Following the Moloney: Behind the Rental Inspection Program

[XLFD]

This article will cover recent revelations concerning the history and motivations behind the Ludington Rental Inspection Program (RIP) that appears to be coming to the city council at its next meeting on August 24 for first reading, and likely to be passed in mostly unmodified form at the first meeting in September.

The Ludington Torch first reported some of the history in an article before the June committee meeting (Rental Inspections ready to roll) in which it was learned that the city had furtively proposed beginning a RIP late last year. 

Still, at a June 4th Rental Inspection meeting which attracts 100 anti-RIP attendees and a handful of supporters (if you count some officials), questions were put forth about why there was a need for the RIP and many well-thought speeches that decried the detrimental effects of the RIP.

Yet at this meeting, there appeared to be much support behind the RIP by the officials and at the next special meeting of the full council (Special August 13, 2015 meeting) over twenty more people spoke up against the ordinance, followed by a host of city officials acting as apologists for the measure. 

The first city official to speak was the most stridently in favor of the RIP, so much that he did it during the period for public comment.  That person was audience member and Ludington Planning Commission member, Joe Moloney.  Moloney went through a spiel of telling us why this was such a good thing for the community, but he failed to tell us several things about his involvement. 

At the meeting, he neglected to tell us his position on the planning commission, a possible oversight but one that needed to be added to the record to show that his loyalties may be more to city hall and his appointers than it is to his fellow citizens concerns.  After his speech, I did something that I have only done once before at any of the hundred or so meetings that I have attended, I made a point of order to have the record reflect that he was a member of the planning committee. 

This somewhat upset Moloney, made City Manager John Shay do one of those "I can't believe he's making a big deal out of this" series of gestures, and made a lot of the attendees realize that Moloney was nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

This was all pretty much related in the last article above, but what wasn't related was the aftermath.  The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), the propaganda arm of city hall, had a lengthy article themselves over what was said and done at the meeting.  As per form, the headlines missed touching on the unanimity of the opposition, saying that the RIP would be sent back to committee.  The writings on the front page said nothing of the overwhelming panning of the measure by the public. 

Following three long sections involving the introduction, describing the revised ordinance, and the official's comments, the COLDNews writer finally addressed the public comments.  And even though they summarized what some folks had said, including myself, there were two things that never came up.  Joe Moloney's comments for the RIP, and my point of order-- both fairly dramatic incidents at this meeting. 

Leaving those events out of their story had me thinking that I was very close to the trail of getting some information about the genesis of, and rationale behind, this RIP.  What's covered up is always more interesting than what's covered, when you're dealing with a very secretive city hall.

Moloney Talks

Though my point of order was ceded immediately without problem, some of the officials present by words and gestures seemed to think that it was no glaring admission for him to be part of the city's machine.  In fact, it is rather a subtle inference to think that rental inspection programs have some connection to city planning, but on inspection, the link becomes quite clear, courtesy of Joe Moloney. 

July 7, 2015 Ludington Planning Commission from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Just a little over a month before, Planning Commissioner Joe Moloney at their meeting above said, starting at the 11:40 mark in the video: 

"The City would identify an area that would be a focal point and in that area we would need to have a housing inspection in order to qualify for a Neighborhood Enterprise Zone [NEZ].  Once you qualify for a [NEZ], the property owner applies and receives a certificate, (they) would have up to 15 years of reduced or frozen taxes on that property. 

So it's a very strong incentive for taking a look again at the property registration project."

If anyone knows anything about Ludington's Property Registration Project, please inform me, because it is nowhere in the city's available public records. 

He then described the need to survey and review houses in Ludington to figure out problem areas where a NEZ could be developed and a need to objectify the standards, rather than subjectively declaring a distressed neighborhood, before launching into talking about the need for smart sidewalk police in the town.  In true hypocritical fashion, Joe's house at 1032 N. Ferry Street, pictured below courtesy of the city assessor's site, has no sidewalk. 

Which is actually kind of sad when you see the little kids' bikes out in the front.  His poor children had to learn to ride in the street thanks to poor planning on his part back when the picture was taken in 1999 when he had already lived there for several years.  They would still have no sidewalk.  If this picture was taken today, would he be in peril of getting fined due to the new junk ordinance his city passed with assistance from the Planning Commission for having all those bicycles in his front yard? 

Back to the point, the video and the meeting minutes indicate he feels that having housing inspections are a necessary part of the equation if Ludington is to qualify for a NEZ.  The last part of this article will deal with that legal issue.  But aren't general housing inspections different than rental inspections?  One would think so, but there are two forces at play here. 

The first is that one might expect the most distressed neighborhoods in Ludington consists primarily of houses that are not owner occupied (i.e. rented or vacant).  The second is that incrementalism will make it a lot easier for the City to get a general housing inspection program if the RIP is passed now.  Better to just have landlords against you now, than the whole population of Ludington if you went for all houses being inspected. 

Putting One's Moloney Where One's Mouth Is

Joe Moloney, his legal advisor, and the city's legal advisory apparently need to read the laws about NEZ's and inspections a little bit better, because some of the material out there is contradictory about what is required.  In a NEZ application for instance they do indicate certain things are required such as a certificate of occupancy and compliance by the local building official. 

But the law itself waives that requirement for municipalities of under 20,000 population.  In  MCL 207.773, it clearly states:  "...before acting upon the resolution [for a NEZ], the governing body of a local governmental unit with a population greater than 20,000 shall pass a housing inspection ordinance. A local governmental unit with a population of 20,000 or less may pass a housing inspection ordinance."

The state legislature understands that smaller cities cannot afford the time and money for building inspectors and such things, that their time and money needs to go for services that they are expected to provide, not fluff.  That's why they use the term "may" which makes it an optional step.  Moloney is probably right in that it will make things go smoother down the road if the RIP is passed. 

An interesting point of note, Ludington and Manistee is among 94 other Michigan cities that qualify as a distressed city in Michigan, which makes it eligible for some of these state programs like the NEZ.  The objectives of our city leaders should be to work to get us off that list, not mired within it, by giving us onerous rental/housing inspections and enterprise zones where they can set boundaries and decide who does and who doesn't get tax relief.  Once again, our leaders want to pick winners and losers, and Mr. Moloney is leading the charge while acting as a 'mole' amidst the enemy.

[Willy]

Good catch X, well done, I think your on to something. Ludington's elites are, again, trying to legislate against the interests of the citizens. They do all of this deceitful conniving behind closed doors out of the light of day then act like concerned individuals at public meetings while trying to hide the truth and their real intentions. God knows what else they are cooking up behind closed doors.