|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 9, 2015 7:46:08 GMT -6
The bad news was for you because you are not getting rid of me. I was never trying to get rid of you. At one time, you were an a$$et to the community, and if you weren't so abrasive to so many here in the community, you could be an a$$et again. It would be a shame to lose someone who I feel has a desire to make a better community, I just think you chose a path that hurts the cause, more than helps it. Is that right dog, at one time I was an a$$et, but then I became abrasive? When do you think I became abrasive? Was I abrasive when I was at the Majestic hosting benefit shows for the downtown beautification, food drives, and community clean ups? Was it when I asked our City to not allow people to pull their pants down in the middle of the street near the Majestic without there being consequences, that I seemed too abrasive? What do you consider abrasive? When there is a complaint that someone else is breaking our laws, creating a negative impact, and our City, rather than go address the individual problem, grandstands in front of the press to have it in the cover of the newspaper that business owners are illegal when they really aren't, without giving them a chance to first even know about their claim, much less have a chance to explain their Accessory Use clause to them, do you consider that being abrasive or business friendly to someone who could have been an a$$et to the community? Doesn't ignoring requests to simply acknowledge that we were not illegal residents seem abrasive? Doesn't selective enforcement of an overly restrictive ordinance seem rather abrasive? Is there any real justification for requiring spot industrial zoning for Aquaponics, or should I just consider that more abrasiveness? Being threatened with fines for not getting a permit for a four foot fence, even after telling the inspector that UBC doesn't require a permit for it, felt very abrasive to me. Not being allowed to use City Park, based on the subject to be discussed is abrasive considering our Constitution, isn't it? Considering the way I have been treated by our City leaders, what have I done that makes you see me as being so abrasive? Is simply asking for better such an abrasive thing?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 11, 2015 8:17:28 GMT -6
I was never trying to get rid of you. At one time, you were an a$$et to the community, and if you weren't so abrasive to so many here in the community, you could be an a$$et again. It would be a shame to lose someone who I feel has a desire to make a better community, I just think you chose a path that hurts the cause, more than helps it. Is that right dog, at one time I was an a$$et, but then I became abrasive? When do you think I became abrasive? Was I abrasive when I was at the Majestic hosting benefit shows for the downtown beautification, food drives, and community clean ups? Was it when I asked our City to not allow people to pull their pants down in the middle of the street near the Majestic without there being consequences, that I seemed too abrasive? What do you consider abrasive? When there is a complaint that someone else is breaking our laws, creating a negative impact, and our City, rather than go address the individual problem, grandstands in front of the press to have it in the cover of the newspaper that business owners are illegal when they really aren't, without giving them a chance to first even know about their claim, much less have a chance to explain their Accessory Use clause to them, do you consider that being abrasive or business friendly to someone who could have been an a$$et to the community? Doesn't ignoring requests to simply acknowledge that we were not illegal residents seem abrasive? Doesn't selective enforcement of an overly restrictive ordinance seem rather abrasive? Is there any real justification for requiring spot industrial zoning for Aquaponics, or should I just consider that more abrasiveness? Being threatened with fines for not getting a permit for a four foot fence, even after telling the inspector that UBC doesn't require a permit for it, felt very abrasive to me. Not being allowed to use City Park, based on the subject to be discussed is abrasive considering our Constitution, isn't it? Considering the way I have been treated by our City leaders, what have I done that makes you see me as being so abrasive? Is simply asking for better such an abrasive thing? Well dog, aren't you going to explain what makes you think an insignificant citizen is too abrasive, but our City is not?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 11, 2015 10:06:03 GMT -6
Is that right dog, at one time I was an a$$et, but then I became abrasive? When do you think I became abrasive? Was I abrasive when I was at the Majestic hosting benefit shows for the downtown beautification, food drives, and community clean ups? Was it when I asked our City to not allow people to pull their pants down in the middle of the street near the Majestic without there being consequences, that I seemed too abrasive? What do you consider abrasive? When there is a complaint that someone else is breaking our laws, creating a negative impact, and our City, rather than go address the individual problem, grandstands in front of the press to have it in the cover of the newspaper that business owners are illegal when they really aren't, without giving them a chance to first even know about their claim, much less have a chance to explain their Accessory Use clause to them, do you consider that being abrasive or business friendly to someone who could have been an a$$et to the community? Doesn't ignoring requests to simply acknowledge that we were not illegal residents seem abrasive? Doesn't selective enforcement of an overly restrictive ordinance seem rather abrasive? Is there any real justification for requiring spot industrial zoning for Aquaponics, or should I just consider that more abrasiveness? Being threatened with fines for not getting a permit for a four foot fence, even after telling the inspector that UBC doesn't require a permit for it, felt very abrasive to me. Not being allowed to use City Park, based on the subject to be discussed is abrasive considering our Constitution, isn't it? Considering the way I have been treated by our City leaders, what have I done that makes you see me as being so abrasive? Is simply asking for better such an abrasive thing? Well dog, aren't you going to explain what makes you think an insignificant citizen is too abrasive, but our City is not? So is your argument that if the city is vindictive and abrasive, that you should be too? Obviously, you have the right to be that way, but is it the most productive path to take?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 11, 2015 10:43:58 GMT -6
All the City would have to do to not hear me continually talk about it being wrong is correct the situation, but they have already made their decision. The city may have made their decision, but who says they arent trying to correct the situation? Isnt it possible that the city is meeting with the owners and the prospective buyers to try to work out an acceptable arrangement, by using a special use permit? Do you believe the current owners just stopped, and started to bash the city on SO because they didnt get their way? Isnt it possible that they contacted a professional( something you never did) and are trying another approach? Lets hope their approach works better than your 200+page approach.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 12, 2015 7:09:37 GMT -6
Well dog, aren't you going to explain what makes you think an insignificant citizen is too abrasive, but our City is not? So is your argument that if the city is vindictive and abrasive, that you should be too? Obviously, you have the right to be that way, but is it the most productive path to take? Not at all dog. My arguement is that even the most insignificant citizen should be able to talk as much as they desire about what they want from their government without the government becoming abrasive or vindictive. Just because you may imply that my talking about the better that I want for our community is being abrasive or vindictive doesn't make it the reality of the situation. If you do see my talking about what our leaders have done as being abrasive or vindictive, maybe our City should start doing things differently, don't you think? Do you think that being abrasive and vindictive has been the most productive path for our City to take?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 12, 2015 7:39:14 GMT -6
So is your argument that if the city is vindictive and abrasive, that you should be too? Obviously, you have the right to be that way, but is it the most productive path to take? Not at all dog. My arguement is that even the most insignificant citizen should be able to talk as much as they desire about what they want from their government without the government becoming abrasive or vindictive. Just because you may imply that my talking about the better that I want for our community is being abrasive or vindictive doesn't make it the reality of the situation. If you do see my talking about what our leaders have done as being abrasive or vindictive, maybe our City should start doing things differently, don't you think? Do you think that being abrasive and vindictive has been the most productive path for our City to take? First off, I never said the city was vindictive and abrasive. I said IF they were, does that mean you should be too. I haven't seen the city call anyone living downtown illegal, nor have I seen them deny the use of the city park. I see new businesses opening and them working with people to get new businesses opening. Maybe if you open your eyes instead of your mouth, you will see that they are starting to do things differently.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 13, 2015 6:32:35 GMT -6
All the City would have to do to not hear me continually talk about it being wrong is correct the situation, but they have already made their decision. The city may have made their decision, but who says they arent trying to correct the situation? Isnt it possible that the city is meeting with the owners and the prospective buyers to try to work out an acceptable arrangement, by using a special use permit? Do you believe the current owners just stopped, and started to bash the city on SO because they didnt get their way? Isnt it possible that they contacted a professional( something you never did) and are trying another approach? Lets hope their approach works better than your 200+page approach. Why would they work with the current owners on a Special Use Permit that wouldn't be transferable to any new owner? Why would they work out an arrangement with prospective owners, when they can't even apply for the Special Use Permit approval process until they actually purchase the property? Considering that the Special Use Permit approval process includes a public hearing, P&Z Commission recommendation, and then Council approval, how could they possibly work out an acceptable arrangement in advance? Are you implying that they would not follow our laws and bypass the Special Use Permit approval process and just give them one in advance? No, I don't believe that the owners just stopped and started bashing the City on SO. I didn't either though. I am still trying to get our City to provide their justification for their spot industrial zoning requirement that stopped an Aquaponics business. I am also still trying to get them to stop hiding their requirements to reopen the Majestic. I have only been talking about what they have done. If you feel that talking about their spot industrial zoning requirement and refusing to provide their requirements to reopen the Majestic bashes them, then maybe they should be doing things differently, don't you think? Contacted a professional? Are you implying that the property owners have hired an attorney and are preparing for a legal battle just to be able to try to create some value for the property they are invested in? In addition to the hundreds of dollars to file the zoning change request and publication fees, how much do you expect it to cost them to try to be able to sell their investment in our community? Are you really implying that I did something wrong by not hiring a legal team when trying to open businesses in Streator? If the costly approach of hiring professionals allows them to be able to get some value for their property, what about the other business properties on that street and throughout our community? Do you feel that needing to hire professionals and fight costly legal battles to be able to get some value out of their investments in our community will encourage others to invest here? I don't feel that it should require hiring attorneys to convince our City to do the right thing. Obviously though, our City feels strongly that there should not be much business on Illinois Street. The only real reason we've heard was so that homeowners in the area wouldn't have to worry about having the uncontrolled negative impacts of a bar near them. What a shame that they can't just enforce our laws better to control the "increasing" problems, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 13, 2015 7:25:37 GMT -6
The city may have made their decision, but who says they arent trying to correct the situation? Isnt it possible that the city is meeting with the owners and the prospective buyers to try to work out an acceptable arrangement, by using a special use permit? Do you believe the current owners just stopped, and started to bash the city on SO because they didnt get their way? Isnt it possible that they contacted a professional( something you never did) and are trying another approach? Lets hope their approach works better than your 200+page approach. Why would they work with the current owners on a Special Use Permit that wouldn't be transferable to any new owner? Why would they work out an arrangement with prospective owners, when they can't even apply for the Special Use Permit approval process until they actually purchase the property? Considering that the Special Use Permit approval process includes a public hearing, P&Z Commission recommendation, and then Council approval, how could they possibly work out an acceptable arrangement in advance? Are you implying that they would not follow our laws and bypass the Special Use Permit approval process and just give them one in advance? No, I don't believe that the owners just stopped and started bashing the City on SO. I didn't either though. I am still trying to get our City to provide their justification for their spot industrial zoning requirement that stopped an Aquaponics business. I am also still trying to get them to stop hiding their requirements to reopen the Majestic. I have only been talking about what they have done. If you feel that talking about their spot industrial zoning requirement and refusing to provide their requirements to reopen the Majestic bashes them, then maybe they should be doing things differently, don't you think? Contacted a professional? Are you implying that the property owners have hired an attorney and are preparing for a legal battle just to be able to try to create some value for the property they are invested in? In addition to the hundreds of dollars to file the zoning change request and publication fees, how much do you expect it to cost them to try to be able to sell their investment in our community? Are you really implying that I did something wrong by not hiring a legal team when trying to open businesses in Streator? If the costly approach of hiring professionals allows them to be able to get some value for their property, what about the other business properties on that street and throughout our community? Do you feel that needing to hire professionals and fight costly legal battles to be able to get some value out of their investments in our community will encourage others to invest here? I don't feel that it should require hiring attorneys to convince our City to do the right thing. Obviously though, our City feels strongly that there should not be much business on Illinois Street. The only real reason we've heard was so that homeowners in the area wouldn't have to worry about having the uncontrolled negative impacts of a bar near them. What a shame that they can't just enforce our laws better to control the "increasing" problems, don't you think? I guess you will just have to keep your eyes open and see what happens. I also heard yesterday that the bank building was sold, and there are plans to open a hotel and restaurant there.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 13, 2015 11:20:27 GMT -6
Not at all dog. My arguement is that even the most insignificant citizen should be able to talk as much as they desire about what they want from their government without the government becoming abrasive or vindictive. Just because you may imply that my talking about the better that I want for our community is being abrasive or vindictive doesn't make it the reality of the situation. If you do see my talking about what our leaders have done as being abrasive or vindictive, maybe our City should start doing things differently, don't you think? Do you think that being abrasive and vindictive has been the most productive path for our City to take? First off, I never said the city was vindictive and abrasive. I said IF they were, does that mean you should be too. I haven't seen the city call anyone living downtown illegal, nor have I seen them deny the use of the city park. I see new businesses opening and them working with people to get new businesses opening. Maybe if you open your eyes instead of your mouth, you will see that they are starting to do things differently. Yes, your asking of assumptive questions is very complimenting. Since they have been so abrasive and vindictive and it has not produced good results, doesn't it seem that they should choose a better path? All you would have done to see them call people (who are not) illegal and deny the use of City Park (based on the subject to be discussed) is attend some Council Meetings. I have my eyes open and have attended Council Meetings to see what they have done. I thought that maybe they were trying to start doing things differently. That is why I took your advice and tried working WITH them again to open another business recently. Do you consider turning a prospective business away by playing their politics and refusing to provide their requirements to open a business until after we purchase the property and then throwing a fit when asked to put that in writing, is doing things differently and trying to open new businesses? Do you consider filing an FTC complaint against a company wanting to invest in our community to lower health care costs for employers enough to repatriate the jobs lost overseas over the last 25 years as doing things differently and trying to bring new business here? Is their so strictly limiting the uses of a 7500 sqft commercial building to only a convenience store or specialty shop with just a single variety of goods, requiring a legal battle to try to get the value out of the investment your example of them doing things differently and trying to open new businesses here? Do you think their unchanged, ridiculous snow removal ordinance that is too expensive for businesses to follow, making many of them illegal and subjected to the City's daily fines any indication of them doing things differently and trying to encourage business to be here? My eyes have been open, but I just see more of their lack of a business friendly attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 13, 2015 11:34:14 GMT -6
Why would they work with the current owners on a Special Use Permit that wouldn't be transferable to any new owner? Why would they work out an arrangement with prospective owners, when they can't even apply for the Special Use Permit approval process until they actually purchase the property? Considering that the Special Use Permit approval process includes a public hearing, P&Z Commission recommendation, and then Council approval, how could they possibly work out an acceptable arrangement in advance? Are you implying that they would not follow our laws and bypass the Special Use Permit approval process and just give them one in advance? No, I don't believe that the owners just stopped and started bashing the City on SO. I didn't either though. I am still trying to get our City to provide their justification for their spot industrial zoning requirement that stopped an Aquaponics business. I am also still trying to get them to stop hiding their requirements to reopen the Majestic. I have only been talking about what they have done. If you feel that talking about their spot industrial zoning requirement and refusing to provide their requirements to reopen the Majestic bashes them, then maybe they should be doing things differently, don't you think? Contacted a professional? Are you implying that the property owners have hired an attorney and are preparing for a legal battle just to be able to try to create some value for the property they are invested in? In addition to the hundreds of dollars to file the zoning change request and publication fees, how much do you expect it to cost them to try to be able to sell their investment in our community? Are you really implying that I did something wrong by not hiring a legal team when trying to open businesses in Streator? If the costly approach of hiring professionals allows them to be able to get some value for their property, what about the other business properties on that street and throughout our community? Do you feel that needing to hire professionals and fight costly legal battles to be able to get some value out of their investments in our community will encourage others to invest here? I don't feel that it should require hiring attorneys to convince our City to do the right thing. Obviously though, our City feels strongly that there should not be much business on Illinois Street. The only real reason we've heard was so that homeowners in the area wouldn't have to worry about having the uncontrolled negative impacts of a bar near them. What a shame that they can't just enforce our laws better to control the "increasing" problems, don't you think? I guess you will just have to keep your eyes open and see what happens. I also heard yesterday that the bank building was sold, and there are plans to open a hotel and restaurant there. I will keep my eyes open as I have been. I will be very interested to see if any real value for the property is gained and what our City's actions (and their allowing the uncontrolled negative bar impacts) ends up costing the people invested in commercial real estate here. Yes, I heard that from several people about a month ago. I also saw that they were already working on the place. Isn't it a shame that the building doesn't have a nice big sign with a lot of visibility, that would be very expensive to replace, to advertise a boutique hotel there? If only our City were friendlier to businesses to not require such good signage to be removed for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by threecargm on Oct 13, 2015 13:08:35 GMT -6
It's like that annoying stray cat that just keeps showing up and whining .......
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 13, 2015 16:07:19 GMT -6
It's like that annoying stray cat that just keeps showing up and whining ....... Annoying stray cat? That's good, I'll add it to the list of names. You don't have any intelligent arguement against what I have to say, so some name calling is the best you can come up with? After making their first round through the P&Z and Council with their zoning change request, not being satisfied, going back for a second round to get the Council's overly restrictivve C-2 decision that still slashes the value of their property, do you think the property owners going back again with expensive professionals for a legal battle to try to give their 7500 sqft commercial investment the chance to acually be used as a business, would be seen as whining? Do you think they should just quietly accept what our City has done or stand up for what they think is right?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 14, 2015 7:04:55 GMT -6
Why would they work with the current owners on a Special Use Permit that wouldn't be transferable to any new owner? Why would they work out an arrangement with prospective owners, when they can't even apply for the Special Use Permit approval process until they actually purchase the property? Considering that the Special Use Permit approval process includes a public hearing, P&Z Commission recommendation, and then Council approval, how could they possibly work out an acceptable arrangement in advance? Are you implying that they would not follow our laws and bypass the Special Use Permit approval process and just give them one in advance? No, I don't believe that the owners just stopped and started bashing the City on SO. I didn't either though. I am still trying to get our City to provide their justification for their spot industrial zoning requirement that stopped an Aquaponics business. I am also still trying to get them to stop hiding their requirements to reopen the Majestic. I have only been talking about what they have done. If you feel that talking about their spot industrial zoning requirement and refusing to provide their requirements to reopen the Majestic bashes them, then maybe they should be doing things differently, don't you think? Contacted a professional? Are you implying that the property owners have hired an attorney and are preparing for a legal battle just to be able to try to create some value for the property they are invested in? In addition to the hundreds of dollars to file the zoning change request and publication fees, how much do you expect it to cost them to try to be able to sell their investment in our community? Are you really implying that I did something wrong by not hiring a legal team when trying to open businesses in Streator? If the costly approach of hiring professionals allows them to be able to get some value for their property, what about the other business properties on that street and throughout our community? Do you feel that needing to hire professionals and fight costly legal battles to be able to get some value out of their investments in our community will encourage others to invest here? I don't feel that it should require hiring attorneys to convince our City to do the right thing. Obviously though, our City feels strongly that there should not be much business on Illinois Street. The only real reason we've heard was so that homeowners in the area wouldn't have to worry about having the uncontrolled negative impacts of a bar near them. What a shame that they can't just enforce our laws better to control the "increasing" problems, don't you think? I guess you will just have to keep your eyes open and see what happens. I also heard yesterday that the bank building was sold, and there are plans to open a hotel and restaurant there. Aren't you going to explain about our City Manager working with prospective buyers on a Special Use Permit agreement without going through the public hearing, P&Z recommendation, and Council approval process, or the benefits of having to go through a legal battle for people invested in commercial property to be able to get some value out of their property?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 14, 2015 7:48:56 GMT -6
I guess you will just have to keep your eyes open and see what happens. I also heard yesterday that the bank building was sold, and there are plans to open a hotel and restaurant there. Aren't you going to explain about our City Manager working with prospective buyers on a Special Use Permit agreement without going through the public hearing, P&Z recommendation, and Council approval process, or the benefits of having to go through a legal battle for people invested in commercial property to be able to get some value out of their property? 17.16.030 - Who may submit permit applications. A. Applications for zoning certificates, special permits, or sign permits will be accepted only from persons having the legal authority to take action per the permit. By way of illustration, in general this means that applications should be made by the owners or lessees of property, or their agents, or persons who have contracted to purchase property contingent upon their ability to acquire the necessary permits under this title, or the agents of such persons (who may make application in the name of such owners, lessees, or contract venders). 17.16.050 - Staff consultation before formal application. A. To minimize development planning costs, avoid misunderstanding or misinterpretation, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, preapplication consultation between the developer, staff members, and the administrator is encouraged or required as provided in this section. There will be no charge for this preapplication consultation meeting; however, subsequent meetings with members of the city staff or consultants working for the city will be subject to labor and material charges to the applicant. In the case of consultants a five percent administrative fee will be added to any charge that they bill to the city.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 14, 2015 8:59:18 GMT -6
Aren't you going to explain about our City Manager working with prospective buyers on a Special Use Permit agreement without going through the public hearing, P&Z recommendation, and Council approval process, or the benefits of having to go through a legal battle for people invested in commercial property to be able to get some value out of their property? 17.16.030 - Who may submit permit applications. A. Applications for zoning certificates, special permits, or sign permits will be accepted only from persons having the legal authority to take action per the permit. By way of illustration, in general this means that applications should be made by the owners or lessees of property, or their agents, or persons who have contracted to purchase property contingent upon their ability to acquire the necessary permits under this title, or the agents of such persons (who may make application in the name of such owners, lessees, or contract venders). 17.16.050 - Staff consultation before formal application. A. To minimize development planning costs, avoid misunderstanding or misinterpretation, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, preapplication consultation between the developer, staff members, and the administrator is encouraged or required as provided in this section. There will be no charge for this preapplication consultation meeting; however, subsequent meetings with members of the city staff or consultants working for the city will be subject to labor and material charges to the applicant. In the case of consultants a five percent administrative fee will be added to any charge that they bill to the city. Gee dog, thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that they would have to have a "deed in hand" as the City Manager recently told me was required to even be able to get their requirements to reopen the Majestic. I stand corrected. Do you think Mr. Wrighton will be playing his politics with the Illinois Street properties if he just doesn't like what the sellers or prospective buyers have to say about what our City leaders do, or do you have an ordinace to post that backs up his refusal to provide the requirements to patch, paint, clean, furnish, and reopen the Majestic Theatre until we have a "deed in hand"?
|
|