Another Official Secretly Shills for the Rental Inspection Program

[XLFD]

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 Rental Inspection Meeting August 13, 2015: Questions Unanaswered, A... and supplemented nicely at Following the Moloney: Behind the Rental Inspection Program).

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 Free, Dumb Misinformation About Rental Inspections by Attorney Wils...  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.

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.

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.

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. 

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 FEMA file for 208 N James.  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. 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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 house at 309 N. Robert (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.

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. 

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.

[AQUAMAN]

Raymond Madsen is another outsider poking his crooked nose into our Ludington politics that needs to pay attention to his own Florida matters, and leave citizens here alone. How do people like this get into the thick of the action here, when they know nothing about Ludington to begin with? I also noted he was one of the "bobble-heads" at the last planning commission meeting, another do-gooder, another liberal with intents on things he doesn't understand, nor have a history from here to know about. On the other hand, Marcia Bonnville is a born and raised local, a loving and caring individual, an intelligent and sensitive person that cares about tenants as well as landlords, and voices a very intelligent and articulate debate to all concerned. I've known Marcia since LHS, as well as her brother and sister, and they are all upstanding people of local stature. If the LDN wants to at least appear unbiased, they should have printed two of each opinions, not two in favor, and one opposed. I guess given the LDN's track record, we are lucky to get the one opposing opinion in the end anyhow. Just goes to show though, still Shysters helping the crooks at city hall stay on track to screw the locals. And why not? None of them in charge or reporting were locals till they got transferred here from other states to begin with. Little fish back home in big ponds, now big fish in our little pond here, sickening! 

[XLFD]

This weekend's COLDNews features the 'hot button topic' of the RIP, and yet still doesn't explain any more of the ordinance than what has been presented in the paper before.  Shay is allowed to say uncontested that the program will not lose or make money.  But in June, when the fees/taxes were 40% more for the same inspections, he said the same thing. 

The ordinance still points to a non-existent Ludington Property Maintenance Code, one that was repealed and never reestablished.  They have yet to publish the particulars on what they are looking for, leaving almost every aspect of the inspections as vague and undefined.  Don't believe me, take a look at the council packet for this coming meeting and research the current Ludington Property Maintenance Code, which either doesn't exist or was never voted on at an open meeting by any council since it was repealed.

You will also note in today's paper on A7 a semi-regular column written by Raymond Madsen about de-muddling a historic Ludington house.  One who reads it may get the impression that Madsen would love to clear all those historic Ludington homes that have been converted into rental unit(s) of their tenants and make them into their architectural best.

[XLFD]

Joe Moloney has been pushing for rental registration (aka rental inspection) since about ten years ago, bringing it up to the planning commission as a way to improve the housing stock in Ludington and make the city eligible for grants.  It's interesting that they never tell us exactly what grants we would be eligible for or their intent to reduce the rental property percentages in Ludington in this latest effort, when all indications are that the area already has a shortage of rental units available.  Push the supply down and raise the demand, and low rent housing becomes unavailable except outside the city limits.  Opportunists, perhaps like Mr. Madsen, snatch up properties from those landlords who get out of the business due to the excessive taxation and regulation. 

The migration of people out of Ludington to PM Township and beyond will be dramatic, about as dramatic as the migration of consumers away from the downtown to PM Township was over the last thirty years.  A little research shows that city hall mismanagement was the culprit then too.

Go to the Ludington City minutes on demand module and search for "rental registration" and "rental inspections", at least in some of the old minutes you can find the motives of the city.  Nowadays, like everything else, they prefer to hide it or couch it in lies and semantics.

[Willy]

Good article X. It seems to me that any new ordinances that are brought before the Council should be tagged with whoever sponsored it or proposed it just as they do at the State and National levels of Government. That way the public would know it's origin. This group of Counselors are just not going to listen to the public because their minds are already made up. The James st. fire should have been detected in plenty of time if the smoke detectors had been working. 5ft may not have been the approved height but it should have been high enough to create an early warning because smoke detectors are extremely sensitive. It doesn't take much to set them off. Many times a detector will go off when no smoke is visible. I also wonder about the occupants version of what happened. Some parts of his story seemed a bit odd. So, the James st. fire is not a good example to use for requiring a City wide inspection.

[XLFD]

From what I remember of the two versions I heard of what happened that night from the two LFD officers who were the first to find the grisly sight of the kids, the batteries were off the contacts inside the detector, effectively nullifying any alarm going off. 

When there was six units where I live right now on Dowland, I was required as apartment manager to check the smoke detectors twice a year and make records showing my visit and signed by the tenant.  Over half of the time, and this is no exaggeration, the battery would be off its contact-- and no matter what I told the tenant, even as a respected firefighter at the time, this situation wouldn't change at the next check.  It would be disabled the next time they cooked or smoked and it went off, and it generally wouldn't be reconnected until six months later. 

Fortunately, the halls, basements, and attics had detectors that they couldn't mess with without some difficulty.  I'd say tenants are dumb on this, but I have to admit I took one down one time during a cooking binge and had it down for months before I recognized its absence.  I hope Ludington law has a statute of limitations, because it was a while ago back when I was on the LFD.

[dowland]

The fix was in and the manager put pressure on board members  before hand and Les didn't fall for it. Probably the old main stay, saying if they don't do this the city could be faced with law suites. County and city is not controlled by board members, just fronts for the managers. The boards come and go and do the bids for them. That is why its important that we don't give Shay a 5 year contract. How many of us have a 5 year contract ?  Don't know how Tom puts up with it. It is such a inside game, also  with the help of the daily Pravda. Did you notice how Kathy W let it slip out that she would like  a inspection ordnance for home owner to ?   Can we say Agenda 21. There is so much gray are in this coed. Never heard how a inspector can use there own discretion. Lawyers  will have a field day with this.

[XLFD]

The fools still think they have a legitimate "Ludington Building Maintenance Code", but they do not.  Look for them to revise the ordinance, and introduce for first reading at the next meeting an ordinance for adopting the International Property Maintenance Code possibly revised to be more totalitarian.  Then two meetings from now, they can reintroduce the first reading of the RIP, while passing a legit LPMC 

If they just pass the RIP next meeting, they will doom themselves to looking extremely foolish when the clouds clear.  Of course, if they follow the first path, they will have admitted they foolishly made this ordinance without a property maintenance code in place, and may find themselves ridiculed even more.  There's no way for them to save face without retracting their power claws and voting against the ordinance!

[stump]

If there is no property maintenance code for the city of ludington, why is it that the building inspector is inspecting properties for code violations as listed in this weeks council packets?

[Willy]

The building inspectors main job is to inspect  new construction that requires a permit. For this he is  using a code book for new construction, approved by the State. The building maintenance code is for existing structures and is covered by a separate code which as X has pointed out has been repealed and is not in affect.

[XLFD]

 Just after the last September meeting, I put out Free, Dumb Misinformation About Rental Inspections by Attorney Wilson which said in more detail and with full annotations that the LPMC adopted in 2000 was repealed in 2004 by a new ordinance.  Repealing the LPMC wasn't the only thing this new ordinance did, it was just a section.  In the April 12, 2004 meeting Ordinance 101-04 was passed "An ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 24-00, being the Ludington Property Maintenance Code", where they effectively gave some teeth to enforcing the LPMC, i.e. the IPMC.  But then they passed 102-04, which repealed the very code they gave teeth to, the IPMC and was the old incarnation of the Junk Ordinance.

There is no Ludington Property Maintenance Code, there is no tenant complaints leading to this ordinance (ergo, no regulatory value), and I saw Councilor Krauch in Wal-Mart over the weekend not wearing any pants-- Krauch was summarily absent this Monday.  There are a lot of ghosts here.

BTW, he was wearing shorts.

[stump]

the properties listed in the council packet for 10-12-2015 are for existing structures that for various reasons are in some code violation,not new structures . So someone is looking for these problems , possible violations of the city property maintenance code that really isn't enforceable. Either city employee's, building inspector or your neighbor are turning you in .

[XLFD]

The various ordinances put out before and since that time (junk, tall grass, external structural issues) and not controlled otherwise by the LPMC/IPMC are still in force.  Most of what is in the International PMC for exterior property issues is contained in regular Ludington ordinances.  So, the city has the authority for example to cite you for tall grass and junk because they fall outside their perceived LPMC/IPMC and make their ordinances as Draconian as they like, until enough people get fed up and do something about it.