City of Ludington Selling Liquor in Parks: A Public Function?

[XLFD]

There was a lot covered in the City Council meeting of March 4, 2013.  The City had effectively the first reading (where the ordinances are never read, just advocated for) of three ordinances involving somewhat radical changes of our parks and our downtown areas, it included a public hearing of the mysterious West End Project and annual reports from almost all the departments.  It included an awards presentation to five law enforcement officers.

I had a little encouragement from sources eager to see my early demise to do a scathing refutation of the two departments over their involvement into the conflicted and incomplete Lingyan Zou, Darius Vanbrook, and Baby Kate investigations, but my common sense told me to avoid those topics if I wanted to avoid repeated taserings.  Particularly since I couldn't cover the inadequacies of all three in the time allotted.

The Mason County Press split up the whole proceeding into a few different stories.  We will have to do so here also.  Here is a video of the meeting, it is a long one.  Here are some of the more interesting highlights:

2:40 Rotta's public comment (on ordinances)

7:30 Planning Commission's Mike Nekola's public comment

9:20 Blu-Moon's Randy Cunic's public comment

11:40 Jim Evan's public comment (train/mast)

14:05 Rotta's west end comment

20:00 Gary Klingler's public comment (pertinent questions)

24:00 Heroism awards presentation

various annual reports for various agencies for the wonk

1:17:00  Downtown Guidelines discussions start for about 13 minutes of mayorspeak

1:30:00 Parks/alcohol vendor ordinance

1:38:00 The finale, communications from public officials

1:40:00 Les Johnson

I would like to key in on the last three topics in the video, which primarily cover vendors serving liquor in Ludington's parks, but first my comments on the same in the beginning of the meeting at the end of my say (starting at the 5:10 mark):

The other ordinance is similarly short-sighted.  The proposed ordinance would allow alcoholic beverages to be served in any City park by any organization that has a permit from the state and city and expand the hours they can do so.  Section 38-61 starts the parks section of the City Code and says quote:  "The purpose of this article is to regulate the use of parks, beaches and recreational areas in the city, either owned by or maintained by the city, in order that all residents and their guests may enjoy and make use of such parks, beaches and recreational areas and to protect the rights of those owning property adjacent to such parks."

This proposal does not serve those purposes.  Using natural areas set aside for the enjoyment of all should preclude the vending of alcoholic beverages in those areas, and thereby closing off significant areas of those public facilities to a large segment of the public, our children.  I would rather have folks drinking alcohol in our local bars and taverns, rather than having them get drunk in public parks and create other associated problems.  And similarly, are we protecting the rights of those living in the downtown by letting vendors operate under their windowsills until 2:00 in the morning?

I see a couple of our City Officials benefitting greatly from this ordinance.  Our City's Building Authority's Budde Reed who happens to be our sole local beverage distributor and one of our current City Council members who owns a party store that, like Budde,  has been supplying liquor to events like the New Year's Eve Ball Drops.  This ordinance only expands their base of operations and cuts into the profits that our established bar and tavern owners deserve.  Why drive them out of business by giving these public park beer vendors all the advantages?

I don't get into a habit of supporting very many laws that suppress rights, even ones that suppress public intoxication, but I do think that such an ordinance would be a violation of our charter: the guidelines we have keeping the ordinance-makers in check from doing rash things that the public doesn't agree with, and in their explanation of this ordinance and the changes they have made, I think they have done that.

I verbally insinuated some conflicted city officials would benefit from this, the one present took on that insinuation later.  After Mayor Henderson chatted like a magpie for thirteen minutes over how great the new outdoor dining ordinances were (noting that he interrupted me twice in my five minute public hearing on the West End Project) at around 1:38:00 he started with more generalizations about how his mayorship has been just short of as grand as the second coming of the Lord-- perhaps this is what accounted for his lopsided two to one defeat on the City Proposal in November.  I try to keep his head from expanding too rapidly by offering some context in brackets:

Friday night live in the downtown, folks are embracing that [particularly the $15,000 to $20,000 of public funds that pay for the bands, the beverages, etc].  New Year's Eve, I can understand why someone initially, and I heard a comment or two that New Year's eve is going to take from our businesses [actually, businesses and the DDA members take away over $15,000 from the taxpayers for this one night] -- boy mayor, that's a tough one.

I've stated then and I will state again:  what we're trying to do is enhance the opportunities of our businesses [by giving them local tax money through the DDA and state tax money through grants], enhance the opportunities of our residents [to pay more taxes each year].  New Year's Eve, we've done this four years in a row, it is for most of those businesses, the biggest night they have [for receiving public-funded largesse], including all the summer, the fourth of July, all those things, so those perceptions or fears have really been answered by data and comments [all I've seen and heard is hearsay from those who directly benefit from public funds]   instead of accusations and thoughts [public records in the prior threads don't lie, Mayor].

Sometimes we got to try this stuff and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't [is this an admission of non-omnipotence of Ludington City Hall?!] .  You know, nothing tried is something lost [Nancy Pelosi couldn't have said it better].  Again we have to be sensitive to our businesses but you know the mission, the vision, of this council, the council before this, and actually the staff here has been how we enhance the experiences of our residents here and their businesses [I'd be appreciative if you just stuck to the topics of maintaining our roads, keeping the taxes low, and the public safety high-- you know, services a city government should be handling].  Just some clarity, we're not trying to take businesses away but grow our businesses [by using tax money, abatements, and generally sleeping in the same bed if you install signs], they grow and it becomes a more better place to live.

But when Mayor Henderspin was finished, that party store owner who happens to be a City Councilor and a member of the DDA spoke up:

CC Les Johnson:  First I have a question for John.  Mr. Rotta had said that he was being charged $63 to inspect the plans for the West End.  That's not a standard fee for that is it?  Is that part of his FOIA request? CM John Shay:  He submitted a FOIA request for last year's application and this year's application and we don't have a... the state requires us to submit a hard copy of that application.  We don't have an electronic copy of that application.  So it represented the number of pages involved. City attorney Dick Wilson:  It's all drafts, its all drafts.. Johnson:  So it's all because of the FOIA request, its not... Shay:  Correct Johnson:  Just a standard. Shay:  Correct

I find it rather hard to believe that the great mind of John Shay did not make an electronic copy of this application.  That sounds like an action of an incompetent fool, except he's likely telling us one more of his bag of whoppers.  But even if he hasn't he does not have the power to force me to pay for copies I have not requested over stuff that I just want to review/inspect, no matter how the City tries to alter the state's FOIA statute to keep all their little secrets from the public.  Then Les, who represents my ward, ended with this:

Les Johnson:  In regards to another comment that Mr. Rotta made, I'd just like to clarify.  My business does not really have anything to do with the downtown eateries [Never said it did].  They have to have their own liquor licenses to be able to serve alcohol out there, so I don't know why you think that that would really enhance my party store business [see below, I have others and references to others showing your business does pretty good on the last days of the year and, if you could, flatly deny you are not supplying the liquors to other beer tents for DDA sponsored events, I dare you].  So that's all I have [Here's more from me then: Nick-Les .]

[AQUAMAN]

That wouldn't happen to be Les Johnson's store, AJ's, that is being patronized, naw! He's a newbie City Councilman last I knew, wasn't he? And NOT the ONLY party store in town? That's strange, almost like Nepotism, or just plain, well, one hand has to wash the other, right? Can you say, Okey-Dokey with me?

[XLFD]

And even though Councilor Les Johnson, not to be confused with the defamed but totally innocent local businessman Todd Lane Johnson, is the secretary of the Downtown Ludington Board (DDA for Ludington), this and other perks for the DDA's members they decide on (in violation of state ethics laws) are never put into the minutes.

[Willy]

It seems to me that whenever the Mayor, Council members, members of boards or any other City official benefits monetarily by doing business with the City then that would constitute a conflict of interest and that person would be in violation of the law. Anyone officially connected the City should not be allowed to even bid on City projects or hold City contracts.

[XLFD]

Nick Tykoski, Les Johnson, and the many others who have generally used their membership on the DDA to get extra public money, can actually legally get these deals and contracts if they go through the proper process as detailed in state law, and with proper disclosure at public meetings. 

That they don't do that, makes it look real crooked.  $120,000 each year is being distributed in a way that doesn't truly develop the downtown or benefit Ludington in any other way, in my honest opinion.