Ludington City Council Meeting August 13, 2018: Neal Before Me

The August 13, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting had a light agenda considering the council hadn't met for 3 weeks.  Nevertheless, it was attended by the cream of Ludington's plutocrats including John Wilson and Bob Neal, who seem to indicate that the 'bowling alley block development' (BABD) is about to begin.  Both would speak when their piece after  the time where the council would pass a couple of amendments to the deal and three agreements between the developer's LLC concerning parking, leasing and licensing agreements without much discussion other than the parking issue.  

These two would make comments that should have made the council and manager rethink their philosophy on our overbearing city government, but such revelations only amused them.  Let's review the meeting (here is the agenda for reference).  

After an uneventful start, the public comment began with Scott Sitler (2:40 in) talking about the parking issue at the BABD, where the sixty units have been allotted only 30 parking spaces, and if these units each had two vehicles as many households do , there would be a problem fitting them in nearby.  I then followed him with concerns about an old and new issue:

August 13th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  (3:30 in):  "At the last meeting, the matter of changing the sidewalk policy was effectively passed without addressing how it will improve the city's oft-stated goal of walkability, nor did it come with a realization that if the sidewalk exemption is approved for the Mutton property off of South Lakeshore, then the precedent will exempt almost any property in the future and lead to the city's sidewalk budget being used almost exclusively for maintenance of our existing, inadequate sidewalk network.

We might as well reform the city's sidewalk policy so that the City develops a sensible sidewalk plan based on priorities of where sidewalks are needed rather than due to the arbitrary nature of sales or new construction. Our school zones are loaded with properties without adjacent sidewalks, forcing kids to walk on the street to get to and from school. Is this acceptable when we are currently forcing some homeowners to put in sidewalks that have no real purpose since adjoining properties have none? I would like to see the city council take a leadership role in establishing priorities so as to efficiently reach their goal of increased walkability.

At tonight's meeting you will make a determination that will go the opposite direction for another issue regarding right-of-ways. You will vote to determine whether the city council will abandon their power to determine specifics of special events signs in the right of way and give that power to the city manager away from the purview of the council and citizens. This action would not only be bad for transparency, but also for accountability-- since the public will not generally know what details are in any given application until they get a good idea when their front yard has a sign in it for an event they may be totally against.

Since these signs will be on somebody's property, it seems rational that they would have some say as to whether it be placed there. This is done for almost every other sign, like all those election signs we'll see this year. The city council has in the past preempted this property right by saying they have the authority to put event signs on this strip without the owner's permission, now they want to further remove this property right by giving that power to the city manager. If that happens, an aggrieved citizen cannot look to their councilor for help in directing what the manager decides, nor do they have any leverage with the manager, whose employer is the council, not the people.

So if you are a fervent teetotaler and you have a large sign in your front lawn advertising Suds on the Shore, you have zero recourse other than talking to a city manager who will tell you he has already approved it months ago outside of the public eye and he has the power to make sure it stays there on your front lawn. Thank you." [End]

I have been harping on sensibly prioritizing sidewalk policy since 2009 without clear results, even though it's currently in the ordinances that "the city council shall establish a list of priorities for addressing sidewalks from time to time" (Sec. 46-71(b)).  No official touched on the topic, though later I would get a surprise ally in this fight.  

As for the event sign policy, the council without sensible discussion yet, did a first reading of the ordinance that would cede their power to the city manager, so the issue that generally evokes the most spirited discussion among the council has been taken off their hands.  They didn't even bother telling the public their usual myth that they own the right-of-way, since that legend is about as comical as the homeowner owning and being responsible for the City's water supply lines that run from the City's water main to the City's shut-off valve. 

If this passes at the next meeting, I encourage all homeowners to remove any offensive signs that crop up on their property, say you removed it while you were lawnmowing the "city's property" and something must have happened to it.  If they don't buy your explanation, accidentally run over it with your lawnmower the next time.  They will either get the hint, or at worse, revoke your privilege of mowing 'their' property that belongs to you.  

Tom Tyron went next and showed a fairly common confusion about what all those moving parts involved in the BABD and new fire station bargaining were.  The new city manager deigned to answer the question by effectively saying "it's complicated."  This has been, is, and will be the explanation for this development, which relies on a lot of government incentives being approved by these guys and the state.  

The committee reports had a new mutual aid agreement being approved, with the County's Emergency Management Coordinator Liz Reimink answering question.  They segued to a first reading of rezoning a 4 acre plot off Madison and Dowland in order to make a residential development there, at 18:00 one of the developers gave some background and why they thought it was a perfect area for development.  They plan on having a mixture of apartments available, with varying rent 'workforce housing'.  One bedroom units could be in the low $300s. 

They then read the event sign ordinance, and Councilor Winczewski gave some surprising results of a survey that wasn't included in the council packet.  No other discussion was made regarding the proposed change.  

As noted the City then passed two amended agreements and three new agreement approvals dealing with the bowling alley block.  Interim CM Steve Brock gave a video presentation of the development, none of which were included in the packet, and the city attorney continued (32:00 in)by explaining the convoluted agreements and amendments as if everyone wasn't confused already.  When those were all passed without significant discussion by the council, some of the players got up to congratulate themselves and the officials.

               The BABD, looking north, parking spaces in pink, buildings in the NE and SE corner, unlike the original plan  

In the process there was a couple of surprises, the first when John Wilson, who represents multiple agencies involved in the complex project (Mason County Foundation, Pennies from Heaven, West Shore Bank, and himself).  He made the first admission: 

John Wilson (49:00 in) "As we worked through the project it became very apparent that construction costs and city tax rates were not going to make a development possible down there."

This elicited no response from the council, but he was effectively saying that the City's onerous taxation dampens their ability to foster development in the city.  This wasn't an anomaly, because just after he sat down, Bob Neal got up and told a 'funny' story:  

Bob Neal (53:00 in):  "the first month after I bought the Bonser business from Jack, not the business but the [downtown] real estate, the City sent me a letter saying I couldn't warehouse in it, it was not zoned correctly. The next month I got my first tax bill-- the next month I tore it down." (laughter by a few officials). 

The second dig at the City's development-killing taxation policies came with an added grievance about the City's denial of his desire for adding warehouse space.  He continued later in the same vein, and railed against taxes without offending the taxers:

Neal:  "I own the four highest tax properties in the city of Ludington, because I am the only person who builds anything new in the city of Ludington in a long time."  

I don't know about the veracity of this statement, but it wasn't challenged.  For those who think Ludington has been well-served by the various local economic development agencies and officials in the area, they may wish to consider that when these major scions of industry and development infer otherwise.

After this the second public comment, Chuck Sobanski said at 57:00:

"I agree with Tom, our city sidewalk ordinance stinks, and I'm going to be very factual, we have a resident south of us and they have to have their sidewalk replaced before they can sell the house. We got sidewalks in the Fourth Ward that are dirt, stumps, we're not doing nothing about it. Why is it fair for the person selling a house to do it, and a person who owns a house doesn't have to do it. I don't get the ordinance, I've read what the ordinance says."  He then wondered why all the questions regarding the BABD weren't long ago decided in the Planning Commission.

Mayor Holman said it went through planning and zoning.  The record says that Chuck is right, this has only come before the LPC one time as a site plan review in Nov. 2017.  There has never been a transparent review as to any of the many facets of this development that should be warranted for this property for the community's sake.  

Following her husband's earlier concerns, Barb Sitler (59:00 in) was nervous but sincerely concerned about parking for new buildings being insufficient, followed by another gentleman with parking traffic concerns in the area.  As for me, I closed the public comment period by being excited, and being brief.

XLFD:  (1:02:00 in)  "I am excited about the potential development in the Fourth Ward on Madison and Dowland Streets going in. Instead of the government devising schemes of tax increment financing, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, tax credits and tax abatements to bring in development, this development at this stage looks to create living spaces the old fashioned way, where the best thing the government can do is to get out of the way and let the free market do its job. [End]"

We should all appreciate developments that do not rely on government handouts, nor ones that need to be so complicated that our city leaders have to approve five agreements with the developers two and a half years after the original council approval.  

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    Brad

    If anyone thinks Bob Neal and John Wilson aren't setting themselves up to make big money here, they are blind.  If they were to lose money or break even, neither of them would ever do this project.  I like how John and Bob donated their land to Morris St non-profit, that John runs and supplies monies to Pennies from Heaven, his other non-profit.  I'm sure John's West Shore bank will also hugely benefit from this deal too, now and later.  I like the comment from mayor (I think) of that Bob has been in this a "long time".  Yep, a long time of screwing city of Ludington, other businesses, and the citizens.  This project and the dealings of this property, the Dowland property, and the Lakeshore Lumber property are SO frustrating.

    5
  • up

    stump

    So what is the city tax plan for this project?  More no tax till all rented as other developments in town? if they remove snow for there property for free I guess that would set a president that you the tax payer could get their drive cleaned also. 

    • up

      stump

      Many years ago the city /state  had a program to help business owners money wise to improve their business . I think he used that money to build his Million dollar house.   I was at a council meeting when Neal was asking for more money after he went bankrupt . A question was asked about the bankruptcies and money from the city tax payers. As I recall Neal stated it wasn't our money, it came from the state!!!!  What a ass.

      1