Sandusky Bay Pavilion, BG partnership great idea

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. 



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


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


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


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.


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.



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.


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.



I agree with your comments but not the tag.


Which tag? Mine? A rose by any other name....

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
Protecting the publics right to public access.


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.


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.



Comparing apples and grapes


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


Thank you AJ. Im also in support of Tim .


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


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



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


I’m sorry but I am not picking up on the value to the public of BGSU building a lab at the Sandusky Bay Pavilion other than the city relieving itself of its responsibility to maintain the property. The lab can be built anywhere; why are we endorsing this giveaway to BGSU?

We keep hearing these cries to drum up traffic for the downtown area and then we neglect the obvious of restoring the original intention of the Sandusky Bay Pavilion. It doesn’t make any sense to send folks out of town to get wet when we can bring them downtown to get wet at a nice facility.

If the city really wants to do us a favor they can give BGSU the Keller Bldg. for their lab.

T. A. Schwanger


@ DGMutley

We agree with your statement 100%. There has been years of public led discussion regarding reopening the pool after it closed in 2004 due to what was termed "budget constraints".

In the years that have passed, public opinion has been to reopen as a non-wave action pool to cut down on expense and prevent accidental drownings (recall one occurred).

Not wanting to alienate golfers, since I play myself, but if the City put half the amount of money into Surf's Up as they have the golf course over the years, the pool would be up and running today.

Can you imagine what type of facility we could have with an operational pool and the presence of the Maritime Museum, the Wightman/Wieber Foundation and the Kids Fest Celebration Committee sponsored public events?

However, we are realists. Based on lack of interest by City Commission over the years, and 20 years of periodic attempts at selling the property, the SBP/Surf's Up property will continue to be on private developer's and government official's development radar unless we move forward with a project similar to Commissioner Cole's and BGSU's potential plan of creating a world class research and learning facility headed by the scientific community of BGSU working with Sandusky City Schools, offer hands-on learning experiences for our students, and have researchers and scientists come here, to study Sandusky Bay and Lake Erie while protecting the park.


The pool closed because no one wanted to go there because of the behavioral problems. Proximity to neighborhoods where people don't accept the normal rules of civilized behavior, e.g. don't shoot anyone, make that problem likely with any public facility - a few weeks ago it was demonstrated that one can't walk one's dog at Battery Park without fear of being attacked by marauding vicious dogs - can the people who raise them and let them run free be far behind? While I stand corrected that the facility is technically open, it's a veritable maze of interrupted sight lines from the road, with only one narrow way in or out - it's a veritable hunting ground for two legged predators. Pull down the fence, open the park up to the street, and clear the sight lines.


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.