Program host: 'I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said'
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says.
Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris' coverage of local issues as well as national issues.
But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism.
Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama's call in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported.
In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn't new at all.
"We called them the 'peoples' militia' (in Czechoslovakia)," he told WND.
He said he's reviewed Obama's speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government and discussed those issues on his program.
"I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said," Dzuris told WND. "I'm just taking what he says, his influences, background," he said. "I lived all those things."
He said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989.
Read the rest of the article here.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Appeal yields 90-minute 'Martin Dzuris Live!' show
By John Gunner Gooch
For The South County Gazette
THREE OAKS - The "Martin Dzuris Live!" show began airing on Radio Harbor Country (106.7 FM) in its new 90-minute format on Monday, Dec. 29.Dzuris and the WRHC Board of Directors were able to reach a compromise on the talk-show host's appeal of a Dec. 8 Programming Committee decision to reduce the air time of his weekly program from two hours to one.Dzuris made the appeal to get his full air time restored during a Dec. 13 Radio Harbor Country general membership meeting, stating that he felt the decision was based on his conservative political views and political associations, and not because of the technical quality of his broadcasts, as had been claimed by the Programming Committee.During a special meeting of the Board of Directors on Dec. 27, a majority of those voting on the issue decided to give Dzuris back a half-hour of air time, which means his show can now be heard on Mondays from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Rebroadcasts are scheduled for Saturdays from 7:30 to 9 a.m.Peg Kohring, co-chair of the Board of Directors, said that members of the board who also serve on the Programming Committee abstained from taking part in the vote.She also said that board members felt it was not a political decision on the part of the Programming Committee to cut Dzuris's air time in half."Overall, I think the feeling of the board members was that the decision to reduce the time Martin was given for his show was done because of the quality of the show's production, and not because of its political content," Kohring said. "Since we felt his more recent programs had shown a significant improvement in quality, we were now willing to give him 90 minutes on the air instead of 60 minutes."While Dzuris held firm to his belief that the Programming Committee's decision was based more on his political views than anything else, the show host said he and his engineer/producer, Nathan Lumsford, could live with the compromise."I was told that the original decision to reduce the time of my show wasn't politically motivated, but I still don't agree with that," Dzuris said. "I think the petition I presented with my appeal that was signed by so many people asking the board to reverse the Programming Committee's decision was very helpful to me in this process, and I'm very thankful to everyone who took the time to support me by signing it."While I still feel this was politically motivated, for the good of the radio station, and so we can all keep moving forward with it, I'm not going to fight it any more," Dzuris continued. "A compromise decision has been made that both sides can live with, and in a compromise both sides give a little and get a little, and that's what happened here."Kohring said a voice like Dzuris's helped add to the eclectic mix of programming that WRHC had become known for."I think we realize that as a community radio station we need a good balance of liberal and conservative views to be freely aired," she said. "Those who lean toward being right wing or left wing should be allowed to be heard on our broadcasts, and, in my opinion, what Martin does on the air helps give us some of that balance."
For The South County Gazette
THREE OAKS - The "Martin Dzuris Live!" show began airing on Radio Harbor Country (106.7 FM) in its new 90-minute format on Monday, Dec. 29.Dzuris and the WRHC Board of Directors were able to reach a compromise on the talk-show host's appeal of a Dec. 8 Programming Committee decision to reduce the air time of his weekly program from two hours to one.Dzuris made the appeal to get his full air time restored during a Dec. 13 Radio Harbor Country general membership meeting, stating that he felt the decision was based on his conservative political views and political associations, and not because of the technical quality of his broadcasts, as had been claimed by the Programming Committee.During a special meeting of the Board of Directors on Dec. 27, a majority of those voting on the issue decided to give Dzuris back a half-hour of air time, which means his show can now be heard on Mondays from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Rebroadcasts are scheduled for Saturdays from 7:30 to 9 a.m.Peg Kohring, co-chair of the Board of Directors, said that members of the board who also serve on the Programming Committee abstained from taking part in the vote.She also said that board members felt it was not a political decision on the part of the Programming Committee to cut Dzuris's air time in half."Overall, I think the feeling of the board members was that the decision to reduce the time Martin was given for his show was done because of the quality of the show's production, and not because of its political content," Kohring said. "Since we felt his more recent programs had shown a significant improvement in quality, we were now willing to give him 90 minutes on the air instead of 60 minutes."While Dzuris held firm to his belief that the Programming Committee's decision was based more on his political views than anything else, the show host said he and his engineer/producer, Nathan Lumsford, could live with the compromise."I was told that the original decision to reduce the time of my show wasn't politically motivated, but I still don't agree with that," Dzuris said. "I think the petition I presented with my appeal that was signed by so many people asking the board to reverse the Programming Committee's decision was very helpful to me in this process, and I'm very thankful to everyone who took the time to support me by signing it."While I still feel this was politically motivated, for the good of the radio station, and so we can all keep moving forward with it, I'm not going to fight it any more," Dzuris continued. "A compromise decision has been made that both sides can live with, and in a compromise both sides give a little and get a little, and that's what happened here."Kohring said a voice like Dzuris's helped add to the eclectic mix of programming that WRHC had become known for."I think we realize that as a community radio station we need a good balance of liberal and conservative views to be freely aired," she said. "Those who lean toward being right wing or left wing should be allowed to be heard on our broadcasts, and, in my opinion, what Martin does on the air helps give us some of that balance."
Monday, December 29, 2008
Don't Touch That Dial
By John Gunner Gooch
Controversy isn’t something usually associated with the community’s radio station, WRHC 106.7 FM, but that was the case during a recent Radio Harbor Country membership meeting when program host Martin Dzuris filed an appeal and made his case to reclaim the second hour of his “Martin Dzuris Live!” show that the Programming Committee had voted to take away.Dzuris feels the decision to reduce his air time was based more on his conservative political leanings than his performance behind the microphone, and that has led the more liberal members of the Programming Committee to try to hold him to a more professional standard than his colleagues at the all-volunteer operation. Members of the Programming Committee have denied that discrimination charge, saying that Dzuris didn’t heed advice to tighten up the content of his show, and that taking it back to its original hour format would help do that.If you’ve never met Dzuris, I’d describe him as a character, and I mean that in the best way. He’s an interesting guy with an interesting background; an immigrant from the Czech Republic who truly appreciates our freedom of speech and other opportunities that were not so readily available in the country of his birth. He’s also not shy about using his freedom of speech to voice his opinions on hot button issues, and, love him or hate him,you have to admire his passion. His Monday evening show has gotten a buzz, has broken stories, and has engaged listeners who phone in to join the lively art of conversation by agreeing or disagreeing with his views on various topics. If dialogue is the lifeblood of a vibrant community, Dzuris is certainly doing his part to keep it pumping through the body politic.Fred Upton and Cindy McCain have been guests on his show, and so have Judy Truesdell and Kim Clark, not to mention Rev. Kenneth Mundt. He’s a longtime friend and supporter of Ibrahim Parlak, backing the Harbert restaurateur’s legal efforts to fight deportation back to Turkey and become an American citizen. If “Martin Dzuris Live!” isn’t your cup of tea, it’s preceded in the lineup by “Democracy Now,” and followed by the “Wilbur Fibble Comedy Hour.” That’s diversity, and an eclectic selection of shows that WRHC is rightly proud to be broadcasting.At this point it’s hard to tell how this controversy is going to end, but a decision on the appeal is expected to be handed down in the near future. Dzuris would like at least a six-month trial period of retaining his two hours on the air so he can prove to those in charge he is capable of making changes and being a little kinder and gentler to callers he may disagree with, while also taking steps to tighten up the content of his program.While the debate over the Dzuris situation got decidedly heated at times during the meeting, it was nice to see some cooler heads prevail near the end and ask for compromise and common ground to be found to resolve things in a more amicable manner. I also took it as a good sign that Dzuris stuck around long after the meeting adjourned to continue the conversation with some of his detractors and supporters. Managing to disagree agreeably is one of life’s biggest challenges, but somehow as a community and a country we’ve always been able to find ways to do that. One of the bright spots about living in this country is that our foundational similarities that bond us are much stronger than the differences that could otherwise pull us apart to the breaking point.“100 watts of power, 1000 watts of community” is the WRHC motto the late, great Mike Hojnacki came up with, and it’s a powerful statement for the little powerhouse of a radio station that always keeps things interesting.If you want to find out what happens to Martin Dzuris, don’t change that dial. Stay in touch, and stay tuned.
Controversy isn’t something usually associated with the community’s radio station, WRHC 106.7 FM, but that was the case during a recent Radio Harbor Country membership meeting when program host Martin Dzuris filed an appeal and made his case to reclaim the second hour of his “Martin Dzuris Live!” show that the Programming Committee had voted to take away.Dzuris feels the decision to reduce his air time was based more on his conservative political leanings than his performance behind the microphone, and that has led the more liberal members of the Programming Committee to try to hold him to a more professional standard than his colleagues at the all-volunteer operation. Members of the Programming Committee have denied that discrimination charge, saying that Dzuris didn’t heed advice to tighten up the content of his show, and that taking it back to its original hour format would help do that.If you’ve never met Dzuris, I’d describe him as a character, and I mean that in the best way. He’s an interesting guy with an interesting background; an immigrant from the Czech Republic who truly appreciates our freedom of speech and other opportunities that were not so readily available in the country of his birth. He’s also not shy about using his freedom of speech to voice his opinions on hot button issues, and, love him or hate him,you have to admire his passion. His Monday evening show has gotten a buzz, has broken stories, and has engaged listeners who phone in to join the lively art of conversation by agreeing or disagreeing with his views on various topics. If dialogue is the lifeblood of a vibrant community, Dzuris is certainly doing his part to keep it pumping through the body politic.Fred Upton and Cindy McCain have been guests on his show, and so have Judy Truesdell and Kim Clark, not to mention Rev. Kenneth Mundt. He’s a longtime friend and supporter of Ibrahim Parlak, backing the Harbert restaurateur’s legal efforts to fight deportation back to Turkey and become an American citizen. If “Martin Dzuris Live!” isn’t your cup of tea, it’s preceded in the lineup by “Democracy Now,” and followed by the “Wilbur Fibble Comedy Hour.” That’s diversity, and an eclectic selection of shows that WRHC is rightly proud to be broadcasting.At this point it’s hard to tell how this controversy is going to end, but a decision on the appeal is expected to be handed down in the near future. Dzuris would like at least a six-month trial period of retaining his two hours on the air so he can prove to those in charge he is capable of making changes and being a little kinder and gentler to callers he may disagree with, while also taking steps to tighten up the content of his program.While the debate over the Dzuris situation got decidedly heated at times during the meeting, it was nice to see some cooler heads prevail near the end and ask for compromise and common ground to be found to resolve things in a more amicable manner. I also took it as a good sign that Dzuris stuck around long after the meeting adjourned to continue the conversation with some of his detractors and supporters. Managing to disagree agreeably is one of life’s biggest challenges, but somehow as a community and a country we’ve always been able to find ways to do that. One of the bright spots about living in this country is that our foundational similarities that bond us are much stronger than the differences that could otherwise pull us apart to the breaking point.“100 watts of power, 1000 watts of community” is the WRHC motto the late, great Mike Hojnacki came up with, and it’s a powerful statement for the little powerhouse of a radio station that always keeps things interesting.If you want to find out what happens to Martin Dzuris, don’t change that dial. Stay in touch, and stay tuned.
Monday, December 22, 2008
WRHC host sees political bias behind 1-hour cut for talk show
By John Gunner Gooch
For The South County Gazette News
THREE OAKS - WRHC radio station program host Martin Dzuris has never been shy about airing his opinions during his weekly "Martin Dzuris Live!" program. During the Dec. 13 Radio Harbor Country general meeting, he was equally frank about a recent Programming Committee decision to reduce his Monday evening time slot from two hours to one.The Radio Harbor Country Programming Committee had voted 7-1 during a previous meeting on Dec. 8 to approve a motion to take away an hour of Dzuris' live broadcast, and also to reduce rebroadcasting of the show, a move that he's appealing to the station's Board of Directors.At the Dec. 13 general meeting, Dzuris said he feels the Programming Committee is discriminating against him and his show due to his conservative political viewpoints and political associations. He added that this violates some of Radio Harbor Country's bylaws including one that states the radio station values diversity and will take no action against any individual on account of his or her political association.
Read the rest here
For The South County Gazette News
THREE OAKS - WRHC radio station program host Martin Dzuris has never been shy about airing his opinions during his weekly "Martin Dzuris Live!" program. During the Dec. 13 Radio Harbor Country general meeting, he was equally frank about a recent Programming Committee decision to reduce his Monday evening time slot from two hours to one.The Radio Harbor Country Programming Committee had voted 7-1 during a previous meeting on Dec. 8 to approve a motion to take away an hour of Dzuris' live broadcast, and also to reduce rebroadcasting of the show, a move that he's appealing to the station's Board of Directors.At the Dec. 13 general meeting, Dzuris said he feels the Programming Committee is discriminating against him and his show due to his conservative political viewpoints and political associations. He added that this violates some of Radio Harbor Country's bylaws including one that states the radio station values diversity and will take no action against any individual on account of his or her political association.
Read the rest here
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Planning Commission denies The "Gentlemen's" Club application
Today the New Buffalo Township Planning Commission recommended that the New Buffalo Township Board deny the application of NOI, LLC for a Special Land Use Permit for an Adult Entertainment Business, specifically a nightclub with topless dancers, on the grounds that the nightclub would not meet the criteria required for a Special Land Use under the New Buffalo Township Zoning Ordinance and has not fulfilled the requirements to apply for a license under the Township of New Buffalo Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.
The vote was 7-0. My thanks to the commissioners.
Read the whole motion of the New Buffalo Township Planning Commission here
The vote was 7-0. My thanks to the commissioners.
Read the whole motion of the New Buffalo Township Planning Commission here
Monday, June 16, 2008
Insiders views of Strip bars
Strip Club Testimony by Kelly Holsopple about her experiences in stripping over the course of thirteen years.
Sexually Oriented Businesses - An Insider’s View by David Sherman, a Former Midwest Manager of Déjà Vu strip bars with 14 years experience in the adult entertainment industry
How do Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) affect communities?
a. Land Use Studies from cities around the United States were cited in both U.S. Supreme Court cases and clearly document the harmful secondary effects caused by SOBs such as those listed above.
b. These harmful secondary effects the Court identified are:
1. Increased Crime - rape, sexual assault, prostitution and illegal drug sales
2. Decreased Property Values - both residential and commercial
3. Urban Blight - people and businesses fleeing the community
c. Facts cited in three of the Land Use Studies or view the summaries of 32 studies.
1. Indianapolis, Indiana: Crime increased 23% in the study areas containing SOBs versus study areas containing no SOBs. Sex related crimes were 4 times more common in residential study areas than commercial study areas with SOBs.
2. Cleveland, Ohio: In one study tract with 5 SOBs and 730 people, there were 136 robberies. In the city's largest tract (13,587 people and no SOBs) there were only 14 robberies. Of the three tracts with the highest incidence of rape, two had SOBs and the third bordered a tract with such businesses. In these three, there were 41 rapes - 14 per tract - nearly 7 times the city average of 2.4 rapes per census tract.
3. Phoenix, Arizona: On average, sex offenses were 506% greater and property crimes were 43% greater in neighborhoods where SOBs were located as opposed to neighborhoods containing no SOBs.
4. Click here for a more comprehensive list of key court cases, land use studies, and testimonies
What can a community do to protect itself from SOBs?
a. The U.S. Supreme Court, in two landmark decisions --Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., (1976) and Renton v. Playtime Inc. Theater, Inc., (1986) concluded "...that municipalities have a substantial interest in protecting and preserving the quality of life for its community against the adverse secondary effects of SOBs...." - regardless of the size of the community.
b. This means that legislative bodies - villages, cities, townships, counties - not only have the right but have the duty to protect its citizens from these harmful secondary effects.
c. Such legislative protection can be passed in the form of zoning ordinances, licensing procedures, permit requirements and operational regulations.
d. All these legislative tools are needed to make it extremely unattractive for SOBs to open in a community.
Source: www.ccv.org
Sexually Oriented Businesses - An Insider’s View by David Sherman, a Former Midwest Manager of Déjà Vu strip bars with 14 years experience in the adult entertainment industry
How do Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) affect communities?
a. Land Use Studies from cities around the United States were cited in both U.S. Supreme Court cases and clearly document the harmful secondary effects caused by SOBs such as those listed above.
b. These harmful secondary effects the Court identified are:
1. Increased Crime - rape, sexual assault, prostitution and illegal drug sales
2. Decreased Property Values - both residential and commercial
3. Urban Blight - people and businesses fleeing the community
c. Facts cited in three of the Land Use Studies or view the summaries of 32 studies.
1. Indianapolis, Indiana: Crime increased 23% in the study areas containing SOBs versus study areas containing no SOBs. Sex related crimes were 4 times more common in residential study areas than commercial study areas with SOBs.
2. Cleveland, Ohio: In one study tract with 5 SOBs and 730 people, there were 136 robberies. In the city's largest tract (13,587 people and no SOBs) there were only 14 robberies. Of the three tracts with the highest incidence of rape, two had SOBs and the third bordered a tract with such businesses. In these three, there were 41 rapes - 14 per tract - nearly 7 times the city average of 2.4 rapes per census tract.
3. Phoenix, Arizona: On average, sex offenses were 506% greater and property crimes were 43% greater in neighborhoods where SOBs were located as opposed to neighborhoods containing no SOBs.
4. Click here for a more comprehensive list of key court cases, land use studies, and testimonies
What can a community do to protect itself from SOBs?
a. The U.S. Supreme Court, in two landmark decisions --Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., (1976) and Renton v. Playtime Inc. Theater, Inc., (1986) concluded "...that municipalities have a substantial interest in protecting and preserving the quality of life for its community against the adverse secondary effects of SOBs...." - regardless of the size of the community.
b. This means that legislative bodies - villages, cities, townships, counties - not only have the right but have the duty to protect its citizens from these harmful secondary effects.
c. Such legislative protection can be passed in the form of zoning ordinances, licensing procedures, permit requirements and operational regulations.
d. All these legislative tools are needed to make it extremely unattractive for SOBs to open in a community.
Source: www.ccv.org
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The "Gentlemen's" Club
I encourage the New Buffalo Planning Commission in regards to the proposed "Gentlemen's Club" to uphold their existing zoning ordinance and recommend denial of a special land use permit allowing the N.O.I. Inc to build/open a strip club. The existing zoning ordinance calls for sexual oriented businesses to be 1000 feet from residences as well as businesses serving alcohol which the N.O.I. Inc. proposed establishment does not meet.
Our community is supposed to believe that the proposed club will be a high quality multimillion-dollar business. Yet, the proprietor, Dave Roberts, couldn't even answer basic questions such as the number of proposed employees or whether or not the business would provide lap dances. When asked, Roberts couldn't even vocalize a list of investors. When Roberts was asked how many investors have invested over 20%, he stated only he and his wife. By his own admission, he has no experience running a sexually oriented business (S.O.B.). Something appears fishy here. Roberts is requesting a topless bar, but when the board asked if lap dances would be provided, Mr. Roberts' only answer was that he would do everything within the law and his attorney, Mr. Mark LaRose, informed the board that full nudity is legal. So should we expect a full-nudity lounge club? We are made to believe that local attorney, Mark LaRose, is only representing Roberts; however LaRose's own choice of words have created questions as to the extent of his involvement. Mr. LaRose stated "I guarantee you if you put reasonable, understandable, safe restrictions on this business, they will be complied with." Let me ask a question. If you are only an attorney representing a client, how can you guarantee such a thing? Unless perhaps you are part owner, silent partner, or investor that actually has a say in how the business will be run? Additionally and even more revealing, LaRose continued "When a guy gets out the back door of McDonalds or Casey's, or some other of the establishments in town; we can't guarantee what that guy or woman will do but while they're in OUR establishment, WE can guarantee that WE'LL do the best WE can to follow the law and prosecute those that don't" (emphasis added). Notice that LaRose doesn't say, "my client's establishment, my client can guarantee, or that my client can do the best. It seems obvious that the involvement of LaRose is deeper than we are made to believe. Their attempt to keep us in the dark not only forms mistrust to the actual extent of the S.O.B., but also fails to provide any form of confidence that this business will be run according to the law. I also would like to know, in what capacity, if any, Mr. Alan Gull, the owner of the property for the proposed strip club is involved.
We are made to believe that legally we cannot prevent this S.O.B. from coming to our community. I disagree. The Michigan State Supreme Court has already provided precedence by rulings that a subsequent zoning ordinance can be enforced, even when proprietor was already given a building permit; as well as a ruling that when an application for a permit is pending and rezoning takes place before the permit is issued, no prior right exists. Whatever the recommendation of the New Buffalo Planning Commission will be, I encourage the New Buffalo Township Board to deny the special land use permit based on the fact that the S.O.B. fails to meet the existing zoning ordinance. I encourage the Board to uphold their existing ordinances and avoid being bullied by the threat of a lawsuit. If the board denies the application and N.O.I. Inc files a lawsuit against New Buffalo Township, just as I have organized grass-roots movements in the past, I am willing, if necessary, to form a group of citizens opposed to the strip joint to do what is necessary to support the township's legal battle. I didn't back down from a fight against the United States Federal Government and I'm not about to back down from a fight against some N.O.I. Inc. - and neither should any others opposed to this strip joint.
Our community is supposed to believe that the proposed club will be a high quality multimillion-dollar business. Yet, the proprietor, Dave Roberts, couldn't even answer basic questions such as the number of proposed employees or whether or not the business would provide lap dances. When asked, Roberts couldn't even vocalize a list of investors. When Roberts was asked how many investors have invested over 20%, he stated only he and his wife. By his own admission, he has no experience running a sexually oriented business (S.O.B.). Something appears fishy here. Roberts is requesting a topless bar, but when the board asked if lap dances would be provided, Mr. Roberts' only answer was that he would do everything within the law and his attorney, Mr. Mark LaRose, informed the board that full nudity is legal. So should we expect a full-nudity lounge club? We are made to believe that local attorney, Mark LaRose, is only representing Roberts; however LaRose's own choice of words have created questions as to the extent of his involvement. Mr. LaRose stated "I guarantee you if you put reasonable, understandable, safe restrictions on this business, they will be complied with." Let me ask a question. If you are only an attorney representing a client, how can you guarantee such a thing? Unless perhaps you are part owner, silent partner, or investor that actually has a say in how the business will be run? Additionally and even more revealing, LaRose continued "When a guy gets out the back door of McDonalds or Casey's, or some other of the establishments in town; we can't guarantee what that guy or woman will do but while they're in OUR establishment, WE can guarantee that WE'LL do the best WE can to follow the law and prosecute those that don't" (emphasis added). Notice that LaRose doesn't say, "my client's establishment, my client can guarantee, or that my client can do the best. It seems obvious that the involvement of LaRose is deeper than we are made to believe. Their attempt to keep us in the dark not only forms mistrust to the actual extent of the S.O.B., but also fails to provide any form of confidence that this business will be run according to the law. I also would like to know, in what capacity, if any, Mr. Alan Gull, the owner of the property for the proposed strip club is involved.
We are made to believe that legally we cannot prevent this S.O.B. from coming to our community. I disagree. The Michigan State Supreme Court has already provided precedence by rulings that a subsequent zoning ordinance can be enforced, even when proprietor was already given a building permit; as well as a ruling that when an application for a permit is pending and rezoning takes place before the permit is issued, no prior right exists. Whatever the recommendation of the New Buffalo Planning Commission will be, I encourage the New Buffalo Township Board to deny the special land use permit based on the fact that the S.O.B. fails to meet the existing zoning ordinance. I encourage the Board to uphold their existing ordinances and avoid being bullied by the threat of a lawsuit. If the board denies the application and N.O.I. Inc files a lawsuit against New Buffalo Township, just as I have organized grass-roots movements in the past, I am willing, if necessary, to form a group of citizens opposed to the strip joint to do what is necessary to support the township's legal battle. I didn't back down from a fight against the United States Federal Government and I'm not about to back down from a fight against some N.O.I. Inc. - and neither should any others opposed to this strip joint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
