Selective Encroachments

[XLFD]

A Sign of Trouble

 

Last Thursday afternoon, I dropped by my parent's house on my bicycle shortly after I had delivered a few hundred more of my first handout for my upcoming political experiment in running for City Hall.  Right away, I noticed that something was out of place.  My inobtrusive campaign sign had been moved from a couple of feet away from the road, to about fifteen feet more up into the lawn. 

 

I had an idea who might have moved it, but left it alone and went to visit my folks and check my E-mail.  Sure enough, I had a message from the City Clerk who had posted it mere minutes before I logged on.  She related a message from the Code Enforcer, Jerry Welton.

 

I Had Questions

 

The first of which was, "Why was my sign being singled out?"   I had seen campaign, "House for sale", and many other signs planted out within the right-of-way area of City streets (pics later).  The second question was "Where was the mention of right-of-way in the ordinance specified?".  There was none, and when I checked the zoning code, it seemed to support my location as OK.  I fired back this E-mail within a half hour.

 

Whose Property?! 

 

Now, I like City Clerk Luskin a bunch.  Whereas, my past dealing with Jerry after the 2008 flood had to do with him telling me over and over that the City garbage collectors never picked up wood, and me showing him the Ludington Daily News notification that the City had a special pick-up day for paneling and drywall prepared properly.  And a definition [PANELING: panels joined in a continuous surface; especially : decorative wood panels so joined], not unique to my dictionary of choice, which I had brought along to City Hall.  Jerry is one of many of our local City Hallers who believes they are right, solely because of their position.  But he's a nice guy as long as you agree with him.  Here's what I got back: 

Right-of-Way the Right Way

 

"The right of way is the city's property."  No, that couldn't be right.  I remember the initial property decription of this place I helped my parents decide on and it had it's dimensions go to the center of the streets.  I confirmed this on the City's property searches inside the Assessors section of the City website where it had the land go up to the streets.    I had no problems with the notification policy of the City, but had to protect my parent's property rights to the one who tried to take them away:

 

 

In Closing...

 

The next morning on Friday, I took a quick road trip parallelling Ludington Avenue with my camera in hand.  I took a picture of several signs, one within a block of my folks, that were in the ROW.  After a couple hundred more handouts were given out, I dropped by my parent's house just after noon, and found no replies to my previous E-mail.  I moved my sign even closer to the street, and wrote this to the Code Enforcer, my attorney, and the clerk:

 

This

 

Not this:

 

My attorney cautioned me that some cities of size actually do own that part of the property, but that in rural areas, it almost always is the landowners. 

But the lesson here is that the City of Ludington (and likely most other city governments) has little regard for the rights of property owners and will take the easement that they have on your property, as a title of ownership, and do what they might want to do with it.  Call them on it when they do!

Rite Aid Sign  Ron Paul 1  Ron Paul 2  Donuts-Wesco  Way Faring signs 1  Way faring signs 2  Way Faring signs 3   Business sign  For Sale sign

[AQUAMAN]

Seems there is no end to the intrusive misbehavior mentality going up against you all over the place by City Hall. Quite petty and vengeful imho. Makes a person truly wonder why so much attention is being paid to your daily actions, and how they squash your every move with swift, harsh, and unfair treatments every chance they get. Truly a shameful display of official authority gone over the top wrong. And for what, to keep covering up the truth and make life miserable as possible. Shameful and a hit below the waist is all I see.

[Wanda Marrison]

I had the same notice two years ago with some of my signs.

Jerry place the one that was in front of my house, between the sidewalk and street, up in my yard.  I was always under the assumption that this property was the city's anyways, so it was not problem. Just didn't know of the code, which was my mistake. I was notified via a phone call, of the other ones I needed to move.

I noticed Sue from Cartier Mansion had one of her signs in front of the mansion moved back a couple of weeks ago. 

From your pictures I understand why Jerry or whomever moved it. If a sidewalk was there(which is another topic) the sign would be on city property. I had to move some of mine that I place like that two years ago.

As for the "way faring signs" they are city signs on city property. Can't support your thinking on those signs.

Yes I do question the placement of the others.

 

 

 

[AQUAMAN]

Pictures speak a thousand words, so said someone else beforehand. And I agree, the limits of stable/fair/reasonable thinking has been stressed, and somewhat warped in this particular instance, imho. What's the Big Deal? A sign misplaced maybe, or is it? Looks like one City of Ludington agent/dept. covers the other in this process of fairness and campaigning, so that all comes out as expected and paid for, sad and totally against all that we as Americans stand for, fought and died for, and have as our rights. Guess we can't expect anything better as long as this Regime Exists and Continues in it's warped agendas. No doubt a Shyster Shay agenda as it stands right now, backed by the rest of the crew.

[XLFD]

Wanda,

When you say "Just didn't know of the code, which was my mistake." , do you realize that if you knew the zoning code, you would have been able to tell Jerry that your sign was fine where it was at, like I did.  A sidewalk being there would not change the issue-- the sign would still be on private property. 

Unfortunately, the east-west streets to the south of Ludington Avenue from the 800 block on do not have sidewalks as a rule, and I have noted that as a failure of the City's Building Inspector department to enforce the code over the years.  This was a main contributing factor in the death of 8 yr. old Cody Lange on First Street seven years ago, in the Fourth Ward.

Don't be alarmed, but I checked your property on the City Assessor's link, and it went up to the road, and I would presume to the center.  Many of the same people walk by on your sidewalk, and drive by on your side of the street.  They're doing so with a legal easement and you can't really block them from doing it, but it is still technically private property that belongs to you-- not the City or State.  And if you want to put up an otherwise-conforming, temporary sign that doesn't block such movement, they shouldn't be able to stop you.

I had wondered why Fifth Ward Candidate Sue Schnitker's sign was so far back.  She has darn good location there.

The point about the "way faring signs" is that they are in the right of way, whether it is on public or private property, and have no regulatory or governmental purpose.  They are allowed to stand out boldly in the right of way just because the City government has specially allowed them to, even though all but the dimmest driver would know that they are about to enter a parking lot without those solid gold signs.

 

[Sweater Cows!]

out here I believe the city ROW is 30-40 feet each side from center line of street!!! Huge ROW,  found out the sidewalk project is for 3 blocks not one.

[XLFD]

The same is true here for most of the streets, with the ROW sometimes going yards beyond the sidewalk. 

How many lots does the proposed Custer sidewalks cover then?

[AQUAMAN]

I like that last comment about the solid gold signs X. I also pointed one of these out to a local the other day and he laughed on and on till we both cried. We now need signage to tell us where the public parking lots are in downtown? And of course they have to have 18 kt. gold paint on them? Wth is this, Ludington, or Beverly Hills nowadays? What a waste of taxpayer monies, such good folly I imagine. But, come to think of it, there is only one signage company locally offering these with 18 kt. gold paint, so no competitive bidding can occur, yupper, it's Tye's Signs of course, the Nick and Heather connection again is still going at it, and making a bundle off our taxpayers to pay for their new home to boot. Wouldn't have believed this could happen or continue in my hometown like this while all the people do is ignore it and sit in silence. Truly a shame and unethical at the least. And should be a strong bone of contention as a subject of interest for this election if everyone gets on the same page. Methinks this should definitely be included in the last election flyer handout coming as another scam the public needs to know about.

[XLFD]

Getting a $150,000 signage contract without a legal or fair bidding process by  a city agency headed by your fiance (wherein you serve on the signage subcommittee) can make it easy for the two of you to afford a nice, discounted, foreclosed Freddy Mac house , especially when you can put up a substantial privacy fence in the street's right of way for just $200 with no guff from the City's code enforcers.

Sounds like the perfect candidate for serving the Fifth Ward-- in Hades, LOL. 

[AQUAMAN]

I hate to think what Judge Clay Olmstead I would think if he knew whom was living in his old home in Ludington now. And how they got it through his own grandson.

[Willy]

In all fairness to the Code Enforcer, he was probably told to go out ad move your sign. A Code Enforcer gets caught between the politicians and the public all the time. It's not a hard physical job but it's a job that deals with angry people most of the time. If the CE acts on a complaint, then the person is in violation may get quite angry. If there is no violaiton then the complainant gets angry because their perceived problem has not been corrected.

[XLFD]

Good point, Willie, the Code Enforcer does have to answer to two, usually disparate people, so he should have his facts right when he goes to enforce.  After all, there is a limited amount of zoning ordinances he is called to enforce, he should know his defecation.  But I had to dispute the City's claim to my parent's property, or anyone else who wishes to fliy their orange inconspicuously in the ROW. 

And point out the wide variety of signs in the neighborhood that he wasn't called on to enforce-- or he did, and was told that he had no point.  I can likely imagine that the person with the Ron Paul signs out since spring told the City to not touch his signs as well, and to respect his property.  Such is the nature of Ron Paulers, God bless 'em.   I noted the other day that some of the signs I had here have been moved, even two of the apolitical Paul signs.  So maybe I have been a complainee and a complainer ; ). 

[XLFD]

Two weeks after my initial signs went out, and I thought my position, and City zoning code, was clear, the City is once again trying to tell City landowners that their deeds which show  land they own out to the middle of the street, is not private property.  You have very little control over the property you own in the street in front of your house, but it is private property.  If you get rankled over strange people parking on the street in front of your house, you realize this fact.

 

If you put up an otherwise conforming sign in your property's  right of way, for a recognized temporary purpose be it a campaign or yard sale, the City has no right telling you they own that property and can move or remove your signs.   This is against the law and is tyranny.