XLFD Makes Public Mistake, Admits and Gets Over It

[XLFD]

Tonight, February 18, 2013, I made a mistake at the City Council meeting.  I mistakenly said that the City Council of Ludington did not hold a public hearing on the development of the west end of Ludington Avenue at any point, but it was discussed last February and a public hearing was held on March 12, 2012.  No one spoke positively or negatively about the project at the second meeting, probably because of two reasons.  First, it wasn't well detailed to the public, the Daily News had an article about it at the end of February 2012 which mentioned little of what they were planning to do in specific detail or diagrammatically.  The City has never been very revealing of this stealth project.

 

So even though I made a rather glaring misstatement, the basic tenets of my opposition to the West End Project discussed last year on the Ludington Torch among ourselves starting in this thread, with some of our most in-the-know correspondents basically in the dark about the full project, stand firmly on fact.  The City wants to develop the project conceptually, and not show what it intends to do to the beautiful natural setting they will replace.  In my opinion, the walkway detracts from the setting, and offers no real expansion of the area to handicapped individuals-- they can already go out to the breakwall, and to the beach via the north seasonal walkway, via the breakwall walkway, or the big-wheeled carts.  A lot more accessible than the dog park ever has been.

 

Contrary to Tom Coleman who spoke before me about the project being one that Justus Stearns would have approved of, I just don't see that as relevant.  Justus Stearns died on Feb. 14, 1933, Laura Stearns, the widow of Justus' son Robert is the person who donated the lakefront property to the City after a career of landscaping that area.  I doubt she would have liked the intrusion of a concrete walkway in the area, and I'm sure the City Manager or Mayor of this town has asked any of her descendants about whether they would like further concrete developments in this natural setting if they can't even reveal to us other citizens the complete plans of what they want to do. 

 

What I do see as fact is that Tom Coleman came in front of the Council to speak for this project without declaring that when he was on the Planning Commission he was working to get the prototypes of these West End Ludington developed, as in this meeting of March 4, 2008:  "Chairman Coleman asked John Shay to explain the grant that Heather Loney applied for the sidewalk on the West end of Ludington Ave. Mr. Shay said that the City did get a grant for the breakwater and as part of that; they are looking to apply for another grant to put in a walkway on the break water."

 

If you recall the Dog Park that was put in Cartier Park had a similar backing by a Planning Commission member, Joe Moloney posing as a common citizen representing a private group.  These people have a right to express their opinion in front of the City Council, but they really should state their affiliation or past affiliation with the City and the project they speak about.  Tom Coleman, unlike Joe Moloney, however, did not violate the prohibited conduct mentioned in the City Code/Charter.   Here is my own statement about the project, with my error highlighted, and two brief annotations in red.

 

 

"Since at least 2004, this City Administration has determined to develop the west end of Ludington Avenue.  Since that same time they have been equally determined to not reveal exactly what they plan to do with that development.  Both Dave Gibbs and Don Fallis (who lives on S Lakehore)commented in July of 2004 about waterfront rehab being agreeable but letting the natural beauty of the waterfront remain, Don commenting further on establishing priorities to improve the City for those who live here 12 months of the year.

Nearly nine years later, those misgivings on such a project still ring true for most Ludington Citizens.  Our trepidations grow more strongly as the City intelligentsia plan on going through with this project without garnering any input from the public.  And that's what they did last year, they tried to get this project which would we would be forced to pay 25% of the cost for, okayed through the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.  Without a scintilla of public comment or any public hearing on the matter.
[Note: the Feb 27, 2012 and the Mar. 12 2012 meetings had public comments/hearings, contrary to my assertion.  Hey, I was kept from entering the City hall and voting in the Republican Primaries in between those two times and noticeably distraught because of it.]

It is easy to see how this could happen from a City Hall that confirmed it has broken the Open Meetings Act by deliberating and making decisions in an E-mail scheme to withhold that information from the public just a couple of meetings ago, holding the public to pay for its legal bills to come to that conclusion, and having no contrition for doing so.  But to qualify for these grants from a trust fund that is set up by Article 9, section 35 of the State Constitution, holding public hearings for such a development is a requirement.

The trust fund states clearly, quote:  "All applicants must hold at least one public meeting to receive input about the application. This meeting must be held within the six-month time period before the application deadline and before a resolution committing to the application is passed by your highest local governing body. If resubmitting an application, you must also hold a public meeting within the six-month time period before the application deadline. Public meetings focused on review of your recreation plan will not meet your obligations for public input for your grant application unless the meeting notice and agenda indicate that the meeting will cover both recreation plan review and the specific grant application. Documentation of the public meeting must be submitted and consists of the advance notice of the meeting advertisement and the official minutes of the meeting." end quote

The notice for this public hearing today was a blurb on this Saturday's paper, saying a public hearing was to take place, without any details of what the plan is all about except that it's for a concrete walkway that extends from the end of Ludington Avenue along the beach to the lighthouse breakwater.

The trust fund's document continues:  "Although a single public meeting with advance notice is the minimum requirement, applicants should make additional outreach efforts to ensure the public is aware of the project and document those efforts in the application. This is particularly important for potentially controversial projects, such as those close to residential areas. Additional public meetings, informational mailings, local newspaper articles, and individual contact with landowners adjacent to the project site are all examples of additional outreach efforts that can benefit a project. Do not limit outreach to your own community, since nonresidents are also often affected by the project. You may also want to hold a public meeting during the time that your seasonal residents are present in your community to receive their comments on the proposed project. This may entail holding a meeting more than six months before the application submission deadline. The public notice and minutes from this meeting need to be included in your application."

Is the public being tweaked for their opinions of this project they know basically nothing about?  No, and even though we receive the vast majority of our Stearn' beach tourists during the summer months, the City decides to hold these hearings in the middle of winter, when tourism is at its nadir point.  [Note:  A bit of word play on my part:  nadir means "lowest point" but adjacent to the West End project is Nader's Motor Lodge.]

 

Must we remind the City Council that USA Today ranked Stearn's Beach in its top 50 of American beaches, and that weather.com listed our lighthouse in their top ten of lighthouses.  Making an unnecessary, unnatural, and unnegotiable concrete walkway that interferes with the aesthetical pleasure that so many people experience from that area is something I would not agree with even if the walkway was provided for free.  Don Fallis' words from 2004 is still very applicable today, concentrate on the rest of the City that needs maintaining and improving to the benefits of tourists and locals alike.  Thank you."

[XLFD]

According to the E-edition of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) the City only received encouragement for the West End project:

 

City encouraged to seek grant for work to west end of Ludington Ave.
Kevin Braciszeski - Daily News Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Former Ludington Planning Commission Chair Tom Coleman encouraged the city council Monday to continue its efforts to develop the west end of Ludington Avenue.
Ludington city officials have been looking to make improvements to the area along the harbor for more than a decade, with the hope now a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant could get the project moving.

The city is seeking a grant of up to $300,000, which requires a 25 percent match.

The money would pay for 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.

The council meeting Monday included a public hearing on the issue, during which Coleman gave his opinion.

Coleman said the plan has been part of the city’s comprehensive plan for 10 to 15 years and said the total project can be completed in pieces.

Feel like you're not getting all the information? The complete version of this story is available for subscribers in today's print and electronic versions of the Ludington Daily News

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/69690-city-encouraged-to-see...=

And you're not getting the all the information, Tom Coleman spoke for less than a minute about the project, I spoke for five against the project (more against the unilateral, secretive process the City is using to make these changes), and the headline used by the COLDNews registers that even though only 1/6 of the time allotted for speaking about this topic was positive for this project, that the City has been encouraged to seek funds.  At least I honestly believed there had been no public hearing done previously, Kevin totally negated my input.

But the written article in the COLDNews did report my error that I already pointed out and acknowledged, without seriously looking at the City's lack of getting the information about this out to the public or the rest of my statements.  I guess I have the wrong last name.