Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
City by the Lake.org, The Voice of Michigan City, Indiana _ City Talk _ Marquette plan discussed
Posted by: southsider2k7 Jun 18 2007, 10:54 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=1159&TM=45954.58
QUOTE
Trails And Greenways High Up In Marquette Plan
Alaric DeArment
The News-Dispatch
Several members of the public, along with government officials, gathered at the Senior Center in Washington Park Thursday night for the first of a series of town hall meetings throughout Northwest Indiana to discuss the second phase of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission's Marquette Plan.
The purpose of the plan, NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson said, was to establish a long-range vision for protecting and enhancing shoreline areas.
"It looks at the value of the lakefront communities and areas as assets for the region and looks at ways to protect and enhance those assets," Swanson said.
A major part of the plan involves developing trails and greenways in the region.
"I would just like to see the Marquette Plan advance so 20 years down the line we have a bike trail extending from Chicago to the Michigan state line," NIRPC commissioner and Trail Creek Town Councilman Ron Lombard said.
"I think the biggest issue we've heard is the balance between ecology and development," said Gregg Calpino, a member of NIRPC's consulting team and principal at Chicago-based urban planning firm JJR LLC. "How heavily the human hand touches that is always an issue."
Goals of the plan include recapturing 75 percent of shoreline for public access, according to a slideshow presentation that Calpino and fellow JJR consultant Vishal Kundra gave. The presentation emphasized that the goal was not to grab land, displace people or increase taxes.
"This is not to expand the national park and take over every neighborhood in Northwest Indiana," Calpino said in the presentation. "The goal is to find a balance."
The presentation included a short video that showed what visitors to Michigan City might see upon arrival: underdeveloped properties, lack of signs to indicate they had arrived and a power plant dominating the skyline. This, Calpino said, made it look as though Michigan City "doesn't look like a place to visit or live."
"One solution is signage," Kundra said. "Tell people about it."
With that, the meeting opened to members of the community to voice their concerns. The South Shore Line and the location of the station on 11th Street figured prominently in the discussion.
"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."
Receiving criticism and suggestions from the public, however, were the purpose of the meeting.
"This is more of a public visioning process where we're using members of the public as resources," Swanson said.
Alaric DeArment
The News-Dispatch
Several members of the public, along with government officials, gathered at the Senior Center in Washington Park Thursday night for the first of a series of town hall meetings throughout Northwest Indiana to discuss the second phase of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission's Marquette Plan.
The purpose of the plan, NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson said, was to establish a long-range vision for protecting and enhancing shoreline areas.
"It looks at the value of the lakefront communities and areas as assets for the region and looks at ways to protect and enhance those assets," Swanson said.
A major part of the plan involves developing trails and greenways in the region.
"I would just like to see the Marquette Plan advance so 20 years down the line we have a bike trail extending from Chicago to the Michigan state line," NIRPC commissioner and Trail Creek Town Councilman Ron Lombard said.
"I think the biggest issue we've heard is the balance between ecology and development," said Gregg Calpino, a member of NIRPC's consulting team and principal at Chicago-based urban planning firm JJR LLC. "How heavily the human hand touches that is always an issue."
Goals of the plan include recapturing 75 percent of shoreline for public access, according to a slideshow presentation that Calpino and fellow JJR consultant Vishal Kundra gave. The presentation emphasized that the goal was not to grab land, displace people or increase taxes.
"This is not to expand the national park and take over every neighborhood in Northwest Indiana," Calpino said in the presentation. "The goal is to find a balance."
The presentation included a short video that showed what visitors to Michigan City might see upon arrival: underdeveloped properties, lack of signs to indicate they had arrived and a power plant dominating the skyline. This, Calpino said, made it look as though Michigan City "doesn't look like a place to visit or live."
"One solution is signage," Kundra said. "Tell people about it."
With that, the meeting opened to members of the community to voice their concerns. The South Shore Line and the location of the station on 11th Street figured prominently in the discussion.
"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."
Receiving criticism and suggestions from the public, however, were the purpose of the meeting.
"This is more of a public visioning process where we're using members of the public as resources," Swanson said.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 20 2007, 04:31 PM
They are speaking my language as far as public access goes.
Posted by: RexKickass Jun 22 2007, 12:27 PM
Aren't they closing 11th Street station this year?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 26 2007, 08:39 AM
11th is closing to repave, but I have not heard about the station itself closing permanently.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Jun 27 2007, 08:39 AM
I haven't heard anything either, and that is where I catch the train everyday. I know they just built a new $30K shelter so I can't imagine them closing down now.
Posted by: Max Main Jul 17 2007, 04:52 PM
does the parks dept have more info on the trails plan and how it connects tothe mc plan?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 27 2007, 12:28 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=4858&TM=52037.99
QUOTE
Marquette Plan A Matter Of Balance
About 30 attend meeting to discuss future of lakefront.
Deborah Sederberg
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - It's a matter of balance, planners said about Marquette Plan Phase 2 on Wednesday at Michigan City Senior Center.
About 30 people attended the event, fewer than the numbers at Tuesday's meeting in Chesterton.
Several in attendance suggested that, what with the series of North End planning meetings with Andrews University students and professors, perhaps Michigan City residents are feeling planned out.
The plan was conceived by U.S. Rep Pete Visclosky, (D-Merrillville.) It was and is seen as a system of preserving Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline as much as possible, even in the face of heavy industry.
The Chesterton meeting was to discuss the Indiana lakefront from Lake County to the Burns Waterway, while Wednesday's event was to talk about the lakefront from the Burns Waterway to the Michigan state line.
Hosted by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, the meetings in Porter and La Porte County were designed to get public comment.
NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson turned most of the meeting over to Gregg Calpino, principal and project firm of JJR Parks and Recreation in Chicago.
There were three visions for the lakefront, one leaning toward conservation issues, one to commercial development and one toward community.
In the end, he said, the plan likely will borrow from all three concerns.
Discussion was wide ranging, with some about transportation issues, especially the South Shore. Others wanted to talk about visitors while almost everyone wanted to talk about clean water issues.
Jane Smith, owner of the Feallock House bed and breakfast, said she had guests during the summer who could not swim in the lake several times because bacteria levels were too high.
Calpino suggested one solution might be for smaller cities and towns to work together on sewage treatment matters.
In meeting with city and town officials and others about the plan, Calpino said the age-old tension between visitors and residents shows no sign of dying.
The beauty of the Marquette Plan, he said, is that there is room for communities that welcome visitors and for those that would rather have their privacy.
"Portage, Chesterton and Michigan City have emerged as communities embracing tourism," he said. Each has a convenient exit from Interstate 94 and has or is working on getting effective signage directing visitors to attractions.
What is needed, he said, is a visitor management plan for the region. The idea would be to help tourists to find the spots they are seeking while sparing them the confusion of wandering aimlessly through residential areas.
"This plan recognizes individual rights," he noted.
Corasue Nicholas, Ogden Dunes, said she and her husband moved to the area from Chicago seven years ago, primarily because they enjoy hiking in the dunes and watching wildlife, including birds.
She said Portage and Chesterton are growing quickly, "but I don't think they know what they're doing."
She said she would emphasize the conservation aspect the plan.
Contact Deborah Sederberg at dsederberg@thenewsdispatch.com.
About 30 attend meeting to discuss future of lakefront.
Deborah Sederberg
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - It's a matter of balance, planners said about Marquette Plan Phase 2 on Wednesday at Michigan City Senior Center.
About 30 people attended the event, fewer than the numbers at Tuesday's meeting in Chesterton.
Several in attendance suggested that, what with the series of North End planning meetings with Andrews University students and professors, perhaps Michigan City residents are feeling planned out.
The plan was conceived by U.S. Rep Pete Visclosky, (D-Merrillville.) It was and is seen as a system of preserving Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline as much as possible, even in the face of heavy industry.
The Chesterton meeting was to discuss the Indiana lakefront from Lake County to the Burns Waterway, while Wednesday's event was to talk about the lakefront from the Burns Waterway to the Michigan state line.
Hosted by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, the meetings in Porter and La Porte County were designed to get public comment.
NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson turned most of the meeting over to Gregg Calpino, principal and project firm of JJR Parks and Recreation in Chicago.
There were three visions for the lakefront, one leaning toward conservation issues, one to commercial development and one toward community.
In the end, he said, the plan likely will borrow from all three concerns.
Discussion was wide ranging, with some about transportation issues, especially the South Shore. Others wanted to talk about visitors while almost everyone wanted to talk about clean water issues.
Jane Smith, owner of the Feallock House bed and breakfast, said she had guests during the summer who could not swim in the lake several times because bacteria levels were too high.
Calpino suggested one solution might be for smaller cities and towns to work together on sewage treatment matters.
In meeting with city and town officials and others about the plan, Calpino said the age-old tension between visitors and residents shows no sign of dying.
The beauty of the Marquette Plan, he said, is that there is room for communities that welcome visitors and for those that would rather have their privacy.
"Portage, Chesterton and Michigan City have emerged as communities embracing tourism," he said. Each has a convenient exit from Interstate 94 and has or is working on getting effective signage directing visitors to attractions.
What is needed, he said, is a visitor management plan for the region. The idea would be to help tourists to find the spots they are seeking while sparing them the confusion of wandering aimlessly through residential areas.
"This plan recognizes individual rights," he noted.
Corasue Nicholas, Ogden Dunes, said she and her husband moved to the area from Chicago seven years ago, primarily because they enjoy hiking in the dunes and watching wildlife, including birds.
She said Portage and Chesterton are growing quickly, "but I don't think they know what they're doing."
She said she would emphasize the conservation aspect the plan.
Contact Deborah Sederberg at dsederberg@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: mcstumper Sep 27 2007, 02:50 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Jun 18 2007, 11:54 AM) 
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=1159&TM=45954.58
QUOTE
With that, the meeting opened to members of the community to voice their concerns. The South Shore Line and the location of the station on 11th Street figured prominently in the discussion.
"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."
"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."
Ugh, these people just don't get it, do they? The South Shore exists to give us access, as commuters, to the Loop, not vice-versa. Chicagoans aren't going to drive to the Loop and pay $28 for parking so that they can get on a train that will take an hour and 45 minutes to get to Michigan City (Paying $13 round trip in the process). If the Loop was like Manhattan, maybe it would make sense. But its not, so it doesn't.
Move it south, or don't move it at all.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 28 2007, 07:11 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Sep 27 2007, 03:50 PM)
Ugh, these people just don't get it, do they? The South Shore exists to give us access, as commuters, to the Loop, not vice-versa. Chicagoans aren't going to drive to the Loop and pay $28 for parking so that they can get on a train that will take an hour and 45 minutes to get to Michigan City (Paying $13 round trip in the process). If the Loop was like Manhattan, maybe it would make sense. But its not, so it doesn't.
Move it south, or don't move it at all.
Riding the train everyday to work and back, there is a decent amount of people who ride the train out there. Granted it is no where near the volume of people that go into Chicago for tourism, but there are a few. Some people come out to Blue Chip, a few to the Lake, and some to the Mall. The Mall has taken a big hit with the new outlet open in Aurora, as that was one of the big areas LHP drew people from.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 28 2007, 07:18 AM
mcstumper has a point here. I suspect that there are very few daytrippers to MC via the CSS&SB. Where does he propose the station would be?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 28 2007, 07:32 AM
I know it isn't cost effecient, but I would love someone to restore that building. I love the old station.
Posted by: JHeath Sep 28 2007, 08:28 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Sep 27 2007, 03:50 PM)
Ugh, these people just don't get it, do they? The South Shore exists to give us access, as commuters, to the Loop, not vice-versa. Chicagoans aren't going to drive to the Loop and pay $28 for parking so that they can get on a train that will take an hour and 45 minutes to get to Michigan City (Paying $13 round trip in the process). If the Loop was like Manhattan, maybe it would make sense. But its not, so it doesn't.
Move it south, or don't move it at all.
If you move the station south, you lose proximity to the "Golden Triangle", which is what we've been using to draw tourists into our area. Instead of moving the station, why not just restore the buidling on 11th St.?
Personally, I think having the tracks in the middle of 11th St also add character to the line and to our City.
But that's just my opinion...
Posted by: Ang Sep 28 2007, 08:45 AM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Sep 28 2007, 08:28 AM)
If you move the station south, you lose proximity to the "Golden Triangle", which is what we've been using to draw tourists into our area. Instead of moving the station, why not just restore the buidling on 11th St.?
Personally, I think having the tracks in the middle of 11th St also add character to the line and to our City.
But that's just my opinion...
I'm with Jenny. When I tell people that a train runs down the middle of the road in my hometown, they are awed. And SSder is right about the station. I was in there before the building closed and it is absolutely gorgeous inside. Or was anyway. I think it should be restored and the tracks left right where they are. It would help the north end tremendously
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 28 2007, 12:20 PM
http://www.post-trib.com/news/579013,mcmarquette.article
QUOTE
Residents have many ideas for Marquette Plan
September 28, 2007
BY CHARLES M. BARTHOLOMEW Post-Tribune correspondent
MICHIGAN CITY -- Regional planning officials are counting as a success this week's pair of public meetings on a unified development plan for the Indiana shore of Lake Michigan.
Almost 100 people attended the Tuesday meeting in Chesterton and the Wednesday meeting in Michigan City to hear consultants for the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission explain "Marquette 2," the phase of U.S. Rep. Peter Visclosky's vision for the lake shore extending from the Port of Indiana to the Michigan state line and including 13 cities and towns in Porter and LaPorte counties.
The plan, due to be completed by the end of this year, will be a set of recommendations for increasing access to the lake for visitors and improving the quality of life for residents, building on the first phase that was completed last year and covers the area from Whiting to Portage. Five meetings on Marquette 2 were held in June.
"The meetings have all been very, very constructive," John Swanson, NIRPC executive director, said.
The majority of the 30 people who came to the Senior Center in Washington Park on Wednesday night were from Michigan City and adjacent towns.
Project manager Greg Calpino of JJR in Chicago said the final product will be a mix of scenarios favoring either conservation, commerce or communities.
Many comments concerned projects that would be part of the commerce scenario, principally relocating the South Shore tracks closer to the lake and building a new Michigan City train station.
"I'm hearing tonight that the train station is an absolutely critical component of this plan," Calpino said, adding that picking a site for it would come later.
Corasue Nichols of Ogden Dunes said turning U.S. 12 into a scenic corridor is "a very positive idea," but she questioned whether widening the road for bike lanes was needed with the Calumet Trail running parallel to it.
Michigan City Councilwoman Patricia Boy was one of several who said however desirable development for residents or visitors was, conservation issues, particularly Lake Michigan's water quality, must be addressed first.
"Once you do that, everything else will follow," she said.
"People come all the way from Texas and can't go in the water. We have no Jetskis, no parasails, no boats for them to go out onto the lake. There's nothing for them to do," Marcia Averitt of Michigan City said.
Swanson said this week's input will be used to develop three sets of recommendations that will be presented at public meetings some time in November.
He said NIRPC will continue to take comments on the Marquette 2 Plan at its Web site www.nirpc.org
September 28, 2007
BY CHARLES M. BARTHOLOMEW Post-Tribune correspondent
MICHIGAN CITY -- Regional planning officials are counting as a success this week's pair of public meetings on a unified development plan for the Indiana shore of Lake Michigan.
Almost 100 people attended the Tuesday meeting in Chesterton and the Wednesday meeting in Michigan City to hear consultants for the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission explain "Marquette 2," the phase of U.S. Rep. Peter Visclosky's vision for the lake shore extending from the Port of Indiana to the Michigan state line and including 13 cities and towns in Porter and LaPorte counties.
The plan, due to be completed by the end of this year, will be a set of recommendations for increasing access to the lake for visitors and improving the quality of life for residents, building on the first phase that was completed last year and covers the area from Whiting to Portage. Five meetings on Marquette 2 were held in June.
"The meetings have all been very, very constructive," John Swanson, NIRPC executive director, said.
The majority of the 30 people who came to the Senior Center in Washington Park on Wednesday night were from Michigan City and adjacent towns.
Project manager Greg Calpino of JJR in Chicago said the final product will be a mix of scenarios favoring either conservation, commerce or communities.
Many comments concerned projects that would be part of the commerce scenario, principally relocating the South Shore tracks closer to the lake and building a new Michigan City train station.
"I'm hearing tonight that the train station is an absolutely critical component of this plan," Calpino said, adding that picking a site for it would come later.
Corasue Nichols of Ogden Dunes said turning U.S. 12 into a scenic corridor is "a very positive idea," but she questioned whether widening the road for bike lanes was needed with the Calumet Trail running parallel to it.
Michigan City Councilwoman Patricia Boy was one of several who said however desirable development for residents or visitors was, conservation issues, particularly Lake Michigan's water quality, must be addressed first.
"Once you do that, everything else will follow," she said.
"People come all the way from Texas and can't go in the water. We have no Jetskis, no parasails, no boats for them to go out onto the lake. There's nothing for them to do," Marcia Averitt of Michigan City said.
Swanson said this week's input will be used to develop three sets of recommendations that will be presented at public meetings some time in November.
He said NIRPC will continue to take comments on the Marquette 2 Plan at its Web site www.nirpc.org
Posted by: mcstumper Sep 28 2007, 12:22 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Sep 28 2007, 08:18 AM)
mcstumper has a point here. I suspect that there are very few daytrippers to MC via the CSS&SB. Where does he propose the station would be?
One of two places. If the parking is sufficient, I would put it next to the MCAS Physical Plant building (whatever its called) just south of Ames Field. If not there, I would put it west of Ohio St., just north of the CSX tracks. The interesting thing about the second location is that it is very near the abandoned Monon Railroad right-of-way. If you were truly concerned about day-trippers, you could build a trolley line that would start at the new South Shore station, run north on the Monon ROW then parallel to the Amtrak line all the way up to the current train depot (Swingbellies). This trolley line would run right next to the Lighthouse Mall, so you could theoretically build a mini-station for dropping people off there. The trolley could be seasonal, operating just on weekends or holidays.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 1 2007, 11:13 AM
FWIW, NICTD favors a move to the south, if they do indeed reroute the South Shore tracks.
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=4936&TM=47843.67
QUOTE
NICTD: Send 11th St. Tracks South
Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch
CHESTERTON - Should the time come for the South Shore tracks on 11th Street to move, they likely will head south.
Gerald Hanas, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District general manager, said a goal is to reduce travel time, and getting through Michigan City quicker helps achieve that.
"One of the big elephants in the room ... is the fact that we're running on the streets of Michigan City," Hanas said. "That's a big impediment to South Shore and Michigan City traffic."
Hanas reiterated to NICTD's board Friday that he believes a substantial amount of time can be cut by rerouting the track off 11th Street.
"It's a relic of the old interurban days where we went through the streets of Gary, through the streets of East Chicago and Hammond and for that matter South Bend," NICTD spokesman John Parsons said. "This is the last remaining piece we have. It's an extremely expensive piece of railroad to maintain, probably the most expensive two miles in our system."
Parsons said the tracks, ties and ballasts are buried under the street.
"Every so often, we have to go through and rip it all out and replace it," Parsons said. "Periodically, we have to go in, even after these massive excavation projects, and do detailed work later on. It really reduces the asphalt life Michigan City experiences with their street."
NICTD and Michigan City studied north and south alternatives to reroute the track.
"The north alternative we looked at was getting on the old Nickel Plate (railroad), which is owned by the SouthShore Freight," Parsons said.
A swing bridge along the route that crosses Trail Creek presents a fatal flaw in trying to use the northern route. One of the big issues, he said, is that the South Shore's maintenance and storage facilities are to the east of the swing bridge.
"If there's any problem with that swing bridge," Parsons said, "we don't have a rush hour in the morning."
Another proposal, he said, has been to build a bridge over Trail Creek.
"Because the freight service will be with us and will require a 2 percent grade, we will have to start our bridge ... going over U.S. 12. We'd probably be going through (downtown) Michigan City at 30 feet in the air, coming down probably at Lincoln Yard," Parsons said. "That was discounted early on in favor of a southern (route)."
Parsons said a southerly alignment would take the South Shore along the CSX tracks and NIPSCO utility corridor.
"We would join the South Shore at the cinder block company on U.S. 12 near the county line," he said.
NICTD and CSX would segregate operations with the South Shore running north of the CSX tracks.
New station facilities, Parsons said, will be located by Franklin Street near Ames Field.
"It would give us the opportunity to develop a pretty attractive station," Parsons said. "We have very limited parking in downtown Michigan City. At 11th Street, there are only 30 spaces and around 200 spaces at Carroll Avenue."
Parsons said a new station could offer 400 spaces.
The move south, Parsons said, would improve operating time and reduce the number of grade crossings from 32 to 17. The cost of such a project would range between $60 and $80 million.
q
Contact Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@thenewsdispatch.com.
Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch
CHESTERTON - Should the time come for the South Shore tracks on 11th Street to move, they likely will head south.
Gerald Hanas, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District general manager, said a goal is to reduce travel time, and getting through Michigan City quicker helps achieve that.
"One of the big elephants in the room ... is the fact that we're running on the streets of Michigan City," Hanas said. "That's a big impediment to South Shore and Michigan City traffic."
Hanas reiterated to NICTD's board Friday that he believes a substantial amount of time can be cut by rerouting the track off 11th Street.
"It's a relic of the old interurban days where we went through the streets of Gary, through the streets of East Chicago and Hammond and for that matter South Bend," NICTD spokesman John Parsons said. "This is the last remaining piece we have. It's an extremely expensive piece of railroad to maintain, probably the most expensive two miles in our system."
Parsons said the tracks, ties and ballasts are buried under the street.
"Every so often, we have to go through and rip it all out and replace it," Parsons said. "Periodically, we have to go in, even after these massive excavation projects, and do detailed work later on. It really reduces the asphalt life Michigan City experiences with their street."
NICTD and Michigan City studied north and south alternatives to reroute the track.
"The north alternative we looked at was getting on the old Nickel Plate (railroad), which is owned by the SouthShore Freight," Parsons said.
A swing bridge along the route that crosses Trail Creek presents a fatal flaw in trying to use the northern route. One of the big issues, he said, is that the South Shore's maintenance and storage facilities are to the east of the swing bridge.
"If there's any problem with that swing bridge," Parsons said, "we don't have a rush hour in the morning."
Another proposal, he said, has been to build a bridge over Trail Creek.
"Because the freight service will be with us and will require a 2 percent grade, we will have to start our bridge ... going over U.S. 12. We'd probably be going through (downtown) Michigan City at 30 feet in the air, coming down probably at Lincoln Yard," Parsons said. "That was discounted early on in favor of a southern (route)."
Parsons said a southerly alignment would take the South Shore along the CSX tracks and NIPSCO utility corridor.
"We would join the South Shore at the cinder block company on U.S. 12 near the county line," he said.
NICTD and CSX would segregate operations with the South Shore running north of the CSX tracks.
New station facilities, Parsons said, will be located by Franklin Street near Ames Field.
"It would give us the opportunity to develop a pretty attractive station," Parsons said. "We have very limited parking in downtown Michigan City. At 11th Street, there are only 30 spaces and around 200 spaces at Carroll Avenue."
Parsons said a new station could offer 400 spaces.
The move south, Parsons said, would improve operating time and reduce the number of grade crossings from 32 to 17. The cost of such a project would range between $60 and $80 million.
q
Contact Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 1 2007, 11:22 AM
I'll admit, I am a fan of this letter... More doing, less planning. It also bothers me if the stuff about politicians buying land is true. That is kind of conflict of interest, don't you think?
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=4926&TM=48507.66
QUOTE
City Hears Lots Of Plans, But Just Needs To Get Moving
In response to the Marquette Plan, I am amazed why people continue to study the lakes and access to them. The Andrews University team and their charette was to tell the city what we already know and at a cost to whom? Now I read about the Marquette Plan that recently acquired a $1 million grant to hire a consulting firm to discuss access to Lake Michigan. What happened to Ron Meer's resolution? It was submitted and passed through our City Council proposing the same thing.
I have spent a lot of time watching and listening to these plans. Why can't this be done? Access to the old West Beach can be done at little to not cost. Why are the greedy planners and leaders of this town buying up more land on the North Side/West Side? To capitalize on the access? I have spoken with heads of the Economic Development committee and City Council members, both having members buying land.
Let's get these plans and studies that don't move forward off the chalk board and in motion before the land grabbers buy it all. We the people of Michigan City want access to the West Beach area. This could be the greatest financial boom in Michigan City to target small businesses and residents alike, not just the big money like the riverboat and Lighthouse Place. Come on, people, speak up before we don't have anything left. Feel free to contact me.
West Side businessman and homeowner,
Tony Childers
Michigan City
tonysoutboard@adsnet.com or 874-4086
In response to the Marquette Plan, I am amazed why people continue to study the lakes and access to them. The Andrews University team and their charette was to tell the city what we already know and at a cost to whom? Now I read about the Marquette Plan that recently acquired a $1 million grant to hire a consulting firm to discuss access to Lake Michigan. What happened to Ron Meer's resolution? It was submitted and passed through our City Council proposing the same thing.
I have spent a lot of time watching and listening to these plans. Why can't this be done? Access to the old West Beach can be done at little to not cost. Why are the greedy planners and leaders of this town buying up more land on the North Side/West Side? To capitalize on the access? I have spoken with heads of the Economic Development committee and City Council members, both having members buying land.
Let's get these plans and studies that don't move forward off the chalk board and in motion before the land grabbers buy it all. We the people of Michigan City want access to the West Beach area. This could be the greatest financial boom in Michigan City to target small businesses and residents alike, not just the big money like the riverboat and Lighthouse Place. Come on, people, speak up before we don't have anything left. Feel free to contact me.
West Side businessman and homeowner,
Tony Childers
Michigan City
tonysoutboard@adsnet.com or 874-4086
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 3 2007, 01:16 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=5075&TM=55121.34
QUOTE
West Side Needs Access To The Lake
Tony Childers is correct on many points ["City hears lots of plans, just needs to get moving," Saturday]. His strongest point is that we keep repeating the same studies, and essentially we're being told the same thing at additional cost and time.
Another important point he makes isthe need for access to Lake Michigan from the West Side of Michigan City. This can be successfully accomplished if the city, NIPSCO and the railroads involved expedite access in a secured manner for all parties.
The West Side of Michigan City and all Michigan City residents can no longer afford to be restricted from the primary asset of our area. Having access to Lake Michigan is what brings value to the area and potentially improves the quality of life.
It's time to implement what we know will help improve our community.
Ron Meer, Councilman
Third Ward
Michigan City
Tony Childers is correct on many points ["City hears lots of plans, just needs to get moving," Saturday]. His strongest point is that we keep repeating the same studies, and essentially we're being told the same thing at additional cost and time.
Another important point he makes isthe need for access to Lake Michigan from the West Side of Michigan City. This can be successfully accomplished if the city, NIPSCO and the railroads involved expedite access in a secured manner for all parties.
The West Side of Michigan City and all Michigan City residents can no longer afford to be restricted from the primary asset of our area. Having access to Lake Michigan is what brings value to the area and potentially improves the quality of life.
It's time to implement what we know will help improve our community.
Ron Meer, Councilman
Third Ward
Michigan City
Posted by: JHeath Oct 3 2007, 03:52 PM
Do we get a cut of the grant for what we already know?
It's not that difficult...really. We need better access to the lakefront, from all angles.
Use the money from private developers to make it happen....instead of raising taxes for the rest of us.
Posted by: Dave Oct 3 2007, 08:47 PM
QUOTE
The move south, Parsons said, would improve operating time and reduce the number of grade crossings from 32 to 17. The cost of such a project would range between $60 and $80 million.
I can believe that the maintainance of 11th street is the highest for any two miles of NICTD track (though I'd still like to see the actual numbers), but I have to wonder how many years is it going to take NICTD to save $60 million by making this move. Does anyone think they spend a million bucks a year on 11th street? Give me $60 million, I can give you a million a year return on that by buying savings bonds, for crying out loud. Heck, take the $60 million, buy every house along 11th street clear though town, close the street, build a train level platform, close half the grade crossings, repurchase the old train station and rehab it, build a parking garage on the same block as the station, and give me the $30 million that's left over.
I am going to get a reputation on here as a conspiracy theorist, I'm afraid. However, I want you all to know I believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, we really did land on the moon, and the TrlLateral Commission is a glorified social club. However, I once again have to wonder what the hidden agenda is about moving the train station from where it is on 11th street, considering the outrageous costs involved in doing so and the simple fact that it seems to be working where it has been for the past 100 years.
Posted by: Ang Oct 4 2007, 09:09 AM
Obviously people don't understand the meaning of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 4 2007, 09:17 AM
The only thing I don't understand is what happens to the shops? They still need a place to store, fix, and re-arrange trains. If they reroute that far south, how do they get to the shops?
Posted by: Dave Oct 4 2007, 11:24 AM
I suppose that's part of why it's supposed to cost so much. If they move the station to Ame's Field, they have to get the trains back to the Carroll St. facility. From what I can see on Google Earth mapping, they would have to lay about a mile of track east of the Beverly Shores station to get to an existing rail line, which would take them past Ame's Field, and then there would have to be some kind of addition near the Carroll St. facility to get them back to the yards.
I still think my idea would work better and be cheaper. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 5 2007, 08:09 AM
Sixty mill would go FAR in urban renewal along the tracks. Someone wants to move the tracks, and we need to find out who and what interest that person or people have along the right of way.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 5 2007, 08:41 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 4 2007, 12:24 PM)
I suppose that's part of why it's supposed to cost so much. If they move the station to Ame's Field, they have to get the trains back to the Carroll St. facility. From what I can see on Google Earth mapping, they would have to lay about a mile of track east of the Beverly Shores station to get to an existing rail line, which would take them past Ame's Field, and then there would have to be some kind of addition near the Carroll St. facility to get them back to the yards.
I still think my idea would work better and be cheaper. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Unless a part of the $60-80 million cost is a new, state of the art facility for the shops, then it would make a little more sense.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 5 2007, 08:42 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 5 2007, 09:09 AM)
Sixty mill would go FAR in urban renewal along the tracks. Someone wants to move the tracks, and we need to find out who and what interest that person or people have along the right of way.
If someone was really willing to poor that kind of money into the northside, we could fix a lot of things. We could get the streets and traffic flow fixed, we could get the views fixed, and we could turn that area into the picture postcard that it used to be.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 8 2007, 03:49 PM
A fourth of that money would be significant.
Posted by: mcstumper Oct 8 2007, 10:19 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 4 2007, 12:24 PM)
I suppose that's part of why it's supposed to cost so much. If they move the station to Ame's Field, they have to get the trains back to the Carroll St. facility. From what I can see on Google Earth mapping, they would have to lay about a mile of track east of the Beverly Shores station to get to an existing rail line, which would take them past Ame's Field, and then there would have to be some kind of addition near the Carroll St. facility to get them back to the yards.
I still think my idea would work better and be cheaper. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
The South Shore has an existing interchange with CSX east of Michigan City that could be used. However they would have to back the trains into and out of the shops and then onto the main line. I imagine that they would try to acquire the property on the southwest corner of the current crossing and build a spur there for interchange.
Posted by: Dave Oct 9 2007, 01:15 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Oct 8 2007, 11:19 PM)
The South Shore has an existing interchange with CSX east of Michigan City that could be used. However they would have to back the trains into and out of the shops and then onto the main line. I imagine that they would try to acquire the property on the southwest corner of the current crossing and build a spur there for interchange.
I saw that, the interchange is east of the Carroll St. yards, so I assume they wouldn't want to do a switchback with every train. What would a switchback do to all that time they are claiming they will save by moving from 11th street?
Of course, maybe they would just close the Carroll street passenger facility altogether. Someone I know speculates that the whole motivation for moving the train line is to get it out of the North End "Ghetto" (where I happen to live, thankyouverymuch) to where the folks on the south end of town would feel more comfortable using it. I'd like to see the News Dispatch do a little investigative reporting, to see if anyone involved in the decision making process has been purchasing real estate on or near the proposed new route.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 9 2007, 06:52 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 9 2007, 02:15 AM)
I saw that, the interchange is east of the Carroll St. yards, so I assume they wouldn't want to do a switchback with every train. What would a switchback do to all that time they are claiming they will save by moving from 11th street?
Of course, maybe they would just close the Carroll street passenger facility altogether. Someone I know speculates that the whole motivation for moving the train line is to get it out of the North End "Ghetto" (where I happen to live, thankyouverymuch) to where the folks on the south end of town would feel more comfortable using it. I'd like to see the News Dispatch do a little investigative reporting, to see if anyone involved in the decision making process has been purchasing real estate on or near the proposed new route.
I think you hit on on something important here, what exactly is our motivation and our goals if we move the tracks.
Is our goal to improve the quality of life for our citizens by making the commute to work/Chicago a little bit shorter, or is it to improve the commute to attract tourists to Michigan City? I think the answer tells us whether we want to move the tracks north or south. If we decide we want to make things attractive to come out here, we need to move the tracks north into the tourism triangle of the beach, the mall, and the boat. Tourists really aren't going to care about the southend of town, as they can get that stuff anywhere else. They want what makes MC unique. Now if we are looking at making life easier for ourselves, then we look at moving the tracks south. One thing to remember, is if the goal is to save time, its not like this will make the trip THAT much shorter. The SS trains are only allowed a top speed of 79mph. They already take 1 hour and 20 minutes to get to the Chesterton stop. My highly unscientific guess, based on about 9 years of commuting on the SS, is that we could save a little less than 5 minutes for people used to getting off at 11th street, and about 10 for those used to boarding at Carroll. That is a lot of investment for a little amount of time. I would say we would get a much better return on our dollars if we tried to get people directly into the tourist triangle, making it as easy as possible for people to visit MC. For those going into Chicago, this project really wouldn't make any dissernable differences in their regular day.
Posted by: Dave Oct 9 2007, 09:03 AM
Well, I would agree that it the train is going to be moved, moving it north males a lot more sense than moving it south.
However, agreeing again, moving it either way is going to make only a difference of a few minutes in commuting time, and the simple fact of the matter is that no one rides the South Shore for speed, they ride it for economy. If I was concerned with speed, I'd drive, and cut 30 minutes off the commuting time. Being concerned with ecomony, I ride the train and save about 50% in cost. Is anyone going to ride the train if NICTD has to double fares in order to pay for moving the tracks?
I was musing the other day about a high speed commuter boat. How fast could one make the 38 mile run from MC to Navy Pier? Probably a topic for another thread.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 9 2007, 09:12 AM
Cost is the #1 reason I ride the train, no doubt about it. #2 would be the fact that I don't see as many idiotic commuters as I do idiotic drivers, plus the ones I do see are much more harmess.
As for the boat idea, it came about a year ago, someone was talking about running it out of Gary I believe. The idea never was discussed again as far as I know. I am guessing costs were the big problem.
Posted by: JHeath Oct 9 2007, 11:07 AM
Running the commuter boat in the winter months would be dangerous for many reasons. I'm guesing that idea never went anywhere because it would have to be seasonal...and a large enough watercraft to handle the waves on days when it's really nasty weather during the rest of the year.
Posted by: Ang Oct 9 2007, 11:31 AM
And the insurance premiums would be through the roof to operate a high speed commuter boat-especially that distance. For one, I'm sure they'd be hard pressed to find a company willing to write such a risk. For two, the chances of a loss are increased due to silly mishaps and carelessness of passengers. For three, Lake Michigan is extremely unpredictable.
While it's a nice idea in theory, I don't think it would work very well. Probably be best to have a couple friends commute together across the lake in a private boat and share the cost of fuel.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 9 2007, 12:44 PM
All in all, it seems that the best plan would be to keep the CSS&SB on 11th, and make the station on 11th a real station. That could be a nice anchor to the downtown Franklin St area.
Posted by: mcstumper Oct 10 2007, 03:53 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 9 2007, 01:44 PM)
All in all, it seems that the best plan would be to keep the CSS&SB on 11th, and make the station on 11th a real station. That could be a nice anchor to the downtown Franklin St area.
Except:
a) no parking
slower trainsc) no place to build a boarding platform (which I am surprised isn't required under the ADA).
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 10 2007, 04:57 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Oct 10 2007, 04:53 PM)
Except:
a) no parking
slower trainsc) no place to build a boarding platform (which I am surprised isn't required under the ADA).
On the third point, I believe the old stations are grandfathered in. All of the stations that have been improved all have platformed.
Posted by: Dave Oct 10 2007, 10:19 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Oct 10 2007, 04:53 PM)
Except:
a) no parking
B) slower trains
c) no place to build a boarding platform (which I am surprised isn't required under the ADA).
a) If NICTD would use a few hundred thousand dollars of that $60 million to buy the vacant lot and the two houses on the same block as the train station and/or the dry cleaners on that block (and this would be a legitimate use of eminant domain if the owners were unwilling to sell, IMHO), I could see enough space there for upwards of 100 parking spaces, if not 200 spaces.
b) How much additional time is the train going to take going the two miles or so further if they move it to a new southern route past Ames Field? I doubt the train would be able to go appreciably faster on the southern route, as it is still going to be going through town at street level.
c) All that would be required for a boarding platform at the 11th street station would be closing 11th street for westbound traffic between Franklin and Pine, and building the platform where the westbound lane currently is.
Posted by: JHeath Oct 11 2007, 08:01 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 10 2007, 11:19 PM)
c) All that would be required for a boarding platform at the 11th street station would be closing 11th street for westbound traffic between Franklin and Pine, and building the platform where the westbound lane currently is.
With all of the complaining that people already do about the "confusing" traffic patterns in the north end of town, this would not be feasible.
Posted by: Ang Oct 11 2007, 08:33 AM
A three level parking garage on the corner of Franklin and Pine would do fine.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 11 2007, 01:46 PM
Are the existing lots full? What about all the space on the SW block at the intersection of Franklin and 11th?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 11 2007, 02:10 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 11 2007, 02:46 PM)
Are the existing lots full? What about all the space on the SW block at the intersection of Franklin and 11th?
The SW lot belongs to that interior place that is in the old tire place. The NW lot is also private for the couple of businesses that are next to the old trainstation. The lot behind those buildings and where the stop is now are always filled up.
Posted by: Ang Oct 11 2007, 02:10 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 11 2007, 01:46 PM)
Are the existing lots full? What about all the space on the SW block at the intersection of Franklin and 11th?
That lot belongs to John Tunstall-he who owns Studio II
Posted by: mcstumper Oct 11 2007, 02:27 PM
There seems to be a misconception that if we don't move the South Shore south, we would save taxpayers $60 million.
To that I say, "HA!"
NICTD is essentially a government entity with deep roots in Lake and Porter Counties. Therefore, if the $60 million doesn't get spent here, it will get spent there. Why don't we sit here and brainstorm some more ways to meet all of our needs with the existing route, so that Valparaiso or Munster can have another $59 million to spend on a fancy new station when the extension is built.
Not to sound cynical, but come on. We're talking Lake County, people!
Posted by: Dave Oct 12 2007, 02:18 AM
So let's get them to spend the money here, just so they spend it here?
I have to disagree with that. First, I personally don't think moving the train is a good idea for several reasons. I think the north end needs the train, and as a resident of the north end I like it right where it is. Taking it away is going to hurt businesses here and the residents here who use it to commute. I also like it because I think having a train running down the middle of the street is just plain cool -- where else do you ever see that? (I'll admit this is a matter of taste.)
Considering NITCD doesn't seem to be making tons of money as things are, I also think that their taking on the kind of major financial outlay moving the train would involve would, if anything, make them less viable than they are today, which would not be a good thing. IIRC they get substantial subsidies from the state and federal governments, and requiring additional taxpayer dollars to provide what is for all apparent purposes the same service is a bad idea. How long until some downstate politican or Washington congressman from some other state says something about the NITCD being a waste of money, seeing as it can't be run at a profit, and the whole thing gets shut down?
As has been mentioned in other threads on this board, there are a lot of people here in Michigan City and LaPorte County who are against change in any form. I'm not one of them. I think some proposed changes around here would be very good, one example of that being the proposed Intermodal facility (which I think is a no brainer). Other ideas -- expanded BP refinery (granted not in LaPorte, but still NW Indiana), waste transfer station, and this move the train plan, not good ideas.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 12 2007, 06:30 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Oct 11 2007, 03:27 PM)
There seems to be a misconception that if we don't move the South Shore south, we would save taxpayers $60 million.
To that I say, "HA!"
NICTD is essentially a government entity with deep roots in Lake and Porter Counties. Therefore, if the $60 million doesn't get spent here, it will get spent there. Why don't we sit here and brainstorm some more ways to meet all of our needs with the existing route, so that Valparaiso or Munster can have another $59 million to spend on a fancy new station when the extension is built.
Not to sound cynical, but come on. We're talking Lake County, people!
There might be a half truth to that sentiment. Usually big government projects like that involve matching funds, meaning that the Federal government puts up half the money, if the local entity can come up with the other half.
For me, the time saving just doesn't mean anything. The question is, is this project going to inject the money we put into it, back into Michigan City? If the answer is "no", it is a pork barrel waste project. If it is "yes", they we need to investigate how it is to be funded, and if it is feasible.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 15 2007, 09:37 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=5429&TM=41965.66
QUOTE
New South Shore Route Possible
The city can have the South Shore on the North End, if they work together. It does not have to cross Trail Creek. It will just take cooperation.
The city is trying to get the property along the north side of Eighth Street and along Michigan Boulevard, so, from the rails that end at East Eighth Street, the South Shore could follow the old right of way of the LE&W (Nickel Plate) that went to the old freight station on East Sixth Street. By going in back of the sewage plant, then curving along side of East Eighth Street, the tracks could go along the east side of Michigan Boulevard to just about the corner of Fourth Street, curving under the west end of the U.S. 12 bridge at Taylor Street. From there they would follow the old CI&L (Monon) tracks that went through Pioneer Lumber Co., then follow the old right of way, crossing Franklin Street south of Matey's, crossing the Amtrak line where the old Monon crossover was, and connecting to the old South Shore-Monon interchange, and picking up their own right of way to the west.
A loading platform and ticket office could be between Washington Street and Wabash Street, accessible from both streets. Parking could be on the northwest corner of Michigan and Wabash. The old gas station there is for sale now. If more parking is needed, maybe a deal can be worked with the outlet mall.
The city can have its river walk, and the area in between the walk and the railroad right of way could be used for other things.
Money and time have been wasted on high-priced studies and nothing has been done.
It would be necessary for the city, state highway and South Shore towork things out.
I doubt I will be around to see the tracks removed from 10th and 11th streets, which they have been talking about for the last 60-plus years.
Roger T. Storey
Michigan City
The city can have the South Shore on the North End, if they work together. It does not have to cross Trail Creek. It will just take cooperation.
The city is trying to get the property along the north side of Eighth Street and along Michigan Boulevard, so, from the rails that end at East Eighth Street, the South Shore could follow the old right of way of the LE&W (Nickel Plate) that went to the old freight station on East Sixth Street. By going in back of the sewage plant, then curving along side of East Eighth Street, the tracks could go along the east side of Michigan Boulevard to just about the corner of Fourth Street, curving under the west end of the U.S. 12 bridge at Taylor Street. From there they would follow the old CI&L (Monon) tracks that went through Pioneer Lumber Co., then follow the old right of way, crossing Franklin Street south of Matey's, crossing the Amtrak line where the old Monon crossover was, and connecting to the old South Shore-Monon interchange, and picking up their own right of way to the west.
A loading platform and ticket office could be between Washington Street and Wabash Street, accessible from both streets. Parking could be on the northwest corner of Michigan and Wabash. The old gas station there is for sale now. If more parking is needed, maybe a deal can be worked with the outlet mall.
The city can have its river walk, and the area in between the walk and the railroad right of way could be used for other things.
Money and time have been wasted on high-priced studies and nothing has been done.
It would be necessary for the city, state highway and South Shore towork things out.
I doubt I will be around to see the tracks removed from 10th and 11th streets, which they have been talking about for the last 60-plus years.
Roger T. Storey
Michigan City
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 15 2007, 11:22 AM
Ask, too, if the project will enable other projects to move ahead. For example, if condos are built to the water's edge, it makes many other projects impossible; therefore, condos to the water's edge are a BAD idea and should not be allowed.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 17 2007, 11:04 AM
I am going to throw this in here, because it fits the general theme here...
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5583&TM=47232.72
QUOTE
Study Tells Benefits Of Planning For Growth
Chambers told study should help governments develop financial policies.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
LA PORTE - Land use decisions made within the county directly impact how much money the county must spend for basic services, according to recent study.
The results of that study were presented Tuesday at a joint membership luncheon of the La Porte and Michigan City chambers of commerce.
Dan Botich, a member of the economic development consulting firm Cender & Co., highlighted the "Costs of Community Services Study" prepared for the La Porte County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Botich said the intent of the study is to give county, city and town planning groups a financial basis for developing strategies and policies.
"It may be one more study, but it's important information for land use planners and economic developers to use for more efficient development for taxpayers," Botich said.
It was completed with support from county commissioners
La Porte County is the only county in Indiana to prepare this type of study, Botich said. It complements the La Porte County Land Use Development Plan - now in its final stages of development - by looking at the financial implications of land use development decisions.
The La Porte County COCS study should be updated every five years, the consultant said, to account for revised tax policies.
Originally developed by the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, the planning tool was intended to be used to conserve or preserve farmland in Pennsylvania. Based on studies of more than 70 communities, the Pennsylvania COCS showed for every $1 of tax revenue received for residential property, another $1.15 is used in services such as schools, libraries and protection services.
On the other hand, commercial and industrial land requires only 29 cents in services and farmland - even with homesteads - only requires 37 cents in services.
Botich noted that each year, about 100,000 acres of Indiana farmland is converted to non-agricultural uses. From 1997 to 2002, Indiana ranked 11th on the list of states losing the most farmland, based on information from the American Farmland Trust.
La Porte Mayor Leigh Morris, who attended the luncheon, said he hears from people who think the city should become a bedroom community for nearby cities. From the study, he said, "It would be a pretty bad outcome."
Botich said the study was not anti-residential development but makes a case for being aware of the potential financial impact of permitting large residential developments.
The COCS study collected data on total tax revenues received by each city, town, township, school system, public library and the county in fiscal year 2005, as well as how the revenue was spent.
Botich said the study was not intended to make judgments about land use or taxing structures, nor predict the impacts of future land use development decisions. What the study does best, he said, is to help strike a balance between negative fiscal impacts of residential units and positive impact of other land uses.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Chambers told study should help governments develop financial policies.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
LA PORTE - Land use decisions made within the county directly impact how much money the county must spend for basic services, according to recent study.
The results of that study were presented Tuesday at a joint membership luncheon of the La Porte and Michigan City chambers of commerce.
Dan Botich, a member of the economic development consulting firm Cender & Co., highlighted the "Costs of Community Services Study" prepared for the La Porte County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Botich said the intent of the study is to give county, city and town planning groups a financial basis for developing strategies and policies.
"It may be one more study, but it's important information for land use planners and economic developers to use for more efficient development for taxpayers," Botich said.
It was completed with support from county commissioners
La Porte County is the only county in Indiana to prepare this type of study, Botich said. It complements the La Porte County Land Use Development Plan - now in its final stages of development - by looking at the financial implications of land use development decisions.
The La Porte County COCS study should be updated every five years, the consultant said, to account for revised tax policies.
Originally developed by the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, the planning tool was intended to be used to conserve or preserve farmland in Pennsylvania. Based on studies of more than 70 communities, the Pennsylvania COCS showed for every $1 of tax revenue received for residential property, another $1.15 is used in services such as schools, libraries and protection services.
On the other hand, commercial and industrial land requires only 29 cents in services and farmland - even with homesteads - only requires 37 cents in services.
Botich noted that each year, about 100,000 acres of Indiana farmland is converted to non-agricultural uses. From 1997 to 2002, Indiana ranked 11th on the list of states losing the most farmland, based on information from the American Farmland Trust.
La Porte Mayor Leigh Morris, who attended the luncheon, said he hears from people who think the city should become a bedroom community for nearby cities. From the study, he said, "It would be a pretty bad outcome."
Botich said the study was not anti-residential development but makes a case for being aware of the potential financial impact of permitting large residential developments.
The COCS study collected data on total tax revenues received by each city, town, township, school system, public library and the county in fiscal year 2005, as well as how the revenue was spent.
Botich said the study was not intended to make judgments about land use or taxing structures, nor predict the impacts of future land use development decisions. What the study does best, he said, is to help strike a balance between negative fiscal impacts of residential units and positive impact of other land uses.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 17 2007, 11:29 AM
I really like the idea of keeping development where it already has happened: But we have to call it REdevelopment. There are many models for this, and one of the best i have seen is the near East Side of Indianapolis.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 22 2007, 06:36 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5740&TM=30674.27
QUOTE
Warren Needs A Two-Way Franklin
Owner says he has blueprints for new hotel, and may start the project if traffic is allowed to return to both ways.
Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - When discussions arise about revitalizing Michigan City's downtown area, many different theories are thrown around about what's best to bring people back to Franklin Street.
One common idea, however, comes up in almost every conversation.
"The Warren Building isn't the only catalyst (in the revitalization of downtown), but it's certainly one of the major catalysts," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "There are a lot of things that need to be addressed, but a large, vacant structure like that is certainly a liability (to redevelopment)."
The Warren Building - in the 700 block of Franklin Street and built in 1926 - hasn't been used since the early 1990s, when Dan O'Brien bought it at tax sale.
Michigan City Planner John Pugh said O'Brien - who also owns Whittaker Woods Golf Course and O'Brien's Restaurant in New Buffalo - has kept the building maintained and up to code.
But its old, seemingly run-down facade has become - along with the long-abandoned South Shore rail station on 11th Street - a poster child for what many lament as the death of the downtown.
"That's one reason we hope he'll either come forward with a plan or sell the property," Pugh said. "I get inquiries about buying that building and I refer them to Dan. People have offered us a lot of money."
O'Brien has come to city officials with plans for the building in the past, and this week told The News-Dispatch he plans to turn the old building into a 52-suite hotel, possibly with a restaurant or bar inside, at a cost of "at least a couple million dollars."
He added one caveat to his plan for the six story building, however.
"If the city starts rebuilding Franklin Street, then I'll start the project," O'Brien said. "I've got a contractor and I've had blueprints in my hand for almost two years."
O'Brien pointed to two-way traffic as something he'd like to see on Franklin.
"I know businesses will start coming in when they make it two-way," he said. "It's things like that I'd like to see."
Oberlie said he hopes the possibility of making Franklin Street a two-way street might entice new development. The idea is one of the many that were included in a recently presented Andrews University study of the North End.
"It's something we're planning to look at throughout the winter," Oberlie said. "It seems to be the most affordable option and whether real or perceived, the sentiment is there that this is something the people are interested in."
Contact reporter Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.
Owner says he has blueprints for new hotel, and may start the project if traffic is allowed to return to both ways.
Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - When discussions arise about revitalizing Michigan City's downtown area, many different theories are thrown around about what's best to bring people back to Franklin Street.
One common idea, however, comes up in almost every conversation.
"The Warren Building isn't the only catalyst (in the revitalization of downtown), but it's certainly one of the major catalysts," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "There are a lot of things that need to be addressed, but a large, vacant structure like that is certainly a liability (to redevelopment)."
The Warren Building - in the 700 block of Franklin Street and built in 1926 - hasn't been used since the early 1990s, when Dan O'Brien bought it at tax sale.
Michigan City Planner John Pugh said O'Brien - who also owns Whittaker Woods Golf Course and O'Brien's Restaurant in New Buffalo - has kept the building maintained and up to code.
But its old, seemingly run-down facade has become - along with the long-abandoned South Shore rail station on 11th Street - a poster child for what many lament as the death of the downtown.
"That's one reason we hope he'll either come forward with a plan or sell the property," Pugh said. "I get inquiries about buying that building and I refer them to Dan. People have offered us a lot of money."
O'Brien has come to city officials with plans for the building in the past, and this week told The News-Dispatch he plans to turn the old building into a 52-suite hotel, possibly with a restaurant or bar inside, at a cost of "at least a couple million dollars."
He added one caveat to his plan for the six story building, however.
"If the city starts rebuilding Franklin Street, then I'll start the project," O'Brien said. "I've got a contractor and I've had blueprints in my hand for almost two years."
O'Brien pointed to two-way traffic as something he'd like to see on Franklin.
"I know businesses will start coming in when they make it two-way," he said. "It's things like that I'd like to see."
Oberlie said he hopes the possibility of making Franklin Street a two-way street might entice new development. The idea is one of the many that were included in a recently presented Andrews University study of the North End.
"It's something we're planning to look at throughout the winter," Oberlie said. "It seems to be the most affordable option and whether real or perceived, the sentiment is there that this is something the people are interested in."
Contact reporter Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 22 2007, 10:46 AM
Oh, no, another panacea...
Posted by: Dave Oct 22 2007, 01:29 PM
Can it be said too many times that Oberlie was the city planner (or whatever the job title is/was) when the whole Franklin Square / "Let's block access to the lake with a huge library building and a new city hall in the middle of the street" idea was implemented?
I know a lot of cities experimented with the whole "downtown mall" idea in the 70's, but everyone else realized it was a bad idea and reversed it all 20 years ago. As far as I can tell, this is another example of people, and politicians in particular, being unable to say, "You know, I really screwed that up. Let's see what we can do to fix it."
Posted by: Ang Oct 22 2007, 02:31 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 22 2007, 01:29 PM)
Can it be said too many times that Oberlie was the city planner (or whatever the job title is/was) when the whole Franklin Square / "Let's block access to the lake with a huge library building and a new city hall in the middle of the street" idea was implemented?
I thought Oberlie was the City Controller-He was when Brillson was in office. Did he do both jobs before?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 22 2007, 02:59 PM
Oberlie has been involved in City gov't and various leadership positions for forty years--and the fool voters elect him and reelect him. Oberlie?! Not again!
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 23 2007, 08:14 AM
Intersting to note, I have bounced around the web looking for a list of the offices Mayor Oberlie has held, and there really isn't one. If anyone has a simple offices held and the years they were held, I would love to see it. I just find it odd, that it isn't out there for a mayor.
Posted by: Ang Oct 23 2007, 09:10 AM
I just know he was the City Controller before he was Mayor because I had some business with his office when I was at Plant Planning. I never actually worked with him, it was the para that I dealt with, but I remember being there and Oberlie and a bunch of other city bigwigs came out of his office (including Shiela) while I was there.
As far as what he did before Controller, I have no idea.
Posted by: JHeath Oct 23 2007, 10:32 AM
I don't have the specific dates, but I'm sure we can find them somewhere. Maybe someone who is closer to him would be willing to post that info.
However...he was, in fact, the City planner during the time when Frnaklin Square was put into place. He was also the controller for a number of years prior to becoming our Mayor.
With all due respect, those of us who wanted to see a change in our City's leadership should have gotten out there to vote in the primary, or started getting other interested in making a change. In MC, it seems like the primary IS the election...esp since we have so few republicans or independents running for office. (btw, good luck guys!).
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 23 2007, 11:35 AM
amen, amen
Posted by: lovethiscity Oct 23 2007, 09:19 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Oct 22 2007, 03:31 PM)
I thought Oberlie was the City Controller-He was when Brillson was in office. Did he do both jobs before?
Oberlie started in the Michigan City planning dept. in the late 60's moving on to head the planning dept. in the very early 70's staying there until the early 80's when he left to head the chamber of commerce. Oberlie left the chamber to head the North West Indiana Forum. He was fired for unknown reasons in 92 and that is when he became controller under Bob Behler. So yes he was the City Planner placing a Library in the middle of Franklin. On a more silly note I found a News Dispatch headline in the Indiana room of the library from the 70's that claimed "City planner Oberlie says we are very close on acquiring BLOCKSOM" shows how far we have come under brilliant leadership.
Posted by: JHeath Oct 23 2007, 09:31 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Oct 23 2007, 10:19 PM)
On a more silly note I found a News Dispatch headline in the Indiana room of the library from the 70's that claimed "City planner Oberlie says we are very close on acquiring BLOCKSOM" shows how far we have come under brilliant leadership.
Posted by: Ang Oct 23 2007, 11:03 PM
I used to live on East 8th by the old library. I remember when it moved. I cried. Seriously. That library was my favorite place to go. I would be there for hours. If my mom couldn't find me, she went to the children's library (next door to the big library) and there I was was, knee deep in some book. I went to the new library but just couldn't hang out there anymore. The new place wasn't cozy and "library" feeling.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 24 2007, 10:49 AM
I think it is. The philistines what want to demolish or move (Har har) the library need to develop fresh thinking about how to develop the North End. I think the E/W traffic angle needs to be explored. And by the way, Oberlie and his clique are not the ones who should be involved in ANY planning. They are proven losers at this game.
Posted by: JHeath Oct 24 2007, 11:30 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 24 2007, 11:49 AM)
I think it is. The philistines what want to demolish or move (Har har) the library need to develop fresh thinking about how to develop the North End. I think the E/W traffic angle needs to be explored. And by the way, Oberlie and his clique are not the ones who should be involved in ANY planning. They are proven losers at this game.
I think I know a lady who presented a plan for the north end this past spring...
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 24 2007, 11:32 AM
Yes, but do refresh my memory regarding E/W routes.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 24 2007, 11:37 AM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Oct 24 2007, 12:30 PM)
I think I know a lady who presented a plan for the north end this past spring...
Both the moving the library, and the NOT Oberlie parts
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 24 2007, 01:45 PM
I've never met this guy, but man does he write some letters to the editor!
QUOTE
Moving Library Key To Franklin Square
Politics in Michigan City is comical almost 365 days a year. You would think that the city would be able to get something done with Franklin Square.
It's obvious as the day is long the library needs to be moved. The constant talk of the Warren Building is ridiculous, and we still sit on first base. I have lived here for 13 years and it's still the same old talk. Talk in circles with no resolution. Taxes keep going up. Jobs keep leaving. Schools continue to decline and we talk about the Warren Building? News flash. Pullman isn't returning to Michigan City!
Leadership isn't about the popular decision. Move that ridiculous building we call the library, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to heat and maintain. Tear 50 percent of those old buildings down and create some development. There isn't that much to save downtown. It's time for a do over.
Maybe I could get "Makeover" to come and do a series for the town of Michigan City. They would say what every study has said for the past 20 years. Move your precious library and get into the 21st century! Time to get off first base. But it really appears we're not even in the batter's box.
Roger Willoughby
Michigan City
Politics in Michigan City is comical almost 365 days a year. You would think that the city would be able to get something done with Franklin Square.
It's obvious as the day is long the library needs to be moved. The constant talk of the Warren Building is ridiculous, and we still sit on first base. I have lived here for 13 years and it's still the same old talk. Talk in circles with no resolution. Taxes keep going up. Jobs keep leaving. Schools continue to decline and we talk about the Warren Building? News flash. Pullman isn't returning to Michigan City!
Leadership isn't about the popular decision. Move that ridiculous building we call the library, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to heat and maintain. Tear 50 percent of those old buildings down and create some development. There isn't that much to save downtown. It's time for a do over.
Maybe I could get "Makeover" to come and do a series for the town of Michigan City. They would say what every study has said for the past 20 years. Move your precious library and get into the 21st century! Time to get off first base. But it really appears we're not even in the batter's box.
Roger Willoughby
Michigan City
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Oct 23 2007, 10:19 PM)
Oberlie started in the Michigan City planning dept. in the late 60's moving on to head the planning dept. in the very early 70's staying there until the early 80's when he left to head the chamber of commerce. Oberlie left the chamber to head the North West Indiana Forum. He was fired for unknown reasons in 92 and that is when he became controller under Bob Behler. So yes he was the City Planner placing a Library in the middle of Franklin. On a more silly note I found a News Dispatch headline in the Indiana room of the library from the 70's that claimed "City planner Oberlie says we are very close on acquiring BLOCKSOM" shows how far we have come under brilliant leadership.
Thanks for the info!
Posted by: lovethiscity Oct 24 2007, 08:48 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Oct 24 2007, 02:45 PM)
I've never met this guy, but man does he write some letters to the editor!
Thanks for the info!
Roger Willoughby was one of Oberlie's biggest supporters in the Anvil Chorus during the primary, maybe he was afraid if that lady Jenny speaks of won he would have nothing bad to write about.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 25 2007, 11:30 AM
Roger Willoughby: Bad name to the Willoughby's, bad name to the Roger's. His intellect runs the gamut from A to B. But, yes, he writes a lot of letters.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 30 2007, 11:46 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=6015&TM=50314.27
QUOTE
Library, NIPSCO Should Go
It's good to see the major investment by Blue Chip Casino in the hotel that will become a new symbol of Michigan City. However, I think the key to Michigan City becoming more like other growing lake front communities lies in two major projects that may take a long time to complete.
One, we must find a way to make Franklin Street go straight to the lake. Watching the cars stream up from the south end of Franklin, and then having to find their way around the library, etc., to get to Washington Park, makes this obvious. The other part of this would be that there would actually be traffic on the north end of Franklin to the shops and businesses that could be there.
Second, and even more difficult, is to get rid of the NIPSCO plant. It is a major eyesore to anyone at the marina, or on the beach. Imagine if that monstrosity was gone and turned into another park, or even some mixed-use buildings. I don't see many other popular beach towns with a power plant on the beach, let alone one with a cooling tower that people think is a nuclear plant!
Eric J. Yoder
Michigan City
It's good to see the major investment by Blue Chip Casino in the hotel that will become a new symbol of Michigan City. However, I think the key to Michigan City becoming more like other growing lake front communities lies in two major projects that may take a long time to complete.
One, we must find a way to make Franklin Street go straight to the lake. Watching the cars stream up from the south end of Franklin, and then having to find their way around the library, etc., to get to Washington Park, makes this obvious. The other part of this would be that there would actually be traffic on the north end of Franklin to the shops and businesses that could be there.
Second, and even more difficult, is to get rid of the NIPSCO plant. It is a major eyesore to anyone at the marina, or on the beach. Imagine if that monstrosity was gone and turned into another park, or even some mixed-use buildings. I don't see many other popular beach towns with a power plant on the beach, let alone one with a cooling tower that people think is a nuclear plant!
Eric J. Yoder
Michigan City
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 31 2007, 11:33 AM
More panacea thinking. There is no reason to move NIPSCo or the Library. What is needed is new thinking on how to develop traffic patterns and improve (not pave over) the areas near the two.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 1 2007, 09:36 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=6106&TM=41808.57
QUOTE
Redevelopment Board Gets Project Updates
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
LA PORTE - La Porte County Economic Development Director Matt Reardon updated members of the county redevelopment commission Tuesday on five projects.
Reardon said a potential development of some 350,000 square feet of retail and commercial projects for the southwest corner of Interstate 94 and U.S. 421 is "mired in federal red tape."
Reardon said the project is "being stymied by Army Corps of Engineers wetland permitting requirements." He said land owners and the purchaser, represented by GK Development Inc. of Barrington, Ill., are trying to work through the permit process. Reardon said he will ask U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to help expedite it.
Meanwhile, Reardon said, a developer continues to investigate the potential for an intermodal facility in La Porte County, while the 21-member Intermodal Task Force appointed by County Commissioners lays the groundwork for reviewing any potential proposals.
Task force co-chair Dave Christian shared with commissioners a copy of the task force's first draft budget estimate of $97,000, with $17,000 for operations and $80,000 for technical experts who would be used only as needed. A second draft budget totaling $48,000 was developed with input from commissioners and County Council members. It allocates $5,000 for operations and $43,000 for as-needed assistance from experts.
The final budget must be approved by commissioners and the County Council.
Also, the developer of a proposed biodiesel manufacturing facility in La Porte County will request a tax abatement for equipment at the next County Council meeting. Reardon said the company plans to invest $3 million and create nine jobs. The La Porte County Board of Zoning Appeals approved two locations, in Westville and Kingsbury Industrial Park, as potential locations.
On another matter, representatives of a medical office complex on County Road 400 North have completed plans to expand and are negotiating with County Commissioners to insert turn areas in the County Road 400 North expansion plan. The turn areas would be for improved safety, developers said. Engineering plans have been completed for the $8 million County Road 400 North project, funded equally by Michigan City and La Porte County. The project will widen the road to five lanes from Ohio Street on the west to Woodland Avenue on the east.
Also, Reardon said he is working with a developer interested in putting in a subdivision of several hundred houses prices at $240,000 each on County Road 300 North near Patriot Park. The developer is waiting for sewer and water lines to be installed before purchasing about 100 acres for the development.
Michigan City Sanitary District General Manager Al Walus reported on a potential location for a lift station and gravity sewer system to serve development in the I-94 and U.S. 421 area. By relocating a quarter mile farther south from the original location on County Road 300 North, he said, a new lift station could be installed at half the depth, reducing the cost.
The new location, on a corner of the Steel City property on U.S. 421, was identified with assistance from Mark DeBruler, a consulting engineer with Beam, Longest and Neff of Indianapolis.
Reardon said use of the Steel City property would be negotiated with Steel City.
"We'll try to get a donation from the company," Reardon said, in exchange for hooking up to the new sanitary system. If that doesn't work, Walus said, another location up to five miles south could be identified.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
LA PORTE - La Porte County Economic Development Director Matt Reardon updated members of the county redevelopment commission Tuesday on five projects.
Reardon said a potential development of some 350,000 square feet of retail and commercial projects for the southwest corner of Interstate 94 and U.S. 421 is "mired in federal red tape."
Reardon said the project is "being stymied by Army Corps of Engineers wetland permitting requirements." He said land owners and the purchaser, represented by GK Development Inc. of Barrington, Ill., are trying to work through the permit process. Reardon said he will ask U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to help expedite it.
Meanwhile, Reardon said, a developer continues to investigate the potential for an intermodal facility in La Porte County, while the 21-member Intermodal Task Force appointed by County Commissioners lays the groundwork for reviewing any potential proposals.
Task force co-chair Dave Christian shared with commissioners a copy of the task force's first draft budget estimate of $97,000, with $17,000 for operations and $80,000 for technical experts who would be used only as needed. A second draft budget totaling $48,000 was developed with input from commissioners and County Council members. It allocates $5,000 for operations and $43,000 for as-needed assistance from experts.
The final budget must be approved by commissioners and the County Council.
Also, the developer of a proposed biodiesel manufacturing facility in La Porte County will request a tax abatement for equipment at the next County Council meeting. Reardon said the company plans to invest $3 million and create nine jobs. The La Porte County Board of Zoning Appeals approved two locations, in Westville and Kingsbury Industrial Park, as potential locations.
On another matter, representatives of a medical office complex on County Road 400 North have completed plans to expand and are negotiating with County Commissioners to insert turn areas in the County Road 400 North expansion plan. The turn areas would be for improved safety, developers said. Engineering plans have been completed for the $8 million County Road 400 North project, funded equally by Michigan City and La Porte County. The project will widen the road to five lanes from Ohio Street on the west to Woodland Avenue on the east.
Also, Reardon said he is working with a developer interested in putting in a subdivision of several hundred houses prices at $240,000 each on County Road 300 North near Patriot Park. The developer is waiting for sewer and water lines to be installed before purchasing about 100 acres for the development.
Michigan City Sanitary District General Manager Al Walus reported on a potential location for a lift station and gravity sewer system to serve development in the I-94 and U.S. 421 area. By relocating a quarter mile farther south from the original location on County Road 300 North, he said, a new lift station could be installed at half the depth, reducing the cost.
The new location, on a corner of the Steel City property on U.S. 421, was identified with assistance from Mark DeBruler, a consulting engineer with Beam, Longest and Neff of Indianapolis.
Reardon said use of the Steel City property would be negotiated with Steel City.
"We'll try to get a donation from the company," Reardon said, in exchange for hooking up to the new sanitary system. If that doesn't work, Walus said, another location up to five miles south could be identified.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 5 2007, 12:29 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=6221&TM=48288.79
QUOTE
Expert: Tear Down Old Buildings
MICHIGAN CITY - Communities trying to recruit new industries sometimes need to tear down old factories rather than try to find them new tenants, a business location expert said Thursday.
That's the advice of Robert Ady, a professional site selector who has found locations for more businesses than anyone else, according to an introduction by Michigan City Economic Development Executive Director John Regetz.
Ady spoke to the annual meeting of the Circle of Investors, a group of public and private sector individuals working to boost economic development in La Porte County, at a luncheon at Pottawattomie Country Club.
As an example, Ady said, an old industrial building along the main highway in Richmond, Ind., was the first thing that greeted prospects to that southeastern Indiana city. It tended to drive away potential investors.
"It was like the 1950s," Ady said of the old factory, and it gave people the impression the whole city was outdated. Fortunately for that city's efforts to find new business, the old factory is gone. Manufacturing has changed, and even factories only 10 years old can be outmoded, he said.
Still many communities market their opportunities by showing all the vacant manufacturing sites, Ady said. Unfortunately, most are obsolete, "And I'd tear 'em down," he advised the group, composed of many of the 70 original investors who raised $500,000 four years ago to launch the task to unify countywide efforts to promote La Porte County as an ideal site for new businesses.
"There's little comfort in saying you have a lot of old buildings," he said.
Ady led the effort to get aircraft manufacturer Boeing to relocate its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, and well as a lot of other smaller relocations. For the La Porte County group, he has advised economic development leaders on the creation of the new Web site, laportecounty.biz, which serves as a first-stop location for site selectors looking for a new place for any kind of business.
The reason to tear down old factories is that site selectors make decisions by a process of elimination. That means they look for reasons to avoid a particular community.
"They don't start with Michigan City or La Porte," Ady said. "They start by saying, 'Where can I put this factory in the world, then in the United States, in the Midwest, in Indiana.' It's a process of elimination in which you eliminate the sites with the greatest disadvantages and the fewest advantages."
In his 30 years in the business he has never found a client rule out Indiana, while he has come across many who have eliminated entire states for various reasons, Ady said without identifying any. "Indiana is very competitive," he said. The state is ranked 12th in one evaluation, while neighboring Illinois is 25th.
Site selectors often must work in a short time once a client has made a decision to locate a new plant or other facility, he said. The key is providing the critical information, and that's where the site, laportecounty.biz, excels, he said, acknowledging that he played a major role in designing it.
The site's home page prominently shows "Site Selectors," with four links below it for Manufacturing, Distribution & Logistics, Regional Offices and Research & Development. In just a click or two, a site selector can find data on labor costs, utility costs, taxes and quality of life.
"Site selectors are very lazy," Ady said. "They want to get other people to do their work, such as gather information."
He said 62 percent of site selectors get their information from the Web, and they are acutely aware of whether a community's Web site is useful or not.
The new Web site laportecounty.biz has all the information needed, including contact names and telephone numbers, and it is easy to navigate without "fancy stuff that takes a lot of time to download," Ady said, so it should be a real plus for La Porte County economic development.
Contact Dave Hawk at dhawk@thenewsdispatch.com.
MICHIGAN CITY - Communities trying to recruit new industries sometimes need to tear down old factories rather than try to find them new tenants, a business location expert said Thursday.
That's the advice of Robert Ady, a professional site selector who has found locations for more businesses than anyone else, according to an introduction by Michigan City Economic Development Executive Director John Regetz.
Ady spoke to the annual meeting of the Circle of Investors, a group of public and private sector individuals working to boost economic development in La Porte County, at a luncheon at Pottawattomie Country Club.
As an example, Ady said, an old industrial building along the main highway in Richmond, Ind., was the first thing that greeted prospects to that southeastern Indiana city. It tended to drive away potential investors.
"It was like the 1950s," Ady said of the old factory, and it gave people the impression the whole city was outdated. Fortunately for that city's efforts to find new business, the old factory is gone. Manufacturing has changed, and even factories only 10 years old can be outmoded, he said.
Still many communities market their opportunities by showing all the vacant manufacturing sites, Ady said. Unfortunately, most are obsolete, "And I'd tear 'em down," he advised the group, composed of many of the 70 original investors who raised $500,000 four years ago to launch the task to unify countywide efforts to promote La Porte County as an ideal site for new businesses.
"There's little comfort in saying you have a lot of old buildings," he said.
Ady led the effort to get aircraft manufacturer Boeing to relocate its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, and well as a lot of other smaller relocations. For the La Porte County group, he has advised economic development leaders on the creation of the new Web site, laportecounty.biz, which serves as a first-stop location for site selectors looking for a new place for any kind of business.
The reason to tear down old factories is that site selectors make decisions by a process of elimination. That means they look for reasons to avoid a particular community.
"They don't start with Michigan City or La Porte," Ady said. "They start by saying, 'Where can I put this factory in the world, then in the United States, in the Midwest, in Indiana.' It's a process of elimination in which you eliminate the sites with the greatest disadvantages and the fewest advantages."
In his 30 years in the business he has never found a client rule out Indiana, while he has come across many who have eliminated entire states for various reasons, Ady said without identifying any. "Indiana is very competitive," he said. The state is ranked 12th in one evaluation, while neighboring Illinois is 25th.
Site selectors often must work in a short time once a client has made a decision to locate a new plant or other facility, he said. The key is providing the critical information, and that's where the site, laportecounty.biz, excels, he said, acknowledging that he played a major role in designing it.
The site's home page prominently shows "Site Selectors," with four links below it for Manufacturing, Distribution & Logistics, Regional Offices and Research & Development. In just a click or two, a site selector can find data on labor costs, utility costs, taxes and quality of life.
"Site selectors are very lazy," Ady said. "They want to get other people to do their work, such as gather information."
He said 62 percent of site selectors get their information from the Web, and they are acutely aware of whether a community's Web site is useful or not.
The new Web site laportecounty.biz has all the information needed, including contact names and telephone numbers, and it is easy to navigate without "fancy stuff that takes a lot of time to download," Ady said, so it should be a real plus for La Porte County economic development.
Contact Dave Hawk at dhawk@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 19 2007, 08:13 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=6682&TM=33263.34
QUOTE
City May Pursue 8th St. Properties
Appeal possible from businesses trying to avoid losing property by eminent domain.
Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The city may soon move forward with acquiring two properties in the Trail Creek corridor.
La Porte Superior Court 3 Judge Paul Baldoni released his judgment regarding a lawsuit filed by the owners of Weber Sign Service, 730 E. Eighth St., and the former Hoosier Ice and Coal site, 748 E. Michigan Blvd., near Michigan Boulevard and Eighth Street.
The property owners had appealed the decision of the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission to place their properties on the acquisition list, arguing the city's decision was illegal. A hearing on the appeal was held Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 in Baldoni's court.
According to Baldoni's findings, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Redevelopment Commission's decision on April 10, 2006 was not reasonable.
Baldoni entered a judgment in favor of the defendants: the City of Michigan City, the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission and the Michigan City Plan Commission and against the plaintiffs, Thomas and Florence Sobkowiak, owners of the Hoosier Ice and Coal site and William and Kathleen Weber, owners of Weber Sign Service.
"This will allow the redevelopment commission to move forward," Commission Attorney Michael Bergerson said. "This decision gives us the green light to go ahead and acquire that property."
The appeal took 14 months.
"We're going to move a lot faster in redeveloping the property," Bergerson said.
One of the first actions will be to start on the Lafayette-Eighth Street storm sewer project - a project that should have a trickle down effect for improvements to the Elston Grove neighborhood. Bergerson said this could be a situation where the city uses eminent domain to acquire the properties.
The decision, said Bergerson, shows the city went "by the book."
"Our position is, it's not fair for the city to bear the entire expense of cleanup," Bergerson said. "Property owners are the primary parties responsible for the condition of their property, regardless of whether they contaminated it or not."
Late Friday night, attorney Glenn Kuchel, who represented the Webers and Sobkowiaks said the Redevelopment Commission will only pay $1 for the land because the Hayes Corp. allegedly allowed petroleum products to leak from storage tanks on the property and some residue of that leakage remains many feet under the soil.
"When it comes to the City buying the property from the Webers and Sobkowiaks, the City says the property is worthless-even though the Webers and Sobkowiaks continue to have to pay thousands of dollars of real estate taxes on the properties every year," Kuchel said. "Now that the City says it wants to buy the property, the Webers and Sobkowiaks can't sell the property to developers because the developers know the City will take the land anyway if the Webers and Sobkowiaks sell it."
Kuchel said the Webers and Sobkowiaks do not oppose efforts by the City to develop the Blue Chip Casino area and are willing to move their businesses.
"However, the Redevelopment Commission's attempt to take the Weber and Sobkowiak properties for $1 so the City can use this valuable property for its own purposes doesn't leave the Sobkowiaks and Webers any choice," Kuchel said.
Kuchel said they plan to appeal Baldoni's ruling.
"What is especially disappointing is that the government of Michigan City has lost sight of the fact that government is supposed to be for the benefit of all of the people, not just some of the preferred developers, retailers and the gambling industry at the expense of some citizens that just want to make a living at their small businesses," Kuchel said.
A number of properties along the creek at Eighth Street sit atop contaminated soil and officials are eager to clean the area up.
Work has begun on cleaning up contamination left underneath the former B&E Marine site on Trail Creek near the E Street bridge.
In October 2006, the city acquired the Verma property at 742 E. Eighth St.
The site was formerly the Hayes Corp., which made boiler room equipment and gauges.
The city is also attempting to purchase the Blocksom property, which sits at Fifth Street and Michigan Boulevard. Bergerson said they will be meeting with Blocksom officials the week after Thanksgiving.
Contact reporter Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@thenewsdispatch.com.
Appeal possible from businesses trying to avoid losing property by eminent domain.
Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The city may soon move forward with acquiring two properties in the Trail Creek corridor.
La Porte Superior Court 3 Judge Paul Baldoni released his judgment regarding a lawsuit filed by the owners of Weber Sign Service, 730 E. Eighth St., and the former Hoosier Ice and Coal site, 748 E. Michigan Blvd., near Michigan Boulevard and Eighth Street.
The property owners had appealed the decision of the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission to place their properties on the acquisition list, arguing the city's decision was illegal. A hearing on the appeal was held Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 in Baldoni's court.
According to Baldoni's findings, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Redevelopment Commission's decision on April 10, 2006 was not reasonable.
Baldoni entered a judgment in favor of the defendants: the City of Michigan City, the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission and the Michigan City Plan Commission and against the plaintiffs, Thomas and Florence Sobkowiak, owners of the Hoosier Ice and Coal site and William and Kathleen Weber, owners of Weber Sign Service.
"This will allow the redevelopment commission to move forward," Commission Attorney Michael Bergerson said. "This decision gives us the green light to go ahead and acquire that property."
The appeal took 14 months.
"We're going to move a lot faster in redeveloping the property," Bergerson said.
One of the first actions will be to start on the Lafayette-Eighth Street storm sewer project - a project that should have a trickle down effect for improvements to the Elston Grove neighborhood. Bergerson said this could be a situation where the city uses eminent domain to acquire the properties.
The decision, said Bergerson, shows the city went "by the book."
"Our position is, it's not fair for the city to bear the entire expense of cleanup," Bergerson said. "Property owners are the primary parties responsible for the condition of their property, regardless of whether they contaminated it or not."
Late Friday night, attorney Glenn Kuchel, who represented the Webers and Sobkowiaks said the Redevelopment Commission will only pay $1 for the land because the Hayes Corp. allegedly allowed petroleum products to leak from storage tanks on the property and some residue of that leakage remains many feet under the soil.
"When it comes to the City buying the property from the Webers and Sobkowiaks, the City says the property is worthless-even though the Webers and Sobkowiaks continue to have to pay thousands of dollars of real estate taxes on the properties every year," Kuchel said. "Now that the City says it wants to buy the property, the Webers and Sobkowiaks can't sell the property to developers because the developers know the City will take the land anyway if the Webers and Sobkowiaks sell it."
Kuchel said the Webers and Sobkowiaks do not oppose efforts by the City to develop the Blue Chip Casino area and are willing to move their businesses.
"However, the Redevelopment Commission's attempt to take the Weber and Sobkowiak properties for $1 so the City can use this valuable property for its own purposes doesn't leave the Sobkowiaks and Webers any choice," Kuchel said.
Kuchel said they plan to appeal Baldoni's ruling.
"What is especially disappointing is that the government of Michigan City has lost sight of the fact that government is supposed to be for the benefit of all of the people, not just some of the preferred developers, retailers and the gambling industry at the expense of some citizens that just want to make a living at their small businesses," Kuchel said.
A number of properties along the creek at Eighth Street sit atop contaminated soil and officials are eager to clean the area up.
Work has begun on cleaning up contamination left underneath the former B&E Marine site on Trail Creek near the E Street bridge.
In October 2006, the city acquired the Verma property at 742 E. Eighth St.
The site was formerly the Hayes Corp., which made boiler room equipment and gauges.
The city is also attempting to purchase the Blocksom property, which sits at Fifth Street and Michigan Boulevard. Bergerson said they will be meeting with Blocksom officials the week after Thanksgiving.
Contact reporter Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 19 2007, 10:22 AM
Seizing property for private gain or for anything other than the public use as defined in the Constitution, is wrong; the Supreme Court was incorrect in the recent ruling.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 19 2007, 10:25 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 19 2007, 10:22 AM)
Seizing property for private gain or for anything other than the public use as defined in the Constitution, is wrong; the Supreme Court was incorrect in the recent ruling.
I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that private property was one of the main things protected by the writers of the constitution. Immenent Domain, except in real public interest situations, should be illegal. Situations where the private sector stands to gain are not how the system is supposed to work.
I really wish someone locally would step to the plate in that respect, but with the pending north end projects, there is zero chance of that happening.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 29 2007, 07:57 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 19 2007, 10:25 AM)
I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that private property was one of the main things protected by the writers of the constitution. Immenent Domain, except in real public interest situations, should be illegal. Situations where the private sector stands to gain are not how the system is supposed to work.
I really wish someone locally would step to the plate in that respect, but with the pending north end projects, there is zero chance of that happening.
Marlow Harmon did it at the county level before he died
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 30 2007, 09:07 AM
Maybe it was the Condo pushers who did him in. Call Oliver Stone!
Posted by: JHeath Nov 30 2007, 09:45 AM
Yes, Marlow did step up and speak his mind. A lot of people didn't like him for it, but I still have atrenedous amount of respect for him because of it.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 30 2007, 01:21 PM
Kind off topic, but not really, an update from the developers in the case that took emminent domain to the supreme court.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/11/30/kelo-update-media-ignores-latest-new-london-development-setback
QUOTE
As an exemplar of a government-run enterprise stuck in the mud, it's hard to come with a better example than what is happening in the area that was the subject of the infamous Kelo v. New London ruling in 2005. Nearly 2-1/2 years after the US Supreme Court ruled that the city could take evict Susette Kelo and other holdouts from their homes, and 17 months after the final settlement between the city and the final two holdouts, very little has been done in the affected area.
The latest setback to substantive progress in the area is significant, and is being totally ignored by the non-local press.
Here are the two major stories and the local paper's editorial from the past two days (New London Day links require a paid subscription after a week):
Nov. 27 (report by Elaine Stoll) -- Fort Trumbull Developer Asks For More Time, Misses Deadline
NLDC could claim default, but delay in project more likely
Preferred developer Corcoran Jennison missed an important deadline Monday for its Fort Trumbull peninsula housing development, whose groundbreaking will almost certainly be postponed again.
The firm informed the New London Development Corp. that it needed more time to secure financing for the $18 million project one hour before Monday's noon deadline for the company for that and other obligations outlined in a Sept. 27 agreement with the NLDC.
++++++++++++++++++
Nov. 28 (report by Elaine Stoll) -- Developer Says Lending Climate Reason For Delay
NLDC not yet ready to declare Corcoran Jennison in default
..... Corcoran Jennison attorney Glenn T. Carberry sent a two-page request for a six-month extension — ending May 29, 2008 — for the developer to finance the construction project, now estimated at $19 million. The Boston-based company failed to finalize financing and to sign a contract with a general contractor for the construction of 66 apartments and 14 townhouses on four acres by Monday's noon deadline, delaying what the NLDC believed would be a December groundbreaking.
“They're technically in default,” NLDC President Michael Joplin said Tuesday. “We haven't called them in default. There are other approaches we ought to evaluate and try before we get to that point.”
++++++++++++++++++
Nov. 28 (editorial) -- Skepticism Grows
Fort Trumbull developer has to stop raising false expectations and start delivering on promises.
It is understandable that given tightening credit and a changing housing market Corcoran Jennison would need more time to secure financing for its planned housing development on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.
It is not understandable, however, why the inability to get the financing was sprung as an 11th-hour surprise — and disappointment. The firm waited until one hour before Monday's noon deadline to inform the New London Development Corp. that it could not meet the obligations of a Sept. 27 agreement, including getting financing approved. Surely the developer had to know well before then that it would have trouble getting the needed loan in time. It would have been far better to go public with the financing difficulties sooner.
The word "Kelo" does not appear in any of the three items above -- perhaps to assist in avoiding search engine attention (I became aware of this because of an alert I have set up for "Fort Trumbull").
Note that the neighborhood homes taken as a result of the Kelo ruling are being replaced by ..... apartments and townhouses. As I understand it, more grandiose plans have long since been scaled back.
Considering the firestorm that erupted in the wake of the Kelo ruling, it's very disappointing to see the lack of any kind of meaningful follow-up media attention. I'm left to speculate why the clear and ongoing lack of progress isn't news.
The latest setback to substantive progress in the area is significant, and is being totally ignored by the non-local press.
Here are the two major stories and the local paper's editorial from the past two days (New London Day links require a paid subscription after a week):
Nov. 27 (report by Elaine Stoll) -- Fort Trumbull Developer Asks For More Time, Misses Deadline
NLDC could claim default, but delay in project more likely
Preferred developer Corcoran Jennison missed an important deadline Monday for its Fort Trumbull peninsula housing development, whose groundbreaking will almost certainly be postponed again.
The firm informed the New London Development Corp. that it needed more time to secure financing for the $18 million project one hour before Monday's noon deadline for the company for that and other obligations outlined in a Sept. 27 agreement with the NLDC.
++++++++++++++++++
Nov. 28 (report by Elaine Stoll) -- Developer Says Lending Climate Reason For Delay
NLDC not yet ready to declare Corcoran Jennison in default
..... Corcoran Jennison attorney Glenn T. Carberry sent a two-page request for a six-month extension — ending May 29, 2008 — for the developer to finance the construction project, now estimated at $19 million. The Boston-based company failed to finalize financing and to sign a contract with a general contractor for the construction of 66 apartments and 14 townhouses on four acres by Monday's noon deadline, delaying what the NLDC believed would be a December groundbreaking.
“They're technically in default,” NLDC President Michael Joplin said Tuesday. “We haven't called them in default. There are other approaches we ought to evaluate and try before we get to that point.”
++++++++++++++++++
Nov. 28 (editorial) -- Skepticism Grows
Fort Trumbull developer has to stop raising false expectations and start delivering on promises.
It is understandable that given tightening credit and a changing housing market Corcoran Jennison would need more time to secure financing for its planned housing development on the Fort Trumbull peninsula.
It is not understandable, however, why the inability to get the financing was sprung as an 11th-hour surprise — and disappointment. The firm waited until one hour before Monday's noon deadline to inform the New London Development Corp. that it could not meet the obligations of a Sept. 27 agreement, including getting financing approved. Surely the developer had to know well before then that it would have trouble getting the needed loan in time. It would have been far better to go public with the financing difficulties sooner.
The word "Kelo" does not appear in any of the three items above -- perhaps to assist in avoiding search engine attention (I became aware of this because of an alert I have set up for "Fort Trumbull").
Note that the neighborhood homes taken as a result of the Kelo ruling are being replaced by ..... apartments and townhouses. As I understand it, more grandiose plans have long since been scaled back.
Considering the firestorm that erupted in the wake of the Kelo ruling, it's very disappointing to see the lack of any kind of meaningful follow-up media attention. I'm left to speculate why the clear and ongoing lack of progress isn't news.
Posted by: mcstumper Nov 30 2007, 09:02 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 19 2007, 10:25 AM)
I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that private property was one of the main things protected by the writers of the constitution. Immenent Domain, except in real public interest situations, should be illegal. Situations where the private sector stands to gain are not how the system is supposed to work.
I really wish someone locally would step to the plate in that respect, but with the pending north end projects, there is zero chance of that happening.
Those clowns who own that property on Trail Creek are getting exactly what they wanted. They sit on some of the most valuable property in the City, treat it worse than a sewer and then just wait until the community (via our representative government) is forced to step in and do something about it. They then cry about how their constitutional rights are being trampled on, all as a ploy to make sure they guilt us into paying more than top dollar.
When the railroads were being built in the late 1800's, they were all privately owned. Yet they still were able to use emminent domain to acquire the property they needed. Emminent domain is not always about public use, but it can also be about providing the most public good. Railroads did that by facilitating commerce from coast to coast. Trail Creek redevelopment does that by increasing tax revenue and improving the visual appeal of the North End.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Dec 3 2007, 09:34 AM
The Federal gov't essentially gave the land to the RR, they did not have to purchase acre after acre for market price.
Eminent domain (finally spelled right) IS about taking land for public use, not public good as defined by developers. SSider quoted the Constitution to this point.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)