Ludington City Council 6-24-2013: Two Cheers for Councilor Marrison, History

[XLFD]

Normally, I run with the stories about a city council meeting one or two days after the meeting, to give some idea of what went on, but at this particular meeting, most of the stuff that went on was either routine or would be figured out at the next meeting.  I decided to hold onto the meeting's overview until we got a little closer to the next meeting, which happens to be tomorrow.  This meeting will decide whether the City Council will go against nearly 70% of the people living in the proposed historical district and vote for it.  Despite such opposition which has been very vocal, I can't see the majority of the currrent Ludington city council voting against something like this which gives them such power and the ability of them to use your tax money for non-public use. 

 

I see "big government" Councilors Tykoski, Johnson, and Holman voting 'yes' on this almost assuredly.  A possible 'no' vote may come from Councilor Castonia, who has the majority of the district in his ward.  He has recognized the opposition, however, he has no opposition in his district in this election in going for his third term so that he can also vote 'yes' with little repercussion.  Another possible 'no vote could come from Councilor Taranko who is running for mayor, and has potentially a lot to lose for voting against public sentiment. 

 

The best chance for a 'no' probably comes from Councilor Wanda Marrison.  At this council meeting, she got the nerve to actually vote 'no' against the DDA millage levy votes, citing “I just think they money they have could be managed better, I’ve been on this council for four years and I’m not happy with their bookkeeping practices. I think it could be utilized better.” as quoted on June 25 in the MCP.  To justify the DDA's expenditure of a half of a million dollars since she's been on the council, the MCP listed the DDA's repaving of downtown parking lots, grant funding for downtown buildings, and two events funded by the DDA. 

 

I would downplay any part our twelve part series on the DDA had on Councilor Marrison's sentiments, and instead point out to her thinking about what the DDA has meant to her own constituents in the Fourth Ward.  The Fourth Ward consists of the areas south of the PM Bayou and a little bit above that in the south of town.  I am old enough to remember that this area was once a bustling area of Ludington, with shops along Washington and Second Street, a hospital, a couple of taverns, a couple of marketplaces (including the one that is now the appliance store on the corner of Washington and Dowland), almost a self-sufficient town within a City. 

 

 

Wanda Marrison should be old enough to remember that too.  Since the creation of the DDA in the 1980s, and the passing of the tax levy that created two mils for funding it, the money that subsidized just the downtown area of Ludington was paid from the pockets of these businesses and residents of the Fourth Ward.  In 2008, before Marrison joined the council, the City of Ludington unlawfully and secretively raised Tax-Increment Financing sixfold.  And what they got from it, is what you see now in the Fourth Ward.  Boarded-up businesses and squalor.

 

 

So on the outside chance the three votes for and against happen amongst these councilors, the deciding vote will come from new Councilor Rathsack, whose prior 'big government' voting record seems to indicate he will vote for it on Monday. 

 

In the public comment portion of the meeting, Nancy Mustaikis indicated in her presentation that the majority of the people of the proposed district could nullify the adoption of a historic district, pointing out the law.  But unfortunately, such a commonsense idea is not hard-wired into this Act, and the interpretation can be made that such democratic principles do not apply here.  Bob Snyder put forth an intrusion onto the rights of the property owner argument and an insurance argument. 

 

There was then four comments talking about why the historic district would be good by Sue Ann Schnitker, Tom Calabretta, Kathy Winczewski, and Linda Germain.  Winczewski, who lives outside the district and is running for Second Ward Councilor, fails to mention that she is currently a city official serving on the Zoning Board of Appeals, which ethically she should admit to, since her comment could be construed to be the ZBA's official stance on the proposal. 

That she bases her comments on one article in the local paper without hearing otherwise about this or doing any other research, makes me question her ability to hold a councilor seat.  Her back-slap for Councilor Tykoski, however, shows that she has the right stuff to fit in on this council of corruption. 

Four other anti-historical-district speakers then spoke sandwiching member Dave Germain's pro-historic-district comments, where he correctly points out his membership in the Historic District Committee.  The four pointed out other historic districts with problems and the basic problems with them.  After the public comment, the City quizzed Germain (Dave) and Bill Stumpf, members of the committee on various aspects of renovations, the line of questioning going into some minutiae of the district's policies. 

Stumpf lambasted me for calling him greedy and/or power-hungry in my presentation (I called greed and power as motivations behind this; the people behind it may more be inclined to snobbery or just misinformed as to these districts-- but the motivations are based on greed and power.   Here is the meeting minutes along with the video already presented in this thread,   public-lynching-on-a-private-individual-by-john-shay where City Manager John Shay says I also said more than I actually said.  Thank heavens for recorded public meetings.  Following that is a transcript of my words spoken at the meeting:  

 

 

 

 

First, a note on the historic district which is a topic of contention here. As someone outside the proposed district, I cannot easily understand why anyone who lives therein would be for this encroachment of property rights and extra layer of needless bureaucracy. I find there to be two possible reasons why they would.

First, they believe that someday there will be tax relief or state grants available to them because of this designation, but if that ever happens, they must realize that the tax burden on their fellow citizens will only increase in order for them to buy their home's historic flourishes with tax dollars. Owners of houses worth under a twentieth of Cartier Mansion's worth, subsidizing their stylistic improvements does not seem fair to me.

 

Second, they believe that they can more easily prevent their neighbors from making some mistake that brings their own house's value down. This is normal; but whereas I disagree with some of the tastes of my neighbors, as long as they are following the same zoning laws as me, they should be able to make that atrocious improvement they love so much. Zoning laws are made to be as objective as possible, the Historic Commission's rulings will be based mainly on subjective criteria. What the dominant clique approves of at the time.

 

Thus, I see both greed and power being the main motivators to the people behind this district, and if they deny this, then forget this formal designation and create an informal historic district committee with absolutely no delegated powers and no extra access to grants or tax relief. Any takers?

 

Those who live outside the district but live in the City have been ignored and underrepresented in the whole process here, and they shouldn't be. Consider, if this historic district becomes real, all taxpayers will have an increased burden due to its passage. Historic, architectural, and legal consultation does not come cheap in resolving disputes that may arise over subjective topics, and consider what may happen if someone fails to preserve their historic resource.

 

The City can step in and acquire the historic resource using public funds, or other means, by section 7 of that act. I see the potential of politics fueled by greed and power being channeled by our local appointed politicians acting under quasi-legal means that this proposed district gives them. Such abuse has been documented elsewhere; why invite that here?

Speaking of greed and power by our so-called representatives, I want to comment on my most recent win in the courts dealing with the City's unconstitutional Workplace Safety Policy. Our City manager John Shay engineered a policy to deal with a citizen who he had felt made use of the Freedom of Information Act too often, by effectively enacting a process wherein John Shay could keep him from coming to City Hall or the Police Department to inspect public records. This wasn't because his less-than-once-a-week requests were taxing the resources of the City in complying, but because his requests exposed the soft underbelly of a corrupted city government.

 

Before the letter of trespass was placed on me and infringed upon my first, fourth, and fifteenth amendment rights, not to mention violating a plethora of federal and state laws in the process, I had spent $57 just to inspect a contract the City had with a water tower painting contractor. A contract had been made between this company that called for over $1.2 million in city taxpayer money being paid to them over a ten year period for minimally painting the City's two water towers in 2010. Prior City Manager Jim Miller had them painted in 2000 for well under $400,000.

Steel water towers in our climate need to be painted only every 20-30 years, so without any competitive bids ever sought, without any reason to paint these towers more than ten years before they needed to be painted, without any sort of labor or materials itemization on their contract, John Shay and the 2011 City Council, well represented here, voted unanimously for this project. One has to wonder whose pockets were lined by the three-quarters of a million dollars overcharge? 

But immediately before this policy was created, the groundwork had been laid to show an incredible amount of corruption within the Downtown Development Authority. Chief among these was DDA member Nick Tykoski doing over $15,000 of signage work over half a year before the City decided to conduct a sham competitive bid over a small part of the project, without any mention of Tykoski’s private interests in the meeting minutes.

 

[I was cut off from adding my finale]...

The records show that Tykoski was able to submit his bid well before the secondary process, and the other companies had one weekend to look through the documents crafted by  Tykoski in a manner to suppress competition, and the full signage contract was bestowed to Tye's Signs at the next meeting without ever a mention of  Tykoski's ownership of the sign company involved in the proposed $150,000 of signs.  Being affianced to the Community Development Director who signed the checks surely didn't hurt either.  Because of the resulting publicity, the cost of the signage project came down dramatically. 

The city council's unanimous silence on these and many other scandals just goes to show why they unanimously adopted the Workplace Safety Policy to attempt to silence their toughest critic, and why they unanimously chose to follow the advice of their attorney in settling this case with the fairly small number of $15,000.  We should all demand that the one who brought this shame unto the name of our City, the individual named on the suit, City Manager John Shay, reach into his own pockets to pay it off and to resign his office.  But that takes dignity and class. 

[AQUAMAN]

As a democratic society, one that supports the majority, and not the minority, I believe the historic district proposal should go down in defeat. However, I have heard Shay explain that away as mythical and not what the true numbers are. He sure has a way with new mathematics, extrapolating one number, to reverse it to another. Some fancy magicians can't match that kind of trick-shot talking. The passing of such a new ordinance, whether deemed good or bad, has significant impacts on privacy, land ownership, and legal repercussions on many private land owners on their own homes far into the future. Let's just see if the status quo of going against the people's wishes, the majority, still reigns supreme Monday in our little town council. Note the "no" votes as ones that care about locals, more than their elite lust for more power, and greed. Very good thread X, and one that needs serious consideration, not just another stamp of Shay/Henderson approval.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Aquaman, and this issue has seen some strange alliances.  The editorial board of the Ludington Daily News two days later suggested what I suggested, that is, to make an informal historic district, where the HD Board and the local government have no extra powers or authority to spend the people's money.  So far, there has been no indication that the pro-HD crowd wants any part of that. 

Everyone should be up in arms about this, whether you live in the historic district or outside.  A historic district board can make a completely subjective ruling on how you maintain your house.  Let's say (to use an example discussed at the meeting) you want to tear down a chimney that's become a safety hazard, and isn't used anymore. 

The board may arbitrarily decide that you will ruin the historic character of your house and orders you to rehab it.  They may expend public money to do so.  You fight the issue:  you run the risk of a $5000 fine being imposed as often as they want to, you run the risk of paying for the architect, engineer, legal costs of a protracted battle, that could cost you (or the local taxpayers, if you do succeed) tens of thousands of dollars.  All over what to do about a decayed chimney on your own property. 

Meanwhile, City Councilor Tykoski and Community Development Director Heather Tykoski, living at 201 N Washington, just outside the historic district, can put in a 6 ft. high vinyl privacy fence inside the street right-of-way in clear violation of the zoning rules and take away the historic character of the Olmstead House rather quickly.  Was this done intentionally to make sure they would not be in the historic district? 

East Ludington Avenue's historic houses will be better maintained without this historic district.  If you don't believe that, think back to the time before the Bed & Breakfast era kicked in, and the historic preservation realized by the free market in the era that came. 

[Willy]

Well done X. A very informative article. Like you, I wonder why anyone would want their property subjected to increased zoning and more Governmental intrusions. As far as Shay resigning and paying the settlement, I think that would apply to the entire City Council because they are responsible for what Shay does because he is their tool.

[XLFD]

When the City Council allows Mr. Shay to act like an attack dog, I tend to agree with you. 

As for the historic district, I have read through the latest survey and for those who were for the historic district came in three different types:  The Greedy looking for tax abatements and grants:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Trusting ones who want more rules and regulations via a wise board with power to crush individuality:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the phony (Erica Karmeisool Reed does not live in the district, but got a vote for the LACA):

 

[AQUAMAN]

Tax abatements and grants are our favorite allies here in Ludville. We expect ALL our fellow Michiganders and locals to pay, pay again, then pay even more for these follies, because a select few desire these socialistic applications into our private lives, and private properties. Will they win again, in spite of local oppositions of the majority? I guess time will tell. And this should also tell whether the dog wags the tail, or vice-versa! Are the "people really represented here"? Or again, perhaps being oppressed, for the supposed good of the masses?

[Willy]

X. Do you have any survey forms from those who are opposed to the district?

[XLFD]

The full text of the historic district and the survey forms starting with pro and ending with con Historic District begins on p. 34 of this document.  I can't understand how anyone could be for this, because I would frankly find it distasteful and morally wrong to tell my neighbors what they must do with their own property.   

[Willy]

X. For some reason the link won't work. Can you provide another link?

[XLFD]

You may have tried to access the document when they were modifying it more, try it again; if you can't read a .pdf file, that would be another problem.  My cheap five year old computer was able to get it up and going.  All else I could do is provide it to you as a .pdf file.

[Willy]

That last letter from David Bourguette demonstrates how ignorant some people are regarding how Ludington is being managed and why their representatives get away with so much monkey business. It's obvious Mr. Bourgette hasn't learned a thing about what really goes on at City Hall. Why was that letter included anyway. Maybe another way for Shay to rub salt in the wound.

[XLFD]

You are undoubtedly referring to this message that was inspired by John Shay's words at the June 24 meeting:

 

 

Frankly, I have no idea what 'jabs' he is talking about as far as I am concerned, I always keep my focus on public policy and not public personalities at the meeting.  When I talk of Mr. Shay's past perjury, for example, it is because he was representing the City in the FOIA lawsuit (still pending) and he out and out lied about the FOIA response being appropo to my request, while having sat at the meetings where these actions took place and signed many of the invoices that he withheld from us.  I can imagine that he and City Attorney Dick Wilson had a good laugh for 5 months when Wilson's law firm had the judge's son on the case.  Both City Attorney and Manager, have never sworn an oath of office to the people of Ludington, and their public acts only confirm their disdain for the locals.

If you are for libel and slander, go stay at the Viking Arms, and rent a hot tub room with your favorite public official.  But if you're upset with Mr. Bourgette's depiction of someone he has never met before, and the public lynching of a private individual he endorses, go elsewhere.

[AQUAMAN]

After this letter, I certainly will NOT send my charter customers to the Viking Arms Inn again Mr. B. And I have been sending them there for over 25 years to date. Now, I will also inform the other charterboat captains the same, and see how Mr. Shay can help you rent rooms. P.S. Shame on the people that do NOT live in this district, like Kathy, that supported this, even though she herself doesn't have to live with those rules on her property. Although, I have heard she intends to be on a committee or perhaps seek a seat on the council that may make her one of their own minions in good stead.