Ludington City Council May 23rd, 2016 Meeting: Good Offences Make Good Neighbors

The two most influential and controversial actions the City of Ludington would take this night dealt obliquely with the concepts of neighbors.  All controversy aside, however, the council's unanimous votes on both issues surprised nobody:  they agreed to rezone a single family parcel on Washington Street into one that could eventually hold 80 units in five buildings and they made changes in the tall grass ordinance that significantly raised its penalties. 

Even though nobody in the public (outside the buyer, seller and realtor of the 916 N. Washington property) has indicated any support for the project, in fact, almost all of the neighborhood has came to at least one of the meetings of the city council or planning commission to debate why it is a bad idea that runs contrary to public safety, security, health, and even the city's own master plan-- the blueprint for zoning Ludington. 

Yet, the city's planning commission and city council couldn't fall over themselves more in their support of the rezoning effort and the developer, Mitch Bogner, and likely would have even if there was no concessions made by Bogner to salve the neighbor's concerns to some extent.  The city even made it a stipulation to remain ignorant to any environmental concerns regarding the property, at least until after the rezoning was approved and the sale was finalized. 

The new tall grass ordinance was marketed as something it isn't at both meetings it was mentioned.  The underlying dishonesty was reviewed here after the last meeting.  It continued at this meeting after I challenged them to read the actual proposed law rather than the summary of it which was false.  They refused to do so at this meeting (52:00 into the video), instead rereading the summary and saying several other things the ordinance did not include. 

Is it any wonder that they present the nearly 500 page DEQ report on the contamination of the PM Bayou, in twentyfold smaller summary by their long term environmental cronies, Otwell Mawby, indicating there is no cause for alarm?  Is it a big surprise that they submit a resolution to the state DNR telling them that the City of Ludington has committed $82,800 from its general fund when all it has done is resolved to submit the application?

The city council made some fairly rote votes among the other public policy at the meeting.  They established an OPRA district for 327 S. James an scheduled a hearing for the next meeting to submit their OPRA application to the state.  This wasn't without controversy; citizen Tom Tyron took the podium at the 11:00 mark and expressed his concerns after the owner introduced him and his plans.  Tyron rose in opposition to the tax breaks, reminded the council of their approval of using public money to support the apartments being built in the downtown in direct competition to his own rental properties.  He is effectively subsidizing his competition.  Councilor Katie Moonbeam pedantically explained why OPRAs are good. 

Third Ward Councilor Les Johnson then asked the city manager whether the money for this was coming from the taxpayer's pockets, and asked whether they were grants from the state.  My opponent in the coming election apparently hasn't done his homework.  To his credit, Shay gave a textbook answer thereafter, followed by further justification by Councilor Krauch.  Both sides are right in this case; all of the rest of us make up the difference that the OPRA forgives this property, on the gamble that the savings will make economic development happen where otherwise it wouldn't. 

The last OPRA given out in Ludington was to Nolan Family Investments on Second Street, which was given out in October 2015.   They must be doing something, because both properties involved have recent junk violations found later in thecurrent council packet and no economic development noted as of yet. 

You may also remember that Bob Neal received an OPRA certificate for the bowling alley while it was still standing.  The only economic development it helped establish was for the demolition company many years later, read Kingpin to Finally Knock Bowling Alley Down.  These failures are not uncommon.

They introduced six ordinances relating to millage rates and their levying, the usual summer fare which is done so as to artificially keep their millage rates from falling when the Headlee require a rollback.  There was no Headlee rollback this year, so it is only done to keep them consistent for when it does.  This is how greedy the city is.  When your property values are falling, they want to take more than what the law allows. 

The other two acts they voted on were contracts with the architect firm Kendra Thompson Architects of Manistee and the city's own law firm Mika Meyers, also of Manistee/Grand Rapids.  Erroneously, the COLDNews reporter Kevin Brasiczewski attributed me as saying the city needed to seek bids for both, but I said no such thing.  The contract with the architect was the only one that needed bids as per the city's own laws.  I wish Kevin would keep it accurate, but he never does.

My comments before the regular meeting (3:40 into the video) touched on the concepts of being a good neighbor.  I tried to appeal to the councilors to listen to their neighbors from the community coming forth and consider that the actions they want to take are not very neighborly.  I would have a difficult time living with myself for voting for the rezoning when the nearby community is nearly 100% against it, I could not vote for a law that says if somebody lets their lawn grow too long, they will face a minimum $250 fine plus labor cost and surcharge.  Heidi Walden followed with a summary of her concerns, echoing the arguments against the rezoning. 

May 23rd, 2016 Ludington City Council Meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"When this council votes on the new Draconian Tall Grass Ordinance, do not quote a false summary of the proposed law, read the actual language of the ordinance which clearly indicates a mandatory $250 fine for a first violation.  Read it and reference it, don’t pass a false representation of it.  We pay our 57 city attorneys good money to draft such ordinances clearly and prudently, we even unlawfully added $50,000 this year to their salary for routine legal work associated with the water and sewer projects, so can we at least expect a little diligence in their work products? 

John Shay defended the city's new policy by claiming that people who call the city complaining about their neighbors chronic tall grass problems will welcome the changes.  One of my neighbors has a recurring tall grass problem.  They are currently having some personal issues that have had them being away from her house for extended periods.  Do I call the city and complain about it and have them pay the city tribute and suffer their impersonal yet expensive methodology? 

No; like a whole lot of other good, caring neighbors in Ludington would do, I mow their lawn, like I have many times in the past, and do so without any need of repayment.  They have enough problems without having the city try to squeeze more blood out of an already flat wallet.  No less than the King of Kings once said:  "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater."

Remember this wisdom also when dealing with our other local issues, such as the rezoning of 916 North Washington before you today.  Representatives from the nearby residences, industries, and school have shown no indication that they have been bad neighbors with the current owner of that lot.  Yet these neighbors have come before the city planners and council waving the city's master plan and a host of other logical reasons in expressing why the zoning conversion of this lot would be a mistake. 

One would have to presume all of them have not turned into bad neighbors overnight, so their words are worth listening to and heeding.  Meanwhile, the city has bent over backwards to get this project underway, adjusting their existing master plan, and creating a new 'conditional rezoning' ordinance.  They are willing to vote it through the Planning Commission without even looking at the environmental tests on the property that the prospective buyers are withholding from them, pending affirmation of the deal here tonight..

Does the city’s motivation mirror that of the buyers and sellers of the lot:  financial rewards for themselves.  This is inconsistent with the virtues of a good neighbor.  Councilors, show that you can love your neighbors, your constituents, by voting against the change to the tall grass ordinance [three minutes and I was given the hook] and the change to the established zoning of 916 North Washington."

 

My comment after the main meeting touched on the illegality of the contract with Kendra Thompson:

"Witness once again the disregard this city has towards you and your neighbors in their votes made at this meeting and many others in the past.  You tell us our city needs more affordable rental units, but with one vote last year, you made the problem many times worse by inflicting extra costs and obligations unto hundreds of small business owners of Ludington and ultimately, your silent victims, the poor tenants you either displaced or put deeper in debt.  It is surrealistic how some of you actually think you are helping these very same people with your new tax on landlords.

Lest you think I missed it, city management has once again violated the city charter by attempting to enter into a contract with another county's architect firm for the proposed fire station at the edge of town without utilizing the competitive bidding process.  Section 2.4 of our city code:  "Competitive bids for all purchases shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders... Sealed bids shall be asked for in all transactions involving the expenditure of $10,000.00 or more and the transaction evidenced by written contract submitted to and approved by the city council."

The amount to be paid to this architect is over $80,000 and yet there were no requests for proposals announced, no way that our own county's architects had a shot at getting this work.  The architects chosen do not have to give the city a competitive price, because they ‘cronied’ themselves into it, you will be wasting our tax dollars in the process of once again showing that our city leaders are incompetent and corrupt in their handling of contracts.  This project, which may not even come into fruition, will be as wasteful as the designs made for the fire station on North Washington back in 2008 if John Wilson's Bowling Alley Block scheme fails again.  Again."

Views: 240

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I contend that the grass / weed ordinance is unconstitutional. The reason for that is that it violates the 5th amendment and 14th amendment in regards to due process. 

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable.

A generic notice in a newspaper is not a notice of a violation. A property owner must be individually notified if and when a violation exists on their property. This ordinance is wrong in many ways. It gives property owners no avenue to challenge it. Bad business all the way around and another slam to the citizens who pay the bills that keep the City operating.

If the planning commission had any schnutts they would require that Bogner pays the entire cost of the fence. that the fence extends completely to 3 sides of the property north, east and south sides so as not to offend the residents of Forest Hills. And that he is required to maintain the fence and clean up any graffiti that the fence gets tagged with.

A fence being more practical than a setback to the neighbors.

And that Mitch Bogner should also be required to install playground equipment centrally within his fenced in compound including basketball hoops and a paved area. 

But then that would require a planning commission doing their job. Hah.  This planning commission couldn't plan a piss up in a brewery.

If you cannot tell, I am not an adherent of planning commissions or zoning, the Mitch Bogner scenario illustrates the point of why.   Using Wikipedia's definitions, "The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. In practice, zoning also is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character" of a community."

According to the city's own zoning maps, even with the new additions to the master plan, the proposed usage was incompatible.  According to all the neighbors, it didn't fit the character of that community.  Despite that, the city opened up Pandora's box by creating 'conditional zoning', where PC members and other city micromanagers, can bend the rules to make such incompatibilities compatible and warp the square peg to fit into the round hole. 

With 'conditional zoning' you open up the floodgates to corruption, because no longer will the neighborhood have any say in the process, just city officials, who usually have no skin in the game and are easily swayed by the smell of money and favors.  Traditional zoning often interferes with the organic growth of an area, the property rights and duties of individuals, and true economic development.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service