|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 29, 2013 7:37:23 GMT -6
People, I was here way before the trucking op started. It was very peaceful here and very quiet for several years until luckey started the operation. If you lived here you would not be kissing his A S S, talking about the jobs he created, you would be b*tching about the noise like I have been for several years, 4 years to be exact. I moved to this area in 2002. If ya don't live in this area the SHUT THE F--k ok. You have NO clue what its like here, NONE....There are many other places to put a operation like that. Why in the middle of a neighborhood. shadow, If the area is properly zoned for the business LUCKEY TRUCKING is operating, where's your beef? I'm sure the Company pays Real Estate Taxes as do you. Being in an area longer does not give you control of what happen next door, as long as it's legal. What a concept, eh shadow? g greekgod Where's my beef you ask?? Its the noise you stupid SOB. cant you read and comprehend English. We all deserve nice quiet neighborhoods. But when big business moves into the middle of a neighborhood with their big money everyone ignores the inhumane noises etc , including the city, but the people that live in this area have to try to deal with it, sometimes all day long on a daily basis. Again, the main reason I started this post was to try to get help on this matter. I was looking for a brainiac but got so many egomaniacs thinking they had the answer. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm struck out with greekgod here, he is neither. Yes, luckey is all legal in this operation and pays his taxes no doubt about that, but OMG that doesn't make it right at all as some of you seem to think? Some of you need to research a little before you write your little notes on here, or talk to your mommy or daddy and gets some good advise about reading and writing and comprehension. What about that concept, EH greekgod 34bears You call it whining, but INTELEGENT people call it searching for help. Have a good day greekgod, woops, I mean 34bears...lol got those two mixed up for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 29, 2013 7:39:49 GMT -6
Call the EPA, it should fall under "noise pollution". See if they can help.
|
|
|
|
Post by 34bears on Aug 29, 2013 8:32:32 GMT -6
Shadow
In the post I quoted, then replied with my whining comment, you completely contradicted yourself. You say you put this on here looking for solutions. Then when you get replies that weren't sympathetic you told people, paraphrasing, "if you don't live here then shut the f**k up!" Call me crazy but that sounds like whining to me. I didn't say you were right or wrong. I have a friend that lives in that area who has told me about how bad it is. I totally believe him. I'm also good friends with the Luckey family and got them to investigate this fairly early on. It was agreed that the noise/vibration was worse than expected. Steps were taken and drivers were told when and how to do the job in hopefully the least disturbing way. The whole situation started some bad blood between friends of mine so I try not to talk to either of them about it. Document times and truck/trailer numbers and let Luckey know when it's happening. If its not when they told their drivers to do it, they'll do something about it.
I think you started this thread to drag a name through some mud. So be it.
Call me crazy, call me an a$$ kisser, call me uninformed, but don't call me greekgod! Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 29, 2013 8:38:55 GMT -6
Call the EPA, it should fall under "noise pollution". See if they can help. Thanks dog and have talked to them and many other agencies. All say pretty much the same thing, in short, big business big money and revenue. But the congressman's office did say that the city of Streator has the power to close it down. And I am awaiting answer's of emails from them. Stay tuned for that. Thanks again dog, that kinda help I can use. |
|
|
|
Post by longarm on Aug 29, 2013 8:40:46 GMT -6
It is a dust explosion hazard and should be located in an industrial area.
The last I knew, that property is zoned residential.
|
|
|
|
Post by longarm on Aug 29, 2013 8:41:39 GMT -6
Call OSHA on a complaint. They must visit and inspect the site.
|
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 29, 2013 8:44:57 GMT -6
Call the EPA, it should fall under "noise pollution". See if they can help. Thanks dog and have talked to them and many other agencies. All say pretty much the same thing, in short, big business big money and revenue. But the congressman's office did say that the city of Streator has the power to close it down. And I am awaiting answer's of emails from them. Stay tuned for that. Thanks again dog, that kinda help I can use. Worse case, I guess you will have to do something on your own. I think most of the houses in that area have single pane windows. Maybe a switch to double or triple pane windows would help. Do some quick research on the internet on acoustics and resonance reduction. They talk of adding foam or some type of "dot" to control resonance. Maybe some type of landscaping or other structural device might have to be added to your property to reduce the resonance. |
|
|
|
Post by no1inparticular on Aug 29, 2013 8:50:58 GMT -6
Private Nuisance
A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.
Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.
An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.
Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.
Legal Responsibility
A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: the defendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct.
Fault- Fault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial risk of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. For example, a defendant who continues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault.
Substantial Interference- The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.
Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct- If the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a Balancing process weighing the respective interests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain extent, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the conduct.
The following are factors to be considered:
Extent and duration of the disturbance;
Nature of the harm;
Social value of the plaintiff's use of his or her property or other interest;
Burden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm;
Value of the defendant's conduct, in general and to the particular community;
Motivation of the defendant;
Feasibility of the defendant's mitigating or preventing the harm;
Locality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties.
Zoning boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific locations. In this way, zoning laws work to prohibit public nuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 29, 2013 8:57:23 GMT -6
Shadow In the post I quoted, then replied with my whining comment, you completely contradicted yourself. You say you put this on here looking for solutions. Then when you get replies that weren't sympathetic you told people, paraphrasing, "if you don't live here then shut the f**k up!" Call me crazy but that sounds like whining to me. I didn't say you were right or wrong. I have a friend that lives in that area who has told me about how bad it is. I totally believe him. I'm also good friends with the Luckey family and got them to investigate this fairly early on. It was agreed that the noise/vibration was worse than expected. Steps were taken and drivers were told when and how to do the job in hopefully the least disturbing way. The whole situation started some bad blood between friends of mine so I try not to talk to either of them about it. Document times and truck/trailer numbers and let Luckey know when it's happening. If its not when they told their drivers to do it, they'll do something about it. I think you started this thread to drag a name through some mud. So be it. Call me crazy, call me an a$$ kisser, call me uninformed, but don't call me greekgod! Lol 34bears I have been on the phone to luckey's many times and eventually stopped taking and/or returning calls from me.Thanks for the honesty and admitting you know of the problem here in this neighborhood. I do acknowledge that luckey has done a hell of a lot for the area, no doubt, I don't mean to drag the name through the mud but in a situation like this what can you do. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 29, 2013 9:52:16 GMT -6
Private Nuisance A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation. Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children. Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance. Legal ResponsibilityA private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: the defendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. Fault- Fault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial risk of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. For example, a defendant who continues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault. Substantial Interference- The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless. Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct- If the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a Balancing process weighing the respective interests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain extent, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the conduct. The following are factors to be considered: Extent and duration of the disturbance; Nature of the harm; Social value of the plaintiff's use of his or her property or other interest; Burden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm; Value of the defendant's conduct, in general and to the particular community; Motivation of the defendant; Feasibility of the defendant's mitigating or preventing the harm; Locality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties. Zoning boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific locations. In this way, zoning laws work to prohibit public nuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood. Thanks no1inparticular, there are a lot of interesting points in that. I will copy this and make sure the city leaders see this. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by willy on Aug 29, 2013 10:56:48 GMT -6
Shadow, when I first found out about the problem, the complaint came from a very good friend of mine who has lived next to the tracks his entire life in the same house. He told me about the noise and dust problems he was experiencing. I presented those complaints to the city council. The truck drivers were going to engage some sort of muffler systems on their trucks to help with the problem of noise.
I was also told, as well as the rest of the council that railroads have all sorts of rights that may not make any of us happy. They have the right, without asking for municipal approval, to unload whenever and wherever they can when it comes to the cargo they transfer. They don't need permission from us and local zoning requirements do not apply to them.
I didn't know the problems still exist because we were told that it was going to be moved out south. I guess it didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 29, 2013 11:16:19 GMT -6
Shadow, when I first found out about the problem, the complaint came from a very good friend of mine who has lived next to the tracks his entire life in the same house. He told me about the noise and dust problems he was experiencing. I presented those complaints to the city council. The truck drivers were going to engage some sort of muffler systems on their trucks to help with the problem of noise. I was also told, as well as the rest of the council that railroads have all sorts of rights that may not make any of us happy. They have the right, without asking for municipal approval, to unload whenever and wherever they can when it comes to the cargo they transfer. They don't need permission from us and local zoning requirements do not apply to them. I didn't know the problems still exist because we were told that it was going to be moved out south. I guess it didn't. There were two operations going on behind the P N A hall. One was the sand operation which was moved out of town to the southeast of Streator and the other is the plastic pellet transfer directly behind P N A hall, it still exist to this day, as I write this actually. During my trying to find how to get this stopped, I have come up on so many conflicting stories from so many people. I was recently told by the congressman's office that the city has power to stop it. I am awaiting to hear back from the city. By the way the mufflers/silencers did not work |
|
|
|
Post by willy on Aug 29, 2013 11:25:14 GMT -6
Shadow, I'm not a lawyer and a whole lot of legal jargon boggles me. But no congressman should be offering that kind of opinion without knowing the laws that govern railroads. Adam isn't a lawyer, Sue is, Frank isn't, Jason is. Laws concerning railroads and understanding them requires a specialization in that field. I really do understand your frustrations.
|
|
|
|
Post by no1inparticular on Aug 29, 2013 16:01:52 GMT -6
Not meaning to mix threads, but I take serious issue with this;
"Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred."
There is a certain family, well known to have violent/aggressive dogs that have bitten people/animals, and run loose at every given chance. The Police have been out there numerous times on complaints, yet they are allowed to continue with their blatant disregard of the LEASH LAWS and PET CONTAINMENT RESPONSIBILITIES.
WHEN will they be held accountable?...When someone is seriously attacked? Perhaps one of their elderly neighbors who cannot run fast enough to escape them?
IMHO, this ENTIRE FAMILY should be prohibited from owning pets.
|
|
