The Place Where Ludington Talks
Taranko and the Status Quo Has Gotta Go
I have been pretty quiet about the mayor race since the August primaries, mainly because I didn't necessarily feel that the two candidates that emerged were that much different except for general background. Candidate Walter Taranko has experience, almost his whole adult life dedicated to law enforcement, the Red Cross, and of late the City Council. Candidate Ryan Cox has youth and inexperience for the most part with City business, the hope for an energetic and new approach to carry Ludington into at least the next four years.
But they seemed to have a lot of similar viewpoints, and both have respectable personalities and temperaments, so the temptation is to go with the person with experience because they already know what to do. But-- this City's voters did wind up giving a supposedly-popular soon-to-be-former mayor the thumbs-down last fall when they dumped a proposal that would have let him serve up to five terms by a two-to-one margin. Either side can rationalize the reason this happened, but there does come a time when the voters want change, and in this election, the only real change that may happen is if the political neophyte, Cox, wins.
Why would we wish for change? Haven't we been told by both candidates that current mayor, John Henderson, has been great for the city (small 'c') of Ludington and they plan to carry on the tradition? Wally Taranko's website reflects that, as does Ryan Cox's with just a little less specificity. Do we really want to take the road that John Henderson has led us down over the last few years, with help from his neighbor, City Manager John Shay?
If your answer is yes, then I presume you are either not paying attention, or you are not a Ludington citizen who has seen their rights, tax dollars, and laws misused by the current administration over the last few years. The trend by our city council, with no variation from Councilor Wally Taranko, has been to erode our rights, take more of our money, hide further in the shadows, and pass more laws while willfully violating some themselves. This is not a good trend.
I have diligently looked over the last four years of Ludington City Council meetings, reviewed what they achieved at those meetings and the result is the table I have made below. Ignored are the basic street closures, resolutions recognizing someone or something, employee renewals and pay increases, and other actions that are voted on but are negligible for either improving or spoiling the general area for the citizens. Included are five basic categories, with a quick link to where the decision was made, in case you want more information. These are presented for your use in deciding whether this is really the direction we think the City of Ludington should be heading. I will make my own opinion known at the end.
Taxes and Fees: The last four years have been mostly recessionary, a lot of property value has been lost, many people are worse off financially. Ideally, the City leaders would recognize this and keep tax rates stagnant or decrease them, do the same to fees. The City has not ever decreased taxes or fees during this period, these 11 items were raised by determination of the City Council.
(month-year): Item
1-2010: Automatic Water/sewer rate increase
3-2010 Longfellow PILOT raise,
7-2010: Raising of 2 millage rates after Headlee rollbacks
7-2010: Grand Patio rental raise
12-2010: City Marina Transient dockage fee raise
1-2011: Automatic Water/sewer rate increase
6-2011: Raising of 4 millage rates after Headlee rollbacks
12-2011: Gazebo rental increase
1-2012: Automatic Water/sewer rate increase
2-2013: Automatic Water/sewer rate increase
9-2013: Cartier camp fees raised
Infringement of Rights/Growth of Municipal Power: has only increased over this period. This comes in several forms: more restrictive zoning law, increased powers voted for officials, denied permits, property and civil rights voted against, state laws reduced by local laws, public property taken away from the public. The 21 acts that follow either have increased the City's power or decreased the citizens rights. The amount of times they have expanded your rights or decreased the City's power is zero (though in the last category, they have decided a couple of times to 'not pass' restrictive legislation.
1) 4-2010: Lot Division rules, new zoning law
2) 8-2010: Zoning restrictions, 2nd floor residences moved to special use
3) 8-2010: City officials given more power over Stearn Park
4) 10-2010: Request for dance permit denied, 209 S James
5) 11-2010: Ordinance 219-10 sewer costs to homeowners and their rights
6) 11-2010: Ordinance 220-10 cross connections, City right to enter homes
7) 12-2010: Amended Poverty Exemption Policy for the worse.
8) 1-2011: Ordinance 223-10 private well rights
9) 1-2011: Medical Marijuana Moratorium 6 month
10) 2-2011: Workplace Safety Policy passed, leads to lawsuit
11) 7-2011: Medical Marijuana Moratorium extended again 6 mo.
12) 8-2011: George West's sidewalk
13) 9-2011: Cat/seagull feeding ordinance
14) 1-2012: Medical Marijuana Moratorium extended again 6 mo.
15) 5-2012: Medical Marijuana Ordinance adopted
16) 10-2012: Restricting private wells in center of town
17) 10-2012: Fireworks controls
18) 11-2012: City takes over dog park
19) 6-2013: adult day care zoning too restrictive
20) 9-2013: city sidewalk replacement forced on homeowner 501 N Rath
21) 9-2013: closure of park roads in off-season
Showing of favoritism to a private group: acts in this category are times when the council voted to help one group/person at the expense of the whole of the city or the state. This is often legal and widely done, but is not the proper use of public money, especially when the concepts of 'economic development' were widely expanded. Acts in this category include the backing of tax relief for certain businesses, installing traffic control against established warrants, inordinate awards of money to specific contractors, grant applications made by City for people/groups, etc. Basically, one group or person benefits exclusively from the public well, which is counter to the very concept of public money.
1) 2-2010: Four way stop at Bryant-Washington
2) 3-2010: KDMAC OPRA district,
3) 4-2010: Raise of City Attorney fees by 70%
4) 5-2010: Façade Grants for businesses
5) 5-2010: TCO 108-A: Limits to downtown parking
6) 6-2010: Floracraft and Duna USA tax breaks
7) 6-2010: KDMAC Brownfield Approved
8) 7-2010: Tiger Grant Applic. for SS Badger
9) 7-2010: Whitehall Ind. tax credit
10) 9-2010: FOTOF LLC tax credit, OPRA
11) 9-2010 Harbor View OLA
12) 10-2010 Great Lakes Casting 198 certificate
13) 3-2011: Downtown façade grants
14) 4-2011: Brill IFEC
15) 5-2011: Rental Rehab grant applications
16) 6-2011: Ceding of public land to Florcraft
17) 11-2011: Rezoning HoF Property
18) 9-2012: Whitehall tax abatement
19) 11-2012: Exempting City from benefit reform law
20) 1-2013: Trash Contract, no bids allowed despite interest
21) 3-2013: Outdoor dining ordinance, restricts sidewalks for all
22) 5-2013: Paving of downtown parking lots paid by City/DDA
23) 5-2013: City Marina Dredging paid for by state
24) 9-2013: Water tank painting approved, w/o proper bid process
25) 9-2013: Moved Charter boats from 0 to 8 allowed at city marina
Transparency Denied: Walter Taranko claims the City of Ludington has been transparent over the four years he has served on council-- then how can he explain the very opaque actions the City Council has taken over those years. He, nor any other councilor has voted for any FOIA appeal though there have been over 20 of them, he has voted to go into closed session eight times over that period, and violated the OMA dramatically at least twice. Ryan Cox at least admits that the City has transparency issues, and wants to change that.
1) 4-2010: Denial of Byers Suit FOIA
2) 11-2010: Denial of Various FOIAs
3) 12-2010: Denial of FOIA Swiger
4) 12-2010: Changed FOIA Policy to much more stringent, expensive
5) 9-2011: Denied Tykoski FOIA appeal, leads to costly lawsuit City loses
6) 10-2011: Denied FOIA for power point correspondence
7) 10-2011: Denied FOIA involving Workplace Safety Policy
8) 10-2011: Closed Session to discuss attorney letter (FOIA suit)
9) 3-2012: FOIA about Tykoski business records completeness
10) 3-2012: Closed Session to discuss WSP lawsuit and/or FOIA lawsuit
11) 6-2012: FOIA Denial Marina Camera footage for Zou death
12) 6-2012: FOIA denial of Courtland lie detector results
13) 7-2012: FOIA denial of Dan Ruba records
14) 7-2012: FOIA denial of Courtland records to Swiger, et. al.
15) 7-2012: FOIA denial marina death investigation
16) 8-2012: FOIA denial Holman's stack of papers
17) 8-2012: Closed session: McAdams lawsuit
18) 9-2012: FOIA denial McAdam Court records
19) 9-2012: OMA/FOIA policy violated
20) 11-2012: Closed session on OMA lawsuit
21) 12-2012: FOIA denial Utility Services correspondence
22) 12-2012: Closed Session to discuss OMA lawsuit
23) 1-2013: FOIA policy revised for harder access
24) 1-2013: City acknowledges OMA violations with dodging
25) 2-2013: Emergency Spending Policy passed, to easier avoid OMA
26) 2-2013: FOIA skirted for pothole discussions between City ad MDOT
27) 4-2013: FOIA denial Lowell Fetters incident police reports
28) 4-2013: Closed session for some lawsuit unnamed
29) 5-2013: OMA violation from improper posting
30) 7-2013: Closed Session McAdam lawsuit
31) 7-2013: FOIA denial Courtland interview
32) 8-2013: FOIA denial marina area camera footage
33) 8-2013: FOIA denial waterfront park bath-cams
34) 9-2013: FOIA Coordinator change to non-official
35) 10-2013 Closed session McAdam lawsuit
36) 10-2013: FOIA appeal denied
Other Actions: These are actions that were unclassifiable using the other categories. Most are basically neutral in scope, some are actually positive. The life rings on the way to the lighthouse was a good idea, as was revoking the bowling alley OPRA (though tardy). The Complete Streets has not been followed, the sale of beer on Sunday was a vacated ordinance and the alcohol vending (#8) was made for the Queen's Cup event. The rest really didn't affect most.
1) 1-2011: Sale of Alcohol on Sunday Mornings
2) 2-2011: Lighthouse life rings
3) 5-2011: Complete Streets Resolution
4) 6-2011: Beach Patrol
5) 7-2011: Shared services (chief and CDD) with Scottville
6) 10-2011: Expanding downtown parking for residents.
7) 10-2012: Bowling Alley OPRA revoked
8) 5-2013: More permissive alcohol vending/drinking ordinance
9) 6-2013: Shared services, passed in 7-2011 revoked
10) 7-2013: Purchase of 808 Danaher without public purpose
11) 9-2013: Fireworks ordinance set stricter times
12) 9-2013: LFD loss of work policy
The above are basic acts the City made, but the councilors also decided on matters of infrastructure as per the funding and bidding, for seven projects. THe list here only reflects six, since the Brother Street sewer project was passed outside a public meeting.
Infrastructure: The following roads and water system projects were approved and performed in the last four years:
1) South William St.
2) North Staffon St.
5) Fifth Street
So there are the acts and actions that affected you and me over the last few years if you're here with me in the City or own property or a business here. Hopefully, you noticed the trend of the City of Ludington: If you like non-transparency, having your taxes and fees raised, losing more of your rights, while the City gets more power over you, and having special interest groups and businesses get your tax money while the infrastructure is mostly ignored (less than 2 public projects a year), then you should vote for Councilors Taranko, Castonia and Marrison this year. If you don't like those trends, vote for someone else. But only one is opposed, and there's no guarantee of positive change.
Views: 415
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
It looks as if the Taranko campaign has gotten more exposure out in the local media, and coupled with better name recognition and a bunch of meaningless catchphrases promoting positive ideas, I believe he will win the day over Ryan Cox, unless Cox can maneuver a lot of bodies out to the polls.
So despite his council record that shows only raised taxes, an all-out attack on transparency, little concern for the citizens' rights, and no strong stands on any policy that he can truly own, Taranko will become the fourth term of Mayor Henderson, unless a minor political miracle happens. It's too bad, as I believe the Scottville Cox's (including him) were instrumental in reviving the Scottville Harvest Festival when it looked dead in the water this year because of indifference by the chamber of commerce. I haven't seen any spark in Taranko over the last four years except when he was arguing about using only pre-mixed alcoholic spirits earlier this spring for city-sponsored events.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Fantastic job of research X. I had forgotten about a lot of the subjects you posted. Well done.
-
-
The unofficial results are in, Taranko has went down-- Ryan Cox will be the new mayor of Ludington: 767 Cox, 685 Taranko. Hurray for the new blood.
-
Permalink Reply by AQUAMAN on
-
That unofficial count of an 82 vote win out of 1452 votes cast = 5.6% margin. Very close call if true, and hopefully, stays official tomorrow. Still, if only a couple of uncontested wards had new faces/winners too, we might see a totally different situation existing at city council the next 4 years. Also, I thought we had about 3500 registered voters in downtown, 1452 means only 41% showed up today, not really the voice of the majority.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
