Breaking News Bar
updated: 6/26/2011 7:42 AM

Most know, obey Wooster rules

hello
Success - Article sent! close
 

Let's set the facts straight regarding Wooster Lake:

• Yes, Wooster is a private lake. No Round Lake residents own Wooster lake bottom, but a Round Lake subdivision is adjacent to the lake, and the village owns a portion of lake bottom. So, the village does have a stake in this issue.

Order Reprint Print Article
 
Interested in reusing this article?
Custom reprints are a powerful and strategic way to share your article with customers, employees and prospects.
The YGS Group provides digital and printed reprint services for Daily Herald. Complete the form to the right and a reprint consultant will contact you to discuss how you can reuse this article.
Need more information about reprints? Visit our Reprints Section for more details.

Contact information ( * required )

Success - request sent close

• Yes, Round Lake has spent tax dollars to resolve the issue of use of Wooster. One citizen, not a Round Lake resident, complains of this, but he himself has forced the village of Round Lake to expend tax dollars by flooding its email server with his rhetoric and taking up excessive public meeting time.

• Fox Lake showed much interest in preserving Wooster through a no-wake ordinance. The Fox Lake mayor and trustees (as well as Round Lake trustees) attended a public meeting facilitated by Bonnie Thomson Carter at which almost 500 Wooster users were represented to support a no-wake lake. Only after critics sued Round Lake for passing the ordinance did Fox Lake demure. Who wouldn't? Incidentally, why did the plaintiffs drop the lawsuit and how much unnecessary expense did Round Lake incur to defend this obviously frivolous lawsuit?

• The Round Lake questionnaire sent to Wooster residents wasn't the first attempt to gather constituent opinion regarding Wooster. Before enacting the ordinance, Mayor Gentes met with Silver Leaf Glen residents to solicit input regarding use of the access point owned by Round Lake. The majority agreed that Wooster should remain a low-impact use lake and that they might eventually like to see a public usage point, such as a fishing pier.

• Round Lake did not rely on a statute in conflict with IL Muni-Code in enacting the ordinance. IL Muni-Code at the time allowed ordinances such as the no-wake to be enacted. HB3441 only further defined allowable governance of water bodies adjacent to municipalities.

• All around Wooster know that there has been a no/low-wake "gentlemen's agreement" in place for decades. Why does one person continue to disrespect his neighbors by being the only one on Wooster to disregard it? Is it that he is truly not a "gentleman"?

Penny Cummings

Ingleside

Share this page