Eminent Domain Ludington-Style: 808 East Danaher

[XLFD]

Why Does the City Want This Property?

 

Even the seemingly insignificant things the current leaders of the City of Ludington do have behind them a variety of ethical conundrums, that should be addressed by a moral electorate and the public servants who should be held accountable.  In this Saturday's newspaper, just a couple of hot summer days before the meeting a property purchase by the municipality is mentioned.

 

PROPERTY PURCHASE

According to City Manager John Shay, a house on a double lot at 808 E. Danaher St. that is the subject of code enforcement issues has gone into foreclosure and is also going up for county tax sale.

The city council will decide whether to exercise the city’s right to purchase the property before the auction. According to law, the State of Michigan has the first option, and local government the second option to purchase tax-reverted properties. If neither wants a property, it is auctioned to recoup unpaid taxes.

Shay said the city is interested for a few reasons. One, by purchasing the property it could resolve what could otherwise by a potentially continuing code enforcement problem. Secondly, the lot nearest the water tower offers the opportunity to provide more room when doing maintenance on the tower, he said. Also, Shay said, a neighbor is interested in purchasing the other lot if the city buys the property, thus recouping for the city a portion of the cost of purchasing the property.  Print article COLDNews

 

First off, I hope that most of us can agree that for a property that has been residential for over a hundred years to then become publicly owned that there should be some compelling interest for that to happen.  If it gets put up for auction and is brought by a non-public entity, over $2400 in property taxes will be paid in each year (at 2012 levels) and another single family residence will be available, bringing in perhaps a family from outside the area who will contribute to our growth and living standards. 

 

At the last meeting, the City of Ludington once again decided to renew its decision to put the property it purchased in 2007, 428 East Dowland, for a potential fire station, back up for sale.  The highly contaminated property would have probably been best suited for a fire station, because it would be capped totally by concrete, but plans changed and now it will probably just be a constant liability for the City of Ludington.  In fact, it is rumored that litigation may be in the works because the City allowed a contractor to use that property back in 2012 without any warning of the hazards to the neighborhood and the contractors.  Public lands without a purpose, are just further liabilities for everyone.

 

If the City purchases it for the reasons John Shay stated, the City will still need to upkeep the property as they do now, apparently, and the water tower maintenance issue is a red herring, as this map illustrates:

 

 

The water tower fence is approximately 100 ft. from the house, with plenty of tall trees near the house which would likely shelter the structure from damage even if the tower someday collapsed.  If you go 100 ft to the north you will see it easily crosses Danaher Street, a street which was not closed or affected during the water tower maintenance that happened late last fall, later than it should have. 

 

We will lose a residential house, lose the property taxes and John Shay can't enumerate an authentic public use, so is there really any public gain to be had by its public purchase?  I don't think so; but let's look back to the end of last year's budget presented on November 26, 2012:

 

 

 

Again the use for water tower maintenance is mentioned along with the use for sledding, which would be noble and a public use, except that it could not be used for that purpose because of that water tower being in the way (see satellite picture again).  It was also called an eyesore, and it really isn't such a bad looking house.  Built in 1910, the features are classic and most of the outside is looking good even with a few years of being in disrepair:

 

 

The biggest eyesore of the lot is the sidewalk and lawn in the public right of way (where the City has a hand in its care and upkeep, but has failed to use that power).  Here is the general particulars of the house courtesy of the City:  808 E Danaher Property Record. 

 

What's Up With the Property Taxes?

 

The original question asked why the City of Ludington wanted this property, and they do, because they have used property taxes and other municipal powers to effectively force the owners of the land out of the picture.  This statement is fairly easy to illustrate using the City's tax records.  Here is the recent property tax records for 808 E Danaher:

 

 

Going all the way back to 2006, it trended upward minorly until 2010, when the summer taxes jumped over 50% from the 2009 taxes ($1198 to $1879), and by 2012 these taxes were double the 2009 figure ($2403).  The 'eyesore' doubled in value by the City Assessor's reasoning, which is a wonder because property values were generally going down in the area, along with property taxes.  Also noted in November, was the owners getting assessed massive fines for municipal utilities, which currently are not available on the City website because the current owner as of early this year is Mason County. 

 

The only other house on the side of the street, 802 ED Taxes:

 

 

went down over $200 in summer taxes between 2009 and 2012.  An anomaly?  Hardly let's go to the other side of Danaher, right across the street at 807 E Danaher Taxes:

 

 

Taxes went down almost $750, a 47% decrease over the same period 808 Danaher more than doubled.  How does that happen?  Why would that happen?  If we take all properties on the 800 block minus 808, property taxes went down significantly in this period. 

 

A sensible conclusion is that someone in our local government wanted that land on 808 East Danaher for some purpose (public or private) which hasn't yet been put forth, and used harassment, including unfair taxes and utility surcharges to effectuate that task. 

[XLFD]

I also question the City Manager's ethics for entering into a deal with the adjacent property owner when (if) he utilizes his 'privilege' to have the first crack at getting this property without auction.  This just doesn't seem ethical no matter how I look at it.

[AQUAMAN]

Something looks funny here now. What have you uncovered now X? This doesn't really sound too good, unless, total unethical and perhaps some sneaky activities can be proven. Looks like you have a serious draft for just that though. I feel for the owners, esp. since that particular house does look fine for it's age. You can look around and find many many others a lot worse for sure. Looks like a new roof and siding just for starters, and that's expensive any way you look at it. Since serious eminent domain issues haven't been active much up to this point in Michigan, this sure is a side-step of legal maneuvers in that direction, imho. I wondered too about that when I read it in the LDN.

[XLFD]

That may be an overstatement EyE, but the house is at least average to above average to the other houses in its own neighborhood, at least in outside appearance.

Aquaman, I agree, and to be totally on the level they should at the very least allow the portion of the property they plan on selling to the neighbor to be auctioned off as planned; otherwise the City is getting into the real estate market, using its privileges and powers to give it an advantage over the hard working realtors out there who have to follow the rules. 

 

[Willy]

X, you are the 60 minutes of Ludington. Great job of research.

[XLFD]

And no commercial interruptions, so you get the full hour.

[easymoney]

Would really be interested in knowing the relationship between city and neighbor wanting the adjacent lot?

I agree the tax assesments sure seem a little strange, being its the only property with rising tax's

[XLFD]

It should be noted that the other 5 properties on the street's other side (including City Councilor Gary Castonia's) have single digit rises or falls in their taxes over the period.  But nothing (such as paving alleys, improvements, etc.) during this time other than the water tower painting scheduled to happen in 2010, and that happened in late 2012, occurred in the general area to change the matrix. 

As of this writing, no link or relationship is known between the City and the neighbor.

[AQUAMAN]

Beauty, and/or the lack of it, are often in the eyes of the COL building inspector/assessor. When there is a fixed agenda by the COL over any issue, they must win and at any cost, no matter who, as long as it's not one of their own cronies. The exact opposite can be witnessed in the Tye's property, on N. Washington Ave.. It's another great example of large decreases in assessments and taxes, for friends and cronies.

[XLFD]

Tonight they voted unanimously to put $17,500 into this property, declaring that about $9000 is for unpaid taxes and $8000 is for demolition.  And that they had already agreed with the neighbor to split the costs of both down the middle, just like the two-lot property.  Of course, this raised no red flags as far as propriety was concerned to anybody on the panel.  Am I missing something? 

But they did do the usual bashing at the end of the meeting after I called some of this years events to their attention.  

[AQUAMAN]

The property up close today revealed an auction sign, no camera, sorry. Can't wait to see the new thread and video of course of the entire cc mtg.. Does anyone at all think this could be a fixed agenda again on this property? Or just common routine purchasing? When you think about all the yammering about no money, more need for tax hikes, utility hikes, hikes for the council members, hikes for the DDA, hikes for permits, and all the current land already on the books now, makes a person wonder, wth is going on now? Is it really necessary, or prudent? Ask Shyster Shay is the answer, and you'll get a rejection of FOIA information due to blah, blah, blah! Plus no safety inspections of recent to call the beach closure sooner, as per his newer duties., so people don't drown. Pretty redundant, and also secretive.

[XLFD]

I've been looking at the state laws on foreclosure, and something is definitely rotten in Denmark, if this transaction takes place under these terms and conditions.  It is incredible what these people are trying to get away with here, when the law reads fairly clear.

[Willy]

The house is gone along with $2500 per year in  lost tax revenue which adds up to $50,000 lost to the City over a 20 yr. period. Taxes that will need to be replaced by guess who. Photos taken on Wed. 11-20-13