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.

[XLFD]

I can't help but think that Steve Iteen spoke for a lot of people in Ludington who are good community-minded, law-abiding citizens that increasingly feel attacked by their own city hall at every turn, and made to feel like common criminals, while their city hall's appointed officials are truly the common criminals, disobeying their oaths, state laws, and city charter. 

If you notice, I got a smattering of applause after my presentation at the city council meeting; I can imagine that whoever showed their approval got their share of icy stares from the assembled officials up front, and from the city officials usually most prevalent in the audience.  I've decided that I am going to start applauding at the end of public comments I agree with, like Mr. Iteen's at this last meeting and Mr. Nash's at the meeting before.  Any Joe or Jane Ludington that gets up in front of the mike and tells it like it is deserves such. 

If the other side don't like it, I will point to their own applause at the end of Chief Barnett's "Shame on you" speech, and John Shay's "defense of Jackie Steckel's lying about proceeds" speech, where a partisan crowd in the know applauded two officials taking pot shots at a citizen instead of talking about public policy.

[AQUAMAN]

It's a shame, but the truth is, the councilors usually turn a deaf ear on any public comments that don't fit their agenda and agree with their motives. Just look at their actions after the last few months of new ordinances and changes to the city charter were commented on unfavorably by the public. And don't expect that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I really doubt any applause for citizens making any criticisms or asking for reasonableness will be tolerated. On the other hand of course, if that citizen makes a favorable comment toward the COL or the council, applause will be tolerated and encouraged at every level. Same crap, different year and faces. Of course if you can get around 20+ people at the meeting to attend and applause, there isn't much they can do but frown and shrug it off, and still ignore the public. Getting the public to come in and voice their concerns, is all but impossible, unless they themselves feel threatened, or their family, or they have some guts and ethical feelings, like the wind farm mtg. with the county commission a few years back. Strength is in numbers, and that they can't argue with. But I do applaud Iteen and Nash for their cogent input and appeals.

[stump]

I really don't know if the councilors can hear most people when they talk. Setting in the audience ,I have a hard time understanding. Most of the time the council doesn't even look interested.

[AQUAMAN]

Your astute reflections on the audience input of listening to public comment stump, is quite accurate in all regards. Unless of course those comments come in the form of some back-patting and praise for the COL/CC, then all eyes and ears appear open.