Why can city groom?
Subject: Senate Bill 1052
I've had enough of environmental groups saving our shoreline, denying property owners clean-up but allowing some activities (after we pay for a permit, of course).
Has anyone considered what Clinch Park Beach, West End Beach and Bryant Park would look like if the city stopped grooming?
Would not reeds, trees and wetland growth take over there? And how about the State Park?
But hotel owners on East Bay are chastised for cleaning up their beach?
The city also owns East Bay Park and it is a cesspool of muck, slime, bacteria of all sorts and people are wading in it.
Do the people of Birchwood (East Bay Park area) want to return to the swamp of 1910?
Why is it OK for the city to groom the beaches (but only on West Bay) and no one else?
Did Mr. Nelson live here in 1910 and see the shoreline? Mr. Knott is not old enough.
How many agencies control the Great Lakes' waters and shoreline, and how many do we need?
Did anyone notice that salmon are not considered an invasive species? Did you know our black carp was introduced in 1850 from China? Think about it.