User loginNavigation |
A Little ConfusedI am a little confused on this sign issue. I know it is easy to confuse me lately. I thought the Downtown Plan for the future was to build a unique shopping and business area similar to Metamora or Brown County. An area that looks historic, thereby drawing sightseers, with specific specialty stores much like what can be found in Nashville, Indiana. I vacationed there this summer and business was completely over the top, they were raking the money in literally. And I thought with the benches, sidewalk improvements, and old fashioned store awnings that this was the general look we were going after. Now comes the LED sign. Nothing was said about the existing sign that was there before the new plans and standards were adopted and nothing should have been said. But if we are going for the peculiar or antique look, where does an LED sign fit? I believe the choice to deny it based on fairness to others and facts was the correct decision to make. You can't tell one business they can have it and deny another the same thing. Yet the city decided to reverse itself, approve the sign, and do away with the position that denied it. Confusing. Then there is the bank who didn't plead a case based upon why, on legal grounds, an exemption should be granted to them. I will agree that the bank has been a very good friend to the city and has contributed very much to things being done Downtown and citywide celebrations. My confusion comes in their basing the appeal upon charity to the city. A gift would seem a gift to me and should not be used as a vote lever to change a ruling. If it is free then it is free. If it is not free then don't call it a gift. The newspaper seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the Chamber of Commerce favored the bank's appeal. Maybe I am wrong but I believe the Chambers purpose is to promote and help business concerns, not necessarily the concerns of the people. Why would this come as a surprise to anyone? If they are the advocate of business, I wonder who is the advocate of the people and why they didn't speak up. My guess is the whole thing comes down to the oldest arguement made and how you look at it: What is good for business is good for the people. Or, what is good for the people is good for business. As to the sign itself, I am not sure that the sign makes any difference what so ever in the amount of business done by the bank. It is said that it tells much local news and provides a local service. Can you honestly tell me what the sign says right now? Can you honestly say that you read it when you drive by? Can you honestly say that you paid any attention to that sign on a regular basis before this all came about? Have you decided to bank at that bank because of anything you read on that sign? I never paid any attention to it. I don't want a city cluttered in signs but I don't see where this sign is such a big deal except for the unfairness to other businesses and the possible loss of future non-matching grant funds. I think it would be far more important to find out if the new Super Walmart will sell cutrate gasoline and if not why not. Got to love the Logansport gasoline tax.
|
signs
I'll start off by playing Devil's advocate for a minute.
I fully understand the position of the few that are leading the charge in regards to the recent signage debacle.
Signage is important to the promotion and marketing of a business. Signage should be able to reflect the branding of a particular company, as to foster a recognizable distinction, and promotion of a business.
But, as in any progressive community with far stricter ordinances, these companies comply with the standards at hand. Design standard Ordinances are not a proven deterrent for any business. Statistics show that areas with the most design standards, attract more business than areas without any standards.
The real issue before us locally, is the right of a business owner to market his/her own business in a manner they deem necessary to the survival of that business, verses the rights of the community to expect those businesses to be an addendum to the community's fabric instead of a unwarranted detraction to future growth.
The Chamber truly wishes to have no restrictions on businesses, but are willing to settle for a few. I guess because that has worked so flawlessly for this community in the past. (Rolling eyes)
Let's push aside the bank sign for a second, as it is a done deal, and the sign itself will not make or break the future planning of the downtown b-2 district. Even though the argument remains that the signage may not be the most appropriate for the overall downtown design standards. Nevertheless, they had an electronic sign before, and it was well within their rights to have some expectations to be able to replace the existing one with an upgraded version.
I'm going to leave it at that, and move on.
I also want to point out hat Brian Morrell has been unfairly judged during this entire ordeal. I consider Brian to be a very outstanding person, that truly cares about Logansport. I consider him a friend, and I suspect that it will stay that way. It just so happens that we have contrary viewpoints on this issue. I've respected his integrity in his ability to stress his views in opposition from mine, without taking it to a personal level....of which most people are unable to do....and some of my opposition is currently not.
I've done my fair share of paper throwing during meetings....and far worse. Sometimes passion can over take the moment, and I consider it to be a part of any committee process. (trust me, I've had to apologize for my actions during a moment of passionate debate, more times than I'd ever like to admit) but, it doesn't make me a jerk.....only passionate for what I believe in.
Now back to the issue at hand.
Larry you are very right in your assessment of the issue. The Chamber is for businesses only, not the community. They have a very distinctive viewpoint that the businesses make the community, whilst I believe the community makes the businesses.
The real issue to come before the plan commission next month, is the issue of whether or not the people of this community want an increase in signage based visual clutter.
I'm standing firm in opposition to any allowances that will increase the visual clutter in this city. An allowance of over proliferation of LED and electronic signage is counter productive to the future growth of this community, and will have a negative impact, not only for the residence of Logansport, but limit the competitiveness of smaller businesses in the community.
The best way to assure that your feelings on the matter is advocated for, is to come and advocate on behalf of your own beliefs.
In the absence of true leadership, bad leadership rises to the top. This is the time to insist that our leaders pay attention to the eighteen thousand of us...not just the dozen of those that want it their way.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
downtown vision
I'm careful not to assimilate Logansport with any other community, as it will be inevitable for someone to say, " Well, we're not Carmel, We're not Nashville, We're not Zionsville". As if that's a defense for not doing anything progressive.
I feel the vision for downtown Logansport is multi- faceted. Not only do we want to retain the historic integrity of the district, we would wish for it to become a destination that integrates; culture, arts, specialty retail, and waterfront development that encapsulates a maximum of pedestrian friendly spaces in which to work, live and play.
The historic aspect of downtown is only one of many important components that will have to be solidified in order to sustain a vibrant city core.
Even though we may never be Carmel, or Nashville, or Zionsville...We can definitely be something better. The first step in achieving this community goal is to have the fortitude to follow through on the vision....and issue a right of refusal to those that don't wish to be a part of the vision.
Many things are for ever lost with the acceptance of one concession.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
signs
Hypothetical question... not directed toward you or anyone else... just a question.
My problem with these multi-limitations is this... if I am paying for it, how are you going to tell me what I can and cannot have? Otherwise, shouldn't you pay for it if you are demanding the design, color, style, lighting limits etc...?
This is where I get upset about this. This sign had to be tens of thousands if not over one hundred thousand dollars... I am curious what the recommended sign might have looked like? Would it be a sanded piece of plywood with some varnish and a wood burned logo? I seriously don't know what would have been a more appropriate sign. Could someone give me an example? A link to a similar design or even show me pictures of what the downtown is "trying to lean toward?" I really don't know. I know I don't really have a dog in this race... but for future edification I just want to know.
edification
From my point of view I think you have very good questions. Somehow along the way the rhetoric became reality in the minds of some people, and the reality of the current sign ordinances for the downtown B-2 district have become the proverbial boogieman.
Let's talk about personal property rights. Nobody wants to be told what to do...it's human nature. It especially becomes a major issue when a person's business becomes the focus of restrictions.
Overlay districts, such as Logan's landing, is not a new idea. It is very common in most cities to have ordinances that pertain to certain districts. And those ordinances are conceived out of the comprehensive plan for that district.
It would be great if everyone shared good judgement on the development of their business. This is why it is imperative to have ordinances in any city....because what might be an appropriate sized sign to you, may be an appropriate sized billboard to another.
This is also a good reason not to go out and buy something before you go through the proper procedures. No matter if it a sign or a hot air balloon, It's very likely that there will some rules to follow....no matter where you do business. Ask questions first.
These ordinances allow for basic standards and guidelines that are acceptable within that city, or district. And with these ordinance come the continuity that should be expected from the common citizen.
If a business owner does not like ordinances, design standards and development review boards...then they will never be able to do business in any metroplexes, prosperous suburbs, or destination communities.
Every store I owned in Indianapolis had different standards and guidelines for each location (depending on the location within the metroplex). One location was awning signage only, one location was channel letter signage only, one was a wood blade sign only, and the other was very much open to any signage, except for internally illuminated box signage.
Heck, I couldn't even paint my house until it was cleared by my neighborhood association....and if I Chose to plant landscape that wasn't approved...forget about it, because it would be removed at my expense. But, that's the price you pay to live in a good neighborhood or housing community.
So, I see it as no big deal, as I'm used to it. It's the way it is if you choose to do business in progressive communities.
If you think our ordinances are restrictive, don't bother trying to open shop in downtown Plymouth, Culver, or Kokomo. they are far more restrictive than you can imagine.
As far as the types of signs allowed for downtown. You can see for yourself the types of signs in place, and it's clear that plywood signs are not the norm.
I think when the opponents of these ordinances keep bringing forth the term "Back lit Signs" as being restricted. They must think it means all signs that light up. When in fact the term "Back lit" Signage refers to a specific type of sign, that consists of a large metal frame with a plastic sign insert, illuminated by fluorescent tubes.
Many of the downtown businesses currently have back lit signs, as they were grandfathered in, and the DDRB allows new retailers to change out the plastic sign insert, as it is not replacing the whole sign.
If the back Lit sign were to be removed and replaced, then the new sign would have to conform to the standards of the district. The signage not restricted within the district is; blade signs, externally illuminated signs (of which is a plethora of different types), awning signage, window signage, non illuminated, and soon to be, illuminated channel letter signage. Other signage may be permitted by variance.
A very good example of where downtown is leaning is Plymouth. I would say that's the best local example I have to offer. If you want a more clear understanding, I recommend stopping by the Logan/Cass Planning Dept. They will have copies of the current charette for downtown, this document will have detailed drawings, and descriptions.
Anyway, I think these were very good questions, and I hope I helped to answer some of them for you.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
oops
Jerry, I just re-read your post and I guess I hardly answered anything that you asked about. Sorry...DOH!
The quick answer version is: Electronic reader boards are prohibited in the B-2 district, and currently prohibited in the B-3 districts (meaning now you would have to apply for a variance). Plans are underway to cut through some red tape so the B-3 districts will no longer be prohibited as it is now....(But, there will still be some restrictions for usage, as it should be) Electronic signage will continue to be prohibited in the B-2 district (downtown)
as I said a billion times (okay, maybe it was only a dozen..lol) That I personally feel if a B-2 (downtown) business has an existing electronic sign, they should be allowed to replace it, as long as it stays within the new standards for electronic signage. And the look and design of the signage would have to be reviewed by the BZA since it would be a variance. And with a variance, any design or style could be approved.
***Any new electronic signs within downtown, would have to go for a variance, as they are prohibited within the B-2 District. Any grandfathered signs not meeting current/ or future standards will not be made to comply.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
Rochester
I just finished reading through Rochester's downtown revitalization plan. You certainly won't be happy to know that they are planning to only allow Blade signs, and canopy signage...nothing else, unless grandfathered in.
But, on the bright side. Their plan looks really good. Since the downtown district is so small, it should take them no time to pull it all together. The revitalization plan will undoubtedly bring more customers to downtown Rochester.
Just thought you should know.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
Signage and Vision
I think it's adequate to say that the sign issue needs to be fair. How is it that it's ok for some businesses and not others? I pass Logansport Saving's sign daily and I think it looks nice. You can't say yes to one and not the other. In addition to the "vision" of the city, I've lived here for two years and haven't exactly seen much that's vision oriented. When I moved here I didn't think to myself, "wow, what a cute historic town!" It didn't, by any means, remind me of Little Nashville and probably never will. The fact is plain and simple, if the town is to grow, businesses need to thrive. By taking away marketing means how are they supposed to? It's not any banks fault or any other business that they don't look like a craft store or sell artsy things. Here's the bottom line, communities that are looking to the future are growing. There's a place in every town for that historic "homey" feel. Where that is in Logansport, I do not know. But, until Logansport can get back on its feet and show that it can actually bring in business maybe the vision of "Little Logansport" should go on the back burner.
wow.
Visitor,
May I ask if you brought here against your will? It sounds like it. lol
I see your point on allowing something in one location, and not another. On the surface it sounds and looks incredibly unfair.
The fact is that Logan Savings' sign was in place before the installation of the DDRB and the new ordinances for the downtown B-2 district....as well as Security Federals sign. As I said before, I never had a problem with Sec. Fed. replacing their outdated electronic sign with and LED sign. I feel it was unfair to restrict something that they already had. My issue was with the design of the sign, as it was not pedestrian oriented.
And if Logan Savings wanted to replace their currant LED sign, I would allow it (If I were making the decision, of which I'm not) because it would be equally unfair to restrict something they already currently have.
As far as a new electronic sign that was never there to begin with, it would require a variance to determine if the location and design is appropriate. The same goes for the entire community, per our current ordinances. but plans are underway to alleviate some of the red tape if someone chooses to utilize an electronic reader board in any of the B-3 districts (east end, west end,ect)
As far as your assessment of this town goes...You really need to get out more. The changes in downtown are stellar to say the least, especially compared to ten years ago. The city becomes a little more progressive every year, and every year noticeable changes solidify.
I understand your assessment on businesses first, community second. I've heard the rhetoric a thousand times. But, the real "Bottom line" is, businesses are less likely to locate in a community with poor planning, bad curb appeal, and non progressive future visions....why would they bother.
For most large corporations, community appeal (quality of life) is on their top five check list...along with a sustainable workforce, education, transportation, and regional location. ( not to mention how much free stuff they can get from the local government)
This is why it is very important to multi-task the various goals of the community. Because, one cannot sustain itself without the other. Economic development, business support, higher educational facilities, quality of life, government finance, infrastructure, comprehensive planning, and supportive legislation. If you take one of these points of interest away, the entire system breaks down.
Please pick up a copy of "Boom Town", or google some studies on urban design, and economics, and get back to me on this issue, but not before....just kidding :)
Logansport has a lot to offer. I hope you can find all of the good you have right under your nose.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
Bottom Line
You want it, here it is: I don't care what kind of a rule, law, or standard that the city chooses to make if it allows any business to violate it, or gives permission to violate it, no business will respect nor feel obligated to follow any such rule, law, or standard. This makes it appear that fairness is for sale in Logansport and that is one of the main complaints that has to be proven wrong. No business, nor businessperson, should be treated any different than any other. This says they are and it stinks.
agreed
I understand where you're coming from, as I have been hearing the same thing from virtually the entire community. (pitchfork wielding villagers)
Most people are asking, "If the president of the bank wasn't on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, would the same attention have been paid?"
My honest answer is, "I don't know, I would hope so."
There is no doubt that some special attention was paid, specifically due to the fact of who was being denied the variance. But, do I think the votes were paid for....NO, I really don't.
I believe the Chamber marketed the situation to their advantage....of which is very smart if you think about it.
They strictly relied on the apparent situation, and instilled a fair amount of fear and loathing for the review process, claiming that Logansport is not business friendly. This alone won them the appeal, as the BZA wanted to show apparent good faith that they are business friendly.
I do believe in variances to the ordinances, as I believe there are special situations and exceptions to the rule, that the ordinances can't fully take into account.
This process also allows for a loophole in the system.
And similar issues could result in an across the board "who cares what they think" attitude.
A quagmire to say the least.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
Liberties taken with the opposition's positions . . .
Kado,
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinions on this forum, but I think we should stick to our own views and refrain from commenting or pretending to know how others view an issue. I feel it is unfair for you make statements like "the Chamber is for business, not the community." To state that the Chamber feels that "business makes the community" comes across as saying business has an arrogant attitude and takes this community for granted. As a business owner that offends me because it couldn't be further from the truth. Any business owner wanting to be around long learns quickly who signs their paycheck.
You have taken a very broad brush today and painted the business community in a way that implies we don't care about anything but our businesses. Many people from all walks of life volunteer countless hours of service and donate generously to community causes dear to their hearts. We all make this community a better place. I know it probably wasn't your intention but these statements are divisive.
You heard me say yesterday the Chamber is in favor of some sign regulations - we just don't agree on what those regulations should be. Then you come on this forum and state that "the Chamber truly wants no restrictions." I guess I must not have been very convincing - just say I wasn't very convincing the next time - don't pretend to know how the Chamber really feels.
In conclusion, you also heard me make a plea for some dialogue and compromise from both sides yesterday in the meeting we attended. Your statement that "many things are forever lost with the acceptance of one concession" undoubtedly applies to some events in our lives, but for crying out loud - signs!!!!!! Have we forgot how to sit down and talk things out? Too many TV talk shows I guess - all we know how to do is dig in our heels and shout each other down. This polarization and unwillingness to find common ground isn't good for anything in my opinion. I'd rather we work at finding solutions than conducting arguments.
These views are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Chamber or the Chamber Board, of which I am a member. I have to put that disclaimer in there because I have sometimes made comments that have been led people to believe I was speaking for the Chamber, when I was intending to speak for myself.
divisive
****(Brian, this is a disclaimer to let you know that the following reply was written in the very lowest of tones. Please don't perceive this reply in an attacking manner, as it is not my intention, nor will it ever be.)
I don't know exactly how you have viewed any of my statements to reflect "pretending to know how others feel about an issue". That's a little "pot calling the kettle black".
And here's why I think so, since you brought it up.
The chamber is leading this charge regarding the sign ordinances, based on the premise that your committee is advocating for the chamber's membership. When asked about a report of the consensus of your entire membership and how your membership felt about electronic sign proliferation...your response was verbatim, "I'm not going to contact all members, I have a job, and it would take a long time."
There was even two of your members sitting there in opposition to your proposal regarding the sign ordinance. One vocally spoke out in opposition, and pointed out the fact that nobody from the chamber had contacted them regarding this issue. The other person has a business on market street, of which you want looser regulations regarding signage, and nobody has contacted them.
So, the big question is, "How can you advocate for your membership, if you don't know what your membership wants?".
Who exactly are you advocating for? It's clear from your own admission that it's not the membership. Is it just a few of the members? Is it only what the advocacy committee wants? Is it what the Board of Directors want?What is it?
I'm not being a jerk, it's just the fact that everyone is confused, because the origins of this issue are not transparent at this point. I could understand your position better if this is something the majority of your membership wanted...but, as you mentioned, it's clearly not the case at all.
Talk about, "Pretending to know how others feel about an issue".
As for my statement that the "chamber wants no restrictions on business". I said it because I heard it first hand, as well as several other people. Not from you, Not from the last meeting. But, it was said. If you want to know who said it, and where it was said, I'll be happy to tell you in person. I will not publicly humiliate this person on this blog. But, if you insist, I will accommodate.
Always remember, that I never open my mouth unless I know what I'm talking about. (well, other than a few times, but we won't get into that...lol)
My perception on the Chamber's "business first, community second" can be derived from some simple statements that your committee made during the last meeting. e.g. A conversation was taking place regarding the homes on the boulevard and the Roselawn addition, that back up to Market street. Some people thought a proliferation of bright signage could impact the people living along that area, and have a negative impact on their property values. Your committee was only concerned with the fact that if we restricted signage in that area, then it would reduce the area in which electronic signage could be used...nothing more. So forgive me if I chose to view this as a "business first" action.
I take it that my statement regarding how "some" special attention was paid to this issue, due to the fact that the bank president is also on the the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Executive Committee, is the basis for you saying that I'm "pretending" to know something. If so, I can tell you that I'm not pretending to know exactly what's going on with the chamber, it was my opinion, of which you clearly stated that "you don't have a problem with anybody expressing their opinions on this forum"....so I'll leave it there.
Divisive would be someone stating that "Logansport is not business friendly".....much as you did as a quote in the paper.
Quote:
“On behalf of the chamber, I would like to express my disappointment,” he said. “This is a bad precedent for businesses who are trying to operate in the downtown. I don’t understand, and I believe you made an error. You are not being friendly to businesses.”
Divisive is the fact that at your last Chamber gathering, the first speaker got up and opened with a half witted joke about the downtown sign ordinances....."Well, I just got back from applying for a new sign, finally got through the review process, got the sign approved, the sign looks great.......but I have one problem, I can't figure out how to keep the candle lit in the darn thing." (paraphrased)...(pause, wait for laughter)
You might find it funny, but I assure you it's not. Divisiveness seems to be in fashion this month....as well as hypocrisy.
I like the Chamber, Imagine if I didn't. I think the chamber has done a lot for the community in the past, and I'm sure they'll do tons more in the future.
So, can I have your word on the fact that the chamber is now community first, business second" ???
Don't answer that.
The truth is the Chamber is business first, second, and third. That's okay, that's what you're there for. Wear it like a badge. But let's not pretend that it's something more than it is. The Chamber is a great organization that has the power to lobby for "leading businesses", and advocate on behalf of local businesses. The Chamber serves to fulfil an important function within the community. And the community would be hard pressed to replace the services the chamber provides.
And any opinion that I may have about the Chamber in regards to this current issue, should not be misconstrued as an attack on your membership. Nor will I accept anybody weaving my opinions in this matter as anti-business rhetoric. As it is not, nor would I attack any business.
The charitable contributions and volunteerism in this community is largely based on our local businesses, you included. And it is greatly appreciated.
And when you show up at a meeting with a quorum of your advocacy committee, you guys are speaking for the chamber legally. It's not fair to pick and choose the times you are, and are not speaking for the chamber in this issue. MHO
I know that I have the reputation within your group of being the "liberal obstructionist". I can live with that.
That's the role I chose when I decided to get involved as to help make this community a better place to live, work, and play.
I think a lot of what your committee is suggesting is valid, and furthermore, very reasonable. I'm not opposed to anything that you suggested, at all. (bet you didn't see that coming)lol
I'm only concerned with the safety hazard issues pertaining to visual clutter. I consider them an important issue within this community. I won't allow this issue to be glossed over. Not by you, the business advocacy committee, or the Chamber... Simple as that.
I personally don't care about where electronic signs are placed within the B-3 district, as long as it doesn't reflect negatively on adjacent neighborhoods, and that the increased visual clutter does not distract from busy intersections. That's all. Anything less would be unconscionable, and I'm sure the Chamber will want the same.
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
The Plan
I've been looking over the "rhubarb" over, what appears to be a very limited few's personal agenda, on what's best for Logansport's downtown district. It seems that for a number of years that the focus has been on a plan that reflects the "turn of the century". That focus seems to be on the year 1900, forgetting that we've had another turn of the century since then. I see more and more vacant buildings popping up or new businesses that turn into short time tenants. I don't see many people jumping on the "1900" bandwagon. In fact, the only wagon business in Logansport seems to be jumping on is the one leading out of town along with its residents. Retail is a highly competitive business, and I don't see many retailers taking a big step backwards in their marketing plan. Don't get me wrong, I think Brown County is beautiful, but it has a continuing heritage of being that way. Why are a few so insisting that we copy someone else? Has anyone ever thought that maybe there is an overwhelming majority that doesn't like the plan. Judging by the number and types of businesses,and the number of customers, it makes you wonder if anyone has truly went one on one with business owners downtown and asked them what they want. You would think that organizations like the chamber, Logan Landing, and Downtown Redeveolpment committees would want to do everything they can to partner with business and their business plans to attract customers; not tell them what their business plan is or will be. No doubt, good things happen like trick or treating downtown and Light Up parade that attracts many people. As far as customers, it seems the memories of all those people who flock to the parades each year fade the next morning as they hit the road for Lafayette, Kokomo, Ft Wayne and Indy. While so much attention and money is given to creating gateways to the downtown, maybe we should remember that those gates swing both ways, and are pathways out of town as well as in. (If the town's name is changed to Karmel, maybe no one will notice) Maybe it's time to stop trying to be someone we are not. How about spending more time on the streets of Logansport, instead of other towns looking for old ideas?
huh?
(scratching head)
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
Yah
Yeppers we don't want a plan that has proven to work in many different places at many different times. "Cause we're diffurnt around here." I go to different towns to buy gasoline. What was that a member told my elected Mayor when he asked why they charged more here for the same gasoline they sell for less in other cities? Oh yeah, "Because we can." Here is another I love, "All the traffic will bare." I still want to know if the Super Walmart will sell cheap gas and if not why not????
I've been staying out of this thread
Larry, right now gas is about the same all over. You might save a nickel here or there. I'm with you, is the new super walmart going to sell cheaper gas?
James Delp
james_delp901@comcast.net
www.myspace.com/rich1121
Nothing yet
So far, the company has announced plans only for a supercenter, which at this point doesn't include even auto service. There has been no announcement about a gas station.
Kelly Hawes
managing editor
Pharos-Tribune
(574) 732-5155
DOH!
Well Larry, you did it again. lol
Kado Downs
http://logansport.myminicity.com/
http://twitter.com/kadodowns
George Armstrong Custer
"Them Indians wasn't mad at the dance last night," quote, I believe, George Carlin of Custer.