It seemed like the Victorian era at the July 13, 2026, meeting (agenda packet) of the Ludington City Council, what with all the gaslighting performed by administrative city officials. To those unfamiliar with the term, gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an abusive partner attempts to make their victim(s) question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Over time, it forces the victim(s) to rely entirely on the perpetrator for the "truth".
City Manager Kaitlyn Adrich (33:30 into the meeting) started off her presentation on the budget by telling us that the majority of what city administrators did for the Fourth of July in regard to the parking and the street barricades was due to an unspecified threat received through another police agency that they prepared for. The costly and unpopular moves to shut off traffic in Stearns Park that day seemed somewhat unnecessary for safety and many would opine that it made it more dangerous than if normal protocols were used.
This would be a bit of gaslighting on that day, since city administrators thought it was safe to change all of the established patterns at the last minute rather than to tell the public there was a credible threat to their safety that they kept secret from us and disallowed us to figure out how best to view the parade and fireworks in a safe manner.
She would continue on by telling us in mostly general terms why the city needed your money rather than you did and why they would continue to need to raise your taxes every summer because the trend for the city is to be deficit-spending over the next three years. Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn would suggest that administrators and members of the Finance Committee were having to make some tough decisions in order to pinch pennies, and this was gaslighting in its finest form, with us as the victims.
In the past couple of months, the city chose to replace their vehicle ownership model for their fleet to enter into a leasing contract, definitely costing a lot of money up front and logically costing more money (as shown here) in the long run for our fleet of 40+ city vehicles, but our "thrifty" city leaders decided it was best to have none of them driving a vehicle over five years old. Then the city approved PACE financing, where we were told this would not cost the city anything, but the city's potential administrative and legal costs will be significant for each such loan generated will have a cost. Then there was all that talk of purchasing the Foster School property in closed session that lasted over a year, which would have surely been a money pit had they went there.
Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn either can't do math or gaslights us with it, look at all of the errors in the %-change rows
No, this isn't a city with a revenue problem, their revenues have definitely outpaced inflation since 2023 and will continue to do so as seen in the 2026 Budget projections, it's a city that has a spending problem. Those lavish bathhouses in Cartier Park Campground costing about $1.5 million just a couple years back show this nice enough, but we don't have to look beyond the rest of the agenda to show they currently are spending money on optional upgrades at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
For over 50 years the WWTP hasn't needed the addition for office space that they insist on now, this was never an item even after the costly improvements to the WWTP back ten years ago. Fortunately, they accepted the low bid for engineering of this addition at $64,000, with the city not suggesting the project cost would be. Since engineering costs of most projects of this type is between 10% and 20% of the full amount of construction, this is an optional $640,000 to $1.3 million effort. This is a stark example of showing that everything out of the city manager's mouth is garbage, because anyone intent on holding down expenditures would veto this until the city shows better projections.
For about an hour of gaslighting, with the help of the greedy barrister councilors, John Terzano and Jack Bulger (Kathy Winczewski was thankfully absent) the council would raise your tax rates to garner them an estimated $160,000 more in tax revenue in 2027 from the pockets of property owners in town, much like last month when they enacted a 1% administrative fee. Councilor Mike Shaw was the only holdout for both tax hike votes, but in that hour, the gas was so thick that it was surprising to see nobody pass out.
In the first public comment period, Jeff Henry asked some good questions and observations regarding the city's two public marinas and the marina board's authority to do what appears to use government powers as an advisory board. Ray Karboske would highlight the basic unfairness the private marinas have in comparison to the city's. Mayor Candidate Beth Elliot would ask the council to consider some leeway in allowing temporary yard sale signs to be used as long as they get taken down in a timely manner.
Terry Speese would follow at 23:00 in and give a great comment, noting PrevariKaitlin's own words about the city's revenues not keeping up with expenditures (which is gaslighting on her part, since she has tremendous control over city spending). He then suggested the sacred goose of the LPD took about 30% of the city's funds, noting that unlike the city, he is not gifted with a reserve, but has cost crunches affecting his household. He then suggested they had some blindness over the poverty in town. Planning Commission Chairman Patrick O'Hare followed with what is happening with amending the current master plan, noting this would likely be passed in about half a year.
Then there was Fourth Ward Councilor candidate Marco Iafrate making up for my absence at the meeting with a barn-burning speech. "When I moved to Ludington... I gave everyone on the council the benefit of the doubt. Even though people were telling me that our local government has secret intentions and lies. One of those individuals that I was told to watch out for was [Councilor] Stibitz. And instead of immediately making up my mind that she's a problem, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I watched and observed for myself using everything I learned in my news training... For three years, I've observed Ms. Stibitz, and last year I started biking my neighborhood. I started asking questions about what people think about our 4th Ward representation."
"And Mr. Mayor, many of our neighbors said it might as well have been an empty seat for eight years. They told me not much support has come from her for the 4th Ward. I have seen her constituents ask her questions and I have seen her speak a mile a minute only to leave everyone confused, no questions answered. Since this is my time on the floor, mayor, I would like to invite Ms. Stibitz to answer if she feels that her eight years make her feel satisfied. (pause) You are invited. (longer pause, the mayor reminds him that comment was not for Q&A) And I know that you understand that we went over the city documents, you and I, here and state documents. There are no refusal clauses. She can respond if she wants to. (long pause) Should I repeat it, ma'am? (another mayor interruption) Now, if she would answer, I hope she'd imagine the entire 4th Ward at her doorstep." (pause until the timer rings).
On her part, Stibitz would only sit there and say nothing in defense of her record at all, not even at the end of the meeting when she could do it without having anyone dispute her defense and had nearly two hours to say what made her satisfied over the last eight years of public service. She had nothing, for there is nothing that brought her satisfaction other than the satisfaction that her commitment has always been against the desires of her constituents, witness the 4th Ward business owners that have become regulars to these meetings and what she has did for them in voting repeatedly against their interests and making light of their legitimate research and grievances. This is a person who is not qualified to be a councilor or mayor as she has no interest in her constituents only in municipal power, greed, and control.
In other actions, the council would approve lowest bid engineering and project contracts for long overdue repairs of the Ferry and Gaylord sanitary sewer. They would approve a social district permit for El Largo Mexican Grill, allowing patrons to order adult beverages and wander about the rest of Ludington's large social district. The business it replacing one that had a social district itself, but the permits are not transferable. Councilor Shaw, consistent in such matters, voted against it.
They would approve Rally in the Alley a political event that came to the Parks Committee at the last minute on their June 23 meeting, temporarily vacating alleys in downtown Ludington in the middle of summer for a Democrat running for state office. Compare and contrast this withmy effort to offera political debate and food giveaway on public city property back in 2016, where I gave two month's notice for my event and was thwarted from doing it by the city's power structure. Any progressive/liberal events seem to get a fast track for approval, but we never see other ideologies get anything approved.
Which brings us to the last public comment period. Michael Courtwright presented himself as a local businessman and came out with a strong stance against data center construction in town, warning the city that they would be sued if a data center was ever approved here. Daniel Jensen gave an alternate view of the city's financial problems, hinting that the underlying issues might have to deal with the infiltration of socialism. Patrick O'Hare spoke once again hoping for a five year budget rather than a three year one, with a lot more detail and transparency.
Ray Karboske kept on theme, wondered whether the city is running the truth in taxation process correctly. William John Broughton brought up safety issues he had with the Freedom Festival events and police coverage of the beach. And then came Marco.
Marco Iafrate: "I'd like to segue from what Mr. Terzano said. We have to pay high property taxes here because our assessor is updating our homes to a value way beyond what we paid for it, so I don't really see how that is a benefit as he said. I see it as a burden, and now that we have defined it as a burden, I'm wondering if it is one of the goals for some on this council: to have people sell their homes, because there's really no other choice in a lot of cases. I knock on doors for other reasons than Ms. Stibitz and I find a lot of other information out. So, I don't see any other reason why Mr. Terzano framed it as a benefit for residents to sell their homes; I think he should go knock on doors.
While he would finish off with some caveats with data centers and the PACE program, the period would finish. Stibitz would speak and totally ignore Iafrate's concerns and concentrate on senior issues. PrevariKaitlyn would acknowledge the PACE program and offer a disingenuous defense against that and how Ludington does not have the infrastructure to support a data center. The concept of upgrades and acting in concert with PM Township (who definitely doesn't have water capacity currently in its infrastructure as it uses city water) to support such stuff.
This was little league gaslighting. The mayor would follow and close with gaslighting Iafrate at a point in the meeting where he had no power to defend the personal attack.
Mayor Barnett finishing up his punchline against council candidate Marco Iafrate based on his own misrepresentation of the facts, to the delight of sitting councilors and the city manager.
Mark Barnett (2:17:00 in): "I think we need to be careful as a society, some thoughts that have occurred to me, it just seems like its- its often the case where people will take bits and pieces of information and weave it into a story, where there's really no factual basis for supporting that story. I think that's dangerous.
And I think it's important for those that consider themselves to be reporters of those types of things really look at the critical information of the things that are said and distract, or detract from themselves, separate themselves from their opinion and report on what it is that-that's been given to them.
I know of one situation where I sat in a room, this room, and along with the county administrator and the police chief and some other folks and we were talking to the state senator and state representative and information was asked by the police chief if either the representative or the senator had information or suggestions on how funding could be provided to local law enforcement officers to transport folks that were being trans... that by law needed to be transported for a psychological evaluation. Involuntary evaluation, and they're asking for that money for backfill, to pay for the backfill of the officers that had to come in and do and do call response so that the people that the officers that were transporting the individual could safely leave the city and in some cases the state to transport that individual.
There was a reporter there that worked for the Daily News at the time and he was here, sat there and listened to the same information as I heard, as everyone else in the room heard and wrote a headline story the next day in the paper and that was February 12th of 2024. The next day the headline story was or the paper, the front page of the paper, was that police chief asks for permission to or the story to transport officers that need mental treatment.
Now the reason I bring that up is because it's important, because some factors were true. There was a quest, a request about ask a question about-about, about funding to the representative and the senator. But the things that were not true was that something, somewhere in the translation of the facts that were laid out in the questions and comments that were made, this fabricated story became front page news.
So, I guess what I'm asking all of us to do is to listen to the information as it's given and-and always seek facts, don't-don't-don't just select pieces of information that feed our predetermined opinions. That's all I'm saying, because it's dangerous. So, I'll leave it with that." [After asking whether anybody else had anything to say, he would add]
"By the way, the end of the story was the next day the Daily News retracted that and apologized for the erroneous story and-and so that was taken care of, in case anybody was that wasn't meant to be a cliff hanger, but just so you know." [several councilors laughed, the meeting was then adjourned]
This was textbook gaslighting. We didour own storyon the 'mental health' story back when it occurred and even then it was safe to say that this was notexhibiting the three featuresof a "headline story", it was tucked into an article that was likely passed over by 80-90% of the people who read the uninspiring headline, and a same percentage who did start reading probably didn't make it far enough along.
In Iafrate's defense at the time, he was new to the area and listening to a lot of political talk between police and state officials. perhaps they used their own lingo to suggest that the transport of mental health patients was solely within the realm of cops as the patients. Heaven knows we have many lawdogs that show signs of mental health issues (including Haveman, Gilmurray, Mendez, Noble, just to scratch the surface), so to suggest that Iafrate had some motive to represent it falsely is a little crazy in itself.
Barnett calling it afabricationimplies that Iafrate's article was written with intention to deceive, and that in itself is a slanderous aspersion on his part. As noted, both the newspaper and the reporter was contrite about the error, Mayor Barnett will never be contrite about what he said here. He says that this small instance of misreporting the facts was important to understand a person's character, and then he shows exactly why his words need to apply to himself.
Ludington City Council, July 13, 2026 meeting: Gaslighting and Greed
by XLFD
Jul 15
It seemed like the Victorian era at the July 13, 2026, meeting (agenda packet) of the Ludington City Council, what with all the gaslighting performed by administrative city officials. To those unfamiliar with the term, gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an abusive partner attempts to make their victim(s) question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Over time, it forces the victim(s) to rely entirely on the perpetrator for the "truth".
City Manager Kaitlyn Adrich (33:30 into the meeting) started off her presentation on the budget by telling us that the majority of what city administrators did for the Fourth of July in regard to the parking and the street barricades was due to an unspecified threat received through another police agency that they prepared for. The costly and unpopular moves to shut off traffic in Stearns Park that day seemed somewhat unnecessary for safety and many would opine that it made it more dangerous than if normal protocols were used.
This would be a bit of gaslighting on that day, since city administrators thought it was safe to change all of the established patterns at the last minute rather than to tell the public there was a credible threat to their safety that they kept secret from us and disallowed us to figure out how best to view the parade and fireworks in a safe manner.
She would continue on by telling us in mostly general terms why the city needed your money rather than you did and why they would continue to need to raise your taxes every summer because the trend for the city is to be deficit-spending over the next three years. Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn would suggest that administrators and members of the Finance Committee were having to make some tough decisions in order to pinch pennies, and this was gaslighting in its finest form, with us as the victims.
In the past couple of months, the city chose to replace their vehicle ownership model for their fleet to enter into a leasing contract, definitely costing a lot of money up front and logically costing more money (as shown here) in the long run for our fleet of 40+ city vehicles, but our "thrifty" city leaders decided it was best to have none of them driving a vehicle over five years old. Then the city approved PACE financing, where we were told this would not cost the city anything, but the city's potential administrative and legal costs will be significant for each such loan generated will have a cost. Then there was all that talk of purchasing the Foster School property in closed session that lasted over a year, which would have surely been a money pit had they went there.
Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn either can't do math or gaslights us with it, look at all of the errors in the %-change rows
No, this isn't a city with a revenue problem, their revenues have definitely outpaced inflation since 2023 and will continue to do so as seen in the 2026 Budget projections, it's a city that has a spending problem. Those lavish bathhouses in Cartier Park Campground costing about $1.5 million just a couple years back show this nice enough, but we don't have to look beyond the rest of the agenda to show they currently are spending money on optional upgrades at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
For over 50 years the WWTP hasn't needed the addition for office space that they insist on now, this was never an item even after the costly improvements to the WWTP back ten years ago. Fortunately, they accepted the low bid for engineering of this addition at $64,000, with the city not suggesting the project cost would be. Since engineering costs of most projects of this type is between 10% and 20% of the full amount of construction, this is an optional $640,000 to $1.3 million effort. This is a stark example of showing that everything out of the city manager's mouth is garbage, because anyone intent on holding down expenditures would veto this until the city shows better projections.
For about an hour of gaslighting, with the help of the greedy barrister councilors, John Terzano and Jack Bulger (Kathy Winczewski was thankfully absent) the council would raise your tax rates to garner them an estimated $160,000 more in tax revenue in 2027 from the pockets of property owners in town, much like last month when they enacted a 1% administrative fee. Councilor Mike Shaw was the only holdout for both tax hike votes, but in that hour, the gas was so thick that it was surprising to see nobody pass out.
In the first public comment period, Jeff Henry asked some good questions and observations regarding the city's two public marinas and the marina board's authority to do what appears to use government powers as an advisory board. Ray Karboske would highlight the basic unfairness the private marinas have in comparison to the city's. Mayor Candidate Beth Elliot would ask the council to consider some leeway in allowing temporary yard sale signs to be used as long as they get taken down in a timely manner.
Terry Speese would follow at 23:00 in and give a great comment, noting PrevariKaitlin's own words about the city's revenues not keeping up with expenditures (which is gaslighting on her part, since she has tremendous control over city spending). He then suggested the sacred goose of the LPD took about 30% of the city's funds, noting that unlike the city, he is not gifted with a reserve, but has cost crunches affecting his household. He then suggested they had some blindness over the poverty in town. Planning Commission Chairman Patrick O'Hare followed with what is happening with amending the current master plan, noting this would likely be passed in about half a year.
Then there was Fourth Ward Councilor candidate Marco Iafrate making up for my absence at the meeting with a barn-burning speech. "When I moved to Ludington... I gave everyone on the council the benefit of the doubt. Even though people were telling me that our local government has secret intentions and lies. One of those individuals that I was told to watch out for was [Councilor] Stibitz. And instead of immediately making up my mind that she's a problem, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I watched and observed for myself using everything I learned in my news training... For three years, I've observed Ms. Stibitz, and last year I started biking my neighborhood. I started asking questions about what people think about our 4th Ward representation."
"And Mr. Mayor, many of our neighbors said it might as well have been an empty seat for eight years. They told me not much support has come from her for the 4th Ward. I have seen her constituents ask her questions and I have seen her speak a mile a minute only to leave everyone confused, no questions answered. Since this is my time on the floor, mayor, I would like to invite Ms. Stibitz to answer if she feels that her eight years make her feel satisfied. (pause) You are invited. (longer pause, the mayor reminds him that comment was not for Q&A) And I know that you understand that we went over the city documents, you and I, here and state documents. There are no refusal clauses. She can respond if she wants to. (long pause) Should I repeat it, ma'am? (another mayor interruption) Now, if she would answer, I hope she'd imagine the entire 4th Ward at her doorstep." (pause until the timer rings).
On her part, Stibitz would only sit there and say nothing in defense of her record at all, not even at the end of the meeting when she could do it without having anyone dispute her defense and had nearly two hours to say what made her satisfied over the last eight years of public service. She had nothing, for there is nothing that brought her satisfaction other than the satisfaction that her commitment has always been against the desires of her constituents, witness the 4th Ward business owners that have become regulars to these meetings and what she has did for them in voting repeatedly against their interests and making light of their legitimate research and grievances. This is a person who is not qualified to be a councilor or mayor as she has no interest in her constituents only in municipal power, greed, and control.
In other actions, the council would approve lowest bid engineering and project contracts for long overdue repairs of the Ferry and Gaylord sanitary sewer. They would approve a social district permit for El Largo Mexican Grill, allowing patrons to order adult beverages and wander about the rest of Ludington's large social district. The business it replacing one that had a social district itself, but the permits are not transferable. Councilor Shaw, consistent in such matters, voted against it.
They would approve Rally in the Alley a political event that came to the Parks Committee at the last minute on their June 23 meeting, temporarily vacating alleys in downtown Ludington in the middle of summer for a Democrat running for state office. Compare and contrast this with my effort to offer a political debate and food giveaway on public city property back in 2016, where I gave two month's notice for my event and was thwarted from doing it by the city's power structure. Any progressive/liberal events seem to get a fast track for approval, but we never see other ideologies get anything approved.
Which brings us to the last public comment period. Michael Courtwright presented himself as a local businessman and came out with a strong stance against data center construction in town, warning the city that they would be sued if a data center was ever approved here. Daniel Jensen gave an alternate view of the city's financial problems, hinting that the underlying issues might have to deal with the infiltration of socialism. Patrick O'Hare spoke once again hoping for a five year budget rather than a three year one, with a lot more detail and transparency.
Ray Karboske kept on theme, wondered whether the city is running the truth in taxation process correctly. William John Broughton brought up safety issues he had with the Freedom Festival events and police coverage of the beach. And then came Marco.
Marco Iafrate: "I'd like to segue from what Mr. Terzano said. We have to pay high property taxes here because our assessor is updating our homes to a value way beyond what we paid for it, so I don't really see how that is a benefit as he said. I see it as a burden, and now that we have defined it as a burden, I'm wondering if it is one of the goals for some on this council: to have people sell their homes, because there's really no other choice in a lot of cases. I knock on doors for other reasons than Ms. Stibitz and I find a lot of other information out. So, I don't see any other reason why Mr. Terzano framed it as a benefit for residents to sell their homes; I think he should go knock on doors.
While he would finish off with some caveats with data centers and the PACE program, the period would finish. Stibitz would speak and totally ignore Iafrate's concerns and concentrate on senior issues. PrevariKaitlyn would acknowledge the PACE program and offer a disingenuous defense against that and how Ludington does not have the infrastructure to support a data center. The concept of upgrades and acting in concert with PM Township (who definitely doesn't have water capacity currently in its infrastructure as it uses city water) to support such stuff.
This was little league gaslighting. The mayor would follow and close with gaslighting Iafrate at a point in the meeting where he had no power to defend the personal attack.
Mayor Barnett finishing up his punchline against council candidate Marco Iafrate based on his own misrepresentation of the facts, to the delight of sitting councilors and the city manager.
Mark Barnett (2:17:00 in): "I think we need to be careful as a society, some thoughts that have occurred to me, it just seems like its- its often the case where people will take bits and pieces of information and weave it into a story, where there's really no factual basis for supporting that story. I think that's dangerous.
And I think it's important for those that consider themselves to be reporters of those types of things really look at the critical information of the things that are said and distract, or detract from themselves, separate themselves from their opinion and report on what it is that-that's been given to them.
I know of one situation where I sat in a room, this room, and along with the county administrator and the police chief and some other folks and we were talking to the state senator and state representative and information was asked by the police chief if either the representative or the senator had information or suggestions on how funding could be provided to local law enforcement officers to transport folks that were being trans... that by law needed to be transported for a psychological evaluation. Involuntary evaluation, and they're asking for that money for backfill, to pay for the backfill of the officers that had to come in and do and do call response so that the people that the officers that were transporting the individual could safely leave the city and in some cases the state to transport that individual.
There was a reporter there that worked for the Daily News at the time and he was here, sat there and listened to the same information as I heard, as everyone else in the room heard and wrote a headline story the next day in the paper and that was February 12th of 2024. The next day the headline story was or the paper, the front page of the paper, was that police chief asks for permission to or the story to transport officers that need mental treatment.
Now the reason I bring that up is because it's important, because some factors were true. There was a quest, a request about ask a question about-about, about funding to the representative and the senator. But the things that were not true was that something, somewhere in the translation of the facts that were laid out in the questions and comments that were made, this fabricated story became front page news.
So, I guess what I'm asking all of us to do is to listen to the information as it's given and-and always seek facts, don't-don't-don't just select pieces of information that feed our predetermined opinions. That's all I'm saying, because it's dangerous. So, I'll leave it with that." [After asking whether anybody else had anything to say, he would add]
"By the way, the end of the story was the next day the Daily News retracted that and apologized for the erroneous story and-and so that was taken care of, in case anybody was that wasn't meant to be a cliff hanger, but just so you know." [several councilors laughed, the meeting was then adjourned]
This was textbook gaslighting. We did our own story on the 'mental health' story back when it occurred and even then it was safe to say that this was not exhibiting the three features of a "headline story", it was tucked into an article that was likely passed over by 80-90% of the people who read the uninspiring headline, and a same percentage who did start reading probably didn't make it far enough along.
In Iafrate's defense at the time, he was new to the area and listening to a lot of political talk between police and state officials. perhaps they used their own lingo to suggest that the transport of mental health patients was solely within the realm of cops as the patients. Heaven knows we have many lawdogs that show signs of mental health issues (including Haveman, Gilmurray, Mendez, Noble, just to scratch the surface), so to suggest that Iafrate had some motive to represent it falsely is a little crazy in itself.
Barnett calling it a fabrication implies that Iafrate's article was written with intention to deceive, and that in itself is a slanderous aspersion on his part. As noted, both the newspaper and the reporter was contrite about the error, Mayor Barnett will never be contrite about what he said here. He says that this small instance of misreporting the facts was important to understand a person's character, and then he shows exactly why his words need to apply to himself.