As readers of this blog are aware ...
The Law of Remunerative ReturnsSome residents were none too pleased when the Crystal Lake Park District passed an ordinance restricting access to their lake.
The ordinance was passed despite part of Crystal Lake being situated within the boundaries of the Village of Lakewood.
The Village of Lakewood was none too pleased enough to send the Crystal Lake Park District a letter:
Not exactly a cease and desist letter, the Village of Lakewood sent a NIMBY letter:
Re: Ordinance 11.41.1 amending Parks and Property Owned or Controlled by the Crystal Lake Park District
Note to Ops: When you're in Crystal lake, ask for bottled water. Just Sayin!
4 comments:
Village of Lakewood is right. It’s a farce the park district has jurisdiction of private Crystal Lake inside Lakewood’s village borders. A farce profitable for a corrupting attorney.
Crystal Lake’s waters are unfortunately the latest polluted with bogus legal opinions. Another (yes, another) wrongful use of government and attempt to paint lakefront residents as “criminals” while the attorney stands to profit from the war he created.
Instead of harassing the rightful lakefront residents, the attorney who drafted this toxic turd and had his Director obtain and present an unqualified opinion from an IDNR employee (so as to give undue credit to this bogus “law”) ought to be the one prosecuted.
Pay this profiteering war monger what he’s earned: an orange jumper.
"What happens under Crystal Lake doesn't stay in Crystal Lake."
Or how about,
"What happens in Round Lake Beach doesn't stay in Round Lake Beach."
A story comparing this municipal lawyer's 2005 opinion about non-public lakes located only partially within municipal borders with that of this park district lawyer's 2019 opinion of non-public Crystal Lake located 100% within municipal borders would be the beginning to the de-polluting. It's mindboggling this same lawyer who pumps out conflicting opinions - depending upon whom he 'represents' - also leads seminars about ethical use of government. Ticket holders may want to ask for a refund.
The story should also detail the IDNR's role or lackthereof towards the park district's ordinance. It should reveal whether or not the IDNR did or did not provide an official IDNR opinion in support of the agenda. Anyone at the park district or IDNR involved in misrepresenting the IDNR to trick commissioners into adopting the ordinance should be held fully accountable for any deception.
It's as if the lake has been annexed by Nazi Germany. (Sorry, the "lake bed" as Mr. Puma claims, not "lake.") Yes, the quacks pitched their regulations as being "reasonable." How "reasonable" is it when they seize control of lake bed inside of different towns and have no authority to do so? If they are so "reasonable", why did they ignore the widespread protests from residents and towns? If so "reasonable", why did they trample an intergovernmental agreement between the two towns established over twenty years ago, one that helped create control of the lake and ended a long, costly dispute? We're supposed to believe "reasonable" includes the towns had control of the lake water but not of the lake's bed under the water? What's "reasonable" about dispensing propaganda like the Illinois Dept of Natural Resources believes Mr. Puma's client's regulations are "constitutional" when the IDNR has never done this before or after adoption? What's "reasonable" about commissioners failing to even ask for IDNR-documentation of what was alleged in the meeting to get the regulations? What's "reasonable" about government railroading? What's the next "reasonable" from the Fourth Reich, swastikas on every dock and raft anchored "on their lake"? Sorry, "on their lake bed".
"Reasonable" access to and use of the whole private, natural lake was the basis of the High Court's ruling in Beacham. Mr. Puma's client has no authority to determine and dictate any "reasonable" use of any part of a private, natural lake.
From the July 18, 2019 Minutes
“Commissioner Gallagher explained the Park Board adopts policies for staff to implement. Gallagher asked Executive Director Herbster how the District would implement this ordinance if the Board approve the amendment. Director Herbster stated concerns would be enforced on an as needed basis. If a concern is brought to our attention, we would respond accordingly. The proposed ordinance will provide backup if needed. Enforcement would not take more staff time than what is currently spent on lake issues.”
Anyone in enforcement knows ordinances are only as good as they can be enforced. The Director is vague and evasive with his response about enforcement. He recognizes its illegality and wants it anyway. His intention is to use the unenforceable ordinance to harass, slander, and bully. “Backup”? “Not take more staff time” to enforce? Lip service from a lying bully. Inept Commissioner Gallagher meekly accepted this dog and pony show for a response then voted yes.
Post a Comment