City of Bloomington, Indiana – John Hamilton, Mayor


Fields to display

Search Results: (74)

closed #185219


Case Date:

This school kicked me out because basically there was rumours or "ConCeRns" that I was gay. They kicked me out or didnt let me back in because I never said they were false. They also didnt do CRAP about the bullying situations me and my friends were in. Me and my friends would get in trouble for the most stupid reasons as well. There was an assembly where the lesson was about a woman washing jesus's feet. Me and my friends started laughing because the principle was washing peoples feet for real. Then this science teacher took us into her room which had students inside and made us take our shoes and socks off. Then she basically forced us to let her wash and rub our feet in mop buckets. I deff heard snickering in the back ground but I know damn well they didnt do crap about that.

closed #184467


1155 S Weatherstone LN

Case Date:

During this past weekend's storms, a tree on city owned property fell and damaged our fence. The tree also damaged an adjoining fence on coty owned property. We have taken pictures, moved the tree and crudely sealed the fences well enough to keep the dog in the yard. What are our next steps?

closed #184109

Smoking Violation

1031 E Hillside DR

Case Date:

Dayton Freight driver noted multiple individuals smoking cigarettes and one smoking a marijuana vape while waiting to be unloaded. Driver stated male 6'0 white beard and hair, skinny, late 40s. Driver has told Carlilse management who is looking into it as of a year ago with no resolution. Have seen others smoking while delivering or picking up

open #183010


Case Date:

Background: My girlfriend and I went to The Chocolate Moose to get ice cream on August 20th, 2022. I parked in a parking lot outside of Bedrak Café, which is a cafeteria that’s next to Chocolate Moose. The parking lot is in between Bedrak Café and iMechanic. We arrived at the parking lot at approximately 9:20 pm. Around 9:50 pm, we exited The Chocolate Moose. Right after exiting the shop, I noticed from approximately 50 meters away, that my car was lifted and was getting ready to be towed. All wheels were raised, the front wheels were on a dolly, the back ones were on a mechanical arm. I ran to the driver while shouting: “Hey.” I questioned as to why my car was being towed. The driver said that I was parking in iMechanic’s parking lot, and I was taking up two spots. In fact, I was not taking up two spots. The driver then said that the green lines on the ground indicated iMechanic’s parking. In fact, at night, it is very hard to determine the color of the line. I then asked: “What do I need to do for you to release my car.” He told me that I must pay him $160, cash or Venmo only. I then pulled out my phone and started taking pictures. He continued to put straps on my wheels while saying: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.” I then venmoed Stryker Towing $160, and he started to unhook my car. He lowered the mechanical arms to let down the rear wheels. He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my right front wheel, the car dropped abruptly. I said: “Dude, can you lower it slowly?” He said: “Why don’t you go ahead and put your hands under there and let your hands be crushed by 500 pounds.” He then said: “I do it 25 times a day and it doesn’t damage the vehicle, if you continue to have a shitty attitude, I am going to keep hooking it up and dropping it again and again.” I then said: “Okay, do it.” He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my left from wheel, and the car dropped abruptly again. He removed the pieces of the dolly, got into his car and said that he was going to wait until he saw me back out and leave. At one point, he also said that he was just going to hook it back up and tow it anyway, after I’ve already paid him. He then pulled out of the parking lot. Below are the pictures of my car when it was on the dolly. We got into my car, and we realized that there was no signage in front my parking spot indicating that it’s a towaway zone. The closest sign indicating a towaway zone was two parking spots to the right of my spot. There was also a sign posted on the building behind my vehicle. The sign reads as “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM; BIG RED PERMIT PARKING 24 HRS” I then took pictures of the signage and left the scene. There were also two women at the scene, they told Sheana that that had just happened to them as well. I was not given any sort of receipt. I studied relevant statutes and I believe Stryker Towing unlawfully towed the two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. I also believe that they were engaging in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes. Discussion: Stryker Towing is engaged in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids. On February 19, 2020. The Bloomington City Council passed Ordinance 20-03. This ordinance amended Bloomington Municipal Code Title 4 by adding a new Chapter 4.32 to provide for the licensing and regulation of towing companies that engage in the practice of non-consensual tows. The ordinance provides that “while many companies engage in non-consensual towing in a fair and ethical way, others, especially in communities such as Bloomington where parking is limited, engage in non-consensual towing practices that might be deemed predatory. This includes, but is not limited to, refusing to release a vehicle to the owner before it has been removed from the private property. . . engaging in kickback arrangements, and charging exorbitant towing and storage fees. . . these predatory towing practices disproportionately harm the community’s most vulnerable residents. . . the City of Bloomington has a significant governmental interest in protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the community. . . .” BMC 4.32.030 provides that “‘Non-consensual tow’ means the towing, by a tow business. . . without prior consent or authorization by the vehicle’s owner. . . .” Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.100. BMC 4.32.100 provides that “It shall be unlawful for a licensed towing company or two truck operator to tow a vehicle from a parking lot unless the parking lot owner or the owner’s authorized agent, present at the time of the tow, signs a contemporaneous specific written authorization for the tow of the vehicle. . . a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent.” The code also provides that, “Notwithstanding the provisions above, a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent if: (1) The parking lot is for a multifamily rental dwelling which provides permit parking twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week for its tenants or guests; (2) Tenant parking permits and/or guest parking permits, to be placed in vehicles, are provided to tenants at lease signing. The towing company shall obtain an affidavit from the property owner stating the same; (3) The parking permits are made to be easily identifiable and observable from outside the vehicle; and (4) Video or photographic documentation to attest to the propriety of the tow is made and kept for at least two (2) years as part of the authorization required under subsection (b) above” In my case, the driver made the representation that he was towing my car on behalf of iMechanic, and the spot I parked in was iMechanic’s parking spot. Imechanic is a phone repair shop, therefore, the building is not a multifamily rental dwelling. The driver may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent. Because the driver cannot be the parking lot owner’s authorized agent, and there was no owner nor any type of authorized agent present at the time of the tow, Stryker Towing is in violation of MBC 4.31.100. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.110. BMC 4.32.110 provides that “It shall be unlawful for any tow business or two truck operator to tow a vehicle unless the parking lot in which the vehicle is parked has signage, posted in plain view and visible to the public at each entrance and exit. . . .” There was no signage at the entrance nor exit of the parking lot. Furthermore, the signage on the building says “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM”. We went to get ice cream at 9:20 PM. Therefore, the towing of my car at that time is unlawful. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120. BMC 4.32.120 provides that “A towing company and tow truck operator shall allow the vehicle’s owner a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle or to remove or retrieve personal property or possessions that are not affixed from a vehicle. The inspection or retrieval of possessions may be at the scene of the tow or at the vehicle storage facility prior to payment. . . .” In my case, the driver did not allow me a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle. Upon arriving at the scene, he continued to strap my wheels, and said: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.” Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120. BMC 4.32.120 provides that “When the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is present and desires to instead personally operate and remove his/her own vehicle from a parking lot before the vehicle is in the process of being towed, the vehicle shall not be towed nor shall any fee be charged. However, when the owner or operator of a motor vehicle arrives at the location of the motor vehicle when it is already in the process of being towed, the towing company shall, pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4, give the owner or operator either oral or written notification that the owner or operator may pay a fee in the amount that is not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge for the immediate release of a motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, a motor vehicle is in the process of being towed when it is attached to the tow truck and at least two tires of the vehicle are off the ground.” BMC 4.32.130 provides that “For the towing of a vehicle, the maximum fee shall be one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135.00); fees for special treatment, including dollying, shall not exceed an additional twenty-five dollars ($25.00). In my case, my car was in the process of being towed. According to the code, they may charge me for a fee that is “not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge”. However, they charged me $160, which is the maximum amount of fee they can charge according to the code. Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.140; Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2; Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4. BMC 4.32.140 provides that “A two business that tows a vehicle under this article shall accept payment for towing and storage fees pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2.” Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2 provides that “A towing company or storage facility, upon receiving payment for all costs and fees assessed against a motor vehicle, shall provide an itemized receipt that includes the information described under IC 24-14-5 if the information is available.” Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4 provides that “Upon the owner’s or operator’s payment of the amount specified, the towing company shall: (1) release the motor vehicle to the owner or operator; and (2) give the owner or operator a receipt showing: (A) the full amount of the fee the towing company normally charges for the release of a motor vehicle; and (B) the amount of the fee paid by the owner or operator.” In my case, I was not given any sort of receipt. Therefore, they violated BMC 4.32.140; IC 24-14-7-2; IC 24-14-4-4. Conclusion: Stryker Towing unlawfully towed two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes.

open #182882

Inaccessible Parking

1004 W Country Club DR

Case Date:

There are two cars in the parking lot that are not running with expired temporarily Tags. One is a gold/ silver Chrysler sedan, with windows down. The other is a blue Suzuki compact car. There is a third gold/silver Toyota sedan with darkened tail lights. It has an expired temporarily tag as well. These cars are not legally registered in the state of Indiana and are taking up already sparse parking spaces meant for fully legal residents. Thankyou for your help.

closed #182876

Inaccessible Parking

Case Date:

My apartment complex (fairway apartments) has two cars that are not running and have expired temporarily tags from 2022. One is a silver/gold Chrysler sedan with windows down. One is a blue Suzuki compact. There is a third, running Toyota gold/silver sedan with an expired temporary tag. The Toyota has tinted rear lights. All these cars are taking parking spaces in a lot that does not have enough spaces for residents as is. Thank you for your help.

closed #182331

Inaccessible Parking

Case Date:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wheeler+Mission/@39.1638096,-86.5673226,19z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x886c671883f2f739:0xb1f035533dd9655d!2sRose+Hill+Cemetery!8m2!3d39.1656677!4d-86.5453634!3m4!1s0x886c66c275b2d6f9:0x1432f5f5499e3e7b!8m2!3d39.1635017!4d-86.5673232 https://www.visitbloomington.com/listing/rose-hill-cemetery/332/ https://bloomington.in.gov/locations/rose-hill-cemetery-office ... Attachments Rose Hill Cemetery Guidelines for Plot Owners, May 2018.pdf (993.75 KB) Cemetery prices brochure updated 2020_1.pdf (2.75 MB) Cemetery Decorations Permitted and Not Permitted.pdf (7.44 MB) History compiled and written by Donald Matson There are no written records of burials at Rose Hill Cemetery until October 6, 1897. The oldest section of the cemetery is located in the southeast corner bordered by Maple and Third Streets, and was probably begun about 1818-1820 by the County Board and was selected by the Commissioners, and was announced that the location...

closed #182023

Smoking Violation

3131 B W Venture BLVD

Case Date:

Coworker refuses to stop vaping in the office and management will not enforce the no smoking policy in the office.

open #181557

City Performance

401 N Morton ST

Case Date:

In regards to resolved uReport# 181500: Reply from City: Up until recently, we've been relying on the scooter companies to enforce their users behaviors with illegally parking of the scooters. We have two positions that we are currently hiring for that are funded with fees from the scooter companies that will focus on moving into a system where fines will be issued for improper parking. My reply with two (2) questions: I do not understand Adam Wason's reply in light of what was stated by City Attorney, Mike Rourker, in 2019 (please see below for quote). Additionally, I worked from March 2019 until October 2021 as the main point-of-contact (POC) working with the entities licensed by the City for providing the service and product of motorized scooters, and neither was I informed of any efforts to ticket the companies nor the users of the scooters. Can someone please explain to me what the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for holding the licensed entities accountable for the stipulations in the ordinance governing use and management of the scooters was prior to the recent creation and hiring of a new staff position? Also, why were no violations issued and no fines collected in over three years? Thank you for your time. "At its July 31, 2019 meeting, city attorney Mike Rouker told the city council that scooter companies would be fined if their users violated the parking restrictions. Rouker put it this way: “So just to be clear, at the same time, that Bird or Lime or another scooter company may be taking those additional steps against their own users, the city, if this is an issue, will be fining them every single time we see a parking issue.” Rouker continued, “I suppose if the company wants to move very slowly and pay lots and lots of fines to the city, until we’re fed up enough that we either revoke their license or geo-fence an area, that’s a business decision. But I don’t know if it’s a sound business decision.” For an improperly parked scooter, the fine called for in the city’s ordinance runs $30. The fee connected to impoundment is $100, plus $10 per day storage, and another $150 for disposal. As it turns out, the only payments the scooter companies have had to make to the city of Bloomington are the $10,000 annual licensing fees and the 15 cents a ride. The three companies now operating in Bloomington are Lime, Veo, and Bird." Source: https://bsquarebulletin.com/2021/11/22/electric-scooter-parking-violations-zero-citations-in-over-2-years-since-local-bloomington-law-was-passed/ Additional source: https://otter.ai/s/56nnFv2HQX2elRJ40z1X8A?snpt=true

closed #181397


Case Date:

This past weekend my car was towed by Chandler Towing at 4am Sunday morning. I was staying the night at my partner’s apartment at 406 e 11th st. which is leased by Parker management. I was given verbal consent to park my car there while visiting by an employee at their office when I helped her pick up her keys to the apartment on the 1st of August. Given that it was a holiday weekend and I have no other way to get to work I opted to but the bullet and go get my car before trying to file any complaints. I was charged the legal maximum of $160 dollars which I understand and did not choose to raise any questions at the Chandler office. Afterwards I emailed Parker to ask if they would be willing to either reach out to Chandler to get me a refund or reimburse my partner via deducting that cost from her rent balance next month. I was told that an employee would never tell me I can park here and that they cannot do anything. I understand that given the city ordinance put in place a couple years ago as well as state laws require that I am given 24 hours notice prior to being towed for abandoning my vehicle and the only exception is if there is an emergency OR I am preventing a business from performing as intended. The lot in which I parked has not once been close to full this year so far and I was not preventing other tenants from accessing parking spaces. My car was only there for 8 hours before being towed without notice. The affidavit written by the towing company did not provide any testimony as to what circumstances allowed them to tow my car without a notice. I was also told by the towing company that they do not file police reports when towing a car and I cannot find any legal precedent on this matter. If you have an answer as to whether that is legally required I would appreciate clarification on that matter. If there is a formal way for me to file a complaint on this issue please let me know. I would like to proceed as respectfully as possible while not allowing myself to be taken advantage of. Thank you!