MEETINGS REMEMBER: BE THERE THE LYON  BOARD      7;00 P.M.  third WED Thomas Borchers,  L.L.C. #B7967x  Tranfer Info: 113980721 Articles of Organization		LYON             ONLY        TOWNSHIP     INFORMATION          CLICK THE MAP  ABOVE FOR FACT  TYPE ITEMS ONLY
. THE COUNTER REACHED 1,000,000 SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THIS SITE IN 2004. ONE MILLION WAS THE MILESTONE I WANTED THE SITE TO REACH BEFORE A REDESIGN.  I AM HOLDING OFF UNTIL JAN.  1 TO ACCOMODATE OUR RESIDENTS IN LYON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.

Topic: Candidates' words

Comments: T. Allison and friends,

I read the area’s candidates' thoughts in the Herald.  Perhaps, you can shed some light on what they did and did not say.

Tatro provided a plan for the township.  Fred provided words, but no plan.  He also failed to note his role in Ordinance 53’s litigation and the use of taxpayer funds for it, creating the Townline mess and the cost to resolve it, siding with Sam to deplete the township’s financial reserves due to their road end litigation, his secret meetings to avoid public disclosure, his role as a Deputy Supervisor under Sam, which appears to have been something of a payback, as the supervisor is a part-time job, and you don’t need a deputy when you aren’t even full-time.  Besides, Tatro doesn’t have a deputy and saved the cost.          

Paxton says the RCRC members should all get re-elected and work well together.  He must not listen to the others or read Pappas’s notice.  I’m sure he would prefer that people vote for everyone so he can ride on their coat tails. 

Paxton is an obstructionist in that he operates to serve himself and his friends, not the public.  He also failed to note his former leadership role in POWAR, or his membership/support of it and the HLCA, his record of false comments about the HLPOA, his demonstrated distain for the law, his efforts to induce CRAM to enact a road end policy that would violate the law, his clear conflicts of interest, etc.  He obviously wants the public to think the RCRC is one big happy family and not know his true activities.     

Williams says he is in the township office everyday.  That may be true, but it raises questions, as it is a part-time job.  Is he there eight hours everyday, that is about 2,000 hours per year.  Why does he need his wife as a deputy?  Even if you don’t have a computer, it would not take that much time to do the work.  He also doesn’t mention the audit results.  I’d like to think he can do a decent job once Fred is gone and not distracting him with Sam’s new plan for township domination.

Gaylor seemed to have a solid grasp of Gerrish’s needs and a definitive agenda to address them.  Homola, like Fred, just had some feel-good statements.  I don’t see the point of them, Paxton or anyone else not providing specific ideas and plans benefiting the public, as that would be missing the point of seeking office.   

Public service is a public trust in which you act to benefit the entire public, not yourself or friends.  It’s really very simple unless you don’t want to hold office for any reason other than the money or advancing your personal agenda.  We’ve had enough of that type.  They are disruptive, cost the taxpayers too much and take too much time to monitor, not to mention their pontificating.                  

                    
E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

 

Topic: Sammy has self destructed

Comments: Sammy self destructed the day he lost the last election. He went home unable to admit defeat and blamed it on the voting system. He could not accept that the majority of the people no longer wanted him to be in charge.

E-mail: neednochange@higginslake.yahoo

Topic: 5254

Comments: 5254,

I suppose it would only be fair to open all of the closets.  As we have seen, Boo and Allison are trying to make something out of nothing, and don’t even get their facts straight, let alone consider the irrelevance of their comments.  Maybe they need to focus on some real concerns rather than those they have created.

Next topic…I recall asking about Paxton’s appearance before the DNR committee discussing the theme park.  I wanted to know two things.  One, did he claim to be representing himself or the RCRC?  Two, did he tell the DNR about the property he owns in the area?  Depending on what he said, he could have yet another conflict of interest.

Third topic… I see Gerrish obtained the next block of state money for the marina and park project.  The township’s leaders seem to have done a good job in identifying an opportunity and pursuing it in a cost effective manner.  Their ability to provide meaningful legal lake access is a stark contrast to the failed backroom tactics of Sam, Fred and Larry.  These guys and the HLCA’s leadership not only gave the township officials no credit, but dismissed the project.  Fortunately, the officials knew their duty was to the residents and public, not the HLCA and its agents.             
E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

The following message was submitted:

Topic: How's your closet?

Comments: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Now wouldn't Larry Paxtion just crap his pants if his ex-wife showed up at the next RCRC meeting and didto him what Sammy attempted to do to Paul Tatro.
You guys should have checked Larry's closet before you played your little game.
Spousal abuse, assult and battery, Personal Protection Orders, foreclosures not once but twice. How about the time he ran off the road and hit some signs, mail boxes and private property. Leaving the MSU ensignia at the scene of the accident was a dead give away especially since it match up to his vehicle. Driving a boat on choppy waters of higgins lake after not catching any fish put Larry into an aggressive state of mind of couse slamming down a number of beers did not help. How about the time Larry came home from an unsuccessful hunting trip. Who do you think he took it out on? His wife was making gravy and Larry didn't like the way his wife was making it so he became verbally abusive and became physically violent. Is this the kind of person that deserves your vote on November 4th. HELL NO. You say the gloves are off John so be it. Copies of Larry Paxtons Personal Protection Order from 1999 restraining him from his own home and the foreclosure and eviction notice from the property at 101 Rolling Hills in Roscommon County in 2004 have been posted at every road end in Roscommon County and additional copies have been sent to all of the resturants in Roscommon County to be read by the voters prior to next weeks election as they wait for the meals to be served. Also at the gas stations, banks, bars, and fast food locations. Big mistakes taking those gloves off John. How about township supervisors who collect unemployment checks while in office or a guy who has the family business in his wife's name so he can file for workmens comp. You fellas wanted to dance let's dance. What's in your closet John. Won't this just go over well with the voters once they pick up a copy of this weeks Houghton Lake Resorter and the Roscommon Herald.
You boys all seem to be suffering from manic or is it panic depression? What's in your closet? What was it Rick said? As a matter of publicecord the public deserves the right to know about a candidates's fiscal responsibility. Mr. Paxton's foreclosures, excessive drinking habits, and spousal abuse are important issues that the voters need to consider when casting their votes on November 4th. Mr. Federau we could not agree with you more. Oh and let's not forget the person the hlca is endorsing for Gerrish Township Supervisor Frank Homola. The resorter has posted the foreclosure notice of Homola's property in there Public Notice section. Birds of the same feather do seem to flock together. Now to the closets of the remaining hlca board members. Looks like these closets could use a good coat of fresh paint. Ya know Johnny it is easy to clean these closets with the gloves off. Wait til the IRS starts their audits. Won't this just be fun? Does anyone from the hlca know CPR I think Mr. Paxton just passed out.

Name withheld due to the content written. Copies have been provided to the newspapers and television

E-mail: getreadyforachange

Topic: Allison

Comments: It's amazing you have so much time and energy for this and money for lawyers.  Why don't you spend all your money and buy a lakefront lot.  You'd feel alot better and enjoy life more.

He does have a good lawyer.   :)

E-mail: Lawful Riparian@yahoo.com

The following message was submitted:

Topic: 5260

Comments: 5260,

What a revelation!  You seem to have compiled a lot of facts and the documentation to support them.  Let’s see if I grasp it all. 

I knew Sam expended taxpayer money to challenge Jacobs when he was told doing so was pointless; sued the HLPOA for no reason and against better advice; lost and spent more taxpayer funds to continue the litigation at the Court of Appeals, where he lost again.  I knew he was incensed when he lost the last election, demanded a recount, which showed he still lost, and accused the election officials of fraud.  I knew he made a career out of attending public meetings and speaking endlessly about irrelevant or personal issues, and recently threatened to sue people who said bad things about him (true didn’t seem to matter).  And I knew he orchestrated the personal, erroneous and irrelevant attack on Tatro to assist Fred who has a long record of incompetence, obstruction and self-serving interests.  Sam controls Fred, and a vote for Fred is a vote for Sam.          

Paxton’s history is news to me.  I knew he attended meetings claiming to represent the RCRC when he didn’t; conspired with others to thwart the law; tried to get CRAM to enact a road end policy contrary to the law and was refused; supported vindictive actions with respect to “encroachments,” which litigation determined to be erroneous and expended taxpayer funds; uses every opportunity to speak or act against the HLPOA even to the point of saying severe beach erosion doesn’t exist and is a plot to close the lake, which is legally impossible; obtained precipitation and evaporation data for the area, but did not know how to analyze it and therefore came to a conclusion that was the opposite of what the scientific data showed. 

I knew he had two pieces of property in the theme park area, which is why I questioned his testimony before the DNR officials.  But I never knew about spousal abuse, personal protection orders, two foreclosures, and what, from your description, appears to be drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident.  With all of this, I can’t understand how he has been able to retain or finance any real estate, or be elected.  Either people don’t care or they don’t know.   

Township supervisors collecting unemployment is fraud.  It might be possible if he was a trustee as the compensation might be below the threshold, but the income would have to be declared for both unemployment and tax purposes.  Same for the Workmen’s Comp guy.  It’s fraud, if he can work and controls the company.  Placing it in his wife’s name to allow him to receive WC is fraudulent conveyance of assets.  I knew a guy in DC who did that with real estate and got nailed in court.            

I know nothing about Homola, but all anyone needs to do to get the HLCA’s endorsement is to say are opposed to Jacobs.  The HLCA does not consider anything else, as that is its reason to exist.  If I was running and promised to a) enforce Jacobs and b) donate a million dollars to local charities, the HLCA would oppose me.  So, its endorsement has nothing to do with a candidate’s ability, experience or ideas – just filling public water with private boat hoists.

Hello Thomas Borchers,  L.L.C.,

MAG has left a message in your Guestbook.

 

The following message was submitted:

Topic: Allison

Comments: 5260,

What a revelation!  You seem to have compiled a lot of facts and the documentation to support them.  Let’s see if I grasp it all. 

I knew Sam expended taxpayer money to challenge Jacobs when he was told doing so was pointless; sued the HLPOA for no reason and against better advice; lost and spent more taxpayer funds to continue the litigation at the Court of Appeals, where he lost again.  I knew he was incensed when he lost the last election, demanded a recount, which showed he still lost, and accused the election officials of fraud.  I knew he made a career out of attending public meetings and speaking endlessly about irrelevant or personal issues, and recently threatened to sue people who said bad things about him (true didn’t seem to matter).  And I knew he orchestrated the personal, erroneous and irrelevant attack on Tatro to assist Fred who has a long record of incompetence, obstruction and self-serving interests.  Sam controls Fred, and a vote for Fred is a vote for Sam.          

Paxton’s history is news to me.  I knew he attended meetings claiming to represent the RCRC when he didn’t; conspired with others to thwart the law; tried to get CRAM to enact a road end policy contrary to the law and was refused; supported vindictive actions with respect to “encroachments,” which litigation determined to be erroneous and expended taxpayer funds; uses every opportunity to speak or act against the HLPOA even to the point of saying severe beach erosion doesn’t exist and is a plot to close the lake, which is legally impossible; obtained precipitation and evaporation data for the area, but did not know how to analyze it and therefore came to a conclusion that was the opposite of what the scientific data showed. 

I knew he had two pieces of property in the theme park area, which is why I questioned his testimony before the DNR officials.  But I never knew about spousal abuse, personal protection orders, two foreclosures, and what, from your description, appears to be drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident.  With all of this, I can’t understand how he has been able to retain or finance any real estate, or be elected.  Either people don’t care or they don’t know.   

Township supervisors collecting unemployment is fraud.  It might be possible if he was a trustee as the compensation might be below the threshold, but the income would have to be declared for both unemployment and tax purposes.  Same for the Workmen’s Comp guy.  It’s fraud, if he can work and controls the company.  Placing it in his wife’s name to allow him to receive WC is fraudulent conveyance of assets.  I knew a guy in DC who did that with real estate and got nailed in court.            

I know nothing about Homola, but all anyone needs to do to get the HLCA’s endorsement is to say are opposed to Jacobs.  The HLCA does not consider anything else, as that is its reason to exist.  If I was running and promised to a) enforce Jacobs and b) donate a million dollars to local charities, the HLCA would oppose me.  So, its endorsement has nothing to do with a candidate’s ability, experience or ideas – just filling public water with private boat hoists.

Last, I understand your desire to remain anonymous given the profound information you have provided.  However, in the interest of truth, what you describe must be factual.  Sam needs to have Fred elected to vote as Sam desires, and has resorted to grandiose mud slinging with misleading and irrelevant statements.  That’s typical, but I don’t think good people want to join him, as they appreciate the truth.                    

 


T. Allison,

We were not up to 5266 when I read your post.  You’re getting so mad at the truth that you aren’t counting well.

Who is John?  If it’s Shreck do you mean his letters in the newspaper that clearly show he has no concept of what constitutes a conflict of interest or the proper role of a public servant?  They were factually answered.   However, he did not convey any truthful facts.  He tried to defend someone who is admittedly biased, condones illegal activities and freely uses his position to advance personal goals.  Like you and me, he is entitled to his opinion.  However, opinion must be grounded in fact or there is no basis for it.  

Topic: Allison

Comments: I goofed on the last post.  It should have been just the following.

T. Allison,

We were not up to 5266 when I read your post.  You’re getting so mad at the truth that you aren’t counting well.

Who is John?  If it’s Shreck do you mean his letters in the newspaper that clearly show he has no concept of what constitutes a conflict of interest or the proper role of a public servant?  They were factually answered.   However, he did not convey any truthful facts.  He tried to defend someone who is admittedly biased, condones illegal activities and freely uses his position to advance personal goals.  Like you and me, he is entitled to his opinion.  However, opinion must be grounded in fact or there is no basis for it.      

As for your threats, please understand a few salient points.  First, you can’t litigate the blog postings as they are opinion, protected by law and you can’t determine who wrote them.  Second, no one here started the unfounded attacks on Tatro.  Sam and his associates did, and Fred went along with it.  He certainly could have told them they were crossing the line and he wanted no part of it.  But he didn’t and that places him in the same boat. 

Don’t blame others for what you initiated.  Relevant information has long been known, but not used, as there was no good reason to do so.  Recent stupid and malicious actions altered that position, but that is solely the responsibility of those parties.      

By the way, you’re the one who ran for cover rather than address my questions.  If you seek a coward, look in the mirror.               


E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Public Record

Petition for Personal Protection order (Domestic relationship) Case # 99-721387-pp (pp must stand for Paxton is a pussy). From the 34th Judicial Circuit Court

Petitioner's name: Madeline D. Workman-Paxton Age 53 (from 1999)
Address (a post Office Box in Grayling)

Respondant's Name Larry (toughguy) Vernon Paxton Age 53 (from 1999)

The petitioner and respondant are husband and wife and wife resided at home until 10-31-99 Trick or treat)

There are no pending court actions (not to wife's knowledge)

I need a personal protection order because (see attached)  will type in its entirety afterwards

I ask the court to grant a ppo prohibiting respondant (looser) from (a)entering onto the property where I live.

c. assulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding Madeline D. Workman-Paxton

e. stalking as defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i which includes but is not limited to:

appearing at my workplace
approaching or confronting me in a public place or on private property.
entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased or occupied by me.
interfering with efforts to remove my children/personal property from premises
threatening to KILL or physically injure Madeline D. Workman-Paxton

6. I make this petition under the authority of MCL 600.2950
I request an exparte order because immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will occur between now and a hearing.  (ran out of room must continue with a new post)

E-mail: time4change@higginslake.littlekitty

The following message was submitted:

Topic: A picture paints a thousand words

Comments: The hlca backlot bills are down to one word IF.

If the back lot bills get passed. Ain't happening folks nuff said.

E-mail: likethechange@higginslake.com

 

   

As for your threats, please understand a few salient points.  First, you can’t litigate the blog postings as they are opinion, protected by law and you can’t determine who wrote them.  Second, no one here started the unfounded attacks on Tatro.  Sam and his associates did, and Fred went along with it.  He certainly could have told them they were crossing the line and he wanted no part of it.  But he didn’t and that places him in the same boat. 

Don’t blame others for what you initiated.  Relevant information has long been known, but not used, as there was no good reason to do so.  Recent stupid and malicious actions altered that position, but that is solely the responsibility of those parties.      

By the way, you’re the one who ran for cover rather than address my questions.  If you seek a coward, look in the mirror.               

 

E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

 

Topic: Allison

Comments: T. Allison,

A couple of months ago it was suggested that people wanting to vote for the best candidates should drive by Sam’s house, note the campaign signs around it and vote for the opposition.  I know you believe Sam’s opinion is worth something, but as we know, he isn’t running for office.  Koenigbauer is.  To that end, can you provide some information?  What is Koenigbauer’s plan for the township and why is it better than Tatro’s?   
E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Topic: Food for thought

Comments: There is a very interesting story in today’s Detroit News in which psychologists comment on Kwame Kilpatrick’s actions and personality.  These are excerpts from it.     
“Pauline Furman, a psychologist and marital therapist in Southfield, says she believes Kilpatrick has a narcissistic personality disorder and says he fits each description of that personality, according to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, the therapists' bible.
"He exaggerates his own importance and needs constant attention and positive reinforcement from others," Furman says. "He overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated. He's extremely self-absorbed, intolerant of others' perspectives. He uses others to reach his personal goals and take advantage of others. He's arrogant and behaves in a haughty manner."
Kilpatrick has shown signs of depression for months, says veteran forensic psychologist Patricia Wallace, who also practices in Southfield. He also displays what she says are narcissistic and histrionic personality traits.
"We saw it early on," Wallace says, "especially when he gave his State of the City address (where an outraged Kilpatrick used the n-word and angrily called for the media to stop its 'lynch-mob mentality'). The depressive tendencies were blatant. He was able to go through with his prepared speech very carefully, almost flawlessly until his anger and rage evolved at the end of the speech."
People with narcissistic/histrionic personalities also tend to blame others for their actions.
Kilpatrick displayed this tendency later that day by orchestrating a private news conference to deliver his departure speech. Family and friends loudly cheered him. His wife, Carlita Kilpatrick, seemed almost robotic as she stood up, slowly walked to his side and, as if on cue, kissed him on the cheek and waited to kiss him a second time. At the end of his speech, highlighting a list of his achievements while mayor, he blamed Gov. Jennifer Granholm for his troubles, intimating if Granholm had not held removal hearings, he would have remained mayor.”
The publication referenced in the story lists the following for narcissistic personalities.
Symptoms
The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements.  They may be overwhelmed with fantasies involving unlimited success, power, love, or beauty and feel that they can only be understood by others who are, like them, superior in some aspect of life.

There is a sense of entitlement, of being more deserving than others based solely on their superiority.  These symptoms, however, are a result of an underlying sense of inferiority and are often seen as overcompensation.  Because of this, they are often envious and even angry of others who have more, receive more respect or attention, or otherwise steal away the spotlight.
Treatment
Treatment for this disorder is very rarely sought.  There is a limited amount of insight into the symptoms, and the negative consequences are often blamed on society.  In this sense, treatment options are limited.  Some research has found long term insight oriented therapy to be effective, but getting the individual to commit to this treatment is a major obstacle.
Prognosis
Prognosis is limited and based mainly on the individual's ability to recognize their underlying inferiority and decreased sense of self worth.  With insight and long term therapy, the symptoms can be reduced in both number and intensity.  (end of material)

When you put this type of person in a position of power you only reinforce their disorder and belief that they are superior and can do no wrong.  The result is often disaster for the individual and those around him.  So, we must be careful whom we vote for, as we might get more than we really want.           

 

E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

 

Topic: C. Citizen

Comments: Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for the details about Sam and Fredu.  You too have Been There and Done That!     

E-mail: BTDT@leadingchange.info

Topic: Allison

Comments: MAG,

You hit  the nail on the head about Koenigbauer and Boodoian.  They are one and the same in terms of looking out for themselves.  The difference is that Fred lets Sam do the talking.  He knows Sam will look foolish, but doesn't care if it gets him some votes.  Allision knows this, which is why you won't get a list of Fred's accomplishments.  There aren't any.         

E-mail: BTDT@leadingchange.info

Topic: To Tom Allsion

Comments: Perhaps you weren't living in Lyon Townshipo when Boodian and his pals had the majority on the township board.  Maybe you weren't at township board meetings to hear the rantings and ravings of Boodoan and his refusal to recoganizes opponents to his ill-concieved plolicies at those meetings. Maybe you were'nt around when Boodian ahd is puppets on the board started a costly lowsuit against the HLPOA claiming the township had a right to allow lounging. picknicking, sunbathing and boat hoists at roads.  Maybbe you weren't around when Boodoian and his hechmen on the board raided the township treasury to the point where the township's reserves became critically low.  You weren't around when Boo and Fred and their ilk made a mockery of township government.

After Boo's fall from power (he failed to be reeelected) Paul Tatro, who succeeded him, had to replenish the townships treasury.

Paull may have personal financial problems but those prooblems never poured over into the township's business.  He has goverened with integrity and esponsiblity.

Elect Boodian's lackeys to the township board and you get just the opposite.  Government by deciet and failed fiscaal responsibility. 

E-mail: Concerrned Citizen@hotmail.com

Topic: Allison

Comments: T. Allison,

Do you really believe that a  requirement to hold public office is the absence of a  divorce  or marital problems?   If so, how many state and congressional officials do you want to remove?

I see to  validity to your contention that Tatro has  done anything but a very good job.  His record versus that of his predecessor is clearly superior.  He was also able to accomplish a great deal despite Fred’s continual conspiring and secret meetings.  Note that Fred’s clandestine activities do not include Reno, but focus on the other two in an attempt to serve his own purposes.  Removing Fred removes the impediment to cooperation.  In support of that, I would remind you that this topic came up at the annual meeting a couple of years ago.  It was made clear that some board members were working to benefit themselves and friends and that was a core problem.  That only meant Fred and his private board.

Please do not use the word “integrity” with reference to change, as Fred’s actions over the years prove he has none.  The same applies to Sam, the bearer of the irrelevant and the malicious.  Don’t you find it odd that two guys whose only desire has been to use public office for their personal goals and don’t have a good idea between them have induced an equally foolish person like your self to carry their inane banner?         


E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Topic: Management

Comments: Accountability,

If there was a Township Manager, not a Board, think of how things could be organized and the gains in efficiency.   You would  not need the trustees.  The Treasurer could be replaced by a CPA, as it is a part-time job.  The clerk is needed, but maybe those duties and the treasurer's could be combined with a quarterly review by an outside CPA. 

You could go further by combining the townships.  Each would have  a manager, but the accounting and clerical support would be provided by full-time employees forming a support staff.  You could carry that to the county level and dispense with the RCRC's board as it would be an agency under  the county's management.  You could consolidate the school systems in the same manner and reduce their administrative costs.  Put it all together and the efficiancies might enable taxes to be lowered.             

E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Topic: Accountability

Comments: Accountability,

The Treasurer, like the trustees and clerk, does not report to the Supervisor.  He reports  to the people.  For that reason the Supervisor can't fire the Treasurer, demote him, replace him, change his duties, etc.  What he can do is make the people aware that the Tresurer isn't doing the job well and is causing the township to fail its audits.  In a few weeks, the people will determine the Treasurer's fate.   

To hold the Supervisor responsible for these people, you need to change the form of government.  If the Supervisor was the township's Manager and hired and managed a staff, you would have the authority needed to match the responsibility and accountability.       

E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Comments: Tom A.,

Now that Constituent has provided an explanation that places Sam’s contentions in question, we need to look at reality, not the theoretical. 

Tatro has marital problems as noted.  Since over 50% of the marriages in this country end that way, he is no different than most of the population.  Since that is unrelated to his job, it is irrelevant.  According to you and Sam he has some business problems.  They may be related to his wife’s actions, but even if they are not, many firms from the great, but now closed, bakery I pass on the way to work to the Big 3 have problems.  Again, this is irrelevant to his position as Supervisor.  So is your concern about taxpayer money.  The Supervisor does not control it by himself, and its accounting is the duty of the Treasurer.  So, your comments have no bearing on the man or the election.  However, since the topics appear to be of great concern to you, let’s follow that path.

When Sam was the Supervisor he failed to uphold Michigan law at the road ends, conspired with Fred and others to thwart the law, used taxpayer money to create and twice litigate Ordinance 53, sued the HLPOA as part of his Ordinance 53 fiasco, ignored other public needs to fund the litigation, obtained a health insurance plan for himself and the board, all of which are part-time positions, that was more generous than what the full-time employees received, held meetings at restaurants and the township offices when closed to avoid public discussion or knowledge, did not allow his comments to be placed in the township’s meeting minutes, tried to censor the township’s website – the blog’s predecessor and more.

Fred was fully involved in and supportive of all of Sam’s activities.  In addition, he initiated the Townline mess by obtaining a ramp permit for public property in his own name to avoid public knowledge or comment and did not contact the adjacent property owners for the same reason.  He did this on his own volition, and part of his plan was to dredge the lake bottom far out from the ramp, which served no purpose other than to place boats on hoists in violation of the law.  Then he tried to get out of the public eye by transferring the permit to the township.  Sam was voted out of office by then, and Tatro had to resolve the problem and the one caused by the dock that suddenly appeared at the site – the dock no one admitted owning, but the HLCA offered in settlement for the township’s Ordinance 53 legal fees it had agreed to pay, but hadn’t. 

Nowhere in any of this was there ever an offer from Sam and Fred to repay the township for the Ordinace 53 litigation costs, which would have been proper as they pursued it even when the township’s attorney told them it was pointless.  Add the Townline costs to Fred’s tab, as he, not the township, got the permit.         

Williams’ work fails the audits, and the part-time job “requires” him and his wife to do poorly.  I’ve seen the financial records.  They are very basic, and should not require two people to compile accurately and in a timely manner.  I can’t see any reason why there would be problems as noted by the auditor, or why they were not rectified.  As I recall, Williams holds some other part-time jobs.  If so, that raises a key question.  If his other activities do not leave enough time meet his responsibilities as Treasurer, he needs to resign from something, not hire his wife to do what he is already being paid to do.     

So, that’s the history of these guys.  You have that as fact and some allegations about Tatro that have been explained well, are irrelevant to the job and coming from a source with a personal agenda and vindictive attitude.  Given that, an intelligent person would let Tatro get on with the township’s business and remove the others, as they have been proven to be impediments to progress and wasters of taxpayer funds.                           


E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

MAG (MAG@leadingchange.info)
Date: Fri 24 Oct 2008 08:23:28 AM EDT
Subject: Constituent
  Constituent,

I’m sure Paul appreciates your tactful summary of his problems. My wife went through a similar thing with her former husband. He had many problems and used her credit rather than face them. It took her years to repay his debts. The fact that his wife appeared with Sam at a public meeting solely to embarrass him is a sign that she is as ungrateful and vindictive as Sam and his cohorts. All Tatro can do is continue taking the high road and let the others wallow in the mud.

 
 
5234


Name: Constiuent (ptb@leadingchange.info)
Date: Thu 23 Oct 2008 05:20:55 AM EDT
Subject: Paul
  Paul is a gentleman. He took on all financial responsibilities for a failed marriage. His debt is taking care of all of his and his ex-wife's debt. I see taking on all responsibility of his and his wife's financial burdens to be a sign of the highest character.

Paul is a tireless worker as Supervisor of Lyon Township. His accomplishments are legion. He has nothing but success and total dedication to his committment to the community.

ptb

In Our Opinion
Not vindication


A recent decision by Roscommon County Prosecutor Marc Jernigan to not prosecute three Lyon Township officials for violating the Open Meetings Act should not be viewed as vindication for past or future violations of the Open Meetings Act. The prosecutor's opinion will stand.

But public officials should not take the Open Meetings Act lightly, and should respect the intent of the law, which is to conduct the public's business in the open, before the full purview of the public. It includes all elected officials with very few limited exclusions.

Although the three officials have denied violating the act, their open actions as witnessed by others contradicts their statements. Even attempts to skirt the law by holding discussions privately, or having two officials discuss an issue then relaying that information to a third party violates the intent of the law.

We hope those officials will take the Open Meetings Act seriously and follow both its intent and the letter. Should they indeed be caught violating it now we're sure their history would cast them in an unfavorable light in a courtroom.

There have been other cases of Open Meetings Act violations and disagreements about what constitutes a violation. Public officials would do well serving the public if there never was a question of a violation, or the appearance of a violation.

Voters must scrutinize public officials actions. It is in the public's best interest for government to be open and above board, and for the public to be observant about the public's business, where it is conducted, when it is conducted and by whom.

Open government is honest government.

Open Meetings violations probed


The Roscommon County Sheriff's Department recently concluded an investigation of alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act by three members of the Lyon Township Board.

After reviewing a report by Det. Sgt. John Wybraniec, Prosecutor Marc Jernigan wrote, "Although it would appear the suspects are violating the Open Meetings Act and have a history of said violations, it is something we, at this time, would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt." Jernigan said township citizens could seek a show cause hearing, contempt of court ruling or a determination of violation of duties as trustees in Circuit Court.

An anonymous telephone complaint was received by the sheriff's department July 31, followed by an anonymous letter alleging that Lyon Township Treasurer Craig Williams and Trustees Fred Koenigbauer and George Dougherty have repeatedly violated the Open Meetings Act over the last four years.

The letter stated, "...Since their election in 2004, they continually handle matters in private that should most certainly be handled at public meetings."

In an interview with Det. Sgt. John Wybraniec, Supervisor Paul Tatro said Williams, Koenigbauer and Dougherty frequently leave the township hall together, presumably to talk about public business. Assessor Julie Barton told Wybraniec that on Aug. 1, the three, at the township board table, discussed what position the board should take on the level of Higgins Lake and on Aug. 11 discussed road paving.

Clerk Annamarie Reno told the detective the three officials have told her two of them meet, then call a third to discuss issues. She said when Koenigbauer and another board member came to her house to try to sway her vote, she told them the issue should be discussed at a work session.

Office worker Pam Stephan said Williams, Koenigbauer and Dougherty meet together and whisper among themselves, presumably about township business.

Tatro, Barton, Reno and Stephan all told Wybraniec the three men have not heeded their repeated warnings not to violate the Open Meetings Act.

In an interview with the detective, Williams, Koenigbauer and Dougherty all denied violating the act and said the accusations are politically motivated. Koenigbauer said he meets with the other men individually at their homes. He said they have been especially careful since a 2004 investigation by State Police into similar allegations involving two of the current officials.

Lake access battles founder on wide variation in lawsBY PEGGY WALSH-SARNECKI • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER •

August 18, 2008 When Joan McCormick first saw her Clark Lake home just outside Brooklyn, Mich., in 1979, the seller proudly showed her the dock where she could leave her boat, right at the end of her road. She bought the house, bought a boat and has docked it there ever since.


But a squabble nearby between a lakefront property owner and backlotters -- those who live just off the lake -- prompted the Jackson County Road Commission last month to ban overnight docking off road ends and order backlotters to remove docks and other personal property from the water. They can apply for dock permits next year, the commission ruled.

"Why would I have even bought this house if I had never even been able to use the lake?" McCormick asked.

Neighbor-against-neighbor disputes like this are growing more common across Michigan with the rising demand for lake access. But resolutions are as varied as the disputes. Houghton and Higgins lakes have passed several ordinances governing water access. Battles are brewing near Traverse City and Grand Rapids. Crystal Lake doesn't allow road-end moorings, but West Bloomfield voted recently to continue them on Cass Lake. In St. Clair Shores, backlotters took on the lakefront homeowners for encroaching on their deeded access.

The mishmash of rulings has many experts demanding consistency either from the courts or the Legislature.

"There's a need to find a balance in this," said Robert McCann, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which has been dragged into some of these debates. "I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to this."

"When you have this wide range of rules, it does create confusion," added John Fitzpatrick, president of the Lake Leelanau Lake Association. Every lake's circumstances are different but de-politicizing the issue can be difficult, he said.

"I think every agency in state government has political influences," Fitzpatrick said. "I'd feel more comfortable with a judge. There's been an awful lot of money piled up behind these cases. Eventually somebody's going to throw up a test case before the Supreme Court, and then we're going to find out."Everybody wants in

The issue is simple -- a small number of people own waterfront property, and their neighbors off the lake must find a way to access the water without trespassing. Most lakes have some public access, but private access, even at a road end, can mean a place to picnic, sunbathe or swim and even moor a boat overnight -- activities prohibited at most public marinas. Besides, marinas can be so crowded, boaters sometimes wait hours for access.

But lakefront owners pay a hefty premium, on both their purchase and their tax bill, for unrestricted water access, and they often object to sharing access on road ends. So far, the state Legislature has been unable to agree on a law clarifying inland lake access rights.

Local governments understand community needs and local environmental issues best, said state Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, sponsor of the latest bill to tackle lake access.

His bill is generally considered favorable to backlotters because it would leave regulation of road end access to individual communities. But like earlier bills, Gillard's is having a tough time. It passed the House more than a year ago but will die if the Senate doesn't pass it by Dec. 31.

Others say local officials are often too reluctant to face the wrath of voters on the losing side of their decisions.

"There is a lot of pressure on local officials," said state Rep. John Stakoe, R-Highland Township.

Stakoe introduced another unsuccessful bill a few years ago that would have allowed road-end usage such as picnicking and even docks approved by the Department of Natural Resources. But it barred overnight docking, an approach considered favorable to lakefront owners.As time goes by

Other disputes arise at lakefront parks or parcels where legal restrictions on use have blurred over time. In some cases, backlotters have enjoyed water access without a deeded right to it. Eventually, lakefront owners realize that access isn't legal and fight to close it. Some backlotters like McCormick paid a premium for their homes assuming lake access.

The opposite can be true, too. In some cases, lakefront owners, over time, have usurped land deeded for community use, learning their property limits later after someone pressed the issue.

The Hi Lo Heights subdivision on Clark Lake was built in 1927. Over time, owners grew to consider the lakefront property directly in front of their houses as theirs, and they limited backlotter access.

But backlotters sued, and a judge ruled that the developers had deeded a 35-foot strip of land in front of those houses as a subdivision park. He ordered the lakefront owners to remove all their personal property from the strip of land.

"You're not going to please everybody," said Columbia Township Supervisor Ray Kuzminski. "It's just very unfortunate that there can't be some resolution aside from the court system."

Laurie Benninghoff of Glen Ellyn, Ill., hopes a court will rule in 2009 on usage of the Lake Michigan beach at the road end near her Fennville vacation house. The case was filed in 2005.

When she bought the house, Realtors told her she could access the beach from the road end, Benninghoff said. So far, the case has cost the Benninghoffs between $50,000 and $60,000, with costs for all involved running into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Lakefront owner Marty Prehn of New Baltimore is being sued by Houghton Lake backlotters who say his dock trespasses over lake bottom they own as part of their deeded access. Prehn says his dock juts out at a 90-degree angle from his lot, but the curve of the lake pushes it over the backlotters' lake bottom. He disputes their right to the lake bottom.

Prehn remembers enjoying Houghton Lake from his parents' backlot property.

"I made really nice with the lakefront homeowner in front of me," Prehn said. "That's how we did it in the old days."

Contact PEGGY WALSH-SARNECKI at 586-826-7262 or mmwalsh@freepress.com.

Topic: My Opinion

Comments: My Opinion,

Sorry to be late, but you required more time to answer, and I didn't want to short-change you.

Sam-O-Set is a road that runs along the shore.  It is not a road end, and the area between it and the lake is owned by the homeowners facing it.  You also know that roads running into Sam-O-Set terminate there, not at the lake and are not road ends.  Therefore, the picture was clearly erroneous and could only have been shown to knowingly mislead the committee, as were the others I already covered.   

The expansion of the DNR site was not stalled.  It is the normal governmental process.  The government, be it state or Federal, has established processes designed to ensure that what is proposed, let alone done, is legal and has provided ample time to all concerned to be aware and comment if they wish.  It is when someone does not follow the process that problems can arise.   

I am not rambling, but merely stating the obvious, which is that ignoring the law, pursuing litigation, hiring Bzdok and GCSI, etc. were things you (plural here and elsewhere as applicable) freely did.  You can’t say others made you do so.  But you can terminate them.         

Whether an HLCA board member has or has not told people to defy Jacobs is irrelevant.  You can endorse that behavior by doing nothing to stop it, or by doing it yourself.  As you know, many board members have done just that.  Some have been in Court.  Others have agreed to plead without going to Court.         

I stand by my assertion that your bills are special interest legislation, as evidenced by the fact that you did not oppose the amendment limiting them to less than 1% of Michigan’s lakes.  You said the bills were required to address a statewide need, but quickly abandoned that to obtain enough votes to pass them and benefit yourself.  If the amendment had limited the bills to only Higgins Lake, you would have eagerly supported it.   

I also stand by my comment that what you presented to the committee was not fact, but a story designed to hide your true motives and make your bills appear as something other than what they really are.

I am intrigued by your use of the term “testimony.”  Legally, it means information given under oath.  We all know the basic oath - tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Since you have first hand information, you can tell me if the following occurred.

Did Fred correct things by telling the committee that he was there representing himself, not the township?  Did he note that the Township Supervisor, who actually has the authority to represent the township, was abiding by the law?

Did Sam explain the recall of township officials for trying to do their duty to uphold the law?  Did he explain Ordinance 53, it’s invalidation by the local court, his appeal and that the Court of Appeals only removed the part related to the water, as it was illegal and the DEQ, not the township has statutory control of the water?

Why did Paxton claim to be representing the RCRC, not himself, as the RCRC has no authority over the water?

Did those who had been involved in litigation explain why the Court ruled against them?

Did anyone from POWAR explain its founder’s court case and why he lost?

Did the HLCA tell the committee that everyone already has lake access, but its members want public space so they don’t have to use trailers like everyone else?

Why wasn’t the committee shown pictures of road ends filled with dozens of boats on hoists?  Why hide from the committee pictures of what you are actually advocating?  Surely, you would be proud to show them a vast expanse of metal and plastic filling public water.   

Did Sheltrown note that he is a member of the HLCA and accepted campaign contributions from it and GCSI?  I know it’s in the public record, but doubt committee members research each other.

Why were the minutes of the hearing not published, and why did the summary make not detail the DEQ’s opposition and that it was barred from freely participating? 

This is important information that would have done much to inform the committee of the personal history and motivation of those involved.  It would have enabled them to clearly see the reason for your bills and place them in their proper light.  Why did you not provide the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” 

If your position has merit, it should not require subterfuge…. per Webster’s “That to which one resorts for escape or concealment; an artifice employed to escape censure or force of an argument, or to justify opinions or conduct; a shift; an evasion.”  Your entire history from before Jacobs to the present has been a grand exercise in subterfuge, as your position only seeks to benefit yourself at the expense of the public.  I truly wish it had been debated in the light of truth, but that avenue is one you have never taken.  And that is why people like Marty and I are involved.  We represent the public, and oppose your efforts to undermine its rights and take its property for your personal use and benefit. 

Please understand that this is not personal.  Nor is it a frontlotter/backlotter issue, as I am not a frontlotter.  It is simply a matter preserving everyone’s right to access our lakes on an equal and unobstructed basis.  Why you refuse to enjoy the lake on the same basis as everyone else escapes me, but you could have explained that to the committee as well.         

E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

Commission sets new lake policyPosted by Holly Klaft | Jackson Citizen Patriot June 13, 2008 09:34AMCategories: NewsWhat began as a neighborhood squabble has resulted in a policy that will set rules for lakefront access countywide.

The Jackson County Road Commission unanimously voted Thursday to institute the policy after hearing support or concern for the new rules from many in an audience of about 100 people.

"You recognize we have rights to the water's edge," said Brian Banas, who owns three properties near Clark Lake — one on the lake and two set away from the water. "I want to continue to enjoy our access point."

The policy would prohibit building structures, such as docks, at county roads ending at bodies of water without Road Commission approval. Docks built in the right of way must be designated for public use.

Storing watercraft overnight at the road ends also would be prohibited, unless the vehicle is broken down.

The policy was drafted after residents in Clark Lake's Lorwyn Court area brought their dispute regarding dock placement, access and waterfront use before road commissioners.

The problem, which had neighbors questioning who has the right to use the land at the end of the road, had been simmering for years, residents said.

"We're past the point of just ignoring the issue," said Commissioner John Hurd.

Now, summertime customs held for decades by many residents, who were used to installing temporary docks at county rights-of-way at their discretion and leaving watercraft there for weeks, could be affected.

Many residents, though hesitant to change their practices, accepted the policy with little objection.

"I have to respect their decision," said Clark Lake resident Sue Banas, the wife of Brian Banas. "I know something needed to be done."

Mary Koch, who has a home set back from Clark Lake, said she was glad to see the issue end.

"That makes things clear," she said.

But opponents said the policy would lower property values around county lakes.

Suzanne Creech, a Clark Lake resident and real estate agent who has homes listed near the lake, said the policy will have a devastating impact. She said it could drag property values down by as much as 20 percent.

"I don't know who's going to buy these houses," Creech said and added that new "backlot" homeowners and potential buyers who are not right on the water expected to have lakefront access.

She said she fears local marinas will raise prices because of the regulated waterfront use.

Jason Dunigan, a manager at Clark Lake's Eagle Point Marina, said the company does not plan to raise prices because of the policy.

Problems regarding lake access at county roads are not isolated to Jackson County.

They pop up throughout the state each summer, especially near Houghton and Higgins lakes, where decades-old disputes helped spark the introduction of a bill that would set rules for waterfront use statewide.

A 2006 Michigan Court of Appeals decision already regulates lake access and use at roads that end at Higgins Lake, setting rules similar to the new Jackson County policy.

Martin Prehn, a Chesterfield Township resident who has a home on Houghton Lake, voiced support for the county policy. He came to the meeting in Jackson because he is passionate about the issue.

"If you don't nip it in the bud now, it's just going to get worse," he told commissioners. "If you don't implement this policy, it's going to cost the county and the taxpayers."

STATE OF MICHIGAN

MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL


PLATS: DEDICATIONS:

CONST 1963, ART 3, § 7:

REAL PROPERTY: The scope of permissible "public uses" of platted roads ending at the shore of a lake

While the Legislature has the authority to modify the law, any legislative modification of the judicially established rules of property law that have shaped the rights and expectations of property owners regarding the meaning of "public use" in the context of platted roads ending at the shore of a lake has the potential to impact existing property rights and would be subject to the constitutional protections against the taking of property without due process and just compensation.

Opinion No. 7211

January 30, 2008

Honorable John Stakoe
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI 48909

You have asked whether the Legislature has the power "to revisit" determinations made by the Michigan Court of Appeals in court cases concerning the scope of permissible "public uses" of roads that end at the shore of a lake in platted subdivisions. The specific cases underlying your question are Jacobs v Lyon Twp (Jacobs I), 181 Mich App 386, 391; 448 NW2d 861 (1989), Jacobs v Lyon Twp (After Rem) (Jacobs II), 199 Mich App 667; 502 NW2d 382 (1993), and Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n v Gerrish Twp, 255 Mich App 83; 662 NW2d 387 (2003), all of which involved evidentiary and legal determinations regarding the scope of permissible uses at particular road ends on Higgins Lake.

Before addressing your question, some background information about plats and the law regarding the dedication of land in plats for public use is helpful.

In the two Jacobs cases and the Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n case, the property at issue fronted on Higgins Lake and had been subdivided and platted, or mapped, by the proprietors of the property in accordance with state statutes that allowed the creation of such plats. "Proprietor" is the term used to describe the owner of the lands that are subdivided by a plat. See, e.g., the Land Division Act, 1967 PA 288, MCL 560.101 et seq, at section 102(o), MCL 560.102(o). In addition to creating lots, the proprietors of the plats involved in these cases designated roads on the plats to provide access to the lots and to the shore of Higgins Lake. The roads ran approximately perpendicular to the shore of Higgins Lake and ended there. Jacobs I, 181 Mich at 387; Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n, 255 Mich App at 88.

As part of the platting process, the proprietors set forth words of dedication on the plats, thereby defining who could use certain common areas on the plats, such as roads, alleys, and parks, and how those lands could be used. As to the plats involved in the Jacobs I and Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n cases, the words of dedication simply indicated that the roads in the plats were for "public use." Jacobs I, 181 Mich at 389; Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n, 255 Mich App at 89.

A dedication of land in a plat "for public use" not only describes who may use the land and how it may be used but also serves as an offer of a gift of that land for public use. Wayne County v Miller, 31 Mich 447, 448-449 (1875). Under the laws that governed the creation of plats at the time the plats in the Jacobs I and Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n cases were recorded, lands dedicated by plats were deemed to be held in trust by the local unit of government having jurisdiction over that land. The Plat Act, 1839 PA 91, as amended by 1887 PA 309, stated:The maps so made and recorded in compliance with the provisions of this act shall be deemed a sufficient conveyance to vest the fee of such parcels of land as may be therein designated for public uses in the city or village within the incorporate limits of which the land platted is included, or if not included within the limits of any incorporated city or village, then in the township within the limits of which it is included in trust to and for the uses and purposes therein designated, and for no other use or purposes whatever.

This former provision of the then Plat Act is similar to that found currently in section 253(1) and (2) of the Land Division Act, MCL 560.253(1)(2), which states:(1) When a plat is certified, signed, acknowledged and recorded as prescribed in this act, every dedication, gift or grant to the public or any person, society or corporation marked or noted as such on the plat shall be deemed sufficient conveyance to vest the fee simple of all parcels of land so marked and noted, and shall be considered a general warranty against the donors, their heirs and assigns to the donees for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no other.

(2) The land intended for the streets, alleys, commons, parks or other public uses as designated on the plat shall be held by the municipality in which the plat is situated in trust to and for such uses and purposes.[1]

Under the statute by which the plats had been created and case law dealing with dedication, it has become well established that where land has been given for a public use, the permissible uses to which that property may be put are governed by the intent of the person who dedicated that land. In the case of a plat, the intent of the dedicator is determined from the language used in the dedication and the surrounding circumstances. Jacobs II, 199 Mich App at 672. The intent of any donor is inherently fact-specific and must be determined on a case-by-case basis according to the available evidence. Where the plat simply states that the roads are for public use and are shown on the plat to end at a body of water, the courts have consistently applied the principles reiterated in the Jacobs cases regarding the scope of permissible uses of those roads.

In addition to dedications to the public through the recording of a plat, there may also be "dedications" of land for the exclusive private use of persons designated in the dedication. See Martin v Beldean, 469 Mich 541, 546-548; 677 NW2d 312 (2004).

Regardless of whether the land has been dedicated for public use or for private use by the recording of the plat, private rights arise in the lot owners who purchase their land in reliance on the words of the plat. As noted in Pulcifer v Bishop, 246 Mich 579, 582-583; 225 NW 3 (1929):But it is also the rule in this and other States that the platting and sale of lots constitute a dedication of streets, etc., delineated on the plat, as between the grantors and the purchasers from them.

It is said in Dillon on Municipal Corporations (5th Ed.), § 1090:

"In this connection it must be kept in view that the platting and sale create certain rights in the grantees of the original owner, which, as between the grantor and the grantee, are irrevocable in their nature.

* * *

"But other decisions recognize a clearly defined distinction between the rights acquired by the public through dedication effected by platting and sale, and the private rights acquired by the grantees by virtue of the grant or covenant contained in a deed which refers to a plat, or bounds the property upon a street through the grantor's lands. These decisions adopt the view that where lands are platted and sales are made with reference to the plat, the acts of the owner in themselves merely create private rights in the grantees entitling the grantees to the use of the streets and ways laid down on the plat or referred to in the conveyance. But these rights are purely in the nature of private rights founded upon a grant or covenant, and no public rights attach to such streets or lands until there has been an express or implied acceptance of the dedication, evidenced either by general public user, or by the acts of the public authorities. In this view, the making of the plat and the sale of lands with reference thereto are merely evidence of an intent to dedicate, which like every other common law dedication, to be made complete and carried into effect so as to create public rights, must be accepted and acted upon by the public." Citing Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54. [Emphasis in original.]

Thus, private rights arise in dedicated or reserved areas of the plat upon the sale of lots within the plat. It is well established that a purchaser of property in a recorded plat receives not only the interest as described in a deed to the property but also whatever rights are described in the plat. Nelson v Roscommon County Rd Comm, 117 Mich App 125, 132; 323 NW2d 621 (1982). The Court in Nelson further explained that lot owners in plats have inherent rights to use the streets laid down in the plat and that those rights are in the nature of easements. The corollary to this principle is that owners within a plat have rights in limiting the use of such areas to their dedicated purposes such as occurred in both Jacobs cases and the Higgins Lake Property Owners Ass'n case. See also West Michigan Park Ass'n, n 1 supra, and cases cited therein.Jacobs IIPublicly dedicated streets that terminate at the edge of navigable waters are generally deemed to provide public access to the water. Thies v Howland, 424 Mich 282, 295; 380 NW2d 463 (1985);2 McCardel v Smolen, 404 Mich 89, 96; 273 NW2d 3(1978); Backus v Detroit, 49 Mich 110; 13 NW 380 (1882). The members of the public who are entitled to access to navigable waters have a right to use the surface of the water in a reasonable manner for such activities as boating, fishing, and swimming. An incident of the public's right of navigation is the right to anchor boats temporarily. Thies, supra at 288. The right of a municipality to build a wharf or dock at the end of a street terminating at the edge of navigable waters is based upon the presumption that the platter intended to give access to the water and permit the building of structures to aid in that access.3 Thies, supra at 296. The extent to which the right of public access includes the right to erect a dock or boat hoists or the right to sunbathe and lounge at the road end depends on the scope of the dedication. McCardel, supra at 97; Thom v Rasmussen, 136 Mich App 608, 612; 358 NW2d 569 (1984). The intent of the dedicator is to be determined from the language used in the dedication and the surrounding circumstances. Thies, supra at 293; Bang v Forman, 244 Mich 571, 576; 222 NW 96 (1928). [Jacobs II, 199 Mich App at 671-672.]

_________________________23 However, it is not to be inferred that the municipality has the right to appropriate the road ends to any use inconsistent with the dedication. Backus, supra at 120. In Thies, the Court ruled that public ways that terminate at the edge of a navigable body of water are treated differently from those that run parallel to the shore. Thies, 424, supra at 295.

The Jacobs II Court held that, where platted streets are dedicated "for the use of the public," a nonexclusive public dock could be erected at the road end, but individuals could not erect boat hoists there or sunbathe or lounge. 199 Mich App at 670, 673.

In the Jacobs I case, the Court of Appeals had held that the construction of a public boat dock at the shore of a dedicated, platted road was within the scope of the dedicated public use and that the use of surface waters adjoining the road end for swimming, wading, fishing, and boating and to temporarily anchor boats were also within the scope of the dedicated public use. Jacobs I, 181 Mich App at 391. But the Court also held that the "construction of boat hoists, seasonal boat storage and the use of road-ends for lounging and picnicking exceed the scope and intent of the dedication of property for use as streets." Id. (Emphasis added.) Jacobs II continued these holdings in the subsequent decision on appeal after remand.

Returning to your question regarding whether the Legislature may modify a rule of property law that has been developed regarding the dedication of platted road ends upon which persons have relied when acquiring interests in platted lands, it appears that you are asking whether the Legislature may retrospectively broaden the parameters of what constitutes permissible "public use" when these words have been used in a plat dedication. This issue was addressed in Jacobs I. Lyon Township enacted an ordinance that the Court described as follows:In 1987, apparently in response to the ongoing shoreline conflict, defendant township enacted Ordinance 31 which purports to govern public water and land-related activity at lake road-ends. In short, the ordinance provides for the erection of no more than one nonexclusive private dock at each road-end which must be maintained for public use, prohibits overnight mooring, prohibits permanent mooring posts, permits the erection of boat hoists, prohibits parking on the roadway, and prohibits the dry storage of boats, boat hoists, docks, et cetera on the land at the road-end. The ordinance provides that, except as otherwise prohibited, the general public may use the road-ends for "lounging, picnicking, swimming, fishing and boating, provided such activities do not create a safety hazard, cause unreasonable congestion, interfere with the intended use, or otherwise disturb the peace." [181 Mich App at 388-389.]

The lot owners in the plat under review in Jacobs I sued the township, claiming that the uses and activities permitted by the ordinance exceeded those contemplated by the dedication of the streets for public use. The Court agreed that certain uses and activities were beyond the scope of the dedication and ruled that the provisions of the ordinance allowing such activities "must be stricken": In this case, we believe that the construction of boat hoists, seasonal boat storage and the use of road-ends for lounging and picnicking exceed the scope and intent of the dedication of property for use as streets. Those activities are not necessary to either the use and maintenance of the streets, or to provide public access to the water. As our Supreme Court noted in McCardel [v Smolen, 404 Mich 89; 273 NW2d 3 (1978)]:Lounging and picnicking on this wide boulevard, activities which need not involve use of the water, are not riparian or littoral rights. We agree with the Court of Appeals that "[t]hose activities are in no way directly related to a true riparian use of the waters of Higgins Lake; even assuming that the defendants choose to lounge and picnic on the boulevard because of the lake's proximity. In that context, the only 'use' of the water is the enjoyment of its scenic presence." . . .

The question whether the public has the right to enter and leave the water from the boulevard, like the question whether they may lounge and picnic on the boulevard, depends, rather, on the scope of the dedication. [404 Mich 97.]

Plaintiffs also claim that the public beach and party activities on the road-ends created a nuisance and plaintiffs seek abatement of those activities. We need not review the trial court's ruling on plaintiffs' nuisance claim in light of our decision that the portions of the ordinance permitting those activities beyond the scope of the dedication in this case must be stricken. [181 Mich App at 391-392; emphasis added.]

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals noted the court decisions holding that road ends at lakes are presumed to be intended as a means of access to a lake, and that municipalities could erect docks at the road ends to facilitate public access to a lake or river. Jacobs, 181 Mich App at 390. But the Court went on to note that a municipality has no right to appropriate road ends to any use inconsistent with the dedication, citing Backus v Detroit, 49 Mich 110, 115; 13 NW 380 (1882).2The decision in Jacobs I is also consistent with Baldwin Manor, Inc v City of Birmingham, 341 Mich 423, 428; 67 NW2d 812 (1954), where the Michigan Supreme Court held that the City of Birmingham was precluded from building a road through a park which, if built, would "make impossible, or at least impracticable, the use of parcels No 1 and No 2 for park purposes." The Court relied on the legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) to summarize the law concerning government's ability to alter a dedication:Likewise, in 26 CJS, Dedication, § 65, pp 154, 155, it is said:

"Except as appears below,[3] if a dedication is made for a specific or defined purpose, neither the legislature, a municipality or its successor, nor the general public has any power to use the property for any other purpose than the one designated, whether such use be public or private, and whether the dedication is a common-law or a statutory dedication; and this rule is not affected by the fact that the changed use may be advantageous to the public. This can only be done under the right of eminent domain. On the other hand, the municipality cannot impose a more limited and restricted use than the dedication warrants." [341 Mich at 430-431; emphasis added.]

Similarly, statutory changes to property rights created by established rules of property law may not be applied retroactively if that would result in an adverse impact on those rights. In Gorte v Transportation Dep't, 202 Mich App 161, 167; 507 NW2d 797 (1993), the Court of Appeals held that a statute precluding a claim of adverse possession against the State did not apply to the plaintiff where application of the statute would result in abrogating or impairing the plaintiff's vested right. The Court of Appeals found that, because plaintiff's right had vested before the effective date of the statute, the plaintiff could successfully assert his claim of adverse possession against the State.

The Court's rulings in Jacobs I and II and Higgins Lake were based on over 100 years of common law precedent, and any alteration of the property interests identified in those decisions must, therefore, be considered in that context. The rights and expectations of property owners are legitimately grounded in long-standing recognition of those rights and expectations. See, e.g., Bott v Natural Resources Comm, 415 Mich 45; 327 NW2d 838 (1982). As discussed above, Michigan law prohibits marina-like operations, such as permanent boat mooring or hoists, and sunbathing and lounging, at road ends dedicated "for public use" unless such activities are authorized by the dedication. Thus, a statutory change allowing these activities at road ends in already existing plats could have an adverse impact upon the rights of the property owners within the plat, particularly those whose properties are situated next to these road ends.

Const 1963, art 3, § 7 provides that the "common law and the statute laws now in force . . . shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are changed, amended or repealed." Thus, the Legislature has the ability to modify the law. Rusinek v Schultz, Snyder, & Steele Lumber Co, 411 Mich 502, 506-508; 309 NW2d 163 (1981). However, the Legislature is subject to constitutional limitations. Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions prohibit the taking of private property without just compensation and due process of law. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 10, § 2.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This prohibition is applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chicago, B & Q R Co v Chicago, 166 US 226, 234; 17 S Ct 581; 41 L Ed 979 (1897). Similarly, the Michigan Constitution provides: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record. [Const 1963, art 10, § 2.]

Of course, whether any of these constitutional limitations would be implicated by a particular legislative action seeking to alter the meaning of "public use" is fact-dependent and cannot be answered in the abstract. Generally, however, when property dedicated for a particular purpose is appropriated for an entirely different purpose, this may afford grounds for a court action to enjoin the inconsistent use or secure compensation for the interference with valuable property rights. See Ford v Detroit, 273 Mich 449, 452; 263 NW 425 (1935). See also Austin v VanHorn, 245 Mich 344, 347; 222 NW 721 (1929); Sanborn v McClean, 233 Mich 227; 206 NW 496 (1925); and Allen v Detroit, 167 Mich 464, 469-470; 133 NW 317 (1911).

It is my opinion, therefore, that, while the Legislature has the authority to modify the law, any legislative modification of the judicially established rules of property law that have shaped the rights and expectations of property owners regarding the meaning of "public use" in the context of platted roads ending at the shore of a lake has the potential to impact existing property rights and would be subject to the constitutional protections against the taking of property without due process and just compensation.
 

MIKE COX
Attorney General

1 The same or similar language first appeared in the territorial acts of March 12, 1821, and April 12, 1827, and continued in 1839 PA 91, the Plat Act of 1929, 1929 PA 172, and the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, 1967 PA 288, which is now called the Land Division Act. See Kirchen v Remenga, 291 Mich 94, 111; 288 NW 344 (1939), and West Michigan Park Ass'n v Dep't of Conservation, 2 Mich App 254, 262; 139 NW2d 758 (1966).

2 A municipality has no proprietary interest in the dedicated areas. See Village of Kalkaska v Shell Oil Co, 433 Mich 348; 446 NW2d 91 (1989), and cases cited therein.

3 It is not necessary to address the exceptions noted in 26 CJS § 65 to answer your question. is regarded as the leading case concerning rights in dedicated streets ending at water, summarized by the Court as follows:

The following message was submitted:

Topic: USC - my plan

Comments: UCS,

I’m often accused of being totally against the backlotters and
completely for the HLPOA, or using my concern with the rights of the public,
as a diversion.  None are correct.  I simply want to preserve the
rights of everyone and allow them to enjoy the lake.  Given that, here is my
view of the real problem and what might be done to resolve it in a
manner that benefits all in some manner.  It won’t be everything
everyone wants, but more than they have now, except possibly some riparians to
a very limited degree.  In essence, it is a PMA, or: 

Plan for Meaningful Access

Sam-O-Set

Let’s keep it simple by doing away with Sam-O-Set as an issue tied to
road ends.  You make excellent points about the negative aspects of
its current structure.  I don't see that it needs to remain as a
conduit for through traffic or snowmobiles.  It can be closed to that, which
should accomplish many of your goals.  It could also be vacated and
turned over to the property owners as a private road assuming the
governmental agencies don't want it for a public one. 

Lateral Roads

Let's also exclude all the roads lateral to the water i.e. those that
don't physically end at it.  I don't think anyone is concerned
with them, as there is no water involved.  For clarification and as an
example, these roads include those that end at SoS or a similar lateral
road.   

Roads Physically Ending at the Water

These roads actually end at the water “ what we commonly call the
road ends, an example of which would be Maplehurst.  These are the
sites of interest because you can launch a boat or physically enter the
water from them.  What follows pertains to them.

History

As you know, when the Jacobs case was heard and through the appeal
process, both sides were free to make whatever arguments they felt had
merit.  At the end of that process the Courts maintained that these roads
were dedicated to the use of the public as roads and lake access points,
not as parks, beaches or marinas, and to ensure that everyone could
use them equally, they had to remain open and unobstructed.  The
permitted activities accomplish that and are self-limiting e.g. fishermen and
swimmers require space to cast or move so you would not have such a
large number that you would need monitoring.  In contrast, picnicking,
sunbathing or lounging (PSL) occupy the space for an extended period and
deny its use to others.  So do private docks, boat hoists and overnight
mooring, as they remain when their owners are absent.      

In the litigation, there was discussion about the number of people (not
docks, hoists or boats) who could occupy a road end for an extended
period without creating a problem for the adjacent property owners.  I
don't recall the numbers, but the dialogue was along the lines of
whether 5 would be a problem, and if not, would 50 cause one.  The Court was
trying to get a sense of what each side thought was reasonable.  I
suspect that got muddied by linking docks, hoists and boats with people,
rather than focusing on the people alone.  That linkage was an
impediment then, and is now.  It also assumes that everyone who would use a road
end is a boater, which is not true.  So, focusing on people alone
makes more sense. 

In addition, the HLPOA has said its primary concern is private docks
and hoists, and does not see its involvement in other matters.  So, it
may be amenable to an alternative.  The operative word is "may," as I
neither belong to the organization nor speak for it.  But what follows
is more of an individual than organizational matter, and the HLPOA's
role may well be that of an endorser rather than a participant.  That
would apply to the HLCA and POWAR as well.    

Benefits of Separation

Many will object to this separation, as it is counter to the positions
of the HLCA and POWAR.  However, even if those organizations’
legislation was to be enacted, it would not apply to Higgins Lake, as its
subdivisions and road ends have been adjudicated.  New legislation does not
negate that.  As an example, suppose I'm driving on I-75 and get a
speeding ticket, and pay the fine.  Three months later the Legislature
raises the speed limit to what I was driving.  I can't get the fine
back, or have the points removed, as the law in effect at the time of the
ticket is used, not the more recent one.

If we remove private docks and hoists from the equation, we might be
able to open the door to people activities in some form, and that would
benefit the backlot residents.  It is safe to say that those whose
primary desire is to place a hoist in the water rather than use a marina or
trailer will dismiss the concept, but history clearly shows you can’t
do anything if physical objects and activities are linked, and we are
only floating ideas here.
 
Road Ends – Boat Launching

There are 80-90 road ends at Higgins Lake.  Let's split them into
those that are naturally suitable for boat launching and those that are
not.  Suitable means from a trailer, as you can carry a canoe or
inflatable to the water from any road end, and that would remain so.  Naturally
means as they are without dredging or any other alteration.  This
removes a large environmental issue for the DEQ and HLPOA, which is active
in work to save or restore the shoreline. 

It is also where we all need to agree that the health of the lake is
paramount.  It is a contradiction to claim to be very concerned with the
lake and then advocate dredging to make a launch site out of one not
suitable for it.  The lake changes over time, and we need to work with
what exists, not alter the lake to meet our personal needs.         

Not every road end that is suitable for launching may be developed as
such meaning with a ramp.  Ramps would be added when and where truly
needed to meet the demand for launching, not for mere convenience or to
avoid reasonable waits, and per DEQ regulations.  These road ends, in
conjunction with the state's three launch sites and the Boat Yard
development would meet the needs of those wanting to launch a boat.  Some
will say that I'm trying to restrict access, but that isn't true.
  Ramps cost money, and would probably entail a public dock, which the
township, not the residents, can install.  Before making that investment, it
makes sense to be sure they will be consistently used by more than a
few people.  Consistently means throughout the boating season, not just
on holiday weekends.     

These sites could have a public dock and Jacobs would apply.

Road Ends  People Activities

The other sites would be changed to allow some form of the activities
that are currently illegal.  At first, I thought it could be done by
taking an agreed upon plan to Court to seek a relaxation of Jacobs.  But I
did not know if that was even possible, and realized it could easily
result in another round of how many people, is the number fixed or
variable by site, how is the public accommodated, etc.  So, I rethought it.
 

No one has ever been sued for eating a sandwich at a road end or
watching their kids swim, and I don't see that as even a remote
possibility.  Nevertheless, the potential bothers some.  So, let's remove it,
but in a way that involves the adjacent property owners and has their
support.

These roads are dedicated to the use of the public as roads.  If they
are vacated, and no other governmental body wants them as roads, they
revert to the owners of the property upon which they rest, and those
people can do whatever they want with them.  This vacating may be of
the entire road or as little as the adjacent lakefront lots.  Vacating
and turning them over to the property owners will increase the taxes
they pay, and most would not like that.  So, what if there was a way to
return the roads to the adjacent property owners in a form that provided
for use by others and avoided the taxes?

Lake Access Partnership

My sense is that lakefront owners do not object to backlotters using
the road ends in a reasonable manner, but a problem arises when the sites
effectively become beaches,  parks or sites for parties.  Based on
that premise, and the townships' and RCRC's desire to participate in a
reciprocal arrangement as a form of local control, we could do
something like the following.    

The RCRC agrees to maintain the roads (or ends of) as it currently does
and the township agrees to waive any taxes on the property under it.
  In exchange, the adjacent property owners agree to allow the townships
to create a people friendly environment consisting of a picnic table or
two with integral seating and no maintenance plantings to both
stabilize and beautify the site and better define the space (but it could be
done without this).  The township's role in this partnership also
includes enacting an ordinance governing the activities permitted, hours of
operation, noise limits, litter prevention, and the number of people
allowed, just as the fire department sets the capacity of a building.
  This ordinance would reflect the agreement(s) previously reached between
it and the adjacent property owners, which could be modified in the
future by all parties to it.  This is local control that is both proper
and in accord with the court rulings. 

The agreement would automatically continue if a home was sold.  The
property values of the lakefront homes could increase by avoiding the
taxes and having the certainty afforded by direct input into the site’s
use and capacity.  The backlot residents would have locations to use and
no concern in doing so.     

The effect would be a site that allows people to have lunch, watch the
lake or children, enjoy a sunset, etc. but avoids having so many people
at one location that it becomes a park or beach.  The adjacent
property owners would be aware of the people, but not prevented from the quiet
enjoyment of their own space – much like they currently have with
their neighbors on the opposite side.     

There would not be a dock as the site is for people, not boats.  The
adjacent property owners, having regained their riparian rights to the
subject property, could install swim buoys, which would prevent boats
anchoring at a site designated for people.  The public would be allowed to
use the site, but this is unlikely to occur.  Visitors will be staying
at a motel or camping, and to use the lake will go to a larger site
with sanitary facilities.      

I can hear backlotters saying this is another attempt to restrict
access.  My answer is that we have some 80 or 90 road ends.  Even when you
devote some to boat launching, most are available for people activities.
  If you have 75 sites with 10 people at each, you have a capacity of
750 people at the same time.  And you still have the multiple state and
township parks.  Yes, it's possible that someone may not be able to
use his favorite site on a given day or time, but he would be able to
use another close to it, and the activities would be legal, as these
would no longer be public roads.

I can also hear some riparians saying this is a bad idea, because they
already have Jacobs.  I would agree, but this is where being a good
neighbor enters the equation.  If the site is properly designed, held to a
previously agreed to capacity and those using it are respectful of
others near them, it should be workable.         

Summary

Under this scenario we have a separation of the road ends by potential
use, more launch sites that complement the existing and planned ones
with a reserve for the future, the ability of people to use the other
sites for picnicking and the like in a defined manner, allowance for the
public, mutual respect, local control, avoidance of environmental
issues, movement of the issue from organizations to individuals, a long term
partnership with mutual benefits, no need for legislation or the state
dictating what else local governments must do to install a public dock
and more.   




E-mail: MAG@leadingchange.info

The following message was submitted:

Topic: Urging a break in the action

Comments: Perhaps we can take a break in the name calling and court
case citations. 

Today, while we argue about who can place hoists where, over 400
children went to a school that has been labled a 'dropout factory'.  They
went to a school ranked among the worst inner-city schools in the state. 

Perhaps we can leave the 'carpet bagger' mentality behind for a few
rounds.  I am sure that we can call each other names in the spring when
there is water instead of ice.

The following message was submitted:

Topic: Informal Poll on the UCS Plan

Comments: I was asked for how well received the UCS Plan has been
received informally.  For anyone new to the board, the UCS Plan is quickly
explained as:
-- Close SOS to traffic.  Reduce width to 12 feet or less to allow for
'driveway' passaged for landlocked properties and more importantly for
pedestrian traffic.  'Extra' road reverts to lakefronters yard
-- Create deeded roadend access for Lyon Manor or S'Lodge residents to
be managed through a community organization

I have not had conversations with everyone obviously and most of my
conversations have been informal, beer conversations rather than serious
debate.  I hesitate to give percentages because the sample size is not
enought to draw conclusions and maybe some were being 'kind' to me with
their comments.  But in general, the break down is
-- Postive 50%
-- Supportive, but need more info or have concerns 25%
-- Opposed 25%

Lakefronters
-- Positives typcially see SOS as a problem for noise, dust, traffic.
  Postiives also see the financial benefits.  They typicall are either
'long-timers' (20 years or more) or 'newbies' (less than 5 years)
-- Supportives typically like the idea, but want more info prior to
making a formal commitment.  Their questions typically go around how would
docks be managed (who, what, where, when) and the effects of taxes.
  Supportives are typically personalities that are very formal (not making
commitments without all data) or people who (in my estimation) are on
the finanical edge.
-- Opposed typically are the 'old guard' who simply see the world only
in frontlotter/backlotter terms.  I am not sure that I explained the
plan in a way that they appreciate it.  Lakefronters who oppose the plan
want nothing to do with a roadend dock, even when you tell them they
can sell their place and move with the extra-value created.  Backlotters
who oppose the plan do not want to 'give' lakefronters anything,
especially giving them 'real lakefront' by closing SOS. 

The funny thing is that this split applies to BOTH lakefront and
nearlot residents.

Where do we go from here?  I am looking for suggestions.

E-mail: sense.uncommon@yahoo.com

The following message was submitted:

Topic: Ah, the irony of it all

Comments: In general, I find irony very amusing.  And this board
contains some great examples.


Certain lakefronters, Ed,MAG and Marty, want roadends to have 'public
access', by which they mean access for all -- but access limited to
walking into and out of the lake.  Not even sunbathing.  Some would say
that access is not 'meaningful'. 

Backlotter et al want 'public' roadend access to be granted who have
won a lottery, so that 'meaningful' access to can be given to public,
although the lottery makes certain members of the public 'more
meaningful", if you catch my literary reference

It seems that the term 'public access' is used by both groups to
forward their own agenda.  I don't mind, but recognize that these attempts to
use a 'moral highground' arguement are a bit self-serving and
typically polarizing to other side.

Meanwhile, I have proposed a different model.  One that is not based on
'public access', but on 'limited access', on 'neighborhood access'.
  In summary, replat Lyon Manor to effectively trade the closure of
Sam-O-Set for roadend docks managed by and for the residents of Lyon Manor. 

The irony that I find so amusing, is that my model, based on 'limited
access' grants 'meaninful access' to the most while not excluding the
larger 'public'. 

Further, I have been accused by some the ardent lakefronters (Marty)
that by having a more inclusive model to allow neighborhood docks that I
am excluding the public -- who could still walk into the water the same
way that they can.

Lastly, those who claim they want 'meaningful access' (backlotters)
have not supported my idea, at least not on this board.  The irony is that
my vision is the only one offered that permits roadend docks except
for the 'lottery fairy'. 

So...
-- those who don't want 'meaningful' access, argue for 'limited' public
access for all
-- those who want 'meaniful public access' argue for a lottery with
'limited' winners
-- the guy (me) who proposes 'limited' access, actually has the plan
for the most 'meaningful' access
-- those who argue for public access don't support negotiating with
their neighbors for access, even though they would receive a benefit in
return
-- those who could receive a benefit from a negotiated solution would
rather wait for government votes and court cases. 

Wow.  How ironic.




E-mail: ucs@yahoo.com

Topic: Repost of an inclusive vision

Comments: Repeat of post 185 --- With the renewed emotion evident on
the board, I again offer a more inclusive vision.

I have a unique perspective on the roadend situation. My family had a
'backlot' cottage since before I was born in the Lyon Manor / Sam-o-Set
area. Through good fortune, I am now a lakefronter.

I remember the days of getting a call from a local resident and putting
docks all along Sam-o-Set before the backlotters were limited to the
roadends. Everyone would agree that situation was mess. While there was
access, it was unmanaged and uncontrolled. When Backlotters were
limited to roadends, our street formed a 'community dock' that was well run,
well mananged and well governed. We purchased insurance, before it was
mandated. We made improvements to the road-end. It may not have been
the prettiest situation with over 10 boats, but it worked for everyone on
the street. In fact, the roadend dock developed to be a type of
community center that was inclusive of the corner lakefronters. Life was
well. Then came Jacobs. Things changed and I moved on.

Now as frontlotter, I understand some the points made and agree with
many. Having hoists at a roadend in a unmanaged manner is acceptable.
Having random hoists of people who may not even be property owners in the
neighborhood, township, or even the county is totally outrageous.

However, I do believe that there a solution that could have been
adopted if cooler, more inclusive heads had prevailed. The model of
frontlotter/backlotter is insufficient for many neighborhoods. If you were to
develop Lyon Manor again in 2006 versus 1906, you would include the
'backlotters' in some form of riparian rights in order to increase the land
value. Other neighborhoods, particularly on the West side of the lake,
with little 'stub' streets, clearly have no real purpose. In those
cases, the current rulings make sense. But for Lyon Manor, I think a more
inclusive environment could be crafted.

Therefore, I propose a different model: 'frontlotters', 'nearlotters'
and 'backlotters'.

Frontlotters are the traditional riparians.
Nearlotters are 'backlotters' in neighborhoods that are contiguous to
the lake. These are lots that in the modern world would have some sort
of rights
Backlotters are everyone else.

The effect of this model would be most noticed in Lyon Manor.
Frontlotters would be as they are now. Backlotters, non-neighborhood lots, would
have no rights, as under Jacobs. But Nearlotters could have road-end
access via a properly managed community dock association.

What would be the benefits of this model? Well, if Nearlotters, the
residents of Lyon Manor and neighbors of Frontlotters, had access, many
positive reinforcing loops begin. First, the value of the land would rise
by about $100,000 per lot. (Check current real estate prices for
association land in Gerrish versus current Lyon Manor prices). The increase
in taxable value would certainly help the township and schools.
Secondly, owners of Nearlots would certainly maintain their properties and
perhaps even improve them -- increasing taxable value more and maintaining
a pleasant neighborhood. Thirdly, a more enjoyable experience for
Nearlotters would likely lead to more useage and thus more revenue for
local merchants.

What are the problems? Well, community docks are not the most appealing
structures. Secondly, more people, could lead to more disturbances
around the dock.

What if the community docks offerred dock spots to the adjacent
Frontlotters would not need to own or maintain a dock of their own. I find it
quite expensive to maintain a 80-100 foot dock all for myself.

But would a boat slip be enough to justify a community dock for
Nearlotters who currently have no rights? Very unlikely. But what if we could
close Sam-o-Set to motorized traffic and turn Sam-o-Set into a
promnenade for walkers/joggers/bicycles. Such a change would benefit
Frontlotters as removing the formal street would increase land values by $200,000
or more. And keeping the access for pedestrian traffic would eliminate
the safety hazards of careless drivers while maintaining the current
feel of the neighborhood. If I were to develop Lyon Manor today, I would
certainly do something similar.

In terms of vandalism and property damage, wouldn't more people at a
community dock be more likley to spot trouble makers than just a single
family? I am not at Higgins all the time. If I was on a community dock,
wouldn't my neighbors keep an eye on my boat? Wouldn't I do the same
for them. In the interest of full disclosure, I have had equal incidents
of vandalism as both a Frontlotter and Nearlotter - about once every
five years.

Lastly, some have argued that the 'extra' boats would damage the lake's
environment. But is a boat sitting on a hoist with some people dropping
Potato Chips into the lake the biggest threat? Or is it now the
Backlotter/Nearlotter who is not force to trailer their boat who decides to
take it home for a week or two to put into Lake St. Clair. The
introduction of Zebra Muscles may not have been prevented, but do we really want
more people to be trailering their boats between Higgins and St.
Clair.

We could always do nothing, keep things the way they are. How many
improvements are people doing to the Nearlot building? Not many from my
observations. Are the 'good families' moving away? Who is moving in? Who
will move in?

Certainly, this note will incite many. Closing Sam-o-Set. Granting
riparian rights. Wow, practially calling 'Fire' in a theater. And even if
people wanted to attempt this vision. How many entities are require to
successfully execute? HLPOA, HLCA, Lyon Manor residents, Lyon Township,
Road Commission. Ouch, even the thought hurts. Yet, the vision of a
vibrant neighborhood, with the best of all worlds (no cars and meaningful
access) presses on my mind.

To me, it is just uncommonsense. What do you think?


E-mail: ucs@yahoo.com

I am very busy studying for my college courses and have been recalcitrant in keeping up with the blog.  I would be most happy to put pictures of lake history on this site.  I would need you to email me and we could arrange a time for a picture contributor to come over to scan in pictures. We CAN make this happen.  (tom)

Comments: Like I suggested in my previous post Marty.  I have many
photos that I can share with you regarding the history of the area probably
further back they you have and I'm willing to share them with you as
well.  You however will have to post your photos.  I will send mine to
Tom and you will have to do the same and Tom can post them on this site.
  There is no reason why everyone shouldn't enjoy the history of the
area.  Higgins Lake pictures are not going to shed any light to a
Houghton Lake case.  I have many photos of Houghton lake as well that date
back very very far.  You would probably have a great interest in my
photos.  I was surprised to hear so many people say that photos and history
of the area didn't exist.  I think issue was no one bothered to look
except you and I.  

YOUR OPINIONS.  I disagree quite often with your politics but I agree wth your take on not eliminating extracurriculars and fine arts programs. You never know where a student will shine or how he or she will find the inspiration to succeed in life.  Youth is too valuable and short to pull any plugs on the richness it can offer. Always err on the side of liberality when it comes to what we offer to youngsters in potential opportunity.  (tom)

It is fun to go over all of the solid blogging of good ideas and information every day.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank bloggers for the broad scope of an education you have afforded me.  (tom)

Thanks  for the comments.  I respect you and your opinin.  Thursday I demonstrate my project to Professor Donna and the class and I will be sure to let you know if thier critique mirrors your own.

Leading, thank you for your comment-it was much appreciated. (tom)

I recieve full identification directly from Bloggers computers as they check into my server.  Thus I am the only one on the blog knowing the true identity of every participant.  I have not and will not reveal this identification with anyone (not even my wife!).  Please continue identifying yourselves in a consistant manner.  Thank you Bloggers for all of your collective cooperation and yor enlightening blogs.

By the way I am back in College gaining further competence by getting a Webmaster's Associates Degree.  I will try my best to address blog issues as I work on school work.  Hopefully the blog and my website will become better as my education in Webmastery continues.

I plan to be there with some KFC/Macaroni/good attitude and hope to see the rest of the blog participants.  Turn at Oliver's Carpet-go to the end of the road and stop or you will crash into Marty's place.  (tom)

The newest Road Commission members are women (hear them roar). 

• Kimberly Akin of Houghton Lake is currently zoning administrator of Denton Township.
• Jackie Bertsh is the owner of Performance Propane. 

Don't forget the get together at Marty's on Sunday.  Drop overs on Saturday are also welcome.  I hope to meet some fellow bloggers on my Sunday afternoon potluck visit.  My wife and I will bring ourselves and a dish to pass.  I really hope to see you there!   (tom)

All post come to me via email and it was easiest for me to edit through the email instead of checking into my site to converse.  It was a dumb idea.  I am properrly chastised and will ceace the practice immediately.   (tom)

Topic: Stay Tough

Comments: Don't let them get to you SD.  No other politician or their
aides will take part in this blog so they have to focus all the
frustrations of their political impotency on you.  My guess is they all vote
for Joel anyway because he's the only one who will give them any
attention.

E-mail: northernopinion@leadingchange.info


Joel and SD have been objects of my exasperation since this blog began.  Though I disagree often with thier politics they are active and vital  cogs in the wheels of diverse opinions on the blog.  Brady AKA SD has been an object of my wrath and esteem hundreds to thousands of times or more in blog archives.

I finally met Joel Sheltrown at the Friiends of the Library's cook-off at the East Bay Lodge.  To my pleasant surprise Joel was a nice man with many ideas on lake issues.  He and Marty had a good talk about how to get frontlotters and backlotters together to talk out the issues. 

www.HoughtonLakeMilfoil.blogspot.com

SEE AN ENTIRE PAGE OF LINKS
BY CKICKING GREEN LINKS
it is underr construction and almost completed.
REMEMBER LYON TOWNSHIP, "UNITED WE STAND AND PROSPER, DIVIDED WE FALL AND FAIL." tom 

Look closely at the young man to the left-back of  SuperPresident. 

There will not be privatized hoists at Publicly Dedicated Roadends.

Feelings will lessen but will never leave those wanting what is impossible to have.

Too many people are so intent on hurting or getting back at people / not changing laws.

Many are born to jealousy, sloth, and greed., and human bravado covering  up "a gimme life".

The overwhelming majority are born to hard work, high goals and ideals, ambition in work.

Some are born to complain in fierce and self indulgent living for the moment.

The overwhelming majority are born to discipline, deferred gratification and wise spending

Because we live in a society of worker ants and taker ants, envy engenders  hatred for haves.

Takers are have