|
Post by dumdave on May 7, 2014 10:10:05 GMT -6
Can't we all get along. Love one another. Here on the SO? Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on May 7, 2014 15:59:50 GMT -6
I think you are right about limited new homes being built. Any that are will likely be nestled in close to other newer upscale homes, not so many in established neighborhoods(older). We recently sold an unusual property on contract. The previous owners had walked away from the property. It was 3 fenced lots with some nice mature trees in a 'decent neighborhood' in town. The part that makes it more unusual is there is an old trailer on it. Now my best knowledge is that the City will allow you to rehab an existing trailer, but if you demolish one or move it off the lot, it can not be replaced, even with one in far better condition.(or even brand spanking new) I know trailers may not be for everyone, but for some people it is a nice affordable option to renting. It is owning something to call your own at a reasonable price. It could be a nice soft place to land for any number of people including a single mom, a couple just starting out, someone recently divorced, or even a retired couple looking to downsize into something smaller and cheaper. So, the question I pose is a trailer really the worst thing to have in a neighborhood? Is it really so horrible if someone were to bring in a 5 year old trailer to replace a 30 year old one? Should the city recognize that there are some folks in town with limited income looking for this kind of arrangement? I know the trailers don't add as much to property tax and they want to get rid of them. I think if the trailer would have been removed from those lots, they would have been just another empty lot in town and harder yet to sell. bigdipper, Of course all growing communities permit "trailers" throughout the community, right? I don't believe so. Personally, I'd rather have a vacant lot next door to me. But hey, we want all want "new trailers" to spruce up the 'hood and have the City of Steator, and Sacci, to "sell" Corporate executives why they should relocate their Manufacturing Plant, executives and their families to Streator. "Look at all the New Trailers we have "rite c'here in good 'ol Streator ", the "Quiet Suprise on the Prairie". And, iffen you be a cravin' a ice cream cone, you can go just south of the city limits. Nuffin' sells an influx well paying jobs to a community like those ''NICE NEW TRAILERS" scattered though the community and "RE-SALE SHOPS". We'll soon have to hire more police officers for traffic control. g
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 7, 2014 17:49:22 GMT -6
Yes BD, the people that want to try to make Streator look like some suburb do not want any trailers or re-sale shops here. They seem to think that businesses should only have small monument signs and all the buildings should be subtle neutral earth-tones only. They don't allow merchandise to be displayed outside and they give requirements that do not follow the laws for a business they do not think fits the image they want around our vacant buildings. You can go to a Facebook page and see people reminisce about many, many different new merchandise stores that can just no longer survive here, but yet some people still think that a re-sale shop is much worse than a vacant building that looks like this: Yes, some people would prefer a vacant building to a re-sale shop, and they could get there way. All they would have to do is put their money where their mouth is and they could close up a re-sale shop, paint subtle neutral earth-tones and have a chicken bar-b-que. However, since I'm the one that is invested, I'm the one that gets to decide resale or vacant, color or drab, chicken or not, etc. Maybe some people will realize that they can't control everyone to make them do things exactly the way they want, and... ...maybe pigs will fly.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on May 7, 2014 19:11:45 GMT -6
What's on the other side of the wall?
|
|
|
Post by cmon on May 7, 2014 19:57:10 GMT -6
You change your name Kyle but it's still the same BS. Now go tear that ticket in half.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on May 7, 2014 20:09:54 GMT -6
Yes BD, the people that want to try to make Streator look like some suburb do not want any trailers or re-sale shops here. They seem to think that businesses should only have small monument signs and all the buildings should be subtle neutral earth-tones only. They don't allow merchandise to be displayed outside and they give requirements that do not follow the laws for a business they do not think fits the image they want around our vacant buildings. You can go to a Facebook page and see people reminisce about many, many different new merchandise stores that can just no longer survive here, but yet some people still think that a re-sale shop is much worse than a vacant building that looks like this: Yes, some people would prefer a vacant building to a re-sale shop, and they could get there way. All they would have to do is put their money where their mouth is and they could close up a re-sale shop, paint subtle neutral earth-tones and have a chicken bar-b-que. However, since I'm the one that is invested, I'm the one that gets to decide resale or vacant, color or drab, chicken or not, etc. Maybe some people will realize that they can't control everyone to make them do things exactly the way they want, and... ...maybe pigs will fly.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on May 7, 2014 20:49:18 GMT -6
Yes BD, the people that want to try to make Streator look like some suburb do not want any trailers or re-sale shops here. However, since I'm the one that is invested, I'm the one that gets to decide resale or vacant, color or drab, chicken or not, etc. Maybe some people will realize that they can't control everyone to make them do things exactly the way they want, and... ...maybe pigs will fly. majesticmitchell, Gee Kyle, Do you really believe you are the only business person "invested" in Streator? Therefore, you "get to decide"! This "majesticmitchell" explains it all. I know a lot of "investors" in Streator way before you arrived, and they had to abide by city ordinances. Some were on the City Council. I doubt if you could ever match what the recently deceased Councilman Bruce Hart and his family, or Councilman Ed Benner, and his family have done for the City of Streator. Oh, and I believe they had to meet all the regulations Federal, State and City to become as successful as they were. I doubt if you could ever match what "dog" and his family has investested in our city. SO NO, "majesticmitchell", Kyle, being an "investor" in Streator, does not GIVE YOU , the deciding voice. g
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 7, 2014 22:16:07 GMT -6
majesticmitchell, Gee Kyle, Do you really believe you are the only business person "invested" in Streator? Therefore, you "get to decide"! This "majesticmitchell" explains it all. I know a lot of "investors" in Streator way before you arrived, and they had to abide by city ordinances. Some were on the City Council. I doubt if you could ever match what the recently deceased Councilman Bruce Hart and his family, or Councilman Ed Benner, and his family have done for the City of Streator. Oh, and I believe they had to meet all the regulations Federal, State and City to become as successful as they were. I doubt if you could ever match what "dog" and his family has investested in our city. SO NO, "majesticmitchell", Kyle, being an "investor" in Streator, does not GIVE YOU , the deciding voice. g No, I don't believe I am the only one invested in Streator, that is why I never said anything like that. From my talking about being able to decide to have a resale shop as opposed to a vacant building, color over drab, and chickens or not, you didn't know that I was talking about my building? Do any of the people that you talked about also have a brightly colored building with a re-sale shop and chickens that confused you as to what I was talking about being invested in? I didn't think it was that hard for a person with the least bit of intelligence to figure out that I was talking about my building, but I guess I have to explain it to you. I know that I don't have any deciding voice in Streator and never even implied that, I just have my one insignificant little voice, so why even worry about it? Since as I explained and hopefully you can comprehend now, it was my building that I was talking about being invested in, it is also my building that I was talking about having the deciding voice for. I do decide to have chickens, bright colors, and worst of all one of the re-sale shops that you and other club members hate so bad and would rather see look like this: Keep in mind that if you think it is so terrible having a re-sale shop, chickens, etc, all you have to do is put your money where your mouth is and you could show us all how much better you can do. I won't expect that to happen though. I know that you just talk about these things to try to create a distraction from my talking about the City not being inviting to business, not following our laws and being responsible for our declining population and property values.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on May 8, 2014 3:46:21 GMT -6
Yes, let's allow low cost trailers to be put in vacant lots. Wonderful idea. Out of town slum lords will gobble up the property and put up trailers. They then will rent them out to anyone as long as they get their money. More places for drug dealers to live perhaps?
If South Streator allows it in residential neighborhoods, go for it. But in town, no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 8, 2014 22:21:21 GMT -6
So Greek, Trailers are a blight on the city and people that live in them are of low class/character? You would prefer each and every one of them hauled off/destroyed and replaced with vacant lots? And now you don't like resale shops or ice cream? What kind of person doesn't like to get a good deal or ice cream? I suppose rummage sales or garage sales also lower the image of a city too? Ban those as well? You are one pretty sophisticated high falutin son of a gun there Greek. Yes, highfalutin does describe the attitude well. They don't want trailers because they pretend someone might want to build a mansion there. They don't want resale shops or an Aquaponics business because they pretend Saks or Tiffany might want to open there. They restrict business as if we were a place where many businesses are successful and want to be. They attempt to take away individuality by trying to make everyone conform to their ideas. They also seem to feel that they are better than others and above our laws. I bet that they would love to have Home Rule so that they could further control what the commoners are allowed to do.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 9, 2014 6:37:13 GMT -6
I also think that it is regrettable that state leaders continue to misuse their power and taxpayer money so easily, with no regard for the trust instilled in them by the electorate or the enormous responsibility they have been granted.
Has Sue Rezin taken care of the enormous responsibility we granted her by correcting the pension and budget problems so that we can stop driving people and businesses out of our state, or is she too busy playing politics?
It's not that I don't support getting Quinn out of office before he screws up our state any more, but the slush fund is already being investigated by the proper authorities.
Playing politics in our newspaper was not the responsibility I granted her, solving our state problems is what she should be spending her time on.
Not doing the job that we hired her for is a misuse of taxpayer money. It must stop.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 10, 2014 11:55:23 GMT -6
Sue Rezin says, "The findings of the NRI audit were troubling and highlight the cycle of corruption that seems to plague the state of Illinois".
Wow, I wonder if the governor will file a lawsuit against her for calling him corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on May 10, 2014 12:41:11 GMT -6
4 of the last 6 governors have been to jail so there seems to be some basis for her claim. Your claim of corruption is based in the fact that you don't understand the laws and you didn't get what you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 10, 2014 13:37:03 GMT -6
4 of the last 6 governors have been to jail so there seems to be some basis for her claim. Your claim of corruption is based in the fact that you don't understand the laws and you didn't get what you wanted. I think her claim is from the findings of an audit of Quinn's slush fund. I'm pretty sure that I understand our First Amendment just fine. Perhaps if you point out where the Constitution says that free speech is only allowed in City Park if Mayor Lansford approves of the subject being discussed, I will change my understanding. Perhaps pigs will fly too.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 13, 2014 5:33:38 GMT -6
I saw on the news that the governor is promoting sustainability at his mansion in Springfield and now has nine laying hens. I'm sure that there are some people on here that are appalled by this and will be calling him out to tell him that chickens only belong on farms. It was promoted as a small way that individuals can help preserve our planet. I also think that living more sustainably is important and becoming more popular.
They say that they get 50,000 visitors a year and that the hens have become the most popular part of the tour.
A few months ago, our City Council was very motivated to change our ordinances in the opposite direction without even allowing any public input. The night before a Special 8:00 am Thursday meeting, a council member told my son that he would not vote to delay their decision to hear public input, because he had all the information he needed on chickens. Maybe he has a Phd in chickens, but how could he pretend to know how the citizens of Streator, that he is supposed to be representing, feel about them?
They did end up delaying the vote and then at the next meeting, I gave them a lot of information on the benefits and dispelled the negative fallacies, asking that they allow residents to have few laying hens. I find it strange that now we hear nothing from them about the issue after they felt it was such an emergency to take immediate action, trying not to allow the public a chance to comment. I hope it wasn't just because they didn't like me and couldn't separate the person from the issue like oldtimer.
I doubt that we will see any change by waiting for them to take action to provide people more personal choice, but I do think hens should be allowed. Along with cleaning up our community and its image, being more inviting to business, and following our laws, perhaps allowing residents to live more sustainably with a few hens will be an election issue next year too.
|
|