- Font Size:
- Default font size
- Larger font size
BY MATTHEW VAN DUSEN
mvandusen@nwitimes.com
219.462.5151 | Friday, June 02, 2006 | (No comments posted.)
PORTER | There was supposed to be a silent protest against a proposed hotel at Indiana Dunes State Park on Thursday, but no developer wanted to build one so it became a silent celebration.
And no one could stay silent for long, so it was really just a celebration.
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources had planned a 100-room hotel by the Lake Michigan shore but didn't get any offers from developers by Wednesday's deadline.
The apparent victory of environmental and citizen groups that mounted an aggressive media campaign against the project was a relief to people at the beach on Thursday, but activists were already getting ready for the next hotel proposal.
"It's important to be here anyway, to send a message," said Laura DeSousa, co-founder of the group Duneland First who was handing out tags that said, "Indiana Dunes State Park, Not for Sale or Lease."
A sign in circulation had a picture of the Hilton Garden Inn in Chesterton superimposed on the site of the proposed hotel at the Dunes.
Many people expressed distrust for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, particularly Director Kyle Hupfer.
Ruth Osann, a former president of Save the Dunes Council, which also opposed the hotel, said Hupfer was being disingenuous when he said the proposed hotel wouldn't be on the beach.
"It can't get much closer (to the water), unless he wants it to be washed away by the next high lake level," said Osann.
She added the park is too small for development that would ruin natural areas and opposed a hotel even if, as the DNR has proposed, the state builds and runs it.
Linda Klaiber, another co-founder of Duneland First, noted that Mother Nature seemed pleased that no developers had submitted hotel proposals before the deadline; as the blood-orange sun set over Chicago, rising Atlantis-like from the lake, a rainbow appeared in the south.
People watched the scene for a moment, then they resumed talking strategy.
Back to story No comments posted.
- It wasn't clear, concise or focused on the topic in the story.
- It was a personal attack, vulgar, explicit or degrading, used actual or implied profanity or contained potentially libelous statements.
- It accused someone of being guilty of a crime.
- It promoted violence or illegal acts.
- It contained telephone numbers or street addresses, or e-mail addresses and links to Web sites other than nwi.com or government agencies.
In no way do these comments represent the views of The Times or Lee Enterprises.
Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude and profane language and personal abuse are not welcome.
Reader comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined. They may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
If you feel a posted comment has violated these guidelines, please email our New Media team the commenter's name, the comment and a link to the article.
For more information please read our Terms of Service.