As part of the program at the March Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) State Board of Directors’ meeting, we heard four of the five Republican candidates running against Brad Ellsworth for Evan Bayh’s Senate seat speak. There were three politicians, Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler and Dan Coats. The fourth, John Bates, Jr., has not held political office in the past. This wasn’t a debate. Each candidate was allowed to make a short introductory speech and then they took questions from the audience. It was set up in half hour time slots, so we received individual presentations.
Becky and I were invited to a meet & greet fundraiser for Jack Jordan at the home of Carol & John Zeglis last week. Carol and John are always wonderful hosts and make everyone welcome. There were a lot of new faces there, but it was still a comfortable setting.
Jack and his wife, Hope, were very personable. He has the basic Republican positions, but with a strong “anti-politician” message. One of his issues is term limits and he has promised no more than three terms. I wish I could believe in that… I want to believe in that… It seems though, that those that run for political office quickly become politicians. The number of incumbent politicians that believe in term limits is significantly less than those using that platform plank in their first run for office.
I am somewhat frustrated by the gibberish that is coming from Washington. Be it Health Care Reform, the so called “stimulus” packages or even just the general budgets. Many would say it has always been like that and I have read some accounts that discussed arguments over bills that nearly came to blows in the 1800’s. There are other records that belie that though. The Homestead Act of 1862 is one such example. Could such a sweeping document be created and passed in such a succinct form today? I think not.
First, if you look at that document (here), which basically opened the West to settlement, it is only two pages long! I would wager that President Lincoln didn’t sign his name to it with 15 different give-away pens either…
I have served as the Town of Culver representative to the Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC) for the past three years. This took the group through incorporation as a 501(c)6 corporation. Since that time I have been vice chairman of the corporation. My term expired at the end of December last year and I volunteered to be reappointed to the corporation board. I am pleased that the Culver Town Council chose to reappoint me at their meeting, February 10, 2010. (Pilot News Article here.) I have represented Culver to the best of my ability and believe I have served the Town well.
MCEDC has made great strides in the short time it has existed. We have established offices in Plymouth and hired an Executive Director, Administrative Staff and just recently a dedicated Grant Writer. We have a functioning website and have established ourselves as a regional leader with State and local officials as well as site locators throughout the nation. We are currently working to increase our regional position through cooperation and strategic partnerships with surrounding counties.
The Culver Town Council held a public hearing on the annexation of 80 acres on South Main Street on January 26, 2010. Part of this property is the parcel slated for the Culver Garden Court. There are three properties involved in this annexation. One property owner is protesting, but the Town Council has chosen to move ahead despite this. The Annexation passed on the second reading by a vote of 4 to 1. The article is currently online here and is available in two scans, Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
Despite the protest, this annexation should benefit all three property owners as well as the Town of Culver. The Town plans to extend water and sewer to this area in an effort to promote future development. There is a distinct dearth of developable land within Culver that has adequate water and sewer. The few parcels that do have the potential for development are currently held under ownership with no interest in development on their own or in selling parcels for development. Two of the parcel holders within this annexation have expressed an interest in development. Regardless of their intentions for their property, the third property owner will no doubt see and increase in their property value resulting from the potential achieved here.