Ludington City Council Meeting October 26, 2015: Season of the RIP

[XLFD]

The meeting of October 26, 2015 will be known in Ludington history for the passage of the controversial Rental Inspection Ordinance (RIO).  In tenor it was much like the film Halloween 3:  Season of the Witch, by John Carpenter, complete with the unleashing of a great terror on the populace. 

If you don't recall the movie, a business creates some well-crafted cheap Halloween masks that it markets successfully across the country.  A doctor gets drawn into a mystery which takes him to the town where the masks are made.  He finds that the masks are infused with some druidic black magic that would effectively reduce the children within it to a pile of insects and vermin when activated (by hypnotic music and video) during the company's well advertised Big Giveaway airing on all networks on Halloween night.  The doctor escapes and vanquishes the foes with a trick of his own, but is not ultimately successful in getting all of the networks to take the program off the air.  The film ends with the actualization that millions of kids turned into worm food because one of the three networks running the special would not stop the program.

"Stop it, stop it now.  Turn it off.  Stop it.  Stop it!  STOP IT!  STOP IT!!  STOP IT!!!  STOPPPP IIIIITT!"

Those who spoke during the public comment at this meeting invariably spoke the same of the Ludington RIO, but used much better arguments.  In the end, two of the networks decided it was not for them, but five decided it was. 

The director of this Halloween show in Ludington was also named John, a carpenter dealing with words not woods; and even though all other movies in the Halloween series featured a sinister character named Michael (Myers), ours featured another Michael with his own diabolic ideas, a councilor representing the rental-heavy Fourth Ward, who is in office for over a year without one vote from anyone in that ward.

The Other Issues

The meeting did have other things happening, such as the public hearing for the one building OPRA district at 201 Second Street, a quite interesting public hearing featuring Edgar Struble and a couple of other guys as noted and updated in this article:  The Gamblers of Ludington.  The resolution was passed unanimously to okay the district.

The next thing brought up was a presentation on other housing initiatives, which was interesting enough to look at in a separate article:  Where you are the Target!

Councilors Winczewski and Krauch offered their high praises to Mrs. Tykoski, and not surprisingly, Krauch admits to conferring with the CDD often.  They then sent a public hearing for a MSHDA grant to be held at the next meeting, not surprisingly there is no mention of the MSHDA grant or anything else presented by her in the councilor's packet nor is there any reference on the city's website.  Once again,the scope and contents of this grant are kept from the people before the public hearing in a very non-transparent city hall. 

The rest of the general business was non-controversial approval of a couple of liquor licenses, the first for a replacement business for the area where Le Serving Spoon is at and the other was inside the Best Choice Market, which wanted extra facilities for serving alcohol.  Two more places to get toasted in Ludington, you can even recork your bottle at the latter, and we learn that there is almost limitless capacity for liquor licenses in downtown Ludington.  I count at least four new businesses engaged in the selling of alcohol in the downtown over the last year, perhaps we will get saturated at some point. 

The Blu-Moon received another special allowance for their business regarding string lights.  Funny, before the new lighting system was put in, darkness wasn't an issue.  It passed unanimously.

The last official action they had was to decide my latest FOIA appeal due to a denial of a recent request.  It was for a payroll record of the LPD back in March.  I was sent back a response with the LPD's SSCENT (narcotics multi-jurisdictional task force) officer's name and hours worked blacked out.  Their reason:

It's remarkably funny that if one saw the original payroll record, they could not discern that LPD Officer David Krause was on the SSCENT team and working undercover, but since they crossed it off and indicated he was doing so, they confirmed it.  I have gotten past police payroll reports from the LPD and had everyone's name available, even the SSCENT task force member.  Their denial led by Holman's call to action ("so moved!") will make another easily winnable court case with punitive damages if I decide to pursue it, particularly since I will be getting this record in discovery for my current case where the redaction will not be there. 

For a complete review of this FOIA appeal take a look at p 108+ of the packet.  They want to get into your private house, but do not want to release non-exempt public information which belongs to you and everyone else.  How resilient is that?  Continuing their pattern of transparency, they went into closed lesson to look over an attorney's written opinion regarding something dealing with a grievance by the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police).  The nature of that grievance has been also kept from the public.

The Rental Inspection Ordinance

By the time the vote for rental inspections came up, many people had spoken.  Two councilors (Krauch and Winczewski) told everybody that there was a lot of listening and a lot of changes in the ordinance and how it would be so good, albeit the public's opinions. 

Castonia chided the public again for their passion and strident beliefs.  Johnson said he would like to see it worked on a little more, yet indicated he would want something that is effectively like it.  The others remained quiet, including the usually outspoken Holman who wound up being the only other councilor than Johnson to vote against it.

What may have been lost is the voice of the commenters that night, but here is a brief synopsis of their words along with the time in the video where the comments were made and their profession:

October 26, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Doug Shoup (2:15):  realtor, portrayed RIO as using a shotgun to swat a fly, unfair taxing, invasions of rights

Edgar Struble (6:10):  landlord/homeowner, variety of issues, including suggesting a Yelp-type website for tenants to complain about the problems rather than have it mandated for all,  

Steven Von Pfahl (9:25):  landlord/homeowner, defined 'listening' and asked whether the officials were doing so, used the 'lie', 'discrimination' and 'arrogance' word for them, and brought up the latest court ruling.  A train track analogy ensued (some applause issued, even when Mayor Cox made a point to withhold clapping).

Melissa Reed (12:40):  landlady, noted ordinance has serious flaws, urged to go back to committee and get stakeholders input.

Chuck Sobanski (14:15):  landlord/homeowner, explained some blight in the 4th Ward and how the City hasn't been able to do anything about it for years, asked how they can enforce new ones.  Urged the councilors to vote their conscience.

Frank Sagan (18:05):  homeowner, gave a long talk, he even went over time, about the wishy washy nature of jobs in Ludington and how the city does not enforce their codes and allows inferior contracting work.  A little off topic, but did explain how the city leadership is messing up its own housing and added how this RIO would not help.

Me (24:10): resident, detailed in full below.

Heather Catron (29:15) moved to Ludington in 2012, former landlord in Adrian, current President of the Ludington Jaycees.  Said it wasn't that big of a deal in Adrian, saying it was imposed after a kid was killed in a fire.  The Toledo Blade reported in 2001 that Adrian landlords had a lot of problems with it; the City of Adrian website mentions no child killed in a fire as inspiring the passage of the ordinance.  Internet records are notoriously incomplete before 2001, but the only death in Adrian of a child was an infant who died in an apartment fire that happened in 1990, as a result of several other kids playing with matches.  A rental inspection wouldn't have helped.  If you vaguely remember Heather's name, recall she went to the city leaders for the Jaycees (a private organization) to get public funds to improve the beach mini-golf course as I pointed out in March.  One could say that this was her payback, couched in generalities and half-truths.  The appointed officials in the audience liked her comments, nonetheless.

Aiden Schrader (30:15) tenant, concerned of rent, taking time off work, and the effect it will have on his friends and family who rent.  Very persuasive to me.

Mary Lynn Leavitt (31:45)  manager of Sherman Oaks, worried about relatives of others who live in Sherman Oaks, had petitions signed by over 100 tenants from her property, desired more people at the table to fix the RIO so it wasn't just a further burden on the properties.

Marcia Bonnville (35:00) landlord/homeowner echoed the court ruling in Ohio and the implications.

Pat Patterson (35:45) landlord, invested in Ludington for long term investment, expressed how the money issue affects him.

Tom Tyron (38:00) landlord/homeowner reiterated his position asked for questions as a bit of levity.

Linda O'Brien (38:45) landlord/homeowner urged it to be sent back, mentioned the hikes in Manistee's RI taxes, and the negative effect it will have on the rental housing stock in Ludington.

Vicki Heineman (39:45) homeowner/property manager stated RIO isn't perfect but a good start.

Bill Stechschulte (41:15) homeowner/landlord noted Vicki failed to mention the rental status of distressed properties, noted that taxes triple when he fixes his properties up.

Lyla McClellan (43:35) homeowner and extremely supportive of city, as well she should be since she was appointed illegally on the Board of Ethics, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the ... at the same time (see this ordinance and this ordinance ).  She mentions neither, but offers support for the RIO. (surprise).

Lastly Frank Sagan got up once again to continue his earlier grievance, but was shot down by the mayor.  Good try, Frank, but only people that stick up for the City get that privilege.

My comment in its entirety.

XLFD:  "Trick or treat?  This question of the season is very appropriate when the issue of rental inspections come up because they explain the two viewpoints that have arisen since the issue became public in June. 

Public officials seem to view it as a treat; according to those who push for its passage, this ordinance will cost very little, but do very much.  They say we will either vanquish or reform the slumlords, make safe and secure apartments for our tenants, make blighted areas attractive to developers, allow us to be eligible for grants, significantly raise property values without raising rents-- generally be a panacea for all that ails our town's housing stock. 

But when you ask our city attorney, who drafted this ordinance and patterned it after Manistee's rental inspections, how this 15 year old program drafted by his law firm has worked for that city, he offers no comment.  Probably because it has been an abject failure which has cost the city plenty until inspections were contracted to a private company, a company which could send almost anyone into an apartment to inspect. 

As a Manistee tenant, would you feel secure with a complete stranger coming into your apartment looking around, noting your security, your valuables, your daughter?  This and boarded up rental houses is the legacy of rental inspections in Manistee which is more like ground up glass in an apple rather than a treat.

The public has yet to hear a bad word regarding the general idea of rental inspection from their representatives.   No less than six anecdotes about execrable rental living conditions have been uttered by our officials without a name or address mentioned in any, as if they want to protect the slumlords they wish to portray so negatively and eliminate. 

I learned via FOIA that there were no specific complaints reviewed by the city committee in forging this ordinance which was odd, since two of the officials making anecdotes were on that committee.  Surprising to me, besides these vague and unspecific anecdotes by our officials, is that there has been no public charge of impropriety against any Ludington landlord in the five months this has been an issue.  Shouldn't this be a treat in itself?  But this council looks on this fact as it would at stale candy corn.

 

The treat our officials hope for this Halloween are increased property values, increased eligibility for grant money, increased new development, but the fifteen year old Petri Dish called Manistee and other city's like Detroit, shows us that these are as immaterial as ghosts.

The public-- landlords, tenants, and others like myself-- have reviewed the ordinance and have almost unanimously came to the same conclusion that this is a trick.  They have seen two planning officials come before this forum and unethically declare their support without stating that they are city officials and an integral part of this ordinance.  These have been the only people among dozens since June that have come before you to explain why this is a poorly timed and poorly crafted ordinance, that definitely goes against both state and federal civil rights protections.

Our attorney further tricks us by claiming this as a fee not a tax, when the ordinance as written, clearly fails part three of the Bolt fee test.  Landlords and tenants cannot refuse inspections without significant penalties.  He further opines that the Ludington Property Maintenance Code is legally in force, when it is not referenced at all in our city code or charter other than in a fully repealed section.  Council minutes reflect this, judge his opinion for what it's worth.

The city manager tricked us in June by saying the $105 per unit inspected was the place where the city would break even, before coming back and telling us later that $65 per unit for the same service would suffice.  I would rather the city tax the landlords $105, for why should non-landlords subsidize these needless inspections for the amount we were told it would originally cost?

Look above the pipe dreams of your appointed officials telling you that this ordinance is a treat, believe what has happened and not happened in other cities with rental inspections, believe what you have heard all along from your constituents.  This ordinance will let the air out of Ludington's tires, TP the trees of our small business owners, and [Interrupted by the Mayor calling time] wax the windows of our tenants.

Ludington citizens do not want tricks; treat us by driving a stake through this ordinance."

[XLFD]

And the recalls should be pursued, with the realization that the councilors and their mouthpieces in the local press (both the COLDNews and their offspring, the MCP) will declare it 'sour grapes' actions by landlords, without even looking closer at the people rising in opposition with their Torches and Pitchforks in hand. 

Neither Barry or I or several other tenants that came forth are landlords in Ludington, but the city and their media friends will label it a landlord insurrection.  A petition of over 100 tenants at Sherman Oaks?  Undoubtedly, a landlord-designed conspiracy, they will say, because no tenant could find anything wrong with this. 

In case you may have overlooked it, during the time they began trotting this out this summer, city official Kathy MacLean applied for façade grants and said under penalty of perjury that she was not a city official and the four rental units she created and had received $140,000 from MSHDA to create for low-rental housing in 2011, that needed to be used for rental housing until 2016, were not being used as rental units.  No official wants to comment on that.  State law requires those units to be either used as rentals or marketed as rentals for the first five years after receiving the grants.

The agency she is treasurer for (the Ludington DDA) also was supposed to have approved $1000 for the façade architecture drawings, but nothing in their records indicated they officially did that, meaning Kathy approved this $1000 expenditure of public funds at the executive level which is high on the scale of ethical lapses.  Faced with those shortcomings, city hall stood mute. 

[AQUAMAN]

Well said X, and you are the catapult for uncovering that important information, perjury, and fraud by our own city manager and DDA treasurer. After those two sweated out that cc mtg. of exposure to their unethical and illegal behaviors, the subject never got a follow-up by the city officials. Wonder why? Yup, caught in the act, red handed, and still are hiding in shame without any comment to counter the investigation. You would have thought at least Wilson would have countered with some flimsy interpretation of law to cover them, but, I didn't hear that. And what about the city council members, they also witnessed all this, and have not made any rebuttal, cause, they know it's true and sound accusations.