Today I Witnessed a Rape...

[XLFD]

I was out riding my bicycle on this nice October day by the residence of a lady I know.  She is beautiful, yet simple; she is the ward of a guardian, whose decisions are made for her.  She was adopted long ago with strict rules given by the parents as to how she was to be taken care of.  Recently, her guardianship has changed and the rules were mostly forgotten.

 

I noticed a truck that belonged to a friend of the new guardian.  Concealed by some nearby foliage, I seen him taking advantage of her.  Before I could do anything, I saw two more of the guardian's friends drive their vehicles up to her place, and they got out and joined in the assault.  I wanted to call 911, but knew the guardian was a co-worker and a very good friend of the local police chief, who would allow this to continue.  I sneaked off, disgusted, and went home to get my camera, so as to chronicle the nasty development to help her in the future.

 

When I got back, the vehicles had left and this poor lady was hurting.  She had multiple cuts all over her body, and they had even spray painted her all over. It looked painful and I took pictures of the hurt they had inflicted on her.  Before I could even think of doing more, they came back and brought some more friends with them.  The anguish I felt with not being to help this lady was great, but I went away while they came back at her.  Once again they assaulted her, cutting her up, damaging her beyond immediate repair.  I took more pictures of the carnage, but they paid little attention to me-- they knew I couldn't help her out, and they had weapons.

 

They continued this for the rest of the afternoon, cleaned up a little bit afterwards, and left.  I consoled her afterwards, but knew there was little I could do to help her before they would come back again and do worse to her.  Tomorrow the raping will continue.

 

Pre:  100_1081.JPG   100_1084.JPG   100_1087.JPG

 

During:  100_1091.JPG   100_1097.JPG   100_1100.JPG

 

Post:  100_1107.JPG   100_1108.JPG   100_1109.JPG

[XLFD]

If you go into public land or someone else's private land to pick those apples or oranges you can still be tried for trespassing, my friend.

Speaking of which, here is another law of our city applying to public parklands which says that I, or any other member of the public (resident or visitor), run the risk of being charged with trespassing if we violate this acreage in verbatim:

ARTICLE III. OFFENSES INVOLVING PROPERTY RIGHTS*
Sec. 34-61. Trespass.

(d) Where the city has granted exclusive use of a park or any portion of a park, or a building or portion of a building owned by the city to any individual(s), entity, or organization, no person shall enter such park, portion of such park, building, or portion of such building for which exclusive possession has been granted by the city without permission of the individual(s), entity, or organization who has been granted the use of such premises, nor shall any person disrupt or interfere with the use of such premises by such individual(s), entity, or organization which has the right to exclusive use.
One can be following Cartier Park rules, and yet be charged with trespassing, fined, jailed and/or thrown out of this park by any member of this DPC or any public official with proper authority for just walking in the area without their permission. Since the dog park has had plans on being membership-only and restricted-use, non-members are forced out of a section of public park. This is again contrary to what Jen and her lawyer friends have said. It is more than just 'putting up a fence'

Just one more reason I am against putting the dog park in our public parks, and why the general citizen of Ludington, dog owner or not, should have some trepidation about taking this parkland out of the public trust without approval. Still waiting on the conditional contract the Cartiers had via the FOIA, though I should probably get it within a couple of weeks.

[Sweater Cows!]

WRONG!!! you *know* your twisting it in way it isn't meant to be with ^^that one. get real!

They did not grant the dpc EXCLUSIVE use of this area.

They gave them permission to raise funds for the fencing to be put up, some signs, and some doggy doodoo bags.

The DPC has no "exclusive use" in the park area. It is still a public park for everyone to use.

UGH WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is an example, even tho you won't accept it.

I'll use AQ. He has a customer who requests that he puts up rails all along the waters edge and on the docks with gates so the persons kids won't fall in the water.

He is like "aww hell no I ain't payin' for that".

THEN the customer says "well if I pay for it, and get all the work done, and pay you for any work you do for upkeep and such will you let that happen?"

AQ says, "sure, go for it", " let me know if you need any help, you can reimburse me for my time and maybe I can get you some materials at my business discount if you need them, just pay me back"

Customer: " okay, well thanks, We'll get everything in motion and come fall we'll have the fences(railings) up"

Fast Forward to Fall 2010............................

Customer : "Hey AQ, we got the money for those fence rails around the waters edge and docks and got a quote from a fenceing Co. to install them"

AQ: "Okay, well do you need anything from me?"

Customer: " yeah the rocks need to all be moved a foot to the left."

AQ:" okay, well I'll get that done, I got a guy who I know who can do it, I'll pay him and you reimburse me"

Customer: "okay, sounds good, let me know when the rocks are moved and we'll get the fence people scheduled."


Two weeks later AQ calls the customer, they come over and see the rocks are moved and do a little more cleanup that the fence CO requested. They pay AQ to cover the cost of the laborer who moved the rocks.

Then the fence CO puts up the fence and The Customer pays them.

The customer leaves for the winter and comes back next spring to a fenced marina.

The customer (DPC) has no more right to use the marina than they did a year ago. As long as they dock their boat there they can use the docks just like before. If they dock somewhere else then AQ now has the benefit of having a fenced marina. The Customer stays and uses AQ's marina till they die, and every year they come and do a little upkeep on the fence. It still isn't their fence. It still isn't their marina.


Oh and whoever said 'profit', what are you even talking about. There is no 'profit', what do you think you have to pay a fee to enter the dog park? Well, DUH, of course NOT! It is still a public park. A park with a fenced area for dogs but that's it.

Now more on X's blurb he posted above. That rule would only apply if I say for instance wanted to "rent" that little building down at the marina for a family reunion or party. or if I wanted to rent the town hall. THAT is an exclusive right to the rented city property(usually for a day).

Trying to relate that to a the dog park is like trying to convince men to use a tampon for a bloody nose. Sure, they are holes that bleed, but one thing really has nothing to do with the other.

[Mary A.]

Weird analogy, Sheila. Your mind is in the gutter today. :-)

[XLFD]

Sheila, Your analogy does fall short to me, because you work with the premise that Aquaman gave the approval for this fence to be put up and he had that authority. It also didn't include the Moloney factor.

To put it more in business terms, let the electorate of Ludington be the shareholders of a corporation and the City Gov't be the corporation's Board of Directors. In certain situations, the Board must put some decisions up to a vote by the shareholders. If one of the board's members convinced the rest of the board to bypass this vote so they can use the shareholder's capital to benefit that board member and the rest of the board, but not the shareholders, this would be obviously illegal and unethical. I only call for a legitimate shareholder vote and for the errant board members to be reprimanded or fired.

Putting fences up to restrict movement, cleaning out wooded areas, and ruining the aesthetic experience of being able to walk through a natural setting is changing the use of the park. Wouldn't putting in a baseball park or golf course at the park change the use? Yet all you are doing is cleaning the area and putting up fences.

When the language of the City Council says "set aside a portion of Cartier Park to be used as a dog park" this translates to an exclusive use in my reading. Once the rules of the dog park are finally revealed, it will be a bit more obvious.

[AQUAMAN]

Hmm, the only membership group I saw regarding the dog park was on LT, just a talk group giving verbal support and communication on the project. So, you have the get a FOIA authority to get a copy of the deed? Strange, it would seem that could be had just by asking up front at the counter, not a big deal. You know X, considering the total size of Cartier park, probably about what, 75 acres or so, if only 1 acre is dedicated to a dog park, that doesn't really seem like any big loss of usage to the general public, imho.

[XLFD]

It sets a bad precedent to give up any parkland without public approval. As I've intimated, the City Gov't looks at some of our city parks as non-revenue generators, available to groups who may wish to 'improve' it in their own way so that the City Gov't can either get more revenue (directly or indirectly) or 'do something for the public good'.

Many Ludington citizens I have talked about this agree with me (or at least nod in patronization) that the best improvement of a public park like Cartier is to not tinker with it. Let it be. It might get less visitors and use, but those who find spiritual sustenance in the natural setting of a park would not have it any other way.

I just may be one of those tree-hugging nature-loving bastards who would just love to throw out the gazebo, the piers, and the multi-use paths the City Gov't has 'gifted' us with over the last few years and get it back to the mostly unspoiled way it was just a few years back.

[XLFD]

As for FOIA requests, I've had a few to make recently and included this among the requests. There's nothing more the CM loves to do I think, and it keeps him out of trouble by unilaterally making $1.51 million water tower painting contracts.

[Sweater Cows!]

Now, I don't know much about painting water towers (getting off topic I know) but I would like to see an estimate/final bill on that because, due to my knowledge of metal, rust(corrosion) repair and prevention and painting it I am guessing that it would be a very expensive endeavor.

Just like some people are very surprised when I tell them something they think will cost $50 actually will be $350, I don't believe painting a water tower is exactly a simple job. I should ask my brother, he used to paint things like inside the turbines at the project and the Macinac bridge. I think he made $30/hr roughly plus benefits.

The thing is though, That 1.5M now could save 4.5 M later. When dealing with metal and rust corrosion fix it EARLY!!!! When you see that little brown stain its time to fix, not when there is a hole rotted through and .........anyway. It is better to spend the money now and prevent a bigger more costly job later. ALTHOUGH I have no idea why they refinished them, but I am guessing that the paint was degrading leaving the metal exposed and that can cause big problems.

[XLFD]

I should have some more on the water tower deal to go on to the "Watertowergate" thread soon, but before that take a look down at the new paint job the Scottville water tower received. Under $200,000 to paint and the city taxpayers paid less than $50,000.

Once the outside of the Danaher Tower is painted, Ludington will have spent one million more than that, and paid for it all through local taxpayer funds, with nary an explanation as to why it needed to be done after only ten years-- not rust, not corrosion, not health concerns, etc. And still no signs of any competitive bids at this time.

[Mary A.]

Could someone please post some photos of the completed dog park? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

[AQUAMAN]

Mary, I just went over out of curiosity today, the fencing work has just begun recently, it's not nearly completed at all. No trees cleared, nor fencing up yet, just some posts for the fence cemented in a line going north and south on the east-west perimeters. It would be interesting to know exactly how many, if any, trees they plan to cut down in the dog park. There is a lot of old hardwoods in that area, and many look quite big. Seems they would have cut them down before they start putting fence posts up, so the falling trees don't destroy the new fencing.

[Mary A.]

Thanks, Aqua. If you get a chance as things progress, please take more pictures and post them. The location is very different from dog parks I'm familiar with. Most I've seen are unobstructed flatlands. This one is a bit unusual.