Ludington City Council Meeting 8-11-2014: Lights, Cameras, Action

[XLFD]

The Ludington City Council had a busy agenda for August, with two public hearings scheduled for a tax abatement and a sidewalk repair assessment, three communications from the Downtown Ludington Board (the DDA) regarding special events and their corresponding liquor licenses, the first reading of a sweeping fireworks ordinance, and a spare resolution for allowing MDOT to foot the costs on projects involving US 10 and M-116.  

 

I had learned earlier in the day that the city had settled the sidewalk problem with the owners of 505/507 East Ludington Avenue, one of whom talked of another topic during the public comment section.  The City was prepared to charge the owners nearly $3000 for the $4000 it would take for Spuller Concrete to repair the sidewalk, plus charge them $250 for the inconvenience of having this special assessment.  

 

But the homeowners were not without recourse, they had been in discussion with City Manager Shay and his minions over the last couple of years on the topic, and to their credit, they held their ground over what the law (the Ludington city code and charter) stated.  It clearly states that outside of the downtown area specifically delineated in the code, that homeowners are only responsible for installing and replacing five foot wide sidewalks. 

 

The City realized in the eleventh hour that the owners were not going to blink, and so they effectively conceded the point.  This is what should have happened long ago before they tried to reinterpret the statutes, but it is beneficial to all that they did agree to drop what could have went to costly litigation.  And the homeowners, instead of having to pay out about $3200 are now only going to pay around $1200.  The citizens saved many thousands in attorney costs from our city leaders defending what would have been a losing cause, while they could've used that money and effort to put in more sidewalks where they've neglected to, even though the city code demands it.

 

As far as business was concerned everything passed by vote with minimal discussion (two of the more vocal council members were absent (Councilors Marrison and Winczewski) , and the fireworks ordinance had its first reading (please let the councilors know over the course of these next two weeks how you feel about it as a remedy), and about the only thing the officials addressed at the end was for the City Attorney to declare a sparkler as not being consumer fireworks, and for Councilor Castonia to hope that the DLB and DDA can settle on just one name for itself to avoid confusion.  So the meat of the night was in the public comments, which started with a state legislator getting ready for November.

 

In the video below, Representative Ray Franz gave an update on Michigan's and Detroit's progress over the last few years, remarkably coinciding with his tenure in the Michigan congress.  Franz is probably a better alternative than his Democrat opponent, but I hope that he gets challenged in the next primary by some Republican more in line with the Justin Amash wing of the party.

 

At 5:55 in Nancy Mustaikis of 507 E Ludington Avenue (where have I heard that address before) wonders about the tent sign ordinance and whether it has been changed due to her offering free wood at one of her residences, and warned them of a sprinkler system.

 

At 7:25 in, C. Dale Bannon wondered about the contract between the Jaycees and the City regarding the mini-golf course, the president of the Ludington Area Jaycees, then got up and alleviated the fears expressed and thank the City leaders repeatedly.

 

At 10:25 in, I got up to the mike and talked about three topics:  the fireworks ordinance, reserve officers, and bathroom cameras.  I never got to the punch line of the last topic due to time constraints, so I leave off at where I stopped, and will revisit the topic at next meeting.  The first part of my speech is in blue in this thread, regarding the fireworks ordinance, and the rest of what I said is printed under the video.

 

At 15:40 in, Karen Nielsen, the most vocal victim of fireworks in her neighborhood, first thanked the City Clerk Debra Luskin and the City Sexton for her help in locating a family plot and title transfer.  Then she noted how someone in the neighborhood was still lighting off fireworks after 10 PM at night just for spite of the current law and to be an annoyance to the neighborhood.  She's not totally comfortable with it, but now, she believes a 24 hour ban on fireworks will have more effect than a 12 hour ban.  This unreasonable ban is likely to get the neighbors fired up more.  This is a remedy based on tyranny, not common sense, which says that enforcement or diplomacy is in order, remedies that will be harder to apply if this ordinance passes.

Later on, I also had a chance to speak some about the House of Flavors tax abatement, but I will cover that in another thread.  You will note that Sergeant Mayor Ryan Cox still believes he is entitled to both his Ludington police and mayor job simultaneously and that LPD Chief Mark Barnett believes he can lie to the state police about removing video cameras from bathrooms, by their inability to address the issues.  COLDNews writer Kevin Braciszeski left those topics untouched in his recap of the night.

 

 

August 11, 2014 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

"... This city council is showing by this example how prone to tyranny it actually is. 

 

I also want to point out to the mayor and the police chief that Michigan Police Reserve Officers are in the news once again.  A village of 300 people near Saginaw called Oakley is serviced by 100 reserve officers, many of whom do not even live anywhere near the town.  Many controversies are involved there, but the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) along with the Michigan Attorney General is investigating the mysterious program led by a chief that has previously avoided letting the public know anything about his program.

 

In Barry Township near Hastings, the police chief resigned under fire by inappropriate actions of his personal force of 34 reserve officers on members of this 4000 person community.  The force was recently disbanded by order of the town board when enough complaints were registered, and the city's liability insurance dropped their coverage, as it did in Oakley as well. 

 

In Ludington, we have a reserve officer program that operates in secrecy, without any standards or rules for them adopted by the state or this governing body known as the Ludington city council.  Our mayor, sworn into office this year, was promoted to reserve officer sergeant at the same time, just two years after being sworn into office as a reserve officer.  His two roles are incompatible by almost any standard, other than our city attorney's, the conflicts of interest are apparent to everyone, but few have the nerve to point it out publicly, particularly this mayor and this council. 

 

I call for you, Mayor Cox, to make a decision on whether you want to serve as mayor or as a reserve officer, because you should not be serving as both.  Nor should you implicitly agree that the program is consistent with the laws of this country, state or city, laws that you have sworn to uphold and now are willing to trample over. 

 

Lastly, I want to comment on a problem I brought to this council about a year ago, about the existence of recording cameras in the waterfront park bathrooms.  I offer the Michigan State Police Report on that very subject last August, where they investigated my original complaint.  Chief Barnett advises the investigating officer that the two visible cameras in the bathrooms were dummy cameras, and that the two cameras hidden in the vents had been "installed so long ago and the equipment was in such repair that he was going to have these units permanently removed from the restroom."  One year later they are still there.  Shame on you, Chief Barnett, for lying to the state police.

Earlier in the report he said that the central recording unit for these covert..."

[AQUAMAN]

You know, there should be an exemption every once in a while for public comments to be extended for special comments.I know there is for positive comments, but not for"ANY NEGATIVE Comment"! Swell, that just encourages the Cronyisms! Esp. to continue into the abyss on "Crooked Deals and Actions", at least imho. This should end imho, It MUST END! Else we taxpayers are doomed!  And made "fools of"!!!

[XLFD]

It should strike anyone looking in as odd that Police Chief Mark Barnett told Michigan State Police Lt. Kevin Leavitt that he would be taking down his functional bathroom cameras pointed to view inside the stalls and hidden in the air vents one year ago, and he has still not taken them down.  Is his department really that titillated by watching people defecate?

The officials are free at the end of the meeting to offer negative comments directed towards the public commenters who are critical of their public policy or actions of their officers.  Without having to worry about refutation and without time limit.  That's fairness in their minds. 

[AQUAMAN]

I know one township for instance, Hamlin, has a final rebuttal comment opportunity at the end of the regular business. I think that's more fair and balanced. Balance is something that brings equality and fairness into the equation. I don't see that at city hall anymore. Just a distorted view from one side winning at all costs. 

[Willy]

Barnett said he would remove the cameras but he did not state when so they may be up there until they turn to dust and unless there was an actual order in writing to remove them I'm sure they will stay there. Barnett like the other overlords of the City do not like being told what to do especially by Government agencies that are over their heads.

[XLFD]

The problem was that according to the report, Chief Barnett stated during the investigation that he would be removing the cameras-- without any sort of provocation by the MSP.  You are correct in that he did not leave a timetable, but maybe he needs to be nagged until he does, or recants his words. 

[AQUAMAN]

Removing those cameras would probably, in their minds, show some weakness or fault. Having said that, and knowing all too well it's true, we probably won't see those cameras removed until Hell freezes over.