Ludington City Council Meeting June 9, 2014: Blight and Fright

[XLFD]

The June Ninth meeting of the Ludington City Council had two citizens using the full extent of their five minute public comment to criticize the city's current policies, couched around a meek introduction by David Glancy to let everyone know that he's running for the 51st Circuit Court Judge. 

 

But there were a few things taking place at the meeting, the first of which created the most controversy among the councilors for the night, and led to a rare 4-3 vote in favor (Holman, Marrison, and Castonia against).  The issue (15:30 in on the video below) revolved around using the lighthouse breakwall as part of one of Ludington's 5K runs.  The point was well-taken; featuring people running both ways down and up the narrow breakwall while regular foot traffic was also allowed, has a degree of being unsafe.   In the end, the run sponsored by the Zie Group (featuring Hoffer Barry Neal) will be run on the pier.  They also approved changes to the Lakestride's Fun Run route.

 

They introduced the usual package of three millage levies and rate setting ordinances.  You may ask them why they always have this each summer, and they will likely tell you that they have to.  No they don't.  This is done each summer (since the Manistee lawyers came to town and introduced it as a legal way to avoid potential Headlee rollbacks), and is necessary only if your city councilors want to raise your taxes when they are automatically dropped due to Headlee because your property dropped in value but were over-assessed.  This was helpful to the greedy councilors during the recession in 2009 and 2010, where people were losing much of the value of their homes, but thanks to the council, they still were paying the old rate on the city's inflated assessed values. 

 

They agreed to the change of zoning for Bob Neal's waterfront properties on Loomis across from the city marina (introduced at the previous meeting, this reduced side variances to city norms), had Carr Communications replace Charter for had the first reading of a real estate deal at 420 S. James (more on this later) which they will vote about on June 23 at the next meeting.   

 

One other thing they did was approve a resolution required for a special liquor license for a late night Garden Party in the North James Street Plaza area on July 11 after 9:00 PM.  There was some discussion, thanks to Councilor Marrison bringing the issue up that the nearby church had actively refused to condone the party (starting at 19:30 in).  Shay says that the church in question was reluctant for any drinking events in the area, and says that there is a bar next to the church (untrue, as Councilor Marrison points out the church is due north and  is next to the City of Ludington Daily News, which only constantly lowers the bar), this dissenting church is about 200 ft. to the north, and may actually fall in the shadows of the pavilions raised for this party.

 

 

 

Shay also states that these were the only two churches within the range of 500 ft. of the event (also untrue).  A map was not included in the packet, but traditionally the southern fence that surrounds the event has been placed stretches from the storefront of 102 W Ludington (The Cedar Chest) and Snyder's Shoes.  This makes it just within 500 ft. of the Greater Life Church at 208 S James, and about 470 ft. from the People's Church at 115 W Loomis Street.  The method of determining distance is found here, and clearly shows the two will be within that radius if the fence line is how it has been:  MCL 436.1503.  The yellow lines are 500 ft. long in the accompanying diagram, the orange line denotes the property lines for both southern churches.

 

 

John Shay does intimate that there is still a possibility that the Liquor Control Commission (LCC) will grant them the special permit, but the LCC needs to figure that out at a meeting, which likely won't happen in that time.   Shame on you guys for even considering that, particularly when you are unfairly competing with our private bars and taverns downtown that night, using taxpayer money to fund your purchase of alcoholic beverages. 

 

If you missed the volatile letter to the editor about blight that Bill Summerfield sent to the COLDNews last week, he assertively put it out this night with even more emphasis at 2:00 in.  I was impressed that he did not fear to mention the blight existing in the downtown (at the old bowling alley property primarily).  He raises some fine points, and I hope to see him continue a reasonable crusade against blight, but I also think Councilor Winczewski had a sensible reply for now at 39:30 into the video.  Enforcement measures alone will not make the problem go away, there has to be a change in the general mindset, and measures that do not cripple general property owner's rights.  Otherwise, you may see further flight, vacancies, and the accompanying blight that goes with it.

 

David Glancy introduced himself at about 7:40 in as one of the four candidates for circuit court judge.  Here's a link to his website.  Listening to judicial candidates is usually about as exciting as watching grass grow due to their canons of conduct, and this was no exception.

 

At 9:30 in I strode to the podium.  I spent the majority of time commenting on their recent change of meeting time, and how they had only themselves to blame for it, that they should be experiencing shame for it, and that their complacency for wallowing in corruption was a name for it.   I finished by talking about the liquor license, and the continued disregard for the law and for the private bar owners in the downtown. 

 

Besides Wanda Marrison's keying in to the disapproval of the one church, none of the other issues I raised in my five minutes were addressed.   Bullies are cowards at heart when they are confronted by irrefutable facts.  I also had a couple of paragraphs on the 420 S. James property transfer discussed at the end of the meeting by the officials, but was thwarted due to time constraints, but this will be supplemented at the next meeting.

 

 

June 9, 2014 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

"The last city council meeting was originally slated to take place in front of third graders, and I recently found out through a FOIA request that the reason it was moved was due to someone posting a comment on my website, The Ludington Torch which conveyed that this mayor, council and police chief would take violent and criminal actions against the kids during their lifetime.  There was no threat made by the person against the kids in any way, just the intimation that our officials were bad people capable of bad actions.

 

As a public official you people may feel that the post in question was absurd, and that you are only doing things for the greater good of the people, but consider this.  In 2009, a young Ludington man was being driven home by his mother, he had not committed any crime, nor would he actually commit any crime that night.  He was taken down from behind by three police officers right on the street off of Stearn's Park onto the hard pavement, roughed up, tasered repeatedly, and cuffed.  This was caught on dash cam video.  The officers took and erased the man's camera phone footage which seemed to be why they accosted him in the first place.

He was taken to the hospital for the assault by these officers, and while he was handcuffed to the bed he was once again tasered repeatedly when the officers refused to allow him to deny treatment.  He was then confined and ironically, this man who had been blindsided, dropped tasered on the street and while chained to a hospital bed, was charged with five counts of assault on police officers by our county prosecutor, even though the video was available to him.

 

Another case in point; our police go to a house on my street, allegedly entering after being asked for a warrant and ignored.  A young officer who already had two egregious federal police brutality lawsuits against him against people innocent of any crime, settled  in federal court, makes it a third when he pushes an elderly visitor to the ground while her back is to him.  The woman is injured and denied prompt medical treatment, and like the prior man, was innocent of any suspicion of wrongdoing, just brutally assaulted by the unlawful invader of her sister's house.

 

Councilors, both of these lawsuits came to your attention and what did you do?  Did you look into the actions of your fellow officials and publicly call for justice and to discipline the offenders, or did you try to sweep the incidences under the rug by settling the two cases discretely out of the public eye, and herald the fine work of our LPD when they were guilty of such vile, criminal behavior?   Did you ever bother to look at the history of Officer Aaron Sailor and what he had admitted to doing to innocent, unthreatening people in those two previous brutality incidences back when he served on the Pontiac PD?  Where Chief Mark Barnett used to work, and who hired him to work here, irregardless of the brutality baggage. 

Innocent people getting brutalized by our zealous police department and sheriff's office, and this doesn't include a retired teacher  in the Ludington area being shot by the state police without any warning in his own home because his wife used 911 to check whether her phone was working. 

So is it any wonder then that the school superintendent was still going to allow the kids to come to the meeting until after she got word that extra officers would be here, the very officers who have a history, a tradition if you will, of violence inflicted against innocent people in this town, without any repercussions against them other than our city having to pay more of the taxpayers money for liability insurance?  Once she heard that, she decided to have the kids come to the city hall and watch an edited video of the meeting hosted by John Shay.  This was not a positive lesson for how city government works for the kids. 

But before I get stopped for time there are things being considered at this meeting which requires comment before they get acted upon.  The city council is being asked to pass a resolution for a liquor license to be received from the state for a government-sponsored soiree held at the James Street Plaza on July 11.  According to the packet, there is only one OK from the four churches within the 500 ft radius of this party.  This council needs to ignore passing such resolution until they get such confirmation from all four.

 

Plus you need to consider the effect these public-ran parties have on our private bars and taverns.  In the past Councilor Johnson, a downtown merchant, and other public officials made profit from these parties by providing liquor, wine, beer and other amenities being purchased by public funds to sell at mark-ups.  Yet past budgets and DDA records showed no accounting of revenue from selling these at the shindigs.  Sadly, such corruption is permitted by our corrupted leadership. Furthermore, these parties are not in fair competition with the private sector alehouses.  Our bars are not subsidized by the taxpayers and allowed special privileges, your honor."

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for posting these important public agenda meetings again X. Quite a turbulent and extraordinary meeting, not to be copied for a long time since. 4-3 votes just haven't existed since I don't know when! It's NOT what I would expect anymore. Some people MUST be FEELING like real civil servants, asking questions, and not Always Voting Like SHEEPLE! I applaud those with thinking caps on, and hope this real type of democracy to continue. I like what Councilwoman Kathy offers up as a newbie, she's got some socialism issues, but overall, the idea for the Red sounds and looks good on the surface. The question I would have is what the purchase price is of 420 S. James vs. it's true/market value? This particular fact remains a secret during this meeting, so what's the dif.? It could be 10's of thousands into the public coffers that may, be of concern. Why isn't that particular price/sale being presented out in the open right away for view, with her stated invitation for objections at the 6/23/14 meeting? She also had a power point presentation. No questions? The other obvious situation is the run on the breakwall. Wth is the Chief and others thinking??? Tip of the Hat to CC Castonia for his safety concerns that the public NOT be on that wall at the same time. I would hope both esteemed leaders have the courage and wisdom to block that wall off from say, an hour before, and 15 min. or so after the runners have left. This could be another accident waiting to happen, all because that particular issue was NOT considered to begin with. Nip it in the BUD! 

[XLFD]

Maybe we will have two foot waves that day, and they'll block off the pier anyway and make it all a moot point.  People running on the pier are usually frowned on by the beach patrol and others on leisurely walks, but I agree with you Aq, regular foot traffic should be regulated for an hour.

As for 420 N. James, the lot has never been put for sale-- until now, from what I have seen.  If you own your own land you can sell it to whoever you want, when you are brokering a deal for public property as a City manager, it's a little more complicated. 

Do you think it fair that certain people can get such access to deals on public property?  Even if it's non-conforming, the lot is worth a lot more than $5000. 

[MIke]

Why should the city worry? there are plenty of signs that say not for foot traffic and proceed at your own risk.. don't that take them off the hook for injury?  which is also why I cant see them getting away with this, or tickets for jumping off or swimming out of area..To the police I say get your books ready this summer my ass is going to do it all to sho my son the fun we used to be able to have. And if you don't stand fro yourself these people will take everything away from you if they can.

[XLFD]

What isn't really touched upon by the discussion among the councilors is that the lighthouse breakwall isn't even City of Ludington property, so any dangers inherent in running on this structure should be in the purview of the Federal Army Corps of Engineers or their authorized representative, and Barry Neal's Zie Group (operating out of Zeeland) should have gotten permission from them too.

It'd kind of be like someone organizing a run from the City of Cody, Wyoming that went through the geologically active parts of Yellowstone National Park nearby before ending up back in Cody.  The councilors there could talk all they want about how dangerous it was or wasn't, but they have no control over that section of the race, and should as a courtesy note that to the race organizers get that okay from the park service. 

Our city council talks as if they dictate what happens on that federal structure, but they only get what's conveyed to them by the feds.

[MIke]

It is Ludington city property.. if you read sign at beging of breakwall it was given to the city of Ludington. Right by the sign of not for pedestrian traffic and proceed at own risk.

[XLFD]

Mike has a point that the lighthouse was signed over to the City of Ludington in 2006 , however, the breakwater structure in question  is still the property and purview of the federal government:  http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_mhc_shpo_Ludington_Light_fact...

[Willy]

Well done X. Very informative. I think running on the breakwall is a bad idea. The edge of the flat surface gives way to a slanted surface which terminates into a pile of boulders. A fall off or trip from the top of the breakwater would assuredly mean injury to any runner. With crowded conditions on the breakwater the possibility of injury is high.

[AQUAMAN]

"Went to a garden party", sung and recorded by Ricky Nelson, I remember. Wth is this garden party about? And why have it at the James St. Plaza? I mean really? Do Friday nite shoppers really want to deal with a bunch of partying drunks in the middle of the retail district in the next few weeks? Silly idea imho, and proposed by the Mayor was it? Take your kiddie party down to the city park bandshell, or maybe the bandshell at Waterfront Park, or even at the west end of Lud. Ave.. This seems like a bad location all around to me. How are they going to make if safe? Have LPD officers posted all around it like a disaster zone? While shoppers dodge the drunks and LPD trying to shop from retailers? 

[MIke]

Maybe this time the drunks friends wont stop him from fighting like on new years...sorry city your idea your headache when a drunk seriously hurts someone sober who came just to look around and mingle, like I did for new years and almost got in a fight because some drunk.