Here is a story of how PACE handles the sale of pubic financed new house construction in Bicknell, apparently through lies, secrets, misinformation and change of promises.

"I was to be one of the buyers for a house on Alton Street. As I put my everything into this house for two whole years.

I watched my house come down, as it was sold to the project.

Then I watched as my house went up so slowly I never thought it would be done. I got down to picking out the final lighting.

I was to buy this house on a Lease option to purchase plan. This was because I was told to file bankruptcy though the financial class I had to take. I did everything I was told to do. Amy even sent me contracts we would use.

Then out of the blue I got a phone call that I had two weeks to get financing or they (pace employees) would be putting the house up for sale.

I was totally shocked and floored!

I knew because of the bankruptcy there was no way any bank would touch me at least for one more year. That’s why there was going to be a lease purchase option for me (which I was told to keep secret).

Well anyway long story short, they got my land, even though they bought it, I got nothing but heart ache.

That’s ok, they can keep it.

I have a wonderful house now and they have a beautifully designed home (by me) sitting empty when they could have had regular payments for a year and then I would have bought the home.

Wonder how some people can sleep at night."

When I talk to the City Administration I'm always told of how many people are making offers on the new homes yet nothing ever seems to be sold. This story may be the problem.

John R. Stanczak

It was decided at the Dec 10 meeting to have the sign say 'This Way To Downtown Bicknell And City Parks' with a directional arrow; the size will be 4' x 6' and the sign will be done by Brian Puckett.

As soon as APC approves the project at their Dececember 20, 2011 meeting it will be 'full steam ahead' with a sign appearing ASAP at the 67 and Main intersection. Local interest and financial participation is welcome as this will be paid for solely by contributions.

Old National Bank is accepting contributions and pledges.

Please help.

Ron Ackman
 

From: John Stanczak [mailto:jrstanczak@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 7:42 PM
To: Senate District48
Subject: Re: Statehouse Update: Need answers? Senate Dems are open for questions
Whatever happened to the Public office ban proposed for city workers that restricted city employees from running for an office where they can control their own wages. Did it pass or not and if it did pass when does it take effect? I believe that what I did read about it is that a policeman for example must give up his or her job to set on the council where they can vote for their own benefits. Rumor is that it did pass and will take effect January 2012.
John R. Stanczak
John,
You’re referring to the language contained in Senate Bill 166. The bill stated that an employee of a county, city, town, or township was considered to have resigned from employment with the unit if the employee assumed the elected executive office of the unit or becomes an elected member of the unit's legislative or fiscal body.
For example, a city police officer would not be allowed to continue serving in his capacity in public safety as well as on the city council. However, that police officer would be allowed to serve on the county council or another elected position, so long as it was not affiliated with the unit that employed him.
The bill passed the Senate, but never received a vote in the House.
I hope that helps answer your question. Please let me know if you have further questions!
Thanks,
Bryan
Bryan Hannon
Legislative Assistant
Senator Lindel O. Hume
Senator Jean D. Breaux
From: John Stanczak [mailto:jrstanczak@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:13 PM
To: Senate District48
Subject: RE: Statehouse Update: Need answers? Senate Dems are open for questions
Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for. Will the house ever bring it up for a vote?
John R. Stanczak
John,
The bill would have to be reintroduced this coming session. Because it never received a vote last year, the bill is considered dead and not eligible for this session. I’m not sure if a similar bill will be introduced in the 2012 session, but you can keep an eye out on all the coming bills at www.in.gov/legislative
Thanks,
Bryan
Bryan Hannon
Legislative Assistant
Senator Lindel O. Hume
Senator Jean D. Breaux

I just read and interesting story on the internet about whether foreclosed homes should be demolished and it also covered rehab, maintenance and blighted properties and what some cities are doing about the problems and it also gave some interesting suggestions including blighted property property and it s solution, much along the lines of the Neighborhood Distressed property Act that I mentioned once before here but the city does not seem to show any interest in.

As far as townhouses and the upcoming improvements all I can say is what happened at the meeting that I was invited to by Amy held in the mayors office in midsummer which was attended by the Mayor, Amy F, Elizabeth Ellis, another staff worker for Pace and an irate Kerry Currier. She was irate (and felt it was none of my business) because I was there even tho I was invited by Amy since Amy felt I had legitimate questions about the implementations of the upcoming grant and about the appraisals on the existing new homes.

The meeting opened with 3 or 4 offers to purchase for the mayor to sign on the Alton Street homes and then went to the plan by the city for the upcoming grant to build two apartment buildings with a total of 7 rental units which would be sold to any investor.

Pace and apparently the city were convinced that 7 new rentals would not affect future rental prospects for existing rental units here over my objections.

We then discussed the current practice of getting pared down property values on appraisals in order to sell below cost and Pace and the city were sure that would show that a low value was all that the properties were worth and by comparison all the rest of homes in Bicknell are worth less now.

I was not successful on getting that changed either.

To be honest I don't know if Pace or SIDC was responsible for acquiring either grant but by the way Pace was moving ahead with plans I assumed that Pace did.

Maybe since they implemented the first and the city thought it was so great that they were automatically going to do the second. But not so. BTW. maybe I am not looking close enough but I can't see any activity going on on any of the existing construction.

How can the rules change regarding the location and things to happen for the second grant compared with the first? Since the Mayor was 'hands on' with the first project maybe Pace took his suggestions and then said they were there own? So now he will not be 'hands on' on this project?

I have some reservations about Myszak and company since they are the same company who wrote a grant application that wants new streetlights and sidewalks and a walking path and to resurface part of Constitution Ave, all grandiose schemes that ignore much needed things like sidewalk repair, street identification signs, storm sewer safety grates, a youth center and others.

I suspect Myszak may still lean toward the impractical when they implement this new grant. And whatever happened to the Bicknell Bulldog Development Committee that was set up to administer this second grant by action of the City Council? Was this another mistake by the city?

According to the Mayor’s office the Myczak company will not be paid by the City of Bicknell and will or was required to apply and qualify through the people supplying the grant money for the project.
Pace also was not hired by the city but had to qualify in the same way that Myczak had to.

According to the Mayor’s office both contractors or engineering companies had to qualify and be hired by the State and/or Federal governments with Bicknell only supplying information required pertaining to the local areas that the project would or could be used.
They told me that according to the grants the money must be used according to their rules and regulations and that the city does not have any controlling interest in how or where the grant monies are used or paid.

As for qualifying for the houses, duplexes or townhouses a person must go to the grant people who can be contacted by going to the Bicknell City Hall, to the clerk’s office I think, and getting the proper contact information. The next step would be to qualify for the new homes according to their rules.
Once qualified the potential buyer must go to a bank to obtain a loan where I think that the grant people will provide the proper information to help the buyer to qualify for a loan including the possibility of supplying down payment assistance.

The help from the grant people includes but is not limited to:
Down payment assistance.
Reducing the sale price of the new home.
Allowing the down payment to be excused in a number of years, 10 or 15 they weren’t sure of the time; but the buyer must reside at the residence for that period of time.
Provide education regarding maintenance and upkeep of the property.
I believe adjusting the value to aide in the qualifying for the home loan.
I’m told that there are no apartments being built.
The area for the new construction I am told has not been determined to date; but will be chose by the grant people.

The income level they are looking for is mid to low income; no dollar amounts of required income were given.
Maplewood has been mentioned but this may only be a rumor.

John R. Stanczak

It appears that there will not be any apartment buildings but there will be one townhouse which will be sold the same way that the duplex's are sold with the same type of requirements. The difference, the duplex and townhouse is that the townhouse will be two levels instead of one.

They're going to check to be sure that the information that they gave me was correct.

The city is moving forward on the houses and have two that are finished and are for sale; there are at least one person interested in one so far. As far as the building of new ones according to the mayor's office work has never been stopped.

Concerning the bid on the downtown project it was done by the Board of Works and right now nobody seems to know the amount of the bid.

This is some more information that the mayor's office is researching for me.

John R. Stanczak

Tuesday, November 8th, Hoosiers will be going to the polls to cast their ballots.

(Remember you can still vote early)

Including front parking lot. Building located across the street from the Bicknell City Hall.

Saturday, October 22, 2011
Downtown Bicknell business people have been trying for years to get a promotional sign for the downtown area on Highway 67 and recently a property owner at the Hwy 67 and Main Street intersection agreed to allow a sign on his property promoting the downtown for at least a temporary time period.

The downtown people are eager to get a sign in place and met Saturday morning in City Hall to discuss how to proceed.

It was decided at this meeting to proceed with the Area Planning Commission application for the sign, also what is to be placed on the sign and how donations for the project will be handled.

Anyone who deals with the public in downtown Bicknell is welcome to participate in this effort with ideas and financial help. For more details any local downtown business can be contacted or call Ron Ackman at 812-735-3013.

Remember that there is a meeting about the "Down Town Sign" on Saturday October 22, 2011 at the old Bicknell Library which is located at the top of the stairs on the right.

All downtown businesses should attend as this is the first step in trying to guide customers to merchants downtown.

This is the time to get informed on movements to reclaim the downtown area and to put in suggestions that may help, as well as understand the steps necessary to simply place a sign on Main and 67.

A phone conversation today produced permission to erect a 'Downtown Bicknell Business District' temporary sign on the vacant lot at the corner of Main and 67.

With a sign like that we will let people know there is a 'downtown' Bicknell and hopefully more prosperity will come to downtown.

From Ron Ackman

There were 10 landlords but no tenants who attended the landlords and tenants meeting Oct 15 at the Bicknell Library.

By a show of hands all in attendance was opposed to the Bicknell Rental Ordinance #13-2011.
The ordinance was discussed as well as Indiana Code that can be and is enforced by the county that essentially does the same thing by investigating complaints.

I announced that I have been in contact with attorney Paul Ledford who represented Vincennes landlords in their opposition to their ordinance. Ledford studied the ordinance and the Indiana State Code and while not acting as our attorney yet, Attorney Ledford suggested; due to being too broad and other errors and because it was not published in the required 30 day window that we do nothing unless the city initiates enforcement action. By unanimous, we as landlords decided not to respond to the cities requests to comply with Bicknell City Ordinance #13-2011.

If push comes to shove attorney Ledford is available to us and by unanimous show of hands we agreed that we would hire him if necessary. Also the group was unanimous in agreeing that all Bicknell landlords who would benefit from the efforts of the attorney's action should be willing to share in the cost.
Now the action we are taking is to do nothing unless the city makes contact with any landlord individually and then we will protest to the city that we will not comply with this null and void and unenforceable ordinance.

After that if the city wants to proceed we will hire attorney Ledford. And in the meantime we will possibly conduct more landlord-tenant meetings.
Ron Ackman

A reminder on October 10th, 2011 you can start early voting in this November's municipal elections by visiting your local County Clerk's office.

I hope some Bicknell people are reading this political paragraph in my ad  for the betterment of the town (Reference to Real estate ad in the newspaper). Landlords and I suspect tenants will be opposed to the overreaching new rental ordinance if it is implemented. I urge you to consider the disruption this ordinance will have on landlords and tenants alike with questionable results at best. If curb appearance is the goal existing rubbish and junk ordinances should cure this if they are enforced.

Some candidates who are not strong supporters of the rental ordinance are Brian Noland over incumbent Butch Byrer and Jim Walters over incumbent Frank Gugliotta. I don't know Terry Stremming or Dan McCrary's positions for sure but feel free to ask them.

A landlords/tenants meeting will be held this Saturday Oct 15th at 10 AM at the Bicknell Library to discuss the rental ordinance. The public is invited.
Ron Ackman
 

Where:

At the Bicknell public library

When:

At 10:00 am on October 15th, 2011.

Topic: 

The Bicknell rental ordinance.

Invited:

Everybody who owns rental property in Bicknell,

Manages rental property in Bicknell and

Tenants in Bicknell are invited.

"A petition to the Bicknell City Council and the Mayor of Bicknell"
And
"Signatures" can be found easily by clicking on Bicknell Politics on the left hand side of this website.
John R. Stanczak

A petition to the Bicknell City Council and the Mayor of Bicknell requesting and expecting the following changes in Ordinance # 11 2011.

An ordinance prohibiting the housing of horses and regulating those horses currently housed within the city limits.
A Change in said ordinance wording to read as follows: removing the words” prohibiting the housing of horses and”

Whereas, there has been complaints regarding inadequate and unsanitary housing of horses within the city limits. And
A Change in said ordinance wording to read as follows: removing the word “complaints” and replace this word with “complaint.”

Whereas, there have been complaints of odor from neighbors living near confined horses.
A Change in said ordinance wording to read as follows: removing the word “complaints” and replace this word with “complaint.”

And whereas, keeping a horse within the confines of a city is not providing other residence of the city an environment free of nuisance and exposure to odors and conditions created by the housing of horses; and
A Change in said ordinance by removing the above paragraph in its entirety as it is a general statement being used to apply to horses and thereby bypassing other domestic animals such as dogs and cats.

Whereas, the council now believes that there should be a prohibition and regulation of horses within the city limits of Bicknell.
A Change in said ordinance wording to read as follows: removing the words “prohibition and”.

Section B
Requesting and expecting the Bicknell City Council to remove the first 35 words in Section B of ordinance #11 2011 reading “Any person keeping a horse at the time this ordinance is enacted shall be permitted to continue to keep that particular animal but no others shall be obtained or brought onto the property. PROVEDED, HOWEVER” to be replaced with no words.
(Section B, 1, a) of ordinance #11 2011 to change (1/2) to read (1/4)
(Section B, 1, b) an adjustment in the required size of a horse shelter to allow a smaller housing requirement for ponies whose withers is less than four and one half feet to read 12 by 8.
(Section B, 1, b, ii) all floors shall be dry, with no holes and contain adequate cushioning as to prevent the injury of the horses hoofs and all floors shall be cleaned daily as to prevent disease, odor and pests.

(Section C, 3) removal of the following words; “and disposal”.

See attached legal Bicknell residents signatures numbering ( ) Said legal Bicknell residents ordering immediate actions.

  (Print copy by clicking on attachment)

To Copy or Print this Form Click attachment then Click here to print Petition form2.doc