I have a question for you....
Have you ever been on Indian Lake?
Have you visited Mr. Rohrich's website and looked at the picture there of St. Clair's docks, the hill-side, the townhouses, and the Lodge?
How many years of closed Lodge or Lodge with bad food and worse service do you remember?
Do you remember 30+ years of an overgrown hill-side?
Have you seen the dangers now that those docks are in place?
Yet the challenges continue.......
Perhaps I have just been looking at these things too long, but only an attorney could call a 12 page document a brief.
Attorney Ging, representing Jim Lyons and Mary Jo Takacs, Appellants, has filed his Final Post DEP Hearing Brief.
Now I certainly don't claim to be a lawyer and understand all the innuendoes, but just scanning this document makes me cry, and laugh. (I would gladly supply you a link to this document if you wished.)
The Appellants are again claiming that the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and St. Clair Resort Development, LLC, are wrong, that they lied, and the Appellants are right and wronged.
My reply to Attorney Ging and the Appellants-
Stop trying to say that a 't' was not crossed, that an 'i' was not dotted, that your arguments were not listened to, or were misunderstood. Get out on Indian Lake and look at the results for yourselves. I would be glad to take you there on my boat, once the ice leaves the lake. I am proud to show anyone what the St. Clairs have done for this community.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Comments from you........
from Corbettmom
date Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:37 PM
subject Re: [News From The Lake] More legal trouble?
This is just ridiculous--I can't believe how much the county is spending to try all of these cases on top of the cost to Indian Lake, which I'm helping to pay. I wish they could invoke a fee for having to retry a case that was already deemed frivolous. We've had some obnoxious residents here in the past but this takes the cake. At least, so far in my term as a public official, I've never seen anything so platantly malecious and contrived--and hope that I never have that opportunity. Feel free to use my comments.
The above was received this past weekend from one of my loyal Blog readers in Akron, Ohio. She is an Township Trustee, elected to office the same time I was elected to Borough Council. We regularly discuss the merits and challenges of serving our respective electorates. She and her husband own a home at Indian Lake.
More often than not, questions and comments I receive concerning my Blog Postings are received verbally. One common thread that I have received more and more is (I paraphrase):
What can I (we) do to help end these law suits.
What can I (we) do to help Terry and Pat St. Clair.
I wish I had a simple, black and white, answer, but I don't. However, I am asking others and will be posting suggestions. Please feel free to add your voice by either 'commenting' on the Blog or dropping me an e-mail (pcornez@yahoo.com). With your permission I will publish your comments in upcoming Blog Posts.
Thank you
date Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:37 PM
subject Re: [News From The Lake] More legal trouble?
This is just ridiculous--I can't believe how much the county is spending to try all of these cases on top of the cost to Indian Lake, which I'm helping to pay. I wish they could invoke a fee for having to retry a case that was already deemed frivolous. We've had some obnoxious residents here in the past but this takes the cake. At least, so far in my term as a public official, I've never seen anything so platantly malecious and contrived--and hope that I never have that opportunity. Feel free to use my comments.
The above was received this past weekend from one of my loyal Blog readers in Akron, Ohio. She is an Township Trustee, elected to office the same time I was elected to Borough Council. We regularly discuss the merits and challenges of serving our respective electorates. She and her husband own a home at Indian Lake.
More often than not, questions and comments I receive concerning my Blog Postings are received verbally. One common thread that I have received more and more is (I paraphrase):
What can I (we) do to help end these law suits.
What can I (we) do to help Terry and Pat St. Clair.
I wish I had a simple, black and white, answer, but I don't. However, I am asking others and will be posting suggestions. Please feel free to add your voice by either 'commenting' on the Blog or dropping me an e-mail (pcornez@yahoo.com). With your permission I will publish your comments in upcoming Blog Posts.
Thank you
Monday, January 24, 2011
What is the truth?
Today people seem to think that if you say something over and over again it is the truth, or it will be the truth.
Well something caught my eye in yesterday's (January 23, 2011) PittsburghPost-Gazette, the headline:
Experts doubt claims the health care law is a 'job killer'
Whoa, I know better, in fact just this past week I got an e-mail from my Congressman telling me it is so. So I read on. The "fact" that the health care bill is a job's killer comes from a study by the NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business. Double whoa, I know these guys, in fact I was a long time member of the NFIB before I retired. Good people who do a lot for the Small Business community.
The problem appears that the NFIB's statement comes following a study released Jan. 28, 2009, well before the health care law was written. "It's old. We don't use it anymore because it was based upon a hypothetical mandate," NFIB spokeswoman Stephanie Cathhart said.
The bottom line according to the newspaper story is that we just don't know yet, but the "experts" they interviewed do not believe so.
So everyone has an expert, experts voice opinion, not fact, about what will happen. It pays to go back to the fact that started the truth.
Sort of reminds me of what I read in the continuing law suits and appeals filed against the Borough and St. Clair Development. Thank goodness the courts have seen through the 'facts' and found the 'truth'.
Well something caught my eye in yesterday's (January 23, 2011) PittsburghPost-Gazette, the headline:
Experts doubt claims the health care law is a 'job killer'
Whoa, I know better, in fact just this past week I got an e-mail from my Congressman telling me it is so. So I read on. The "fact" that the health care bill is a job's killer comes from a study by the NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business. Double whoa, I know these guys, in fact I was a long time member of the NFIB before I retired. Good people who do a lot for the Small Business community.
The problem appears that the NFIB's statement comes following a study released Jan. 28, 2009, well before the health care law was written. "It's old. We don't use it anymore because it was based upon a hypothetical mandate," NFIB spokeswoman Stephanie Cathhart said.
The bottom line according to the newspaper story is that we just don't know yet, but the "experts" they interviewed do not believe so.
So everyone has an expert, experts voice opinion, not fact, about what will happen. It pays to go back to the fact that started the truth.
Sort of reminds me of what I read in the continuing law suits and appeals filed against the Borough and St. Clair Development. Thank goodness the courts have seen through the 'facts' and found the 'truth'.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
More legal trouble?
Well they did not give us long to catch our breaths.
Attorney Ging, in behalf of Mary Jo Takacs, filed a Petition for Re-Argument , dated Jan. 19th., in the matter against Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, St. Clair Resorts Development, LLC and Indian Lake Borough. This Petition filed with the Commonwealth Court in the matter of their decision on cases 2616 CD 2009 and 365 CD2010. These are the cases on the granting of the permit for the second townhouse and the dismissal for failing to post the bond amount. Basically Attorney Ging tells the Court they erred- just as the Borough, the Zoning Hearing Board, and the Trial Court had before them.
You see, Attorney Ging and his band of merry supporters are correct and the rest of the world is wrong.
Two comments on the article about this in today's Somerset Daily American, http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2011/01/22/news/local/news071.txt.
I was in Judge Klemetik's court room during these proceedings. He did not just state that the claim was frivolous but asked Mrs. Takacs 'what part of buying a home next to commercial property did you not understand'. Additionally the judge reduces the amount of the request bond to $380,000, reflecting only the approximate amount of the sale of one townhouse, not the amount of damages done by submittal of these frivolous cases.
We are hoping that that the Commonwealth Court will not grant this Petition, or else here we all go again, spending more of your tax money on court defenses.
Please let your feelings be known, send your comments to me at pcornez@yahoo.com, thank you, I see they get to the parties financing these adventures.
Attorney Ging, in behalf of Mary Jo Takacs, filed a Petition for Re-Argument , dated Jan. 19th., in the matter against Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, St. Clair Resorts Development, LLC and Indian Lake Borough. This Petition filed with the Commonwealth Court in the matter of their decision on cases 2616 CD 2009 and 365 CD2010. These are the cases on the granting of the permit for the second townhouse and the dismissal for failing to post the bond amount. Basically Attorney Ging tells the Court they erred- just as the Borough, the Zoning Hearing Board, and the Trial Court had before them.
You see, Attorney Ging and his band of merry supporters are correct and the rest of the world is wrong.
Two comments on the article about this in today's Somerset Daily American, http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2011/01/22/news/local/news071.txt.
I was in Judge Klemetik's court room during these proceedings. He did not just state that the claim was frivolous but asked Mrs. Takacs 'what part of buying a home next to commercial property did you not understand'. Additionally the judge reduces the amount of the request bond to $380,000, reflecting only the approximate amount of the sale of one townhouse, not the amount of damages done by submittal of these frivolous cases.
We are hoping that that the Commonwealth Court will not grant this Petition, or else here we all go again, spending more of your tax money on court defenses.
Please let your feelings be known, send your comments to me at pcornez@yahoo.com, thank you, I see they get to the parties financing these adventures.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Hooray, the trend continues!
The Commonwealth Court has issued it's decision on the final appeal presently pending, again affirming the Trial Court, which had ruled in favor of the Borough.
A lot of words to say that WE, the majority of the residence of Indian Lake, have won another court victory.
The court determined that the easement issued to St. Clair Development, by the Borough, was proper. This easement, for the area where St. Clair's boat docks are, allows the developer to guarantee a resident of a new townhouse, an option on a boat dock. One does not need to be in the market for a townhouse to understand why this would be a major issue to someone buying one of these luxury townhouses overlooking the lake.
The pattern remains the same, a small group of people, with money, file suit against anything the St. Clairs do for this community. They are defeated in Zoning Hearing Board reviews, in trial court in Somerset, and on appeal in Commonwealth Court. All the time causing the Borough and the St. Clairs to spend untold amounts of dollars in defending their actions.
If they would only realize the harm they are doing, perhaps they would stop. Just an explanation of WHY they do what they do, would be enlightening.
A lot of words to say that WE, the majority of the residence of Indian Lake, have won another court victory.
The court determined that the easement issued to St. Clair Development, by the Borough, was proper. This easement, for the area where St. Clair's boat docks are, allows the developer to guarantee a resident of a new townhouse, an option on a boat dock. One does not need to be in the market for a townhouse to understand why this would be a major issue to someone buying one of these luxury townhouses overlooking the lake.
The pattern remains the same, a small group of people, with money, file suit against anything the St. Clairs do for this community. They are defeated in Zoning Hearing Board reviews, in trial court in Somerset, and on appeal in Commonwealth Court. All the time causing the Borough and the St. Clairs to spend untold amounts of dollars in defending their actions.
If they would only realize the harm they are doing, perhaps they would stop. Just an explanation of WHY they do what they do, would be enlightening.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Boating Fees for 2011
Indian Lake Borough Council adopted the following fee for the 2011 boating season:
PRIMARY POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $75
SECONDARY POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $150
(limit of 289 stickers available)
PRIMARY NON POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $20
SECONDARY NON POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $20
(limit of 400 stickers available)
GENERAL BOAT LICENSE at $750
(limit of 40 stickers available)
These fees remain unchanged from last year.
PRIMARY POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $75
SECONDARY POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $150
(limit of 289 stickers available)
PRIMARY NON POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $20
SECONDARY NON POWERED BOAT LICENSE at $20
(limit of 400 stickers available)
GENERAL BOAT LICENSE at $750
(limit of 40 stickers available)
These fees remain unchanged from last year.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Good News
Its been a long time in coming, but I finally have a bit of good news to share concerning the dam. When last we met, we had removed the upstream valve after two difficult days for the diver trying to reduce the leakage by the valve. The valve manufacturer decided that enough was enough, we were just chasing our tails, and it was time to bring the valve up and readjust it, as well as finding a solution for a mounting flange, believed to be not flat enough. As you recall, the pipe through the dam has a valve at either end. Since the second valve, the downstream valve, which is not under water, is working fine, no problems were anticipated. The upstream valve was taken to the borough's garage. The manufacturer sent a service representative to reset the valve. It appeared to me, as I observed and listened, that the valve had never been adjusted properly. Except for a missing adjusting bolt and some nuts, which the valve manufacturer was to send us yet that week, the valve was ready to return to service.
As days became weeks it became painfully obvious that we were not going to get the valve back in service before the lake froze over. The parts for the valve are still MIA, the dive company and our engineer are still working on a suitable fix for the flange 'problem'. But we are OK because of the downstream valve, or are we?
The concern arose about freezing, and freezing it has been. This downstream valve sits exposed on a section of pipe coming out of the dam, Lake Stoneycreek side. This section of pipe and the valve are subjected to the freezing temperatures we have been having. We were concerned that if the water in this exposed section of pipe froze, the pipe and the valve could be damaged. This would leave us up a creek without a paddle.
This valve is designed to be opened or closed, not for throttling.
The decision was made to 'hot tap' the pipe and install a small (2") valve which could remain opened, allowing for a small continuous flow, preventing the water from freezing. Of course nothing comes easy, but today we finally got the valve installed, plumbed, and opened.
Now let me push our luck and deliver another piece of good news-yesterday the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling in the Borough's favor. This affirmed the lower court finding that the appeal on the permit issued by the Borough for Waccamaw Townhouse was frivolous* and that the appeal bond was appropriate.
One by one we are winning these legal challenges, but at quite a cost. Hopefully, someday, the Borough can recoup some of our expenses from the parties bring the 'frivolous' law suits.
*Their word.
As days became weeks it became painfully obvious that we were not going to get the valve back in service before the lake froze over. The parts for the valve are still MIA, the dive company and our engineer are still working on a suitable fix for the flange 'problem'. But we are OK because of the downstream valve, or are we?
The concern arose about freezing, and freezing it has been. This downstream valve sits exposed on a section of pipe coming out of the dam, Lake Stoneycreek side. This section of pipe and the valve are subjected to the freezing temperatures we have been having. We were concerned that if the water in this exposed section of pipe froze, the pipe and the valve could be damaged. This would leave us up a creek without a paddle.
This valve is designed to be opened or closed, not for throttling.
The decision was made to 'hot tap' the pipe and install a small (2") valve which could remain opened, allowing for a small continuous flow, preventing the water from freezing. Of course nothing comes easy, but today we finally got the valve installed, plumbed, and opened.
Now let me push our luck and deliver another piece of good news-yesterday the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling in the Borough's favor. This affirmed the lower court finding that the appeal on the permit issued by the Borough for Waccamaw Townhouse was frivolous* and that the appeal bond was appropriate.
One by one we are winning these legal challenges, but at quite a cost. Hopefully, someday, the Borough can recoup some of our expenses from the parties bring the 'frivolous' law suits.
*Their word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
