|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 16, 2014 21:40:16 GMT -6
Didn't you also take the easy way out by not making a formal presentation and only talking to the mayor and giving him some papers? Didn't you state once that you didn't want to spend the fee associated with it and went to the mayor first for his thoughts on it? No, I didn't go to the Mayor to take the easy way out. I went to him to see if the City was going to require a Special use Permit or not. On top of the property owner not wanting to fight with the City, I didn't want to waste $500 asking P&Z for the industrial spot zoning on Main Street, that was so irresponsible and ridiculous that I would be asking them to vote no. They don't refund the money when they vote no, do they? To waste that money to try to convince them that they should go against our Mayor and follow our laws to require a Special Use Permit is a stupid process that could explain why we don't have much business here. That is why I have been pointing out that it is wrong and asking that they start doing things differently.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Feb 17, 2014 7:01:23 GMT -6
But that is what p and z is for. You present your case and then they decide. Was it your $500 or the building owners? If it would have been approved there would have been more spent. Either you had the money for the project or you didn't. The mayor gave his opinion. P and z would have heard your case and researched it then gave their recommendation. You're saying that they wouldn't go against the mayor. But you will never know because you didn't do it. They could have proved the mayor wrong and you right. You dropped the ball. To call them corrupt when you could have found out for sure is astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 17, 2014 7:59:29 GMT -6
But that is what p and z is for. You present your case and then they decide. Was it your $500 or the building owners? If it would have been approved there would have been more spent. Either you had the money for the project or you didn't. The mayor gave his opinion. P and z would have heard your case and researched it then gave their recommendation. You're saying that they wouldn't go against the mayor. But you will never know because you didn't do it. They could have proved the mayor wrong and you right. You dropped the ball. To call them corrupt when you could have found out for sure is astounding. If the Mayor had followed our laws and required a Special Use permit, we would have been in front of P&Z. The Mayor did not give his opinion, he gave their decision that industrial zoning was required. The only choice we were given was to apply for spot industrial zoning. You say if it were approved, but it is astounding to me that you think that it could have been approved. Do you know what could happen if it were approved? The property would still have industrial zoning if the business were to close. Then another business that requires industrial zoning could open there without having to get any approval from P&Z. This new business could have very bad negative impacts on the surrounding businesses, but there would be nothing that our City could do to stop them because industrial zoning had already been approved. I do not want that for downtown Streator, so I would not have even applied for the irresponsible and ridiculous zoning change. The Mayor knew all of this (or should have) when he gave the requirement. It would have been the building owner's money, but he didn't want to fight with the City. If you think it is all right to just put perspective business owners through this run around and extra expense, you would have our City heading in the same direction as them, if you were to get elected. He could have required a Special Use Permit. We would have went to P&Z for their review, there would have been a public hearing, and then the Mayor and Council would have had the chance to approve or disapprove it. That is not what the Mayor wanted though, he obviously just wanted to stop the project. I didn't drop the ball, the Mayor took it and stuck a knife in it.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 17, 2014 10:27:25 GMT -6
I said it was wrong to deny you access to the city park to express the views of the candidates, if that is what they did. You do know they have to place certain limits on the activity, but not on the content of the speeches, right? I had posted in response to you saying that the mayor followed our laws. So you say it was wrong, but did the Mayor uphold the US Constitution by denying access to the City Park to express the views of candidates or not? If they have violated your civil liberties, there are far more powerful avenues to pursue other than the appeals process that FOT spoke of. I would imagine there are plenty that would take up your case , free of charge, for something as important as a rights violation. I would suggest you pursue that avenue, since those type of violations are very grievous,, and should be dealt with accordingly. What are you saying, that I should find an attorney to file a lawsuit to talk about it in a court room? I'm sure I could have followed the lead of others and gotten attorneys. No, I chose a different court to take it to. I'll just keep reminding more people that not following our laws is just the way they roll. I cant give you a specific business activity that is listed. If he followed our laws you should be able to. Many think it is more industrial in nature. Why should the way some people think take precedence over our written laws? Do you think our laws are meaningless and do not need to be followed? You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between the Mayor of Chicago getting the laws changed to address the growth of marijuana to put a legal requirement of industrial zoning on it, and our Mayor just giving an industrial requirement without the support of our laws. Why do you think these other communities took the time to change their laws to address the issue? Why didn't they just rely on saying that many think it is industrial in nature? You could look at it like our Mayor just took the lazy way out, he didn't feel that he needed to go through the effort of creating a law to back up his requirement like Mayor Emmanuel. Mayor Emmanuel must not feel that he is above the law like Mayor Lansford? I see you haven't come up with a classification for marijuana growing facilities yet. It is growing plants, like a greenhouse right? It should fit anywhere a greenhouse does, but it has differences just like aquaponics right? You seem reluctant to answer my question because either way it is a no win for you. If you feel it is like a greenhouse, then you have to explain why other municipalities are trying to limit them to manufacturing or industrial zones, and if you say they should be in industrial zones, then you would have to figure out how to explain why they would require manufacturing zoning for something that grows plants. Would you please answer on where you would classify a growing facility for marijuana? Now, I will answer your question, in good faith that you will answer my questions above. I have been reluctant to answer because I do not know anything about any of the state or federal requirements for growing marijuana. Taking into consideration just our current zoning ordinance, I would agree with you that it is most closely related to greenhouses and should follow those zoning requirements. However, I would hope that someone from our City would say that it does have impacts greater than a regular greenhouse and therefor a Special Use Permit would be required in that case. That would allow for review, public hearing and final approval required by Council. That would follow our laws and is the requirement that I have said for years would not have created a problem for us. My explanation for why other communities are trying to limit it to industrial zones is because there are negative impacts(unique to marijuana) to the community that are associated with it. Remember though, they are going through a process and changing their laws to address it. So my answer is that it should require a Special Use Permit in the same areas that greenhouses are allowed. I am not a constitutional expert, but if you were flat out refused access to the park, then I would say your right to speak was infringed upon. They cant regulate your speech but they can place limits on where it can occur, time, etc. The lack of the term aquaponics in the zoning and the ability to determine the closest business activity allows for some latitude in making a decision. If the Mayor would have said, it can only be in residential then I would say he was wrong. I have given you many examples of how things like aquaponics or pot growing facilities or anything not specifically listed in a zoning map, can be interpreted in more than one way. You gave your opinion that a pot place should more closely resembles a greenhouse. I showed you where municipalities are looking to put the in industrial areas. I don't believe these cities are "changing" these laws,( moving pot growing facilities from a particular zone to an industrial zone. They are just trying to get it classified to a particular zone before an actual need arises. Streator should actually do that with both of those businesses now, along with any other type of business that isn't specifically listed. They could have gone thru the process with you and created law at time, but you withdrew and the city chose not to be pre-emptive for the next time. I feel that if even after the mayor gave you what he did, if you would have gone in front of the P&Z commission and asked for a special use permit you would have been granted a process according to the law and an appeals process according to the law, if the outcome wasn't to your liking. You wouldn't of had to even ask for industrial zoning, just the special use permit. I can understand it would be tough for you to come up with $500 for the process but a Dr. who by your statements, wasn't worried about collecting rent or really making a profit for a while, $500 aint squat, and not really much of a fight to give up so easily.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 17, 2014 10:57:33 GMT -6
I am not a constitutional expert, but if you were flat out refused access to the park, then I would say your right to speak was infringed upon. They cant regulate your speech but they can place limits on where it can occur, time, etc. Then you agree that our laws were not followed and corruption occurred. I don't believe these cities are "changing" these laws,( moving pot growing facilities from a particular zone to an industrial zone. This is what you posted: From Chicagobusiness.com Local governments across the Chicago area are changing their zoning laws to force prospective growers and sellers to search for space in industrial districts. The lack of the term aquaponics in the zoning and the ability to determine the closest business activity allows for some latitude in making a decision. It certainly shouldn't give the latitude to have a decision that can not be justified by our written laws. I can understand it would be tough for you to come up with $500 for the process but a Dr. who by your statements, wasn't worried about collecting rent or really making a profit for a while, $500 aint squat, and not really much of a fight to give up so easily. It wasn't about the $500. I was just pointing out what a waste it would be to follow the only choice given by the Mayor and apply for something that should never pass. It is easy for you to say not much of a fight, but you were not the one with the vacant building that could be subjected to $750/day fines, you were not the one in the conversation with the Mayor. The building owner was the one coming out of that conversation saying he didn't want to fight with the City. He really seemed desperate for a use for his building then and it still sits vacant. Too bad there isn't more things that our City will allow without having to go through all of that. Maybe the fact that there it is a fight at all to try to open a business here is part of why we don't have many.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 17, 2014 12:16:39 GMT -6
I am not a constitutional expert, but if you were flat out refused access to the park, then I would say your right to speak was infringed upon. They cant regulate your speech but they can place limits on where it can occur, time, etc. Then you agree that our laws were not followed and corruption occurred. I don't believe these cities are "changing" these laws,( moving pot growing facilities from a particular zone to an industrial zone. This is what you posted: From Chicagobusiness.com Local governments across the Chicago area are changing their zoning laws to force prospective growers and sellers to search for space in industrial districts. The lack of the term aquaponics in the zoning and the ability to determine the closest business activity allows for some latitude in making a decision. It certainly shouldn't give the latitude to have a decision that can not be justified by our written laws. I can understand it would be tough for you to come up with $500 for the process but a Dr. who by your statements, wasn't worried about collecting rent or really making a profit for a while, $500 aint squat, and not really much of a fight to give up so easily. It wasn't about the $500. I was just pointing out what a waste it would be to follow the only choice given by the Mayor and apply for something that should never pass. It is easy for you to say not much of a fight, but you were not the one with the vacant building that could be subjected to $750/day fines, you were not the one in the conversation with the Mayor. The building owner was the one coming out of that conversation saying he didn't want to fight with the City. He really seemed desperate for a use for his building then and it still sits vacant. Too bad there isn't more things that our City will allow without having to go through all of that. Maybe the fact that there it is a fight at all to try to open a business here is part of why we don't have many. If things went down as you say they went down, then "yes" I would say that a very important law was broken. My question to you is why you aren't contacting the ACLU over this? If my 2nd amendment rights were violated, you could bet my a$$ I would be contacting an organization like that. Sure, maybe pointing it out every chance you get between now and election time might make a difference, but really all you are doing is substantiating and perpetuating the cities actions. "Don't come to Streator because your civil rights will be violated". You could bring national attention to this issue, and maybe make more of a difference than you are making here. He is so desperate that he wont spend $500 and appear in front of a couple of boards and at least give it a shot for a special use permit? I think you approached him about renting his building for an aquaponics business that you wanted to operate. You convinced him to rent to you and then maybe have some type of partnership deal in place. I don't believe that a Dr. would come to you and have you try to open an aquaponics facility for him. Maybe he lost faith in you and didn't want to be associated with you in this project and just used the "I don't want to fight the city" as an excuse to end his association with you.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 17, 2014 13:46:08 GMT -6
If things went down as you say they went down, then "yes" I would say that a very important law was broken. My question to you is why you aren't contacting the ACLU over this? If my 2nd amendment rights were violated, you could bet my a$$ I would be contacting an organization like that. Sure, maybe pointing it out every chance you get between now and election time might make a difference, but really all you are doing is substantiating and perpetuating the cities actions. "Don't come to Streator because your civil rights will be violated". You could bring national attention to this issue, and maybe make more of a difference than you are making here. Maybe I should have contacted the ACLU. My talking about what the City does is not substantiating or perpetuating the City's actions. That is more of your BS! They can start doing things differently at any time. If they do, I will be able to stop talking about it. It is the City's actions that are wrong, need to change, and substantiate and perpetuate my talking about these things. He is so desperate that he wont spend $500 and appear in front of a couple of boards and at least give it a shot for a special use permit? I think you approached him about renting his building for an aquaponics business that you wanted to operate. You convinced him to rent to you and then maybe have some type of partnership deal in place. I don't believe that a Dr. would come to you and have you try to open an aquaponics facility for him. Maybe he lost faith in you and didn't want to be associated with you in this project and just used the "I don't want to fight the city" as an excuse to end his association with you. Yes, he was so desperate that he did not want to fight with the City and subject himself to their $750/day vacant building fines. A couple months of those and he might as well just donate the building to the City. What is wrong, you don't want to believe that he could possibly have approached me for help turning his building into something? The work that I did here wasn't worthy of even enough recognition for you to think that someone might possibly want my help? What other people do you think he should have gone to instead? Are there a lot of people here that have taken two of the long time closed down vacant buildings and turned them into something? It really was a lot of hard work to turn the Majestic into something, with all the water damage, neglect and just being old. Did you know that while it was vacant, a water line had broken and the theatre was under several feet of water? It was in terrible condition before I came here I am proud of what I did there and would think that maybe he took notice of my hard work. Katie Tricoli lived right in Ottawa and was a close friend of the Majestic's owner; she helped convince me to move my family across country and invest a lot of money and hard work into opening the place up. She could have just opened the Majestic then but didn't. Are you thinking she would be a better person for him to have gone to for help? Maybe you aren't around Main and Vermillion very often and haven't seen me working hard on buildings, but owning a building right there maybe the Dr. did notice my accomplishments. You can think that there would be no way that he would have come to me for help if you want, it doesn't hurt my feelings. I think though that you are just grasping at straws again. You can think he just wanted to end his association with me if you want to, but I could provide several witnesses that could tell you about him coming around many times after that asking for help again and again. I could show you a check that he gave me several months ago that I never cashed. Think what you want, but you do have it all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 17, 2014 14:03:28 GMT -6
In a thread back in October of last year you mocked me when I suggested that a special use permit should have been pursued. You felt that one wasn't required . You wrote: "Before talking typically, maybe you should read our zoning ordinance. It does not say that if the activity is not listed a special use permit is required. It says that the requirement of the next closest business activity should be used." Earlier today you wrote: "No, I didn't go to the Mayor to take the easy way out. I went to him to see if the City was going to require a Special use Permit or not."
Your story appears to be evolving. Are you going to honestly come on here a suggest that the term special use permit ever left your mouth during your meeting with the mayor? You have argued from the beginning that aquaponics should have been approved based on it's similarities to greenhouses. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 17, 2014 14:22:34 GMT -6
In a thread back in October of last year you mocked me when I suggested that a special use permit should have been pursued. You felt that one wasn't required . You wrote: "Before talking typically, maybe you should read our zoning ordinance. It does not say that if the activity is not listed a special use permit is required. It says that the requirement of the next closest business activity should be used." Earlier today you wrote: "No, I didn't go to the Mayor to take the easy way out. I went to him to see if the City was going to require a Special use Permit or not." Your story appears to be evolving. Are you going to honestly come on here a suggest that the term special use permit ever left your mouth during your meeting with the mayor? You have argued from the beginning that aquaponics should have been approved based on it's similarities to greenhouses. Which is it? I stand behind both of those statements. My story is not evolving. Our zoning ordinance does not say that a Special Use Permit is required of a business activity not listed. It says that the requirement of the next closest business activity is to be used. The zoning requirements of greenhouses, the most closely related business activity to Aquaponics should have been used. There is also a statement in the ordinance that also allows them to require a Special Use Permit if they think there could be impacts greater than a greenhouse. Yes, I did mention Special Use Permit to the Mayor at our meeting. Requiring a Special Use Permit would have justifiable by our laws, requiring industrial zoning is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 5:33:01 GMT -6
just for myself lmao
|
|