Ludington City Council 5-06-2013: Parks and Recreants

[XLFD]

(I originally considered the title "Parks and Fabrication", but decided to use "Parks and Recreants", because some of the officials mentioned are nothing short of the latter (Recreant: (n) coward, renegade, traitor).  Both are take-offs of 'Parks and Recreation', which my public comment took issue with.) 

Basically, little was done of substance at the meeting.  The ordinance expanding the City's ability to control the vending of alcohol in the parks went forth with only one vote against (Gary Castonia declaring he is not good with any liquor in the parks, vended or consumed).  The DPW director gave his report, as did an auditor of the city's books. 

Downtown parking leases and lots were an issue discussed that was somewhat interesting, Councilor Castonia once again going his own way in ruing the fact that the City pays for repaving  a lot of lots downtown.  The council gave their backing to the proposed data center out near the pump storage project, for what it's worth.  And a new downtown event with booze was approved.  In the public comment, a citizen actually came forth that wanted the West End Project to go forth, even though the topic was a couple months in the past.  Oddly enough, I had been to that area earlier in the day and had just the opposite opinion of hers, and I had my own take on this area in a part of my speech just after. 

 

The City did respond to some of my concerns raised about the alcohol vending ordinance in City Parks, but left the other topics I raised untouched.  Effectively, during the council's discussion of the ordinance the mayor did some faulty logic in trying to make the case that alcohol vending in parks is part of Ludington's cultural history, something that may have some truth to it.  But that doesn't change the fact that current liquor control policy has changed over the years, so as to make such vending go against enjoyment of the park by the general public. 

Manistee City Attorney contracting for the City of Ludington Richard Wilson made a point later on that sometimes areas of parks can be blocked from general use and still serve their park purpose, an undefined term used in most deeds.  He pointed to camping as a prime example of how the general public can be shut out of a specific area of a park and that area still serve as a park purpose. 

While his argument has more merits than usual in this case, one must also note that changing general parkland to campgrounds is a major change of use of parklands, and one that should have community approval, just as our charter commands.  One should say that changing Stearn's Park to Cheers! is also a change of use, if they are to err on the side of democratic approval-- a topic not well-thought of in the local city hall.

 

(3:55 in):  "Tom Rotta, Dowland Street 137

Once again I would like to discuss why the ordinance allowing vending of alcoholic beverages in parks should be denied, but doubt that it will since our officials are once again bending over backwards to appeal to outside interests rather than the interests of the normal park users.  Don't get me wrong, I believe that people should have the ability to drink in the parks basically unrestricted if it's done lawfully, and feel the City has put more restrictions than is necessary for this pursuit; my concern is the actual selling of alcoholic beverages in the parks.  

Over 60 years ago, Stearn's Park as we know it, was donated to the people from various landowners who said it shall be used and maintained by the City of Ludington for park purposes, otherwise it would revert back to the heirs of those who bequeathed it.  [deed]   Park purposes is not strictly defined by statute, but generally encompasses the use of natural settings by all members of the general public.  Should it encompass the sale of alcoholic beverages?  

Section 38-75 (8), which is basically unchanged and follows guidelines by the state says: "Service and consumption of beer and wine shall be done only in a specific area designated in the permit, the boundaries of which shall be marked and defined by a fence or other enclosure as required by the permit." 

Therefore, with this ordinance, and the proceeding ordinance which was passed in 2004 under this same administration, you not only restrict the general public from getting within the area of the park fenced in by this arbitrary rule, contrary to the standards of park purpose, but you also restrict the alcohol consumer from going beyond the fenced-in area to enjoy the rest of the park, also contrary to park purpose.  

An ordinance that predates these, Section 38-108, [paper] says a permit for use of a section of park will be denied if "the proposed activity or use of the park will unreasonably interfere with or detract from the general public use and enjoyment in the park."  Putting up fences and restrictions on movement depending on your age or use of alcoholic beverages, interferes with general public use. 

 

Plenty of places in Ludington sell alcoholic beverages, our parklands need not be used for this purpose, as it is not a park purpose.   The City is violating the original deed and their duties to the general public if they permit this ordinance to pass.

Let me also quickly report that I have looked at the City's 2013 DNR Trust Fund Grant application for $300,000 submitted by our City Manager to the DNR for the West End walkway and have noticed the following discrepancies.  Unlike what John Shay says in the application, the proposed pathway will not connect to the waterfront walkway loop, or connect to a dedicated bike route to the Ludington State Park-- it connects a parking lot to the lighthouse breakwall where bicycle riding is forbidden. 

 $35,000 of the local funding he includes for this project is the seasonal walkway donated in May 2012, which according to the DNR, should not be included as local match, as it was already donated and used in a previous year [see more here].  $25,000 more of that local match comes from the Consumer's Energy Foundation, who according to the approved council minutes of two meetings [papers] in February and March, was already received by the City.  This money was not received until April 16 [paper], although previous correspondence late last year by Consumers said it would be paid in January [paper]. 

Numerous other inaccuracies is in the application, as is to be expected from a public servant who refuses to take an oath of office and perjures himself in a sworn affidavit presented to a local court, and I reiterate my standing offer to this body for a power point presentation of why I feel he has perjured himself of which he is welcome to respond in kind.  He runs this city, this should be a topic of interest this body should look at.

I also echo the offer on my website to Officer Aaron Sailor to come to this public forum and defend his behavior in three separate federal excessive force/police brutality lawsuits he has had brought upon himself in the last seven years.  I more encourage our sitting chief to protect and serve the public by making the easy choice of removing this public liability from our police force, or to explain to us why he doesn’t do so."

Chief Mark Barnett, fresh from losing his Scottville job as police chief, had nothing to say.  White shirt, black heart.

[Willy]

I personally don't like to see alcohol consumption at the beach or parks because where you have booze you have a more rowdy crowd. As far as the Police Chief goes, how could he collect a full time salary from Ludington and also work for Scottville. That could only have meant that he was doing Scottville's business on Ludington's dime.

[XLFD]

I think it should be the prevailing social mores that decide the issue, not seven councilors who never take a pulse of their constituents, one of whom (from my ward) sells liquor at these events.  I agree I could live without booze consumption at parks, but would not want to restrict others from such pursuits even if they become more annoying.

As for the shared services contract between Scottville and Ludington for the Police Chief, that whole deal was brokered by our City Manager looking to get some extra bucks from Scottville, without regard to the fact that the Ludington citizens were paying the Chief, but getting only 24 or so hours a week from him working for Ludington.  It was also used to show the State that both towns had intercity agreements, which helped in certain funding and grants.  

[AQUAMAN]

I've got two points only to ask about: 1) does Castonia have some loose marbles rolling around about a parking lot paving issue? a) he says he doesn't believe the neighbors are not able to chip in? The USPO has shown a loss via the GAO for years into the $Billions, and just raised rates again this year. b) since when is a non-profit church making a big profit? c) the library is also mostly funded by donations. d) the money is going to be reimbursed by the LDB anyhow, so it's another free-bee imho.  So where does Castonia get off saying they are big money makers that need to share the costs and to boot, it's being reimbursed! 2) I'm surprised that Chief Barnett didn't answer any issue about the Sailor situation and whether he plans to fire him or suspend him in the future. Maybe he's awaiting the outcome of the suit? Or is it that he'll make a statement from notes at a later date? In my opinion, he should have stood up after the public comments and made a comment, one way or the other. Note: Castonia's remarks begin at the 54:59 mark on the video.

[XLFD]

I've pretty much given up trying to decipher how Castonia's, and his bookend on the opposite side of the council dais, Holman's minds work.  Whenever they piece a few sentences together to make a statement, they wind up being self-contradictory or just silly in scope.  They could make a funny comedy team, once they're out of politics.

The Sailor suit has effectively been settled out of court for an as of yet undisclosed amount.  I guess the City of Ludington's current policy is to keep such agreements secret, as well as the suits themselves.  They can do so with totally intimidated local news media outlets.