The Mystery of the Pigweed Predicament

[XLFD]

I had originally prepped my camera for a brief photo essay on the City of Ludington being a bit neglectful of minding their lawn on the property of 428 E Dowland, a property they acquired in November of 2007 with the intention of making this four lot property the next Ludington Fire Station.  As I went there with my camera and my ruler, I started taking pictures with my 12 inch ruler showing that the pigweeds, that had somehow inundated themselves on Dowland following the streetwork done there this summer, were quite a bit taller than weeds are supposed to be until the City of Ludington considers a nuisance, whuch happens to be 10".  The city may serve written notice that the condition shall be abate...

As the City of Ludington's code enforcement team love to serve these on the people of Ludington (amazingly, I have been spared this indignity) I figured they could use a dose of their own medicine.  These lazy deadbeats let their pigweeds grow over two feet (that's over 24" for those who work at City Hall).  Here's some of the stuff in the right-of-way:

Tall Weed    Tall Weeds    One Really Big Weed

But then I noticed that the lot had a lot more bigger weeds in its interior, partially blocked by some sumac bushes, earth mounds, and vines.  Right near the "For Sale" sign the goldenrod is as big as the pigweed, and other weeds surpass the four feet mark (48"+  for those who work at 400 S. Harrison)

More Gigantic Internal Weeds     Even more Megaweeds

But it was when I took this picture of an oversized pigweed field further in this lot that something dawned on me.

Almost the whole lot in back of the sumacs and mounds was completely denuded of vegetation, as if someone had come and took out the topsoil of this lot and took it somewhere recently.  And it was rather recent, because the pictures of the lot in the realtors guide shows a regular lawn just earlier this year:

Which then turned into this:

And the sleuth in me said, 1) missing topsoil at 428 E Dowland  2) pigweed is prevalent on that lot  3)  a bit of topsoil was used in front of many E Dowland properties (like where I live) that lost sections of sidewalk or had some soil removed.  4)  pigweed is growing in front of all those properties.

I could be wrong without further proof either way, but I have to presume that the new topsoil in front of our houses/businesses on Dowland has been transplanted from this property, 428 E Dowland.  Usually, that shouldn't be a problem, but the history of this property was that it used to belong to Padnos and Brody and used as a place where scrap metal was salvaged (metal with various chemicals/paints on them), was considered as a Brownfield property in 2005, had an underground 500 gallon diesel tank until recent, and went directly from these private hands to public hands.   DEED 428 E Dowland.pdf    428 E Dowland (Future Fire Station) description

Were the environmental factors mitigated?  Is the possibly tainted soil from that lot replacing the topsoil of several Dowland properties going to present a hazard to the people who live at those properties?   If any of the people who worked at City Hall lived on Dowland Street, would they be happy with getting a bunch of soil definitely filled with pigweed seeds and possibly contaminated with metal residue, hydrocarbon residues, lead paints, and various other hazardous materials dumped in their front yard?

[Willy]

The answer should be easy to find. Just contact the contractor that did the job and ask where the soil for Dowland St. came from. Of course the City will probably make you file a lawsuit to find out the answer. If that soil came from the area you describe then it's possible there may be some hanky panky going on. The taxpayers may have paid for sterilized or clean and filtered soil but received weed filled, contaminated soil instead with the knowledge of City Officials. Could be the makings of "SOILGATE".

[XLFD]

I've already got a FOIA with the City to inspect the property file on the way, and other inquiries that went out to the MI DEQ regarding that lot.  The contractor is under no obligation to tell me the details, but it's worth asking anyway.  If I don't get some answers by Monday night, I just might put that question up to the city council.

[XLFD]

City manager John Shay is not allowing me to inspect these records in accordance with FOIA.  Nor has he or the City Attorney allowed me to raise an appeal to the City Council to discuss the issue.  Here was Shay's first response to my request to come in and inspect the records:

 

"I have attached the City of Ludington’s response to your FOIA request. The City’s FOIA Policy will not permit me to allow you to inspect original records unsupervised. It is estimated that it will take two hours to scan the approximately 500 pages of documents responsive to your request and to send to a printer the oversized records that will not fit into the City’s scanner and copier machine. Using the lowest paid employee, the labor to scan the documents and send the oversized records to a printer will cost $23.07 per hour (including benefits) x 2 hours = $46.14 less the $20 credit = $26.07 plus the cost of the oversized copies. I will have a final figure for you when these documents are ready to send to you or for you to pick up. Upon receipt of the total amount due from you, the City will send them to you or you may pick them up at City Hall.

I would appreciate your acknowledgment of these costs, so I will know whether you intend to pick up these documents prior to sending the prints out for oversized copying"

 

I replied:  "I intend to inspect these non-exempt records as per allowed by state law and court precedent. Please allow a time to come into the City Hall and inspect the records. You may train a camera on me while I look through them if you wish. It is a misdemeanor to tamper with public records, so I will treat them with the respect they deserve. It is also a misdemeanor to keep the public from records they can inspect as per State FOIA .

If you wish to supersede state law with your own City policy by setting your own rules and charging me illegal fees, you may consider this an appeal. If you come to your senses, please contact me tomorrow with a real FOIA response."

Since I mentioned law, CA Wilson replied: "Your recent FOIA request has been granted in full. Accordingly, you have no right to appeal, MCL 15.240(1), and therefore no appeal will be docketed on the City Council’s agenda in this matter."

 

Dick Wilson never gets it, but he's paid not to get it, I suppose.  I replied to him:  "I was denied the right to personally inspect the records, as per my request. I was not granted the right to inspect these records without the City FOIAC having someone copy or scan these records in a totally unnecessary and costly action to the City and myself. As the City is not allowing me to inspect the records (section 5) without charging me for doing unnecessary actions that violate the FOIA (section 3), the city has not granted my request, and would be in further violation of the FOIA by not doing so in a timely manner by section 10(1) you proffered since they have denied "all or a portion of a request". Namely, the fact I wanted to inspect the documents.

Let us not forget the appellate case of Cashel v. Uof M Regents allowed the plaintiff two weeks of access to look at public records w/o charge. If you wish to establish a security procedure that goes beyond the principles of FOIA when you deny my hour review of an address folder, it will also find its way to the court system. And the City of Ludington's defense to it will be suspect because of the prior allowances of John Shay to this person to inspect much larger files of public records w/o interference.

If you do not answer this inquiry, I will presume the City's administrative appellate body has onced again shirked its duty and will take it directly to court as one count in a more comprehensive complaint."

The larger batch of files was spoken of in the thread Interview With a Vamper.  The right to inspect without getting copies is part of the rights guaranteed under FOIA, firmly established through the courts.  Keeping someone from those records without charging an improper and illegal fee is a misdemeanor  MCL 750.492.   

[Jane]

How DARE you!! What right do you think you have to inspect records of things paid for by  taxes, where do you get off thinking you have some right to see any records held at city hall. Why are you so special you should get to see these records and not have the city copy them for you. You seem to think that the public has a right to see this stuff, don't you realize it is private records that only the city workers can see, not the average citizen, who do you think you are anyway!

obviously the Shay person must want to waste paper and kill trees so he wants to make copies instead of following FOIA and having inspection. What a dirty land raper is he and anyone who would rather use paper than just have someone look at stuff. TREE KILLERS!

[XLFD]

Shay just wants a third stack for Kaye Holman's next presentation about how much taxpayer's money I waste.   Shay may not like trees, but he loves giving the residents of Dowland their pigweeds. 

By the way, the City finally cut down their own lot's pigweeds and junk bushes on Monday afternoon, coincidentally the same day I got my FOIA response back from the DEQ.  When I'm up there in Cadillac, I'll likely file a complaint and note the reluctance of the City of Ludington to validly respond to FOIA.

[XLFD]

I am going up to review the environmental records for this address at the Cadillac office of the MI Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on Thursday.  If anybody has some other issue they want looked into when I'm there (regarding this area), let me know by sending me a message.

[Willy]

Absolutely incredible. It boggles the mind to think that someone wants to know where the dirt came from to fill in at a construction site, which was paid for by the taxpayers, and this is the kind of response given by the local unelected official. Shay is turning a molehill into a mountain by denying you free access to examine these documents. The only conclusion I can draw is that there is indeed corruption involved with this project or they just want to show everyone who the boss is and put up roadblocks to make it more difficult to find out the truth. And then you have people like CLFD and Eye who can't seem to understand what is going on. Eye starts a web site in support of a corrupt government  and make no mistake, what Shay is doing is corrupt behavior toward the citizens of Ludington and he has the backing of the City Council and Mayor. Why doesn't any member of the Council step forward and put an end to this blatant misuse of power. Ludington is plagued with a sick bureaucracy. At the last Council meeting, Council member Holeman called a citizen "warped" because he is trying to find the truth about misdeeds performed by the ruling class, when in fact she and the entire regime have a  warped mindset and agenda. Wake up Ludington.

[XLFD]

Just for the record, my last two appeal requests/inquiries on this was CC-ed to the full council.  They have a lot to say at the end of the council meeting, but all they ever respond to is the City Attorney and Manager telling them to tow the line and support the FOIA Coordinator's decision.   

[Eye On Ludington]

XLFD, The way I read Shay's response to your FOIA is that you have been invited to personally review over 500 pages of records, and he estimated that it would take 2 hours of supervisory time by the lowest paid employee for you to scan those 500 pages of records yourself. That is why your only cost will be the $26.07 (for 2 hours supervisory time by the lowest paid employee capable of supervising the documents). Then at the end of Shay's response, he asked if you wanted copies of the oversize records at an added cost of just the oversize documents if you desire them. Sounds to me like he doesn't want to waste city employee time or money making oversize copies if you do not want them.

If that is what the FOIA response actually says, then it seems the city attorney is correct in saying that your FOIA request has been granted in full.

Please correct me if I have missed something in the translation.

[XLFD]

You have. 

First off, even if I took two hours to inspect these records and needed to pay the 'babysitter' for their time, the City FOIA policy (and John Shay said this when asked by Councilor Marrison), that if the labor to search, compile etc. (does not include useless 'record security guards') is less than $50, he cannot charge for labor.  The $46 is less than $50, even without a $20 credit. 

Second off, $23 per hour is not the lowest paid employee capable of being a record security guard.  Third off, judicial interpretations of the law says that I have the right to inspect the originals of non-exempt records, providing copies is not what I asked for. 

Fourth off, previous responses to inspect similar records have been granted when I haven't been blocked from entering the City Hall under threat of arrest due to an unconstitutional trespass policy.  These inspections were at no cost even though the records were more extensive, with no change in the FOIA policy.

Fifth, I never asked for copies of the oversized records, so why do they need to send these out in the first place.

If you think the request has been fulfilled under the City and State FOIA policy, you need some civics lessons, and quick. 

[Eye On Ludington]

First off, you claim to have submitted an FOIA to inspect records of a certain property, and the FOIA Coordinator responded by saying those records consist of 500 pages plus some oversize pages. Then Shay explains that City Policy does not allow him to let you view the "original" records unsupervised. That sounds very reasonable to me. After all, we cannot allow the original records to be tampered with in any way.

Second off, how do you know that $23 per hour (including benefits) is not the lowest paid employee capable of supervising you? It sounds very reasonable to me.

Third off, I do not see where he denied you permission to view the originals as long as there is a city employee supervising those original records. That sound very reasonable to me.

Fourth off, did the previous responses to your previous requests include as many Original records as the current request? Or is it possible that you were granted leniency in the previous responses over and above what was required?

Fifth, you apparently asked to see property records. Did  you specifically say your request should not include any oversize records? How is the FOIA Coordinator supposed to know what you do or do not want if you do not let him know?

 

Just pay the $26 and get all the records you want! Why waste hundreds of taxpayer dollars on what appears to be a squabble over a mere $26 in fees?

 

 

I never said I think the request has been fulfilled. I said IF the FOIA response was accurate according to the way I interpreted it then it would APPEAR that the City Attorney's response is accurate. But if you want to spin my own words into meaning something beyond what I actually said, then you need some civility lessons, and quick!

[XLFD]

Eye,

I will let your responses speak for themselves, as they do not even address any policy or legal argument, only your concept of 'reasonableness'.  If I all of a sudden decide to charge you $100 for every post that you make on the Torch, would that seem reasonable to you, being that I don't charge anyone else for doing so? 

Just pay the $100, and $100 for every past post you made.  Pretty ridiculous when you think about it, isn't it.

BTW, Civics has nothing to do with civility.