Ludington City Council Meeting 1-12-2015: Overgrown Legislative Junk

[XLFD]

The main item on the agenda for this mid-January meeting were two amendments that would dramatically change the existing "tall grass" ordinance and the "Junk" ordinance.  Refutations and criticisms of both proposed ordinances were presented  here  and  here in this forum, all unrefuted by city officials who have deliberately misrepresented the ordinance's wording. 

As is typical for the first meeting of the year, they chose also the city council committees, appointed the city' boards and committees, and approved the chamber of commerce's 2015 events (Gus Macker, Offshore Classic, etc.). 

Perhaps to soften the harshness of passing the two modifications of the two ordinances, they added the agenda item of formally recognizing Jamie Spore (left) with a resolution of appreciation.  If you never catch Jamie's cheerful mien wheeling around the town, you'll definitely be able to catch her at the annual Relay for Life held at Oriole Field. 

A worthy recipient of such recognition, it nevertheless contradicted the lack of empathy by the City in invoking the two Draconian ordinances they wound up passing with only one nod towards how it would affect the population made by the latest, city council-ordained councilor.  There were plenty of attempts to defray why the ordinances were needed and why they didn't infringe on anybody's rights.  Despite a rather impassioned plea by Steven Iteen, and an attack on the legality of it by myself.

Mr. Iteen, who lives on 403 E. Filer (as shown in the picture below taken by the City Assessor back in 1999), itemized the various vehicles in his possession that he had on his small lot (50' by 150') of which he could not all fit in his smallish shed whose size was limited by zoning. 

He gave his credentials as a positive person in the community:  he served in the Navy for 23 years, he works at the homeless shelter, he is active in his church, and he is involved with scouting for many years.  He admitted a $110 ticket he had already received for outdoor vehicle storage and told the councilors that a "yes" vote on the blight bill would make him feel like a common criminal.  His oratory begins at 5:20 into the video below, I immediately followed him 8:15 into the video, followed by my prepared speech in its entirety, and then the city officials responses.

 

LCC Jan 12 2015 from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"On December 19, 2014 I sent an appeal of a FOIA response to all of you; that appeal is not on tonight's agenda.  I asked to inspect the 2013 W-2 Forms for city employees along with 1099 Forms for city contractors.  I was sent a reply by then-FOIA Coordinator Susan Sniegowski that said it would cost over $177 to inspect with no explanations as to why this charge was imposed.  Oddly enough, I have made such requests to inspect W-2 forms in the past and was charged nothing by John Shay, even when one time I requested them for two years. 

 

After the appeal to you was made, Ms. Sniegowski amended her first response and reduced it by a factor of ten, without any explanation.  She clarified some exemptions she left undefined in the first response that were either invalid or inapplicable, and hence a denial by FOIA law.  I never withdrew my appeal.

 

The lack of action at this meeting is a constructive denial of my FOIA administrative appeal.  My only options now are to take my case in front of now-Judge Sniegowski at circuit court and ask her why she wrongly denied my request and why she thought charging me over $177 for records without any rationale and totally against past city policy was proper and just.  All of this just to look at records that should be available to the citizens that pay for the generous salaries and fringe benefits offered by this public body. 

 

Tonight, the council will vote on whether to enact two ordinances amending the city's existing junk and weed ordinances.  There has been a lot of misinformation spread by city officials about these two poorly-worded laws.  One would hope that our city could construct less torturous ordinances with recently adding two teachers and over 50 attorneys added to the staff. 

 

The new definition of 'inoperative' clearly states "not being used for its intended purpose" as part of its first stipulation.  Therefore a car that hasn't been moved for ten days fits, as does an RV that is parked in your backyard over the winter, as does a boat that has been harbored for ten days in a marina.  Attorney Wilson's explanation at the last meeting and Assessor Foote's interpretation in the newspaper clearly contradict what the definition says.  The third stipulation of that definition is also very unclear when it says:  “threatens to become a potential harm to the public health, safety, or welfare”.  This could apply to anything left on someone’s property, and is therefore meaningless when made open to interpretation.

 

Attorney Wilson also claimed that you cannot go to jail for a municipal civil infraction, but that is contradicted by section 1.7c of the city code which says:  "a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00, and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment for a period of not more than 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment...  Each day that the violation continues is a separate offense."

 

Such misrepresentations by the city attorney and acceptance by you officials, shows precisely how he was able to misrepresent his monthly billings to the city for three years without ever being called upon it.  If you accept what the city council's appointed officials tell you, even if there is clear evidence that they are wrong, then that is one more reason why this council would be disastrous at picking city clerks and treasurers. 

 

Of the two, however, the tall grass ordinance is the most odious.  Without any notice of violation, city employees or contractors can come onto your property to inspect the height of your grass.  If they see grass over ten inches long on your property, they can mow them down, and then place a lien on the property for the costs involved, without ever having to directly notify you of the violation or the expense of the deed.  They can also at their discretion decide to prosecute you and imprison you for up to 90 days and charge you $500 for each day you are in violation, after they have destroyed the evidence by coming onto your property uninvited.

 

The city says it will cut costs by allowing them to put one notice in the local paper in March that will serve as proper notice to everyone.  But in March, nobody should be in violation of this ordinance.  Due process guaranteed in our state and federal constitutions and upheld by courts all over [Here's where I was interrupted and disallowed to finish my sentence, I continue in my unlimited public comment time on the Ludington Torch] demand that you cannot have your property or money taken away by a law violation without being notified of that supposed violation.  City code enforcers with this new law will become judge, jury and executioner of the law, by deeming all or part of your lawn is in violation, trespassing upon your property to mitigate the problem, and then fining you discretely by placing a lien on your property and or prosecuting you to seek fines or imprisonment.. 

 

Those constitutions also guarantee the right of citizens to feel secure on their own private land.  If a city employee or agent enters onto someone's property and starts to alter it, without any prior notice, do not be surprised if they get confronted by an irate resident or two in the process who are aware of their rights and the true extent of the city’s powers.

 

The two proposed amendments should be tabled until they can not only be clear in meaning but also equitable to the rights and property of the citizens of Ludington.  If that cannot be arranged, maybe we should just keep the existing ordinances as they are.  Making unjust changes to the law will only make the problem of blight worse."

The Empire Talks Back

The City of Ludington took a total pass on the FOIA foible they created for themselves and Judge Sniegowski.  Sniegowski, who had served as City of Ludington's FOIA Coordinator since October 2013, actually was not bad in her position, until she got elected as judge.  But the FOIA does not allow public FOIACs the ability to arbitrarily set an amount for a FOIA or to make the exemptions she was wanting to make.  This could be interesting when I take this appeal to her court.

"Councilor" Krauch (according to the city charter, Krauch's stewardship of the Fourth Ward Councilor seat ended at 2014's end) did stick up for the people who may not immediately have the resources to mitigate the junk problem by suggesting the city have a 15 day period.  I think his reasoning was fairly sound, but many of our older citizens and poorer citizens get a big chunk of their money they live off of once per month, so thirty days seems even more reasonable.  He was the lone "no" vote.

Attorney Wilson was perplexed about my interpretation of the law by explaining the phrase "not being used for its intended purpose" was supposed to mean that the vehicle was being used differently than how it was supposed to be used.  An idle vehicle is not being used for its intended purpose, Mr. Wilson, that's how I read those clear words, that's how future code enforcers may read them.  This is why I dissed the poorly written words of this ordinance you approved the wording of. 

The officials love the flexibility of the ordinance, they should hate the vagueness of their product of lawcraft that allows code enforcers to actively discriminate against people.  Equal justice under law applies best when the law is equally enforced with equal criterion.  Does flexibility allow the removal of the 'fix-it' ticket to the people that are likely to fix the problem with no problem:

Attorney Wilson also prattles about the process (38:50 in) for publishing notice in a newspaper that would allow the city to enter onto a property without further notice as a state sponsored idea, yet fails to give such a statute.  I will give him a statute (MCL 247.64a) which appears to say what he thinks it says, but there is a big difference.  It only applies to noxious weeds which does not include grass.  Here is that full section of State law which it states it's:

"AN ACT for controlling and eradicating certain noxious weeds within the state; to permit townships, villages, and cities to have a lien for expenses incurred in controlling and eradicating such weeds; to permit officials of counties and municipalities to appoint commissioners of noxious weeds"

It is not for common grasses found on most people's lawns.  The City Attorney is poised to get the City of Ludington involved in more lawsuits when their Gestapo lawn cutters come onto your lawn and cut your tall grass.  A review of other cities around Michigan (other than Manistee, who have the same lame attorneys) show that they have proper ordinances for grass that doesn't buy into the notion that they are noxious weeds.

City Attorney Wilson:  "the City of Manistee does it.  I think that's how they operate; they publish a notice in March, and if you don't have your grass cut, the little guys in the summertime show up and mow it for you, and send you the bill."

The City of Manistee is acting illegally, and now so will Ludington.  But I guarantee we will fight back.

At the end of the meeting, you will notice John Shay making a comment about the DDA and the need to reenact what they did at their meeting.  That is another interesting story that will be related shortly, and not something you'll find in the COLDNews' articles on this meeting.

[shinblind]

The City of Manistee ordinance while charging an  onerous $250 minimum fee for cutting lawns not found it n compliance as least spells out  that your lawn must be cut on the 20th of May, June, July and August and not some imaginary 10 inch height issue. They also spell out what the fee is while the Ludington ordinance is mute in this regard.

CITY OF MANISTEE
NOTICE
NOXIOUS WEEDS/GRASS 

Public notice is given that all noxious weeds and grass must be cut down by May 20, June
20, July 20 and August 20 yearly as required by the City of Manistee Noxious Weed
Ordinance. If any owner neglects to have the weeds or grass cut, the City of Manistee will
enter and cause the weeds to be cut down.

The City of Manistee will commence cutting all such weeds and grass on May 20, June 20,
July 20 and August 20 in accordance with the ordinance at the flat rate of $250.00 for the
first hour or any part of the first hour. If the weed or grass cutting takes longer than one
hour, a $25.00 rate per person, per hour plus equipment charges will also be assessed. If the
owner refuses or neglects to pay the fee, a lien shall be placed against the property and
collected the same as taxes or other assessments are collected within the City of Manistee.

It looks like City Attorney Wilson is speaking more half- truths when he is comparing the ordinances in both Manistee and Ludington.

[Willy]

I disagree with the Manistee grass ordinance simply because an absentee owner may have hired a lawn care company who failed to cut the grass in a timely manner or not at all. It's just plain common courtesy to inform the owner of the problem, by letter, at least once per year because after all they are the one's who help pay the bills for the City. If a City has a person who is notified of a grass violation on more than one occasion the City could add a $50 or $100 charge for each letter sent after the first one. That usually takes care of repeat offenders. Also most people do not realize the a flat tire makes a vehicle inoperable. 

[XLFD]

Thanks for your research, shinblind.  I dug a little deeper and found the actual wording of the Manistee ordinance regarding noxious weeds and grass over ten inches and link to it here. 

The actual ordinance does mention the grass height, but what it doesn't mention is any mention of putting notice in the paper of record, instead the COM sends you a first class letter and you have seven days to remedy the situation before they act. 

You see, Attorney Richard M Wilson has no problem with telling you complete bull$hit and expecting you to take his word because he's a member of the bar.  So are a lot of drunks.  None of what he says about Manistee law is even near true in this case. 

George V. Saylor III is the CA of Manistee and at least knows what is within his powers and what is not.  Wilson is a disgrace to the profession.

[Willy]

What is the matter with those people [Council]. It is so blatantly clear how draconian these new ordinance changes are that it baffles the mind as to what and how the Councilors are thinking. Let's assume that the Council is voting in good faith on these ordinances. That leaves the City Attorney as the point man for interpreting the new laws and the convincing voice that of course the Council listens to. Wilson's comment that interpreting the ordinance in a common sense way as X has stated is an insult. An insult to all of Ludington's citizens. If he can't understand and see what other interpretations this ordinance can lead to then he should be fired. He is what I call a flat thinker. He is unable or just unwilling to look at the law from more than one angle or interpretation.

For instance how does one determine the "leaky fluids" scenario? just because there exists oil spots on the driveway does not mean that any particular vehicle on the premises caused the spots. Both Shay and Wilson have sugar coated what the ordinance is really about and how it will affect Ludington't residents. These two out of towners are ruling Ludington and the Councilors are to stupid to see that.

[XLFD]

The City believes a heavy-handed approach of no-notification tickets and grass-cutting sorties will cure blight, but it's likely going to get them a new crop of XLFDs once they try it out.

Using Shay's figure of $2000 in postage that the COL uses for certified letters for tall grass notifications, noting each certified letter is $6.48 for returned service requested, you have roughly 300 notifications each year-- also noting the COL was only required to send such letters on a property's first violation.  Ergo, if the same level of enforcement is made in 2015 and the same level of lawntending is performed by the citizenry, the City will look to enter 300 lawns unlawfully to trim the grass. 

If there appears in the March COLDNews a notice as stated, I may just grow my grass out to encourage the City to come onto my property illegally if they dare.  How ironic it would be for me, who once had a letter of trespass placed on me by the City because of my 'insighting a mob mentality' (according to college-educated CDD Heather Venzke Tykoski) through this very website, to be able to claim the city trespassed illegally on my property!

[stump]

could this be why Shay wanted to move out of the city limits?

[AQUAMAN]

Stump, if you can persuade Shay III to quit & move out of the city limits, out of the county, or out of the State of Michigan, I'll pay you a reward in cash! As for that CC mtg., don't they always have ALL the answers to anyone's problem with their new/revised ordinances? I mean they ALWAYS have some excuse and outright lie to give the public, like a choreographed show. And either Shay III or Wilson are the voice box to rely upon for the given reasons why we just have no other options but to live with their malfeasance. I'd sure like to get my hands on that list of 300 local citizens that violated the long grass law in 2014. REALLY think that exists? Time for another FOIA? I routinely drive to town almost everyday when working down there. And I have to admit, I can't remember any year in my lifetime that I've noticed more than a handful or less lawns overgrown to 10" or higher, not ever! You can just add this to that too, I haven't signed for certified mail for well over 10 years now, and don't intend to ever again. It never brought me any good news, so thus, I decline to sign for any, not ever again! So, what does that say if anyone else at all feels the same way? If they don't sign for it, it gets returned, and the postage is non-refundable, ha ha.

[XLFD]

Be careful what you wish for Aquaman, John Shay might decide to move out of town to the north to be your new neighbor.  And you know that John Henderson will move out to be near him too, even if he has to build a house to do so. 

The code enforcement reports for last year beginning with reports from May to November dealing with the previous month, courtesy of the City's Minutes on Demand site are thus for filed "Tall grass" complaints:  1, 64, 176, 76, 66, 54, 3.  Add all those up it equals 440 filed "tall grass" situations.  Presuming some of those are repeat violators, Shay may have reported an accurate figure.

[stump]

I remember reading something about some rule that the city manager had to live within the city and Shay wanted to change it so he could still be city manager but live out side the city limits. Maybe it was someone else in a different town. On the notices, I get them every year, I don't know why , the grass is never 10" tall ,Now for the weeds, out back behind the garage off the alley, I mow close to the garage but don't own a weed wacker.I guess I'll have to get down on my knees with the scissors . The notice usually comes a week after the grass is cut.. I can see a lot of round up in my future.. Brown is the old green.

[XLFD]

The charter says he must, and one of the changes to the charter were to allow the city manager to live outside the city limits.  I say if he's going to be doing everything to mess up the City, he should at least be cursed to live in his product.

This summer, to show the raging hypocrisy of these city hallers I'm going to revisit and spotlight blight on city property and the property belonging to the usual cronies, which I briefly did this last year here:  http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ludington-s-downtown-...

[stump]

I can see another FIOA in the future: What are the addresses of all city owned property ? This is going to be good, A number of years ago the city was talking about the land lords properties and how they needed to fix them up. A land lord came to the meeting with pictures of a number of city properties that were really run down. That was the end to that talk.

[XLFD]

Once the notice gets put out in March of this year, I will make a FOIA subscription for code enforcement actions and/or work orders in regards to the weed ordinance, and I'm likely to appear at the council meetings with some of my own incriminating pictures of city properties with tall grass and junk.