Home The Bois Blanc Island Site
An interactive site for islanders and island lovers
 
 Home  ::  Forum  ::  Album  ::   Calendar  ::  Memberlist  ::  Usergroups  ::  Register 
 Profile  :: FAQ  ::  Search  ::  Log in to check your private messages  ::  Log in 

Speakers at Public Hanging

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Bois Blanc Island Site Forum Index -> BBI TOWN HALL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: Speakers at Public Hanging Reply with quote

I had my little recorder with me at the hanging, as allowed by law. I didn't speak because I am a truly terrible speaker. I have listened to the St. Germaines opinions and questions at the hanging and want to respond. I may get to Joe later.
--------------------------------------------
The St Germaine’s opinions & questions at meeting to discuss recall of planning members

1. Cheryl asked who started the referendum and who complained? She presumes Planning did it. A good question.

She was told that three planning members, outside of any planning meetings, acting as citizens of the township, asked for a referendum vote. No one complained to the Three.
[I presume that they did that because they thought the township was not following the wishes of the majority of landowners expressed in the master plan. In other words, the Three thought the township was doing something ethically wrong.]

2. Cheryl asked, why two rezones were allowed and the VanVoorhees one was not? Cheryl was under the false impression that Planning had zoned a small parcel commercial and next zoned the parcel next to it commercial. She had asked Lani about that. A good question.

She did not listen, or misunderstood, the correct answer that Lani gave her. Lani told her that the property was commercial next to the 2nd parcel. Lani answered her correctly. She was not lying. The second part of her question answered, was that the VanVoorhees was a different situation, that it was spot zoning in a low density residential area, and that planning did not approve of that sort of thing based on the master plan.
[It is false to believe that there was a domino thing happening and that it all happened at once. If this is a rumor going around, please do not believe it. Evidence shows it to be false. On the east side of the bar there was once a trailer that Don Saville and “Sponge” lived in. That is the 1st parcel. The 2nd parcel is west of the bar property. The recreational vehicle spot, on bar property, has been commercial for years. Do you remember the cabins? The use of that property was changed though. Maybe that is what confused Cheryl?]

3. Why is it not against the master plan (in the area of the bar)? Does that.(the area near the bar) go from Hoover to Hoffmans? A good question.

Obviously, the parcels changed to commercial were not between Hoover Rd. and Hoffman’s, So the obvious question would be why is that not against the master plan. The answer was that there was already a long established (grand fathered) commercial 1 property there and the additional properties changed to commercial only increased the size of that commercial area. [This is a normal thing to do.]

4. Cheryl stated that in her opinion there was a real problem wearing two hats, that it was ethically wrong in her eyes.

That is her opinion and she has every right to have it. The question I ask, is it the correct opinion to have?
[My opinion is that it was ethically wrong in the Threes eyes for the Twp. to ignore the master plan. That they based everything they did on Law and high ideals.]

5. Cheryl asked what constitutes a meeting. Another good question.

She was answered in the meeting. I offered my copy of the open meetings act to her to read the legal definition of a meeting. She said she had read that but refused their definition.
[My opinion of this is that Cheryl will not accept the fact that the three did no wrong.]

6. Cheryl asks, How did you get together? She states that she is confused. She states, They were doing business!

This is Cheryl’s opinion. People have differing opinions and that is why the definition of ‘meeting’ is in the open meetings act.
[My opinion is that I doubt if Cheryl’s opinion will change. Her questions were answered but probably not to her satisfaction.]

7. Cheryl states, it is unethical to sue the twp. That it is just wrong.

That is her opinion and has every right to it.
[My opinion is that the Three had every right to do what they did. And that the township is being unethical and unlawful in what they are about to do. Remember, the only avenue they had, legally, to get the referendum before the voters was to sue, and were following their high moral and ethical standards. I hope Cheryl can see my point of view.]

8. Paul states, that it was not right in his mind, that in the letter to voters, it was inferred that three planning people did it (called for the referendum).

I have to admit that the Three, who are members of planning, should have explained that better.
[My opinion is that it should have said, we, as citizens, voters and landowners, acting for the majority have done this referendum. It is too late for that, but I must point out that it was true, they are, in addition to being citizens, voters and landowners, are also planning members, who found out that it was entirely above board and legal to do what they did.]

Please think about this.

Is it ethical & lawful for the township to dismiss, with no evidence to support their actions? It was admitted by Loren, at the public hanging, that there was no evidence and that he could do it just because.
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."


Last edited by mikewhite on Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pstgermaine
Syrup Seeker
Syrup Seeker


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Boblo Island

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike,
You could at least spell our name correctly. It is ST. GERMAINE. Smile Am I to understand that now we are two of "The Others"? If you would like to meet somewhere and discuss your interpretation(s) of what was said, I will be happy to do that. This is the very reason why I went to the meeting.... to ask about my concerns and get some factual answers. This site is a great medium for relaying information as long as the information is totally accurate. Your editorial comments about what I think, or because of the ludicrous idea that we are neighbors of the Gibbons is just another biased interpretation on your part! I would be happy to discuss with you exactly what I was saying and what I wanted to know. I am used to dealing with issues personally. If you have issues with the questions that I asked, perhaps you should have voiced them at the meeting; in person. I said what I said, asked what I asked, and if I seem to be confused it's because the answers I received didn't make sense to me. If you still are fuzzy about where I'm coming from, please contact me and we can discuss this. I will not banter about this from a distance. This issue has caused hurtful feelings and some of the accusations that I've read on this site should never have been made. You do have a right to your opinion, but please base your opinion on facts, not interpretations, such as being someone's neighbor.

Thanks,

Cheryl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pstgermaine
Syrup Seeker
Syrup Seeker


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Boblo Island

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Mike. Glad to see you retracted your comment about us being neighbors with the Gibbons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Answer to Cheryl Reply with quote

I went back and added an "e" to your name.
You asked about concerns, and I believe I put them down correctly. and as I said, they were good questions. You got some factual answers.

But, you also stated that what they were doing was ethically wrong in your eyes. I said you have every right to your opinion. Then I gave you mine. You stated, with certainty, that they were doing business. That is your opinion, and then I gave mine. I agree with Paul in what he said. then I gave my opinion of how I would have done it.

I went to far on the last paragraph. I apologize. I removed it. I should not express everything I may be thinking. My opinion was based on your statements that you made, not your questions. I am biased. I will admit I am on Lani's side. From your statements, I presumed that you are on the townships side. Am I wrong?
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pstgermaine
Syrup Seeker
Syrup Seeker


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Boblo Island

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Mike. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:58 pm    Post subject: Speaker for the Three Reply with quote

One speaker at the hanging was the Three's lawyer. He brought up the legal part of the whole thing. He says Loren is working under an older state law that does not apply to the situation, the Township Planning Act, MCL 125.324. The lawyer said the township is operating under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3101. The difference between the two, the way I understand it, is that in the former older law, the supervisor, with approval of the twp board can dismiss planning members. In the newer act, evidence must be presented to support claims against the accused.

I asked the accused what they did on the job and I was told they have been doing both planning and zoning, since they were able to, under the old act.

Anyway, if that lawyer is correct, not only is the township doing something unethical, in by biased opinion, but they would also be doing something unlawful, in my unbiased opinion. The township is getting advice to use the old act as mentioned at the hanging.

All members of the township were made totally aware of the fact that they probably were acting under a law that did not apply to them prior to holding the hanging. They decided to do it anyway.

If a lawsuit happens, this would be the basis for it, as I understand it.
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jester
Gold Coast Guest
Gold Coast Guest


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 181
Location: Cheboygan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I (for one) seriously believe that someone should step forward in this State and revise all the MCL's and find out just which ones are outdated and completely remove them. If by some chance this could happen, I think many of the *loop holes* will be removed. If the People would take a stand on this issue, and show just how many devious actions could be terminated, we the People may find it easier to get things done in the *correct* manner they are suppose to dealt. Instead of *bashing* *hanging* or corrupting the *opinions* that are slung, find the answers within the *MCL* and devote our time into constructive avenues to get things done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:02 am    Post subject: MCL's Reply with quote

The MCL's are constantly being changed to reflect Acts that are passed in Lansing. the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act went into effect in July. From what I have read it consolidates all government entitys under one act instead of three different acts and forces the consolidation of planning and zoning. It allows governments 5 years to combine planning & zoning into one commission, IF the government has not done it already under the old act. The old act allowed combining planning & zoning . It has been combined for years in Bois Blanc Township. So Bois Blanc already complies with the new act. I need to go to michiganlegislature and read the new law and see if there is any mention of anything that covers the situation happening on Bois Blanc. I do know that other townships are changing all their normal procedures to comply with the new act. In addition, Bois Blanc Twp. sent planning people to meetings to learn about the new plan so that they would comply.
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."


Last edited by mikewhite on Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jester
Gold Coast Guest
Gold Coast Guest


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 181
Location: Cheboygan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it is already done, then the other Act should not have even been in there ...... Don't you think? You stated before that the three had a lawyer that said that they are using the OLD act .... just remove the darn thing ....Out with the old and in with the new ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: I agree Reply with quote

I agree. Instead of giving local governments 5 years to combine P & Z, they should have said that as of July it will be done. The issue here though is not the combining part, but the dismissal part. The law went into effect in July and that part, does not have a 5 year phase in. That opinion may have to be decided in court again. It has been in court already in other local government cases, I think.
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jester
Gold Coast Guest
Gold Coast Guest


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 181
Location: Cheboygan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, I also agree that we have many many so called *interns* that work in Lansing and other places. The last time I was in Lansing I went into the building and when I entered the DBA office, 6 *interns* were on break, sitting there jabbing thier jaws about what they were going to do that night, after standing there for 15 minutes, one approached me and said, "Oh thats right, what were you needing again?" Holy Cow ...... I almost fell over ....... Now take those *interns*, put them in front of a computer, highlight the MCL that is outdated and CLICK DELETE, Look under FILE, Click Save, Click TOOLS, Click Print. Simple? Yes it is ..... Once an updated Act is placed into law ,,,,,, Click, follow steps outlined in previous guide, end of story ........What a wonderful way for our youth to learn the Acts, MCL's ...... READ THEM ....... I'm just peaved is all ...... Thanks for letting me vent ......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mikewhite
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1404
Location: Sand Bay

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:38 am    Post subject: Here is what I found! Reply with quote

Go to www.legislature.mi.gov for everything. Here is an excerpt of the new act. I added bold to the parts that the township has read already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE III
ZONING COMMISSION
***** 125.3301.new THIS NEW SECTION IS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 *****
125.3301.new Zoning commission; creation; transfer of powers to planning commission; resolution; membership; terms; successors; vacancy; limitation; removal of member; officers.

Sec. 301. (1) Each local unit of government in which the legislative body exercises authority under this act shall create a zoning commission. A zoning board in existence on the effective date of this act may continue as a zoning commission subject to a transfer of power under subsection (2) or until 5 years from the effective date of this act, whichever is earlier. A planning commission exercising the authority of a zoning board before the effective date of this act may continue to exercise that authority subject to this act.

(2) Except as otherwise provided under this subsection, if the legislative body has transferred the powers of the zoning commission to the planning commission as provided by law, the zoning commission shall be the planning commission of the local unit of government. The legislative body shall have 5 years from the effective date of this act to transfer the powers of the zoning commission to the planning commission. Except as provided under this subsection, 5 years after the effective date of this act, the zoning commission shall not have any authority under this act or an ordinance adopted under this act.

(3) If a zoning commission is created after the effective date of this act, the zoning commission shall be created by resolution and be composed of not fewer than 5 or more than 11 members appointed by the legislative body. Not less than 2 of the members of a county zoning commission shall be recommended for membership by the legislative bodies of townships that are, or shall be, subject to the county zoning ordinance. This requirement may be met as vacancies occur on a county zoning commission that existed on the effective date of this act.

(4) The members of the zoning commission shall be selected upon the basis of the members' qualifications and fitness to serve as members of a zoning commission.

(5) The first zoning commission appointed shall be divided as nearly as possible into 3 equal groups, with terms of each group as follows:
(a) One group for 1 year.
(b) One group for 2 years.
(c) One group for 3 years.

(6) Upon the expiration of the terms of the members first appointed, successors shall be appointed in like manner for terms of 3 years each. A member of the zoning commission shall serve until a successor is appointed and has been qualified.

(7) A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as is provided under this section for the remainder of the unexpired term.

(Cool An elected officer of the local unit of government or an employee of the legislative body shall not serve simultaneously as a member or an employee of the zoning commission, except that 1 member of the zoning commission may be a member of the legislative body.

(9) The legislative body shall provide for the removal of a member of the zoning commission for misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in office upon written charges and after public hearing.

(10) The zoning commission shall elect from its members a chairperson, a secretary, and other officers or establish such committees it considers necessary and may engage any employees, including for technical assistance, it requires. The election of officers shall be held not less than once in every 2-year period.

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff. July 1, 2006.

Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Page 6 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

Bold emphasis added by Mike White.
_________________
mwhite@wildblue.net
"The more nature you keep, the more nature you'll enjoy." and "It's not who is right, but what is right."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Conis
Resident Royalty
Resident Royalty


Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 2198
Location: My New National ID Forehead Tatoo

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(conis edit) I Have started a new topic called BBI TOWN HALL, to pick things up from this point. Information has been spread between 2-3 different threads... condensing is all. Please post further comments there.
_________________
Remember, half the people you know are below average.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Jester
Gold Coast Guest
Gold Coast Guest


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 181
Location: Cheboygan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roger

><><><><><

10-4

Copy That!

Over!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Bois Blanc Island Site Forum Index -> BBI TOWN HALL All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group