, people don't mind if the farmer sells his land, because it doesn't impact them personally. They are not out walking his land (except maybe if they have rights to hunt on it) so the impact is basically loss of open space. On the other hand, the ABA causes a issue, because many have utilized it for many years (and probably free by the way) and now a private party who owns it wants to change that. Well, that's just not exceptable. The funny part of all of this is that the town of brooklyn and the people who are against this project want the developer to use twice as much land (1 acre versus 1/2 acre lots) to meet their standards of land they are trying to protect. Doesn't make much sense to me. Please don't do anything to the land, but if you do, please take twice as much as you have asked for so you meet our "comprehensive plan". I have said before, careful what you ask for, because you may just end up getting it. And if you do, now the developer will be building the same number of lots, but taking up twice as much land to do it. To me, 1/2 acre lots are sufficient to the project and I would much rather see the developer use half as much land than twice as much. I would think most would concur if they thought about it long enough.
Curious..
It's not that one acre lots would require twice as much land. It's that the developer would only be able to build 40-45 homes on the land the ABA intends for this project. Lindenwood makes more money with more houses which is why they want to build 90+ houses. Why wouldn't they consider building 40 or 45 houses? Seems like plenty in this very tough market with - as a previous poster noted - alot of empty homes already around.
As "Ready to Grow" said in a previous post, can't you do the Math? 40 - 45 homes does have the same financial return to ABA or the Lindenwood developers as 80 - 90 homes.
As curious ? wrote: We live in a world of business and $$$ makes the world go round.
I think the previous poster meant to say, “40 – 50 homes does not have the same financial return”
It is becoming quite clear that the annexation is legally sound.
It is becoming quite clear that annexation benefits the majority, plus new and existing homeowners, the city, and the aba/developers.
It is becoming quite clear that the town of brooklyn messed up big time. This is a serious screwup by your representatives and they deserve to be rebuked.
Now, unless the town of brookyn does something sensible to woo back the business, get on with the annexation vote and lets move on to more productive issues.
From what I have been reading these past months, the town of Brooklyn did not do anything "wrong". It is the developers who refuse to work within the system that is in place, and they went into this knowing what "the rules" were but chose to ignore them.
The annexation (in my opinion) will not help the city in any way, shape or form. It will cost the city of Green Lake far more than they can comprehend at this time. The annexation will only help the developer because they would be able to build more homes. The annexation will not help the home owners who might choose to build because their taxes will be nearly double what they would be if they are a part of Brooklyn. The city "services" that they would receive by being a part of the city are certainly not worth that many extra thousands of dollars per year in taxes. As a city resident and taxpayer, I do not believe that the property taxes I pay are worth the city services I receive. If anyone thinks that their taxes will go down if the city annexes the ABA is dreaming. Quite the opposite would be true. Many cities have found out the hard way why we need "smart growth". Half as much land for twice as much "growth" is about killing our gorgeous natural habitat for "progress". What kind of monsters are you that you can't envision the destruction? No amount of money is worth destroying our incredible natural resources. Last time was at the ABA, I saw 5 eagles flying from their perches high atop the pine trees. Now please explain to me and the rest of Green Lake County why the ABA needs more money and is willing to sell out because they have no freakin idea how to run their "business" or whatever they want to call it.
The city of Green Lake would be wise to back away from this and continue to let the town of Brooklyn deal with it. If the ABA does become annexed, I will be extremely angry and disappointed with local city government. It is not an intelligent move for the city to take. If this goes through, the only ones who should be rebuked are the developers, the mayor and other city officials.
Many thanks to "Ready to Grow" for researching and explaining the smart growth position and principles involved.
It does seem identifying and sustaining existing assets, and efficient utilization of resources are keys - to finding the pony in there somewhere. Brooklyn and Green Lake's Comprehensive Plan(s) seem like the methodology and something to implement in this pursuit; however, in addition some compatible and realizable ideas for economic health are needed.
Maybe those economic forums can supply this.
you'd think those eagles would be smart enough to fly to another tree up the street, if someone pulled theirs down...huh?
To Swiss cheese,
You are entitled to your opinion, but please tell us what you are basing your opinion on!! As I see it (the annexation) the city can grow by about 900 acres of taxable property, minus any non-taxable, church owned property. I understand that the current private residential properties will not be a part of the proposed annexation and will continue to pay property taxes to the Town of Brooklyn. I also understand that the developer may have to pay the cost of running city sewer and water lines to the development site. If this is the case, our tax dollars would not be used. The question I would like ask is who will be paying the bill for getting sewer and water out to that area? I also understand that this development would continue to be a private subdivision just like out in Heritage. If this is true, no city tax dollars would be used for snow plowing, leaf pick up, etc.
As far as you not believing your property taxes are worth the city services you receive, please remember part of your tax bill goes to the County, Public school, Moraine Park Technical College and to the City. I do agree with you that our taxes will not go down, but with 900 more acres of taxable property paying for the city services we all receive, our taxes should not go up as much from year to year. It’s like how some people have problems with all the condos in Green Lake, each unit has its own tax bill on property valued at what? $250.000 minimum if not higher. These owners are paying property taxes accordingly based on the assist value and by not being full time residents, use very little of our city services. What I’m trying to say is they pay big $’s in taxes and demand very litter services in return. Same as in Maple Wood! Huge taxes $’s coming in, very little demand on services.
I saw the same 5 eagles flying & resting in trees along South Lawson Dr. by Norton’s and in Maple Wood, they are beautiful to look at, have been migrating through for years and I bet will continue for years to come. The City needs to grow and the annexation laws lean more in favor of the Cities vs. Townships. What I would like to see is the city working with some developers on building more affordable subdivisions that would bring in new families that would become full time Green Lake residents. I do agree that many developers today are looking to score huge $’s in return and lower affordable subdivisions are not as profitable. So far I’m liking the annexation idea, I think we should keep informed on these issue and attend the meetings to get the facts.
I bet swiss cheese has two million dollars under his mattress. The tax payers of Brooklyn already pay thousands of dollars and don't receive any services. I can always tell when I approach their roadways the snow is never plowed in winter and roads are never repaired in summer.There isn't even a place along the road to walk or jog. My uncle lives up north in Eagle River. The eagles are like possums and raccoons they eat garbage and road kill and they are not bothered by progress. They will live everywhere.
Screech! For those of you humans that don't quite get it, the only nest we have at the ABA is the one in the tall pine tree between fairways #7 & #17 of the woodlands golf course. Last we heard they are not building any houses in the middle of the fairway, so we should be safe.
We've tolerated golf carts, mowers, people and even the reconstruction of the course last year and it didn't bother us one bit. And a lot of that went on during our nesting period when the chicks were in the nest, the young ones did fine also.
Great!
Now that the eagles are safe, there must be some other reason to halt progress.....
The Town of Brooklyn got exactly what they deserved from this whole thing — nothing. The Town Board caved to a bunch of afraid-of-change, not-in-my-backyard naysayers, and consequently, the town now stands to lose a HUGE portion of its tax base when the area is annexed into the city. Lindenwood and the Conference Center rightly said "nuts to you" and decided to seek annexation. I applaud them. This project has grinded to a near halt because of people who are afraid of change, and it's time to shut those people up.
FYI ... I read in the Ripon paper that the town wants to increase its taxes by 83 percent next year!
If the issue is lot size, one must consider that the site is environmentally sensitive, heavily wooded and historic. Thus it seems that larger lot sizes/fewer houses would have less impact while still providing GLCC with the needed revenue.
The developer would not (potentially) make as much money off larger lot sizes/fewer houses, but this community is under no obligation to provide any developer with a particular level of profit.
The community does have an obligation to direct growth in a manner that is agreeable to the majority and environmentally responsible, thus the comprehensive plans. The Town of Brooklyn is trying to implement its plan. It is not easy for lay people on the plan commission to get it all right straight out of the gate. The developer, as I understand it, has never done a project of this size and complexity either, and did not approach the township with due diligence. And that is the developer's obligation; they are supposedly the professionals.
The city, on the other hand, has ignored the parameters laid out in its (unimplemented) comprehensive plan in a rush for tax revenue. The results in some instances have been poorly thought-out projects that may pay the higher taxes mentioned earlier, but are detrimental in other ways.
We have been in this building frenzy for years now with lots of high-dollar properties coming onto the tax roll, but it has not solved the revenue problem. Perhaps there are other aspects of that issue that need to be discussed by all of us. And housing bubbles do not provide lifetime work.
The discussion remains polarized on pro- and anti-development, pro- and anti-growth. The solutions are in the grey area in the middle. Dropping the slogans and engaging in creative, thoughtful, serious talks about the long-term growth of our community is essential. Some of the issues are how to pay for government services; how to have more middle class housing to support the downtown, the new grocery store and the school; how much of Green Lake is going to be privatized and what that will do to tourism; and possible avenues for jobs.
In the best-case scenario for the GLCC and GL, people of means (and there are plenty of them here) would step forward to buy the disputed property for the conservancy, and GLCC would bow out on the subdivision concept. I see potential for this community utilizing its great public properties (Big Green Lake, Mitchell's Glen, etc.), and the proposed environmental charter school as a small anchor in the very big future of environmental studies, eco-tourism, etc. Then add in a cultural dimension provided by Thrasher Opera House and Ripon College (where a renaissance is happening). We've also never thoroughly tapped the history of the area—Underground Railroad, at least two presidents staying here (Grant and Taft that I know of) and another honoring Victor Lawson upon his death, the many aspects of the turn-of-century influx of visitors, etc. Just because we cannot see, now, exactly how this plays out, is a poor reason to not stretch a little and try for innovation.
Finally, let's not forget that California is on fire and Atlanta has rationed its remaining water. Public officials in both places are saying that they did not put enough thought into how they grew. We are beyond foolish if we don't blend our need for revenue and jobs with a careful plan for the future. Our clean air and water, beautiful land, and views of the lake are an absolute treasure, and worth much more care than we are presently giving them.
BRAVO to the writer of the 7:46 am comment. Thank you for your intelligent, well wriiten, thought out suggestions.
but what about the eagles?
"The developer, as I understand it, has never done a project of this size and complexity either, and did not approach the township with due diligence."
Have you or anyone called the developers or ABA and asked them about the due diligence they did? Or do you just favor gossip and hearsay?
"In the best-case scenario for the GLCC and GL, people of means (and there are plenty of them here) would step forward to buy the disputed property for the conservancy, and GLCC would bow out on the subdivision concept."
Except for the Havey's the Caesteckers and few other selected folks, there is no one in the community who would give a dime for a community project unless it directly benefited them. I know this why...acres and acres of land has disappeared for development and no one has said a word. The Emerald shores development was a prize piece of undisturbed land. It went to development and no one cared. Cry all you want about Maplewood, but when that was bought by Metric, what did you think their plan was, to make it a park? Think again.
A friend of mine called when the Lindenwood developers had their fore sale sign out front, asking price... 24.9 million dollars. You best get busy on raising that money! They might be willing to negotiate down a bit?
The ABA wants to develop a small piece of their land to assure their future and their ministry. Most of the land will remain as we have known and enjoyed it for our lifetime, but this is a bad thing?
Initially, the ABA contracted with a land use company to look at their available acreage and come up with their own "comprehensive plan" with respect to how they might carve out a portion of their overall acreage to sell off for development. They then took the plan they liked best from the various land planners and sent it out to bid hoping for a windfall in the neighborhood of $40-$45 million. Unfortunately, in the end, their wishes fell short by the neighborhood of $20M or so.
(Off stage left) enter Lindenwood:
Hello, my name is Lindenwood and do I have an great idea for you Mr. ABA !
The rest of the story now unfolds.
Remaining characters:
Ebenezer "Brooklyn" Scrooge
Bob "ABA" Cratchit
Tiny "Lindenwood" Tim
Ghost of Christmas Present (see Parise)
I think everyone knows how the story turns out......
On the lot sizes: If the Lindenwood only is allowed to build 40-45 homes versus 90, doesn't that mean they will only receive 1/2 as much for their land. Has anyone seen the recent Hyundai ads ? Duh ! Lindenwood will not be able to sell an acre lot for much more than they are asking for the 1/2 acre lots now. They will be lucky to get what they are asking for the 1/2 acre lots. Sooooooooo, as I have stated in the past, they will either go back and re-plat for 1 acre lots and tear up more land (anyone want that) or annex into the city and go with what they have now. The ABA doesn't like getting $25 million for their land now. Do you think they will be happier with $12.5M. Now, if one thinks that the ABA will still get their $25, but Lindenwood will just built 1/2 the number of homes, let's look at the math. If we assume that the ABA is getting a guaranteed $25 million with an upside based upon lot sale pricing, lets take a closer look. Currently, the ABA/Lindenwood has it platted for approximately 170 homes (on 150 acres). Not including infrastructure prices, that works out to about $150K internal cost per lot ($166K per acre based upon $25M for the land). If they build 1/2 as many, that pushes the internal cost per lot up to $300K ($332K per acre). Now add on infrastructure, marketing and sales costs and you are approaching $500K as an average internal lot cost. Basically, every lot cost based upon it's current pricing would have to double to retrieve the ABA/ Lindenwood their required ROI. Market won't allow for it.
This is the proverbial catch 22. So, high noon is approaching and somebody is going home in a box. The "grave master" just doesn't know yet what name to put on the head stone.
At an ABA Board meeting that was supposed to happen this past week but didn't because of poor attendance, they would have had to wrestle with being some $7 million in debt and the fact that a year or more later since they pushed forward to allow this sale to a developer to go forward, they are still waiting for money. The interest on the loans is ticking ticking ticking. The debt includes unsecured operational debt and construction costs that are not fully pledged.
So the clock is ticking on the interest and principal. The rooms are not full, costs have been incurred toward some of the work done already on moving golf course holes around and other property "improvements" in anticipation of all this development. There is thought of selling one of the golf course to private parties. The bank could be the eventual "winner" in all of this. Something has to give on this debt they are carrying. Supposedly some of the windfall from this deal (the 40-50 million talked about deal) would have wiped out the debt and built an endowment to sustain the operation.
However today reality is rearing its' ugly head. The interest on the loans is getting bigger and they are struggling to just to service the debt. The talk now is of layoffs. Where will all this end? Eagles don't care if they nest on property owned by a conference center or a bank.
History may repeat itself. 70 years ago, the bank had to take this property back from developers when they defaulted on the loan to build a resort and a housing development with the land platted for many,many homes planned for wealthy people. Sound familiar?
Geez, doom and gloom picture painted here or what?
I prefer to hope Mayor Parise is the ghost of Christmas future and the annexation and development go forward and the ABA pulls itself out of this mess.
Let's hope we don't go full circle and our Native American friends are not the next one to open "Lone Tree Point Casino". Old Jessie Lawson's a rolling in her grave just thinking of it!
Don't you people understand that the annexation and this development are not going to "save" the ABA??? The only gloom and doom picture here is the deep grave of debt that the ABA has dug for itself over the years AND WILL CONTINUE TO DIG because they do not know how to operate at a profit. Even if the development goes through, the ABA will continue to fail, unless of course they get someone to run the place who knows what they are doing. The development will only prolong the inevitable, like putting someone with stage-3 cancer on chemotherapy. The ABA should sell the whole place while it is still an attractive property. The development will ruin the place.
Does anyone know the date and time for the City/Plan Commission meeting about the annexation?
I was told it will be held on 12/12/07. You may want to call the city to confirm, but that is what they told me yesterday.
This blog is so pathetic. The last news item was posted Oct. 1 for discussion. That was almost two months ago. How about a new topic? Good grief. Anyone read the papers? There's plenty going on that people would like to discuss. How about the 83 percent proposed tax increase in Brooklyn? Or the referendum in Green Lake that's going to be cancelled this Wednesday?
YOU are pathetic! Those are important issues, but belong on another subject area. THIS is for this topic which is critical to the future generations and Green Lake area. Get lost!
Hey f--- you, man. What I meant above was, there needs to be more topics posted on this blog. People like you have been going on and on and on about the Conference Center development for nearly two months (posted Oct. 1, with nothing new since). There are many other local issues to be discussed, if only "Chief Highknocker" or whoever would update this stupid thing. That way, the same four people who have been ragging about the development can have their little corner, while the rest of us discuss newer, more pressing issues.
Does anyone even care that Brooklyn's taxes are proposed to go up over 80 percent? Or the proposed Frisbee golf course at Zobel Park? Or the county finally voting to build on County A? Or the Green Lake referendum that's going to be cancelled on Wednesday?
I heartily agree, we need some new topics! C'mon Chief, throw us dogs a bone!
I see in the Ripon paper the Town of Brooklyn is scrambling to re-write the rules for subdivisions, now that Lindenwood has decided to take its multi-million dollar development elsewhere. Maybe denying them twice WAS a big mistake, eh? Page 7, good stuff.
Here's one of Mike Wuest's most intelligent thought out comments yet... "It's a matter of getting new construction in the town," he said. "If the area is within the sanitary district, what's the problem with small lots in a clustered area? You're still protecting the lake, you're still protecting the environment, and you're allowing the development to go forward." This sounds a lot like "smart growth", isn't that shocking?
Maybe Mike's finally noticed how much new construction is not going on in the Township right now? The "no change" brigade has accomplished their goal. Score one for their side!
Oh well, we'll see how this plays out. I imagine that band of angry home owners have all fled for their winter homes in the sunny south by now. I guess their hired gun, "Attorney Sorenson" will have to lead the charge?
Hey Chief, by the way, this Blog still needs some new topics! Are you away on vaction or something?
WOW! How ridiculous does this Ripon article make the town of Brooklyn look! The hired gun, Sorenson, is a wet noodle. He has nothing to stop the annexation or he would of leaked it allready. Oh well, at least it is billable hours to the band of thugs. They have to love that. What's next in this soap opera? Stay tuned!
What a switch-a-roo for Mr. Wuest. For a guy who stood firm to his tax payers desires to strongly uphold the 1 acre minimum lots; for him even to utter such words is a surprise.
Is he becoming a flip flop politician or just giving some seconds thoughts to the need for growth of Brooklyn's tax base?
We gotta remember, this is all just talk now, no meetings have been held and nothing has been voted on yet. I'm sure the opposition on both sides is rounding up their supporters. Good thing, the Brooklyn meetings have been kind of dull lately.
Did anyone go to the Town of Brooklyn meeting last night? The agenda had a discussion regarding amending the comprehensive plan and zoning ordianances on it.
It's beginning to look very similar to what takes place at a party after the pinata breaks.....
After reading the topics for yesterdays TOB meeting and the upcoming TOB meeting on Tuesday, 12/11/07 (of course, 1 day prior to the COGL scheduled meeting)I am reminded (for those of you old enough to recall this experience)of what it was like to snow ski when the use of "tow ropes" was still in vogue. As a child. at the end of the day, your strength had been diminished to a point that no matter how much you wanted to go up the hill to experience the wonderful ride down, all you could do was sit there and watch as the rope slipped through your hands. Eventually, you had to step aside and let the "stronger" skiers take your place and watch them as they grabbed the "rope" and went along for the ride.
what the hell are you talking about curious??
Anonymous-
A metphor, albeit lame, of the TOB seeing the ABA project, slip through their hands, as the COGL takes a hold and goes along for the ride.
It's Friday, what do you expect !
Now, what about the TOB meeting last night. Any input ?
Curious - I think a better methaphor would be watching some hot dog (Lindenwood) with beginner skills who thinks they can take on a black diamond hill - in a blizzard. It would be fun to watch that hot dog crash and burn - except that they usually take some others down with them.
I also would love to see Lindenwood crash and burn. Their actions have been extremely unethical and whoever is responsible should feel deep shame but probably never will as they obviously don't have a moral conscience. Speaking of which, the ABA is no better in my opinion. They have been given the honor of being stewards of the land (God's creation) and are selling out because of their own ineptitude. Talk about a metaphor, here's one to consider: A father who mismanages his finances so poorly that he prostitutes his own daughters. All the ABA wants to do is try to save their own salaries and prolong their inevitable demise. It is beyond disgusting.
For any/all of you with interest, the Town of Brooklyn voted last night to table their decision on their comprehensive plan until after they have reviewed it fully. They are probably 3-5 months away from completing that process. Secondly, they decided to not make any alterations/changes to their land ordinances until after they review their comprehensive plan. They are thinking it may make sense to have their plans be more in line the with counties so that developers/builders can design based upon one comprehensive plan versus two separate ones.
The city of green lake, for whatever reason, cancelled their meeting set for tonight regarding annexation of the ABA/Lindenwood request.
One would think, based upon the TOB recent decision, the ball would be squarely put in the TOGL court if they want it.
Although I think the TOB decision to not make any changes may solidify their loss of the ABA project based upon a need for the ABA to move forward with the project, it might keep some dignity in the board by not caving in. Unfortunately, this position may come at a significant cost.
The city of Green Lake meeting was cancelled because their attorney advised that they need much more information regarding the cost of services and who will pay for the those services BEFORE making a decision on annexation.
The Town of Brooklyn is not crazy to be very careful with its decision-making and neither is the city. There are many (long-term) consequences tied to whatever happens.
I still think that a better plan more appropriate to the area would not have required shopping for specific zoning.
And I still think that ABA/GLCC is foolish to carve up its assets. Hire a professional management team. The place is a gem. When it's gone, it's gone forever.
I see Joe Parise is quoted in the new Ripon paper that the annexation is "a definite possibility." That ought to raise a few eyebrows.
Remember, though.
Joe Parise is one vote and one opinion. He is not the whole council. To the attorney's credit, GL will want to carefully look at what the hidden costs are in doing this. All that glitters is not gold, as the saying goes.
As far as blogspots go, this has got to be one of the worst I've ever wasted my time reading. Nothing here but a bunch of bad one sided opinions. And to add to it, no new topics have been posted in months.
A "friend" told me I should take a look at this blog, what a joke! Never again, life is too short to waste my time here.
Enjoy your day!
i think this worthless blog has been abandoned by the management...like the Marie Celeste
ANNEXATION MEETING RESCHEDULED
The meeting has been rescheduled for tomorrow night, Thursday, Dec. 20, at 7 p.m.
Due to the large number of calls about the meeting, it will be held upstairs in City Hall, in the gym.
See the article in today's Oshkosh Northwester, front page.
Post a Comment