3 months ago
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Green Lake Conference Center Press Conference
There is a press conference called for by the Green Lake Conference Center(ABA) at 10:00 am Friday morning at the Bauer Center on the grounds. This is to present their side of the story. I am not sure what that means as they have had plenty of time to present it. I don't think it is open to the public. Of course. It is easier to present one view.
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.
83 comments:
Chief - What is this about? And, if the public is not welcome , who is attending - all members of the press or just invited press? Will you be there to let us know what happens?
Chief,
You have been posting your slant and misinformation for over a year now.
Regarding our press conferance, we feel that sharing factual information with persons who are supposed to be objective should't really be one sided.
We would encourage anyone seeking the facts to contact us. We have had several people do this in the past and we have always been willing to talk with them and give them factual information.
Doug Crusan
President
Lindenwood Development, LLC
Doug - Is the Press Conference open to everyone? If so, where and when will it be held?
DON'T WE WISH LINDENWOOD AND GLCC/ABA HAD BEEN HONEST, TRANSPARENT, COOPERATIVE AND UP FRONT FROM THE START? That is the biggest problem! They have not been!!!!! Who can believe anything they say? From the start they have enjoyed putting "their side" in the press without the common courtesy of communication with others involved in the issue. It is Ken's way or the highway!
Hey, maybe Lindenwood Development is going to make a big announcement at the press conference, like admitting that they were unethical and unscrupulous and apologize to the town of Brooklyn for their actions. Perhaps the ABA has now decided to sell rather than decimate this beautiful land with unsightly development. Maybe they finally want to admit that since the ABA does not know how to run at a profit they do not want watch the inevitable sad scenario of any monies coming into the ABA organization dwindle away to nothing. Let us ask ourselves, WWJD? What WOULD Jesus do? He would sell it all and give the money to the poor. After all, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Ken or Doug to enter the kingdom of heaven.
This entire issue since day one has been overshadowed by hearsay, gossip, misinformed assumptions and speculation. All of it has lead to division and encouraged many folks to think like the poster above, whose comments, in my opinion are rather sad. This person would rather sell the ABA proper and give the money to the poor, than have parts of the ABA sold to bring in monies for the ABA to strengthen its ministry to churches, their pastors, congregations and the greater work of the church. This in itself, in part through the strengthening of local churches, leads to help and support for the poor. This would be an ongoing ministry to all of God’s people.
Now, for those confused over the “Press Conference”… a Press Conference is just that. A conference or meeting for the Press, where members of the Press core can receive information and ask questions without the interference of others. If those opposed to the ABA growth of ministry would like to hold a Press conference, go ahead and set one up. Otherwise, your voices can continue to be heard at Public meetings, sound off columns, this blog, across the bar at Adam's Rib & other local watering and dining establishments in Green Lake.
Isn't it interesting that Lindenwood/GLCC/ABA would rather hide behind the press, conferences, "ministry", etc., rather then deal directly with the Town of Brooklyn, or Homeowners (who have offered to help and cooperate many times). If Lindenwood/GLCC/ABA had more transparent financial issues and better plans it would be more productive for ALL concerned. What are they hiding? What is their real agenda?
The first the "otherside" heard of this issue was when Ken announced it in the newspapers. That's the way HE started this mess!
hey J Colter, you take things so literally. my prior blog was meant as an analogy, you know, like a parable. What I want to know now is why the ABA would send any money they receive from land sales off to support external ministries and churches when the grounds and buildings of the ABA are literally falling apart and they can't afford to pay the employees that they have. Please explain that to me.
Aren't we all members of the press? As bloggers, we are contributers of the free press, being published on the web. Also, the local papers accept freelance contributions for consideration for publication. Make yourself a press pass and go if you want to! I'd like to see them turn you away at the door. Bring a camera, that will make you look official. A clip-board or notebook and pen would also look good. Inquiring minds want to know! Go County Inquisitors! You have a duty to your public!
Doug, you should try crying at the press conference. It won Hillary votes and sympathy she didn't deserve.
I can't help but wonder if they want to run the place down, have it annexed and then have Public Domain take it over! That might be their hidden agenda!
The ignorant accusations circulating about the proposed annexation/development are astonishing. It's clear to me that many local people fear change so much that they have no option but to smear something they know little about.
1. The press conference was cancelled as of Wednesday. I don't know if the cancellation was in time for the local papers to update their previewing coverage.
2. Not one person has provided any concrete, reliable, factual evidence that GLCC of Lindenwood have lied or are hiding anything. GLCC and Lindenwood are constantly accused of this. If there is such evidence, then where is it? If you can't prove what they're supposedly "hiding" or lying about, then don't accuse them of such. This is a simple smear tactic.
3. The Town of Brooklyn knew about Lindenwood's plan to use the 20,000-square-foot lot size ordinance long before the original meeting. Mike Wuest knew it; he was shown the map. But then the town basically bowed under pressure from "not-in-my-backyard" homeowners at the Green Lake Conference Center — people who live there and basically want to keep anyone else from enjoying the same thing. Keep in mind that 99 percent of the objection (and vengeful “anonymous” comments) is coming from a small group of homeowners at GLCC. This whole controversy could be avoided if they would just learn to share God's creation with others. We're not talking about a sewage plant being built. GLCC is just adding more homes.
4. The land in question does not belong to the City of Green Lake or the Town of Brooklyn. It belongs to GLCC and Lindenwood. This is America. They have a right to develop it and to seek annexation of it. They’re not forcing these private homeowners to be annexed. The land NEAR them is being annexed and developed. So the problem, basically, is that the homeowners resent someone else enjoying what they presently enjoy. Someone tell me I'm wrong!
5. Green Lake Mayor Joe Parise has confirmed that the city has been reimbursed for all its expenses — in the ballpark of $71,000.
6. Remember why the development is happening. Proceeds from the land sale will benefit ministry programs. Who could disagree about this being a worthy cause?
My charge to these “not-in-my-backyard” opponents is this: Prove to us with reliable evidence that GLCC or Lindenwood have lied or are breaking the law. Don’t just make wild accusations and threats. Show us exactly — using detailed, trustworthy information — where these entities have been wrong or unethical.
None of the opponents have done that to a credible degree. Therefore, your complaints and wild accusations continue to be ignored by any serious observer.
Finally!! Someone wrote a post who has some sense and knows some facts!
Both sides is correct. We have canceled the press conferance for Friday. We have decided to incorporate the information that we had planned for the press release into our report to be delivered during the city council meeting on Feb. 20th.
By doing this we allow the public as well as the press to hear our report in full.
Doug Crusan
Lindenwood Development, LLC
I'm not a homeowner in the ABA, or rich, and I think this development is a very bad idea. The proper place for an historic, fragile woods along the lake is in the conservancy. That can be done, and it would provide GLCC with the money it needs. It would also allow access to this wonderful place for everyone, and set up a way to care for it.
What do more big homes do for Green Lake? I'm not even clear that in the long run they are a plus on the tax rolls. Most of them are empty a lot of the time. Civic life and general business activity are declining. NOT good.
This will be the end of Lawsonia. So much of what made Green Lake special is being destroyed. It surely will hurt tourism, the one thing that supported the most of us over the years.
Why would anyone come here anymore. To look at the mishmash in Maplewood? To try to park at the nonfunctional marina? To see the full parking lots at the two or three places along the lake where the common person can still go? All this so-called "progess" seems very short-sighted to me.
AMEN! You said it very well. Thank you!!!!
I agree also! If the GLCC decided to preserve the land instead of destroying it with development, I bet there would be many generous donations and other funds available to do so. Apparently, they have no idea what a beautiful, natural wonder they possess. I have no respect for people who have no respect for nature.
We always thought it was very ironic that Lindenwood wants to build expensive, upscale homes on the GLCC property, when the other side of the land is a run-down trailer park! Why not clean up that eye-sore? Maybe if the grounds were cleaned up and the buildings, roads and stone walls were repaired, people would want to come to spend their vacation dollars there once again. The place used to run successfully at a profit.
So much of the opposition to the annexation/development is based on feelings rather than facts. Take this classic example from a post above:
"This will be the end of Lawsonia. So much of what made Green Lake special is being destroyed. It surely will hurt tourism, the one thing that supported the most of us over the years."
According to WHOM? HOW will this be the "end" of Lawsonia? Is Lawsonia itself being bulldozed? No. Exactly HOW will it hurt tourism? The area being developed is not an area tourists visited — it was basically vacant land. The Green Lake Conference Center is still there. The lake is still there. The old, classic buildings and roadways are still there. So exactly what are the tourists losing?
Homeowners at the Conference Center who oppose this development love to pretend that their opposition is based on environmental concerns. This is comical, because any serious observer knows exactly what their opposition is about: They don't want to share. They resent others having what they have, even if the new homes aren't even within sight or earshot of their own.
It's not good enough to these people that the proceeds will benefit ministry programs; their attitude remains one of "not in my backyard," and they're basically using Dick Martens (an attorney who happens to live among them) as a puppet to prop up their flimsy case. “This annexation would be illegal,” he says. Tell us another one, Dick. It's not your land to annex, it's not your land to develop, and it's not your decision.
GLCC and Lindenwood are accused of "hiding" something all the time. I say these private homeowners are the ones who are hiding something. They don't want people to know the TRUTH about why they so strongly oppose the development. Well, we all know better, and it’s time they stop pretending.
It is nice of the GLCC & Lindenwood personnel to try to step-up and repair the PR damage that Mr. Giacoletto has been making lately. Very dutiful, protecting your piece of the pie.
None of this would matter or be of anyone's business if they conducted business in an up-front, ethical manner and if they did not have a public responsibility to the Christian Community in which they supposedly serve, the legacy of the past people who had dedicated their stewardship and protected the ABA grounds. In the past ten years; treating employees as they have, ruling like a dictatorship, de-powering the Board of Trustees and any formidable Church Organization (so there would be no one able to take or share power with them) is enough proof to deem suspicion. They have let the grounds fall to decay, putting an enormous elephant of a building in the middle of the center of the grounds - that is not even handicapped accessible, tearing down a historic garden to make a parking lot, putting in trailers everywhere that could fit-- just makes one not trust their planning abilities or their agendas.
The homeowners have not complained as lots have been sold off because they are not hypocrites and do NOT hold the "not in my backyard" stigma that some would like to portray. It is with true concern for the environment, lake and land -for the public's future access,and with concern for such a large and radical change to the area that raises public concerns and the GLCC/Lindenwood has not been able to alleviate those concerns. They only keep trying to bully their way around.
It is the publics business when they are claiming to be a not-for-profit organization and when people (the public) make donations and inheritance are entrusted to them. When Norwegian Bay Bookstore- carrying Worldwide Mission gift items – appear to be part of the not-for-profit- but it is partially, privately owned by the president (hummm???). With all the endowments, trust funds, generous donations that organizations & private citizens have made to them, the GLCC should be able to manage the Kingdom better than they have. It is simply poor decision making. It is time to put an end to it. Continue the Kingdom, better than ever, put the keys in new hands.
If the GLCC has too much land to manage why wouldn't they do what has been done to them- share the land- it was not really theirs- they should do the public a service and donate the portion of it that is a problem, make it a public, county, state park. It is that special of a place, it would increase the town of Brooklyn’s and the town of Green Lake’s land value more than any development ever could!
The only people that respect the land and nature around them are single family homeowners. Let them develop this property so more homeowners can share in this. All the public will do is trash it and create more problems for local police. Another hang out for perverts. Who cares if they are part-time residents. We need the tax revue.
GLCC/Lindenwood are petitioning for an annex which is not legal. They LIED about that. How about do us all a favor and prove how it is legal.
PS: Not a ABA homeowner.
I'm quite willing to let folks have and share their opinions (even if I disagree with them or think they show flawed logic). However, when someone claims as fact statements that I know to be wrong, I think it's appropriate to point that out.
The space formerly occupied by Norwegian Bay Books and Gifts is now occupied by Worldwide Gifts of Green Lake. Worldwide Gifts is a separate non-profit organization with its own board of directors. It pays a fee to GLCC each year for rent, utilities, insurance, maintenance, and accounting services. Everyone who works at Worldwide Gifts is a volunteer. That's right; the place is run entirely by folks who give of their time to support mission projects overseas.
I'm not sure why "oh for the peace..." thinks that Worldwide Gifts is partially owned by Ken Giacoletto. As with all non-profit organizations, Worldwide Gifts has NO owners. It uses the money that would otherwise go to owners to instead support cottage industries that missionaries are starting in developing countries. In the past two years, Worldwide Gifts has given away over $41,000. Clearly, that wouldn't be possible if there were paid employees. In terms of productive ministry, it's far better than the $60,000 annual losses that were being generated by Norwegian Bay Books and Gifts.
I'm not sure why "oh for the peace..." would desire to publish such clearly false information.
Paul Higgins
VP/Treasurer, Worldwide Gifts of Green Lake
Oh, and in what way is the new Kraft Centre not handicapped-accessible? When I walk through and around it, I see ramps, automatic door openers, handles instead of doorknobs, a wheelchair lift, bathrooms that can handle wheelchairs, and items such as a fire alarm and guest phone that can be reached from a wheelchair.
I've never used a wheelchair, so I don't speak from experience, but I don't see what we've missed. And it should be clear that we certainly tried to make the building handicapped-accessible. (Frankly, to not do so would have been really short-sighted.)
FACT:
If a handicapped person is driven up to the Kraft Center (this last 2 summers it happened)there is no handicapped parking for them anywhere to be seen. I know a group who has complained about this!
Of course the GLCC/ABA Staff=ADM defend themselves and their cause. They seem blind to any other side of the issue! They represent Ken and his way of doing things which has remained: His way or the highway!!
BOTTOM LINE; What GLCC/ABA/ Lindenwood are trying to do is NOT legal. Let them try to PROVE otherwise!
What will the ABA do when 20 years from now they are still having financial problems?
It's interesting how a small group of homeowners who are afraid of change can create so much fear and opposition using baseless claims.
Take a look at their accusations:
1. "Ken's way or the highway" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
2. "GLCC and Lindenwood have been unethical" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
3. "This annexation is illegal" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
4. "GLCC and Lindenwood have something to hide or an agenda" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
5. "This would hurt tourism" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
6. "It would be bad for the environment" — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
7. “The houses won’t sell” — Prove it with real, credible, reliable evidence, not just hearsay
FACT: These homeowners have nothing but scare tactics and hearsay. That's not proof of illegal doings or lying. They've managed to turn the public against a perfectly legitimate development by twisting the facts and duping people into thinking it will mean the end of Green Lake. Baloney.
FACT: The City of Green Lake has been reimbursed for its annexation-related expenses.
FACT: The annexation will expand Green Lake's tax base, which is good for any city.
FACT: The developers and GLCC requested the annexation — and they have a right to because IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.
FACT: Stopping a development in its tracks just because a small group of people resent having to share is NOT a legal reason for denying something.
bs
"both sides" you're rather one-"sighted" to be saying what you are saying...
the public makes our own decisions, thank you, why would I listen to a bunch of people from IL? Let the GL public decide this issue
- I do think a development like this will be bad for this location- bad for the environment.
- I don't think there is a housing market for a large development
- I do think it will cost a city/township more than it will benefit them
... & I'm not a homeowner on the ABA. Just a regular work'n Joe.
Don't blame a small group of homeowners, the GLCC had a sorta good reputation before Lindenwood got involved.
I would like to thank the anonymous comment directly above for proving my point that many claims being made are baseless. Notice how this person rehashes the same tired pity lines without ever offering evidence.
Take a look:
"I do think a development like this will be bad for this location - bad for the environment."
Why? Provide EVIDENCE.
"I don't think there is a housing market for a large development."
Show me some reliable documentation, then we'll talk.
"I do think it will cost a city/township more than it will benefit them."
According to WHOM? You? Your opinion is NOT proof. Show us something concrete.
I've lived in Green Lake for 20+ years and am tired of wild accusations and scare tactics ruling the roost. Give us proof that the developers are doing something unethical, or give it a rest.
bs
Hey BS...
Practice what you preach!
There are very few ABA homewners on this blog. There are plenty of VP's and Presidents from the petitioners however.
The burden of proof is on the petitioner. You have provided the City with second grade answers to the criteria for annexation. Plenty of which are simply inaccurate.
Prove how it is legal. Don't just say it is contiguous because it is on the same highway or same lake and that the town islands are functional. Simply saying it is legal does not make it legal. Where is the proof? There has been plenty of proof that it is not legal (see other posts, letters, lawyers, discussions, public meetings). Not one argument for this being legal is correct.
The only reason the developer is petitioning for annexation is because the town said this type of development does not comply with the county and town (and city) Plans.
You offer no proof that this development is good for the environemnt, good for the people of Green Lake area, and good for the local economy.
You offer no proof that the Developer can be financially responsible for this development.
It's simply not credible to say the opposition is based on anything but an attitude of "not in my backyard." This project will benefit ministry programs, but that’s not good enough for Dick Martens and company.
As for the comments on this blog, while there have been one or two from Lindenwood, the majority are frothing with hate and signed "anonymously," which leads me to believe they're being posted by the same two or three private homeowners. Simply stating over and over that the annexation would be illegal, immoral and bad for the environment/community doesn't make it so.
Regarding the burden of proof, the annexation opponents have it backwards (see above post from typical loon). The burden of proof lies with the ACCUSERS, not the defendants. GLCC and Lindenwood are the defendants because they are being accused of illegality and wrongdoing. The burden of proof that GLCC/Lindenwood are doing something illegal is YOUR responsibility. YOU must prove they are guilty of breaking the law, not the other way around. Defendants need not prove their own innocence in our judicial system. Remember America’s pledge, “Innocent until proven guilty.” Until you prove the annexation/development clearly violates the law or harms the environment beyond any reasonable doubt, GLCC and Lindenwood have a right to do it because it’s their property, not yours.
It's not proof to say, "I don't want to share."
Now, I'm not a lawyer — and neither are most of the rest of us — but if the Conference Center didn't have a strong legal basis to annex and develop this property, do you honestly think they'd invest this much time and money into it? Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Wake up! It's not as simple as "It must be illegal because I don't like change."
The bottom line is, this whole thing could be avoided if certain homeowners would learn to share. But they pretend their concerns are about the environment, the developer's finances and anything else they can pull out of thin air to create fear and opposition.
So go ahead. Prove the annexation/development is illegal. And good luck, because you’ll need it.
bs
If we get you say $200M offer for the entire GLCC/Lawsonia...would all of the wacko's out there just leave the state?
The more we hear from you the more embarrassing it is!
I appreciate the comment yesterday clarifying the concern about Kraft Centre being handicapped-accessible. With all the accommodations we'd made in the building, I was befuddled by the earlier comment. Knowing that the complaint is about parking really helps.
There is no long-term parking directly in front of Kraft Centre. Instead, there's a drop-off/loading zone and space for people to leave their cars while they register at the front desk. This is much like many hotels. (We intentionally moved the parking away to reduce the intermingling of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as a safety issue.)
I noticed today that the two closest parking spaces to the front doors of Kraft Centre are designated for the handicapped. As yesterday's comment notes, however, you can't see them from the Kraft Centre drop-off area, because of the difference in elevation and other features. I'll talk to folks and see what we can do about improving that. The handicapped spaces are there, closer than any others; we just need to make them more obvious.
SHARING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE. All the Homeowners want is: A Development Done Right! That is their motto! One that follows laws in place. Not the mess GLCC/ABA/ Lindenwood are trying to get thru one way or another!
I get a kick out of the troglodyte several posts up who wrote, "There has been plenty of proof that it is not legal (see other posts, letters, lawyers, discussions, public meetings).”
Those things are anything but proof. Posts, letters and discussion from people who know little to nothing about annexation do not outweigh the knowledge and research of those who do. I really don't care what some Green Lake people THINK is illegal. The law speaks for itself, and if these afraid-of-change homeowners want to stop this, it is THEIR duty to prove Lindenwood/GLCC are breaking the law. Knock yourselves out, but stop trying to pretend it’s illegal when you really don’t know what you're talking about. City attorney Hank Gempler has said there was no definitive answer about its legality; therefore, the burden of proof by the homeowners cannot be met, and the annexation will probably go forward.
These homeowners aren't going to accomplish anything by citing their own and others' "opinions" about what's legal.
.
Let's hear the facts presented at the Feb. 20th 7:00 p.m. meeting and hope that our council makes a decision based on the information provided and in the best interest of the city and the people they represent!
GREEN LAKE CITIZENS - PLEASE ATTEND THE MEETING AND HEAR THE TRUE FACTS, NOT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THIS BLOG BY PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT REALLY KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HEAR FOR YOURSELF..... Come early for a good seat.
I am a city resident, and am opposed to the annexation for several reasons. What you call "scare tactics" is really just good common sense. As things stand right now, the only tangible aspect of this ridiculous matter is the land itself, the rest is up to interpretation. Cutting down thousands of trees to build homes IS bad for the environment. It destroys the natural habitat of many species of animals, birds plants and insects. What part of this don't you understand???
With development done right and larger lot sizes, less trees would be destroyed, less animals would have to die and the local home owners could cope graciously. NONE of this would be an issue if Linenwood had just complied with the town of Brooklyns' plan! Yes, Lindenwood and the GLCC ARE unethical to try to skate around the issue of lot sizes by seeking to be annexed to a city that is miles away from the development! How dense can you be if you don't understand this!
Thank you, 2:11 pm! Very well said!
I want to hear how this annexation may affect our city taxes and any other economic impacts that may benefit us. Let's leave the legal issue to judges and concentrate on the cons and pros according to the facts presented by people who are in the know and we trust.
I also want to encourage GL citizens to come to the meeting and ask questions. We need to hear from more Green Lake citizens and not just town folks.
Skeeter,
I agree (in part) the law does speak for itself.
The petitioners speak for them selves!
I speak for myself.
With that straight, what the law says and what the petitioners say the law says are two very different things.
On the other blog I have referenced some case law and wisconsin statutes. Even the same material the petitioner is using inaccurately.
I also agree that Mr. Gempler is not definite with the legality. Don't you think he should get that cleared up? Ask the state. That is what the state suggests to do.
Again, if someone could simply explain how this is legal...it would solve many problems. It is the PETITIONERS DUTY to prove and satisfy this requirement.
It should not be that difficult for someone that is 'in the know' to explain how the city "actually touches" as the petitioners lawyer put it.
It is required by law that the city shares a border (highways are not considered for nor against being contiguous).
Just do it!
I really think the petitioner thinks they can walk on water.
“Smell the Coffee” and others are apparently sniffing permanent markers instead of coffee. How many times must the developers confirm that the houses will be built with the smallest environmental impact? And that the houses will be built AWAY from the eagles' nests?
The GLCC is about 1,000 acres, and you’re whining about a handful of trees that will be lost to provide funding for ministry programs. The benefits outweigh the negatives, period.
Benefits: Larger city tax base, more funding for ministry programs, more people in Green Lake to spend money at local businesses.
Negatives: The afraid-of-change homeowners will continue to whine and think of excuses not to share.
People who don’t own this land have NO BUSINESS telling Lindenwood/GLCC what can and cannot be done with it. Stop pretending it’s your land! It’s not. It doesn’t belong to you, and future developments are none of your concern because it’s private property. The private houses are nowhere near the development sites anyway. It's so transparent that this is about pride and a simple fear of change.
By the way, several people on this blog who oppose the development have purported to be city residents. This is bogus. I’ll bet a bag of donuts they’re actually those private homeowners trying to make it look like there’s more resistance than there really is. With the exception of Loony Larry (McIntyre) and Crazy Chuck (Mirr), city residents support this because they know it will be good financially for Green Lake. How many times does it have to be said that the city has been reimbursed for its expenses, that the tax base will expand, and that the city will NOT need to maintain the new roads because these roads will be privately owned? Goodness, wake up! Some of you are only hearing what you want to hear and then passing it on.
Lindenwood/GLCC did indeed comply with the town’s laws. They created the plat using a 20,000-square-foot lot size ordinance that the town ALREADY HAS. What is so hard to understand about this? Upon review, however, the town basically blindsided Lindenwood/GLCC by switching the requirement to the “comprehensive plan” and then pretended the petitioners should have been following it all along. This is why there's a lawsuit pending, because the town basically switched the requirement at the last moment — not because Lindenwood/GLCC supposedly didn't follow the rules. The town bowed under pressure from a small group of not-in-my-backyard grinches and pulled a 180 at the last minute.
THAT is a fact these homeowners don't want people to know.
It's time these private homeowners start living in reality instead of trying to create it.
If city residents indeed support this because they know it will be financially good for Green Lake, I'd like to hear them speak during public comment. I've been attending the meetings about the annexation, and I have yet to hear anyone from the public speaking in favor of it. The last two meetings, people who spoke were all in opposition. It would be nice to hear thoughts from those who are for it, as much as from those who oppose the annexation.
Most people who speak against it at the meetings are either the private homeowners or Town of Brooklyn residents. Watch for this, I guarantee it. Even though the vast majority of city residents support this annexation, they usually keep their mouths shut at the meetings for fear of getting trampled by vengeful GLCC residents.
George, any credibility you might have had was blown to pieces when you started calling people names. PLEASE, follow the rules of the BLOG. I am often tempted to call names on this blog-site but refrain out of basic human courtesy and self respect.
Penguin, how absurd! What comic book are you living in? (See how I can say this and yet not call Penguin a name?) I live in the city (contrary to George's extra- sensory perception) and as a member of this quaint community, I speak with my neighbors on a regular basis. Not a single one of my neighbors is for the annexation. The only person that I know from the city who is for the annexation is Mayor Joe Parise, and in my opinion, his behavior regarding this GLCC annexation business has been questionable to say the least.
Like my neighbors, I think it would be far more important to heal Green Lake's relationship with the town of Brooklyn than to bring in the extra tax dollars that the annexation might afford them. Notice, I said "might". Like a previous blogger, I believe that this annexation could end up costing the city much more that it is worth. There hasn't been enough research, and quite frankly, there are no guarantees. There are so many variables.
I am sure there a few city people who are in favor of the annexation, (like Joe) seeing dollars signs flash before their eyes. But for most of us, we realize that there is too much at stake here. And just because we don't own the property doesn't mean that this isn't part of our business. Development is our business! That is why we have town and city governments to govern over us. Government BY the people!
This notion that the GLCC needs the money for their ministries is ludicrous. They need the money to save themselves and simply stay afloat. That's why they're in such a panic. It's really pathetic.
I;ve heard people in conversations ask several questions which never seem to get answered and this last blogger's comment raises it again.
Will the city of Green Lake be asking GLCC to give some reasonable picture of the true state of their financial condition? Seems like that gets aksed but not answered. It could help address people's concerns of is it really to expand ministry or is it about getting out of a
bad financial hole. Is GLCC in a stable financial position for going forward. In other words, what would be their situation if this development does not go through for them.
The other question that could be answered by the developer that might help address some concerns I've heard expressed, is how the developer is financing this project and who exactly is backing the financing. If Green Lake residents are concerned about the financial viability of the project being able to go through or if it got in trouble, what burden might or might not be shouldered by taxpayers if it is annexed. Why couldn't the City Council ask the developer to speak to that issue publicly, lay the financing out on the table as to who is backing this development and how it is structured. Seems like that would at least get it in front of the public which might stop some of the questions people are raising.
"Smell the coffee"....it is true that the GLCC needs the money to stay afloat; otherwise why would they want to develop the property. I think what everyone in this blog is missing is the point that the GLCC is a ministry! Here is one definition of ministry: Ministry is the use of a person's gifts and talents, time and energy, in the service of others. It involves the exercise of roles designated by the Church to fulfil its mission in different works of service, such as in worship, teaching, leadership, the sacraments, welfare, and stewardship
With this being said, now go to the webpage at GLCC: http://www.glcc.org/support_the_ministry.htm
Without the GLCC there is no ministry.
Paul Higgins, I bet the blog participants would like to know how many golfers and conferees are guests of Lawsonia and the GLCC each year. I believe they would be surprised of the economic impact to Green Lake County area.
With that said, I hope the development is done in a in a compromising manner that will keep the entire community unified. We should be proud that we have a Christian Conference Center in our community to assist in the betterment of the world.
Thank you, "Smell the Coffee," for proving just how loony the anti-development arguments are. Here’s your best try:
"And just because we don't own the property doesn't mean that this isn't our business. Development is our business!"
I remind you this is a free country, and private property is private property. It's obvious you're one of the homeowners, pretending to be a city resident. If you were actually a city resident, why would a proposed development a half-mile away even concern you? No, it's NOT your business to tell another property owner what can and cannot be done with his land, unless it is breaking the law, which no one has proven. Screaming “It’s illegal” a hundred times doesn’t make it so; you have to prove it’s illegal. Just because you fear change doesn’t mean new houses cannot be built somewhere. And claiming "It IS my business" is not a legal argument. Good grief.
If you're really a city resident, then tell us, who are you?
The private homeowners pretend they don't oppose development, and in fact go around saying "We just want development done right." The problem with this weasel statement is that development will never be right enough for them. No matter what GLCC/Lindenwood proposes, these private homeowners will stamp their feet and screech, "We want development done right!" It's a code for "We don't want development AT ALL." Nothing will ever be good enough to satisfy these private homeowners - not even using the money to benefit ministry programs - so they say "development done right" to hide the fact they oppose it in any form.
Finally, “Smell the Coffee” attacked Joe Parise, saying his behavior has been “questionable.” Predictably, this person didn’t bother to provide evidence. If we are to believe Parise’s approach has been wrong in any way, then provide specific, concrete, reliable examples. Not just hearsay, which this blog has in droves. Your “opinion” or something you heard from a friend of a friend is not fact.
The opposition has been relying on hysteria and misinformation since Day One, and it’s getting old. Before, I was neutral, but I’m so tired of the lies and this prevailing fear-of-change attitude that now I want to see the annexation/development go through just to shut these people up.
George - Have you ever tried proposing one acre lots to see what the homeowners would do?
May I state: Ken doe NOT own the GLCC property! He lives off the property. Unfortunately, he just is the Director and has 2 son-in-laws working for him. As Director is does as he wants and gets rid of anyone who disagrees with him. The bds are ruled by Ken.
"May I state: Ken doe NOT own the GLCC property! He lives off the property. Unfortunately, he just is the Director and has 2 son-in-laws working for him. As Director is does as he wants and gets rid of anyone who disagrees with him. The bds are ruled by Ken."
So what, you pathetic person...why don't you get a life and/or stop whining.
George, you are so dense. Here is why the development at GLCC is my business:
I am a citizen of the State of Wisconsin and concerned about the environment of the entire state, not just Green Lake County.
I am a resident of the city of Green Lake, the development and proposed annexation has an impact on my life, my taxes, my future. Of course this is my concern.
The reason we have local government is so that our local representatives will represent US. We are the people, we are the government. That is why we killed all those Brits hundreds of years ago. And since local government has a say in development, it is my concern.
Regarding my statement about the Mayor Joe Parise, I did not attack him. I simply stated that he was for the annexation. His actions have been "questionable", which is not an attack. The very FACT that he has tried to push this annexation through without enough research and preparation, calling meetings with very little public notice and limiting who and what can be said is very "questionable". If you want to call it opinion, then go right ahead. I call it fact.
Another fact is that I do live in the city and that I do oppose the annexation. Another fact is that many of the city residents that I have spoken with personally also oppose the annexation. You can live in your make-believe world George, but I have no interest in pretending to be a GLCC homeowner. They have their own voice and I have mine.
And as for a "handful" of trees that will be lost, have you ever built a house on a wooded lot? Access to each lot will have to be clear-cut, as will the home site and a boundary around that. The loss of trees will be substantial. The entire matter boils down to one acre lot sizes! There would not be any controversy or problems if Lindenwood would simply follow the comprehensive plan. IF this goes to court, and IF by some obscure chance Lindenwood and the GLCC won the court case, the appeal could take years. Why don't they just comply with the town of Brooklyn and move on with it.
Smell the Coffee,
The town of Brooklyn is out of luck on this deal. First, the annexation is going to pass! Second, even if it didn't, the Town of Brooklyn will lose the lawsuit. Big money is patient, even though the citizens are not. By now, Mike Wuest certainly realizes he blew it by caving in to the glcc minority. The big picture here is that many do want this development to succeed, even though they are quiet now. It is only a matter of time, remember big money is patient. This development will be successful and many buyers will show up once the annexation passes. The glcc and lindenwood loyal will show up after your little games are over. The economic impact will be greater than your narrow perspectives can fathom. The benefits to the glcc, lindenwood, community, new residents will all play itself out soon. This is private property and if you want a piece of the pie, earn it and buy it yourself. Don't whine how you can't afford it. Put your money where your mouth is. If this were your private property, you would be screaming bloody murder that non-owners can make your decisions for you. It will all be over soon and everything will be fine. The sun will come up tomorrow and progress will have been made. Remember Smell the Coffee, Patience wins the game.
If it were my private property, I would comply with the town of Brooklyn, build on larger lots (as expensive, upscale homes SHOULD be) and avoid the higher taxes that the annexation would bring. Some of us have brains and integrity.
People have told me to read this blog since my name appears in it. A blog can be helpful,only if people can put their names behind their comments. It is like reading an unsigned letter someone sends you. Anyone can say anything and it becomes a fact. Just because something is written does not make it factual. Our role as a council is to sort through all the comments and strong feelings for factual information. If you feel strongly about something, it should be no problem signing your name after your comment. Civil discourse is what our government should be about. Dialogue is a great way to become informed. I personally care about this city and want to make the right decisions for it for the right reasons.
The City of Green Lake Council makes the decision on the annexation, not the Mayor. As one of six alderpersons, I will listen to the facts of the reports from our city engineer, lawyers and staff on the February 20th meeting. I trust these people. They have researched information and are ready to provide an unbiased report.
As chair of the Public Works Committee, I do know the city has 1.3 million dollars of projects that need to be completed in the next 7 years, many mandated by the state. The city provides the infastructure around churchs, the school, parks, landings, restaurants, etc. that everyone in the community (city and town alike) enjoys. Taxes will need to be raised to meet that need. If the annexation can bring in additional revenue over time, it might be a good thing. I eagerly await the forthcoming information.
However, I am aware the town has a mill rate of $1 per $1,000 of assessed value. The city has a mill rate of $6.70 per $1,000 of assessed value. This shows the disparity and the need for the city to increase it's economic vitality so we can prosper and serve the surrounding areas for years to come. How many citizens of Green Lake realize this? By state statutes, townships were formed to allow cities to grow into those areas as the need occurs. This may be one of those times.
I look forward to seeing and hearing from many Green Lake citizens at the meeting. Please ask your neighbors to attend.
I am consistently amazed at what I read on this web site. No question, this site provides a forum for people to voice their opinions. And like any venue, there are the informed and there are the lemmings and the majority lies somewhere in-between.
I have spent the majority of my life in and around Green Lake so I believe I have some knowledge of what this place has been, what it is today, and my personal beliefs of where it may be headed if some form of change doesn't take place.
What I am constantly amazed at is how much people complain about the potential loss of an asset that I see very few people use. I spend a fair amount of time out at the ABA and support it thru the purchase of an annual pass that allows me access to the wonderful scenery that can be enjoyed via bike riding, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, running, etc. An yet, very seldom do I see anyone out there except for the same few people. Maybe there are a lot more people using it than I am aware of, but I don't see them.
I just have this feeling that there may be a large % of the people complaining who hardly ever go out to the ABA anyways.
I love the ABA and don't want to see it developed incorrectly either, but I think that is all a matter of controls. Certainly, there are examples of existing developments which reside within Brooklyn/Green Lake that has utilized 20,000 sq. ft. lots which were not clear cut (Robinhood/Lac Verde) Why couldn't the developer, based upon an approval from either Brooklyn/Green Lake with caveats regarding the clearing of the lots, etc. end up being a nice community like the previous developments.
Do the readers of this blog find those two developments non-conforming with regards to addressing the environment ? I wouldn't think so, but maybe they do.
I have never heard anyone to date, answer the question regarding an existing zoning ordinance within Brooklyn regarding the 20,000 sq ft minimum lot size. Does it exist and was it on the books at the time Lindenwood made their initial proposal regarding a plat design ? If so, what is the ordinance number? If it did exist and was not changed at the time they put the comprehensive plan together, than I can see where confusion and lack of direction prevailed.
My personal belief is that even with 1/2 acre lots, the development could be done correctly. It's just a matter of putting in some controls to insure things like clear cutting doesn't take place. Keep in mind, if you were an interested party who wished to build a home out there because you loved the area and would enjoy being able to live in it versus visit it, why would you want to clear cut your lot. You wouldn't. That's one of the reasons you want to live out there.
I am waiting, and I don't think I will have to wait (unfortunately) too much longer, for the day, when the ABA gets so pissed off, that they are going to eventually say, OK Town of Brooklyn/Green Lake. You want acre lots. You've got them. All 400 of them.
As a community, just for a second, if you believe that this development will at some point go through, if you are really concerned about the development of the ABA, besides them doing it correctly (no clear cutting,preservation of the shoreline, etc) don't you want them to develop as little of the land as possible ? By asking for 1 acre lots, you have not requested the ABA to disturb twice as much land as they had intended to. Is that really what you want? I don't think so.
How many people on this blog who have complained about this potential development have really taken upon themselves to understand the development. Actually gone out and walked the lots, looked at the impact based upon lot locations, etc. I am sure some have, but certainly a small % I would guess.
I believe that too many people are under the belief that if the ABA is forced to build 1 acre lots versus 1/2 lots, they will only build half as many homes. There is 1200 acres out there folks. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see 170 acres go to development than 340+. No one seems to be thinking this, or at least I haven't heard it, but one would be foolish to not think it isn't a possibility.
The ABA will not be able to ask anymore for an acre lot than what they are already asking for the 1/2 acre lots, so the only way they can make up for the difference in size is maintain the same number of lots which means twice as much land developed.
I believe the last time I looked, if someone was going to sub-divide a lot on the water of Green Lake, the requirements are that it has to have 100 feet of shoreline and it has to be 1/2 acre in total size. This may have changed and if so please correct me. This is the approximate size of the requested lots for the ABA development. Why is this OK on a waterfront lot (more valuable land) than for a wooded lot?
I know some people equate lot size to density and to a certain extent that is true. But it all depends on the lot size configuration. You could have a lot which is 200 x 200 or one that is 100 x 400. Certainly they provide a difference with respect to how close two homes are next to each other. Robinhood's development provides for most homes having around 1/2 acre per lot (about the size of the proposed lots at the ABA). Lac Verde's lots are about 10% smaller than the proposed lots at the ABA. So viewing those locations should provide those who have not walked the proposed lots at the ABA a sense of what a finished community at the ABA might look like from a spacial standpoint.
It seems to me to breakdown to one simple issue.
1) Was/is there something on the town of Brooklyn's books that indicates via an existing ordinance regarding 20,000 sq. ft. is an acceptable lot size when subdividing for the purposes of a development. Yes or No. This should not be a hard question to answer. I don't know it, but I'm pretty sure someone at the Town of Brooklyn does. If the answer is yes, than maybe the ABA has a legitimate issue. If not, then they were asking for a variance from the beginning.
I can't fault the ABA to sell of some of their land if that is what they need to do for financial or any other reasons. I don't presume to know the reasons why and as others have stated, anything other than fact is mere hearsay. I only know that they wish to, and as private land owners have the right to do so.
I also can't fault a private individual who desires the opportunity to be able to purchase a lot and build in the ABA. Why wouldn't someone if they had the means. As many if not most have stated, it is a beautiful area. Why wouldn't someone want to live there versus visit it. Certainly the homeowners who currently live within the confines of the ABA already know that. Why would they think that others, given the chance, wouldn't want the same experience.
Do I think the developers could enlarge the lot sizes a bit. Probably. Do I think they need to take them out to an acre. No. In fact, truth be told, I am guessing many of the potential lot purchasers don't want an acre lot because they don't want that much land to take care of. Especially if this will be for a second home.
They could probably manipulate the plat to accommodate 2/3 acre lots by making the frontage of each lot wider which would give some space between homes, but the depth isn't there to provide for acre lots. If you do walk the lots, you'll have a better understanding. Acre lots will not work for the land they have designated for the development. There just isn't the depth. If they went to 2/3 acre lots by changing the frontage from 100 feet to 150 feet and keep the depth the same (200 ft.) it now changes the lot size from 20,000 sq. ft to 30,000 sq. ft (which is a 50% increase in size)
I don't think an acre is necessary for this or any other development if planned and done correctly. We already have examples where this has been accomplished in the area. I think what the town of Brooklyn should have done when they put their comprehensive plan together is say that a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre will be required but they reserve the right to increase that based upon the land usage/plat design as certainly there are designs that could work very well with less than an acre property.
I mean, just look at the overall land in and around Green Lake. How many properties on Green Lake are on a acre lot? How many properties which are off water are on an acre lot?
I would venture to say the percentage is small (not including any farms or farmettes).
Do I think 1/2 acre lots would work if done correctly, yes. Is an acre lot necessary or realistic. No. Would something in between be better. Probably. 2/3 of an acre would be plenty. I am told that Mike Wuest (TOB) said they are open to discussing alternates to the acre requirement. My guess is that will only happen now if the annexation doesn't go through and or the developer would lose his law suit with regards to the 20,000 ordinance.
Everyone, look! "Smell the Coffee" is not only afraid of change, he's also a hypocrite. Here's one of his statements from earlier:
"George, any credibility you might have had was blown to pieces when you started calling people names."
Then, several posts later, he started name-calling by calling me "dense." Hmmmm. Practice what you preach.
To your question on the Town of Brooklyn's comprehensive plan, it will probably be addressed at the Feb. 20th meeting. You may be surprised to hear that lot sizes of 20,000 sq. feet have been approved by our town in the past. And yes, I live in the town.
This might be why the lawsuit is being directed to the town. It is perplexing!
The petitioners have definitely dedicated much time, effort and staff for the purpose of squashing out any opposition.
Any time of the day there will be a president, owner, VP, city council, etc. to offer immediate spin control for any post in opposition.
Pathetic!
Well, Chris Briswold, it may surprise you to hear that Lindenwood/GLCC have a right to share their side. There IS another side of this issue, despite attempts by the afraid-of-change brigade to smear Lindenwood/GLCC with wild accusations and flimsy proof.
These organizations tried to hold a press conference to clarify the issue, and what happened? The opposition jumped on them and screeched, “They’re being biased!” It’s clear the opposition will be unhappy no matter what Lindenwood/GLCC do, most likely because these people have an unrelated bone to pick.
Lindenwood/GLCC are constantly accused of “unethical” and “questionable” behavior, yet no one ever seems to mention exactly and specifically WHY. Instead, it’s all just vague claims about "the environment" and “We want development done right” and “Lindenwood is trying to force their own way” and bla bla bla. Baloney. These developers have a solid reputation to maintain. Why would they spoil it on purpose?
And for those of you who continue to trot out Brooklyn’s Comp Plan, how many times does it need to be said that the town PROVIDED Lindenwood/GLCC with a different ordinance allowing 20,000-square-foot lots before the housing plat was ever created. Yes, that ordinance really existed. Yes, it still exists now. And yes, it does conflict with the Comp Plan, which is why there’s a lawsuit pending.
The town basically flip-flopped after hearing complaints from the not-in-my-backyard GLCC homeowners and switched the requirement to the Comp Plan. So now it’s very easy for the opposition to pretend Lindenwood/GLCC isn’t following the rules, when in fact, Lindenwood/GLCC was following the correct ordinance all along, and the town decided to play games.
Chief,
Please review your security on this blog. When I put my e-mail address in, I found I get other e-mail addresses to show up in the username area. This happened when I put the first letter of my e-mail address in.
Others on this blog, try this yourself and see what happens. I can put other letters of the alphabet in and can see other e-mail addresses also.
Just wanted you and other people who thought your address was secure to know, especially if you do not sign your name.
Can't help but wonder if "George" isn't a hired professional mudslinger, hired to stir the pot. How do we know if "George" is a resident of Green Lake?
To answer that last post, my name is George S. Richardson, and I live on South Lawson Drive. Is everyone who supports a larger city tax base a "mudslinger" in your eyes?
Reminder: Monthly city council meeting tonight 7:00 council meeting room.
http://www.cityofgreenlake.com/citygl/RunScript.asp?Page=37&p=ASP\Pg37.asp
The petitioner and city have not fulfilled their responsibility under the requirements of the law.
"66.0217(2) DIRECT ANNEXATION BY UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
Except as provided in sub. (14), and subject to s. 66.0307 (7), if a petition for direct annexation
signed by all of the electors residing in the territory and the owners of all of the real property in the
territory is filed with the city or village clerk, and with the town clerk of the town or towns in
which the territory is located, together with a scale map and a legal description of the property to
be annexed, an annexation ordinance for the annexation of the territory may be enacted by a
two−thirds vote of the elected members of the governing body of the city or village without
compliance with the notice requirements of sub. (4). In an annexation under this subsection,
subject to sub. (6), the person filing the petition with the city or village clerk and the town clerk
shall, within 5 days of the filing, mail a copy of the scale map and a legal description of the
territory to be annexed to the department and the governing body shall review the advice of the
department, if any, before enacting the annexation ordinance."
THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ENACTING THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE!
Please compare the correct process which Janesville went through and the process which Green Lake is undertaking...
http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/Library/new/ANNEXATION%20PACKET%20-%20UNANIMOUS.pdf
Did the petitioner file with the Department under 66.0217(2) and follw the requirements of the Unanimous Annexation Application?
Did the petitioner pay the $350 base fee and $4000 fee for >500 acres for Department review?
Did this happen within 5 days of filing petition?
Did the City get advice from the Department?
I find the well abandonment, storm water, Fiscal Impact, Zoning Hearing, and Public hearing issues in the Janesville packet interesting.
Notice that it says "In an annexation under this subsection, subject to sub. (6)..."
If you read further to subsection 6, you'll see that this clause (the one requiring departmental review) applies only to counties with populations of 50,000 or more.
Green Lake County had an estimated population of 19,147 in 2006. Thus, no review by the state Dept. of Administration is required.
Janesville has a population of over 61,000. It's in Rock County, which has a population of over 150,000. Because it has a population over 50,000, review by the Dept. of Administration is required. That's not true in Green Lake County.
I am a Christian, and a question in my mind from the very beginning of this GLCC development has been in regard to their overwhelming, urgent need for money. According to Christian principles and verses from the Holy Bible, this should not be the case. I have nothing against Baptists, but it seems evident to me that they have not been wise with their money or their ministry, or this would not be happening to them. Is the GLCC under investigation from anywhere higher up in the Baptist church? Or are they their own entity, not answering to another authority?
In the house of the righteous there is much treasure, but trouble befalls the income of the wicked.
—Proverbs 15:6
give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
—Luke 6:38
Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle. Prov 23:4-5 (NIV)
The GLCC has been bleeding red for well over three decades. The situation today is worse than ever (debt). GLCC have constructed many tens of millions of dollars of new hotels and facilities much from donations, borrowing, and other financing. The GLCC does not have the means to maintain the infrastructure they have developed.
Most of the $38 Million sale will directly offset this in the short term along with creating endowment investments. The rest will be used by GLCC to subsidize ministry and revitalization through attendance of their own conferences (at GLCC).
Not much moneys will leave the GLCC.
Just like the GLCC, our City is at the end of its financial rope. The option to eliminate this problem, raise our taxes! Remember Town of Brooklyn’s initial 2008 plan to raise taxes something like 80%? I think they ended up at 15%. This can and will happen in the city. I really don’t want my $3800 tax bill jumping anymore. 15% doesn’t sound bad some may say, to me that’s another $50 per month I can’t afford. The only way to not raise taxes is to expand the tax base. Yes, I realize expansion also brings added costs, but with careful planning, the increased income will out weigh the expense. This will be especially true with a development that is private and will require no city services, except for the unlikely event of fire and occasional police patrol. I understand with the Lindenwood development that they are even covering the cost of taking sewer and water to the site. Now that's good planning! I'm looking forward to hearing the reports on the 20th
As are the laws of the Universe, with every action there is a reaction.
A gain for the City is an equal loss for the Town.
It is like taking from the right pocket of the community and put into the left.
Do not rob from Peter to pay Paul.
With the religious right, the fanatical left and the ghost of Christmas past involved, it should all be plain sailing from here.
Why did GLCC build the Kraft Center? It is expensive to maintain and has ruined their parking area. Remodeling the Phil. Hall might have been better in many ways. That is history, but just typical of their strange management style. Are they reliable and depenable for all these future expensive "grand" ideas?
agreed with both anson dart above and anonymous questioning the GLCC planning & decision making...
where are they going with this? Why Lindenwood? This property could attract much better quality buyers- resulting in better planning, use & consideration for the land & community- that's the development question.
Annexation? What has Tuscumbia or Maplewood done for us lately? The GLCC property will surely cost more than either of those did & it has already created more problems between Brooklyn & Green Lake - again don't rob Peter to pay Paul. 180 lots - mostly not lakeshore property-(the only kind still selling at all) really will not be a great tax generator
Lets see what we find out about it on the 20th... GL citizens:attend! Speak up! Every private citizen has a public duty.
7:18am AMEN to your views. Let's see EVERYONE Green Lake at the meeting. We need each YOU there!
Why is it that people on the outside of a situation always have the right answer for everything, while they know very little of the facts and their comments are baseless judgments? For those religious right posters, I believe there is something about "judge not lest you be judged" Mathew 7:1which speaks to judging unfairly.
Yet those who deal closely with the issues everyday and know the facts are just assumed to be a bunch of mindless fools? I always find this analogy fascinating.
Many of the the bloggers have stated that "It is private property and they should be able to do whatever they want with that property". Every property owner in the US are subject to Federal, State, County, Township and City laws and ordinances that put limitations on what the property owners can or can not do with the property. For example if an owners of a personal residence in the middle of a residential neighborhood wants to change the use of his property to a Gas station or a a 5 story condo he must first request a change in Zoning and then each of the property owners that feel this change will have an impact on them have a legal right to file an objection the the request for change. In the current case (ABA/Lindenwood) we have a property owner requesting a change and the effected property owners have the legal right to object to the change. The local goverment body (in this case city of Green Lake) are required to listen to the request for change and also to listen to those property owners that object to the change. The government body are then required to considered the request for change together with the objections filed and then apply the local laws and ordinances and then make a ruling for or against the request for change. We all may have an opinion of for or against this issue but lets not lose sight of the fact that any property owner may request a change and any effected property owner have the right to object to that change. Why dont we all set back and let the legal process take its course.
Post a Comment