Ludington City Council Meeting 12-15-2014: Fun-Raisin' and Gift Givin'

[XLFD]

The Ludington City Council had a fair amount on their holiday plate just before they take a hiatus for four weeks.  To prepare for the Christmas and New Year's breaks, holidays that fall on Thursday, they not only are taking the Wednesday before off for each, but also the Friday following off.  That will be two weeks when the city offices will be open only Monday and Tuesday.   Don't be worried for them, however, for they will be paid for each of the six days they're off.  A pause for some proselytizing...

                   Musician John Lennon, not to be confused with Ludington's John Lenin, City Manager John Shay.

Amazingly, the citizens themselves will make it through this period, likely they might even prosper without the additional bother of bureaucrats for three days each week.  Just think of the stimulative effect it might have on the community if they were shut down like that for the whole year, considering the taxes that could be almost halved and we would get officials that would be too busy doing their jobs for 16 hours a week that they wouldn't be tinkering with peripheral nonsense that seems to occupy their time, and could honestly be said to be detrimental to the city health.  Plus, speaking of health, we wouldn't have to spend all that 53-58% of their income on fringe benefits like health care, sick and vacation days, etc. and save them the process of making themselves immune to state reforms each year. 

"Imagine there's no city hall,

It isn't hard to do,

Nothing to pay taxes and fees for,

And no zoning too..."

Sigh, back to the meeting.  The city council were to have a first reading on the amendments to two ordinances regarding junk and weeds in their ongoing battle of the blight.  The old ordinances were declared costly to the city in both time and money, and deemed weak for immediate gratification of city officers.  The first reading is the best time to address the deficiencies of an ordinance, and so a good portion of my comment was directed to both ordinances, as I thought they went a bit far.  It also merited comment from a scrappy person just outside the city limits. 

At the middle of the meeting, city councilor Kathy Winczewski, read the city councils motion to adopt the ordinance which had inaccuracies in reference to the actual ordinance, at the end of that, City Attorney Richard Wilson tried to explain away the scenarios of the junk ordinance the two citizens who spoke found objectionable.  Unlike scrap-dealer James Nash who accepted the erstwhile attorney at his word, I took the proposed ordinances at the meaning of their words.  This will be clarified in a supplementary report here at the Ludington Torch before next meeting. 

There were also appointments; the oft-discredited city attorney and the other 56 members of his law firm were to be appointed, and were unanimously approved, still without any declaratives from any other official about the overbilling and improper billing that have been pointed out.  The County Prosecutor's Office was also appointed to serve in the role as the city attorney for criminal matters. When this appointment was unanimously approved, the city added three more attorneys to their already substantial stable of shysters. 

Counting FOIA Coordinator Attorney Alvarado, the city has 61 lawyers on their payroll (not counting all those on their MMRMA insurance) serving as City Attorney to discourage those citizens who do not feel that the city hall is doing an ethical job.  Quite a change from the one attorney whom would often head south for the winter when I left the fire department and started rabble-rousing back in 2008. 

They appointed also the Downtown Ludington Board (DDA) and the Planning Commission (PC) with Barry Neal, Les Johnson, and Gail Lyons leaving the DDA, to be replaced by Brandy Henderson (Ludington CVB), Marilyn Cunic (Blu Moon), and Brian Josefowicz (Mitten Bar).  In the PC, the only change was that Kirk Josvai stepped down, and was replaced by Meaghan Greene (of Western Land Services).  With Councilor Winczewski  still being the council liaison, expect this committee to be even more receptive to the changes to the city master plan soon to be proposed by LIAA.

The only other business was to be setting the next year's meeting schedule, and adopting a resolution for a grant for signs for the Ludington Maritime Heritage Trail.  Noticeably absent from the meeting was Councilor Tykoski, sign-maker, saving him the trouble of abstaining from the vote.

My comment preceded Mr. Nash's, who actually arrived in council chambers right at the time Mayor Cox was to close public comment.  Nash went on information that he overheard on the radio, likely WLDN, whose news director, Steve Ruba, did what I did-- actually read the ordinance.  Nash runs a recycling business that deals in junk cars on the PM Highway.  He went five minutes (starting at 8:15 into the video) and made an off-the-cuff presentation that is well worth listening to as he brings up material that more accurately describes the proposed change and the repercussion of it.

Something I wish I had more time to go into with my speech starting around the 2:30 mark, where I touch on the Shay and Krauch meet and greet scandal, the junk and weed ordinances, and lightly, the city attorney billing scam/scandal. 

At 37:30 in, John Shay makes a comment declaring that Krauch's meet and greet was not a fund-raising event but an opportunity for Krauch to hear from his constituents, unlike what I characterized it as.  Unfortunately, he missed that I called it a "fun-raising" event, not a fund raising event, however, his description of the event he offered was consistent with what it was billed as, and thus illegal for public funds to be used for.  He finished with reading a letter from the DDA thanking the DPW for being a willing tool for them throughout the year.

I agree then with what Councilor Holman then (40:00 in) said about cutting down the spruce trees around the proposed pickle ball courts (currently the Oriole Field tennis courts).  Anyone who has played tennis there, knows the windbreak value of those trees against an often stiff beach wind that would probably affect pickle balls more than tennis balls.  She offers no reason for herself, but like special variances for some signs in the street tight-of-way, we concur on the point.

Just before my comment, I had given thirteen earlier-prepared copies of the Bill of Rights to each of the seated officials (wound up keeping two for the absent officials) with a personal message of Merry Christmas for 2014 to each.  I hope that each of the city officers are visited by not only the spirits of Christmas, but also the spirits of representative democracy, and the spirits of giving (the rights and property of their constituents back).  But given their track records, the only spirits they are probably going to be visited by will arrive via a shot glass.

A transcript of my speech, delivered in its entirety starting at 2:20 into the video, follows.

December 15, 2014, Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

In the spirit of Christmas, I have given the clerk a complimentary Bill of Rights to each city officer present behind your voluminous desk to pass around.  So that it at least gets a little bit of use before it's discarded, I will call attention to it during my comments. 

Each of you councilors, but one, ran for your elective office in the past, even I have done so.  Like me, I am presuming you spent your own money and money given to you by private donors to do so.   And so I was plenty disturbed by an entry in the paying of the bills in the November 24 meeting that suggested that the City used its own funds to market a "Meet and Greet" event by Michael Krauch, finding out through FOIA they printed 500 of these 'door hangers' [flash hanger] at a cost to the taxpayers of over $85, with John Shay signing the invoice.  [put hanger on lectern].

If you don't see a problem with using the money that is supposed to go for maintaining our local roads, providing us with fire and police protection, and other meaningful public services, then you may be part of the problem.  This money was used to market a purely political fun-raising gathering with no official business being conducted therein. 

Mr. Shay, state law says that it is a misdemeanor for an officer of a city to purchase any goods in the name of the city for any other purpose than for use in the regular course of the official business of the city.  This wasn’t.  We could have saved most of the money spent for this and made someone the legitimate fourth ward councilor by using some of that money to include a fourth ward councilor selection on less than 500 fourth ward ballots in November. 

Tonight, you go forth with the first readings of the proposed junk and tall grass ordinances with the Building & Licenses Committee’s approval.  Perhaps the head of that committee, a former school teacher, can tell us why she feels the changes are necessary and proper today.  In my review of both ordinances, there has been little regard for basic rights in either ordinance.

The concept of blight removal is a worthwhile cause, but it must be weighed with the basic individual rights of the property owner.  The changes amount mostly on minimal notification procedures to the homeowner before the city takes action.  In the case of inoperative vehicles, the city expands the definition to include vehicles stored outside that have not been operated for 10 days, rather than 60 days.  If this passes, you can now take a two week vacation and leave a brand new, licensed, fully-operative car at home sitting in your driveway, and come home to find up to six violations of this ordinance waiting for you and up to $3000 in fines and 540 days in jail.  It seems rather draconian to me as worded.

In the case of weeds above 10 inches tall, the city would have the option to print a notice in the local paper in March declaring the city's policy, thereby presuming this would be notification enough before they come onto your property and cut your lawn and charge it to you.

Even if we presume half of the property owners get the paper that day, half of those see that small notice, and half of those read and understand it, we still have about 90% of the population not getting that springtime notice, which effectively is not a notice to a property owner that their lawn needs cutting or trimming immediately. 

The fourth amendment, preserved and strengthened in our state constitution, allows people to be secure in their property and personal effects without government interference, following due process guaranteed to all in the fifth and fourteenth amendment.  A general notice to the population at large made months before an infraction is alleged, is not proper notification for the city to trespass on your land, possibly alter it against your wishes, and then being forced to pay for a service they never agreed to, or likely needed, depriving people of their money through government force and power.

Who has oversight on these laws that are being brought before the council in such utter disregard for the Ludington citizen?  Why none other than the City attorneys from Grand Rapids and Manistee, who the city council will likely rehire tonight despite their three years of knowingly overbilling the city coffers with Shay's complicity, a fact that none of you proud councilors and mayor have even acknowledged over the last four meetings this was brought up, showing a tacit acceptance of such embezzlement and your own complicity. 

If I were you, I would hire the county prosecutor to secure that the crimes committed by the officers here at city hall will not ever be brought forth in court.  Oh, you plan on doing that tonight too.  Carry on.

[Willy]

Good job X. A notification in the paper if used as the only notice given to citizens to cut weeds and grass is not a legal notification. In order to be exempt from lawsuits the City must notify by mail any and all persons that appear on the City records as owners of the property and taxpayers of the property and to be fair a notice should be mailed to the occupant of the property in case that occupant is purchasing the property on a land contract. Vacant lots of course do not receive an "occupant" notice.

I tried to find the junk ordinance on the City's web site but could not. I don't believe City differentiates between "junk" and "trash". Believe it or not they are not the same because unlike "junk", trash has no value and should be handled differently when provided for in an ordinance.

If it's possible X, could you provide a link to the City's junk ordinance? Thanks

[XLFD]

 Of course I can provide that link, Willy, after all this is the season of giving.  This link should take you to section 18 of the charter where the current weed ordinance is under article 2, Nuisances (Look carefully for my name, LOL) and inoperable motor vehicles is under Article 3. 

You will notice that these ordinances were tweaked back in 2004, when Chief Barnett and John Shay were just starting their magic on Ludington.  The force that stopped them from goose-stepping over the rights of Ludingtoners was the city attorney of the time, flawed though he was.  When you field sixty attorneys, you believe you can do no wrong-- or that you can do wrong and be able to defend it.

Some of the differences between the old and the proposed ordinance changes are subtle, and the changes are good if all you want to do is cure blight at the cost of the citizens' innate rights.  This is why it deserves a special thread.

[stump]

What happened to the system that the city had in place already? They had what I called the grass police,the city sent me letters every year because my grass was over 6" tall. I even got one of those junk car tickets because the car had a flat tire in my driveway. So I cleaned out the garage put the car in there and left all the junk out side. They never said anything about that crap.

[XLFD]

As the city attorney noted in jest, if you were gone for a two week vacation in summer after cutting your grass, which isn't uncommon, your lawn will get to the point where the city could come on your property while you're away and cut your grass without warning you until you get that large bill, and notice that someone ran their lawnmower over all those things you had on your lawn and ruined them. 

Invest in a few claymore mines for the lawn to be safe before you leave, LOL. 

[Willy]

Thanks for the link to the City's ordinances, X.

[XLFD]

Your welcome, Willy.  The thing I like about you is your good manners.  I give the city councilors perhaps the greatest gift that government has ever given to the people, the Bill of Rights, signed by me and saying Merry Christmas and several references to the very city ordinances I just passed along to you, but all I get back from them is the same everybody else got back from them:  weeds, junk, and tall tales about their proposals and actions.

[AQUAMAN]

We steadfastly see the city of Ludington council members keep taking away citizens rights, and this is just another prime example of it. Taking more power at the cost of being neighborly and prudent to governing is just another example of the overreach of this administration. I think Mr. Nash correctly puts questions of necessity and legality at the feet of the city councilman. And all I see is their repugnant deaf ears closing as they again pass another ordinance that is not necessary nor perhaps even legal. On another note: it seems Mr. Cox could use a pillow under his hinder as he is barely visible above the podium that he hides behind. His stature as Mayor is also dwindling and makes him appear to be a small man in deeds, as well as stature. Petty issues of lawn cutting and vehicles not constantly attended to seem very petty in lieu of the other more important business that the COL should be attending to these days imho.

[XLFD]

I have always tried to give the city council the benefit of the doubt over the years, even when the evidence clearly goes against them.  I tried to do this here and presume that they are trying to combat blight and beautify Ludington.  Few can argue that's not a good objective.

But to accomplish this, they have decided it's best to avoid giving the people the opportunity to do it themselves; they would rather skip notification when they believe you have violated these ordinances before they fine you and charge you for services.  If someone takes your money through fine or a service they provide because you have violated some subjective-based rule, due process notification is mandatory, otherwise they have declared you guilty without providing you the right to declare your innocence. 

Or better yet in the weed and junk ordinances, to remedy the situation yourself, which Councilor Winnie said happens in over 90% of the cases anyway.  Probably over 90% of the other cases is that the right person hasn't been notified. 

A first class letter to the same person they send the tax bill to (unless otherwise directed) with proof of mailing, would be a way to send the notice which could save $5 per instance.  This actually probably gets a quicker bang for the buck, since whenever I get certified mail they usually try to deliver it personally a couple of times before I go down to the post office to pick it up.  If I forget to, it goes back to the city as refused, even if I hadn't wished to. 

Fortunately, I haven't had any problems myself with city code enforcement since 2008, when they neglected to take a couple piles of wainscoting from my flooded basement, even though their special trash pick-up notice said they would.  Even though their waste removal contractors made the error, they still wanted to stick a bill to me and not back their own promise to pick up such waste, even though it was written boldly in the COLDNews.  The city wasn't honorable then, nor have they been very honorable since, wanting to infringe the rights of their constituents rather than respect them.

[Willy]

X, what about Code Compliance picking up your elections signs?

[XLFD]

I stand corrected; I completely forgot about the selective code enforcement of election signs back in 2011 on the properties of people who displayed my campaign signs-- probably because this problem didn't arise on my own property. 

Though it was within the zoning law under the clear meaning of the words, the City read what they wanted to into the law for my campaign signs.  That episode is a warning that the City of Ludington has few reservations about enforcing laws unfairly, and corrupting the city code-- which is a good reason why the changes to the junk and weed ordinances mean quite a lot.  Law/code enforcement are given a lot of discretion in the amended code, which tends to work against equal justice under law.     

[Willy]

All the City needs to do is send out a letter to the taxpayer of record and occupant. It need not be registered or certified. Then if the violation is not taken care of the City can post the Building with 3 day notice that the violation would be abated by the City.

[XLFD]

Such cures to make things go quicker and be less expensive seem more reasonable than the new ordinance, and will lead to more goodwill between the city and its homeowners.  You violate the law with this ordinance, the city takes a lien out on your house to get their money when they trespass on your property and do their deed without notice.  Attorney Wilson has seen to it that his law firm will be fully employed doing what is effectively nuisance maneuvers against homeowners that will only foster ill will.