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

[charlemagnetism]

great read on a great controvercy. mark me i think there are some of the usual business as usual as regards our fair city on the lake by our electreds. the govnor and jen have discussed this topic respectably. too bad joe and a john or two cant get on here and tell there story. i do agree that this is more than just improving paths or putting in piers or gazebos and the language used in this seems a bit dodgy.

[Sweater Cows!]

This thing is about as secret as the fact that it snows in michigan in the winter. I don't even live in Lud or get the LDN and I have known about this for what? two or three years now.

I have a "like" on my facebook of the dog park that was "liked" over a year ago. I have seen them at different local events with there booth and a dog or two and a rep to talk about this to anyone who is interested.

So to say your whole conspiracy theory idea is bunk is accurate. Just because you didn't pay attention until right before you posted the hot dog thread doesn't mean it is some secret.

You try to twist this into some evil screw everyone over type thing. You guys know damn well that isn't the case. Not everyone is out to get you like Barnett was. Being a dog person myself I will tell you that our brains think (dog,dog,dog,dog,dog,dog, oh no cat, dog, dog, dog).lol

What you guys are implying would be like my nine year old complaining that she didn't know that she could sign up for girl scouts over a month ago. It isn't the girl scouts fault she didn't read the handout, there isn't some great conspiracy by the GS to keep her from singing up. But is is up to her to pay attention to what is going on. Just like it is up to you guys to pay attention.

Another analogy that may make more sense is to use X's bike ticket incident.

X didn't read the MI Motor Vehicle Code to know whether or not he had to make a complete stop at a stop sign on his bike. Then once he was ticketed he found the laws and learned them. X wasn't in a huge shush shush conspiracy to break the law with other bikers, he just assumed that he inherently knew the rules.

X makes me a bit upset when he is insulting the dog park people about this not reading the city charter(or just having a different interpretation of it) before proceeding with there idea when he himself had not done so regarding his favorite pasttime's laws.

Nobody is perfect and I don't feel it is fair that X is trying to throw a wrench into the plans of the dog lovers park when he himself being a bike lover had never previous to his ticketing memorized local bikers laws (and the city charter regarding how things should be handled in that incident).

Since the inception of the idea of the dog park X could have been right there helping them to follow the law and being there guide through the city charter. Yet over two years ago when this idea first got going X didn't even know about the Parks Rules in the charter. Instead he is now trying to condemn people for having a passion to do something that will benefit many people in our community, tourists and dogs. X is insinuating that these people try to be subversive to the law and to greenwash their pet project to the public.

Yet where was he from the beginning of this? Only now two or so years after the DPC formed (as a group of people with a common goal to improve the area for residents and tourists alike) does X come to the forefront and tell these people they have done everything wrong, not only that instead of being a helpful dissident he disparages them and their motives, (that really really pisses me off).

Not only does he insult the committee members character without even knowing who they are he accuses them of some great conspiracy. X tries to imply that the DPC was expecting the city to give them, an acre of the city park, when any person of average intelligence can figure out that that is not even remotely the case. They only wanted permission to make that little bit of the park into a safe area for people to use for the same purpose it was already being used for.

To assume, insinuate and imply that the DPC had anything but the best of intentions is taking things to far.

If X truly cares about this project I would hope he joins the DPC and gets active in helping, even if he is only helping to make sure the laws are followed. I would guess that the DPC would appreciate his investigate and research skills and put him to good use instead of paying a lawyer high dollar to do the same thing as I will assume that those on the DPC work and have their own area of expertise and this could be X's. I would also hope that every time X hears of any project in the city for anything he joins the committee and doesn't wait two or so years until the project is in it's final stages to start researching.


If anyone is in the wrong here it should be the city council members who SHOULD know the charter as well as I know my state of MI auto dealers manual. The DPC may have read the charter and interpreted it differently but that doesn't make them bad people or people with an evil motive.

From the beginning the city council members should have reviewed the charter parks section and guided the DPC in the Standard Operating Procedure that should be followed. Perhaps you can become an expert on the charter X and attend all council meetings to make sure this doesn't happen again.

I am sure that the city council will fail in their end of their responsibilities. They have in this case.

Or is X really against this project and therefore using any means particularly by interpreting the charter to say something it doesn't?

X if you were there you could have helped the DPC and CAN help others into the future so that they do not end up with someone coming forward and trying to put a wrench into a project that is near completion. With the knowledge you now have I don't see how you could without great shame not be at the council meetings to help local groups who would otherwise only be mislead by the council and it's continued abdication of the rules and end up after years of hard work having someone tell them they are wrong.

OBTW. X I am really ashamed of you for the stuff you have said here about the DPC.

[Edie Lindsey]

Sheila,
There are some irregularities in this project, some have recently come to light. X did bring this up long ago in the other thread, apparently sent the DPC some stuff through their website, and has asked questions which are relevant. I love dogs, but I can see the points he makes, and I'm sure he realizes that many of this site's members are pro-dog. Yet, I think he would have the same reaction if this were a cat or monkey "park'.

[XLFD]

Most residents of this town do not own dogs, and I am a member of that majority. We pay the majority of the taxes in this town. We are the majority owners of Cartier Park.

The Dog park Committee could have legitimized this endeavor by showing the majority of us Ludington citizens who are neutral or negative to the idea of a Dog Park why this would be a public improvement instead of a public nuisance.

This committee has yet to show us a member of our community who was a member of the DPC, other than Joe Moloney, who should have recused himself from representing this agency.

Heaven forbid, this idiot XLFD asks that there should be a vote by the electors of the city to legitimize this because the City Charter calls for it when considering the diversion of parkland to other uses. God save us, when he vindictively points out the ethical shortcomings of a City Official, and questions the motives of the "City of Ludington" who set aside and donated this land without the apparent authority to do so.

Sheila, you may think I am barking up the wrong tree, or on some vendetta against the city, but I think the quality of life and the betterment of the public good would be to keep our City Parks just that, City Parks. Not segmented theme parks. There are plenty of places, in and out of Ludington, for this dog park. If you decide to take parkland from our citizens, give us a vote, and give us more transparency in these dealings, as Jen has recently done.

[XLFD]

BTW, we entered at least the third day where DPW crews were out clearing the vegetation from this area. They had another truck full of brush, limbs, and trees to go out elsewhere today. I wish I could work for the DPW on this. They get paid not only their salary by the City for contracting their work out to the DPC, but they are also getting paid by the contributions of those who donated to the cause. There must not be anything else for them to do as regards the maintenance of the city.

[Jen]

We're not paying the workers... we're paying the city. So they're not getting paid twice. :) That would be pretty sweet for them, tho!

I know there are over 4,000 registered dogs in this county. I'd be interested to see what the percentage of population with dogs is, just for the heck of it. Did the census ask about pets? LOL! They should...

And we have had the money to put the fence up since July. We've had to wait for the DPW to deal with the Fourth, a busy August... then the horrible sand issue in Stearns park. They have been a busy department this summer!

Haven't heard back from the lawyer yet....

[XLFD]

Jen, I think the problem arises here when we consider who owns the park and who is the ultimate decider of what is to be done with it. The City of Ludington is not the City Manager, Council, etc. The City of Ludington is the people of the City who hires and subcontracts these people to manage it.

Let me use an analogy that doesn't involve dogs, parks, or cities. You inherit some land with some restrictions as to its use. You hire a land managing company, A, to manage it; in your contract with them you note that they must get your approval if they are to convert any of the land to a different use than it is. They subcontract a company, B, to tend it.

One of the overseers on A decides that part of your land could be put to better use. He sets up another company C, and with company A's approval (but not yours) he uses your land for a new purpose. He uses and pays Company B to adapt your land to his use. Any donations or profits Company C gets from the use of this land is also given to Company A.

Your approval has never been sought contrary to your contract with Company A; you get none of the money from the change of use only managing Company A does; Company B is getting paid through Company A to do your work, but is doing work for Company C, instead of for you, leaving them behind in the upkeep of their work on the rest of your property.

Yet when we look at the whole scenario, the only company truly at fault is Company A for overlooking the contract they had with you, and not preventing the one member from doing what he did.

If we replace Company A by the City of Ludington Government, B by the DPW, C by the Dog Park Committee, the 'new purpose' by making a dog park, and 'you' by the citizens of Ludington, you roughly have what we had in this case.

Here is just one thing the DPW is behind in. It has been over a month since our wind storms, and yet they haven't got out the brooms and shovels to clean up the skate park so that the kids can skateboard in safety. They're still skating though. Such stuff is not the kids' responsibility.

[Jen]

I don't see it the same way you do. I see Company A wants to build a dog park. Company C gives them the money to make it and Company A, sends out Contractors B to do the dirty work. That is all the involvement that Company C has. Period.

We have no control over anything that happens there. We just bought the fence.

I do believe the skate park has the same situation... someone else raised the money to build it and the city will not use tax payers money to maintain it. If the kids leave the park a mess or vandalize it, the city puts up the yellow tape and no one can use it until someone volunteers to clean it up. That's why the sand is still there.

And that's what till happen if the dog park ends up covered in poop and dog toys. Yellow tape goes up and volunteers have to clean it up if you want to use it.

[XLFD]

Company A apparently did want to build a dog park, I agree, but they did it on your land without your permission. You being the tax payer. And instead of you getting any advantage from having your land used, only the unethical managing company A is.

The skate park was the same situation-different park, and set the table for this takeover of public parkland. The City Government once again set up a committee replete with government officials to build the skate park. But that's for a different thread.

BTW, garbage and misuse by the kids is one thing, but if the city does not maintain the skate park above a reasonable standard (i.e. does not clean up the sand after a windstorm), any kid who injures himself has an excellent case for a negligence suit against the City Government. And guess who will pay out the settlement. The citizens of Ludington.

[charlemagnetism]

its kinda funny govnor that jen sheila cyndi and others that dont pay a cent to the city of ludville goverment have no problem with the shady ethics behind this dog park as it was created.
to back up your earlier analogy i will put down an anecdote. a friend of mine had 40 undeveveloped acres in rural mason county but lived elsewhere. several years he had been away from the property but came back around this time in the year and found someone had put 8 hunting blinds and tree stands around the property along with some bait piles. this was before that practice was outlawed.
a lot of 2-tracks littered his property most going to the nearby neighbor. many smaller trees had been cut down for blinds or because they were in the way for shots.
it seems the neighbor had thought that he and his buds could hunt my friends land since he never used it for anything. this neighbor never asked.
my friends property went from being beutiful to looking pretty crappy and it took years to recover. the ludington goverment is no better than these neighbors. and you ladies are far from polite neighbors for condoning this misuse of MY land here in ludville.

[Jen]

i never said that i don't have a problem with shady ethics. don't put words in my mouth.

[Sweater Cows!]

Well, TECHNICALLY, (and I would have to look this up in the book we got when I took a real estate licensing class, but it stuck with me) The neighbor who was using the absent owners land could have went to court and took it if the land owner had been absent for 15 years.

I kid you not, if the land owner was never there for 15 years and one minute then the neighbor who was using it could have went to court and tried to take it.

It is a real law. I would have to dig through some boxes in storage to find that book but it is true.