Tall Grass and Tall Tales of Ludington

[XLFD]

Later on today, May 9, 2016, the Ludington City Council will have a first reading of an ordinance invoking new stiffer penalties for those folks who allow their grass to get above ten inches.  As noted, the City has no duty to inform the violator of the condition before their contractor comes onto the property and cuts it.  The city then charges the violator for the service and adds an additional 25%.  They did this rather extensively last year, the first year of the "new tall grass ordinance of 2015".

This year's version according to the COLDNews (May 7 edition) and the City Manager's memo explaining it would add an additional 10% late fee to bills not paid immediately.  If the ordinance is violated a second time, the city will file a civil infraction against the property owner and issue an additional fine of $250.  A third offense would cost an additional $350.

The actual proposed ordinance (p. 227 of the May 9 council packet) is actually a bit more severe.  The first violation subjects the perp to a civil infraction of $250 as a minimum penalty, the second violation will cost $350 and the third and subsequent ones will be no less than $500. 

Now, you may be a responsible landowner in the city who keeps their lawn(s) mowed, and wonder why you should really care about this ordinance and its penalties.  If you go on a summer vacation or your normal place of residence is out of town, you are dependent on others being responsible in your absence.  Maybe you own a rental property and have a deal with a tenant, who isn't that vigilant.  Maybe you only have time to mow it on the weekend, and you have to miss a weekend, or maybe conditions were so good for grass growth that it should have been cut within the week.

A lot of issues could come up to make somebody otherwise responsible have their grass get above ten inches.  I wouldn't say our city leaders are responsible, but this does include the City of Ludington.  Those who have this come up more often, will probably have other issues regarding fiscal and time responsibility more pressing than mowing their lawn.  The latest two changes in the tall grass ordinance will hit these folks hard.  Just missing a mowing once could cost well over $300 for a one lot property.  That's enough to buy a couple cheap lawn mowers and a year's worth of paying a kid to mow the lawn. 

Yet, the city manager proffers the reason to make the changes punitive on those odd fellows who somehow think that having the city mow their lawn with an expensive contractor and add 25% is less expensive than either doing it themselves or contracting it out:

Is there actually anybody that exists who thinks the city cutting their grass is going to be less expensive than hiring a contractor?  This new ordinance is simply a new money making scheme devised by the city manager to extract more money to the city coffers on the backs of those who can ill afford to spare more of their cash. 

It's like the Ludington landlords and tenants being hit by the latest rental inspection program started in March.  The service the city proffers offers nothing of value to either of them; they have made that known in numerous public hearings.  Landlords and tenants have signed a contract betwixt themselves.  If a landlord or tenant is failing that contract, there are options already available to remedy the situation.  The city's redundant inspections will serve to do nothing other than run the existing affordable housing out of the city and create a host of new houses that are either vacant or decrepit looking rentals converted into owner occupied houses. 

Our other media do not bother taking up the very real problems created by such ordinances and greedy schemes created by local governments.  Our own Mason County venues illustrate this, but so do other 'mainstream sources' reporting the issue from outside the county.  Witness a March 15, 2016 TV 7&4 Report, (see the accompanying video in the link, showing Ludington at its finest)

LUDINGTON, Mi (WPBN/WGTU) — MASON COUNTY, Mi. (WPBN/WGTU) -- March 15th was the deadline for landlords to register their rental properties with the City of Ludington.

The ordinance was passed by the city council last fall.

The idea of allowing the city to have a better handle on its inventory of rental properties has been brewing for several years.

"We've had a lot of rental housing where people have expressed concerns about the conditions, especially on the inside: using the stoves for heat, sewage running in the basement, apartments that have no way to get in our out if there's a fire," says John Shay, Ludington's City Manager.

The registration is also a chance for the city to find out how many rental units are in the city.

For some property owners the ordinance, which carries a $15 dollar fee per unit for the initial registration and a $50 fee per unit for an inspection every three years, is another example of government over-reach.

But others see it as a way for Ludington to improve its image in the rental market.

"The inspector's going to go in and get these places up to par," says Curtis Smith, owner of West Shore Rental Management, with properties in Mason, Manistee, and Benzie Counties. "Everybody's going to have to play on the same field. There's going to be some unhappy people, but then the people who are legit, the people who are doing it right, it's going to make it even and it's going to give them a better reputation all around."

Until this new ordinance was adopted, the city's inspection department could only enforce conditions on the exterior of rentals.

"So if a rental unit, for example, or an owner occupied unit for that matter, had a bad roof or siding, we could deal with it there," says Shay. "But for the inside, there was no mechanism for us to go on the inside and inspect the inside of a unit."

"The biggest thing is it sets the bar for the tenant and it sets the bar for the landlord," says Smith. "Landlords have to hold a certain level and the tenants need to hold a certain level. The inspector comes in and he holds them both to that level. It's kind of like a playing field of where we need to be at."

Ludington's city manager says the city has hired one part-time position to help with the extra workload the ordinance will bring to the city's inspection department.

The plan is to inspect a third of the city's units each year.

Property owners who do not register their rental property will face a $500 fine for each rental unit.

The new Ludington ordinance goes into effect and who do they interview: the City Manager and a Manistee realtor/property manager (who is probably doing fantastic business selling rental properties in Ludington since last year).  They both tell us what a great system it is, while the only argument they offer counter is saying that 'property owners' consider it an over-reach. 

Meanwhile their video catches the external parts of rental and owner occupied houses in Ludington with problems on the exterior of their houses.  Showing irrefutably that the city cannot effectively deal with those problems already, even though they claim that it's within their realm, even if the realm is in their neighborhood like the two apartment buildings above right across from city hall.

City Manager Shay, who likely choreographed this back in March, has most of Ludington rolling in the lead-contaminated aisles when he points out that he has heard reports that:  "We've had a lot of rental housing where people have expressed concerns about the conditions, especially on the inside: using the stoves for heat, sewage running in the basement, apartments that have no way to get in our out if there's a fire." 

Please note, that I sent a FOIA request to the City asking for any written complaints leveled to the city regarding rental properties (after their anecdotes at meetings over such tripe) and they told me they had none; this is hearsay information, which is why you never see anything accredited to the slumlords of Ludington that they find so repellant.  Among all those forums last year, not one tenant came forth and complained about an existing problem.  Many came forth to say this ordinance was a terrible idea; many have since lost their low-cost Ludington apartment.

Recall also, this is the same John Shay who did nothing to remedy the situation after the Madison sewer line ruptured in 2008 and dumped in raw, untreated sewage into the Ludington ecosystem, ruining several Fourth Ward businesses in the process.  He's the same guy who has neglected the wastewater treatment plant too long that it's become a public health hazard, operating without a valid discharge permit for five years, and emitting sulfurous smells that can be appreciated miles away.  Shay is without doubt the biggest and most apathetic slumlord in the City of Ludington when it comes to managing his own properties. 

[Willy]

A person's comments reveal a lot about their character. It seems that when Shay speaks he reveals just how underhanded he is. His comment about rental concerns is one of them. Never does he mention that any tenants have complained or explains how there exists buildings that have no way to get in or out if there's a fire. That would mean that there are no doors. So how are people using these non accessible buildings? Using false and flimsy reasoning in order to invade peoples privacy and control their lives is to be expected from those that are in charge of Ludington's Government.

The fines for weeds is excessive to say the least and I still don't understand how any municipality can enter someone's property and remedy a violation without informing the owner that a violation exists. The only thing the newspaper notice does is inform the public in general that a weed and tall grass ordinance is being enforced, it does not inform anyone of any specific violations. Even a reckless driver is not penalized until he is informed of the violation and is given a chance to counter the charge in a court of law. This is definitely an upside down ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.

[XLFD]

My recapsulation of last night's meeting is underway, and Mr. Shay (with Attorney Wilson's help) does not disappoint in trying to deceive folks in what the actual ordinance says, and allows the city to do.  Before it was first changed last year, the Tall Grass ordinance at least allowed the citizen notice of a violation, and a manageable time period to mow the offending grass. 

Now, they can come on your property without notice (due process) of violation and cut your lawn for a good amount of cash.  After next meeting, they will be able to do so and add $250 (minimally) to the cost and increase that thereafter.  That's oppression, as well as biting the hand that feeds them.

[shinblind]

The link to the May 9 city council packet doesn't work. Getting a 404 error.

[XLFD]

Try it now, I don't know why it wasn't working.

[shinblind]

Working fine now.

[shinblind]

If this tall grass ordinance is is legal and Shay is running the City as a for profit organization why don't the City pass an ordinance that you must keep the area in front of your house shoveled in the winter? 

Just think of the money that would rake in.

Publish a notice in November. Wait for it to snow. Contract to have the snow removed after a storm. Bill the owner of the property. Should be a gold mine Shay. 

Why not? One bullshit ordinance follows another.