Lake Lemon/City of Bloomington letter

[indiucky]

I've been looking at some more real estate opportunities across southern Indiana and found a lovely place in Brown County near Lake Lemon.http://

Only Indianapolis and points North consider Bloomington "southern Indiana".

Just a river rat musing.....

 

[Destro]

and even if it is a political subdivision, it's supervised by the court, not Bloomington.

 

[CathyInBlue]

and even if it is a political subdivision, it's supervised by the court, not Bloomington.

And what has that got to do with anything relevant to IC 35-47-11.1?

 

[smitty12b]

Lake lemon is not entirely in Monroe county. There is a pretty good chunk the is in brown county. I grew up on the lake and still own a home there. In our little area,Lakewood drive, the first seven or eight homes are in brown county, the rest is Monroe. I can sit on my deck and shoot till 3 am, the folks 100yds from me can't shoot at all on their property. I have always had a gun in the boat. Rifle as a kid and a pistol now. I have been stopped for license check many times while oc and all I get is " what a carrying". Experiences may vary.

 

[92ThoStro]

You're getting Evansville's Zoo problem with Tactical Frost, confused with the lawsuit against the City of Hammond who refuses to remove the ordinance.

And there is no wordage that prevents a city or town from doing this.

While it may be owned by a government entity, the land and lake are leased, it's a complete game changer not subject to preemption laws.

Destro is wrong, it is valid because the land is leased to a outside entity that is not government controlled.

Straight from the LLCD website.They lease the land and lake and may set the rules as they see fit.

I was not getting his case confused with Hammond, I said I read about that case in his thread... and wouldn't that case apply to this? Unless they are actively enforcing the no firearm rule for the lake, then why would Relford be able to do anything? Which is what Destro said, in his oh so nice way. It was before the preemption law, and is now void. So. OC at the lake time...

 

[IndyBeerman]

I was not getting his case confused with Hammond, I said I read about that case in his thread... and wouldn't that case apply to this? Unless they are actively enforcing the no firearm rule for the lake, then why would Relford be able to do anything? Which is what Destro said, in his oh so nice way. It was before the preemption law, and is now void. So. OC at the lake time...

The Hammond case is not settled, it is going before the Indiana Supreme Court.

The whole matter is, just because it is void because of the preemption law and not actively being enforced , it does not mean you do not fear arrest because of a LEO that is not up to date on current laws and arrest you for the law that is still on the books.

Remove the law, or insert language into that paragraph striking out the wording stating that is has been preempted and is no longer a valid law.

 

[Spike_351]

and even if it is a political subdivision, it's supervised by the court, not Bloomington.

doesn't matter the IC specifically prohibits ANY POLITICAL SUB DIVISION from regulating anything firearms related. Including carrying.

 

[Destro]

And what has that got to do with anything relevant to IC 35-47-11.1?

because your taking your issue up with the city of bloomington, and the city of bloomington has no legal authority or control of lake lemon. Your writing a letter to the wrong people. You need to contact the court that approved the creation of the CD.

 

[Destro]

doesn't matter the IC specifically prohibits ANY POLITICAL SUB DIVISION from regulating anything firearms related. Including carrying.

but she is communicating with the city about this issue. Lake Lemon is not under control of the city, it is under control of the court that approved the CD.

 

[CathyInBlue]

because your taking your issue up with the city of bloomington, and the city of bloomington has no legal authority or control of lake lemon. Your writing a letter to the wrong people. You need to contact the court that approved the creation of the CD.

but she is communicating with the city about this issue. Lake Lemon is not under control of the city, it is under control of the court that approved the CD.

I believe you are confused. In the face of the clear evidence that the ordinances governing the LLCD are part of the Bloomington City Code, I'm gonna hafta ask you to explain and defend your assertions that the city of Bloomington has no legal authority over the LLCD.

In doing so, please make reference to the following document: http://www.lakelemon.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/lakelemonordinances.pdf

Also, keep in mind:

IC 36-3-2-6
Conservancy district; statutory powers; restrictions
Sec.6. A conservancy district located wholly or partially inside the corporate boundaries of the consolidated city has all the powers granted it by statute. However, it may not:
(1) enforce a regulation that is in conflict with or permits a lesser standard than an applicable ordinance or regulation of the consolidated city; or
(2) issue general obligation bonds.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.2.

 

[smitty12b]

but she is communicating with the city about this issue. Lake Lemon is not under control of the city, it is under control of the court that approved the CD.

The lake is under control of The Lake Lemon Conservancy. The board is made up of homeowners. Bloomington used to be in control back when they took water from lemon. Now all water for Bloomington comes from lake Monroe. While I was confirming this I found some sad news. Dave Ison a founding member and my drivers-ed teacher has passed.

Some additional but UN related info. The lake used the be the Mcoy Dairy farm owned by Lawrence and Ida Mcoy. Point IdaLawn is named after them and where their home used to be. Thier great grandson still lives at the lake.

 

[IndyBeerman]

but she is communicating with the city about this issue. Lake Lemon is not under control of the city, it is under control of the court that approved the CD.

Hey Destro, I don't know if you read my post or not, but I changed my stance on this when I ran across this from the town of Bloomington's Common Council minutes in a meeting in May of 2006.

The council attorney in the Legal Department states that it is a political subdivision with taxing authority.

The town of Bloomington owns Lake Lemon, and let LLCD be created as a taxing authority extension of Bloomington to raise taxes for infrastructure and improvements for LLCD.

Because Bloomington is the owner, and they let an admitted political subdivision lease the lake, they are in direct violation of the preemption law.

I stand corrected after doing some extensive digging I came up with this from the City of Bloomington's "May 17, 2006 Common Council Regular Session Meeting Minutes"

The have it in black and white stating that LLCD it is a political subdivision.

May 17, 2006 Common Council Regular Session Meeting Minutes

Ordinance 06-09 To Amend the Title 11 of the Bloomington Municipal Code Entitled "Lakes and Reservoirs"- Re: Extensive Revisions to Chapter 11.04 Entitled "Lake Lemon"
It was moved and seconded that Ordinance 06-09 be introduced and read by title and synopsis. Clerk Moore read the legislation and synopsis giving the Committee Do-Pass Recommendation of 8-0-1. It was moved and seconded that Ordinance 06-09 be adopted.
Vickie Renfrow, attorney in the Legal Department, noted that the ordinance included significant updating of the code. She said that Lake Lemon and parcels around the lake are owned by the City of Bloomington Utilities (CBU) Department and the lake is considered a back-up water source for the city. She said that 11 years ago the CBU entered into a 50 year lease with the Lake Lemon Conservancy District which had just been created. She said that it is a political subdivision with taxing authority by state statute.

 

[IndyBeerman]

The lake is under control of The Lake Lemon Conservancy. The board is made up of homeowners. Bloomington used to be in control back when they took water from lemon.

Re read the post above by me, LLCD while made up of Homeowners, is a political subdivision of Bloomington.

 

[Destro]

I'm gonna hafta ask you to explain and defend your assertions that the city of Bloomington has no legal authority over the LLCD.

as per the DNR
http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/1003.pdf

Who controls the work of a Conservancy District?

The jurisdiction over activities of a conservancy district ultimately lies with the circuit court that established the district. The Natural Resources Commission acts as a friend to the court by providing technical review and recommendations for specified district activities, which include: establishment, district plan, unit of work, addition of area, addition of
purpose, and dissolution of a district.

The day to day operations of a conservancy district; however, are accomplished through the conservancy district’s board of directors.


11.04.430
Section 7 also invalidates the specific ordnance as it relates to firearms.

 

[CathyInBlue]

as per the DNR
http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/1003.pdf

Who controls the work of a Conservancy District?

The jurisdiction over activities of a conservancy district ultimately lies with the circuit court that established the district. The Natural Resources Commission acts as a friend to the court by providing technical review and recommendations for specified district activities, which include: establishment, district plan, unit of work, addition of area, addition of
purpose, and dissolution of a district.

The day to day operations of a conservancy district; however, are accomplished through the conservancy district’s board of directors.


11.04.430
Section 7 also invalidates the specific ordnance as it relates to firearms.

"Ultimately", as in judicial jurisdiction, the jurisdiction to hear cases at controversy under the LLCD. The proximate, as in legislative as well as executive, jurisdiction is with the city of Bloomington. As long as the carry language in 050 remains, the executive has excuse to abuse it, 430(7) or not. It therefore falls to the city council of Bloomington to exercise its legislative jurisdiction to amend its own code, which is ultimately where the language lies, to fall in line with IC 35-47-11.1. If the LLCD is capable, by whatever mechanism, of amending Bloomington City Code 11.04.050 on its own, then it to bears responsibility of doing so, and in the interim, not abusing it due to, as you mention, 430(7) invalidating it in a severable manner.

I do not believe the LLCD itself has such authority, however. What authority it has is subservient to 11.04, in a regulatory manner, not a legislative one. Whoever does have the legislative jurisdiction over the LLCD, which is NOT the circuit court which established the district, has only one saving grace between it and being held accountable under 11.1 for not repealing the word "carry", and that is the Hammond case now before the IN SC, and that is only if the SC rules in Hammond's favour, which I cannot see happening.

 

[smitty12b]

Re read the post above by me, LLCD while made up of Homeowners, is a political subdivision of Bloomington.

That may be true for part of the lake but 1/3 of the lake is in brown county and the homes are not subject to Bloomington rules.

 

[IndyBeerman]

That may be true for part of the lake but 1/3 of the lake is in brown county and the homes are not subject to Bloomington rules.

The homes and lake are separate , the City of Bloomington owns the lake as a backup water source (even what is in Brown County), homeowners own their homes.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Once a CD is established, it all comes under the rule of the single political subdivision that established the CD, which means Bloomington. That includes the properties on the Brown Co. side of the county line, but in the case of the LLCD, that does not include the private homes and associated properties, even though they be on the lake. If the LLCD park police are not arresting or even harassing boaters on the lake, whether on the Brown Co. or Monroe Co. side of the lake, about firearms, then that is a good thing in my opinion.

But that's just my opinion… I could be wrong.

 

[smitty12b]

Once a CD is established, it all comes under the rule of the single political subdivision that established the CD, which means Bloomington. That includes the properties on the Brown Co. side of the county line, but in the case of the LLCD, that does not include the private homes and associated properties, even though they be on the lake. If the LLCD park police are not arresting or even harassing boaters on the lake, whether on the Brown Co. or Monroe Co. side of the lake, about firearms, then that is a good thing in my opinion.

But that's just my opinion… I could be wrong.

Ther are no llcd police. It is only DNR on the lake. There used to be " lake patrol " but that has been gone for years. I am on the brown county side and I have never in 48 yrs, well maybe 40 as the first 8 are blurry, seen a Monroe deputy. The last time I saw a brown county deputy near the lake was when they busted a party at my place 31 years ago. Mom was out of town and the sheriffs son was there so all was good.

 

[92ThoStro]

Guess I should have followed Hammond more closely, didn't know it was going before the IN Supreme Court.

Whoever is in charge of that lake, and probably dozens more places in IN who have not repealed their carry laws, will probably just wait for Hammond to be settled then and completely ignore any contact.