The Letter
The text of the
letter:
“Gentleman:
“As you know, the
proposed renovations to the Indiana Dunes State Park Pavilion, which
apparently now includes a banquet center, is a matter of importance to the
citizens of Northwest Indiana and particularly the Duneland area. Of course,
when you are considering restoring and adding to a building that has the
historic significance of the Pavilion, you would certainly expect that this
matter would be important to our citizens.
“Over the past few
months, a number of issues have come to the forefront concerning the
Pavilion project that we believe require an open and complete vetting
process.
“We have heard
comments from individuals who were at the ‘open house’ you conducted in
April, that the information presented regarding this project was vague and
incomplete.
“The purpose of
this letter is to strongly encourage transparency as you proceed with this
project. When we speak of ‘transparency’ we believe that a process for
public input on issues of significance to our residents must take place.
“Some of the major
concerns are as follows:
“First, it has been
reported, and we believe this to be true, that the Indiana Dunes State Park
Interpretive Master Plan 2008 did not include facilities for a banquet
center. However, in 2011, your Prospectus explicitly required ‘full service
restaurant and banquet service operations shall be a year-round operation.’
Obviously, you added ‘banquet service.’ Our question is why was this added
to the 2011 Prospectus? Whose idea was it and conversations, discussions,
and input was given in order for you to change the Prospectus to add banquet
service?
“The next issue of
significance has to do with the plans for the building that would house the
banquet service. As you know, there was a conceptual drawing given at the
meeting which was virtually universally rejected by anyone having an opinion
on this project. It should be obvious to you that a compatible architectural
style to the historically significant Pavilion is critical. Do you have
plans that are presently being considered that would house the restaurant
and banquet service? What will be the process for public input on these
plans? Again, this project is of high public interest in Northwest Indiana
and we believe the public vetting of this issue is critical.
“There are serious
environmental issues concerning this project that should be addressed. What
protection are you providing for migratory birds with the final design of a
building that looks to have a good amount of glass? Finally, what are your
plans for disposal of sewage, which certainly will be increased should you
follow through on the proposed renovations. Chesterton owns the wastewater
treatment plant in this area and we have not heard any discussions
concerning wastewater treatment. You are fully aware of these and other
issues, all of which should have a full and complete discussion at public
forums in our area. Our citizens deserve and expect transparency with open
forums on matters such as this.
“We are aware that
many in this area are troubled by a perceived lack of openness in this
process that has been going on now for over three years. The Town of
Chesterton, its residents, and all of those in the Duneland community need
your help. We would appreciate it if you could provide the information
requested in this letter to us so that we might share same with the public.
This information will also assist the Chesterton Town Council in becoming
informed, for itself and its residents, concerning the progress of this
project, along with the history of how this project was determined.
Decisions are best made with accurate, factual information in hand. That is
what we are seeking.
“Thank you for your
cooperation.”
From the Floor
Earlier in the
meeting, Paul Tharp attempted to preempt what he thought the council was
likely to do on Monday, that is, take a formal position on the Pavilion
project.
“I don’t think it’s
necessary to do anything,” Tharp said. “Burns Harbor didn’t do anything.”
Member Ton, Tharp
continued, put his colleagues “between a rock and hard place” by raising the
issue in the first place. “Any position can be taken as sour grapes, for
whatever reason.”
Tharp also wondered
whether, to date, there’s been anything like a genuine public debate between
those who oppose the banquet facility and those who support it, inasmuch as
proponents may be unlikely to make their feelings known for fear of
incurring someone’s passionate response.
“I haven’t heard
anybody speak in favor it,” Tharp said. “There may be a silent majority out
there.”
Neither Ton nor his
colleagues responded to Tharp’s thoughts.
For the record, Ton
identified himself at the council’s April 13 meeting as a member of the
not-for-profit group which submitted a proposal of its own in response to
the DNR’s prospectus. That proposal the DNR rejected in favor of the one
submitted by Pavilion Partners.