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!
54 comments:
according to the Oshkosh Northwestern- the commission members were asked if they were "fricking crazy" - Way to go Joe!!!
This is an illegal annexation and if it is not deemed invalid will be overturned. The petitioned territory is not contiguous by any means close! I am mostly supprised that the city attorney Henry Gempeler is so inaccurate or falsifying the legality of the petiion. (Not so supprised that Joe Parise is hell bent on pushing through his adgenda(s) by skipping over the 15 requisite criteria with childlike answers.)
Here is some interesting case law references...
HIGHWAY ANNEXATIONS: A NEW MUNICIPAL PROBLEM
By LOUIS ANCEL and JACK M. SIEGEL of the Chicago Bar
During the past year and a half several municipalities throughout the State have attempted to expand their territory by "annexing" highways which touched the city or village only by the width of the road itself and then extended outward for distances of several miles from the municipality proper. Frequently these "strip" annexations were used to link up subdivisions or other desirable tracts of land which would not otherwise be "contiguous" to the annexing municipality. In other cases, highways alone were annexed to gain control of traffic, make possible future annexation of adjacent properties, or block annexations to other municipalities. The practice has been most wide-spread in Cook County where the Villages of Streamwood, Hickory Hills, Bridgeview and Worth, among others, have engaged in wholesale strip annexations (Streamwood has reportedly annexed approximately 75 miles of road), but similar attempts, have taken place in several other counties as well.
Unquestionably the origin of recent strip annexations can be traced to the City of Chicago's annexation of O'Hare Airfield on March 28, 1956. The municipally owned airport lies approximately three miles northwest of the city proper. In order to render its territory contiguous to the City, portions of Higgins Road and East River Road were annexed under the same ordinance. The link between the City and the airport is as narrow as thirty-three feet at several points. The motivation behind the annexation remains obscure particularly in the light of the broad powers given to municipalities over municipally owned territory beyond the corporate limits.1 Nevertheless despite the objections of neighboring municipalities at the time, the annexation went unchallenged and apparently emboldened other municipalities to try the same technique.
The practical results of the strip annexations which have taken place are worth consideration. In counties such as Cook and Lake, where county zoning and building code standards are high, property owners have been able to use highway annexations to link up to municipalities with lower code standards and thus avoid county restrictions. One striking example of this technique was the annexation to the Village of Hickory Hills in Cook County of a 40 acre subdivision connected to the Village, almost a mile away, by a two lane highway. Under Village regulations, the subdivider was able to build homes and install septic tanks on lots which were half the minimum size required by the County ordinance. The neighboring property owners in an unincorporated area, alarmed at the possible health hazards involved, asked Cook County State's Attorney Benjamin Adamowski to file a quo warranto proceeding, and the annexation was recently invalidated in the Circuit Court of Cook County by Judge Harry M. Fisher. This case is apparently the only court decision which has yet come out of the flurry of road annexations.2
Besides enabling favored property owners to escape County building and zoning restrictions (a privilege which may be short lived in view of additional powers to establish minimum standards even in incorporated areas given to counties in northeastern Illinois, by the last General Assembly), highway annexations also have allowed the annexing municipalities to extend their traffic and police control well beyond the boundaries of the municipality proper. In addition, such annexations have cut off unincorporated areas from future annexation to municipalities of their own choice or possible municipal incorporation, by running fingers of purportedly "annexed" territory through the area. The possibility always exists, of course, of involuntary annexation of territory less than 60 acres in size if surrounded by roads belonging to one or more municipalities.
Many of the villages which have engaged in the practice have justified it on grounds of self-defense. They have insisted that such moves were necessary to protect their own fringe areas from encroachment by their neighbors and to insure themselves sufficient area for natural expansion. Whatever the reasons advanced, the use of highway annexations have played havoc with the official maps of the counties involved and have threatened the planned and orderly development of the affected municipalities and their neighbors.
The statutory framework for annexations to Illinois cities and villages is found in Article Seven of the Cities and Villages Act. a While there are several alternative methods for annexation provided, the basic requirement for each method is that the territory involved must be "contiguous" to the annexing municipality. The Courts of this State have on several occasions construed the meaning of "contiguous" as used in the incorporation, annexation and disconnection statutes, and an examination of these decisions would seem to indicate that when the highway annexations reach the Supreme Court, they will probably be invalidated.
The leading case is Wild v. The People, 227 Ill. 556. That case was a quo warranto proceeding testing the organization of the Village of Weston. The statute provided that a village could be organized in an "area of contiguous territory, not exceeding two square miles." In considering the plat of the territory at page 559, the Court determined that the territory was not "contiguous" within the meaning of the statute. After concluding that a certain portion of the territory was not contiguous when the only connection between two tracts was by the tact that they cornered with each other, the Court went on to consider the question of contiguity when two portions of the Village were attached only by a half mile strip which was fifty feet wide. The court at 560 said:
"It is also to be observed that from the main body of the territory a strip 570 feet in width east and west extends south from a point near the north-west corner of section 10 almost one mile to the south line of that section, and from the south fifty feet of that strip another strip fifty feet in width from north to south extends west a half mile, where it intersects the east line of a body of land 1,000 feet in length from north to south and 550 feet in width from east to west, all included within the village. It is apparent that the 50-foot strip is merely included for the purpose of connecting the piece of ground at the west end thereof with other territory in the Village. It is also apparent that the piece of ground at the west end of the strip is not, in fact, contiguous to grounds in the village other than that strip. The use of that strip to connect the tract at its western extremity with other territory in the village is a mere subterfuge and not a compliance with the law. It is useless to discuss the plea further. (Emphasis added.)
In Morgan Park v. City of Chicago, the City of Chicago attempted to annex the Village of Morgan Park. The City and Village shared a common
1. Section 23-107 of the Revised Cities and Villages Act provides that such territory "shall be subject to the ordinances, control, and jurisdiction of the municipality in all respects the same as the property owned by the municipality which lies within the corporate limits thereof." (Ill. Rev. Stats., 1967, Ch. 24, § 23-107.)
2. People ex rel. Adamowslri. v. Village of Hickory Hills, 58 C. 944. Adamowski has also filed suit against the Village of Streamwood asking for a judgment of ouster over the roads purportedly annexed and demanding damages in the sum of $5,000.00.
3. Ill. Bev. Stats., 1957. Ch. 24 § 7-1 et seq.
Page 131 / Illinois Municipal Review / June 1958
boundary line at the north and south portions of the Village. However, at the center the two municipalities did not adjoin one another for a distance of one, and three-quarters miles. Lying between the two was an unincorporated area of two hundred acres. If the Village had been annexed there would have been an unincorporated area of two hundred acres completely surrounded by the City. In holding the annexation invalid, the court discussed the same questions raised by the present "annexations." Beginning at 192 the Court said:
"The statutory authority to annex territory to a city, town or village is limited to such territory as is contiguous to the city, town or village, and no incorporated city, town or village can be annexed to another unless they adjoin each other. The words employed in the statute which specify the location of two incorporations in relation to each other have no arbitrary meaning or definition, and their meaning must be determined by the object sought to be accomplished by the statute. Where the word 'adjacent' was used in the statute with respect to school districts, it was held in People v. Keechler, 194 Ill. 235, to mean districts so united or joined together was to form a compact district or territory; and in Wild v. People, 227 Ill. 556, in construing a statute providing for the incorporation, as a village, of contiguous territory, it was held that territory was not contiguous where the only connection was at the corners of tracts, and that the use of a strip of land to connect tracts was a mere subterfuge, and not a compliance with the requirement of the law that the territory should be contiguous. That was a proceeding in quo warranto to teat the validity of the incorporation of the Village of Weston, and the conclusion was that the Village could not be organized out of tracts of land connected only by narrow strips, although there was actual contact between different tracts by that method. In City of Galesburg v. Hawkinson, 75 Ill. 152, it was held that any change in the boundaries of a city must necessarily contract or enlarge the sphere of its municipal jurisdiction and therefore constitute so far an amendment of its charter, and this doctrine was adhered to in People v. Ellis, 253 Ill. 369. A city could not be organized as the City of Chicago would be, with the Village of Morgan Park annexed to it, having unorganized or unincorporated territory within its boundaries and entirely surrounded by it. As a city could not be organized in that way, it was not intended by the General Assembly that the same result should be accomplished by a change of the boundaries, constituting to that extent an amendment of its charter. If that could be done by annexation, a city might become a mere ring, hoop or belt around a large unincorporated area, which, of course, was never in contemplation when the statute was enacted. It is therefore clear that a village situated like Morgan Park cannot be annexed to the City of Chicago with unorganized and unincorporated territory of the town of Calumet within the boundaries of the city entirely surrounded by it." (Emphasis added.)
Many of the recent highway annexations, of course, produce the results condemned in the Morgan Park case, that is, rings and belts are being drawn around large segments of unincorporated territory.
Under the disconnection statute, territory on the border of a city or village may be disconnected if it "is not contiguous in whole or in part to any other municipality," and it disconnected, "will not result in the isolation of any part of the municipality from the remainder of the municipality." Two decisions of Appellate Courts construing these provisions are worthy of note in considering the validity of highway annexations. In Wolbach v. Village of Flossmoor, 329 Ill. App. 528, the Court relied on the Wild case in permitting a parcel of land to be disconnected from the Village of Floss-moor even though the parcel touched the corner of the Village of Olympia Fields. The mere fact the parcel touched the Village did not render it "contiguous" in the Court's view.
In the case of in re Disconnection of Territory of Mt. Prospect, 341 Ill. App. 272, the court held that a proposed disconnection would isolate a portion of the Village even though a highway would remain between the two portions after the disconnection. The Court said at page 276:
"Petitioner says that nothing short of an isolation which makes an island of the isolated section is within the meaning of the Act. It argues that the Northwest Highway, remaining after disconnection, is sufficient connection between the eastern and western portions of the village, because the village can lay its utilities "in the grassy gutter or ditch" of the highway. Other things than pipes and wires go to make up a village. To use petitioner's own designation, we think that the westerly tract would be considered an island, even though it may be connected by the highway with the other part of the village. Throughout the country many tracts of land are called 'islands' although they may be connected with the mainland by thoroughfares, causeways and viaducts."
It would thus appear that a highway connection is insufficient to produce the contiguity required of land in a municipality, and an annexation based on the contiguity provided by a highway would be Invalid.
The interpretation of the Illinois Supreme Court in the Wild case has also been followed by the Courts of other States in striking down strip annexations.5
The highway annexations described here are apparently based on Section 7-8 of the Cities and Villages Act, which gives authority to annex by ordinance, contiguous territory which is used for highway purposes. It provides :
"Any municipality by ordinance may annex any territory contiguous to it even though the annexed territory is dedicated or used for street or highway purposes if no part of the annexed territory is within any other municipality. After the passage of the ordinance of annexation a copy of the ordinance, with an accurate map of the territory annexed, certified as correct by the clerk of the municipality, shall be filed with the recorder of deeds ot the county in which the annexed territory is situated. As amended 1955, July 11, Laws 1955, p. 1378, § I."
It would appear, however, that this statutory provision is not authority for the type of annexations considered. Under the statute the territory must of course be "contiguous" and the decisions cited indicate that strip annexations are not "contiguous" as interpreted by our Supreme Court. Rather the purpose of the statute would appear to be to permit the annexation of territory used for highway purposes which runs parallel to and has a common line with the municipality, without the consent of the owner of the fee or the public agency involved. Also it would appear to permit annexation by ordinance of territory separated from the municipality only by a highway, by annexing the highway along with the territory, provided of course that the whole tract met the test of contiguity and the other requirements of law.
Based on the foregoing, it must be concluded that the so-called highway or strip annexations are invalid as a matter of law, and would tall it properly attacked by quo warranto proceedings. The decision of Judge Fisher in the Hickory Hills case mentioned above seems completely sound and should be vindicated it the question reaches the Supreme Court.
It is not enough, however, to dismiss the flurry of road annexations
(Continued on page 134)
4. Ill. Rev. Stats., 1957, Ch. 24 § 7-42.
5. See for example Clark v. Holt, 237 S.W. 2d. 483 (Arkansas), Pot-Tin v. Village of Chulibuck, 2S4 P 2d 414 (Idaho); State v. Village of Mound, 48 N.W. 2d 855 (Minnesota).
Page 132 / Illinois Municipal Review / June 1958
HIGHWAY ANNEXATIONS: A NEW MUNICIPAL PROBLEM
(Continued from page 132)
as mere land grabs and ill-considered attempts to follow Chicago's example with O'Hare Field. The road annexations should be recognized as efforts, no matter how badly conceived to deal with the problems arising out of the unprecedented growth of urban communities in this State. Our whole system of statutes dealing with incorporation, annexation and disconnection need a thorough re-evaluation and analysis in order to bring them up to date and bring them in harmony with the needs of our cities and villages. Such a study and a legislative program derived from it should be high on the agenda of the Municipal Problems Commission and all others interested in sound Municipal development in this State.6
6. For further discussion see Illinois Legislative Council, Bulletin 3-131 "Municipal Annexation of Public "Ways."
Page 134 / Illinois Municipal Review / June 1958
|Home| |Search| |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents| |Back to Illinois Municipal Review 1958|
Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library
There is something illegal in just about everything one does if you study it enough. What is so terrible about this annexation besides all the weed trees will be loss. I attended the meeting last night. I did not think very much of Mayor Joe in the past, but now I think he is very good for the city of Green Lake and he is looking out for everyone who lives in the city. I thought all the lawyers were very interesting and fun to listen to. It seems to me that all the nay sayers are only interested in themselves in this manner. In other words they want to be left alone and not pay higher taxes so they can buy a bigger boat and continue to keep the people who live here full time from sharing in the assets of the ABA. The town of Brooklyn is a joke. They never plow their roads or offer any services. All the talk about islands, what do you think the city of Green Lake is. It has been surrounded by greedy land owners and suffocated from growing. Also there was talk of how quick this is happening. Seems to me too many people drag their feet and make this go on too long. Every area has to have something to draw people. We do not have a good school system, we do not have major employers, but we do have Green Lake. The lake is suppling us with what we need to stay in this area. The ABA must be a part of the city so we can all enjoy it.
How sad that only a few people who are residents of the City showed up at the meeting. I understand that the meeting was called for a time that fit the schedule of the developers, their attys. etc....The Mayor works for the city and those who elected him - NOT the developers, et al.
The tone was set of constant interuption to those who are speaking out against this...Typical.
This meeting should have happened after the holdiays and much more notice should have been given. Mayor (see above - you work for us NOT them.)It is that simple, show the people who live here, pay taxes - including your salary the respect that we deserve. Basically by pulling what you just did - you have shown the people of this city that you "really do not care" about us, what we have to say or this City.
The Mayor needs to realize that those who live here care very much as to what is going on and also to the fact that we are not "small town people". There are many well educated people who live here and we do not appreciate having a Mayor in office who likes to "shove/bully his way through issues". We are not stupid.
The next meeting is scheduled for January 14.....lets hope this time more city residents not only show up but also start voicing their opinions on this matter and certainly not be intimitated by the mayor.
Time for a new Mayor.
To illegal...
Last time I checked we live in Wisconsin not Illinois. You are obviously a FIB, and you know how most Green Lake people feel about that. Why don't you just go away and let the Green Lake people work this out.
I agree, That long winded Illinois law epistle above is a waste time, written by someone who obviously has time to waste. We live in Wisconsin!
Some thoughts:
Perhaps the reason the room was full of rich FIBS was because they're the ones who are the root of the problem, which as we all know is: "Not in my backyard".
Perhaps the reason the room wasn't full of many city folks is because most of them have sense enough to realize this town will not remain as it was when they were children. Change will come, growth will happen.
Perhaps also most of the city residents are smart enough to realize a bunch of tax dollars flowing into the city might be a good thing. Especially when the developers have agreed to pay all utility installation costs. They then will maintain their own roads and utilities, plow their own roads, no expense to the city.
I also question those people who speak of the ABA as a "jewel" or a "treasure", but they would rather see the ABA go broke, by stopping their needed development, than get behind the ABA and support it. Why do they care if the ABA builds houses around its golf course and along the lakeshore. Is building on the lakeshore something we're not going to allow... oops, to late for that. Oh yeah, many of those complaining already have their piece of the lakeshore.
Perhaps those who would buy the ABA lands, in the event of its demise, would love to make it a preserve or conservancy. Perhaps they wouldn't want to do any development. Perhaps they would love to get no return on their investment. All business people love that. Investment with no return, isn't that what keeps things going. Perhaps they'll just not change a thing so people have a nice place to take a walk at the new owners expense. This pie in the sky thinking appears to be what some of you think should be your reality. Well, maybe in your privileged world, but not in the real world.
I'm also very tired of those folks who badmouth the ABA management and the Lindenwood developers. Were you in all their meetings, did you personally hear all the discussions. No, you certainly were not and did not. Now you're just a bunch of gossips relying on 2nd hand hearsay. I understand the ABA has been working on this for almost two years. Do you really think they just tried to circumvent all the laws? If you do think that, you're terribly wrong.
Maybe we FIB's should take our support of the shopping, restaurants, lake, etc, elsewhere and not give it to GL. All we want is a Development Done Right, honestly, lawfully and beneficial to all. I guess that is asking too much. Sorry you do not appreciate it.
You know, the bottom line here is that this is private property. No sweet talking lawyer trying to throw the kitchen sink at the local country bunkins is going to work. The half-truths, volumes of irrelevant information, emotional arguments, delay tactics and all that goes with these lawyers training is done to deceive and postpone decisions. The arrogance and aloofness in which its delivered and honeypie sweetness is all to intimidate. I am the LAWYER that sent you the 7 page EPISTLE. Give me a break. I guess we should be intimidated. They have nothing and its all done for selfish self interests. At least the conference center is upfront in pushing the sale to continue their worldwide ministry. At least the developer is upfront in pursuing a profit. We like your money fibs, but you can take a hike if you like also. Green lake sells itself and you will be quickly replaced. We may not be as smart as you in executing subtle, underhanded tactics, but heres a secret. Pssssstttt. your motives are obvious and we see what your doing. There, now its out. Remember, this is private property and my vote is to support the conference people and their worldwide efforts to expand ministry.
Well said!
The Conference Center has been mismanaged and YOU should know it! Unfortunately, their books are not transparent. Many things have been said about the Developer, I need not say more. I am just surprised at the ignorance I have seen on this blog, especially YOURS.
I meant "well said" for the post above "a local said". If the developers were doing this right from the beginning, there would be NO PROBLEMS. Dah.
I for one have not heard a single word about the ABA wanting this develepment so that they can continue their "worldwide efforts to expand ministry". The only thing I have been hearing this entire time is how they need the money to save their own jobs. If the developer had done their homework ahead of time, they would have read the comprehensive plan and proceeded accordingly. Instead, they tried to bully their way into smaller lot sizes, and treated the town of Brooklyn with total disrespect.
The entire ABA is so run down, it is literally in a state of deterioration. How terribly sad that this once beautiful, holy place is now a pathetic mess. This is from years (decades) of neglect. They have waited until the 11th hour, and I have no pity for them whatsoever. The mismanagement is a disgrace.
If you didn't know the ABA wanted to use proceeds from the land sale to expand their ministry programs, then you obviousely haven't been paying attention. That fact has been written in the Milwaukee Journal, the Northwestern and the Green Lake Reporter. It has been verbally shared many times at some of the meetings that have been held.
Regarding conditions at the ABA, I guess if they hadn't spent so many years trying to preserve the land and old building you all love, they might of had more money to put back into facilities that return on investment. They should have done development and invested in the sales and themselves years ago, when many of you could have cared less. But no, they wanted to try and hold onto some of the old buildings, the land and many other things that so many find important. Now maybe they have realized you just can't continue to invest in things that don't return on your investment. If any of you were in their situation, you'd be doing the same things they are.
Their land is private property, get off their backs and let them do what they need to do to grow their business. Go back to your fine homes, families and blessed lives, count your blessings, you have many, and get on with what is important in life. Worrying about the ABA's development isn't it.
You are showing your IGNORANCE again!
well now... isn't that a beneficial comment?
Merry Christmas to all! Remember to count those blessings.
Sorry, those were Ill. cases, but it is consistent from state to state (even WI)that the courts do like "balloon on a string" annexations. Nevertheless, the more than a half mile separation from city is not "close enough" and will be found unreasonable. No matter how you look at it, there is not a shred of legal ground for "contiguous territory". I am disappointed with the city attorney (or petitioner's?). When this petition and any future ordinances are found invalid, all of your other blog comments will be a big waste of time.
Here are a few cases from WI:
Proposed annexation of territory consisting of a one foot strip, approximately one mile long, connected to a 40 acre parcel of property is known as a "balloon on a string," "corridor" or "strip" annexation which courts have held either does not meet the requirement of contiguity or violates the rule of reason. See Town of Mount Pleasant v. City of Racine, 24 Wis.2d 41, 127 N.W.2d 757 (1964); Town of Medary v. City of LaCrosse, 88 Wis.2d 101, 116, 277 N.W.2d 310, 317 (1979); Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha, 170 Wis.2d 181, 191, n.3, 488 N.W.2d 104, 109, n. 3 (Ct. App. 1992.)
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BB3AF457C-5845-42F5-B9BC-6C6142165E0F%7D&DE=%7BD4411AFE-E4FB-4786-A4A7-1A59C098A78F%7D
(by GL resident for more than 30 years)
VOTE - NO MOORE-JOE
Thanks for your well-researched comments and information. Some of us appreciate them.
Yes,
No more Joe, and at the same time, why aren't people seeing what's going on with the chamber - the whole board are there for self-interest, bankers, realtors and property developers are running our town...all you care about is this annexation issue which stands to change the lives of a few....what about the shambles that is downtown green lake, the mindless people who are responsible for it and the citizens of the town who do nothing to challenge them...
we need changes in the people who are running (ruining) our great little town
The book entitled 'A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' contains the most comprehensive case discusions and definitions of contiguous territory. Here is the link(not sure how to use HTML tags) to the book, but you may have to go down to pp. 627-629 which is Section 276 - 'Reasonableness of Annexation - Contiguous or Adjacent Territory'...
http://books.google.com/books?id=fuM9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA627,M1
Vote No Moore/Joe
I'm confused on the actual issue here. My understanding of this whole issue is that the development company petitioned the city of Green Lake to be annexed into the city. The way I'm reading all of this is that everyone is reacting as if the city approached the development. Does it make a difference in the eyes of the law when the petition comes from a private party?
If the future homeowners and the GLCC are willing to pay the higher taxes by being part of the city instead of the lower Town of Brooklyn taxes why is this such a concern to the people of Green Lake? I for one wish that I could afford to live in the city of Green Lake, but I can't afford the taxes on even a small house. I would love to have the peace of mind knowing that I will have water and sewer. That I don't have to worry about my well or septic system failing. Does anyone in the city know how much it costs to replace a well or septic system?
I can understand why the people of the Town of Brookly would be upset. But why the people from the city?
Of course this is a win/win situation for City/Estates of Lawsonia.
City gets $38 million of property sale and tax assets. City gets a hold of the largest room tax levy in the area. City expands by nearly 60% in area. City can install there sewer throughout not only the 200 acre Maplewood but onto the 900 acre Estates of Lawsonia. Wait, maybe they will need a new larger sewer facility and some more water towers to service hundreds of Maplewood Estates and hundreds of Lawsoia Estates. Hopefully these "residents" will have high monthly usage bills to support such infrastructure and not be seasonal (few weeks per year) users. Maybe Mayor Joe could get Glenn to connect the treatment plant directly into the water tower.
Estates of Lawsonia can put it's 180 mansions on only 140 acres of forest. Heck the logging alone should pay for subdivision costs ( filled with 200 year old "weed trees"). Furthermore, in the City there is no set back from the lake (they have jurisdiction). Like the mansion(s) down town, they can build right on or over the water. If they put homes right on the shore they should be able to squeeze in a few more dozen mansions. Lawsonia Estates can get more money for lots in Green Lake's south city suburb.
Somebody should let the state in on these opportunities...they have many nice properties they can sell to developers. Think of the millions$$$$
The city should not stop at Lawsonia they have miles of hwy 23, 49, and Cty. A to annex contiguous territory for developers. For that matter, annex any property on the lake, it must be contiguous too. The city is on the lake and there is potential deveopment across the lake.
Good point there, why doesn't the city annex the entire lake? After all, it's called GREEN LAKE, and the city is called GREEN LAKE. Of course, the idea is ludicrous, but think of the tax dollars they could collect! And then they could tear up all the roads to install sewer and water, at thousands of dollars per foot, and force everyone within 5 square miles of the lake to be part of the "city". That's right, it makes no sense and neither does annexing the ABA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there would be NO room tax income from the ABA since it is a tax exempt entity.
Wow. The discussion is really getting desperate here. You can feel the frustration as the opposition loses the battle. Crazy is wild with anger. Go ahead, let it out. Awwww! Feel better now. FACT: The next vote is Jan 14th and thats all that matters now.
Sounds wonderful, I can't wait. Someone should ask Glenn if there is such a thing as a 200 year old tree around here. I think not! All you tree experts don't realize how many trees around this area are diseased and must come down. You must renew these trees with younger more healthy trees. And yes they are called "weed trees".
You don't have to renew them by clearcutting. Half-acre lots and smaller will require near clearcutting, and the rest will eventually die from root disturbance during construction.
I read in one of the local papers that Dennis Deyo and Amy Pipho are running for Green Lake School Board. At least there's finally some action in the election category.
Did any of you ever stop to realize the GLCC has the right to request annexation as a property owner. Who are you to tell them they cannot! As long as any development fits standards and restrictions, who are you to to deny them their rights! This is a City of Green Lake business decision. How do you think the City can ever improve infastructure, like old sewer lines, water pipes and roads without new revenue?
Remember, big minds talk about and implement ideas, goals and teamwork. Little minds talk about people. I don't see many people lined up to tackle the City's issues.
Why would you "clearcut" a 1/2 acre lot? That old style of suburban development has been gone for years. Let's say, for discussions sake, a lot is 25,000 square feet, your house footprint,yard and driveway may take up half that. I would think most folks would like some large trees on their lot. Look at those folks at Heritage Estates. They bought treeless pasture land, and what have they all done... they've planted trees in their yards. And it looks very nice.
I think that's one of the problems here, folks thing the Lindenwood development is going to be this massive clear cut. Actually, I doubt that is the case at all.
And just what is a 200 year old "weed tree"?
Maplewood wasn't supposed to be a clearcut, either, but it effectively is. Large houses, small lots, construction disturbance: adds up to very few trees. The ABA development really ought to be 5-acre lots to keep the look of the place. Small lots belong on empty fields like Sunnyside.
Regardless of lot size, the developers are proposing roads that would keep the public out, and off of the most beautiful drive along the water in Green Lake. That's just wrong.
In today's world, one person's land use decision affects other people. The community does have a say in how it is changing. Many of us make our living from tourism, which has been our ace in the hole for over 100 years. If we are going to change that, we ALL ought to have an opportunity to weigh in, not just developers, realtors and contractors. The rest of us have to make a living, too.
Excellent observations, I nearly cried when they clear-cut Maplewood. And the huge houses they are building there now look ridiculous on those small lots. The lot sizes for the proposed Lindenwood development is one of my biggest concerns with this entire issue. The developers are acting in greed, trying to sell more lots and therefore getting more money. However, I believe they would do much better selling bigger lots (2-4 acres) and keeping the development a very exclusive, upscale venture. They are stupid for going to the city for annexation, as the future property owners will have to may much higher taxes, this will inhibit sales. They could have avoided all this legal trouble by simply complying with the town of Brooklyn's comprehensive plan, but ironically, they can't see the forest for the trees.
It is only about the boat slips. All the wealthy people who live on the lake do not want over 100 more boat slips to invade their private like boating adventures. If the development planners had proposed larger lots the town would find something else to dispute about. All you nature/tree lovers don't worry. This will never happen because of the boat slips.
To Why "Clearcut" Said...
If you wonder how the trees of the ABA will fare with Lindenwood, check out the website www.douglas-homes.net. It's the website for Doug Crusan's (half of the Lindenwood partnership) original - and apparently still existing - company. Either all his building experience involves lots without trees, or he took all the tress down to build those houses. Either way, not a good omen for the trees of ABA.
"The Trees of ABA"
is that like "The Guns of Navarone" or something?
They're just friggin tress, plant some new ones for christs sake.
Crabby, I think you are wrong, buddy. It's not about the boat slips, I don't believe that all of these proposed Lindenwood lots are guaranteed lake access. (are they?) And I also disagree with your statement about the lot sizes. All the developers had to do from the beginning was comply with the lot sizes that the township of Brooklyn set into place in their comprehensive plan. There wouldn't have been a dispute about that if they had only complied from the beginning. That's what the comprehensive plan is for. (dah!)
I've heard some folks say that Brooklyn simply can't handle this type of growth. I don't agree, and find it insulting to the town government to say the very least. It is interesting to note that the city of Green Lake is not set up to handle the responsibility of annexing the ABA. The police department is not equipped, and I for one would like to know the qualifications with which Glen McCartny from the public works department states that the city can handle the water needs of the Lindenwood development. Is Mr. McCartny an engineer with experience designing and building water and sewer systems? If not, then he shouldn't even be giving his opinion because he is not qualified to do so. He is a city employee and therefore a biased player in this demented game.
It amazes me that poeple make comments without knowing the facts. Glen McCarty indicated the city could handle the annexation water needs based on city engineer input. He is too smart to comment without assistance from the experts. Police Chief Huber indicated his present staff would not be able to handle the new area. This would require another police officer. No problem there.
It also amazes me that individuals trash the Mayor and the council members who give of their time to address the concerns of the City of Green Lake. Instead of trash talking, how about thanking these people for stepping up to serve the rest of us.
The statement about the boat slips comes from people who have homes on Green Lake. They feel this will command over 100 new boat slips. I am not knocking the city for wanting to annex I agree with them. They would be fricking nuts not to go for it. Also Glenn is very good at his job, and I would trust him. As far as the police goes they have plenty of man power right now. They are paid to do nothing but waste time right now. The increased annexed property will give them something to do. For years I have noticed the Green Lake police wasting hours of on duty time shooting the breeze with town people as long as 25 - 90 minutes. Including the police chief.Trying to catch people pushing snow in the street or mowing grass in the streets or chasing kids for riding bikes on the grass or dog barking. They have nothing to do. In my travels I see plenty of moving or parking violations but there is no police to be found. So what if they have to patrol a bunch of empty lots.
GL citizen said "no problem" to yet another policeman? How much would that add to the budget with money we don't have? It isn't just about the salary but benefits, admin. etc. It IS a problem.
Anyone with good ideas who can run against our current mayor?
Over the Summer I read 'Geography of Nowhere', Author James Howard Kunster upon the recomendation of a well educated/worldly woman who moved to Green Lake a few years ago. I am telling anyone that has anything to do with the ABA/Lindenwood/local Governing bodies... to read the book before you attend another meeting.
The truth of the matter is the lake is our bread and butter around here and it should be under one single governing body. Without that everybody is out to protect their own turf. It creates havoc for everybody.
let's give it back to the Indians, at least they took care of it...
I agree with what? said, this is exactly the type of problem that an annexation causes. Hiring another police officer IS a big deal. The city government hasn't done their homework, they should have to have a complete economic projection for six months, one year, two years, five years, etc. for every single aspect of this annexation. The water and sewer aspect alone will undoubtly cost far more than they realize, simply because there are always unforeseen circumstances and hidden costs. Are these developers supposed to pay 100% of having the sewer and water mains installed? I don't think they are even worth enough money to pay for that. What if they go bankrupt, who is left to pay the expense of this? What about the private land between here and the ABA that has to be adulterated? I don't think the mayor has thought this thing through, there surely hasn't been enough time to do so as he is trying to push this annexation through without doing enough research first.
My parents have lived in a nice small city in Wisconsin for decades, and their property taxes were just raised substantially. Rather ironic since the city has been annexing like crazy to build new subdivisions, don't you agree?
You are right they have not done due diligence in research, because they know there is a slim to no chance that annexation is even legal! They are simply trying to pull a fast one in hopes for no review or challenge. There is no possibility the existing sewer and water facilities will be adequate for serving both Maplewood and Lawsonia at planned development capacity. Glen did'nt say based upon engineer consultation, he said I don't see a problem. I hope the City council passes the annexation ordinance, just to see the state review tell them to reverse it!!! Nice try fellas! The territory is not contiguous and the (2) town islands are not legal nor functional! HAHABAHABAHABAHAHA!!!!
In my post of December 30, I referred people to Doug Crusan's website (www.douglas-homes.net) for examples of how Lindenwood manages forested areas and trees in their building projects - which based on the photos on that site, seems to be destroying every tree in sight. I see today that the Douglas Homes site has been taken down and www.douglas-homes.net has been redirected to the Estates of Lawsonia website. Hmmmm....
Oh well, fellow truth-finders. There are two ways you can still see what GLCC will look like after Lindenwood works on it -
1. there are two photos from the Douglas Homes site in the Gallery section of www.lindenwooddevelopment.com. (But look quickly because these photos will surely be gone soon, too.)
2. Google "douglas homes wisconsin" and go to the cached version of the site. (Fortunately for us, Lindenwood can't control Google!)
I don't know about you, but when someone doesn't want me to see something, it sure makes me curious about what they are trying to hide.
So what is going to happen with the annexation at the City Council meeting on Monday? Is there supposed to be a final vote?
Lindenwood vs. Martens
Advantage: Martins and the vigilantes.
The momentum has shifted. Martens and his crew have successfully weakened the Mayor!
Marten has pressured the Mayor to force no vote on Monday and therefore no decision. Look for a weak Mayor to bury the deal in committees. A classic Chicago political move.
Look for Lindenwood to bail out by summer. The development is on life support. Call in hospice.
I sure hope you are right!!!!!!
I hope you're wrong!
Dick Martens and the rest of the "vigilante home owners" all live in Illinois and own property in the Township of Brooklyn for their vacation homes. This annexation has absolutely no affect on them, except its happening in their backyard. Which we all know is the root of the problem. What new things could these folks possibly have to say? Blah, blah, blah... it's the same old crap over and over.
Also, since they are not city residents or voters, why would the mayor listen to them?
Excuse me, Enough, but simply because people are from Illinois does not mean they are not affected. These folks are not only part-time residents, but tax-payers and worthwhile members of the community. Just because they cannot vote in our local elections does not mean the annexation will not effect on them. They have as much at stake here as the rest of us. At least, those of us who care.
What I meant by "affected" is that their beautiful homes and property will not be affected in anyway. Nothing will change but the landscape and the landscape around here has been changing all my life, and people still think it's just great!
Why because its the ABA it is suddenly such an issue is a mystery to me. You know, Sunnyside used to be farm and forest. Now it's homes on 1/2 acre lots, I think it looks real nice. I just don't see a problem with the ABA development.
It has taken Sunnyside 40 years to "develop".
Ok, here it is - from the 12/13/2007Green Lake Reporter
Headline: "Annexation Meeting Cancelled." "Put on hold indefinetly" "Plan Commission WAS scheduled for 12/12/2007 "The common council's 12/17/2007 special meeting has also been cancelled" Quote from Mayor Joe Parise;"We didn't have everything we wanted...if it isn't done 110% I'm not going to gamble w/the citizen's money..." "was going to meet w/developers Tuesday 12/18/2007, decling no further comment"....HHMMMM.....Sounds pretty interesting right now - why say you are meeting w/developers and then decline further comment?
Green Lake Reporter - 12/27/2007 -
"The council will consider the matter at thier January 14th meeting according to Mayor Joe Parise" - Folks - interesting thing is: I checked into this - what I got was - they did not know what would be on tonight's aggenda...
"I have some concern's said Chief Huber in response to Parise's inquiry "Even at full 3 man staffing we'd still have an issue" - the City will need to hire more staff, vehicles, etc...no doubt a cost to taxpayers
"....GLSD willing to service Estates of Lawsonia - new holding tank would have been required, a possibility of a sediment pond work"
So my question is this: Yes, while the ABA, Lindenwood, etc has been working w/the Town of Brooklyn for about 2 years and it doesn't go the way they had hoped.....WHY on earth is the Mayor rushing this deal? It was first brought to the City's attention in October....two meetings cancelled in December AND behold....a surpise meeting....Interesting, yes? According to the 12/27/2007 article, page 11...."Parise said the Thursday meeting "wasn't an overnight deal". "We had it (on Thursday) to get all these people together." he stated. Hey next time, how about also notifying the people who live in the city - there's a thought.
From a summary of GLCC Proposed Development....
Petition is needed, it must be signed by all who own property or reside on the Conference Center grounds - Giacoletto knows they won't sign, so he draws them out by gerrymanding. The Mayor is extermely excited about the petition - he sees extra tax dollars. The Mayor has been advised by a lawyer retained by the City "That there are a number of other legal issues" but, the Mayor wanting to push this through calls a meeting of the City Plan Commission 5 days before Christmas w/only 48 hours notice. See headline quote from 12/13/2007 Reporter - Cancelled - put on hold indefinetly.Come on people, be smart about this....a meeting called at the last minute? They have been working on this from day 1.
One of the issues? Don't care for how this is taking place. Alot of possibilites that might happen but should be considered - Courthouse, suggestion of YMCA, future needs of Tuscumbia Golf Course...The people of the City need to know this: Exactly where is all the money coming from and if anything happens/fails will we be asked to help "pick up the tab".
Bottom line, the Mayor is just rushing through, not taking a good hard long look at the picture and certainly not listenting to the people.
If you can, go to the meeting tonight.
Post a Comment