All Discussions Tagged 'rental' - The Ludington Torch2024-03-29T09:55:23Zhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=rental&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWhen Journalism and Local Government Propaganda Collidetag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2017-03-15:4689834:Topic:3426132017-03-15T00:22:38.172ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>This is the unfortunately ongoing essay about how one cannot simultaneously serve as a chairman of a major public commission and as a news reporter and retain any sort of credibility for their journalistic coverage of that public body. Once again, Rob Alway, chairman of the Scottville Planning Commission (SPC) and the founder and chief editor of the Mason County Press, illustrates why this does not serve the public well, rather it destroys the public's confidence in both their press and…</p>
<p>This is the unfortunately ongoing essay about how one cannot simultaneously serve as a chairman of a major public commission and as a news reporter and retain any sort of credibility for their journalistic coverage of that public body. Once again, Rob Alway, chairman of the Scottville Planning Commission (SPC) and the founder and chief editor of the Mason County Press, illustrates why this does not serve the public well, rather it destroys the public's confidence in both their press and their government. </p>
<p></p>
<p>It was noted in <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/something-alway-stinks-about-this-mcp-article" target="_blank">Something Always Stinks</a>... that Rob knew in 2013 that " serving on a government board is a conflict of interest", which is why he resigned from the SPC, but then he decided without fanfare or any kind of public notice to go back to heading the SPC while reporting on a host of Scottville government topics with a detectable editorial bias (as noted here: <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/great-for-news-gathering-but-is-it-ethical" target="_self">Great for News Gathering, but Is It Ethical? July 2015.</a>)</p>
<p></p>
<p>The latest loss of journalistic integrity comes with a recent article airing after the latest convention of his Planning Commission, and their recommendation given to the Scottville City Commission. You will notice in the article that follows no hint as to who wrote it, perhaps that's because he mentions and quotes himself several times in the piece as the chair of the SPC. Not mentioning yourself in the byline as you quote yourself expressing opinions in the body of the story is equally as unethical and deplorable as writing stories with yourself in the byline praising the SPC without mentioning you head it. Here is the story that went up before this last weekend and is there still.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272618430?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272618430?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Scottville Planning Commission recommending rental inspection ordinance</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">SCOTTVILLE — The Scottville Planning Commission, during its regular monthly meeting Tuesday, recommended the City Commission adopt a residential rental inspection ordinance. The proposed ordinance, as presented by the Planning Commission, would be identical to the City of Ludington’s residential rental ordinance, which has been in effect there for just over a year.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“We wanted to maintain a level of continuity between the two communities so there wasn’t confusion among the property owners,” said Rob Alway, Planning Commission chairman. “We have heard positive feedback from the City of Ludington about its program and we believe this is in the best interest of the citizens of Scottville.</span></p>
<p class="p1">“The Planning Commission has been discussing a rental inspection ordinance for the past year. We’ve wanted to wait and see how it worked out in Ludington before we proceeded.”</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The proposed ordinance would require landlords to register properties that are being used for residential rentals. Those failing to do so would face fines. The ordinance would also allow the city to conduct inspections of rental units to determine that the units are safe for residents.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">City Manager Amy Williams said a fee structure would have to be worked out. It is likely the fee structure would mirror Ludington’s.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“The fees would cover the costs of the inspector and inspections,” Williams said. “It is likely that the city will break even on this program.”</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The city already has an ordinance that allows it to require negligent property owners to maintain the exterior of their properties. Over the past three or four years, cleaning up blight has been the top goal of the City Commission. However, the city is unable to inspect the interiors of rented properties.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“Ordinances such as this are becoming common place among municipalities,” Alway said. “In addition to Ludington, we also know that the cities of Manistee and Hart also have rental inspection ordinances. We believe that this ordinance will protect Scottville from negligent landlords who have decided to leave those cities that already have ordinances in place and then turn around an buy property in Scottville because it’s not regulated. We also believe this will make our community a safer place to live, which is the most important part of this ordinance.”</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The proposed ordinance will be presented to City Commission during its March 20 regular meeting. Williams said at that time city commissioners may choose to hold a first reading of the ordinance as presented, to reject the proposal, or to send it to the city’s ordinance committee for further review.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2017/03/08/scottville-planning-commission-recommending-rental-inspection-ordinance/">http://www.masoncountypress.com/2017/03/08/scottville-planning-comm...</a></span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272618344?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="426" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272618344?profile=original"/></a></span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">Some notes about style before we discuss substance. Alway writes as if he is interviewing himself; can you envision Rob sitting in front of his computer monitor wondering what sort of questions to ask to best present this issue? This is a bit disturbing, particularly when he strongly advocates for passage of his proposed ordinance.</p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">He presents two viewpoints of Scottville officials, neither of who touch on any of the underlying controversy that follows such ordinances, just the so-called bonuses of the program. We hear of continuity between communities, positive feedback, best interests of the citizens, protecting Scottville from negligent landlords from within and without, and make Scottville safer. Reading through you find zero problems with such law.</p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">And of course, that's far from the case, but even when Ludington was deciding their own Rental Inspection Ordinance (RIO), Mr. Alway had a noticeable bias for this program. I offer his article <a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2015/10/26/ludington-council-approves-rental-ordinance/" target="_blank">Ludington council approves rental ordinance</a> authored on October 26, 2015. </p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">He explained the opposition: "Several people, including landlords, contractors, a tenant and real estate agents, addressed the council and spoke in opposition of the ordinance. <span class="s1">During public comment the council members were called arrogant and were called liars. They were also accused of violating the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure."</span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The 14 people that night who spoke in opposition of the RIO, and the dozens of others who did so at other meetings, were mostly well behaved, and never said the councilors were violating the Fourth Amendment, and only one of those speakers called them arrogant and liars, and while this was not very civil, it was more correct than not. </span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">He explained the two proponents thusly: "The council also heard from property owners who are in favor of the ordinance." He then allowed the City Manager to spin the legal issues and ended with “It is time that the city of Ludington go forward with this ordinance,” Councilor Kathy Winczewski said.</span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Had Rob Alway researched those who spoke up for the ordinance, he would have found out that they were rather arrogant liars. According to the <a href="https://ludingtoncitymi.documents-on-demand.com/Document/cd037328-8e84-e511-b9cd-001fbc00ed84/City%20Council%20Regular%20Meeting%20Minutes%20October%2026,%202015.pdf" target="_blank">minutes of that meeting</a>, the first who spoke for the ordinance was Heather Catron, a Ludington Jaycee officer, talking about a RIO that was passed in the city she used to landlady in, which she thought was no big deal. Heather neglected to tell us she was living miles out of the city limits of Ludington up on <a href="https://nuwber.com/person/563a98eaa219445d5281f6b2" target="_blank">Tamarack Drive</a> in Hamlin Township.</span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Nickie Heimann told us she recently purchased a house on Fifth Street and told the council that the RIO wasn't perfect but something had to be done to help beautify the city. A review of the city records shows that Nickie Heimann never purchased a house on Fifth Street. Peggy and Otto Heimann of Illinois purchased a house on 5th Street in 2014.</span></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272619236?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="619" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272619236?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">So Nickie lied outright, and Heather arrogantly left off the fact she would not be affected by the RIO. Neither of the two are property owners, in Mason County at least, so Rob told an arrogant lie by saying they were, with proof to the contrary at his fingertips. Can you envision Rob in front of his monitor arguing to himself over whether to check his assumptions?</p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">One thing is certain: I saw over two dozen people arise and speak out against the RIO at the first committee meeting back in a <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272619236?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-rental-inspection-meeting-attracts-100-participants" target="_blank">nice early summer evening</a> in 2015, and 14 speak out again at the two meetings in <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-city-council-meeting-10-12-2015-scary-rental-inspection" target="_blank">October 2015</a> and all the times in between where they brought up why it was a bad idea. These speakers covered most of what is wrong with this type of ordinance, and whether they were landlords, tenants, homeowners, or none of the above, they spoke with passion and concern for everyone involved. </p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">I could rehash the arguments, but I hope the citizens of Scottville, whatever their housing status, comes forth and regales the city commission with all of the arguments used and more to strike down the insanity. I hope the city commissioners can understand that they have enough problems to deal with in Scottville's solvency and rather than create more government expense and breadth without creating new revenue (for then it would be a tax, not a fee), they should concentrate their resources on making the difficult decisions for the difficult situations just down the road. </p>
<p class="p1"></p>
<p class="p1">A decision to adopt this will only serve to make the citizens more likely to emigrate away from the city limits, and aggravate the hopes of making Scottville viable once again.</p> Tall Grass and Tall Tales of Ludingtontag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2016-05-09:4689834:Topic:3299092016-05-09T14:41:31.414ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Later on today, May 9, 2016, the Ludington City Council will have a first reading of an ordinance invoking new stiffer penalties for those folks who allow their grass to get above ten inches. As noted, the City has no duty to inform the violator of the condition before their contractor comes onto the property and cuts it. The city then charges the violator for the service and adds an additional 25%. They did this rather extensively last year, the first year…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Later on today, May 9, 2016, the Ludington City Council will have a first reading of an ordinance invoking new stiffer penalties for those folks who allow their grass to get above ten inches. As noted, the City has no duty to inform the violator of the condition before their contractor comes onto the property and cuts it. The city then charges the violator for the service and adds an additional 25%. They did this rather extensively last year, the first year of the "new tall grass ordinance of 2015".</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">This year's version according to the COLDNews (May 7 edition) and the City Manager's memo explaining it would add an additional 10% late fee to bills not paid immediately. If the ordinance is violated a second time, the city will file a civil infraction against the property owner and issue an additional fine of $250. A third offense would cost an additional $350.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">The actual proposed ordinance (<a href="http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/Document/c769de18-1716-e611-9e45-001fbc00ed84/City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet%20May%2009,%202016.pdf" target="_blank">p. 227 of the May 9 council packet</a>) is actually a bit more severe. The first violation subjects the perp to a civil infraction of $250 as a minimum penalty, the second violation will cost $350 and the third and subsequent ones will be no less than $500. </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Now, you may be a responsible landowner in the city who keeps their lawn(s) mowed, and wonder why you should really care about this ordinance and its penalties. If you go on a summer vacation or your normal place of residence is out of town, you are dependent on others being responsible in your absence. Maybe you own a rental property and have a deal with a tenant, who isn't that vigilant. Maybe you only have time to mow it on the weekend, and you have to miss a weekend, or maybe conditions were so good for grass growth that it should have been cut within the week.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">A lot of issues could come up to make somebody otherwise responsible have their grass get above ten inches. I wouldn't say our city leaders are responsible, but this does <span class="dateline"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272598634?profile=original" target="_self"></a></span><a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/hypocrisy-in-the-tall-grass" target="_self">include the City of Ludington</a>. Those who have this come up more often, will probably have other issues regarding fiscal and time responsibility more pressing than mowing their lawn. The latest two changes in the tall grass ordinance will hit these folks hard. Just missing a mowing once could cost well over $300 for a one lot property. That's enough to buy a couple cheap lawn mowers and a year's worth of paying a kid to mow the lawn. </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Yet, the city manager proffers the reason to make the changes punitive on those odd fellows who somehow think that having the city mow their lawn with an expensive contractor and add 25% is less expensive than either doing it themselves or contracting it out:</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline"><span class="dateline"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272598634?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272598634?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Is there actually anybody that exists who thinks the city cutting their grass is going to be less expensive than hiring a contractor? This new ordinance is simply a new money making scheme devised by the city manager to extract more money to the city coffers on the backs of those who can ill afford to spare more of their cash. </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">It's like the Ludington landlords and tenants being hit by the latest rental inspection program started in March. The service the city proffers offers nothing of value to either of them; they have made that known in numerous public hearings. Landlords and tenants have signed a contract betwixt themselves. If a landlord or tenant is failing that contract, there are options already available to remedy the situation. The city's redundant inspections will serve to do nothing other than run the existing affordable housing out of the city and create a host of new houses that are either vacant or decrepit looking rentals converted into owner occupied houses. </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline">Our other media do not bother taking up the very real problems created by such ordinances and greedy schemes created by local governments. Our own Mason County venues illustrate this, but so do other 'mainstream sources' reporting the issue from outside the county. Witness</span> <span class="dateline"><a href="http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/rental-registration-ordinance-begins" target="_blank">a March 15, 2016 TV 7&4 Report,</a> (see the accompanying video in the link, showing Ludington at its finest)</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="dateline"><span class="dateline"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272598736?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272598736?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><span class="dateline">LUDINGTON, Mi (WPBN/WGTU) —</span> MASON COUNTY, Mi. (WPBN/WGTU) -- March 15th was the deadline for landlords to register their rental properties with the City of Ludington.</em></p>
<p><em>The ordinance was passed by the city council last fall.</em></p>
<p><em>The idea of allowing the city to have a better handle on its inventory of rental properties has been brewing for several years.</em></p>
<p><em>"We've had a lot of rental housing where people have expressed concerns about the conditions, especially on the inside: using the stoves for heat, sewage running in the basement, apartments that have no way to get in our out if there's a fire," says John Shay, Ludington's City Manager.</em></p>
<p><em>The registration is also a chance for the city to find out how many rental units are in the city.</em></p>
<p><em>For some property owners the ordinance, which carries a $15 dollar fee per unit for the initial registration and a $50 fee per unit for an inspection every three years, is another example of government over-reach.</em></p>
<p><em>But others see it as a way for Ludington to improve its image in the rental market.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272600484?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272600484?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>"The inspector's going to go in and get these places up to par," says Curtis Smith, owner of West Shore Rental Management, with properties in Mason, Manistee, and Benzie Counties. "Everybody's going to have to play on the same field. There's going to be some unhappy people, but then the people who are legit, the people who are doing it right, it's going to make it even and it's going to give them a better reputation all around."</em></p>
<p><em>Until this new ordinance was adopted, the city's inspection department could only enforce conditions on the exterior of rentals.</em></p>
<p><em>"So if a rental unit, for example, or an owner occupied unit for that matter, had a bad roof or siding, we could deal with it there," says Shay. "But for the inside, there was no mechanism for us to go on the inside and inspect the inside of a unit."</em></p>
<p><em>"The biggest thing is it sets the bar for the tenant and it sets the bar for the landlord," says Smith. "Landlords have to hold a certain level and the tenants need to hold a certain level. The inspector comes in and he holds them both to that level. It's kind of like a playing field of where we need to be at."</em></p>
<p><em>Ludington's city manager says the city has hired one part-time position to help with the extra workload the ordinance will bring to the city's inspection department.</em></p>
<p><em>The plan is to inspect a third of the city's units each year.</em></p>
<p><em>Property owners who do not register their rental property will face a $500 fine for each rental unit</em>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272600713?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272600713?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The new Ludington ordinance goes into effect and who do they interview: the City Manager and a Manistee realtor/property manager (who is probably doing fantastic business selling rental properties in Ludington since last year). They both tell us what a great system it is, while the only argument they offer counter is saying that 'property owners' consider it an over-reach. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Meanwhile their video catches the external parts of rental and owner occupied houses in Ludington with problems on the exterior of their houses. Showing irrefutably that the city cannot effectively deal with those problems already, even though they claim that it's within their realm, even if the realm is in their neighborhood like the two apartment buildings above right across from city hall.</p>
<p></p>
<p>City Manager Shay, who likely choreographed this back in March, has most of Ludington rolling in the lead-contaminated aisles when he points out that he has heard reports that: "<em>We've had a lot of rental housing where people have expressed concerns about the conditions, especially on the inside: using the stoves for heat, sewage running in the basement, apartments that have no way to get in our out if there's a fire.</em>" </p>
<p></p>
<p>Please note, that I sent a FOIA request to the City asking for any written complaints leveled to the city regarding rental properties (after their anecdotes at meetings over such tripe) and they told me they had none; this is hearsay information, which is why you never see anything accredited to the slumlords of Ludington that they find so repellant. Among all those forums last year, not one tenant came forth and complained about an existing problem. Many came forth to say this ordinance was a terrible idea; many have since lost their low-cost Ludington apartment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Recall also, this is the same John Shay who did nothing to remedy the situation after the Madison sewer line ruptured in 2008 and dumped in raw, untreated sewage into the Ludington ecosystem, ruining several Fourth Ward businesses in the process. He's the same guy who has neglected the wastewater treatment plant too long that it's become a public health hazard, operating without a valid discharge permit for five years, and emitting sulfurous smells that can be <em>appreciated</em> miles away. Shay is without doubt the biggest and most apathetic slumlord in the City of Ludington when it comes to managing his own properties. </p> 'Renumeration' and the Ludington Rental Inspection Ordinancetag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2016-01-31:4689834:Topic:3157652016-01-31T03:40:45.562ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p></p>
<p>Most every landlord and tenant in Ludington were very upset when the rental inspection ordinance (RIO) was passed this last fall. Even many other folks who vocally contested the RIO were disappointed due to the loss of rights of these Ludington homeowners and home-dwellers. </p>
<p></p>
<p>And even though there has not been any legal remedy filed against the over-reaching ordinance as of yet, there is a convenient way out that the City of Ludington has inadvertently provided in…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Most every landlord and tenant in Ludington were very upset when the rental inspection ordinance (RIO) was passed this last fall. Even many other folks who vocally contested the RIO were disappointed due to the loss of rights of these Ludington homeowners and home-dwellers. </p>
<p></p>
<p>And even though there has not been any legal remedy filed against the over-reaching ordinance as of yet, there is a convenient way out that the City of Ludington has inadvertently provided in their recent mailing of registration forms to those buildings that they believe have rental unit(s) within. </p>
<p></p>
<p>This mailing included what amount to pages 5-8 of the <a href="http://www.ludington.mi.us/documentcenter/view/468" target="_blank">2015 Rental Inspection Ordinance</a> found at the city website. Now, I have maintained at the city council meetings that Ludington had effectively no property maintenance code, as they had passed the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) in 2000 to replace the existing code, then went and got repealed four years later (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/free-dumb-misinformation-about-rental-inspections-by-attorney-wil" target="_self">as detailed here</a>) without a replacement since that time. They could have easily fixed that with re-adopting the IPMC this last year, but they haven't. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Since that was pointed out, City Attorney Richard Wilson made a nonsense argument saying that between 2000 and 2004 both the old code and the IPMC were in force in Ludington, but these conflicting codes could not coexist at the same time. Nor has the 'old code' ever been formally repealed (other than by adopting a new one in 2000), but it is not codified in the city code. The <a href="https://www.municode.com/library/mi/ludington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICICO_CH6BUBURE_ARTIIIPRMACO" target="_blank">Ludington Property Maintenance Code</a> has no content.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But you don't even need to rely on disputing a code that the city believes exists, the City Building Department have made it possible for everyone to opt out of this crazy program that the city is using to grow itself bigger. If you are a landlord or a suspected landlord you probably have received a registration packet in the mail recently, the first page (with the homeowner's name and address in the blacked-out area) looks like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272611258?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="516" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272611258?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This cover letter is all fine and dandy, the second page (which is the same as page 6 in the city link) permits anybody to opt out of rental inspections, and do so within the manufactured rules of the city. In their zeal to take more money from you and your tenants, and to wreck the Ludington rental housing market, a simple clerical error allows you to attest that your property is not a rental unit. Check out your powers of observation using the highlights to help you out:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272612576?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272612576?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272612576?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Those knowledgeable of the English language may key in on the word 'renumeration', and know something is wrong here. The City may mean 'remuneration', which is to pay for goods and/or services. Many dictionaries do not define renumeration, a frequent misuse of the word remuneration, but when they do it means the act of recounting (<a href="http://grammarist.com/spelling/remunerate-renumerate/" target="_blank">as noted here).</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EQV8yIjCn4U?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>So you may have people other than family living in a place you own, but as long as you or they do not pay for recounting something, you do not have a rental unit according to the definitions given you by the City of Ludington. Definitions given to you to decide whether you can opt out. Unless you are housing someone who double checks your accounting, and gets paid for doing so, you can sign this disclaimer for all of your properties. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272613650?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="645" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272613650?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p> Ludington City Council Meeting December 21, 2015: Deck City Hall with Bouts of Follytag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-12-26:4689834:Topic:3119922015-12-26T17:59:27.559ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585101?profile=original" target="_self"></a>The last city council meeting in Ludington each year typically takes place about a week before Christmas, and for all the wide-eyed city officials, it's a highly anticipated time for the gifts about to come. The city clerk and treasurer have their salaries raised by ordinance, and if the city budget hasn't been adopted yet, the rest of the staff get their bonuses…</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585101?profile=original" target="_self"></a>The last city council meeting in Ludington each year typically takes place about a week before Christmas, and for all the wide-eyed city officials, it's a highly anticipated time for the gifts about to come. The city clerk and treasurer have their salaries raised by ordinance, and if the city budget hasn't been adopted yet, the rest of the staff get their bonuses too. </p>
<p></p>
<p>And these are usually in moderation, for the city has learned that they can provide a hefty benefits package to their officials as an alternative and have even happier employees. The city councilors also decide on whether to continue retaining the city manager and the city attorney, whose contracts must be renewed annually. My public comment was spent exclusively on explaining why those two positions should not be renewed. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Other than a 'no' vote by Councilor Kaye Holman for the city manager, whom indicated that she thought the city needed a change (and that it was for his own good), everyone else thought that the transgressions partially enumerated in the five minute speech were immaterial. Councilor Castonia and Councilor Katie Moonbeam (aka Kathy Winczewski) both chimed in with the same defense of the city manager they gave in March when I listed just ten of the reasons why John Shay should be fired. Of course, to long term public servant Katie Moonbeam, all public officials are sacred and indispensable.</p>
<p></p>
<p>At 14:30 into the meeting, Spence Riggs gave a presentation on the Target Market Analysis (TMA) conducted earlier this year (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-target-market-analysis-where-you-are-the-target" target="_self">shown here, with our own analysis</a>). For the next twenty plus minutes, it was described to the audience, but I still don't understand several basic things about it, including the basic idea: why did we pay money for this? </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585026?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="629" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585026?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Even with Riggs' explanation not pointing directly to it, the implications here are more attuned to the community planning aspect of the data. The analysis projects what community housing needs may be in five years for a mix of about 20 different communities, and we are somehow supposed to apply it to the Ludington situation, despite the fact that the Rental Inspection Ordinance has made the analysis effectively useless. Many of the 'missing middle' currently existing and in use are being reverted to single family houses because of the RIO.</p>
<p></p>
<p>With the county and city investing your money into this and obviously eating the data up as some sort of mandate for how we should proceed, look for them to adjust their policies accordingly. Having a lot of people living under one roof around a centralized location is a key tenet to Agenda 21, which requires a strong government presence dictating where and how people live. We see that <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585026?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/lesson-for-america-chinas-agenda-21-forces-people-into-cities/" target="_blank">China has built sustainable cities</a> that remain largely unoccupied, the 'high-in-demand' micro-apartments being shunned by the populace that are being aggressively encouraged to live there by the Chinese government. Centralized planning of housing alternatives is not American, it's downright Marxist.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Public Safety & Pubic Utilities had the rest of the meeting. First, they agreed to a consent agreement between them and Michigan Power, which was recently purchased. The new owners were undoubtedly impressed with the very-favorable-to-them water supply agreement with the city. I lightly touched on this in my comment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>They then approved a surcharge agreement with House of Flavors, adopted a resolution for the proposed microbrewery going in at Melendy and James, approved a water supply agreement with Amber Township, and lastly set a public hearing for the next meeting to issue bonds for water and sewer upgrades, as mandated by the Rural Development. These are described in more detail <a href="http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/Document/8cbed5a2-d0a5-e511-8980-001fbc00ed84/City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet%20December%2021,%202015.pdf" target="_blank">beginning on page 57 in the council packet.</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Besides my own public comment, Willy Reed rose (at 8:30 in) to publicly lend his support to the rezoning of the property near his father's bottling company on North Washington, previously discussed at the last Planning Commissioner meeting and <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/apartments-or-residential-showdown-in-post-rio-ludington" target="_self">here on the LT</a>. Recently, the COLDNews revealed what the proposed development is planned to look like:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272584876?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272584876?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This issue will come up at the next PC meeting on January 4th and in a future council meeting. Although I do not believe the City should deny the change, I am of the belief that it would not be a wise construction, as noted in the link. </p>
<p></p>
<p>My own comment was just before that (at 3:10 in) and touched primarily on the shortcomings of our city's management and legal leadership, and the call for a change. Surprisingly, Councilor Holman once again voted against rehiring Shay, like she has done a few other times, always without a very good reason even though I and others could supply her with many. Notably absent was Councilor Johnson, who represents my ward. Conspiracy-minded citizens may wonder if the effect was to take the issue off the table for the election of 2016 if I were to run for the seat. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="333" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/149758392" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/149758392">December 21, 2015 Ludington City Council</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/ludington">Mason County District Library</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I humbly come before you tonight to plead a case for not renewing the contracts of the city manager and the city attorney. Now, with the current make-up of the city council, I know such a task is at best a fool's errand. This makes me uniquely qualified to do it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In March I came before the council and listed ten reasons why John Shay should be fired based on his actions or inactions as a public official. Those transgressions were significant, many have led to the firings of other city managers and public officials; yet two councilors and Mayor Cox shrugged them off at the time and couldn't say enough about how professional, respectful, and downright indispensable he was to the city. This, even when those ten reasons, most fully supported by records and admissions, showed quite the reverse. </p>
<p></p>
<p>It is undeniable that he supplied the local circuit court with a false affidavit that he willfully swore to. He can claim that it was not deliberate, but many of the public records he refused to disclose had his name or initials on them, showing that he knew about them enough to sign them . And surely he and Attorney Wilson must have known at the time that the judge in the case was the father of one of the city attorneys representing the City. But that was unimportant, he had to block the release of the unscrupulous deal without a contract that the City had made with Councilor Tykoski's business; perjury and impropriety be damned.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sitting across John Shay while he was being deposed in my federal lawsuit with him and the city, I was troubled but not surprised that he told more even more lies about events, clearly in dispute of the public records saying otherwise. I admit being shocked, yet wasn't surprised that in the meeting after the City paid out $15,000 in that lawsuit that John Shay knowingly libeled me repeatedly with false claims and hearsay at the end of a city council meeting. This forum is meant to discuss public actions and public policy, not to launch malicious personal attacks that have nothing to do with city business. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Yet, our mayors allow such to occur at the end of the meetings, whether it be Chief Barnett launching a gaslight attack on my character or a serial perjurer who doubles as our city manager engage in defamation of someone he just lost a court case to. These tirades were said when the private citizen could not publicly defend his honor and shows just how low this city hall has gotten in pushing forth their own warped agenda. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The City manager and city attorney engaged in an overbilling scheme for three years, sometimes giving our attorneys up to $340 per hour when they were contracted to $185. During this same time, the city attorney contracted with a water rate consultant, Mark Beauchamp-- the guy who was here two meetings ago telling us why our water, sewer and readiness to serve charges would be going up, up and away. Unlike the many other cities that employ such consultants, our city council never voted to retain his services, which cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. By charter law, they need to.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585101?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="570" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272585101?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>That money was funneled through city attorney Richard Wilson in an illegal and unethical scheme to deprive not only the people of knowing what was happening, but the city council too. The service may have been used in an effort to secretly broker a water-selling contract with Michigan Power and PM Township. At the last meeting, Wilson told an advocate for the poor folks of Ludington that the City could not adjust the water rates offered to fixed income households because the law doesn't allow them to. </p>
<p></p>
<p>He failed to mention why someone who lives in town pays the rate of $1.65 per hundred cubic feet, while due to an intergovernmental agreement, PM Township gets the same amount for under a dollar. Ask Attorney Wilson and John Shay, negotiators of the three-sided contract you signed off with earlier this year, how come the water rate for PM Township was dropped 58 cents per unit and under a dollar when ours will crest two dollars very soon in the shadow of the citizens of Ludington going into over $30 million in debt for major upgrades, well overdue, on both water and water treatment plants. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Would a competent city manager almost totally neglect an aging water and sewer system for nearly thirteen years, even after a discharge permit has been denied for the last four of those years? Painting water towers well before they need it at a price well above a reasonable rate, was not a smart use of $1.5 million from the water fund. [<span style="color: #ff0000;">My speech was interrupted due to the five minute limit, with an exchange of 'Merry Christmas' sentiments between myself and the mayor. This is how it would have finished..</span>.] Regular and preventative maintenance on the forty year old structures may have saved the taxpayers millions in this case, but the public has been continuously left out of the loop. Scheming in shadows is not leadership.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So in closing, please use your oversight to consider doing the proper thing. Rather than give them both raises in their wages and other fringes, terminate employment of the city manager and city attorney for the good of the city."</p> John Shay as a Man'gertag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-12-21:4689834:Topic:3114712015-12-21T05:11:45.680ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p></p>
<p>A Christmas tradition around the Ludington Torch is to engage in a little political satire by associating our bleak political plight with themes from the yuletide holiday. In the past, we mangled the night before Christmas (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/twas-the-night-before-christmas-in-ludington" target="_self">Twas the Night Before Christmas in Ludington</a>), twisted Charles Dickens classic (…</p>
<p></p>
<p>A Christmas tradition around the Ludington Torch is to engage in a little political satire by associating our bleak political plight with themes from the yuletide holiday. In the past, we mangled the night before Christmas (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/twas-the-night-before-christmas-in-ludington" target="_self">Twas the Night Before Christmas in Ludington</a>), twisted Charles Dickens classic (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/a-christmas-col-by-charters-dissins" target="_self">A Christmas COL</a>), totally disrupted O Little Town of Bethlehem (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/o-city-council-ludington" target="_self">O City Council Ludington</a>), and realigned the twelve days of Christmas (<a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/the-twelve-days-of-ludington-christmas" target="_self">The Twelve Days of Ludington Christmas</a>). </p>
<p></p>
<p>This year, in honor of the unfortunate people that have lost or will lose their rental units due to the housing market reacting to the new rental inspection, we offer a variation of the classic song dealing with the nativity, "Away in a Manger". They may find themselves locating no affordable room left in Ludington to live, which is unfortunate and very sad, so a manger might be a better alternative than what they face. Even sadder, is that it was totally unnecessary and will be a waste of resources better used for local government's core functions.</p>
<p></p>
<p>A karaoke style video is provided to keep the proper metre of the Christmas favorite as you read the Ludington-appropriate lyrics. Merry Christmas and Happy Sixth Anniversary of the Ludington Torch.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VZI7wUbmfz8?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">John Shay as a man'ger,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">No fib is too small</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">The city council's man</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">He takes from us all.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">The shores of the West End</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">Looked fine whilst he lied</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">To the DNR lords</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">Who said "It's denied"</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">The streets they are crumbling</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">Old pipes beneath break</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">But 'pathetic John Shay</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">No repairs He make.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">Fees rising, once more Shay</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">And I must ask you why,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">You don't fair bid contracts,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">You make taxes high.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">And tell me, Man'ger Shay,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">If you could please leave,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">Spare us any more of,</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">Attempts to deceive.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272590848?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="704" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272590848?profile=original"/></a></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-5">Bless all our fair city</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">By saying farewell,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">Before our fair town turns,</span><br/> <span class="font-size-5">To an empty shell.</span></p> Ludington City Council Meeting October 26, 2015: Season of the RIPtag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-11-03:4689834:Topic:3075192015-11-03T19:32:41.301ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p></p>
<p>The meeting of October 26, 2015 will be known in Ludington history for the passage of the controversial Rental Inspection Ordinance (RIO). In tenor it was much like the film <strong>Halloween 3: Season of the Witch</strong>, by John Carpenter, complete with the unleashing of a great terror on the populace. </p>
<p></p>
<p>If you don't recall the movie, a business creates some well-crafted cheap Halloween masks that it markets successfully across the country. A doctor gets drawn…</p>
<p></p>
<p>The meeting of October 26, 2015 will be known in Ludington history for the passage of the controversial Rental Inspection Ordinance (RIO). In tenor it was much like the film <strong>Halloween 3: Season of the Witch</strong>, by John Carpenter, complete with the unleashing of a great terror on the populace. </p>
<p></p>
<p>If you don't recall the movie, a business creates some well-crafted cheap Halloween masks that it markets successfully across the country. A doctor gets drawn into a mystery which takes him to the town where the masks are made. He finds that the masks are infused with some druidic black magic that would effectively reduce the children within it to a pile of insects and vermin when activated (by hypnotic music and video) during the company's well advertised Big Giveaway airing on all networks on Halloween night. The doctor escapes and vanquishes the foes with a trick of his own, but is not ultimately successful in getting all of the networks to take the program off the air. The film ends with the actualization that millions of kids turned into worm food because one of the three networks running the special would not stop the program.</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jmSP5b_Mi6g?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>"<span class="font-size-4">Stop it, stop it now. Turn it off. Stop it. Stop it! STOP IT! STOP IT!! STOP IT!!! STOPPPP IIIIITT!"</span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Those who spoke during the public comment at this meeting invariably spoke the same of the Ludington RIO, but used much better arguments. In the end, two of the networks decided it was not for them, but five decided it was. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The director of this Halloween show in Ludington was also named John, a carpenter dealing with words not woods; and even though all other movies in the Halloween series featured a sinister character named Michael (Myers), ours featured another Michael with his own diabolic ideas, a councilor representing the rental-heavy Fourth Ward, who is in office for over a year without one vote from anyone in that ward.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Other Issues</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>The meeting did have other things happening, such as the public hearing for the one building OPRA district at 201 Second Street, a quite interesting public hearing featuring Edgar Struble and a couple of other guys as noted and updated in this article: <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/the-gamblers-of-ludington" target="_self">The Gamblers of Ludington.</a> The resolution was passed unanimously to okay the district.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The next thing brought up was a presentation on other housing initiatives, which was interesting enough to look at in a separate article: <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-target-market-analysis-where-you-are-the-target" target="_self">Where you are the Target!</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Councilors Winczewski and Krauch offered their high praises to Mrs. Tykoski, and not surprisingly, Krauch admits to conferring with the CDD often. They then sent a public hearing for a MSHDA grant to be held at the next meeting, not surprisingly <a href="http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/Document/169cceca-9979-e511-b9cd-001fbc00ed84/City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet%20October%2026,%202015.pdf" target="_blank">there is no mention of the MSHDA grant</a> or anything else presented by her in the councilor's packet nor is there any reference on the city's website. Once again,the scope and contents of this grant are kept from the people before the public hearing in a very non-transparent city hall. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The rest of the general business was non-controversial approval of a couple of liquor licenses, the first for a replacement business for the area where <em><strong>Le Serving Spoon</strong></em> is at and the other was inside the Best Choice Market, which wanted extra facilities for serving alcohol. Two more places to get toasted in Ludington, you can even recork your bottle at the latter, and we learn that there is almost limitless capacity for liquor licenses in downtown Ludington. I count at least four new businesses engaged in the selling of alcohol in the downtown over the last year, perhaps we will get saturated at some point. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The Blu-Moon received another special allowance for their business regarding string lights. Funny, before <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/this-week-with-shinblind" target="_self">the new lighting system was put in</a>, darkness wasn't an issue. It passed unanimously.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The last official action they had was to decide my latest FOIA appeal due to a denial of a recent request. It was for a payroll record of the LPD back in March. I was sent back a response with the LPD's SSCENT (narcotics multi-jurisdictional task force) officer's name and hours worked blacked out. Their reason:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272581018?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272581018?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>It's remarkably funny that if one saw the original payroll record, they could not discern that LPD Officer David Krause was on the SSCENT team and working undercover, but since they crossed it off and indicated he was doing so, they confirmed it. I have gotten past police payroll reports from the LPD and had everyone's name available, even the SSCENT task force member. Their denial led by Holman's call to action ("<strong>so moved!</strong>") will make another easily winnable court case with punitive damages if I decide to pursue it, particularly since I will be getting this record in discovery for my current case where the redaction will not be there. </p>
<p></p>
<p>For a complete review of this FOIA appeal <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582285?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/Document/169cceca-9979-e511-b9cd-001fbc00ed84/City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet%20October%2026,%202015.pdf" target="_blank">take a look at p 108+ of the packet.</a> They want to get into your private house, but do not want to release non-exempt public information which belongs to you and everyone else. How resilient is that? Continuing their pattern of transparency, they went into closed lesson to look over an attorney's written opinion regarding something dealing with a grievance by the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). The nature of that grievance has been also kept from the public.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Rental Inspection Ordinance</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>By the time the vote for rental inspections came up, many people had spoken. Two councilors (Krauch and Winczewski) told everybody that there was a lot of listening and a lot of changes in the ordinance and how it would be so good, albeit the public's opinions. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Castonia chided the public again for their passion and strident beliefs. Johnson said he would like to see it worked on a little more, yet indicated he would want something that is effectively like it. The others remained quiet, including the usually outspoken Holman who wound up being the only other councilor than Johnson to vote against it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What may have been lost is the voice of the commenters that night, but here is a brief synopsis of their words along with the time in the video where the comments were made and their profession:</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="400" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/143742147" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/143742147">October 26, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/ludington">Mason County District Library</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Doug Shoup</strong> (2:15): realtor, portrayed RIO as using a shotgun to swat a fly, unfair taxing, invasions of rights</p>
<p><strong>Edgar Struble</strong> (6:10): landlord/homeowner, variety of issues, including suggesting a Yelp-type website for tenants to complain about the problems rather than have it mandated for all, </p>
<p><strong>Steven Von Pfahl</strong> (9:25): landlord/homeowner, defined 'listening' and asked whether the officials were doing so, used the 'lie', 'discrimination' and 'arrogance' word for them, and brought up the latest court ruling. A train track analogy ensued (some applause issued, even when Mayor Cox made a point to withhold clapping).</p>
<p><strong>Melissa Reed</strong> (12:40): landlady, noted ordinance has serious flaws, urged to go back to committee and get stakeholders input.</p>
<p><strong>Chuck Sobanski</strong> (14:15): landlord/homeowner, explained some blight in the 4th Ward and how the City hasn't been able to do anything about it for years, asked how they can enforce new ones. Urged the councilors to vote their conscience.</p>
<p><strong>Frank Sagan</strong> (18:05): homeowner, gave a long talk, he even went over time, about the wishy washy nature of jobs in Ludington and how the city does not enforce their codes and allows inferior contracting work. A little off topic, but did explain how the city leadership is messing up its own housing and added how this RIO would not help.</p>
<p><strong>Me</strong> (24:10): resident, detailed in full below.</p>
<p><strong>Heather Catron</strong> (29:15) moved to Ludington in 2012, former landlord in Adrian, current President of the Ludington Jaycees. Said it wasn't that big of a deal in Adrian, saying it was imposed after a kid was killed in a fire. <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Michigan/2001/05/11/Rental-inspection-plan-infuriates-Adrian-landlords.html" target="_blank">The Toledo Blade reported</a> in 2001 that Adrian landlords had a lot of problems with it; the <a href="http://adriancity.com/services/community-development/rental-housing-inspection/" target="_blank">City of Adrian website</a> mentions no child killed in a fire as inspiring the passage of the ordinance. Internet records are notoriously incomplete before 2001, but the only death in Adrian of a child was an <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=19900814&id=dmciAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ua0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3309,3587425&hl=en" target="_blank">infant who died in an apartment fire</a> that happened in 1990, as a result of several other kids playing with matches. A rental inspection wouldn't have helped. If you vaguely remember Heather's name, recall she went to the city leaders for the Jaycees (a private organization) to get public funds to improve the beach mini-golf course <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-city-council-meeting-3-09-2015-public-satiety-and-futil" target="_self">as I pointed out in March.</a> One could say that this was her payback, couched in generalities and half-truths. The appointed officials in the audience liked her comments, nonetheless.</p>
<p><strong>Aiden Schrader</strong> (30:15) tenant, concerned of rent, taking time off work, and the effect it will have on his friends and family who rent. Very persuasive to me.</p>
<p><strong>Mary Lynn Leavitt</strong> (31:45) manager of Sherman Oaks, worried about relatives of others who live in Sherman Oaks, had petitions signed by over 100 tenants from her property, desired more people at the table to fix the RIO so it wasn't just a further burden on the properties.</p>
<p><strong>Marcia Bonnville</strong> (35:00) landlord/homeowner echoed the court ruling in Ohio and the implications.</p>
<p><strong>Pat Patterson</strong> (35:45) landlord, invested in Ludington for long term investment, expressed how the money issue affects him.</p>
<p><strong>Tom Tyron</strong> (38:00) landlord/homeowner reiterated his position asked for questions as a bit of levity.</p>
<p><strong>Linda O'Brien</strong> (38:45) landlord/homeowner urged it to be sent back, mentioned the hikes in Manistee's RI taxes, and the negative effect it will have on the rental housing stock in Ludington.</p>
<p><strong>Vicki Heineman</strong> (39:45) homeowner/property manager stated RIO isn't perfect but a good start.</p>
<p><strong>Bill Stechschulte</strong> (41:15) homeowner/landlord noted Vicki failed to mention the rental status of distressed properties, noted that taxes triple when he fixes his properties up.</p>
<p><strong>Lyla McClellan</strong> (43:35) homeowner and extremely supportive of city, as well she should be since she was appointed <a href="http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/Document/bb738de1-7cf1-4def-b373-ac64c7308548/cou-regmin-01132014.pdf#search=Lyla" target="_blank">illegally on the Board of Ethics, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Board of Review</a> at the same time (<a href="https://www.municode.com/library/mi/ludington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICICO_CH2AD_ARTIIICOIN_DIV3THBOET_SD1CRPOBO_S2-90BOETCR" target="_blank">see this ordinance</a> and <a href="https://www.municode.com/library/mi/ludington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH_CH9TA_S9.3BORE" target="_blank">this ordinance</a> ). She mentions neither, but offers support for the RIO. (surprise).</p>
<p>Lastly <strong>Frank Sagan</strong> got up once again to continue his earlier grievance, but was shot down by the mayor. Good try, Frank, but only people that stick up for the City get that privilege.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My comment in its entirety.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>XLFD</strong>: "Trick or treat? This question of the season is very appropriate when the issue of rental inspections come up because they explain the two viewpoints that have arisen since the issue became public in June. </p>
<p>Public officials seem to view it as a treat; according to those who push for its passage, this ordinance will cost very little, but do very much. They say we will either vanquish or reform the slumlords, make safe and secure apartments for our tenants, make blighted areas attractive to developers, allow us to be eligible for grants, significantly raise property values without raising rents-- generally be a panacea for all that ails our town's housing stock. </p>
<p></p>
<p>But when you ask our city attorney, who drafted this ordinance and patterned it after Manistee's rental inspections, how this 15 year old program drafted by his law firm has worked for that city, he offers no comment. Probably because it has been an abject failure which has cost the city plenty until inspections were contracted to a private company, a company which could send almost anyone into an apartment to inspect. </p>
<p></p>
<p>As a Manistee tenant, would you feel secure with a complete stranger coming into your apartment looking around, noting your security, your valuables, your daughter? This and boarded up rental houses is the legacy of rental inspections in Manistee which is more like ground up glass in an apple rather than a treat.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The public has yet to hear a bad word regarding the general idea of rental inspection from their representatives. No less than six anecdotes about execrable rental living conditions have been uttered by our officials without a name or address mentioned in any, as if they want to protect the slumlords they wish to portray so negatively and eliminate. </p>
<p></p>
<p>I learned via FOIA that there were no specific complaints reviewed by the city committee in forging this ordinance which was odd, since two of the officials making anecdotes were on that committee. Surprising to me, besides these vague and unspecific anecdotes by our officials, is that there has been no public charge of impropriety against any Ludington landlord in the five months this has been an issue. Shouldn't this be a treat in itself? But this council looks on this fact as it would at stale candy corn.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The treat our officials hope for this Halloween are increased property values, increased eligibility for grant money, increased new development, but the fifteen year old Petri Dish called Manistee and other city's like Detroit, shows us that these are as immaterial as ghosts.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The public-- landlords, tenants, and others like myself-- have reviewed the ordinance and have almost unanimously came to the same conclusion that this is a trick. They have seen two planning officials come before this forum and unethically declare their support without stating that they are city officials and an integral part of this ordinance. These have been the only people among dozens since June that have come before you to explain why this is a poorly timed and poorly crafted ordinance, that definitely goes against both state and federal civil rights protections.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Our attorney further tricks us by claiming this as a fee not a tax, when the ordinance as written, clearly fails part three of the Bolt fee test. Landlords and tenants cannot refuse inspections without significant penalties. He further opines that the Ludington Property Maintenance Code is legally in force, when it is not referenced at all in our city code or charter other than in a fully repealed section. Council minutes reflect this, judge his opinion for what it's worth.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The city manager tricked us in June by saying the $105 per unit inspected was the place where the city would break even, before coming back and telling us later that $65 per unit for the same service would suffice. I would rather the city tax the landlords $105, for why should non-landlords subsidize these needless inspections for the amount we were told it would originally cost?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Look above the pipe dreams of your appointed officials telling you that this ordinance is a treat, believe what has happened and not happened in other cities with rental inspections, believe what you have heard all along from your constituents. This ordinance will let the air out of Ludington's tires, TP the trees of our small business owners, and [<span style="color: #ff0000;">Interrupted by the Mayor calling time</span>] wax the windows of our tenants.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Ludington citizens do not want tricks; treat us by driving a stake through this ordinance."</p> Fire Progressions: Rental Inspections Rise from the Ashestag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-10-24:4689834:Topic:3061612015-10-24T22:31:33.023ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582198?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583209?profile=original" target="_self"></a>The Ludington City Council is poised to pass a <a href="http://www.ludington.mi.us/documentcenter/view/468" target="_blank">rental inspection ordinance</a> this Monday, October 26, 2015. The highly unpopular proposed legislation has been roundly panned as to its substance and to…</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582198?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583209?profile=original" target="_self"></a>The Ludington City Council is poised to pass a <a href="http://www.ludington.mi.us/documentcenter/view/468" target="_blank">rental inspection ordinance</a> this Monday, October 26, 2015. The highly unpopular proposed legislation has been roundly panned as to its substance and to its necessity. The city has failed to show any kind of specific complaints against any specific properties, wishing instead to inundate us with unsubstantiated anecdotes from the public officials as to why this is needed. </p>
<p></p>
<p>It should be admitted that some renters live in squalid conditions. It should also be admitted that in Ludington there is no evidence whatever that the squalor is landlord-imposed or contrary to the conditions the tenant is comfortable with. The tenant signs a contract with the landlord for a residence where both private (insurance) and government agencies (Health Department, MSHDA, et. al.) already have the ability to come in and address issues of safety. Like anybody buying a house, a prospective renter can hire a house inspector if they want to.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It should even be admitted that many homeowners live in substandard conditions, where their homes definitely need some tender loving care. Many of these are in the process of purchasing their house via a mortgage or land contract, and so they are effectively renting/leasing their home from a bank or the deed-holder. These folks are exempt from 'rental inspection' ordinances all over primarily because tenants and these quasi-tenants make up 80% of the voters, and would not be tolerated.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The rental inspection scheme is being borrowed from other municipalities with the Ludington city elite looking at the extra revenue generated being used to employ more city workers and make the city more attractive to state and federal grants that reward cities for encroaching the rights of their citizenry. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Yet, people do not generally like their rights being taken away, so the clever bureaucrat hides this by subterfuge, using arguments for safety, moving the objective behind convenient bugbears, and converting tragedies into opportunities.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This article will focus on the opportunity glommed onto by our Ludington officials in selling a flawed rental inspection ordinance, that will not accomplish any of its stated objectives, and yet accomplish several overt ones. It will do this by looking at the city's use of a historic fire, looking at other city fires, and compare this with another historical fire</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>LUDINGTON'S HISTORIC FIRES</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Failing to evoke much empathy from the local people and press for the vague anecdotes stated by Councilors Krauch, Winczewski, Holman, and Tykoski regarding what they established as poor and unsafe living condition, they borrowed their appointed friends from the Planning Commission to create a more substantive case for this specious ordinance. <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/following-the-moloney-behind-the-rental-inspection-program" target="_self">Joe Moloney followed a parade of citizens</a> to show there was at least a little public support from city employees at the Special August 13 meeting. </p>
<p></p>
<p>He would later make a case invoking his kids safety and how great the ordinance was in moving the city ahead, at a meeting where his fellow PC member spoke. Raymond Madsen spoke about his recent rental purchase and what he encountered and heard from the previous tenants. I went over to his 'rental' property this last week and found that his yard looks as if it hasn't been mowed since he brought it, and the house is an eyesore, missing several of its old tiles on the outside and the exterior door on its side. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Great job of property maintenance so far, Raymond; you may be able to fix it up since it seems like you moved the tenants out and contributed more to the actual problem that Ludington faces, a rental unit shortage.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But Ray's contribution to the discussion was his recantation of Ludington's worst fire. <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/another-official-secretly-shills-for-the-rental-inspection-progra" target="_self">Raymond Madsen highlighted the James Street Fire</a> in a letter to the editor which implied that the 1993 tragedy could have been avoided if the city had adopted a rental inspection program in 1991. Both happened more than twenty years before Madsen decided to live here, but looking at the particulars, one wonders: If it was a faulty electrical ceiling fixture that caused the fire, how would a 'cursory' rental inspection by a non-electrician have determined that? </p>
<p></p>
<p>Implications abound in his letter, and in subsequent mention of the fire by the council, that the fire was caused because of some inherent dangerous nature of rental properties somehow preying on the lives of the tenants who contract to live there. But let's take a look at fires in the USA in general.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-structure-fires" target="_blank">According to the code-making</a> National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): "Seventy percent of reported home fires and 84% of the home fire deaths occurred in one- or two-family homes, including manufactured homes. The remainder occurred in apartments or other multi-family housing." When you compare the residential home deaths per year over the period between 2006-2013, the average is around 2500, for tenants in apartments, the number is down <a href="http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/apartment-structure-fires" target="_blank">at the 400 level</a>. Rental properties could be easily said to be safer, due not only to these stats, but because the landlord and the tenant both have vested interests in keeping it safe. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583209?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="700" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583209?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Locally, one of the first fires I was a part of as a Ludington firefighter in 2001 was a fatal fire in a residential house on North Robert Street. The cause at the time was determined to be by fire accelerants used by the woman who perished. The only other fatal fires in Ludington beyond these I could find with a variety of Google searches were the following:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/archives/article_d30d118d-374c-5b69-b3bc-fc4eff867348.html" target="_blank">2003 Fatal Boat Fire</a> likely caused by an inebriated boater, smoking or otherwise lighting a candle.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/archives/article_9858cb43-fa30-5f6d-bebd-7b3c04efa0d1.html" target="_blank">2012 Fatal Fire on Robert St.</a> where no cause was determined, careless smoking being the main culprit.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/06/man_who_perished_in_ludington.html" target="_blank">2013 George St fire death</a> likely caused by cigarettes smoked by an inebriated fellow.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If we consider that a marina is a rented slip, the three all occurred on a rental property. However, we note that there is a fair chance that all were started by careless smoking. NFPA reports that few fires are actually due to a dilapidated structure spontaneously combusting by itself. You may as well blame the gun rather than the gun-wielder for a shooting death, which is probably the frame of mind for those for such intrusive programs.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582218?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582218?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>GERMANY'S HISTORIC FIRE</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Students of history are well served in brushing up on what has been done in the past in order for tyrants to gain more power. In 1933, a fire at Berlin's parliament building signaled the demise of the German republic and the rise of Nazi Germany. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Less than a month before the Reichstag caught fire, a young Adolph Hitler had been appointed as chancellor by <a title="Reichspräsident" class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichspr%C3%A4sident">German President</a> <a title="Paul von Hindenburg" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg">Paul von Hindenburg.</a> Hitler advised the president to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new election, in order that Hitler's burgeoning Nazi party could gather more seats and he would be more able to pass legislation that would establish more power for himself, including the <a title="Enabling Act of 1933" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933">Enabling Act</a>. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the <i>Reichstag</i>. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582198?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="620" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582198?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a <a title="Communist revolution" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution">Communist revolution</a> and that the only way to stop the Communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed.</p>
<p></p>
<p>A week before the election, the Reichstag suffered major damage from a fire of suspicious origin. Five communist revolutionaries were charged with the crime, thousands more communists were rounded up, and Hitler with his propagandists were able to use this to eventually get a very favorable result at the election. There are some fair arguments to suggest the fire was a false flag action that Hitler staged. The day after the fire Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the <a title="Reichstag Fire Decree" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree">Reichstag Fire Decree</a>, signed into law by Hindenburg using <a title="Article 48" class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48">Article 48</a> of the <a title="Weimar Constitution" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution">Weimar Constitution</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany (including ones that mimic our First and Fourth Amendments) and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. With their allies, the Nazi's had over 50% of the seats of the Reichstag, which had to move from their building. Within a month, the Enabling Act was passed, due in large part to the Nazis' ability to capitalize on national security concerns.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>THE CONNECTION</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Tyrants and would-be-tyrants always have the fear card in their hand. They benevolently play themselves as caring for your security and safety, just before they take your inalienable rights away so as to make the world less dangerous. Ben Franklin famously said: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.", as one who strove for liberties. </p>
<p></p>
<p>On the other side, Rahm Emmanuel famously said: " You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.", as one who strove to improve governmental power. </p>
<p></p>
<p>What we need to consider is why the city council and their planning commission allies need to dredge up this tragic fire from Ludington history in order to justify a poorly conceived and poorly written ordinance. Had there been significant fault of the landlord in this tragedy or in any other fire or life safety incident since, we would have heard of it by now. But even without any proofs, our landlords and even our tenants are painted with the same brush as Hitler's communist threat was.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But there is no incident that fits the template, and they're not likely to commit arson with their own city hall. So they will pass this rental inspection ordinance under false pretenses, false assumptions, and, to complete the trifecta, a falsely stated objective. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Chancellor Hitler would be proud of their coming accomplishments for the people of Ludington, whose civil rights have gotten in the way of their security. We must succeed in putting the legislative fires out, and getting the fire starters out where they can do no further harm.</p> Of Reserve Officers and Rental Inspectionstag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-10-20:4689834:Topic:3055972015-10-20T03:11:17.418ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p><strong>Reserve Officers are Irresistable</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>An interesting ruling on reserve police officers by the appeals court of Michigan, leads to an interesting analogy in Ludington regarding the proposed rental inspection program. </p>
<p></p>
<p>As you may know, Ludington has a <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-police-reserves-who-are-they" target="_self">reserve force of police officers</a> as big as their regular force. They come complete with…</p>
<p><strong>Reserve Officers are Irresistable</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>An interesting ruling on reserve police officers by the appeals court of Michigan, leads to an interesting analogy in Ludington regarding the proposed rental inspection program. </p>
<p></p>
<p>As you may know, Ludington has a <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-police-reserves-who-are-they" target="_self">reserve force of police officers</a> as big as their regular force. They come complete with guns, badges, and ambiguous authority. Nowhere in state law or local law, are these reservists authorized for Ludington, they exist as Chief Barnett's personal police force, with our own Mayor Ryan Cox serving as a sergeant, and former Councilor Wally Taranko who served proudly on the council and also on the reserves . </p>
<p></p>
<p>But when our officials are pressed about the conflicts of interest, the lack of any legislative authorization, and the incompatibility of offices inherent, they brusquely tell you to move along, there's nothing to see here. </p>
<p></p>
<p>A summary of this <a href="http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/09/21/reserve-police-officer-michigan-resisting-statute/72586134/" target="_blank">recent Detroit Freep article on the ruling</a> is supplied below, with the doom and gloom predictions of law enforcement officials heavily invested in reserve officers omitted until the analogy is made:</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Resisting or obstructing a reserve police officer in Michigan isn't a crime, according to a recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The appellate court ruled 2-1 in a Livingston County case that reserve police officers are not police officers under the state's resisting and obstructing statute. The court said reserve officers are not specifically mentioned in the law and therefore are not covered by it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The decision affirmed two lower courts’ dismissal of a resisting charge against Ryan Scott Feeley, who in 2014 was accused of failing to follow a Brighton reserve police officer’s command when the officer responded with a full-time officer to a report of a bar fight. Feeley allegedly was causing problems and ran when the reserve police officer approached to speak with him. The reserve police officer identified himself as a police officer and ordered Feeley to stop.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Feeley stopped on the second command to stop, told the reserve officer “(expletive) you,” while reaching behind his back. Fearing Feeley had a weapon, the reserve officer drew his gun and ordered him to the ground. Feeley complied and was taken into custody.</p>
<p></p>
<p>A district court judge denied the prosecution’s request to send the resisting charge to circuit court on the grounds a reserve police officer was not covered under the statute. The statute defines a police officer, including those at colleges or universities, a sheriff or deputy, constable or firefighter. It does not specify reserve police officer among those persons whose lawful orders must by obeyed in order to avoid criminal liability, according to the ruling.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The prosecution appealed, and the circuit court affirmed the district court decision. The prosecution took the matter to the state appellate court, which ruled the statute doesn’t apply to a reserve police officer."</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2015/091515/60797.pdf" target="_blank">Here is the complete decision</a> in the appeals court.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Analysis</strong>:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Our officials are very high on both the rental inspection program (RIP) and the reserve officer program (ROP) and believe that both are good for the safety of the good people of Ludington. But whereas the RIP costs up to $50,000 a year and may make our rental stock safer (mainly due to the loss by attrition of lower rental units by vacancy or conversion into non-rental uses), the reserve officer program is instituted to save costs. For the years of 2014-2016, the expected budget for the reserve police force is $1600 per year, the costs of the full LPD is over $1.3 million on each of those years, about 800 times as much. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580021?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580113?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="609" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580113?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580204?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="333" class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580204?profile=RESIZE_480x480"/></a>For those three years, $200 is budgeted for the training of the 14 reserve officers, which is less than $15 per reserve officer. That's enough to buy each of them a <em><strong>Police Academy 1-4</strong></em>, four Film Collection. Not enough to give them any serious training from qualified police instructors. </p>
<p></p>
<p>As noted, the LPD does not have any minimum training standards for these officers, it is simply Chief Mark Barnett's whimsy on who he will pin a badge on, put a gun in their hands, and send them on 'routine' calls or to more serious calls with a regular officer. </p>
<p></p>
<p>While one would expect Chief Barnett to do a cursory background check, a psychological evaluation, and some general training, these are not mandatory by any means; a FOIA request revealed that none of these officers had up to date MCOLES (<a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580021?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580113?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580204?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,4607,7-229-41624---,00.html" target="_blank">Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards</a>) certification, which is mandatory for real Michigan police officers. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Isn't it ironic that they want all rental units to be certified, when they allow their own police units to be uncertified? Uncertified rental units, they complain, are a danger to the community, but uncertified police officers with guns and tasers that they may not know how or when to use, are not? </p>
<p></p>
<p>In the Freep article linked to above, the executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (Chiefs generally run the reserves as their own) says: "For some parts of the state, reserve police officers are instrumental in protecting the public and it’s not just small cities; larger cities, such as Detroit and Livonia, use reserve police officers. They’re counted on in these days when we can’t afford to hire as many full-time officers."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Maybe costly rental inspection programs are at fault for draining resources, or perhaps if full-time officers didn't automatically get perquisites like fat pensions and above average fringe benefits, they would be able to have more regular officers so that they wouldn't have to hire reserves for less than a hundredth of the cost. When reserves don't do it for the money, you wonder what may be their motive; they definitely water down the professionalism of the force and potentially add a lot of extra liabilities to the local government, most of who do not authorize them.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580974?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="620" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580974?profile=original"/></a></p> Ludington City Council Meeting 10-12-2015: Scary Rental Inspections and Ghostly Maintenance Codestag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-10-15:4689834:Topic:3052972015-10-15T04:37:44.880ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Area news outlets covering the October 12, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting featuring the first reading of the highly contentious Rental Inspection Program (RIP) invariably <a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2015/10/12/ludington-council-hears-comments-on-rental-ordinance/" target="_blank">focused on the words of Councilor Castonia</a>, berating several folks who left shortly after the public comment period (noticeable around 50 minutes in): "I have to say I'm really disappointed in…</p>
<p>Area news outlets covering the October 12, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting featuring the first reading of the highly contentious Rental Inspection Program (RIP) invariably <a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2015/10/12/ludington-council-hears-comments-on-rental-ordinance/" target="_blank">focused on the words of Councilor Castonia</a>, berating several folks who left shortly after the public comment period (noticeable around 50 minutes in): "I have to say I'm really disappointed in how many of (the landlords) left after they have had their say and don't want to hear our say." (1:15:00 in).</p>
<p></p>
<p>It was typical of the twisted reasoning that he has used throughout the process while portraying himself as one who has misgivings about the ordinance, but indicated he is coming around to believing that the RIP is cheap, simple, and worthy of support.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"I did some homework by myself, it's $1.80 a month, if your landlords going to raise your rent because of $1.80... I don't know" and "My biggest complaint, and I was dead set against this ordinance when this first started, I had some questions and I got some answers. This is the inspection sheet; one page. It tells what's inspected, they're not going through drawers and they're not looking at their beds, they're looking at health and safety items." </p>
<p></p>
<p>Yet at the 45 minute mark, after I raised a point of order that the speaker who had just delivered a touching anecdote for the RIP was a member of the Planning Commission, and that the record should reflect that information (since speaker and PC member Ray Madsen didn't supply it himself) I was told to sit down and the point was not even considered. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Frankly, it's inconceivable to me that Mayor Cox, who appointed Madsen to the commission and should be smart enough to realize that the omission of admitting the relationship is ethically wrong, disciplined me for pointing it out within the rules of order. Worse, the seven city councilors who approved his appointment and should have been as confused as I as to whether Madsen's views reflected his personal or professional vantage point seemed content with that.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Madsen and his fellow Planning Commissioner Joe Moloney both spoke out, but Moloney who spoke earlier acknowledged (this time) at the start he was on the city Planning Committee and expressing views that were only his own, not those of the Planning Commission. Moloney believes in Big Mommy government when he states (at 23:45): "Self-governance does not work for food safety, for transportation, for medical care, it certainly doesn't work for housing. The City of Ludington is responsible to its citizens to make sure we have safe housing." </p>
<p></p>
<p>Our founding fathers of this country certainly did not set up governmental departments at any level for Joe's concerns, certainly America was self-governed in each of the categories he mentioned for most of its existence, and I believe a majority of Americans nowadays would contend with his contentions on medical care and housing in general. The basis of his claims are mired in his own degradation of everyone else's intelligence when compared to his enlightened noggin that works for the local government. Perhaps Frederic Bastiat's words from centuries past refutes it best: </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580467?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="666" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580467?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>For those who want a more American based refutation they can quote our third president: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." But I have fallen into the trap of not only delaying telling what happened at the majority of the meeting, but also featuring the minority of viewpoints expressed thereat as if they were of high importance. </p>
<p></p>
<p>For sixteen people spoke up during public comment, thirteen of those explicitly on this topic of the RIP. Ten of those were critical, two from the Planning Commission were wholeheartedly for it, and one argued that something must be done, but was not whom he said he was. Before we touch on this, however, let's see what else was at play at the meeting. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Other Agenda Issues: Music and 'Mergencies</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Ludrock sought and achieved a resolution by the council recognizing it as a non-profit group operating in the city. This allows them to apply for a charitable gaming license from the state, and has the added benefit of giving them a discount when they have events in Ludington in the future. Recall, Ludington will start charging for city services and equipment at city events next year.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The council tabled approving the 12th Annual Ludington Triathlon for next August to see whether they could find out how much they will be giving to the 'community'. This is code for saying that the city leaders want to shake them down for more money than they originally had planned.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://edgarstruble.net/" target="_blank">Edgar Struble,</a> long term musical director for Kenny Rogers plans to open a business at 102 Second Street and the council set a public hearing for the next meeting to address it's tax issues by establishing an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA) District for that one property. California based Nolan Family Investments LLC has owned the property since February purchasing it for $120,000. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580450?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="640" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580450?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p>The sales transaction history of this parcel seems a bit weird when looked at, one hopes that Edgar Struble, who owns a house on Gaylord, has a noble purpose for this tax break he is almost certainly to receive at the next meeting, at the expense of the rest of the Ludington taxpayer.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272581616?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272581616?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a> </p>
<p>To the relief of everyone who has listened to the council introduce the four ludicrous proposed charter amendments twice apiece, Councilor Winczewski spoke most approvingly of having our city manager have more latitude on spending your money during emergencies. If you remember, the city <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580450?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272581616?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/it-s-final-olc-secures-judgment-for-activist-against-city-s-secre" target="_self">defined an emergency</a> as repairing a sewer line two months after it is noticed that it may have problems, having the councilors agree to spend nearly $100,000 outside of an open meeting. Three regular open meetings occurred between.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Our city manager has repeatedly entered contracts and spent money without proper approval from the city council at open meetings, why would any sane individual, or even a city councilor, give him less oversight? Please put this one on the ballot so we can vote a resounding 'NO'.</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="400" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/142250496" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/142250496">October 12, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/ludington">Mason County District Library</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Other Citizen Issues: Asbestos and AFC Homes</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Nancy Mustaikis brought forth an issue earlier this summer that the old Lyon's Supermarket Building was demolished quickly without any precautions as to what appeared to be asbestos tiles that were all over the building. The tiles were highly suspicious, being made at around the same time asbestos tiles were popular and typically made into 9" X 9" units. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Nancy sent her daughter Heather Hendrickson to the council, where she spoke second (6:00 in), with a prepared statement informing the city that the tiles were tested as asbestos and spoke of the city's culpability in the demolition after they were informed of the problems and did nothing. She made some very good points as to the proposed microbrewery and the processes involved in it so far. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Why should we expect this brewery will be a good neighbor when it has negatively affected our neighborhood's health by not being thorough before they have even started construction? Why shouldn't we be suspicious when they did not address this issue at this month's Planning Commission meeting, nor did the commission bring it up. Why have a Planning Commission when they can't even ask questions about irregularities in the demolition process?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Surprisingly, Councilor Castonia brought up the issue (1:31:00 in), and John Shay was muddling through the blame denial game slowly, so Attorney Richard Wilson chimed in: "The city has no air quality regulations, we don't have the authority to adopt air quality regulations, those are at the state and national level, so asbestos particles that get in the air are regulated by Michigan. In our code we have nothing regarding air pollution, that's by virtue of state law."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Not in the charter? What about <a href="https://www.municode.com/library/mi/ludington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICICO_CH66WA_ARTIIHA_DIV1GE_S66-42AIPO" target="_blank">Sec. 66-42. - Air pollution</a> or <a href="https://www.municode.com/library/mi/ludington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICICO_CH62UT_ARTIISOWA_S62-37PLDI" target="_blank">Sec. 62-37. - Placing for disposal</a> which talks of rubbish contributing to air pollution? Are we violating state law by having these two local law sections? Yet, this is a moot point. It appears that Nancy Mustaikis informed the city of the problem, the city shirked it's law enforcement duties-- the Ludington Police Department enforces both state and federal laws in addition to the local ones. Not knowing the full channels of this scandal, I hope that we can see how many of those who supposedly look out after our safety just looked the other way.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Another point was brought up by Robert Walker as the seventh speaker at 18:04 in. With a narrative that wasn't totally clear, he commented on a neighboring Adult Foster Care (AFC) home that has had a variety of problems. It should be noted that AFC homes will not come under the RIP, and I'm still not sure of his overall point.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Elephant in the Room: Rental Inspection Comments</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>None of the following summaries and synopses should be replaced by listening to the video</p>
<p></p>
<p>(3:10) Steven Von Pfahl, landlord: lamented over the committee not including the stakeholders in the drafting of the ordinance, urged council to table the RIP and allow tenants, landlords a seat at further discussions. </p>
<p>(5:50) Heather Hendrickson, tenant: as already noted read a statement about asbestos from her mother who didn't make it to the meeting, but even though several blocks of Ludington would have been affected, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) never mentioned her or her statement in Tuesday's paper. Hmm. Great proxy job.</p>
<p>(8:45) Debby Tyron, landlady: read her letter to the editor to the COLDNews which was never printed. To answer her questions, the committee never saw any tenant complaints this is strictly the city's baby-- the father is from Manistee.</p>
<p>(10:45) Randy O'Brien, tenant, offered a sad tale that had me tearing up. This 19 year tenant of a very gracious landlady fearfully looked at his future if the RIP passed, related that several other tenants were in the same boat. Courageous presentation, which is logically solid. The council seemed unmoved.</p>
<p>(12:00) David Hankwicz, landlord(?), offered a conciliatory speech where he offered solid input about his contacts with landlords of the area while servicing furnaces and the like. Very well constructed monologue with a smart link to County Commissioner Chuck Lange, a landlord who didn't speak this night, but has made his opinion known previously against this ordinance. </p>
<p>(16:40) Chuck Sobanski, landlord, spoke of a hidden agenda and politics, criticized Councilor Krauch's comments on the inevitability of the RIP, finished with equating Ludington with Russia. Lenington?</p>
<p>(18:04) Robert Walker, homeowner, spoke of the nearby AFC home.</p>
<p>(23:10) Joe Moloney, Planning Commissioner, speaking of Lenington...</p>
<p>(24:35) Melissa Reed, Landlord, said the ordinance was expensive, time consuming, and intrusive (very well put, by subliminally quoting Reagan). Also said it was repetitive and distinguishes between tenants and homeowners as per rights (an often overlooked criticism). Yet she would support them, if they measurably would be able to improve anybody's safety. Her challenge was not accepted.</p>
<p>(27:15) Deb Del Zoppo, homeowner PM Twp, commented on her pet peeve project, the West End Project, and how it would be a bad thing and very costly. She also mentioned the Traverse City article in the Freep <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/traverse-city-growing-pains" target="_self">which was discussed on the LT</a> and said the councilors would be smart to look at it. Lastly, she urged more work on the RIP and the need for their input.</p>
<p>(29:30) Michael Wood, he said he lives at 310 N. Robert, but the city assessor says he lives in a nice place in <a href="https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingDetails.aspx?dp=051-105-015-00&i=1&on=wood&appid=0&actSn=310&actSna=ROBERT+ST&actDir=N&unit=152" target="_blank">Fowler Michigan,</a> as do other internet records. He said he was at ground zero for rental properties, but the two properties on either side of his house are owner occupied (<a href="https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingDetails.aspx?dp=051-105-016-00&i=1&sna=Robert&appid=0&actSn=306&actSna=ROBERT+ST&actDir=N&unit=152" target="_blank">306 N Robert</a> and</p>
<p><a href="https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingDetails.aspx?dp=051-105-014-00&i=1&sna=Robert&appid=0&actSn=312&actSna=ROBERT+ST&actDir=N&unit=152" target="_blank">312 N. Robert)</a> as we have noted before <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/another-official-secretly-shills-for-the-rental-inspection-progra?" target="_self">PC member Ray Madsen brought 309</a> N. Robert just two months ago. This guy is not at ground zero of rentals, he does not live in Ludington, listen to the rest of his angry diatribe against rental properties in general with these facts in mind, while taking a look at his property in the past, courtesy of the city assessor, I see Tyvek and a wooden plank as a stairway-- what would the neighbors say?</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582850?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="640" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582850?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>(32:30) Scott Yost, homeowner (from Kentucky), wondered about accountability of both the city and other side, effect of local politics, and the importance of the records being public.</p>
<p>(36:10) The Great Pumpkin spoke (me), the transcript follows these summaries.</p>
<p>(40:50) Ray Madsen, Planning Commissioner, made clear his intents that many Ludington houses should be torn down. Should we be surprised that he came from Naples Florida back in 2012, which has the <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582850?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples,_Florida" target="_blank">sixth highest per capita income in the US</a> and the second highest proportion of millionaires. Probably some nicer houses there and not a lot of renters. Ray made the case, in describing his purchase of a rental property, that he had ulterior motives for doing so. Why would he buy such a house and did he evict the many people who lived there? He surely didn't mention himself fixing it up. </p>
<p>He also made the case that the city cannot enforce the maintenance code, the same case I made but for different reasons, and said they should repeal the code if they can't. Already have, Ray!</p>
<p>(45:05) Tom Tyron, landlord, spoke of the insanity of it all and how there will always exist bad landlords in his own special curt way. </p>
<p>(46:10) Erica Trim, landlord/broker, said the issues are often out of control of the landlord, the tenant is often negligent in upkeep as are regular homeowners.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thus ended the public comment, my comment is transcribed below, as always, I invite any city official to dispute them with proof to the contrary. Notice that even though I asserted the invalidity of the Ludington Property Maintenance Code two weeks ago, nobody is disputing that fact, not even the usually circuitous Attorney Richard Wilson.</p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="400" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/142250496" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/142250496">October 12, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/ludington">Mason County District Library</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"At the end of the last meeting, attorney Richard Wilson addressed some concerns I raised earlier that meeting, unfortunately, his statements were legally erroneous and referenced a property maintenance code that this proposed ordinance points to which has been repealed since its adoption.</p>
<p></p>
<p>To whit, the ordinance before you for its first reading tonight references in its definitions the "Ludington Property Maintenance Code" to be the one adopted as ordinance 24-00 back in March of 2000, before any of you were on this panel.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, back in April of 2004 and with help of a vote by Kaye Holman and recommendations of young city manager John Shay,ordinance 102-04 was passed, whereas section 2 of that ordinance repealed the two sections of the city code that pertained to ordinance 24-00, i.e. the adoption of the Ludington Property Maintenance Code four years previous. Our esteemed manager and senior councilor may not even remember their part in that 11 years ago, but it is in the recording of the minutes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>When we look at our on-line city code we see in Chapter 6, that article three is entitled "Property Maintenance Code" with two sections that say Ord. No. 102-04, § 2, adopted Apr. 12, 2004, repealed <a class="section-link">these</a> sections which pertained to adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Our new and arguably incompetent city manager failed at that time to replace the repealed property maintenance code with any other, leaving the city without a legitimate property maintenance code. Never was an alternative addressed in 2004 or since according to the council's records since and due to the oversight, this city has been enforcing a repealed legal instrument whenever it has referenced the Ludington Property Maintenance Code in its code enforcement actions.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The significance here today, is that the proposed ordinance in front of you becomes illegitimate pablum once one acknowledges that the Ludington Property Maintenance Code cannot be referred to as it simply doesn't exist. It's like the great pumpkin in the Peanuts cartoons that Linus would wait for on Halloween night. As a bit of trivia, the voice actor for Linus had a last name of Shea.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So when one listens to Attorney Wilson's defense of this proposed law made to address a non-existing problem, telling us it doesn't say what it clearly says and that some expired ordinance had protections for your civil rights (which it didn't), you may wonder why he is lying to save it? He has had plenty of opportunities to tell us how great rental inspections have been for his hometown of Manistee, maybe he could tell us why all those vacant and boarded up residences there are what he hopes to achieve here if he isn't too busy helping the city avoid public records requests and padding his bills as he's done for many years.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The rest of you have done little better, avoiding answering the questions of the public out of your own ignorance, allowing your fellow appointed officials of the Planning Commission to shill for this ordinance, disclosing vague and contradictory statements about what's in this proposal, deceiving us by changing the amount of money it costs for an inspection to break even. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Do not deceive yourself in thinking that only an angry mob of landlords is against this ordinance, almost all knowledgeable tenants with reasonable landlords dislike this unwarranted intrusion into their homes and lives. Other citizens not involved with rentals would be against this once they learn about the subsidization that the City of Manistee had to do from their general fund once their expenses for rental inspection were tallied. Once this program destroyed the rental situation in Manistee, they contracted the inspection business out to a private contractor and the costs continue to go up. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Ask yourself, does Ludington need this program to change a problem that doesn't exist? Does Ludington need more legal challenges to divert our money away from public services and maintenance? Are you really acting in the best interest of your constituents? Do you actually believe in the great pumpkin?</p> Another Official Secretly Shills for the Rental Inspection Programtag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2015-10-10:4689834:Topic:3054152015-10-10T04:32:00.911ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272579962?profile=original" target="_self"></a>Since June of this year, the Ludington City Council has held two or three meetings each month where the topic of the rental inspection program comes up. Since the original committee meeting where over a hundred interested parties showed up, very predominantly against the ordinance, the comments from the public have continued coming at these open meetings, and they have all been…</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272579962?profile=original" target="_self"></a>Since June of this year, the Ludington City Council has held two or three meetings each month where the topic of the rental inspection program comes up. Since the original committee meeting where over a hundred interested parties showed up, very predominantly against the ordinance, the comments from the public have continued coming at these open meetings, and they have all been against the ordinance, except for when Joe Moloney, City Planning Commissioner decided to add his ideas without telling the audience that his group was talking about this program well before the council's subcommittee held its June meeting (read more at <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/rental-inspection-meeting-august-13-2015-questions-unanaswered-an" target="_self">Rental Inspection Meeting August 13, 2015: Questions Unanaswered, Answers Unquestioned</a> and supplemented nicely at <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580057?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580166?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/following-the-moloney-behind-the-rental-inspection-program" target="_self">Following the Moloney: Behind the Rental Inspection Program</a>).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sadly, city officials have been noticeably unaccountable for this proposed ordinance, ignoring reasonable questions posed by the public, ignoring the landlord's pleas to come to the table as stakeholders, ignoring the legal issues that come up continually-- or completely misrepresenting the facts (as revealed in <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/free-dumb-misinformation-about-rental-inspections-by-attorney-wil" target="_self">Free, Dumb Misinformation About Rental Inspections by Attorney Wilson).</a> Our local media has been noticeably biased for their allies at city hall, despite the unanimous rejections in the public comments by landlords, tenants, and others who will not be affected, like myself.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So it was not surprising with this backdrop that on the eve of the ordinances first reading on Monday, October 12 at 6:30 PM that the Ludington October 9th newspaper would have three reader's opinions on the topic after being effectively non-committal, one against and two for the program. It may seem rather odd that the newspaper ran the extra opinion for the side which hasn't made an appearance yet at any open meeting, other than by public officials, but such is the art of propaganda.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Assuming that there was no creative editing, the viewpoint expressed by Marcia Bonnville of the Mason County Landlords Association is clear as to the points it is making. Take a moment to read it, it is presented on the left column of page 4 and follows afterwards in its conclusion.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580977?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580977?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580166?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580166?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The comment that appeared to the right of Marcia's was written by Raymond Madsen. As you read the first part of his opinion in the uppermost article, please note the tone and characterizations he makes of the landlords. Then finish his opinion as it appears below, along with a quick opinion by Judith Stouder. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580057?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272580057?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Madsen paints the landlords as a loud and angry group, illogically fearful of this proposed program and operating outside the realm of common sense. As if to prove a point, he goes back to a fire that happened 22 years ago and mentions the <a href="http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-072.pdf" target="_blank">FEMA file for 208 N James.</a> While the claims he makes of this fire in the report is true, he fails to tell us how a rental inspection program as currently envisioned would have helped in this situation. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582240?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="555" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582240?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The above schematic is of the second floor of the building, showing the fatalities. Where the six children perished was on the floor (see p. 24 of the report), where the report notes there was little or no fire damage, they died of smoke inhalation in their sleep. Sadly, smoke detectors were in the apartment but did not function. The report claims they were improperly placed five foot above the floor and may have not detected the smoke hovering above it, but one would have to believe that if they were at all functional they would have went off since the kids had their heads on pillows on the floor. </p>
<p></p>
<p>An inspection may have moved the detector up, may have had a new battery installed if it was out, but batteries only last about a year, and tenants quite often remove them on occasion because they go off while cooking, they smoke, or for other reasons. It wouldn't have likely averted the fire cause, or save any of the unfortunates that died that day. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583348?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="389" class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272583348?profile=original"/></a>But what is most ridiculous about this column warning us about the angry mob of vocal landlords is that Raymond Madsen is a Ludington City Official who sits beside Joe Moloney on the Planning Commission, and have some sort of mutual lovefest going on (check out the July meeting). </p>
<p></p>
<p>Raymond, like Joe, has been discussing the rental inspections for awhile in their official capacity, yet cannot tell us when they express their opinions that they have done so and have a vested interest in seeing a rental inspection pass because they are part of the city government. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Let us not forget that rental inspections will not only make the Planning Commission more powerful, but will also set the table for getting rid of more private rental properties in the city, which are very undesirable to the Planners. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272584873?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272584873?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>It may seem like Ray Madsen has knowledge of the area, but he is a recent transplant moving here to Gaylord Street from Naples Florida just three years ago with Jim Jensen, who he is in a relationship with, and eager to tell us how angry and afraid our landlords were back in 1991 and now. One has to ask him why he has recently, in all this controversy, purchased <a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272582240?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272584873?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingDetails.aspx?dp=051-105-023-00&i=1&on=madsen&appid=0&actSn=309&actSna=ROBERT+ST&actDir=N&unit=152" target="_blank">a house at 309 N. Robert</a> (shown below) in August as a non-primary house, when most are trying to get rid of houses that are not owner occupied because of anxiety over the ordinance? Suspicious minds might think that he plans on capitalizing on the new program with what one could only consider an angry and vocal letter to the editor.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272579962?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="640" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1272579962?profile=original"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Like Madsen, the last reader who offered her opinion is a recent transplant back here, although, she grew up here locally. Her arguments for the ordinance are specious and without much merit. She mentions a very limited understanding of the ordinance, saying her understanding is based on what she has read in the paper. The COLDNews has only presented a very limited and biased picture of the program, and has never came close to the full consequences or the abundance of critiques. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Basic regulation of rentals is not long overdue, it is already here. Landlords need to pass inspections to get insurance, and they have a vested interest in keeping their premises safe, as do tenants. Tenants can go to a variety of avenues to go to if the unit they agreed to rent have dangers they never noticed at the time they signed the rental contract, which should cover most issues. Booklets and agencies are there to help out the distressed tenant, however, there may not be any units available if a program like this is enacted-- unless you want to rent from Raymond Madsen.</p>