I have posted the Sanbornes before, and I have seen the DEP reports that show the "blob" as they have mapped it from cores. There is also industrial (non-petroleum) contamination under the old Claude Noland Cadillac that Hionides owns. He has vowed to address the issues of the Claude Noland building when the Park View in is addressed. I believe his remediation of the site has already begun, but I will double check. He feels any effort to redo the building now would be virtually for not with the Park View as it sits. Time will hopefully tell as one of the obstacles is about to be addressed.
As far as who I challenge and how, you are so far out of left field and grinding your own personal axe that you cant see straight. I have developed a good relationship with Hionides company as well, yet I still make phone calls and try to encourage them to do things like put glass in buildings and take down chain link and keep lots clean. I would say the exact same is true for Van Horn. I have emailed him and called him several times about over grown lots, open buildings, and other issues. I may pull my punches in as much as I am not a total jerk, but I still try to get the issues addressed as much as any ordinary citizen can.
From what I see, Hionides and Van Horne have begun remediation (and in some cases finished) on sites they know to be polluted, yet Van Winkle has tried to twist the pollution issues as though it is the creek polluting his lot (which is up hill from the creek and park), yet the ONLY place in the area that has a history of petroleum production is that lot.
All of that said, since you dont believe me, why not ask Doug Vanderlaan. He sat in all of those meetings with me. Also, any one in the Springfield Womans club should be able to answer the questions as well as their efforts in the park have time and again been thwarted because of this same issue. So please, feel free to completely disregard me. I am ok with that.
DP, Its not that I (or anyone) should disbelieve you on the merits. I don't.
However, there are two competing stories about this property. One of which claims that the property has already been cleaned, and one which says that it hasnt.
There are numerous advocates of both sides. Including several people within the Springfield community who were in the neighborhood for many years before your arrival.
Given that there are two sides, it seems reasonable to ask the landowner.
The Landowner gave a qualified, "I dont know, but I don't think so" until he announced that there had been testing performed on the property recently, after which he definitively stated that no pollutants were found.
You personally, on the other hand, have maintained---in the absence of testing---that there is definitely contamination there. If there is objective evidence, why not let that do the talking instead of trying to make it a contest of your word and reputation vs anyone else's?
It may very well turn out that the landowner is lying and there is contamination.
Just as it may very well turn out that he is telling the truth and the contamination has already been handled.
Our opinions before hand will not change the facts. I understand this, and I hope that you can accept it as well.
This is an important property, but it is after all, privately owned. Your posts here have not been accurate about Van Winkel in several aspects. You have called him an absentee landlord etc and this is in contradiction to the facts. Just as your campaign against Hionides ended up not really reflecting the reality on the ground with Petra, (all that needed to happen was a staffing change, getting rid of Mary Farwell rather than the insidious workings of a spiteful absentee landowner) perhaps its possible that you have jumped to conclusions about Van Winkel.
The idea of a conspiracy seems a little far fetched in any case.
Van Winkel has tried many times to develop this property. He knows that if he cracks the ground open that any environmentals will have to be dealt with. There is a little expense but there are state and federal funds available for mitigation.
As recently as two months ago, he was still in negotiations with another developer to come help partner on the property. Why would he go through all the trouble of lying for years, conducting tests and then lying about the results, and still keep the property?
Hes a real estate investor and maintains very great properties all over the southside of the city with none of the related problems and headaches of the downtown properties.
I just don't understand what would compel you to accuse this man of such a vast conspiracy or what you think his possible motive might be? And this is coming from someone that had to take Mr. Van Winkel to court as an adversary. John and I had to fight him pretty hard over our lease at the Park Place Building.
I dont really need to ask everyone in the neighborhood whether or not they have had a conversation with you about this building. I believe you. What is being discussed here are the facts. Not you.
facebook and 
twitter.
