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

[XLFD]

Agreed this is a small fish among those you mention, Aq, but as we seen down in Summit Township where they seriously considered putting a new Township Hall in the midst of one, public parks are too often seen as Government-owned land that can be exploited for the profits of the local government.

I would love the people who support a dog park to get what they want. Legitimately done in a place respectful of other people's rights.

[charlemagnetism]

good luck mr x. i agree with you on this one. if there was a pig farm going in and this was what the local city gov did in prep for it i think my approval would be unanimous with everyone else. jen, you have yet to show us anybody other than you and sloppy joe as a member of this dpc and it looks like just a bunch of hocus pocus the sloppy city used to get there way on this.

[Sweater Cows!]

I have come to completely disagree with X about this project. I had a minute of agreement but then went on to come to the conclusion that this project is completely within the guidelines of the city charter.

In regards to Joe Maloney X wrote ...I am quoting him but highlighting different things."

In the City’s Charter Article III. Conflict of Interest, Sec. 2-72. Prohibited conduct. (a)(5) No officer or employee shall act as an attorney, agent or representative of a person (entity) other than himself or herself, before the governmental body of which such officer or employee is a member or employee, or before any other city agency for purposes of advancing a private interest. "

Here I see joe as a representative of himself as he wants the dog park for himself. He isn't 'hired' as an attorney, agent or representative. What he is representing is Self-interest.

I guess we would need some appeals/supreme court rulings ( to be found at michigan.gov--under courts. I think, I'll wait for X to do that research;) to see if a person can be a representative and member if they are representing a self-interest.

Next X quotes the city charter and highlights some stuff, I will highlight different stuff.

"“Regulation--Park grounds: The City Council shall have authority to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same. The City Council shall have the responsibility to regulate the care thereof, and to provide for the protection of the same and the appurtenances thereof from obstructions, encroachments and injury, and from all nuisances. The Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert to other public use any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting thereon in any election.”"

As far as the dog park is concerned I see it as an improvement of said park. It gives the public greater opportunity to use the park.

Now, I am not the spin doctor that X seems to be but I think the whole issue is in how one views the 'Dog Park', some may see it as an improvement, therefore it doesn't need a general public vote.

Others like X see it as a nuisance( I don't like you for that X...:)

So who says who is right? That is left to the city council. They decide when to take a public vote or when something falls into the category of something they are allowed to move forward on without a GP vote.

See, to me X's beloved biking trails are a nuisance, as is the parking area on rath/bryant. They changed the use of the park and diverted it to a different use because now one has to see them and those who use them.

So, it is really only opinion.

The only thing to do is push for a re-write of the parks rules to be more specific about what falls into what category.

I wonder X if what they were doing was a playground, or cookout area with some grills and restrooms or...bike trails...would you expect these to go to a general public vote?

Like the dog park People Park ( or park where people can take there dogs[safely], therefore still being a public park) all those things(parking area, bike trails, cookout area, restrooms, gazebo) should either go to a public vote or none.

[AQUAMAN]

Can the Michigan Dog Man attend this park too? Just a dumb inquiry. Seems some levity is required here kids.

[XLFD]

I highly respect your independent voice, Sheila, but I respectfully disagree on the following grounds.

If I am to believe the LDN, and the City Clerk, Joe was indeed representing a group of people interested in having a dog park in Cartier Park, aka the DPC.

If I am to believe Jen, he was the president of this committee, and represented their interests in the subcommittee meetings also. But even if we were able to absolve Joe's guilt on this issue, there would still be the question of why the City Attorney, Manager, Councillors, Clerk, etc. did not see the potential ethics problem with him representing a private concern while sitting on the Planning Commission.

As for use, I see the Park Regulation in question as intending that any restrictive use of city parklands should have a public vote on them. This may be open to interpretation, but we have a limited amount of parkland in the city and we should limit the times we divert the usage from the original purposes. And the best way to do that, the best way to talk it through, is with a public vote of those who actually own the land.

There was absolutely not a lick of public input between the meeting thrown by dog park supporters on 3-24-09, and 12-07-09, when the City Council unanimously approved it being in Cartier Park. Excuse me if I'm hot under the collar about that fact.

For the record, I would have loved a public vote on the paved multi-use path, the skate park, the Cartier piers, and the gazebo, and confirmation that these uses were approved by the pacts Ludington has with the park-donating families. (And I would have likely voted against the path, as I appreciate natural settings above unnecessary paving.) When direct democracy is called for in the laws... we should follow the laws!

[Sweater Cows!]

I definitely see your points X. I also must concede that you are pretty likely correct about Joe M. But thought why not try to see it from a different direction and see how people thought of it that way. I won't touch that again though, since I don't live there I thankfully don't have to deal with the council. lol

The real problem is that the way the charter reads, to me the dog park is within the guidelines, to you it is not. Whoever wrote the charter should have been more specific with what the council could and could not do without a public vote. Things were left open to interpretation without ways to resolve differences of opinion outlined in the charter.

I can think of many things where this action by the council could have very detrimental effect on the park. The city really needs to clear up this issue, not so much with the dog park, but with how an item should be handled, standard operating procedure so to speak , so that there are no questions as to how things are done.

I would be disappointed though if the dog park did not move forward.

I would rather see this cleared up after the fact for future proposals.

[XLFD]

If I was more civicly and computer active back during the skate park genesis, I would have likely been saying the same stuff, as the process was done almost exactly the same as it was here. It wouldn't have meant that I was against the kids having a place to skate, but against the set up of a mass of concrete in the midst of Stearn's Park without a public affirmation (vote).

You state more eloquently than I so far, why I'm taking a stand on this issue. I see this new power the City of Ludington (Government) has been using lately as having the potential to rob us of one of our greatest resources: our parks. Standard operating guidelines, clearly defined are a good start.

[AQUAMAN]

You kids gotta know, or learn, there's some pretty serious trick shot artists on City affairs these days. They get what they want about 99.9% of the time, cause, no one voices any opinions or objections, at council meetings and committee meetings on such issues. Then, if you get the time and nerve to get there, they try to intimidate and laugh you into silence. So, what's a citizen to do? Our Parks are precious one time assets for ALL of the community, not just certain favorites. But the local issues up for decisions of importance, should not repeatedly obscure the rights of the voters. Participation by serious voters in this local community is sorely lacking in too many instances where it really matters, mostly because we are not taken as important nor worthy of being in the know, nor having the right to make decisions for ourselves that reflect the majority.

[AQUAMAN]

Btw, nice reminder X, the Summit Park and Windfarms on Lake Michigan this summer were very critical issues for the community that voters did come out in numbers and shut down for our sane future, hat's off to them for coming out and really showing voters care. Guess the intensity of the issue dictates the voters' participation, more times than not.

[Edie Lindsey]

I read through this whole thread. As a dog-lover, there were times when I took issue with XLFD's positions. The last page clarified the issue a bit for me and I rescanned the thread, divorcing the 'dog' element from the equation. When that happened, his position, and his backers made a lot more sense. When I read Jen's first post again which include five points, I found issue with each:

1) The "City of Ludington" did not approve this park. Over 7000 of their members never had a say.
2) After checking the location, the DPW removed quite a lot of small brush and trees throughout, if one is to look at the surrounding forest as an example.
3) The Ludington taxpayers pay the DPW every day they work. We paid them for those days they did your work, Jen, and your donated money was donated to John Shay Inc. Think about it.
4) I researched X's claim, and there was absolutely no meeting open to the public to discuss the location of this dog park until the December 2009 LCC meeting, where it was a moot point. So much for your claim of many public meetings.
5) Were you accusing X of vandalizing and spray painting your area? Weren't those spray paint marks in the pictures made by your people?

I noticed X already addressed these, but I don't believe the ends justify the means. Tell your secret group to let the people do their job and vote. Otherwise, this is not legitimate.

[XLFD]

Thank you for your support, Edie. This is exactly what 'progressive' governments will get you. 'Improvements' whether the folks want them or not.

Jen has provided me with a list of the DPC members. Why she does not publicly post them, I don't know, but I will presume at least one of them want their names to be not known publicly. Over half of them do not live in the City of Ludington.

When she invites me to come to Cartier Park this Saturday at 9:00 AM to watch them finish the cleaning, it kind of irks me in the same way charlemagnetism's friend would have been if the people who messed up his land with two-tracks, bait piles, and hunting blinds would have asked them to come watch them hunt on his property. The same way Nicole might feel if her neighbors and other trespassers invited her to watch them go looking for morels on her property.

Jen tells me Joe Moloney wants to speak with me about this, but she selects the way I have to do it, and tells me I have to contact him. So much for any written statements or open debate from him that he can share with the public. He apparently thinks government business is best done in back rooms and in private. Man up, Joe.

The city of Ludington's government could have easily asked the City of Ludington last November, and got their consent, but they ran the risk of refusal. Instead they took a piece of land they were not entitled to and had their way with it. There is a difference between rape and making love to a consensual partner.

[AQUAMAN]

X, both sides in this thread make their own valid points, some of law, some of ethics, some of the heart and soul. If you want the unvarnished truth of whether this is or is not a conforming usage of this public park, I would now seek the reactions and statements that the Cartier family in Ky. would send to us. They must know about it by now, it's been almost a year in the making. If they feel it's ok, then that should wrap up this subject. If they did not, then I would suspect they would have had their attorney step up by now to make a complaint. After all, the Cartiers did donate this land, I would think their word would be the final say so on this.