[Southsider2k12]

-What is your view on the proposed Waste Transfer station?

Jim LaRocco-I was the first mayoral candidate four years ago to come out against the transfer station and my postition remains unchanged.

Ron Meer-I am strongly against the Waste Transfer Station on County Line Road. I have sponsored two city resolutions against such waste transfer station.

Joie Winski-I am not in favor of the transfer station.

Keith Harris-First I need to say up front that the individual wanting to open this facility is both a friend and a client. I make note of that only for sake of full disclosure. If this proposed transfer station is not proposed to be located within city limits then I believe we need to limit our statements simply because the city has no involvement. I have certainly heard many opinions about this proposal and read many newspaper articles, but not having seen any of the plans personally I would withhold opinion until I do. With Porter County denying permits for the road it may very well be a non-issue anyway.

-Do you support the new county-wide zone ordinance?

Meer-I do not totally support the new county wide zoning ordinance. There are issues with regard to subdivisions and agricultural lands.

Winski-I would support the ordinance with a few revisions.

Harris-I have not studied in detail the plan and as such would withhold any statement until such time that I do study it.

LaRocco-If we could come up with a coordinated and fair plan I would consider it. It is important that the city and county work together for the betterment of all however the city should not relinquish control of its own zoning without carefully examining the impact of such an ordinance.

-With all of the talk about the parks system in Michigan City, how would you try to shape the system in the future?

Winski-We need to bring back and upgrade the current neighborhood parks. We need to have summer programs that teach sports and the importance of being a team player, crafts, games and learning how to work together on projects.

Harris-I believe it is vitally important that we get neighborhood parks back into shape. I can’t help but feel that the near demise IC Baseball was a result of a focus on Patriot Park while ignoring the upkeep of many neighborhood parks. I grew up in a system of neighborhood parks where we gathered for all kinds of events and I at least do not recall that there was ever a time when anyone complained of having nothing to do. It is true that we have a jewel in Washington Park and that Patriot Park through the events held there has provided a tremendous amount of revenue in our City. But focusing on those two while ignoring the rest has made many of our own residents feeling ignored. That needs to change.

LaRocco-I believe that taking care of neighborhood parks is very important. We have to keep up with the times and adjust our strategies as needed. We could look into the possibility of selling naming rights to the larger parks to help with our bottom line.

Meer-We have many great parks. I would push for maintaining and upgrading the existing parks rather than expanding of additional parks.

-Where would you like to see the next Michigan City Police Department headquarters at?

Harris-Just recently I met with Chief Mark Swistek where we discussed this very same issue. I thought it important to have the perspective of the police dept. prior to answering a question such as this. His answer, which is one that I agree with is that it really doesn’t matter much where the station is located so long as it is placed on a main thoroughfare such as Michigan Blvd or Franklin St. in order to maintain a high degree of visibility.

LaRocco- The exact location of the Police Department is not important. It is the officers on the street that make the difference.

Meer- I would certainly like to see the police station moved from the North End. I think it's more important that the police department is provided with a new state-of-the-art facility. This is more important than the location. My plan is to provide the police department with all the necessary tools to combat neighborhood crime and improve the quality of life in our city.

Winski-The Police Department can be located anywhere – it’s the great men and women of our Police force that keep our city safe.

-How would you handle vacant and/or neglected buildings and storefronts in Michigan City?

Meer-I have been aggressive in addressing code enforcement in the third ward as councilman. I would push for this city wide. In my ward there were over 170 dilapidated structures removed. There were numerous vacant and over grown lots cleaned and maintained as well.

Winski-There are so many grants and loan programs that are available for small business, especially within an historic district. I would work with these property owners to encourage renovation and adaptive reuse of their buildings. I am only in favor of demolition as a last resort effort. I am in favor of keeping properties on the tax rolls if at all possible.

Harris-I think it is important to first note that we do have an inspection department that I believe to be diligent in their duties at keeping up with these kinds of sites. In some respects, so long as building owners maintain code standards there is little the city can do to force changes. But with that said, when a building is truly neglected and falls below those standards the city does have options to force demolition or rehab. Most Board of Works meetings have a list of like properties that are being dealt with in such fashion.

We need to once again be sure that we are not being too intrusive as a government entity. Maybe a building owner has the finances to keep the building up to code but not enough to take it further. But when building vacant or otherwise become a public nuisance or a threat to public safety, this is when the city needs to step in. I would suggest that the Warren Building just might be at the point of being a threat to public safety. This is a specific instance where I believe city administration needs to step up and have serious talks with the building owner in an attempt to either make improvements, with incentives if possible, or sell the property someone who will. I also do not believe that there is an overall blanket cure for all such properties. Each situation will probably need to be dealt individually.

LaRocco-Strict code enforcement is of the keys to development. A program could be instituted to give vacant building to landlords, individuals and developers with the caveat that they have to have the exterior complete within so many days. This will make the neighborhoods look better and place the properties back on the tax rolls.

With the failure of the state-wide smoking ban failing, would you ask for a ban to be introduced in Michigan City, and if so, what would it include? Restaurants? Bars? Blue Chip?

Winski-We need to encourage and not discourage business in our city and while I prefer the non-smoking area myself, I would not try to dictate a smoking ban. I think business owners know there clientele and should make that determination themselves at this time.

Harris-Short answer is; no I would not seek such a local ban. I am an ex-smoker, and most of the time I prefer not to frequent an establishment that does allow smoking. I think that this is a situation that should be left up to individual businesses to decide what might be best for them, their employees and their clientele. Anything more than that is, I believe, too much governmental intrusion.

LaRocco-Did not answer

Meer- I would not be for a smoking ban exclusive to Michigan City. This should be regulated by state law so that it's fair and equal for all communities.

-With the tough budget situation locally, what do you see as the best place to save money?

Harris-I think it would be irresponsible to answer this question prior to a complete analysis of the budget department by department.

LaRocco-First off with the price of gasoline we need to seriously look into the take home car programs. We have to examine the budgets to see where efficiencies can be made. Utility conservation is also a necessity.

Meer-The best way to save money is to require accountability for spending. For example, I voted against taking over Michigan Blvd. from the state of Indiana. The taxpayers can not afford this additional burden. That's what we pay state taxes for. Michigan City should have tried to do a co-op with the state to make improvements to Michigan Blvd. Now we bear all the burden of and the maintenance of the Blvd.

Winski-Any mayoral candidate who does not see the importance of being financially and fiscally accountable in these tough economic times is not being realistic. Without seeing the budget, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact place to save money, however, with the caps put in place by the state, it’s imperative that we find a way to tighten our belt in every department while providing the best possible services to our citizens.


-Do you support raises for City workers? Would you try to roll back their increases in insurance costs?

LaRocco-I support raises or some type of bonus when funds are available. We can’t continue to double hit our employees with no raises and increases in health care costs. We need to do what is best for the taxpayer and our hard working and dedicated employees. I am the only candidate who has proposed forming an insurance group with other government agencies to help lower our health insurance costs. Lowering health costs will free up money for possible raises or other spending.

Meer-I am very supportive of city workers because they are city services. There should be serious consideration, as well as, a year to year pay increase assessment for city employees to receive raises. I also support competitive bidding for health insurance providers for our city workers.

Winski-City employees should be treated as any other business would treat their employees. Because there have been extenuating circumstances, i.e. the botched reassessment and consequent lack of funding and tax warrants coming into the city, the employees have had to forego pay increases for the past 4 years. Like any business, tough decisions sometimes must be made, but where are our priorities when the City Council looks at spending $200,000 on bringing in another engineer to study the Sanitary District’s problems (when an investigation is already being conducted by the State of Indiana), initiates a study to expand Patriot Park at a cost of over $100,000, and considers spending $200,000 to facilitate the sale of a property that we will not even retain ownership of? With 314 municipal employees, just $400,000 could show these dedicated men and women that we appreciate the services they provide for us – keeping our neighborhoods safe, our streets cleaned and plowed, and our garbage removed to name a few.

Harris-I don’t think there is anyone who would say they do not support raises for city workers. The problem lies in providing those raises in a fiscally responsible way. I would like to say that as Mayor I would order my controller to find a way to provide raises across the board, but I think the more responsible response would be to say that we will diligently examine ways to make this happen and do so as soon as it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner.

In regards to employee insurance, I believe that we owe it to our employees to provide them with the best possible insurance package we can find that is affordable to the city. I do not believe it is prudent to use casino monies for this purpose or for any other ongoing day-to-day expense. I would be in favor of discussing with county government, the possibility of joining their insurance plan in order to reduce employee out of pocket expenses.

-Would you accept the offered donation of the former YMCA building? If yes, what would your plan for those grounds be?

Meer-Did not answer

Winski-I am a proponent of a city-wide recreational facility. However, it would be irresponsible to comment without all the facts. While the building could be a donation to the city, the cost of renovating and operating the facility could be cost prohibitive. It may be to the city’s advantage to build a new center using today’s green technology and cost saving features, such as alternative energy sources to heat and cool the building.

Harris-Not an easy question to answer. On the face of it I would say that this could possibly be the solution for a park dept. office as well as an expansion of park programs that we have discussed earlier. To those who would say that doing so would take the property of tax rolls, I would remind them that while the building and property were owned by the YMCA no taxes were paid. It is just recently that the property has hit the tax rolls after repossession by the bank. The problem in using the building for park offices and programs would be first the cost of rehabbing a building that has sat vacant for 4 years and the costs of operating, maintaining, and staffing the facility after being rehabbed. That may very well be a cost that we as a city cannot afford to undertake.

Perhaps it would be more prudent to accept the property, tear down the existing structure in order to make the property more appealing and then look for a developer to take it over to develop something to compliment the existing area of assisting living and medical facilities.

LaRocco-I would prefer a private entity buy the building and keep it on the tax rolls.

-What would you do to preserve some of the historical sites that have been lost in recent years, such as the former Pullman Standard building?

Winski-In a book published by the News Dispatch in 1992 on Michigan City and it’s history, Elwin Greeing said, “It is difficult to know where we are going if we don’t know where we have been.” I am a Preservationist and a proponent of adaptive reuse of buildings whenever possible. It is my belief that our history should be preserved for future generations and that includes historical sites. I would encourage renovation and also pursue grants for historic buildings through public/private partnerships.

Harris-We currently do have a Historical Review Board that does deal with these very same issues at least to some degree. It certainly was a shame to see both the old Pullman office building as well as the shop area that had been converted to stores be demolished. I think we could look at offering incentives of some sort in an effort to preserve some of these buildings, but once again to mandate what can or cannot be done I think is out of the question. The City of LaPorte has its Historic homes area in which they require any kind of rehab be performed in a manner specific to the era as to when the structure was originally built. These mandates have led many to petition out of the historic designation or they do nothing at all to rehab or revitalize due to the shear costs being imposed on them. I use this only as an example as to what happens when too many requirements are put in place. It becomes very difficult to preserve these sites without historic designations, but that does not mean we do nothing. We need to constantly be aware of what is happening with these sites and offer encouragement and/or incentives to preserve them.

LaRocco-Progress happens and some old unserviceable buildings will be replaced. I am in favor of saving those structures that are still useful and sound; however you can’t make a property owner keep a building they have no used for. I have proposed that along Trail Creek we could institute a HISTORY WALK. This walkway would include bricks from city streets; bricks from prominent buildings; building mastheads and things of this nature be placed in the sidewalk with a sponsor supplying a plaque with a description. It would be a unique and interesting way to preserve some of our history.

Meer-Did not answer