Ludington Posed to Weed Out More Rights

[XLFD]

Perhaps you live in Ludington and have nothing to fear about the proposed junk ordinance, and look forward to seeing it implemented so that the City of Ludington will have less blight.  After all, it only reduces the period that an inoperative vehicle can be on your property by 60 days to 10 days, and adjusts the definition of 'inoperative' to just about any vehicle that hasn't been utilized in ten days. 

We have seen that Attorney Wilson misrepresents how the law is written and misrepresented what can happen when you violate a municipal civil infraction when describing the new proposal, much like he misrepresented his billing records egregiously for three years without any type of infraction imposed on him.  Of course, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) newspaper for January 10, 2015, allows City Assessor/Code Enforcer Carol Ann Foote to misrepresent what that law says further:

"...The key is whether or not the vehicle is capable of operation, not whether it is in use.  She used an example of a camper used during the summer but then left in the yard during the winter.  If it can run, it isn't regulated by the ordinance...."

But that's not what the ordinance says is the case, as in "not being in use or...".  Her statement is inaccurate, and since she is usually the secretary at the meetings like this, she must know it is an inaccurate statement:

One thing the officials do not do is present the ordinance as it is written to the people; a few in the know can look up the city council packet and find it if they scour this bundle of 50-200 documents that the councilors get such as Dec. 15, 2014 Packet, where you can also find the proposed weed ordinance.  The weed ordinance, unlike the junk ordinance is more odious, as it can conceivably affect every homeowner in the City and be very violative of rights that you currently have, which were respected in the old ordinance. 

The COLDNews lets City Manager John Shay paint the weed ordinance as a big cost saver to the city, saying the city spends $2000 sending certified letters to homeowners, that would be negated with the new change.  According to the January 10, 2015 COLDNews, "The change would allow the city to publish a notice in the local newspaper in March (you may notice this means more money for the COLDNews) announcing that it may cut a property owner's grass if it exceeds 10 inches in height as of May 1 or later.  It would also allow the city to still send notices by regular mail or by hand delivering a notice."

That basically is the memo written by John Shay to the council and which Councilor Winczewski read at the December 15, 2014 meeting. 

After she read the city manager's recommendation verbatim (since he has her kept in line), Councilor Kathy Winczewski then states:  "Most of the people, we, we've met many times over tall grass; tall grass this year was a big issue for a lot of people, we had a lot of rain and it was pretty warm this summer, so tall grass was an issue.  Most people, I would say about 90% of the people that got a notification that their grass was too long, promptly cut their grass.  Ten percent of the people are, are... problem people that don't cut their grass.  Most people cut their grass when it gets too long, so this really may save us some money, and most people cut their grass before it gets to ten inches, I mean, so, yeah.

City Attorney Richard Wilson:  Unless they go on vacation for two weeks (laughter)

A look at the existing law in LCCode Sec. 18 Nuisances-Weeds, has the city's duty to send once, and only once, a certified letter to the homeowner when they are first found in conflict with the ordinance and they have ten days to correct the problem.  The new ordinance allows such a slow process with the certified letter, just like the old, but the City of Ludington can obviate the need for such a notice or a ten day correction period by publishing that notice which a very small percentage of Ludington homeowners will even see.  Here is that section:

The loss of the notice of violation and the loss of the 'grace period' to correct the problem is very significant.  Instead of someone from the city noticing tall grass in your yard, sending you a letter notifying you that you're in violation, and giving you over a week to correct the problem, the City can (provided they published that March notice) come on to your lawn the same day they notice some or all of your grass is over ten inches, cut it, then send you the bill for this service at the end of the day. 

They are not even obligated to provide evidence that your lawn was in violation.  If you live out of town and depend on someone mowing your property, you may not even realize that the City has mowed your lawn repeatedly during the summer until you look at the liens on your tax bill.  What happens when your landscaper tells you otherwise?

Let's use some reasoning.  If the city manager and city councilor/Building & Licensing Chairman Winczewski bring this up as a cost-saving measure, then they are not going to continue sending certified letters to everyone, as this would be more expensive for the City (as they must also put that March notice in the paper).  If they send notification to anyone, then the City of Ludington can be rightly sued by someone who received no such notice, as it would be seen as favoring one property owner over another, and violating the equal protection clause of our State and Federal Constitution.  Ergo, even if the city officials tell us they can still notify via the old method, they are not going to do so due to either increased costs or fear of liability. 

So, in practice, the new ordinance will have the City determine you are in arrears of grass/weed cutting, whip up a weed posse, and come onto your land without notice and cut the nuisance plants, then covertly charge you via a tax lien.  You may never ever figure out that they done so until you find they have placed that lien on your property.  Take a look at the applicable part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Here the State under the guise of the home-ruled City of Ludington, attempts to take your money (property) as penalty for a weed ordinance without any attempt at due process.  They don't even need to tell you that you ever were in violation of any law, it just can show up as a lien.  As we have seen, they built into the ordinance's wording that they may arbitrarily contact you or they may not, which is a constructive violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Too bad we cannot enact liens against city officials who amend established junk and week ordinances into nuisance ordinances more offensive than any inoperative car or ten inch weed you can find. 

As a conclusion, let us note that in the midst of summertime grass can grow up to 2-6 inches with favorable conditions, some weeds are even quicker, and presume that you take the proverbial two week summer vacation after dutifully cutting your grass down to an inch.  Foreseeably within ten days, grass/weeds may grow up to that ten inch high mark, and the City exercises all of it's powers, and mows the grass on the Friday fourteen days after your departure, after noticing the violation on that Wednesday.

Not only will you get charged premium rates for the cutting, including some indefinite charges for administration and overhead, which will show as a lien on your property, the City can directly charge you for three days of violating the ordinance, and invoke the full power of Section 1.7 three times, which could concatenate your penalty for $500 per day ($1500), costs of prosecution, and up to 90 days in jail for each of the three violations (270 days). 

Consider also your Fourth Amendment right "to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."  Your lawn is your real property, that the city council proposes that their agents can trespass upon and violate your right to feel secure in your property's effects. 

What if they cut down some plants you treasured, damaged some of your effects hidden by the tall grass, or the city puts the lien on the wrong property?  Invent your own liability, it has the potential of opening up a can of worms, simply because the City refused to tell you that you were in violation and they would correct it themselves if you didn't in a reasonable amount of time. 

If you are in the camp that still feels that the City of Ludington would never ever put you in jail, charge you with multiple $500 fines etc., then ask yourself : why is it going to be part of the established law then?  Why will Ludington's seven city councilors likely do a unanimous vote on Monday to enact such poorly written legislation as the junk and weed ordinances that goes so clearly against the interests and property of the people in a Draconian attempt to fight blight by blighting rights.

[Willy]

I totally agree Aquaman.

[XLFD]

As I've reported since the Ludington Torch's inception, the Ludington City Council has only been passing ordinances to make them more powerful or wealthier, at the expense of the Ludington taxpayer's rights, property, and finances.  I cant recall any time in John Shays twelve years of city managing where the city offered a tax break, a fee decrease, or an ordinance that expanded or even respected the rights of the citizens.  Meanwhile, they appear to be doing less with the services provided and the infrastructure maintenance they are there for. 

[XLFD]

Both ordinances passed tonight, the tall grass vote was unanimous, and the junk ordinance had one 'no' vote from new, but illegitimate Councilor Krauch.  His line of reasoning involved realizing that moving the period from 60 to 10 days would affect many citizens who live on fixed incomes or live paycheck to paycheck being able to afford dealing with junk in a very quick time.  It was an amazing bit of empathy and logic which I wouldn't expect from a councilor, though it is applicable to many of the people I rub shoulders with. 

[stump]

Wow!, all I can say is Tractor Supply better stock up on Round Up.

[XLFD]

And the City of Ludington better stock up on attorneys if they plan on setting foot on your lawn to cut your grass without proper notification.  Check out the latest thread on the meeting.

[AQUAMAN]

Think about this for a minute: the COL has a lot of routine and special business during the busy tourist season to attend to. Doesn't it make good common sense to use these slack winter months of dormancy to attend to the unfinished business that always gets a backseat to other priorities during the summer? I again come back to the infrastructure issues that are long past in decay and disrepair. City streets, paving, sewers, water mains, and the water treatment plant. I don't see anyone addressing any of these important and critical issues at any meetings of recent, or even in the distant pass, unless there is an emergency situation that arises. Like the Friday night live event last summer when a water main broke right down Ludington Ave. and flooded the activities, until the DPW put a temporary bandaid on the problem for the time being. Temporary fixes are just that, temporary, not permanent. Permanent long term solutions to remedy infrastructure is indeed, way past due. If these council members and the City Manager think otherwise, why are they still holding office as our leaders and doers of old city business? If indeed they think this is not important to the citizenry that is paying for good services, then why not recall them for replacement with individuals that do prioritize them?

[AQUAMAN]

That list of over 300 complaints to the COL, that list, I suggest, should be looked at and scrutinized in more depth imho. Anyone can throw up numbers for the public to see, without names and addresses to match the criteria. I still find it looking and smelling like spoiled fish. I'll just bet that list is very hard to get, or impossible to inspect, as the Shyster Shay doesn't like investigative reporting that may send his statements into suspicion and chaos. Or just pure perjury, as that individual has committed so many times already in the past.

[XLFD]

It's a time consuming process to look through, but approximately one time every month the city provides the code enforcement report in their city council packet (at least since last year), where they provide the numbers of violations by type and then list the individual violations by address.  If you have the time to catalog or print out and scan these, then provide them as a .pdf it would be appreciated.

Go to:  http://ludingtoncitymi.minutesondemand.com/

Go to 'city council', tap, go to 'council agenda packet' tap, go to '2014' tap, then check out the various packets, the enforcement report will be in half of them towards the back of the packet.

[stump]

Just went through June 9th 2014 packet, It was the one for the proposed sale of 420 s.james st property. Interesting that the proposed drawing is about what happened except no truck and no curb cut.

[AQUAMAN]

That "packet" is there for more than one purpose. The first is a general guideline of the upcoming events of the meeting. Other "frills and chills" are for window dressing, like the drawing of 420 S. James. It was supposed to look innocent and harmless to the public and state officials, so there would be no backlash as to it's being approved. Simple strategy of magical peas under the cup being altered to the naked eye.

[XLFD]

For certain people, there'll be peas under every cup, whereas for others there'll be no peas to be found. 

The 420 S James truck for sale is soon to be classified as 'inoperative' under the new junk ordinance.  I'll get a picture of the kid playing around on it to further prove it's an 'attractive nuisance' and drop my complaint off at the city hall.  Of course, I could already tell the code enforcers that selling used cars is not even a special land use in the area that it's zoned for, but then again there's magical peas under every cup for Nathan and Amanda St. Hillaire-Grubich.