closed #131533
Street Lights
729 S Walnut ST
- Case Date:
- 4/29/2013
Streetlight is not lighting.
Streetlight is not lighting.
The tree-lined edge of this property's parking lot is a well-known syringe drop/pickup spot. We have witnessed several syringes appear in a pile, then mysteriously disappear within hours. Most recently a bicycle was dropped in the weeds, then removed the next day. Transients sometimes use it as a public restroom. Trash has been accruing in this strip of overgrowth and blows out into the alley. As well, the overgrowth of weeds, vines and saplings encroach upon the alley, making it difficult to traverse by vehicle. Finally, vines are choking out the line of trees that occupy this strip. This is the least frustrating issue, but an issue nonetheless. All of the overgrowth and vines should be cleaned up so it cannot be used as a hiding spot, dumping ground, public restroom.
Tent set up on City property. Rats in the area by creek and apartments.
Encampment with human feces in a pile behind 2907 E Buick Cadillac Blvd
Streetlight at SE corner of W 9th and N Maple streets flickers off and on rather than providing steady bright light as the other streetlights do. I will report this to Duke at the address you provided above.
Street light by mailboxes in front of 743 Pepperridge Drive is off more than it is on for months.
Need officer assistance, on a class c mistomener while in progress. County papers landlord refuses to supply. Can you direct me or help with this ?
Help with owner of mobile home refuses to supply form 7878 tax form to buyer ( me ). For purchase of mobile home. This is a class c mistomener for sale of form 7878 for research of liens, back taxes. That he is to supply and apply for. He is asking me for money exchange. Before title is gave to me. Then me to get tax form 7878 myself. Can you help ? Or direct me to who unforced this ? I know it's a 500 fine or 1 year jail to owner for not applying to buyer. Thanks
Hello, I live in Bloom Apartments, which is owned by Hunter Bloomington Property Group. Last week, I received this letter announcing a bark park, along with the image at the bottom. I found out that the property group only installed a gate to block vehicles and one on the sidewalk for pedestrians, but have no other enclosures surroudning. I think this is misleading to call it a bark park, when every instance of a bark park or dog park I can find means it has an fenced-in area for dogs to roam. The way they worded this along with the image of the entrance gate makes it seem like it's enclosed. When I called, the representative didn't seem interested or concerned, even when I asked if they could sent a follow-up email clarifying how the space isn't enclosed. My main worry is that dog owners may not know the bark park isn't enclosed, and could lose a dog or have it hit by a vehicle being so close to main roads. Thank you, Vincent Holloway
uReport Case #170484 Is there anything I can do to appeal this or any guidance you have? Regarding Ferguson Dog Park, could you tell me what defines it as a dog park? Is it only that it's designated for dogs, or does it include that it is also enclosed?