Another reason for loss of small businesses
The Alpena City Council's " Zero Tolerance" policy toward zoning has struck yet another blow to business in Alpena. Despite a recommendation from City Planning and Development Director Greg Sundin the Mayor led a 3 to 2 vote against allowing Mr. Bill Sefton to develop a lot behind his business for additional parking.
Alpena has no shortage of vacant lots and, even worse, buildings that once housed viable businesses. Turning vacant lots into useful properties should be a goal of Zoning and the City Council. With zoning ordinances comes the mechanism to accommodate beneficial change.
Praise should be given to Councilmen Karaschnick and Nunneley for voting in favor of complying with the simple request to make a parking lot out of a vacant, deteriorating piece of property that is already owned by Mr. Sefton.
This was my first council meeting. The experience made clear the reason behind the exodus of small businesses from the City.
Bob Lamb
Alpena
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
amos57usa
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-09-09 5:33 PM
|
excell...yes...he said he had to travel because of local government....not that he was struggling because of local government. You do have a serious case of jumping to unsupported conclusions and we all hope u rest it. Now take your gun and go stand in Kmart and wait:)
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-08-09 9:57 AM
|
Hippie said, "I am also a small business owner and I am struggling. These types of decisions by local government are why we all have to continue to travel for hours to get a lot of our shopping done. This town is not in the least friendly to business." I rest my case.
|
|
amos57usa
|
|
|
11-07-09 7:36 AM
|
excell..hippie is right, nowhere in his post die he say he is struggling "because of local government." That you would jump to unsupported conclusions has been demonstrated in your previous defensive right wing rantings. If your are half as sour as your posts indicate then you need a free laugh...Sarah Palin :)
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-06-09 9:42 PM
|
hippie...You said, and I quote, "I am also a small business owner and I am struggling." And I also quote, "This town is not in the least friendly to business." You also JUST said...and I again quote, "Nowhere in my post did I state that I was struggling because of local government." Are you for real hippie? Did you READ your statements? I think you've hit bottom!
|
|
HuronHippie
|
|
|
11-06-09 8:43 AM
|
And another thing, Trinity. Nowhere in my post did I state that I was struggling because of local government. I do not blame them for my problems, nor do I need a scapegoat to blame for all my problems like you do: liberals.
|
|
HuronHippie
|
|
|
11-06-09 8:07 AM
|
ExcelTrinity: "Hippie, you are struggling because of other factors besides local politics. EVERY business is struggling due to the national economy. Someone elses parking lot has not effected you one bit. You curse big business and then stand beside it over the will of the people." A couple questions. How do you know why I am struggling? How do you know what roadblocks local government has presented me? I am not against big business; I am heavily invested in it.There is an old axiom you should take to heart: "It is better to remain silent and be presumed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-03-09 1:50 PM
|
Hippie, you are struggling because of other factors besides local politics. EVERY business is struggling due to the national economy. Someone elses parking lot has not effected you one bit. You curse big business and then stand beside it over the will of the people. It's a common statistic evident with liberals. Curse them, but give them billions without strings. Geesh!
|
|
HuronHippie
|
|
|
11-03-09 7:48 AM
|
I am also a small business owner and I am struggling. These types of decisions by local government are why we all have to continue to travel for hours to get a lot of our shopping done. This town is not in the least friendly to business.
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-02-09 11:43 AM
|
I can understand the argument that the business owner also owns the other property. I believe the issue was over encroachment into a neighborhood. That is what the final decision came down to. Although the property is owned by the business, it is not zoned as business for a reason. The owner knew this when he bought the property, yet he bought it. I can see the reasoning for needing the extra parking but that is irrelevant when the concerns and wishes of the homeowners come into play. They come first. Their voices are stronger. They live there. This basic intrinsic value must remain firm.
|
|
twizhill
|
|
|
11-02-09 9:07 AM
|
The owner of the property said he would make all necessary changes, including fixing the drainage. It seems to me that the people of this city are all talk and no action when it comes to being business friendly. Here we have a business owner who is not being allowed to expand his parking because people who live near the business won't be able to park on HIS property anymore. This makes no sense, and is a lesson to people who may be thinking of opening new businesses...don't, it's too much trouble. This is bad business.
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
10-31-09 1:18 PM
|
Like I said summertime, I agreed with the councils decision. But funny is funny regardless.
|
|
summertime
|
|
|
10-31-09 8:03 AM
|
The planning commission and the city council totally got this right. Mr. Sefton bought a house in a residential neighborhood , ran it in the ground, then tore it down. This is a residential neighborhood and it needs to stay residential. Build a house on the property. Tear down the house on Chisholm across the street that he already owns. The nice man, who happens to be outstanding citizen, and also wears different clothes, has every right to defend his position. I own a business in this part of town and I support this decision 100%.Buy the house on Chisholm next to his Realty firm and then tear this down, and nobody would complain.Also, the man in pajama looking clothes does not drink Pabst.
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
10-30-09 11:12 PM
|
...Would the owner fix drainage issues...permanently? There was so much crazy discussion it was hard to figure out what was going on. This is why I sided with the homeowners...initially. But to be fair, the true owner is the owner of Wendy's. It was sold to him. There has to be some kind of middle ground here. The first homeowner to speak showed up in what looked like pajama pants and stated that he could be home watching wrestling. LOL! I had to die laughing. I'll bet the owner could have bought his vote for a six pack of Pabst!
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
10-30-09 11:04 PM
|
I saw the same meeting on Channel 2. I'm pretty sure the main reason for a no vote was due to the citizens resistance. The citizens that immediately live next to the property were dead set against the move. Initially, I agree with the vote. But what I am still confused about is the drainage issues, and whether or not it would devalue the immediate homeowners. I don't recall that issue rising. The location of the Wendy's dumpster was resolved. Do the residents have access to their homes "without" access to this property for parking? ...
|