The Ludington City Council is poised to pass a rental inspection ordinance 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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

LUDINGTON'S HISTORIC FIRES

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.  Joe Moloney followed a parade of citizens to show there was at least a little public support from city employees at the Special August 13 meeting. 

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. 

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.

But Ray's contribution to the discussion was his recantation of Ludington's worst fire.  Raymond Madsen highlighted the James Street Fire 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? 

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.

According to the code-making 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 at the 400 level.  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. 

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:

2003 Fatal Boat Fire likely caused by an inebriated boater, smoking or otherwise lighting a candle.

2012 Fatal Fire on Robert St. where no cause was determined, careless smoking being the main culprit.

2013 George St fire death likely caused by cigarettes smoked by an inebriated fellow.

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.

GERMANY'S HISTORIC FIRE

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. 

Less than a month before the Reichstag caught fire, a young Adolph Hitler had been appointed as chancellor by German President Paul von Hindenburg.  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 Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the Reichstag

During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution 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.

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 Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution.

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.

THE CONNECTION

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

Views: 1094

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree, as stated before ,the 6 years term has intrenched them. This is just the start of a bigger power grab. We are fortunate we have X to  inform us and to call out the corruption.  I have debated  some of my friends that say he just wants attention, I say he is are Paul Revere. He knows what they are doing and why before the do.  He called it spot on about the R.I.P, maybe through this it has brought more people to the torch. We have a long fight ahead of us. Like I have state before, its all about agenda 21.

I wish my critics (most of who seem to get their information secondhand) would be able to agree on whether I'm just out there trying to get attention or whether I'm hiding behind a pumpkin and a pseudonym.  Can I be overt and covert at the same time?  Can I be Paul Revere and the back end of Paul Revere's horse at the same time?

Believe you me, I do not want undue attention drawn to myself.  I was voted 'Most Bashful' in my MCC High School mock elections, for goodness sake.  I only want to draw attention to the illness of our Ludington body politic and how it is in the process of transforming Ludington into something that it isn't or shouldn't be, at the expense of us. 

I do not know who you all are, but you all know my name and I do not hide.  If I have met XLFD and if he is the one who talked to me and my son the night of the vote I will judge him as selfless and only a help.  Therefor, from now on I suggest we get together and get this job done.  I also suggest that we see that XLFD is elected as commissioner at large as soon as possible.  Just so you know I am 74 years old and have lived in Ludington area all those years. I know what is going on in this town and I feel XLFD does also. Lets get going with recall.

I'm half relieved that the two councilors I could run against in a recall election did vote "yes" as it means that I can vicariously apply myself to try my darndest to help the other efforts if and when they go forth.  Johnson's seat is up for election in a year, and I have plenty of reasons why he's not the man for the job.  You could tell he was vacillating heavily on this vote, agreeing that an ordinance was needed but wanted more work on it. 

The only work needed on it involves ripping it into little pieces and vowing not to subject the people to anything that looks like this, ever again.

A big thanks to our new member Barry for his incise and cogent responses to all this nonsense in the city council. A valid recall of any or most of the city council members will involve, as I have said, some expertise in filling out proper paperwork and making sure the heading is legal for any signatures to be truly and legally exercised in a recall election. After all the paperwork X has made since the last several years in his own behalf, I'm sure he can establish a blueprint for his own ward, as well as the rest of the necessary wards that need to be recalled. Hoping he has some time to spend on this very important document that may make some difference in local governing for all of us. 

I say start with Krauch first. I to thank Barry for all his input. He had a real good plan that he sent to the powers to be on a  R.I.P that was done between the renter and the landlord. It was to much common sense and would give up the city's power.  Its all about control and money.  Always is.

I'm curious as to whether Krauch can be recalled since he was appointed and  never elected. I say throw them all out and start over.  

To my understanding, the position he holds is an elective office even if he is not an elected official inhabiting it, and so the office is recallable.  Attorney Wilson would likely disagree, LOL.

Efforts should be underway to evaluate whether there are good men and women of the wards in question that can and will assume the duties of city councilor, and change the direction of where they are going.  If Nick Tykoski is recalled and replaced with Sue Ann Schnitker (Tykoski's opponent in 2011, who had no differences with Nick) or some other clone of Tykoski, Krauch, et. al., then we really won't be any better.

Unfortunately, Barry is in my ward also, which is another good reason Councilor Johnson used discretion last Monday.

In trying to recall Sue Ann's last name, I Googled and found this snippet from after the 2011 election in the COLDNews

"Rotta provided the following comments about the election: “Though I am disappointed, I am relieved at the same time and now will be able to devote more energies into my higher passion — investigative journalism — which is sorely needed in this city. We must remember, that those elected and appointed officials are public servants. The people are the masters, and they have the mandate. Every person in Ludington can claim the rights granted to them by our founding documents and assert them, even if public servants try to deny or denigrate them. Thanks to everyone who joined the revolution.”

How appropriate they seem four years later!

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service