" Lake Paradise to be a wonderful camping, fishing, area then turned into the nasty place is today. Lake Mattoon to be a wonderland, and it isn't exactly as pictured either. Now Charleston Lake is as bad as the rest.
They keep making the lakes and then no upkeep and people keep tossing all their junk into the lakes. Lake Paradise was to be a good place have a cabin and look what a mess. Charleston in same mess, and Lake Mattoon is getting there and harder to sell the properties to others who know the score.
I use to fish and now scared to eat anything caught in any of these places.
I'm scared of some of the restaurants because know a few things on their health keeping issues in restaurants.
Nothing like working in one and see and know. Look at the Lakes, take tour in restaurants, SEE about the SAME messes.

Not all restaurants, just a FEW. "

" It may be a good idea to go the other way. Instead of moving folks out, perhaps this would be a great time to develop and sell lots.

If the editorial board author is correct, and the state has right of first refusal on land sales, since the state has no money they will most likely not buy the land at this time.

Let's develop Lake Charleston and model it after Lake Sarah. "

" Raptor wrote on Aug 19, 2009 5:26 PM:

"If the editorial board author is correct, and the state has right of first refusal on land sales, since the state has no money they will most likely not buy the land at this time."

The city is also broke, but that doesn't stop them from spending it unnecessarily.

"Let's develop Lake Charleston and model it after Lake Sarah. "

My guess is that is the real reason that the city wants the homeowners out. There is big money wanting that location....just watch. The question is...who benefits?....follow the money to the greasy palm and then to the source of the grease. "

" Well, once again the JG-TC proves itself to be the dutiful lapdog for City Hall.

You say your review of the Lake Island file at City Hall didn't turn up a copy of that fabled 99-year lease. Well, doggone it. I reckon that's that, then. No point in pursuing the avowed statements of several stalwart Charleston residents, some who have served on the City Council and Committees, who insist that THERE IS INDEED a 99-year lease -- they've seen it. And you call that "journalism?" I call it pandering and shirking the sacred duty of the Fourth Estate.

But by golly, it was downright gracious of the JG-TC author of that piece to grant that, IF such a lease does turn up, it "MIGHT" change things. Now there's a blast of fresh Journalistic Integrity air for you. But maybe that's as objective as it's going to get.

This City Hall apologia also repeats the silly proposition that, if only those houses were cleared off of the Lake Island Tract, the public would soon swarm all over it, recreating, romping and frolicking in idyllic bliss. Yeah, right. Do something radically journalistic someday. Motor stately past the spillway, even on a sunny weekend mid-day, where there are already spacious park-like grounds and recreational facilities -- a pavilion, horseshoe pits, boat dock, the side channel dam for fishing. See if what sensibilities you may be free to expose will let you write in good conscience that your quick head count suggest that the Lake Island is in need of more space for public utilization.

Here's another radical proposition -- instead of sitting on your dead... deadlines, waiting for someone to "produce" that 99-year lease for you to review at your leisure, how's about playing newspaper reporters for a change. Get out there and find a copy of it for yourselves. Truly serve the Community by not simply (I almost said "naively," but that would presume uncompromised innocence) parroting what City Hall drops into your ear.

The 99-year lease exists. It's out there, Mulder. And won't the JG-TC look goofy with all that egg all over its banner when the time is right and the lease is produced by interested parties? Awkward, that. And unnecessary, when a little serious journalism could have this whole thing exposed for all to see and judge for themselves, based on fact not marching orders by some authority.

That the prime directive of the JG-TC would seem to be to serve the interests of City Hall is old news (pun intended), so there were really no surprises in this article. It's just irritating when it's couched as being thoughtful, well researched, objective and in the best interest of the people of Charleston. You can do much better, JG-TC. "

" Holy buzzard poop, Batman....I mean Tuco. This letter appeared out of nowhere. Yor post shows the wee hours, but I checked this site mid morning and there were no comments.

Sooo...if you challenge the editor, are your comments withheld until it is no longer a hot topic? I wonder who drew the short straw and had to take this to Mr. Lair for approval. I am sure that there was a great deal of moderator angst over this one.

Tuco is on target....JG-TC, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Right now it appears you fit the former. You bow to the few, but it is the majority that you should serve. "

" Either the document does exist and there is a conspiracy to destroy/hide all copies (I'm assuming there was more than one copy of this important document), or the document does not exist but since the perception/rumor is that it does exist - there is still the conspiracy theory about it whereabouts. Looks like a lose/lose situation for the paper in finding that document. I would look in the "L" files for "lake", right behind the "K" files for "Kennedy shooter." Who did it? "

" I disagree with Tuco and Responsible Party. In my opinion, the JG-TC editorial has provided some much needed factual information on the subject. It seems to me that if two parties sign a lease each party should keep a copy. The editorial states that Weve heard about 99-year leases, but didnt find any such leases in a recent review of the lake island file at City Hall. So, the City does not have a copy or they are not going to show it to anyone. Where else should the JG-TC look? Do the lake occupants have a copy? If so, why hasnt anyone mentioned it? Do third party entities keep copies of leases? Where was the lease that Tuco claims people have seen?

If there is a valid lease, I do hope that the occupants or other interested party members are able to produce it. I really would hate for someone to be forced off of their property unfairly.

However, the JG-TC editorial also states All of the current leases were signed or assigned in the past 15 years, when the leases had clauses that say they are not renewable. So, there are recent copies of signed leases on file that mention the possibility that the leases may not be renewed. Therefore, I dont understand how anyone can be surprised that someday the leases may end and the properties will need to be vacated. What am I missing?

At the same time, I dont understand the urgency behind the need for the occupants to vacate right now. I do believe that the public would be better served if private individuals did not reside at the lake. However, I dont feel like the City has effectively communicated a specific plan for the site that requires the occupants to vacate immediately. Why not let them stay until the City is ready to move forward with whatever they have planned?

Regardless, I hope that both sides reach a mutually beneficial agreement soon. The situation needs to be resolved definitively so we can all move on and get back to making Charleston a happy place to live. "

" 99 year lease or not, this was handled poorly and in bad faith.

It is very likely some developer or group, wants to do something out there, and it isn't based on more free public recreation expansion. It could be lake view condos, a retirement home, a resort, or some other development scheme. It might even become a gated facility, that actually reduces the recreation thats already there.

Seems like all the eagles and other protected wild life in the area, might have some standing in what happens or won't. Their lease probably isn't as easily manipulated.

City couldn't do anything about the houses falling over the side for years, but now they can level others, days after getting bought out. Seems the wind and priorities have definately shifted for some reason.

Above board actions, don't usually require wiggle room. Like most stuff, if it was anything like they sell it to be, there wouldn't be unanswerable questions to, motives, plans, or priorities. When you tell the truth, it's not usually so hard to keep stories straight, back things up with facts, and see some continuity in explanations and actions over time. If the paper bothered trying it, it probably wouldn't have so much trouble making any sense of a lot of its own reporting. "

" Where is MONK and MacGyver, THEY WOULD GET TO THE err (BOTTOM) OF THINGS IN 30 MINUTES TO AN HOUR. I would be scared to smell some of the palms. Might not be grease. hehe. "

" Just a thought...Don't we have another park at the lake(Lake View) on the north end? Why is it that the road leading into it is gated and locked? My guess would be that it attracts a certain element of illegal and unsavory activities. Will that happen if the city council kicks everyone out? Or is the city going to sell that park to the state, also? Are we, the citizens that use the area often, going to be left having to fish and recreate at the Harrison Street bridge, Lake Mattoon...Mill Creek? I bet the people that buy lots on Lake Charleston(if it comes to that), won't like the fishermen and recreators spoiling the beauty of the place. Who will benefit from the sale of the tract? Is it the same people that help the poor city of Charleston survive by paying taxes on the huge apartment complexes popping up. Just think about it! "

" Hey JG-TC! Thank for bringing your advocacy and compassion to the party a few years too late!

Seriously?! NOW?! After people have been kicked out of their homes, NOW their is wiggle room?!

What a terrible editorial board. People's homes have been threatened for years and only now you step up?! Get some guts and grow up. You are part of the problem of an ineffective media.

Pat yourself on the back. "