Member Profile

Shutesie

Active Poster

157 posts
About
Full name
Greg Shutes
Homepage
None
Location
Three Rivers, MI, USA
Occupation
Not listed
Title
Not listed
Rank
Active Poster
Sex
Not listed
Age
Not listed
Recent Replies 5 items

Weenie King

Three Rivers Area • Mar 18, 2012 5:24 AM

I saw Weenie King at Hardings yesterday. I'm glad he was able to find a solution. Now instead of people saying 'Hey, mom can I get a library book.', they'll be saying 'Hey. go in and get me a gallon of milk.' Way to go library, I guess you win.

Three Rivers awarded a $940,000 grant Mural Mall

Three Rivers Area • Mar 10, 2012 7:20 AM

Grants are available for communities that seek to target areas of traditional downtowns for facade improvements which will have a significant impact on the downtown/community. The Downtown Faade Program is structured to provide commercial/mixed-use building faade improvements to sustain and minimize deterioration of the downtown area. This is from the Michigan Advantage website. The Michigan Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program gives money to communities to improve their downtown areas. If the money is available then it's the city's job to get everything it can. It's our job to make sure the State is justifying spending tax dollars on projects like these by providing information that supports the need to spend the money. Do the improvements that the grants pay for creating the results that are desired.

Weenie King

Three Rivers Area • Mar 10, 2012 7:02 AM

My two cents The city creates laws allowing street vendors to operate within the city under specific guidelines. We do want to help small business right? Many businesses have started as small operations like that and then grow to be able to support having a more permanent location. The city has jurisdiction over the library parking lot due to being responsible for taking care of it. The city allows Weenie King to operate in the parking lot. Some on the library board do not care for this to my understanding but are unable to stop it. I myself do not see a problem with private business operating on public property as long as the public is not prevented from using the space or it becomes a problem. In this case say the parking lot filled with vendors or sanitation issues occurred or the lot began to get filled with library customers and he was using up valuable space. It doesn't fill up ever that I've seen. He is also not there 24 hours a day just during the lunch hours so he's not really creating a permanent presence which could be an issue. The library decides that they will take over maintenance of the parking lot in exchange for control of the lot. A win for the city I guess so they go for it. I suppose that if they can afford to do it that's fine. I just hope we don't see them coming for money later on when this comes back to bite them in the ass. Especially if getting rid of Weenie King is the actual motivation for the move. My problem with the whole thing is that he was allowed to use the spot for five years. This is a public place and he is a tax paying member of the public. A large number of the public had signed a petition saying that they wanted him to stay. If the library is moving in a new direction with the parking lot that is also fine but all they needed to do was say to him that we are restructuring the parking lot and we feel that the layout will no longer be conducive to your conducting business. You have until we begin construction to find a new location. Please feel free to post a temporary sign on the property during your hours to direct people to the new location through this season or until you feel it is no longer necessary. Thank you. The problem is one of their own making. If the library board had been nice about it he would have had little recourse but to say okay and move on. Instead, they try to pull a fast one and do things behind his back or it least with the appearance of that and it blows up in their face and becomes a media event making it to the Sturgis papers and the Kazoo Gazette. A simple letter and a work-around for him to save face and make the change and no one would be talking about it. Special note to Weenie King. In your new location get things spelled out in a contract so both parties know what's expected and how the arrangement can be ended by both parties.

Minimum Property Maintenance Standards

Three Rivers Area • Feb 26, 2012 7:42 AM

The line is drawn where the rights of one crosses over the rights of another. The problem is that line is a very fine line often with life and death consequences. Take the seat belt issue mentioned in the paragraph. You are right forcing me to wear a seat belt does infringe on my liberty but when you are involved in an accident your choice effects others. It may even effect them in a way that can't be undone. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car because you were thrown from behind the wheel you have infringed on their rights but they have no recourse. So it's decided that we will wear seat belts to prevent the preventable. Rules should be about protecting peoples lives, liberty and freedom and not about protecting people from themselves. True. Very few laws are on the books that only protect the person who will break that law. Most laws are there to protect the people that are effected by the actions of the law breakers. I also can't think of a game that is mandatory for me to play. The game I refer to is the game of life. I suppose that you can choose not to play but that isn't nearly as much fun. I suppose that you could also choose to not live in society and move to a deserted island but even there you would be affected by the actions of others. You choose not to play the game. That is how. If lambs play games, establish rules to equalize what they have between them, rules to make sure no one's feelings aren't hurt are they any safer from the slaughter... So to speak? If you live in this society then you are playing the game. I say rules to establish that you shouldn't steal or kill are a good thing,that men and women are equal, that blacks and whites are equal. Equalizing what they have between them isn't what I'm talking about here. The rules are equal the players are not necessarily and it's actually where my analogy of the game falls apart because I don't believe that in the game of life there has to be a winner and a loser. The definition of winning is up to the individual in the end. Your definition may be riches beyond your wildest dreams and mine might be having three wonderful children who live long and happy lives. They are not mutually exclusive. That is not my view. Is your view made more valid then mine because the majority agrees with you and not me? But you said originally I don't want the absence of rules. I am, in fact, very law and order orientated. So which is it? On its face I might not either but arean't there enough laws on the books now? Agreed. I am not necessarily concerned about the number of laws as I am whether they are actually needed. I mean if we need 1,000,000 rules then we need a 1,000,000 rules but if 100,000 are outdated they should be removed. In this case I going to guess that there is concern that the rules that apply to residential and the rules that apply to industry/business will not always be in agreement. Do you have one set of rules with exceptions depending on what you are talking about or do you have two sets of rules that apply more specifically. You have two politicians mucking up things for reasons that I believe have nothing to do with saving lives. The question I would put forth is why the others allowed a variance to rule. If the rule was so important to include in the first place why is okay to not follow it now. Let's take the cement walkways rule, I'm guessing it probably has to do with preventing people from driving across parking lots like you see at the old D&W parking lot. The rule does create problems during the little thing called winter and the task of snow removal however. The problem with relying on citizens to remove people who don't fulfill their oath is that two many of them are the bigots and hypocrites that think it is their duty to push their will on those that live around them. So what type of government are you advocating then?