On May 10, Retha Hicks, clerk-treasurer of Winona Lake, wrote a letter stating, "The town council is defending the right ... for the town to maintain ownership of land along the canal for public versus private use."
When the Lions Club/Boy Scouts were forced out of their building, the town attorney prepared a "Lions Club History" to explain the stand the town was taking in the lawsuit. He stated in writing, "The town does not own the land." When someone questioned why the pier rental form said the town owned the canal, the town said it was a mistake and changed it to say "regulates the canal."
The public petitioned for the Lions Club/Boy Scouts land along the canal to continue as public versus private use. Nevertheless, four of the councilmen (Joy Lohse did not) voted to give the land to the neighbor the town insisted owned to the middle of the canal. They told us, out of the goodness of that neighbor's heart, because he certainly didn't have to legally, he was giving 10 feet of land along the canal to the town for pier rentals (and keeping the 50 feet of lakeside land for himself).
Now, the town, according to Retha Hick's statement above, is saying the town does own the land along the canal. Do they or don't they? They cannot even agree amongst themselves. Therefore, the town has the canal lawsuit.
No matter which way the canal lawsuit ends, the town made a big mistake and owes apologies. If the town owns the land, then the appellate court definitely said they had an irrevocable public trust in the land and had no right to vacate it. That ruling would have to affect the Lions Club land and also the Village At Winona canal-side property. The town would have to rent pier spots out all along the Village At Winona side to be fair to the rest of the canal-side owners and the rest of the public.
If the town does not own the land, they could have saved $85,000 by vacating the easement on the land to the canal-side people just like they did to the Lions Club neighbor and the Village At Winona and to the neighborhood around the castle at the end of the island. There would still be approximately 40 pier spots left to rent to the public. If the town really thought Grace Schools owned the property along the canal, why didn't they let Grace Schools, who was not a party to that lawsuit, know during the Lions' Club lawsuit instead of pulling it out of a hat for the canal lawsuit? If the town makes a sincere effort to negotiate, I think it could still end up a win-win situation.
It is not in just the canal lawsuit that citizens feel manipulated rather than supported - about 24 percent of participating voters figured out how not to vote for uncontested incumbents! Why?
