November 02, 2014 | 10:58 AM
The view from my front window is going to be directly affected by this project. Looking at the proposed picture, I will be looking at the back of a 3 story building that does not resemble anything but a small institution. In talking to people in the community, when the original middle school was built, and then turned into the high school, the very land the proposed building is going to be built on was purposely left as the run-off, retention pond that it is currently, on purpose, that it was not buildable. Now, all of a sudden, it is? I am in complete agreement with John VanLoon regarding this whole agreement. Something smells very fishy to me. What recourse, as residents of Oxford, do we have to cancel this appalling project?
Oxford schools and Welming Deal
October 24, 2014 | 12:56 PM
According to the Oct 22 article in the Oxford Leader,Skilling blames Americans for selling their souls to do business in China. I wonder how much he got, hopefully more that Judas.I hope the board does not follow him blindly,but has the courage to make the right decision and allow more time to make the final decision.
October 07, 2014 | 07:34 PM
I too am concerned about the housing developments in our community. M24 is a nightmare at 7:00am now. Add a thousand or so more vehicles and it will truly be a crime. We do not have the infrastructure to support such growth. Not to mention the loss of natural habitat and wildlife that these acres support. We moved out here to "get away" from the city. Perhaps the city should consider where they will build a road that can support all the additional traffic that will be inevitable.
July 17, 2014 | 02:40 PM
Mr Bisio states that setting limits for when political signs can be placed is invalid. No one is stating that you cannot place political signs. Our first amendment has restrictions such as not being allowed to yell fire in a crowd if there is no fire.
There are thousands of signs out in places where they don't belong but no one says anything about that.
If you live in a democracy there are always going to be limits.
Rick Gutowski was right
April 23, 2014 | 07:13 AM
It looks like Rick Gutowski was right about the Clintonville Rd. ramp costs. The $1200 paid to Hubble, Roth and Clark for the ramp graphic (page 22 of last weeks Clarkston News) already has proven that the reply from Supervisor Kittle in this story is false. "The township supervisor said the study is free." http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-News-i-2014-03-26-254437.113121-sub-Ramp-riles-residents.html
The $1200 graphic on page 21 of last weeks edition looks like something a Clarkston kindergarten student could have made in about ten minutes. It's very cheap and unprofessional looking for $1200!
Supervisor Kittle said that the "SEMCOG study has ZERO incremental cost " (page 22). Increments are units, or stages. What will the second SEMCOG study "increment" cost taxpayers?
The reason I bring this up is trust...$1200 isn't "free". That promise has already been broken!
Can we really trust the promise that an I-75 exit ramp isn't being considered when we've already been lied to about this?
Mr. Kittles "relief valve" has a direct correlation to the proposed hospital that he supports that will bring huge amounts of traffic onto Sashabaw road.
We don't want, nor do we need a hospital and the traffic it will bring to Sashabaw Rd. Trying to shift that traffic into our neighborhood is unacceptable!
Apology sought from City Manager
March 26, 2014 | 12:17 PM
I'm sorry Mr. Bisio but I thought the City Manager and Council putting the public at risk was adequate reason to change my opinion. You and your friends apparently disagree and think that bridges that meet no known standard, sidewalks that cannot be used, libel, slander and suspension of first amendment constitutional rights are a better solution. The good news is that no one has to believe me. All they have to do is read the public record, your letters, and walk down the street to know all is not what a few would like everyone to think.
Village of Clarkston
News reporting on politics
March 15, 2014 | 07:22 AM
So why aren't you enraged about the lack of reporting of all of President Obama's shenanigans while in office? He has ruined our country and made us the laughing stock of the world.
January 26, 2014 | 10:19 AM
I found this interesting and quite relevant. I currently teach English at the community college level. Last week, I returned short essays to a group of freshman and they could not read the comments that I wrote on the essays, telling me "I can't read cursive". I was a little taken back, sine I had made an effort to write as neatly as possible; however, the students had never been exposed to longhand in their previous educational environments. The things we do not teach, and oh the things we should...
Melissa St. Pierre
April 29, 2013 | 05:42 PM
Keeping skilled road makers are essential to having good roads. In our economic downturn of these past few years, should the employees be layed off or allowed to find work in other towns, states etc.
Keeping them busy even doing what may seem to be non productive task, may be better than always searching for skilled road builders. Also, contractors, sub contractors may be under the same scrutiny.
John W. Hart
John W. Hart
Tammies Heazlits Neighbor
March 06, 2013 | 10:44 AM
Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and report the neighbor that is burning from "7am til after dark, up to 16 hours straight." Your neighbor is clearly violating township burn policies.
FYI - March 8 thru November 1st (Summer hours)are from 8am to 8pm (12 hours). Winter hours (Nov. 2 thru March 7) are from 8am to 6pm (10 hours). Burning is allowed only on designated days.
As for the 400' ft. policy...I can foresee big problems enforcing a policy that takes away ones burning privileges based solely upon who lives next door.
I've followed the opening burning policy for 28 years. I certainly would respect a neighbors illness and coordinate my burning accordingly.
That being said, I think the 400' rule is a bad policy that pits neighbor against neighbor and won't accomplish a thing. We both know that it's foolish to beleive that a 400' ft. rule is going to stop the wind from carrying smoke to someones house.
The proper solution should have been a designated ONE Saturday per month, 8am-6pm open burn policy, with strict fines for violating this policy.
This type of policy would be easy to enforce and respects the wishes of both non-burners and burners. Both parties should be making concessions, not just the burners.
The new board needs to re-examine this policy and make it fair for all, or it will never hear the end of it!