The same numbskulls running the City who continue to defy the FIOA laws are again trying to alter the West end of Ludington Ave. They just won't give up. They continue to try and waste the taxpayers money. 

"A proposal to make major changes to the west end of Ludington Avenue is scheduled to come back to the Ludington City Council Monday and the council could set public hearings in March to learn reactions of residents to the idea of seeking grant money from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to pay for those changes.

The council has discussed the issue many times in the past and has sought grant money for the work, with the hope this might be the year the work is funded.

One phase of the project that has been planned for several years is building a concrete walkway along the beach in front of the dune between the Ludington North Breakwater and the west end of Ludington Avenue, where the pavement ends, plus a portion of the promenade area where the avenue ends.

Another idea the council has discussed in the past would close off the westernmost block of the street to vehicles and pave it with bricks, add short shrubs and create a paved area where tents could be erected and parties held."

Views: 2659

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think this fudgie had no ill intent towards Scottville, but his comment WAS demeaning to the employee that was actually helping him. My true point of the post was to show that the city would rather take money from this ass then care about citizen's opinions.

See attached... Excerpts from DNR Guideline booklet on notifying the public.

So unfortunately I haven’t had enough time to go thru all this...
Does any one know if the city followed these guideline to apply and amend the West End Grant?  Just wondering if they followed required guidelines. (some are suggestions)  Especially wondering about "amendments" notices.,1607,7-153-58225_58301---,00.html



Could anyone please answer/comment on these two points:

1) Are the "parking lots" adjacent to Stern's Park part of the plat that was donated by the Stern's family, or has the City acquired it otherwise?  Is any part of the "ugly paved area" the termination of U.S. 10, and state highway?

2) How has the City, in the past, answered why they as public servants are not subject to The City of Ludington Charter, Ch. 14:3,the intent of the rule to provide all citizens a right to say how public parks are used or changed: "...The City Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert to any other public use any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting theron in any election?"

I am not totally sure of the first, I have not reviewed the original conveyance in that much detail.

For the second point, the city attorney has determined at a previous meeting that I brought this very section up that the modifications used at the West End of Ludington is not technically a diversion of public use of the park.  He then offered a parable of all the extra hullaballoo that would need to take place for minor alterations of a city park if it was interpreted the way you, I, and other reasonable people should interpret the wording of that section. 

In 2009 when they set aside a portion of Cartier Park for a private group to build a dog park, I brought that section up because it definitely applied then, even more than it does for the current plans on the West End, since the city effectively gave public parkland to a private entity (one ran by a city official, Joe Moloney).  I stated then that this would become a recurring theme as the City of Ludington would try to exploit our parklands using the same methods in order to satisfy either their own egos, the whims of special interest developers, and/or enrich their treasury.

It's sad when our elected officials see the law, and promptly ignore it

Thanks for the history, XLFD.


To answer  your first question  US 10 formerly ended at the West End but a few years ago the  city petitioned the State to move its terminus down James Street ending at the fantail of the carferry Badger.

While praised at the time and is kind of a proper place to end it as US 10 again picks up at the carferry dock in Manitowoc in retrospect it was a short sighted idea. Let me explain.

By moving US 10 down James street the city has to play by State rules in regards  to the operation of the block of Ludington Avenue between Harrison and James. This means that the downtown area will never be properly developed. State rules dictate that the only allowable diagonal parking on a State named thorofare must be backed into instead of the more natural driving in head first 

Picture this, US 10 instead of US 10 traveling down James Street at the light, it turned south down Harrison at the stoplight to Loomis Street, then  traveled back to James and continued on. This would free up the downtown area to be developed correctly.

The stoplight at James could be pulled. The center of Ludington Avenue could have a narrow boulevard with diagonal  on both sides from a single lane of traffic going through the downtown.  Backing out of the diagonal spaces would be easy as traffic would be held up by the stoplights.  

James street south of the now removed stoplight could be closed off as a pedestrian area. Traffic would flow smoother through the downtown area with only 2 stoplights to contend with. The boulevard could continue to the one further to the West by House of Flavors if  desired. This would make the downtown area seem busier and more user friendly.  

Ideally instead of US10 going south on James it would have been moved further west on Loomis  to Rath  where 10 would become one way south. James Street could then be switched to one way north.You would then have US 10 divided which would lead to more maintenance funds from the State.  This would have made traffic flow even better. There would subsequently be more economic development in this area. The town would appear more vibrant and alive instead of  the current dull and insipid. 

But of course as usual,in exercising its options, the city chose poorly.

Wow! Very interesting .. shi blind and thanks for that information .. so do you know if the city acquired the "west end parking lot" from the state? If they did they may feel like that have more rightsto develop as they want .. but iit sounds like they are going to do so anyway as they want.
Sorry for typos shinblind ..

Shinblind. WOW! I hope nobody decides to do any of those Ideas. That's nuts


I will tell you what is nuts, James Street Plaza ver. 3.0  how many times are they going to try to polish this turd. 

It would replace the 36 parking spaces in the 2 block downtown area with 150 parking spaces.

Traffic would flow smother. Three stop lights for Ludington should be a CW song not the joke it is.

You would end up with an actual pedestrian area that would that would lead to something better than a parking lot.

The cost to the DDA would be minimal for the returns. 

There would be the potential to expand the concept for an additional 2 or 3 blocks should the need ever arise.

The area south of Ludington  Ave. between Rath and James could be developed to it's potential.

What is nuts stump is ignoring fundamental flaws in the layout of the area and not trying to improve them.

City Council- Parks Committee meeting today, 3:30 at city hall.

If anybody goes, take notes and let the rest of us know what happened.


© 2017   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service