Ludington’s lakeshore vista is unmarked by meters and pay booths, but if a Ludington City Council park committee discussion moves forward, though, that could be no more.

The idea — which councilors say is still in early stages — was first discussed at a park committee meeting last month. It has yet to be introduced during a city council meeting.

“It’s still in the formative stages,” said City Councilor Dick Rathsack. “One of those things we’ve been thinking about is, we have a lot of visitors that utilize facilities in Ludington, and they really don’t contribute anything as far as the cost to maintain those areas.”

City Councilor Brandy Henderson says it would allow City of Ludington residents to continue to park for free — something they already pay for through city taxes. Non-Ludington Mason County residents and visitors to the area would be required to pay.

Mike Krauch, head of the parks committee, said this is just an idea to increase revenue.

“There’s a lot of things you’d like to do, but you need the revenue,” he said. “It was brainstorming, which committee meetings are for."

Views: 568

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stearns agreement needs to be ripped to shreds!! Once this beach is closed Ludington will have no choice but to halt further projects that are ruining this town!

X feel free to delete this if you are working it up

The option to comment is also over at FB pages like Vanished Ludington and Concerned Locals Ludington. I haven't seen hardly any remarks positive for it's favor yet. Everyone is commenting negative, and quite shocked that it would even be considered. The Stearns family donated that parcel for everyone to be able to go to Lk. Michigan beach for free. Can't wait till their local attorney sees this and see how the family reacts. The Stearns family has the option to take the parcel back, if their contract for a gift to the city is breached, and this certainly would be a breach imho.

No, and many thanks for catching this controversial move which seems to have been germinating for some time in our city leaders' heads.  I sometimes overlook some of these things because the city seems to put these ideas out all at once, and I'm looking into them.

I did add a stock picture and cleaned up some of the detritus you left behind when you tried to add the link.

Thanks X' It won't be long until you have to pay to take pictures of the Lighthouse.

From Brandy's FB page.... "This was presented to me as a member of the parks committee as an idea from council brought-up LAST FALL, prior to my involvement with City Council."
So it was last fall it first arose, but where..?
And.... From 2/6/17 DDA minutes... "The city council had asked for the city manager to look into charging for parking at Stearns Beach for non-residents."
And... the Stearns family wanted it kept public when it was given to the city.

Thanks for finding that info, Brad (here's a link to the Feb 2016 DDA minutes).

I see conflicting info being disseminated, time for a FOIA request to get to the bottom of whose baby this actually is. 

As I noted, Shay is possibly handling this now and a park employee in a FB comment made it sound like they are already talking to other towns.
...And a piece of information I passed thru minutes somewhere, (don't recall where), showed that the cops ticketed for parking violation 107 times in 2016 and 0 in 2014... obviously this is one place they're trying to fix their budget woes.

Good find John. There are other towns that charge to park and use the beach however there are many visitors who just want to drive into the parking area for a short time just to watch the water and waves. How in the world can the residents and non residents be separated? Show a property tax receipt or rental receipt. Since the beach parking lot has a problem with to many cars for only a few short weeks per year, I can't see any solution to this that will not cost more money to implement then save. Another money pit.

Probably demand a drivers license when no crime has been committed. 

This is the Chief's wet dream.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It'll all boil down to what the wording is in Stearns agreement with the city. If it says free for public use then the city can't profit from the property for ordinary public activity.   On the other towns?  The question would have to be asked , Was the property purchased or donated to the city for public use. I have lived in another town where the city was going to use a donated property that was for stated for public use for non public application. The family of the donator put the city on notice that they would sue and take the property back. That was the end of the cities BIG plan. But it was all in how the agreement was drawn up. Another stupid idea on our city leaders part, what's next? How about selling the beach sand, Sargant  [sp] wouldn't have to drive so far, plenty of parking in the winter for loading, just drive in, load  and drive out.

Trying to work on details of the deal between J Stearns and the city for the lakeshore property... So far all I have is the the deal was done in July and August of 1909 and the city created Stearns Park in Sept of 1923. Anyone else..?


© 2018   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service