Northwest Indiana Discussion
http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/

City title doesn't hold For whiting
http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6139		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Mayor timmy [ Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  City title doesn't hold For whiting
Why is it that the city of whiting is so small yet carry a heavy tax load? The city of whiting should become the town of Whiting. Why is Whiting only two blocks long and employee 160 people. Joseph then tries to resurrect the county income tax with the little bit of followers he has. BP should just buy out whiting and build the expansion right over.
Author:  Mirage [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I've said as much for as many years as I can remember. And frankly I don't know why other than the possibility that holding city status mandates some extra positions in city government. Now if you are of the opinion that mainly a couple of families have been running Whiting all along in recent years this makes sense because who in your family do you wanna put out of work? ;)

Now you can argue Whiting's sovereignty as opposed to being annexed or unincorporated but that's a separate issue. I can think of no reason other than personal preferences for it to be a city instead of a town. But monetarily it just makes little sense in the end.
Author:  rosie [ Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I think some of the past practices that has been prevalent in the bygone years have slowly come to an end. The city employs 98 full time (this number is citywide, not just the sanitation dept as some people might assume) and 65 part time (which would include- crossing guards, program instructors at the community center, EMA's (fancy name for civil defense), council members, members on a board, etc.

Town status vs City status, both have their pros and cons, but like most things, it depends on who you talk to. :wink: Why should the city of Whiting cower in a corner and not fight, wouldn't you give it your all if it was your home? Yes, sometimes it appears to be a losing battle, but in the end (whichever way it turns out) it can never be said that Whiting didn't give it their all.

Maybe BP can cut a deal with Mittal and buy up some of his steel plant (especially the lakefront part and canal) I'm sure the steelworkers would enjoy losing their jobs, just as Whiting people would enjoy losing their homes as you suggested. :evil:
Author:  freetime [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I hope Whiting continues to exist in the form residents prefer for many years to come.
I live in Hammond, but went to Clark so I've spent a lot of time there.
I had an incident just last week that reinforced my warm feelings for Whiting, and it involved the cops.
My stupid car died right at 119th and Indy at about 2 PM, and refused to start.
Two cops came along and instead of immediately calling an expensive tow truck to move it, they pushed it out of the way to the bank parking lot. It started up in about an hour. (Yes, I'm getting it fixed next week).
Nice, helpful cops! Whuddaya know?
Author:  Mirage [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I think the more important question is whether it's financially wise to be independently either a city or a town. In theory costs should go down were it to incorporate with Hammond, yet many residents want the pride of being a separate entity despite the current trend towards co-partnering with it's neighbor for the cost reductions like for water services, for example.

I have to say that the city title really doesn't fit anymore. And I don't particularly wish for it to become part of Hammond. By rights Robertsdale should always have been part of Hammond but of course nobody wants to surrender that lakefront access - especially now with the casino revenue involved. So IMHO Whiting should have downgraded into town status yeas ago. Munster residents certainly don't mind being a town and they could just as easily have opted for the city designation long ago.
Author:  freetime [ Mon May 04, 2009 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
Hammond and Whiting fought a court battle over annexation a century ago.
I think Whiting should remain a city if that's what the residents want. If the majority there want to be a town, fine and dandy.
IMO, a better solution to the financial problems would be to undo HB 1858 that gave BP and the other lakefront industries those huge tax breaks.
Author:  Mirage [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I think the time has come to let the thing just die already. No use in keeping up the window dressing. The city is toast.
Author:  freetime [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I repeat-it's strictly up to the citizens of Whiting to make changes in their municipal status if they want. But in any event, I think HB 1858 should be repealed.
BP is enjoying record profits for their foreign owners.
At the same time, the EPA says the company has been emitting high levels of cancer-causing benzene for at least 5 years. Mittal keeps cutting its workforce, despite employee concessions.
Let's go back to taxing these places fairly!
No one is giving small property owners any break due to hard economic times.
Author:  Mirage [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: City title doesn't hold For whiting
I really could care less but I have decided that I would not favor them being incorporated into Hammond no matter what they decide on for their future so beyond that is their own business.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/