Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

February 23, 2024

Yargus has water well on Clark Co Park District property (video) –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On July 18, 2015

Clark Co., IL. (ECWd) –
It came out during the Clark County Park District meeting on July 16, 2015 that Larry Yargus has a water well and electricity service located on park property – and it has been there for around 25 years.
Maybe this is one of the reasons he was so hell-bent on winning the election, arranging for leased lots, etc, – so it would continue to go unnoticed.
The Board attempted to vote to lease property to Yargus, but an audience member, Rob Bogue, did a point-of-order and explained to the board that they could not vote to approve the lease because the Park District Code mandated the District to first declare the property no longer needed for park and public recreational purposes.

(e) In addition to any other power provided in this Section, any park district owning or holding real estate that the board deems is not required for park or recreational purposes may lease such real estate to any individual or entity and may collect rents therefrom. Such lease shall not exceed 2 and one-half times the term of years provided for in Section 8-15 governing installment purchase contracts.

That means that another meeting will have to be held, with the resolution declaring the property no longer needed – then a vote to lease the property to Yargus.
On one piece of property, he thinks that since he wants to put an addition onto his house, the citizens of Clark County, thru the park district, should just lease him whatever property he wants – even though it serves no public purpose to do so. Unfortunately, the Park District Code allows this – I am simply pointing out that he thinks the entire population of Clark County should lose use of public property simply because he bought a lot too small for his current needs.
Yargus does a fine job explaining his well and electric service is on park property in the video below, but the lingering questions are:
– When did Yargus first become aware of this?
– Has he been using the Park District’s water for 25 years without paying for it?
– How long has he owned this property?
– Should the Park District send him a bill for 25 years’ worth of rent payments?



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


1 Comment
  • Robert O. Bogue
    Posted at 08:11h, 19 July

    There is another point in this discussion worth revisiting. I understand many Clark County residents were forced to give up their houses, farms, land and in many cases their heritage for this park exist.
    Many had their land condemned and taken by our government for the sole purpose and justification of a greater good for all. That sacrifice then became known as Mill Creek Park. For many families that wasn’t easy, it was something very painful and something that would never have happened were it not forced upon them.
    It now appears the present park board is giving serious consideration of declaring specific portions of Mill Creek Park land as; no longer needed for public recreation or public use. This is all based upon a request and for the sole benefit to one.
    In this particular case, this new argument or justification would place the desire of a single individual above the needs of the public for land use and recreation.
    After 40 years or so of use and enjoyment by the public (including the recent firework event drawing over 2,000 that absolutely packed the park), how can the desire of an adjacent land owner even be considered as one greater than the proven need of the public for now or in the future?
    How can this desire for land or any other Mill Creek Park property now be considered greater than the sacrifice made by original land owners from which this land was taken? I’m certain they wanted to keep their land. Shouldn’t it just be given back to them if it’s not needed?
    Moving ahead on this matter would certainly prompt discussion and perhaps litigation from any of the preceding land owners on the harm done to their families for land that wasn’t needed and taken by the park. That is if, if, that were the case.
    The Public’s need and justification for this land is now substantially greater than when Mill Creek came into being.