Sandusky Bay Pavilion, BG partnership great idea

Register
May 22, 2013

 

Save Our Shoreline Parks was invited and attended the meeting at the Sandusky Bay Pavilion with Commissioner Cole and BGSU on May 1.

Our function at the meeting was to provide a history of the site from beginning (1980) to the present and made it perfectly clear the site is a federally protected public access area and should continue to be so under BGSU’s plan.

Indications from BGSU are their facility would be secure and would not interfere with the Maritime Museum and Wightman/ Wieber Foundation’s continued use of the property for special events beyond 2016 and general public access to the site. Their “footprint” at the property would be small — perhaps the pool area.

It’s no secret one City Commissioner in particular continues to push the sale of this property. BGSU’s presence at the Sandusky Bay Pavilion will ensure the property stays out of the hands of private land grabbers and in the hands of a university willing to develop environmental educational services while protecting public access.

Kudos to Commissioner Cole and BGSU for thinking outside the box to protect one of Sandusky’s most valuable resources.

Tim Schwanger

Click here for related articles, video and photos. 

Comments

Larry

I wonder why Dedra Cole wasn't considered for city manager ?

luvblues2

This idea makes MUCH more sense that just leaving it the way it is, currently.

totallyamazed

.
As long as the city doesn't create a 100 year lease for BGSU...why not?
.

Nemesis

It still doesn't utilize the majority of the property except for a few days each year - what a waste.

"Private land grabbers" - Marxist Schwanger's hatred for property rights is palpable.

Licorice Schtick

The Sandusky Bay Pavilion is open every day like any other park, although mismanagement makes it look closed and uninviting, and certain interests like it that way.

And your McCarthyistic name-calling is just stupid (and probably actionable.) This has nothing to do with private property rights - we're talking about public property.

Nemesis

I drive past it during the day fairly often - outside of a handful of special events, the gates have always been padlocked. Frankly, until the pool is removed or secured with more than yellow caution tape, anything else would be irresponsible 99% of the time, the only ones enjoying the property are seagulls.

Using a term like "Private land grabbers" to describe those who use honestly acquired funds to purchase a commodity that is legally traded in all non-communist countries is pure marxist agitprop. Schwanger's crusades and rhetoric betray a fundamental hostility to private ownership of land (or at least of highly desirable land) which is a central pillar of communism. To imply that those engaging in honest, legal transactions are criminals, simply for wishing to enjoy the fruits of their own endeavors, is far worse than pointing out Schwanger's ideological underpinnings.

That "pavilion" is a regional embarrassment. If any private owner who allowed their property to deteriorate into such a decrepit health and safety hazard. the place would be condemned as blighted and seized by emminent domain. If the city can't take care of it, they should sell it to someone who can.

If they simply bulldozed the entire thing, planted grass, and removed the fence, I'd be in complete agreement with comrade Tim about the city keeping it. They haven't even managed that. If one of Schwanger's "private land grabbers" purchased the property, put up a half dozen private homes and sold each to a large family, it would see more person-days of use per year than it does now.

To be clear, I shared his opposition to the marina district project, but not out of a knee jerk reaction to the sale of land to private parties, and I supported his charter amendment campaign. His outspoken hostility to private property and capitalism, however, are an obstacle to economic development in Sandusky. He's like a giant UN-welcome mat for investors.

pavedparadise

@Nemesis

Oh brother:

I can't imagine shwanger having a problem with private developers grabbing your property.

I bought a C1 Convertible 2 door 1962 Chevrolet Corvette. I paid $5000 for it in fair condition knowing it's worth $40,000 when restored. I hit a financial hard time, restoration has stalled which will not last for ever. Now, you see the front of the vehicle sticking out from under the cover and see an opportunity. You offer me $6000. Do I sell it to you or do I rely on a friend to borrow money from for restoration and enjoy the vehicle for years to come.

Nemesis

What you do is up to you, based on what best serves your needs, but making the offer doesn't make me a nefarious villain. Like I said, I opposed the project, but I didn't think the developers were the devil incarnate just for proposing it, like Schwanger does.

T. A. Schwanger

###

I'll take Nemesis' comment as a compliment. Thanks.

I base my, and other's, opinion on past outside private developers and local property owners' attempts to con the City out of the Sandusky Bay Pavilion/Surf's Up property (1991, 1998, 2006).

In fact, if not for the financial input from the Wightman/Wieber Foundation and Wightman/Wieber Kids Fest Celebration Committee and a contract with the Sandusky Maritime Museum, the SBP would continue to deteriorate by design thanks to past, and some present, commissioners-demolition and sale by neglect.

It appears you have not visited the site in recent history. The park has been re-opened for 4 years.

T. A. Schwanger
Pres;SOSP
Protecting the publics right to public access.

Nemesis

I couldn't ask for better validation. Marxists who are honest about what they represent are a whole lot better company than the ones in denial.

Licorice & AJ, it seems your umbrage is premature.

Nemesis

Tim, how can they possibly "con" the all-knowing mandarins of government to whom you think all property should be entrusted? They made offers - is that now a crime?

My neighbor has an old motorcycle sitting in his back yard, with weeds growing up around it. It's been like that for years. If I observe that he's never going to put it to any use, or make any effort to get a market price for it, and offer to buy it for a very low price, am I somehow committing a crime against him?

Your neighbor has a dog - he never pays any attention to it, and leaves it chained out in the yard year round. Half the time you have to give it food or it would die. You offer to buy the dog, take it into your home, and love and care for it. Have you somehow wronged your neighbor?

It's petty and childish to allow something to go to waste just to keep someone else from having it.

pavedparadise

@Nemesis

Comparing apples and grapes

Nemesis

fruit is fruit

AJ Oliver

Well Nemesis - way to go all "ad hominem" on good 'ol Tim (you'll have to look it up).
Tim does hate greedheads who try to steal our parks.
I'm proud to support him in that.
And Tim is not afraid of cowardly anonymous attacks like yours.
Man up and use your own name if you want to trash someone.
Otherwise, you are a nothing but a snivelling cowar

santown419

Thank you AJ. Im also in support of Tim .

Nemesis

How does one "steal" a park? Do they need to hotwire it? Is Julie R.'s stepfather perhaps involved?

Nemesis

To have a resource wasted just to keep someone else from using it - that's really mature.

pavedparadise

@Nemesis.

I find this your best answer to date---a blank

Nemesis

By the way Tim, in your signature, it says "protecting the public's right to public access." I was wondering, which part of the Constitution enumerates this right? It seems to imply that if something is desirable, that the public at large has a right to it and no one can keep it for themselves. I can see that principle leading to a lot of absurd outcomes.