The Place Where Ludington Talks
Today I Witnessed a Rape...
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
Views: 1484
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jen on
-
I was wrong. Our covenant to the city is on our website.
http://ludingtondogpark.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a...
-
Permalink Reply by Mary A. on
-
Yes, I did see that, but it doesn't really give the detail I was hoping to see. Although I personally wouldn't use it, I think Ludington deserves to have a dog park. I'm wondering how compliance with the rules will be ensured, who is welcome to use the facility, etc., since it is supposedly supported with private funds.
I understand X's concerns, too, because it seems that this sets a precedent in the city for other changes to take place contrary to what the law allows. That's just not acceptable. I'm not versed on the laws, though, so I'm not willing to pass judgment.
-
-
Nothing has changed ownership. We, as a private committee, have raised the money to put a fence around an acre of city land so that dogs can run leash free.
It is open to the public, whether you have a dog or not. It is still city land. It is still a city park.
All the committee has done is agreed to take care of the cost of building and maintaining the park.
There are just a few rules, which have been drafted based upon speaking to other cities with dog parks and our own research. Those will be posted at the park when the fence goes up. They are rules that dog owners already have to abide by (vaccinate, license, can't leave their dog in the park, etc). We also offer suggestions as to how to prevent dog fights - although the owner of the dog that bites is always liable.
It's pretty simple, really. -
-
-
Jen,
Can you explain how the committee is paying the DPW crew.
3. The DPW crew is being paid by the dog park committee to do this work. Their time spent at the site is not being paid for by your taxes. -
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
Jen,
I have visted that site three times and asked about the legality each time, in the 'contact the dog park' section. If your committee truly has their ears open to public debate, there would have been no better way than to put it to a public vote, as I read the City Charter.
The City Charter (Code) is a compendium of local laws, and I believe that many of our Councilmembers are like you-- they've never heard of it, LOL.
-
-
Jen, again I will address your points as you made them.
Depending on your source, the City Council has ‘donated’ or ‘set aside’ this one acre part of Cartier Park to the DPC; either way, it has been diverted to another public use by the addition of fences and the restrictive epithet of a ‘dog’ park. This acre is lost to the general citizen and visitor of Cartier Park who enjoyed the natural setting that has been there all this time.
City law (already quoted in my previous post and in the thread which I have pulled to the front of the forums for your scrutiny) says such a change must require a vote of the electors of the city. Do you want a clique of four city council members to have carte blanche power to assign how our parkland is to be divided up and used, contrary to what our laws say? If so, we would likely have a few nearly-empty condos at this acre already!
In my research on this topic, I noticed exactly one public forum on dog parks, in 3-2009, and a lesser committee meeting in 5-2009, before the LCC set aside this parkland discretely on 12-7-2009. The actual location was not publicly disclosed until that LCC meeting. That is not a whole lot of public debate, and no one I asked in my crowd (mostly neutral to a dog park) had even heard of the original meeting.
Since that time, I have contacted the DPC’s website three times, expressing the concerns I had, beginning early this year. No response either time even though I left my name as a contact. I contacted the County Prosecutor shortly after that time, who replied that the local law and ethics issues I brought up would be passed along to the City Manager and Attorney as they were local concerns (even though Joe Moloney’s ethics violations are also part of state law). No response from them. When the opposition is ignored, it will look as if we have never brought it up.
I presume that you may be the one and only, Jen Mladucky, currently the president of the DPC. If my presumption is correct, I do hope you understand that my beef is not with your group, beyond the fact that you allowed a city official (Joe Moloney) to be your spokesman and contract negotiator. I also hope you can address the improprieties I have brought up over these last two posts of mine and the Hot Dogs thread, which seem to have been overlooked in your last reply.
My beef is with the government of the City of Ludington for overstepping what they were legally able to do in agreeing to ‘set aside’ this parkland, and for allowing that city official to blatantly perform prohibited conduct in front of them (representing a private agency and negotiating a contract with them), shortly after voting to raise dozens of taxes and fees on Ludington citizens that December evening last year.
-
-
Yes, this is the FORMER Jen Mladucky (now the one and only, Jen Tooman) - and I hold no chair on the board. Joe was deemed president because he initiated the dog park by calling the first public meeting - which was before the committee was formed. I don't believe we've ever had an article in the Ludington Daily News where board seat information was correct - but that's a whole other issue.
The email used by the contact form on the site was incorrect until just recently, which explains why your emails were never received by the committee.
Was there a public vote to pave a path through the park? Or to put up the gazebo? Or to add the docks? I'm not trying to be sassy. I am not a resident of the city of Ludington so I would not have seen the ballot nor had the opportunity to vote on those things if they were ever on the ballot.
It's just another feature located within the park. It just happens to be a feature that volunteers have offered to take care of - similar to the Skate Park.
The way I read the Charter - a vote wasn't needed. It wasn't diverted to another use... the public can still walk in that land with or without a dog... they will just have to go through a gate now.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
I'm sorry Jan but I find it disturbing that someone who lives outside of Ludington can be involved with how City property is used. Why aren't you involved with your township or where you live in using land for a dog park? How many people on the committee are not residents of Ludington? That is an interesting question. The paved paths, dock and gazeebo do not change the use of the park.. A fencing in an area does change the use of a peice of land.
-
-
not really. it just changes where you walk. just like you have to walk on the paved path and walk around the gazebo. the use inside the fence is still the same.
here's a question... what did YOU use that acre of land for before we put a fence there?
actually, it's about half city residents and half not, but the board was assembled BEFORE we chose a location... which could have been anywhere. we chose the city location because the dogs in town and those visiting are the ones that would benefit the most from the park. and more people could walk to it, instead of drive - making it most convenient.
people in my township have enough property to let their dogs run off leash. we don't need a dog park. i just chose to volunteer for a good cause because i wanted to. when i am passionate about something, i get off the couch and do something about it. i am involved all over this county. i have been on many committees and many boards for all sorts of causes because i enjoy donating my time and talents to help others.
don't judge me. it's rude.
-
-
Noone is judging you. My point is that non reeidents have no business deciding what is to be done with City property. That's what I consider rude. I don't care what you do when it comes to handling situations where you reside because it is none of my business. The committee should be made up of Ludington residents. It is their property not yours. I'm sorry but a lot of your statements don't make sense. "more people could walk to it". The park is not a walk to park. It is on the extreme north part of town. And "what did YOU use that acre of land for before we put a fence there?" What it was intended to be used for. I certainly didn't fence it in. Why didn't you people choose the unused school forest or the 80 acres that sits idle that the school district purchased?
-
-
Again, the committee was assembled before we chose the location of the park.
We discussed all of these locations at our public meetings. We made the decision based on many, MANY pros and cons. Cartier Park made sense - and again, the city already had plans for a dog park in that area. We just raised the funds.
I run to the park from where I live and it's over 2 miles away. There are many people who walk their dogs to the park from all areas of town... now, they will have a place to run when they get there.
Our lawyer has the Charter and like I said... I'll keep you posted -
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
