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]

This is an extremely sneaky and dangerous set of ordinances. The changes to the inoperable recreational vehicle are so obviously anti-citizens rights it's almost laughable. The words " not being used " is self explanatory. If any recreational vehicle is not being used, for any reason and is stored outside for a period of time exceeding 10 days that vehicle automatically becomes a violation and is subject to the penalties allowed in the ordinance, even if it is brand new. The City attorney and Shay are pulling a fast one on the citizens of Ludington. The City Council and Mayor are ignorant enough of the laws to let themselves be mislead and fooled.

As far as the weeds and grass are concerned the City is under no obligation to send out a certified letter. All that is required of the City is to notify, by regular mail, the taxpayer of record because it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to have their correct and updated address on file with the City assessor and tax offices. As a courtesy the City should notify the occupant of the property [if a building is on the premises] with a written notice also, so there is no need for sending expensive certified notices. In my opinion the notification in a newspaper only would not stand up court since many owners live outside the papers area of coverage.

I think the weed notice ordinance is written in a very amateurish fashion. The word "alternatively" is rarely used in ordinances and laws because  such a word cannot negate court tested words such as "shall" or "will" which are meant to mean "mandatory". A law cannot mandate the conditions then add a "may be" after explaining  what is "mandatory". This law is written with doublespeak.

You know X, the people just don't realize what a service you are providing and without your dedication people would continue to be treated as "fools" by Ludingon's political class.

[XLFD]

If the seven proposed changes to the charter were not enough evidence of the power-hungry nature of this current city government or the foreseeable adoption of a bunch of property-rights incursions into the master plan for 'sustainability and resilience of the community and the mitigation of unique problems of climate change' by LIAA, the changes they have made to these ordinances should be a clarion call to everyone who values their rights, and the proper roll of government as an instrument to see that those rights are preserved.

Your solution to the notification problem is reasonable and cost saving; send a first class letter to the owner as shown on the tax rolls, leave a notice at the property itself, since you presumably have a person there to check the situation so this is no extra cost, and allow ten days for action.  As Councilor Kathy stated, (at least) 90% of the property owners will comply once they get a message.  Those who don't deservedly get the penalty imposed, and notified of the charge immediately.

If the COLDNews or MCP was a little more honest with how the City Council is moving (if they actually read what they're given by the city manager before they print it), the people may not need someone like myself to explain it further, but they blithely print untruths and avoid publishing any news that reflects badly on the City (a recent example, the overbilling scandal that was brought up repeatedly at council, admitted by the city attorney, and acted upon insufficiently by the lawbreaking duo of Shay and Wilson).  

[stump]

The problem is that at the next council meeting there will only be one person that will stand up and object to the ordinance change that will put the screws on many citizens of Ludington. The crime is not the weeds or what they call junk vehicles, it's how it is written. The city can interpret it anyway they seem fit for whatever. Some weeds have flowers. I like flowers don't you? The city won't see it that way. The vehicle ordnance , what a joke. Save money? The city will be paying the Attorney more money for the law suites filled against it for the bull shit ordinance that is so vague about what or when a vehicle or RV is un-operable . Is the city going to have the grass police going around like a meter maid marking tires on the vehicle's / RV's on your property, taking pictures & notes of placement and conditions? I think YES!!!!!!!! they will. I wonder if NO TRESPASSING signs would be in order ?

[Willy]

I believe the courts have already ruled that if a person who represents the local Governmental entity sees a zoning or housing violation an any property they can enter on the property to verify exactly what and how severe the violation is but they cannot go beyond the front yard or enter the building on the property. For violations in the rear and side yards they must view that from the neighboring property with that property owners permission. If the property is posted no trespassing or the owner refuses the representative access then the Government agency must obtain a warrent just to set a foot on the property. If the violation is in clear view from the sidewalk then of course the representative can write up the violation they observed.

[XLFD]

If that's the case, then the city's efforts to fight blight just may wind up with a lot of people putting up "No Trespassing" signs to cover their property lines.  If you can find a link that applies to Michigan law, please post it, Willy

[Willy]

The only thing "no trespassing" signs do is keep them off your property. Most of the time property can be viewed from the sidewalk except when there is a fence then it would be viewable from adjoining properties. I am aware of these things because I have a friend who works for a large Michigan city as an inspector and I have no knowledge of which Michigan laws apply. Some of the zoning and housing laws he has described are very intrusive. Some folks have tried to fight them but they end up in court and as we all know that can be very expensive. 

[Willy]

I forgot to add that if there is an emergency or a dangerous situation that requires immediate attention on a piece of property then a warrant is not needed.

[shinblind]

Lots of questions with this poorly constructed law.

What if you park your boat in your yard and the grass under it grows a foot tall but the rest of the yard in maintained? Will the city stop by, cut this and send you a bill?

What if you have a fenced yard and the weeds on the outside toward the alley grow over 10 inches, will  the city cut this and sent you a bill?

What if you have a chain link fence and the grass in the fence is over 10 inches? Will the city trim the grass and send you a bill?

What about some of the businesses around town where there is a patch of green on the property that gets overgrown? Will the city come in, mow and bill for this?

I am thinking scorched earth policy. Spray RoundUp on your yard, go back to dirt and stay in compliance. 

[XLFD]

Being that the City of Ludington and their contracted landscapers will financially benefit from any sort of incursion onto your property even if it is only to whack a small patch of weeds, you might expect a wide interpretation of the law by those agencies.  Thus your first four scenarios presented just may get you a lien, but of course the boat you mention will need to be garaged or moved out of town anyway by edict of the City's other new ordinance.

If the City decides to go nuts with the new powers, the scorched earth policy may be the way to go to make a statement.

[Willy]

shinblind

Yes the grass under the boat is subject to the ordinance and all the other examples you describe. According to my friend, any grass/weeds that are overgrown are subject to the law and every property owner is responsible for grass and weeds growing in the right of way adjacent to their property and that includes alleys. I'm not sure how Ludington will be handling that but I'm sure they will be doing the same.

[AQUAMAN]

It's a damn shame that the COL powerful, those trite council members and the Mayor, have nothing better to do this winter than to impose more silly ordinances on the citizenry to waste time and money on. Perhaps their time is better spent on what they were elected to do: works projects on the infrastructure of streets, sewers, and water mains that remain in bad disrepair, wherever you look, and even under the streets hidden from view. Even the water treatment plant is in bad disrepair, and they have known this for several years/decades. The only weeds I see that need mowing down is the weeds of common sense neglect growing under the COL council members feet and desks. To the COL: get off your lazy no account brainless butts and do something that resembles ethical and logical conduct, and leave the people alone to sort out their own property matters!!!

[AQUAMAN]

In the recent past, when locals had nuisance grass/weed overgrowth problems, the COL and any other municipality, gave proper notice to that individual landowner of the infraction. This keeps the individual landowner accountable and keeps the issue better isolated to those that have these particular issues to resolve. I now see the COL pursuing these isolated issues with broadened ordinances and powers to achieve the same result. The obvious question is: is it really necessary? Is this a contagiously big problem now in our small town? How many properties are we really talking about as being in non-compliance? I'm thinking that from the reactions of the city council that they must believe it's in epidemic proportions nowadays. Or is it? IF NOT, then why again all this waste of energy and time to pursue this so overwhelmingly and without any real necessity? Like I stated above, the COL should have many more priorities to pursue. They were elected to serve the people, with infrastructure as their main priority, not chasing people out of their private property rights. It's way past time for the COL to do what they were elected to do, and maybe a slew of emails to their respective addresses is in order to curtail this conduct into the future. If not NOW, then WHEN? Haven't we already witnessed the passage of too many silly ordinances already of recent? Methinks so, how bout you guys?