Permits? Permits? We don't need no stinkin' Permits.

See they filled in the marshy areas by the splash pad. 

Maybe the permit for this was piggybacked with the discharge permit.

Views: 187

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's funny, shinblind!
I wondered how they got away with that. If the city didn't need a permit to create the mess at the waterfront, they shouldn't need one to fix it up, should they?  But if a private contractor or an individual tried to change wetlands, they'd be fined big time.

That's an old clandestine contractor trick, quick, hurry up and fill it in when no one's looking when the leaves are falling and hope the snow falls soon. Hear we are to have a warming trend next week.

I saw that last night, shinblind, there hasn't been anything discussed (even in committee) about knocking down the wetland they made earlier in their construction.  Wish I knew who did this and under whose authority they did it.  I will get a pic later unless Willy beats me to it.

I saw City of Ludington dumptrucks hauling loads of dirt maybe Wednesday, it was. Then the rubber tire loader must have smoothed it out. I have to say it looks better than the mess they left. Those stink ponds created next to the play equipment were probably dangerous drowning spots besides being scum-filled. And now they can mow it when grass grows. I can imagine that the city will get away with it because they expended so much money on the splash pad without permits to discharge and destroy wetlands, now what could the DNR do? Besides a penalty to teach them not to do it again? The city will claim "the high water caused the ponds and scum" which isn't true. The contractor dumped a bunch of dirt in the middle of wetlands and didnt provide proper drainage, it appears.

The city didn't want to listen to the people who knew better on the location, it being wetlands, not good pedestrian access due to a hill and busy boat traffic with no sidewalk, geese, taking away fishing location, etc. The CDD being on the splashpad committee didn't want to engage the public or listen to public comments. The splashpad committee did just what they wanted to do in private committees, and the taxpayer ends up cleaning up the mess and picking up the bill forever. The CDD lied on the applications, twisted facts, and should be reprimanded for such unethical actions.

Great points.  Thanks for that additional information, Du, I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't Hardman Construction, whose owners are on the Splash Pad Committee, fixing what they failed at the first time.  It would be nice to know whether the sandbagged drain in that area ending at the lake is still operational.

Maybe Hardman Construction wasn't foolish enough to fill in a marshy area without the proper permits being issued.

Shinblind, I added a couple of pics to your original post to illustrate the issue and deleted your sentence:  "sorry, no pics."  

Also an FYI for those not paying much attention:  there was no discharge permit and it will cost over $100,000 to fix that deficiency.  This wouldn't have been an issue at most of the alternate sites that were mentioned.  This is what happens when you let a small unaccountable, unelected group (many without an appreciation of our true local legacies) decide public policy and take shortcuts w/o bothering to consult with the taxpayers.,9429,7-135-3313_3687-10801--,00.html

Above is a link to the permits required to "operate any use ..." in wetlands. I wonder if that permit was necessary by COL?  Perhaps a permit was obtained to dump, does anyone know for sure it wasn't?  The expenditures would be within the CM $15k expenditure would it not (the recent use of city dump trucks and loader equipment and city personnel) and maybe that's why it didn't appear in committee notes?  There are a lot of DPW activities that are done that done appear in committee notes, aren't there?  Just asking?  I'm wondering if they had excessive dirt from downtown project or somewhere and just brought it to dump at the splash pad?

Good pictures, X. I wonder how lenient the DNR is when it comes to repairing waterfront that had been destroyed by the past few years high water?

Another article explaining permits needed for construction activities along Michigan shorelines.

I found out what they were trying to hide. It seems that nobody wanted to buy their fund raising products.


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service