ATT came onto my property to install fiber via a utility easement with the city and left my yard damaged per attached photo. ATT said they are not liable for the damage. The installers had stated they would return the following day to level the ground, seed and straw the area. That was over a month ago and they never returned. Who is liable for this property damage? I am prepared to file a claim against whomever that may be. Thanks.
Follow up to report # 211915 Thank you for reviewing my report. I appreciate the time Planning and BPD took to look into my concerns. I understand BPD's explanation that noise from vehicles operating at a business is not something they can cite as an ordinance violation. However, I don't believe that fully addressed the questions raised in my original report. I understand the property dates back to 1980 and that there may not be an approved site plan on file. However, if the intensity or nature of the business's operations has changed significantly since that time—particularly with increased semi-truck traffic, early morning unloading activities, or the regular use of residential neighborhood entrances—I was wondering whether those changes would require any additional review, approvals, or compliance with current zoning or development standards. I also noticed my question regarding truck circulation was not addressed. Specifically, are semi-trucks permitted to routinely access the property through the Broadview neighborhood entrances, or are they expected to use the primary entrance on Country Club Drive? If there is no site plan, is there another document or approval that governs truck access and circulation for the property? I recognize that businesses have a right to operate and that some level of noise is expected. My concern is not with the existence of the business itself, but whether its current operations and traffic patterns remain consistent with applicable City regulations and whether there are reasonable ways to reduce the impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. I would appreciate any clarification you can provide regarding these questions. Thank you again for your time.
Our bill for 2823 S Stratford Dr is being send to our old address, 3522 E Grandview Dr., Bloomington 47408. Please send to the service address, 2823 S Stratford Dr., Bloomington 47401.
UPDATE 7/8/2026 — Vehicle recovered. New information for investigation: Tow company: Tow Time Solutions LLC, 1999 N Packing House Rd (Invoice #2305, Call #29202). 1. AUTHORIZATION (BMC 4.32.100(a)): Invoice shows tow requested 7/7/26 at 7:20 PM, completed 8:08 PM — after the management office closed. The invoice's "Authorized by" field reads "(PAV) Lincoln, 305," which is the property address, not a person. Granite's assistant leasing manager stated in writing that towing companies cannot access their parking portal and tow on their own initiative whenever no hanging tag is displayed — i.e., patrol towing with no per-tow written authorization. My 7/8 written request for a copy of the signed authorization is unanswered. My vehicle had been registered in Granite's parking system since 6/22/26 with parking paid. 2. FEES (BMC 4.32.130): Charged $150 tow/hook + $50 "special equipment" (unexplained) + $25 "administrative fee" = $225, paid under protest 7/8/26. I was initially quoted $300 by phone. My written request for the company to identify what equipment was used and the code provision authorizing the admin and equipment charges is unanswered. 3. SIGNAGE (BMC 4.32.110): Lot signs state only a phone number — no company name, no retrieval location, and no schedule of towing/storage fees. Evidence available: invoice/receipt, payment confirmation, protest and request texts, the company's own tow photos, written statements from Granite Management, and parking payment records. Please investigate this company's compliance with Chapter 4.32 and contact me at 317 478 6542 [email protected].
UPDATE 7/8/2026 — Vehicle recovered. New information for investigation: Tow company: Tow Time Solutions LLC, 1999 N Packing House Rd (Invoice #2305, Call #29202). 1. AUTHORIZATION (BMC 4.32.100(a)): Invoice shows tow requested 7/7/26 at 7:20 PM, completed 8:08 PM — after the management office closed. The invoice's "Authorized by" field reads "(PAV) Lincoln, 305," which is the property address, not a person. Granite's assistant leasing manager stated in writing that towing companies cannot access their parking portal and tow on their own initiative whenever no hanging tag is displayed — i.e., patrol towing with no per-tow written authorization. My 7/8 written request for a copy of the signed authorization is unanswered. My vehicle had been registered in Granite's parking system since 6/22/26 with parking paid. 2. FEES (BMC 4.32.130): Charged $150 tow/hook + $50 "special equipment" (unexplained) + $25 "administrative fee" = $225, paid under protest 7/8/26. I was initially quoted $300 by phone. My written request for the company to identify what equipment was used and the code provision authorizing the admin and equipment charges is unanswered. 3. SIGNAGE (BMC 4.32.110): Lot signs state only a phone number — no company name, no retrieval location, and no schedule of towing/storage fees. Evidence available: invoice/receipt, payment confirmation, protest and request texts, the company's own tow photos, written statements from Granite Management, and parking payment records. Please investigate this company's compliance with Chapter 4.32 and contact me at 317 478 6542 [email protected].
On 7/7/2026 at approximately 5:00, my vehicle 2017 GMC Terrain, plate 714LG was towed by TowTime Towing at 523 N Lincoln St. I am a current resident who pays for parking at this complex. Management has my license plate, year, make, and model on file as an authorized vehicle; I had not yet been issued my physical parking badge. The tow occurred after the property management office had closed for the day. To my knowledge, no owner or authorized agent of the lot was present at the time of the tow to sign a contemporaneous written authorization for my specific vehicle, as required by BMC 4.32.100(a). The tow company is demanding $300 for release, which appears to exceed the fee limits in BMC 4.32.130. I request that the City investigate this company's compliance with Chapter 4.32, including its towing license, the written authorization for this tow, and the fees charged. I can provide photos and parking payment records. Please contact me at (317) 478-6542 [email protected]
They are operating some sort of chop shop out of here. They are taking the engines out etc and leaving the cars parked in the roadway/working in the roadway. There are 10+ vehicles outside without license plates
I wanted to reach out about the truck traffic and early morning activity at Foundation Building Materials on Country Club Drive. The business has been there for a long time, and I understand that some level of noise and truck traffic comes with being near a commercial property. Recently, though, the early morning activity seems to have become much louder. Trucks appear to be arriving and unloading around 5:00 a.m., and the noise from backing alarms, materials being unloaded, and heavy equipment carries into the surrounding neighborhood. I've also noticed that trucks regularly use the two entrances through Broadview in addition to the main entrance on Country Club Drive. I wasn't sure if that is how the property was intended to operate, so I was hoping someone could look into it. Would it be possible to review the approved site plan and confirm whether the current truck traffic patterns and early morning operations are consistent with the property's approvals and any applicable traffic and noise regulations? I'm hoping the City can review the situation and determine whether there are ways to reduce the impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, especially during the early morning hours. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cup and Kettle- No store front currently online sales only. I bought gift cards to help with scaffolding and helping her store and she will no longer will take them. Bad business practice and customer service. Cup and Kettle is preparing her tea at her residence and only online sales. Would like this reported for bad business practices and health and safety issue.
I am submitting a complaint regarding what I believe was an unreasonable and predatory towing incident involving Tow Time Solutions and the Hampton Inn Bloomington located at 2100 N. Walnut Street in Bloomington, Indiana. On April 23, 2026, I was a registered overnight guest at the Hampton Inn Bloomington. Prior to arrival, I completed digital check-in through Hilton’s mobile app and was issued a digital room key. Upon arriving at the hotel around 8:15 p.m., the front desk was unattended, so I proceeded directly to my room using the digital key provided through Hilton’s system. At no point during the digital check-in process was I provided any direct notification that an additional parking registration step was required in order to avoid towing. The following morning, I discovered that my vehicle had been towed by Tow Time Solutions despite being a legitimate paying hotel guest. I was required to pay approximately $300 to retrieve my vehicle and had to cancel work obligations, arrange transportation to the tow facility, and spend significant time resolving the issue. My concern is not simply the existence of parking signage or permit policies, but rather the manner in which towing enforcement was conducted against an authorized guest without any reasonable verification process. The hotel had an active reservation, digital check-in record, and occupied room associated with my stay, yet neither the hotel nor the towing company appears to have made any attempt to verify whether the vehicle belonged to a registered guest before towing it. Additionally, the hotel’s use of digital check-in creates a reasonable expectation that guests can complete arrival procedures without front desk interaction. Requiring an additional undocumented step while the front desk is unattended creates a foreseeable risk of confusion for guests and raises concerns regarding fairness, consumer protection, and accessibility. I believe this situation reflects predatory towing practices because: the vehicle belonged to a verified hotel guest, no warning or attempt at guest verification occurred prior to towing, the towing fee was excessive relative to the circumstances, and the enforcement process appeared designed to maximize towing revenue rather than reasonably manage unauthorized parking. I respectfully request review of the towing practices associated with this property and Tow Time Solutions, including whether reasonable consumer protections, guest verification procedures, and accessibility considerations are being followed before vehicles are towed from hotel property. Thank you for your time and consideration.