A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From prime3end's workspace   

TOLEDO LEADERS, PLEASE READ, COST BENEFIT ANALYSISQ

Here is the NEW cost benefit analysis by Brookings Institute that says we need to clean up the water and the money will come , and the brain drain will stop, and the crime will go down. We really need to stop giving the waterfront away to factories and rich homeowners.

Its actually against the law to prohibit our right to transit the waterfront between the high and low watermarks. Money talks louder than the Ohio Supreme Court evidently, thats why they want to pass an Ohio constitutional amendment to permanently remove the publics right to transit the waterfront. For those who crunch numbers, please give your opinions on the cost benefit analysis by the Brookings Institue.

Here is the NEW Brookings cost benefit analysis:

http://www.healthylakes.org/site_upload/upload/GrtLakesCostBenefit.pdf

created by prime3end on Sep 06, 2007 at 11:12:11 pm     Comments: 9

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

So how much chlorine do we need? :)

Can you clarify transit the waterfront between high and low watermark?

posted by charlatan on Sep 07, 2007 at 12:55:18 am     #



"We really need to stop giving the waterfront away to factories and rich homeowners."

I understand the part about the factories, but what do rich home owners do to pollute? Travel someplace - you pick the spot with clean beautiful waterfronts... You're gonna find rich homeowners. Hell, there are places where the water is beautiful where they have boat trips specifically to look at the fancy schmancy homes...

You're right on about the factories tho. We could start right off on the empty ones!

posted by billy on Sep 07, 2007 at 07:56:07 am     #



sure, you'll find rich homeowners who will call a willing police dept if you exercise your right to walk the waterfront. They do pollute, but that isn't the issue, they are actively trying to permanently take away your right to walk the waterfront in Ohio. The Lakefront homeowners group is hard at it with some willing republican nazis.

posted by prime3end on Oct 25, 2007 at 04:02:15 pm     #



not everyone who owns waterfront property is rich (take a look at Point Place) and not every waterfront is 'walkable' between the high and low water marks. In fact, some homes in the Point have that wonderful high-water mark in the middle of the homes.

The 'concept' of public trust is just like any issue and is being debated in the courts. Just because courts rule different ways on the issue doesn't mean those who agree or disagree are "nazis"...but hyperbole seems to be your normal way of communicating in your posts on this board.

I own waterfront property and it's not walkable - not because of what I did, btw. A lot of property owners have deeds that outline the boundaries of their property. To say that these deeds are now invalid and that (to use your own terminology) government is now trying to permanently take away their rights to property they've owned and maintained for a long time ... is an issue that isn't resolved - which is why it's in courts.

Obviously, in your opinion, you believe that anyone should be able to walk anywhere they want along the water, regardless of the fact that individuals have purchased property that for lifetimes was considered to be private.

And yes, I'm one of those "evil republican nazis" who call the police when someone tries to trespass on property that I own and pay taxes on ... but you might be surprised by why I do so, as it certainly isn't because I'm trying to deprive the public. It's because my wonderful waterfront property isn't "walkable" ... it's got large rocks, boulders and clean concrete fill from multiple owners in the past. It's dangerous to walk on and, if someone did and fell - who do you think they'd sue??? It wouldn't be the government, that's for sure.

And, just to show how ridiculous your characterization of waterfront property owners is, my husband's family ( 2 brothers and parents) all own waterfront homes in a neighborhood that is MUCH more affluent than Point Place. They all have a beach stretching along the front of their properties. Most of the homes have breakwalls about 10 feet back from the shoreline. The breakwalls are not 'walked' by anyone as all understand them to be where the private property begins. Everyone walks along the beach and all enjoy the ability to do so. And it's been that way since my mom-in-law's (80 yrs. old) grandparents were little.

And my experience has been that waterfront property owners (and boaters or boat club members) are usually MORE aware of pollution and its impact than most others.

posted by MaggieThurber on Oct 25, 2007 at 08:07:13 pm     #



On a separate note, this 'report' is dated Sept. 2007, but I've read it before, I'm sure. Was it published in draft form previously - or were excerpts made available prior to the final report?

posted by MaggieThurber on Oct 25, 2007 at 08:10:14 pm     #



Maggie, the Ohio Supreme court has ruled, and ruled again, that the changing waterfront is a peril that the lakefront homeowner must suffer the consequences of with regard to the public trust lands and the right to traverse the waterfront.

The Lakefront property owners are using a fellow republican to sponsor legislation that would permanently take away the public trust right to walk the beach. And yes, if you heard Kennedy speak the other night. In fascist states, the public trust rights belong to the lakefront property owners, nothing for the public. So fascist is a pretty fair label, especially considering what we have seen in Ohio from the republican party. Its a corporate controlled state, thats fascism.

I suggest you take a look at heritage pursuit online, its a diary by county of Ohio, and details that the waterfront was a highway for recreation and commerce. The first roads were along most waterways. Industry was the first to take away public trust land rights with politicians turning their heads. Then came the land development, selling lots with exaggerated deeds drawn up by crooked attorneys who were only to happy to make wild claims of owning the property far out into the water. But even if the deeds were all honestly prepared and true, it doesn't remove land between the low and high water marks from the public trust. A seawall however, DOES, so does a fence. Not only that, in most cases a seawall ruins habitat. How nice, at our current rate the whole shorelline will be concrete.
I suppose from your extremist republican viewpoint you consider that Ottawa refuge should be all condos, in the name of free markets and all.

How nice Maggie that you own the lakeshore, but the courts have ruled that the public trust has priority over a deed. Its the risk of living on the shoreline and the court in Ohio has clearly made that point. Thats why your party, and lakefront homeowners like yourself are trying now to change the Ohio Constitution to suit you, to exclude the public from public trust transit of the shorelines between the low and high watermarks. Again, the deed doesn't mean crap with regard to this zone,,, at least not till you guys get the constitution changed.

While youre at it, maybe you can add another amendment that excludes corporations from bribing our politicians with "campaign contributions" and those wonderful vacation condo key exchanges.

posted by prime3end on Oct 25, 2007 at 11:03:54 pm     #



personal attacks - what a nice response.

I suppose from your extremist republican viewpoint you consider that Ottawa refuge should be all condos, in the name of free markets and all.

You've never even ASKED my view of such a thing - so nice of you to assume, simply because of my party affiliation, that I'm a now a fascist, as well as a nazi, and that I hate the environment.

I'm well versed with the varying legal perspectives on this issue. I served on the ODNR's Coastal Resource Advisory Council and was even selected by ALL the fellow members of this council to serve as their vice-chairman. My views certainly cannot be so extreme as to be overlooked by this bi-partisan (by law) council which must include (by law) representatives from lake-related constituencies.

...selling lots with exaggerated deeds drawn up by crooked attorneys ...

Yes, I'm so certain that every attorney who did this was crooked with the evil intent of taking the waterfront from future generations (note the sarcasm) - versus the common thought of the time that such a thing was allowed. You don't seem to even conceive of the possibility that this was an accepted practice at the time that most people found permissible.

Again, you go overboard on hyperbole:
...and lakefront homeowners like yourself are trying now to change the Ohio Constitution to suit you...

I'm not doing any such thing - but please don't let this fact interfere with your vitriolic rant.

It's really too bad, actually, as some of your posts could provide interesting, intelligence conversation that could lead to new perspectives by those who participate. But when posters who disagree or have a differing - not even opposing - viewpoint, you resort to personal attacks with emotionally-charged words, intimidation and condescension. Maybe this is why so many don't comment.

posted by MaggieThurber on Oct 25, 2007 at 11:35:08 pm     #



btw - reply if you must, but I'm going to follow the farmer's advice to never wrestle with a pig...

(and before you go off on another rant ... no - I'm not calling you a pig, just using the adage to demonstrate a point)

posted by MaggieThurber on Oct 25, 2007 at 11:40:11 pm     #



Personal attacks, what a nice response!!

Maggie, the neocon element of the republican party today presents as close an example of fascism as I hope to see. They are usually the same folks who are pushing the takeover of public trust lands. You seemed to be expressing that the deeds are more important than the publics right to walk between the high and low water marks. You certainly aren't advocating for the public in the debate :::

"""""""""""""I own waterfront property and it's not walkable - not because of what I did, btw. A lot of property owners have deeds that outline the boundaries of their property. To say that these deeds are now invalid and that (to use your own terminology) government is now trying to permanently take away their rights to property they've owned and maintained for a long time ... is an issue that isn't resolved - which is why it's in courts.
quote continues:;
Obviously, in your opinion, you believe that anyone should be able to walk anywhere they want along the water, regardless of the fact that individuals have purchased property that for lifetimes was considered to be private."""""""""""""
Yes , they own the property, but they have to share it between the high and low water marks. Thats the law, and thats why the group is trying to change the law and with a constitutional amendment perhaps.

And so it appears that anything that is outside of your view, is a gross exaggeration, or a personal attack. You mention that your lakefront property doesn't DENY the right to walk the waterfront, but it still can't be walked. You mention that this is not because of anything you did. Is that because the previous owner installed a seawall or other structure that prevents it? But it wasn't you? Or is it just the natural lay of the coastline? Just curious.

I've never sought to intimidate anyone in my posts, perhaps its just your views and statements that were challenged.

I seemed to have touched a nerve personally on the lakefront issue. I'm bowing out then, not wanting anyway to "cast my pearls before swine" , not that I'm calling you a pig, just using the adage to demonstrate a point.

posted by prime3end on Oct 26, 2007 at 04:55:22 am     #