The Place Where Ludington Talks
The Gamblers of Ludington
"On a warm autumn's eve On a train bound for nowhere
I met up with the gambler
We were both too tired to sleep"
With a minor change of season, Kenny Roger's trademark song begins. And so began the first order of business on the agenda of the evening of October 26 with the Ludington City Council, a public hearing to determine whether an Obsolete Property Rehabilation Act (OPRA) would be established for the address of 102 Second Street owned by Nolan Family Investments LLC. The Kenny Rogers connection used throughout this article gives a nod to the fact that the petitioner of this OPRA certificate was to be Edgar Struble, the musical director of the country singer for 15 years, and holder of other titles like producer, author, public speaker.
This hearing came about an hour into the meeting since there was a contentious public comment section at this meeting for the proposed rental inspection ordinance (RIO). To my surprise, Edgar got up early during the public comment period and spoke very cogently about why he thought the rental inspection program was bad.
I had thought at first that he was going to address his own issue, but he gave a surprisingly good comment betokening a very libertarian mindset about reining in government power. This was a risky gamble, since I believe he knew, like everyone else, that the council would almost certainly vote for the RIO or at best table it.
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run..."
Later in that public comment period I touched further on some points that Edgar had made about the RIO, and so by the time we got to the public hearing on his OPRA certificate, and when the mayor announced that the public hearing on the OPRA was commenced, the night got deathly quiet, I took up my prepared speech at about the same time Edgar had risen. My speech was a mixed bag, and from his initial comments, I had hoped he would find it supportive, even though it was at points critical, albeit constructively so. He gentlemanly offered me the podium and I shuffled through my speech provided here with some visual aids courtesy of the city assessor's website. If you believe that I came out against the OPRA, since it is a type of corporate welfare, you may be surprised by my findings and my conclusion:
"You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done"
XLFD: I have came in front of this council on other public hearings for companies seeking tax abatement and other forms of corporate welfare in the past and chided them for seeking such relief and urged the council to vote "no" on any program that released the burden of taxation for one business without releasing the burden fairly across the board for other businesses.
Why should our government be favoring one business over another, we should ask. You may as well ask why we spend millions of taxpayer dollars propping up the public city marina when the private marina system was already vigorous here, supplying the service, and competing in a free market.
102 Second in 1999 Assessor Image
But I digress, the issue at hand is whether Nolan Family Investments LLC should get an OPRA tax break for 102 Second Street. The California company has owned this and two other properties on the west side of the Fourth Ward across the bridge since 2003, yet this property is significant in that the property is not only obsolete but in great disrepair.
102 Second in 2015, courtesy of MCP
Over the last week, an upper floor window has been open to the elements. The wood exterior is detaching, leaving several areas also open to the elements. An appliance sits outside on the east side of the property, the side door to the west has been unsecured and an attractive nuisance at least over the last two days.
For twelve years, the city has allowed the property to sit idle and blighted without any external maintenance. Your packet offers nothing indicating why our code enforcement has neglected to do their jobs for those twelve years.
Yet, even though I deplore corporate welfare and deplore the state of repair that this building has fallen into, I wish to support their effort to get an OPRA certificate for twelve years. The reason why is because this greedy city has grievously overtaxed them for the last twelve years, providing an oppressive deterrent to development.
Property Tax records for 102 Second Street: see this link
Consider that this commercial property had annual taxes of $553 in 2003 when it came into possession of NFI LLC. Under the city's management of John Shay, the annual tax bills jumped dramatically turning the $553 into a $2494 in a period of nine years during which the address only became more obsolete. By 2012, the property taxes were 450% of what they were in 2003! Four point five times as much taxes for a decaying obsolete property when the inflation rate was under 25% for the same period. It's taxes rose 18 times the inflation rate over a period it sat unmaintained, rotting, and idle.
Property Tax record for 106 Second Street: see this link
Of the two other properties Nolan Family Investments invested in, the house next door had their taxes more than double the following year, before it moderated itself, and the vacant lot at 1001 S. Washington saw its annual tax burden rise from $42 to an unbelievable $1099 in just three years. For those keeping score, that is over 26 times its initial rate just three years prior for a vacant lot! One would think a gold mine had been opened, and it had, for our greedy city.
Property Tax records for 1001 Washington Street (vacant lot in back of 201 Second): seen at this link
Is this how we treat those who invest in Ludington, taxing them so much beyond the pale and threatening to tax them a lot more if they improve their property? Making the improvements listed in this plan would more than triple their current tax burden, the least we could do for all of these years of over-taxation is to reduce that by half.
OPRA analysis by City Assessor Bosley. 2014 taxes were $1946. Modest improvements would raise their taxes by around $3800. Even if an OPRA is granted, the taxes rise about $1000!!! see this link p. 23
To Edgar Struble and the folks at Nolan Family Investments, LLC, I apologize for our city hall's avarice since you invested here, and offer a verse-- with apologies to Kenny Rogers-- to our councilors:
"(singing like Kenny Rogers, but not really) Through the years, you've never let their taxes down, You've turned their lives around..."
Sorry, couldn't resist, thank you."
"Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep"
American Idol judges would not be impressed. Not knowing what type of person Edgar Struble was before this night, I had trepidations that he may have objected to some of my characterizations of his property or whitewash the tax issues I brought up as not being a problem.
But Edgar got up, commented on someone he knows being able to sing it better, and admitted not only the limitations but also the rough history of recent land contracts that he had been part of. He acceded the tax issues I had raised as having been a recurring problem for him. He asserted that he would fix the property up for selling if he failed to get the OPRA, and endeavor to get businesses and apartments in it otherwise.
For having brought these three parcels up in the heart of the fourth ward business district in 2003, I think he did some gambling himself, perhaps hoping that the grand scale of the Pere Pointe Condominiums going up almost across the street would make these parcels better.
But that gamble failed, largely in part of the city's greediness in getting as much as they can from property tax assessing business from the developers of Pere Pointe. The city spent a lot of legal fees showing that the Pere Pointe property was much more valuable than their assessor (as seen in this tax tribunal: Pere Pointe LLC v. City of Ludington). When you can claim a small vacant lot's taxes can go from $40 to $1000 in three years without any good reason, you can claim just about anything.
Mr. Struble did get his OPRA with an unanimous vote, as expected, but showed himself to be a Ludington citizen worthy of note in his postures. As Chuck Sobanski noted right after Edgar spoke, the city would have two new rental units to tax, while the fourth ward would look a lot better.
If they passed the RIO... which they did 5-2, to the chagrin of the citizens in the audience and the delight of the various officials sprinkled throughout ready to do their political master's work.
"'Cause every hand's a winner
And every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die
in your sleep."
UPDATE: The action starts at just before 48:00 into the video of that meeting :
October 26, 2015 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.
Views: 358
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AQUAMAN on
-
Nice report X, good points. You know, Ludington citizens wonder why we are ever increasing in poverty ridden areas, homes in decay, vacant lots and store fronts blighting the downtown, and no new investors picking up the mantle for progress and a promising future. Look at the assessors records of ridiculous tax burdens, and the city's cronies that keep these regressive tragic consequences going ahead. There is NO INCENTIVE for anyone to come to Ludington and revamp our small decaying town, NONE! ONLY THE FAVORED CITY SUPPORTERS are given real tax breaks, and investment incentives, the same GLF, HOF, BRILL, and other parties connected to the regime. And of course the crookedly run DDA and Chamber. WE as local citizens watch in horror, and feel crippled to do anything. WHY? Because the sameo people holding office for up to three terms, that's 18 years, are ruining it for the majority. Until something to oust those bums from office, and create shorter terms, this is going to continue, just as the past 20 years of ruination.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
It may seem like an eternity since the last time we had a city election, Aquaman, but Ludington still technically has only four year terms. Each councilor last year voted for changing the city from odd year elections to even year elections, which technically saves money on holding elections as the Ludington polling places will rarely open on odd years from now on except for state issues and special elections (such as we had for proposal one in May). But it also gave each councilor an extra year of service, so each term expanded to five years of those who served. It's what the state law says, so that's how it is. After 2016 the terms earned will only be four years, until they decide to switch back to odd years, LOL.
This rental issue has opened the eyes of many of our Ludingtonians to the problems of our corrupted city hall, and there is some strong talk about recalling some of our errant councilors who have voted for this and the host of other ordinances that most citizens find abhorrent. I couldn't believe henpecked councilor Nick Tykoski voted for this with over a hundred of his constituents on record against it-- except that he would have been banished to the doghouse inside his unlawful privacy fence by the missus.
-
-
How many things does this, and the last few councils want to change? Many ordinances, and include new silly ones too, the list is many. Change the city charter, for any number of items, including council paychecks, gave them big raises too. Change the term of city manager, where he lives, how he can override the rules for spending monies, and that list is also large. How about changing the west end of Lud. Ave. to a $13 Million 8 year project, ruining the views of the big lake, and not allowing parking anymore, to be replaced with grand stands and shrubbery. These people are on a roller coaster ride of changes, and none are in the interest of the locals, just the tourists. How about changing how to pay for infrastructure, like old worn out outdated water lines, made from hollowed-out logs, and add sewer lines, and our expired DNR permitted water treatment plant? No sense in paying for that with taxpayers monies, they already diverted those critical funds to their special pet projects, like painting water towers without fair bidding, and when unnecessary. Let's just float a $12 Million bond to pay for all that stuff, the critical infrastructure that is already to be budgeted for, but no, that might not fit in the fixed agenda.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
