Ludington City Council Meeting 2-9-2015: Six Years of Progress

[XLFD]

On reviewing the agenda of this meeting, I estimated it would take a little over an hour to cover the topics, about twice the length of a typical meeting.  The council typically hears department annual reports through the first three months of the year, and it was time for the community development director's and the fire department's reports, which would conservatively take about twenty minutes  to cover (actual time about 23 minutes). 

The ultimate decider of how long this meeting would last hinged on how many people showed up to comment on the main topic of the night, a new revision of the City's sidewalk policy.  Other than myself, only one person spoke on the topic.  She wasn't in favor of it, I was in favor of it with reservations, and the council and mayor who spoke out at the end seemed mostly supportive of it.

Illegitimate Fourth Ward Councilor Michael Krauch was its only detractor commenting that the wording should have been used to make the buyer, not the seller or buyer, responsible for the cost of sidewalk installation at the point of sale.  His point is made extra relevant when you note that if he ever did sell his house on the corner of Madison and Melendy (as seen below) he might have to pay for installing sidewalks on both streets at the time of transaction, and that he is the only councilor who has to worry about that annoying fact.

Connie Vlahos, long term resident of 502 N Ferry Street, spoke out against the ordinance amendments as if they would apply to everyone and brought up some good points.  Like the council, I think she was misinformed about 'outside influences' bringing up the change.  One could say our master plan architects at LIAA would find such aids to the city's walkability as a positive change towards a more resilient Ludington, but I think the seed was already planted for such a change independent of that. 

Note the comments by Councilor Winczewski in her own sidewalk program anecdote, along with Mayor Cox's defense of taking a stand on sidewalks.  Even if I had disagreed with him, I think it may have been his best mayoral moment so far in terms of an impassioned connection to an issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if the new members helped push the issue to this. 

Vlahos worried about the extra expenses many homeowners would have who have trees planted in he right of way area, irrigation lines in that area, and other things that would take time, effort and money to circumvent.  The assessing photo from 1999 below shows some of the problems she mentions.

Although I can commiserate with her assertions and empathize with how this might affect the sales of properties, it's just common sense that anything you put out in the public right of way isn't safe from the public someday claiming it for pedestrian use.  I hope she was able to empathize that since her property is only 200 feet from Oriole Field and 400 ft. from Lakeview Elementary and is in ground zero for Gus Macker parking and travelling, that a sidewalk would be greatly appreciated there by the rest of society rather than trees and sprinklers forcing kids to walk in the street. 

Before the initial reading of the sidewalk ordinance came up, however, a sequence of seven communications involving city events came up including, Ludrock, the Lake Jump, the Freedom Festival, the Walk for Life, the Relay for Life, Suds on the Shore and a host of other included under Downtown Ludington Board sponsored events (such as FNL, Octoberfest, etc.), and they were all summarily approved by the board with minimal discussion with Captain Harrie about police resources and the conflict of having Ludrock and the Relay on the same weekend.

After a drawn out talk over a fairly uneventful year for the fire department, the talk came as to whether to add Blue Heron Drive to the local street system.  If you are unaware of Blue Heron Drive, it's a service street (the yellow street below) to the Washington Woods development, right across the street to the west from Northside Market in a little promontory of Ludington city property north of Bryant Road.  If that development ever gets completed, Blue Heron will become a loop. 

If you pay attention to Ludington politics, the residents of Washington Woods were instrumental in getting a four-way stop at the Bryant-Washington intersection, many personally petitioning the council for that cure to their ills.  As we've discussed here, the best way to cure the problem according to accepted traffic warrants and common sense would have been to sign only Washington Street. 

Now they want to get their service road on the Ludington Street system while not putting sidewalks on either side of it (except for one area so far), or on Washington or Bryant connections to their property lot.  These guys can whine about changing the stop sign situation for the worst for their kids' safety but force those same kids to walk on Washington Street because they're too cheap (or the city's too lax on enforcement) to put in a mandated sidewalk. 

The first presentation of the sidewalk ordinance amendment then went open for discussion.  I've noticed a fairly easy way to predict whether someone is for or against this ordinance.  If they own a home and do not already have an installed sidewalk they are very likely to be against it.  Otherwise, they are likely to be for the measure.  This rang true for the councilors, the speakers from the public, and everyone else I talked with. 

After hearing the councilors discuss this issue, and checking some figures, I changed my mind about supporting it.  Mayor Cox may have good rhetoric, but his words are not backed up with action.  I will describe why in another article, but mark my words:  the proposed changes are only to increase the city's revenues, not improve the sidewalk system.

Another long drawn out presentation by the community development director followed, where we learn more about those Ludington calendars we received in the mail and about all the money she cajoled from the state into our downtown for renovating store fronts and putting apartments in over businesses.  It's too bad we have somewhere lost the idea that all the public money put on these non-public tasks takes so much away from the very public challenge that faces the area and that City Manager Shay talks about later (at about 1:15:00 into the video, right after he discusses the work on 'Ludington Boulevard' ) in a little more detail than usual, but while still withholding many of the facts. 

One would think that the city management team would be more interested in addressing the fact that the City of Ludington Wastewater Treatment Plant has not had a discharge permit since 2011, due to abnormally high levels of ammonia and other toxins and the fact that they are discharging in a lagoon, would have them direct more of their resources towards addressing the challenges there.  Instead of asking the MI DNR for any help on that, however, they ask for help from them on the West End of Ludington Avenue Projects and waste time designing calendars and new downtown events. 

They finished off the regular business by setting a special council meeting for February 25, 2015 to discuss special event fees (more revenue generation?) and then agreed to grant my FOIA appeal for the very first time, unanimously, no less.  Their stated reason was because it had been part of a court record that had not been sealed.  Which leads me to believe that the LPD may still balk at other requests for policies of their department.  It's nice to win for once, but it would be nicer to win on more of the merits and have a councilor actually weigh in on why they hold their ideas about the FOIA more.  It seems every time they talk about it in general, they call it a nuisance and those who make FOIA requests even bigger nuisances.

My public comment weighs in just after Connie's comment at 5:15 in, and general discussion of the sidewalk ordinance by councilors start at 44:00 in.  Please comment if you would on your own perspective of the issue in the comment section here.   To read about the changes it starts on p. 65 here. 

 

February 9, 2015, Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"After reviewing the council's agenda for tonight, it made me wax nostalgic for the year 2009.  In the year 2009, I made my first FOIA request to the City which dealt with what I thought was a major problem being unaddressed, the sidewalks, or the lack thereof.  As you may know, the current Ludington sidewalk policy already mandates that sidewalks are to be constructed within a year of when a new principal structure is built on a city lot.  

My first request back then was to inspect the building permit database records that I presumed the city to have, or at least a summary of the building permits that the building inspector used to issue to this council each year about this time.  I was going to use the information on my fledgling website, The Ludington Torch, to show that the City of Ludington was failing to enforce the ordinance.

At that time, I was given a response by John Shay that asked me to pay nearly $1000 for this inspection of records with no explanation at all given as to what the cost was for.   I later learned that the money was primarily for 40 hours of the Building Inspector's time, since three years of the building permit summaries had been lost, and he figured I had forty hours of looking at records aided by him.  I couldn't get any of the information without spending about $800, so I gave up on it, eventually finding that data through assessing records available on-line.

In 2009,  I  pointed out the reality that many of the new buildings that have went up since the 1980s lacked the required sidewalks installed.  A short list of notable properties that went up without installing sidewalks include:  The Ludington Pediatrics building, the Duna USA building, the Rite-Aid building, the UPS Building, Washington Woods, Western Land Services Buildings, Safe Harbor Credit Union, Councilor Holman's Sherman Oaks Apts., and the City of Ludington DPW building. 

What was it that hindered these businesses and apartment buildings from putting in sidewalks when there was a local law that said they must absolutely do so?  What prevented them from making pedestrian facilities was that the city didn't enforce the law, even though through most of that time they had a full time building inspector and assessor. 

So now that we have less personnel around is our code enforcement practices as regards mandating sidewalks going to change?  Are the people who put up new principal structures in lots who didn't ever install sidewalks as per the current law ever going to get called on it and install sidewalks?  Is our code enforcement team and sidewalk contractors going to be able to keep up with the hundreds of properties that change hands each year, and the significant number of those properties that will either need sidewalk installation or repair?

I personally believe this sidewalk policy is a great step in the right direction, but it will only be effective if city hall fairly enforces it, puts more of the budget towards it, and also takes action to correct what it has overlooked in the past.  If this can happen, it will be the best thing I've seen the city council do since that year 2009. 

Of course, if the city council takes the recommendation to grant the FOIA appeal as the FOIA Coordinator recommends, it will be the best thing I've personally seen this council do since 2009 as of today, and a first for this council with my administrative FOIA appeals, and long overdue.  Thank you."

[AQUAMAN]

It just occurred to me that Chief Barney may have a good excuse for missing this meeting. Maybe he was quickly going thru the LPD policies he now has to give to the FOIA requester that was granted at this meeting. Maybe he's making sure parts of it get redacted, or somehow pages come up missing? It would seem to me though, that the written policies would not be offensive or illegal to the public. I think a lot of the policy comes directly from the Chief's mouth, invisible to the public. Therefore certain procedures would only be known to the LPD as to what they can do, and what is expected, if you want to instill fear and an iron fist regime when it comes to arresting locals. These petty sidewalk issues distract attention from other key issues still unanswered also: like the water tower paintings, Wilson's over-billings for legal services, Wanda's sudden departure/resignation, Shay's repeated perjuries under oath, Nicky's sign business dealings with the DDA for unfair contracts, Heather's intentional conflict's of interest at the DDA, appointing an illegal city council member against the city charter rules, not legally and timely posting meetings on bulletin boards and the newspaper, settling LPD lawsuits behind closed doors, and so much more that the Torch has exposed over the last 5 years. I also noted that CC Kathy prompted the appointment of Jen Toomen to a board, also the person whom provided the city calendars. Just a coincidence, or another planned move with a hidden agenda? Should be obvious, another crony to fit the profile, and agendas for the future.

[Willy]

All good points Aquaman.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks Willy. I guess I may have also missed one more small but questionable point, that of Holman's absence the last meeting. I guess she took a vacation to San Antonio, Tx.. That's okay, except she also made mention that their large city council does their committee meetings during the council hearings. That sometimes keeps the councilman working till the wee hours of the morning, which Holman noted Ludington does not, and she thanked goodness for that. Hey, maybe that's a good idea. Instead of these council people hiding in committee meetings seldom if ever known to the public to attend, and making fixed agenda decisions behind the publics' back, maybe they should also follow suit with Tx.. At least we would know and be able to participate in these back room decisions. And it might infuse some more work on behalf of the councilmen, you know, like really working on important issues. Like the ones they never have any time for, DPW wastewater plant comes to mind first, then the sewers and streets. This way important votes on matters during the regular council meeting wouldn't come as such a surprise to the public when they hammer it down.

[XLFD]

At the previous meeting, Chief Barnett met up with me after the camera stopped rolling and we had a three minute discussion, and I talked about this in the previous recap of that meeting (seen in Ignorance wins the day).  Perhaps, he took some of it to heart and decided not to be at a meeting where his 'finely hewn policies' were okayed to be released, since you can surely believe he was against their release from the get-go.  I have received those policies, will release them shortly, and hope that our learned readers can spot what is the 'forbidden to the public' aspect' of these policy records, if there actually is anything. 

A public-minded municipality should reserve committees to only very limited special circumstances, where the public has the right to know of, receive information of, and participate in the non-binding discussions at those committees.  They should make an effort putting such info on their website presence at the least. 

[AQUAMAN]

So, where in fact are the committee meetings published these days? Is it on the COL bulletin board? In the LDN? The new COL calendars? Are they at a regular established time and place? Currently, I have no idea, unless I take the time to ask someone at city hall, and maybe that's not always a best source. It would seem to me anyhow, that if they are meeting to make drastic changes to the city charter, at least those meetings should be clearly identifiable at some locale.