The Place Where Ludington Talks
Ludington City Council June 27, 2022: Defending Civil Rights, Property Rights, and the Integrity of Elections
I managed to achieve a rare trifecta of comments at the June 27 city council meeting (agenda packet here) trying to make a point to these elected city officials that they were acting (or had already acted) against the will of their constituents in the three different realms mentioned in the title. Here's what went down.
In defense of gun rights
At the prior council meeting, five individuals spoke (and at least a dozen others attended in support) wanting to make the council do something in regard to controlling guns in their jurisdiction, or at least AR-15s and other similar firearms. At this meeting, very few people in comparison showed up, none of the flash mob that wanted the council to grab guns, so I was a little disappointed because I used my first comment to provide a counterpoint to their assertions at the last meeting; it follows:
XLFD (2:50 in): "Over the last dozen years, I have regularly spoke at Ludington City Council meetings on a host of issues involving local public policy and actions. My message has been consistent, to get city officials to respect the rights and property of the citizens of this city, this will continue when I speak out against the tax hikes proposed in tonight's truth in taxation hearing. Thus, I was taken aback at the last meeting when a concerted effort by a small group of people orally petitioned this council to do something about restricting other people's gun rights.
Five area residents advocated for this council to take action by either drafting a resolution or ordinance to prohibit certain guns from being owned by Ludington citizens. The mayor acted immediately after the public comment period by putting the discussion of a potential gun buy-back program on the Public Safety Committee's agenda.
Most of you are familiar with the Second Amendment and interpret it with your own bias; however, let me remind you of state law, Article 1, section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which you have all took an oath to defend, a very simple assertion: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
Our constitution recognizes that people have a right to defend themselves and their country, and so does the mayor, Deb Del Zoppo, and Brenda Reeber, all who spoke for gun control measures at the last meeting and all who participated in a March 12 rally for supporting military aid for Ukraine. Ms. Reeber, writing in a March 7 letter published in the LDN said:
"The Ukrainian’s people’s resistance to Putin’s invasion has been inspiring... [President Zelensky] ordered the distribution of rifles and ammunition to any Ukrainian with ID who wanted to help defend against the Russian invaders... Let us all come together at the rally on March 12 to demonstrate that we are united in support of the Ukrainian people as they fight and die for their freedom."
When it comes to Ukraine, Ms. Reeber is all for the government distributing rifles to citizens to defend their country, why does she inconsistently demand for her fellow Americans that our government take away our rifles?
In conclusion, if the state constitution is not clear enough, MCL 123.1102 describes what this city council cannot do: “A local unit of government shall not enact or enforce any ordinance that regulates, in any manner, the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms.” [END comment]
I was very disappointed that the only one present on the other side to appreciate the comment was the mayor who had his fingerprints all over the organized push at the last meeting. I was half tempted to open carry a couple of pistols to the meeting (MI allows for open carry in city halls), but instead I only wore a t-shirt with a pro-gun message on it. Mayor Miller wasn't triggered, but he would not notify the Public Safety Committee to drop the gun buyback discussion after MY comment, as expected, but the discussion will be pointless.
The only other person making a public comment at any time tonight would be Dr. Michelle Kuster, who announced she was a candidate for county commissioner, District 2. Kuster will be battling former councilor and incumbent Gary Castonia in an August primary. Her main focus is on accountability and transparency, which was definitely a weakness for Castonia in his career with the city. It will be interesting seeing whether she can back up those ideals with specific objectives or is just using it as a slogan. She's also interested in reforming the local mental health system, ironically if one can make the system better serve our citizens with mental wellness, it would be a lot more helpful than any sort of gun control.
In defense of property rights
After the county's emergency manager, Liz Reimink made a presentation of the county's Code Red Alert System (you may want to sign up, it's free), the Truth in Taxation public hearing took place. The City made quite a killing in property taxes over the last year, triggering Headlee Rollbacks of millage rates and those new rates would be set in stone, except by holding one of these hearings where they can then raise the lowered rates up by the rate of inflation. This rate raise was substantial in the operations/refuse millage and would raise everyone's tax rate for op/ref by 3.3%, or by about $35 for the average homeowner.
None of our elected officials saw an issue with raising taxes while everyone's trying to cope with double digit inflation. Now that Councilor Serna is off the panel, the lack of empathy by the often-sociopathic council is maddening. But I tried:
XLFD: (22:00 in) "I spoke in opposition to these unwarranted tax hikes at our last meeting and the city clerk's and city manager's inability to offer an alternative to raising everybody's property taxes dramatically that would show why the City needs an extra $140,000 taken by threat of force from local taxpayers. I believe there's a good reason for the lack of candor by these officers to explain why the city corporate needs this money more than our citizens do.
They cannot point out their concerns about rampant inflation without allowing you to consider seniors living in your ward on a fixed income who see double digit inflation with their food, gas and other energy purchases. They cannot point out the need to maintain the city's property without allowing you to consider the crippled homeowner in your ward that cannot afford a contractor just to upkeep their house.
Additionally, when many of the citizens look at the expense of the City's recent capital pet projects they wonder why we needed to sink $2.4 million to reconfigure a street right-of-way, another $600,000 into converting a beach parking lot into a poorly maintained concrete slab. They're concerned when they see bathrooms in parks totally rebuilt at $400,000+ each and when they see the City wanting to pay the majority of costs of over $1.1 million to replace bathhouses under the purview of a supposed enterprise fund that cannot afford it.
We are all aware that you are receiving over 700,000 more dollars in ARPA funds than you will be receiving next year by these proposed tax hikes, so why isn't that enough for now? Those ARPA funds were once again at the taxpayer's expense so why is it ethical of you to go after more when you have expressed no reason to do so that would pass muster with the taxpayers?" [END comment]
I was disappointed that nobody else spoke up, but even more disappointed that each of the councilors other than John Terzano (who was absent) voted to raise the taxes on each of us. Councilor Les Johnson would set up City Manager Mitch Foster at the very end of the meeting in an effort perhaps to alleviate fears by having Foster agree that the added tax burden would not generally fall on those suffering hardships but primarily on those that just bought homes.
His reasoning reminded me of the people who argued for raising the state sales tax from 4% to 6% back in 1994, stating that it would get more from wealthy folks buying their yachts and sports cars and just graze the poor who spend most of their money on untaxed items like food. The truth is, that if you would have paid $1000 of your 2023 property tax bill for op/ref and/or DDA millages in Ludington before this hearing took place, you would now be paying $1035 because of these councilors raising your taxes. Their action hits everyone equally.
In defense of election integrity
Before we look at another of the City's problems, it should be noted that they are doing some positive things from a citizen's perspective. They would pass unanimously three ordinances effectively amending or updating other ordinances that no longer served valid purposes, these were ordinances:
1) 482-22: Dropped wording in city code allowing for minors to be breath-tested for alcohol, as recent court cases have made that practice illegal
2) 483-22: Dropped sections involving licensing and registration of bicycles, as the LPD had not been in the practice of emphasizing or enforcing these sections over the last two decades.
3) 475-22: Changed language in zoning code for accessory dwelling units, allowing larger ADUs by substituting 'square footage' for 'footprint' for the lot's primary dwelling
Each of these changed the code to allow for more freedom in one way or another, which is usually a good thing. The city manager had a few neutral action items, approving the Buccaneer Bash on July 16th by the Lakeshore Pyrate Heads, approving the rate and contractor for alley paving ($32.85 per lineal foot), approving the bylaws and 7/9 of the membership of the Brownfield Authority they share with Scottville and PM Township, and lastly approving a cryptic resolution 'acknowledging and reaffirming' the expenses and compensation for the Ludington Charter Commission.
Councilor Jack Bulger would note that there was a lawsuit concerning the latter item and it seemed to him to be almost an admission that the council may not have done this properly in the past and questioned City Attorney Ross Hammersley about the need for the resolution. Hammersley would point to the 'laydowns' provided to the councilors which showed them (for the first time) the budget minutia that had costs and compensations that the council never fixed before the May 3rd election or ever related to the public.
My lawsuit filed seeks to invalidate the charter revision question because of the council's dereliction of duty required by law for such an election. I had learned earlier in the day that my case had been reassigned to another arbiter because our circuit court judge was disqualified (her husband has worked for the City of Ludington for decades).
That was good news, but the bad news was that it was assigned to Judge Mark Wickens of Lake County who more than likely will not be a fair jurist because I had the Michigan Court of Appeals reverse his wacky judgment back in 2013. This guy's the same hack that allowed Eric Knysz the wherewithal to kill Trooper Butterfield by giving him a free pass for multiple serious transgressions of the law due to Eric's father being a trooper. The guy oozes corruption; it will be a serious task to address him as "your honor" because I just won't feel it.
Nevertheless, this city council failed to perform their obligations to the public and so we all went uninformed into the voting booth and more people chose to do a charter revision because there were absolutely no costs or other inconveniences mentioned to do so. I reminded them of their errors and fraud in my last comment, but first I addressed the council after the mayor had notified them during his report that people requiring food services from the food bank had increased recently from 35 to 65, which kind of made my earlier point:
XLFD: (1:02:45 in) "The mayor says that food services have went up from 35 people served to 65 people served, that may be a good reason why you should not have passed the tax hikes at this meeting of $140,000.
Otherwise, last November, this council passed a resolution that authorized them to put a charter revision question on this May's ballot. Last December, they adopted the 2022 budget by a simple motion.
The resolution never fixed compensation for charter commissioners, nor did it fix the money for the expenses thereof. These are required mandates for the city council to perform before any election for a charter revision is held. Passing a budget does not fix any compensation, nor does it fix money for expenses. The city charter set for revision by this titular commission states very clearly that compensation for elected city officials shall be fixed by ordinance. That never happened.
While the city manager's memo to councilors in November indicated an estimated cost of around $82,000, this figure was never explored by this council and definitely never fixed and never provided to the general public in order to make an informed decision when this question was put on the May ballot and voted on by over 1100 citizens. Over 1100 citizens voted that had no idea how much it would cost and how much commissioners would be compensated. Even after the meaningless resolution is passed tonight, we still have zero idea what their compensation is, because this council refuses to do their job and fix it by ordinance. How difficult is that?"
Because I added the initial statement reactive to the mayor's acknowledgment that people out in the public were hurting, I was stopped at two minutes before I could finish out my prepared statement, I would have otherwise continued:
"Had this city council met its statutory requirements and provided the public with the costs, one wonders how many of those people that voted yes without knowing the costs, would have voted no instead? Your inaction led them to believe that the costs of a revision would be free or negligible, and as such is a fraud perpetrated on the good voters of Ludington who had no idea it would cost $82,000. [END comment]
The last items of business done by the council was to set future city council meetings to 6:00 PM starting with the July 22nd meeting and approve the County's Brownfield Authority's work plan to conduct eligible Brownfield Activities for the 106 Laura Project (North Shore Redevelopment Project). From documents received after the meeting (not in the packet), tax increment financing will be used to collect $975,078 in order to put in sidewalks, sewer lines and other infrastructure, along with EGLE actions for site cleanup. Once again, the public will be tapped to pay for an ambitious development because the developer thinks that's fair to all of you who do not profit from the nearly one-million-dollar gift from all of you.
Views: 483
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
Less than an hour after posting a link to this article on our Facebook affiliate "The Ludington Pitchfork", they took it off the platform claiming it was Spam and did not meet their community standards. More likely, their bots saw a meme featuring a photo of a gun and assumed the worst. This is the subversive way leftist platforms use to demean your basic rights, and they do it for every right.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Excellent points regarding the Council's move to violate the 2nd amendment and those silly citizens who cannot seem to grasp what the 2nd amendment really means and how to applies to our history and present situation. It seems like the same thinking is alive and well on Facebook. Your explanation to the Council on gun control, taxes and code changes were right on the money, X.
-
-
Those silly citizens came out today at the Public Safety Committee meeting, and while they were setting their sights lower and aiming towards a simple buyback program, even that missed the mark. Today, Brenda Reeber's big plan was to offer owners of AR-15s and similar rifles a premium rate more than what they could be purchased for and then gift them over to our friends in Ukraine.
If this silliness ever gets some momentum and they get some private funding, I'll have to make a killing by buying tons of AR-15s and sell them for a big profit to these twits. To their credit, the committee didn't commit to anything today, but they will be looking at what this crazy-left group (the Indivisibles) brought to the table and visit it again next month. This group came about after the Women's March that took place in DC back in 2017, and their local chapter is at least organized enough to get a couple dozen Birkenstock-wearing, Frappuccino-swilling members to attend meetings to influence local politics.
-
-
Am I allowed to say that Brenda Reeber is an idiot? Any one who wants to remove firearms from American citizens who want to protect themselves and their families, who want to protect themselves from an oppressive government, who want to protect themselves from invading illegal aliens, drug dealers, terrorists, sex traffickers and those who want to cause harm to this Country and give them to a foreign country so they can do exactly what Americans want to do is just a moron.
Sorry Brenda Reeber but you are: [take your pick]
-
Permalink Reply by shinblind on
-
Every instinct of the mayor's and his cult followers is wrong.
Rather than having the useless gesture of a firearm buyback program, the city would be better served by having a mandatory requirement that each household has a firearm and ammo much like Kennesaw Ga did years ago.
It would cost the City of Ludington nothing as opposed to a firearm buyback program.
Ludington would get tons of free publicity with little effort.
The shoulder seasons could be filled with organized protests both for and against.
Politicians and news organizations both in Michigan and national would flock to the city after each mass shooting.
New Year's Eve ball drop would be more fun with a bunch of drunks shooting away at the ball.
The crime rate in Kennesaw Ga did drop for a few years after this ordinance was enacted.
The ordinance in Kennesaw has never enforced.
Would also add a requirement that anyone running for public has to brandish a firearm at all times when out in public. And maybe have to pass some sort of marksmen er marksperson test to demonstrate that they a degree of proficiency.
-
-
I never thought I'd see the day where shinblind got behind government mandates so strongly. The last couple years gives some catchy catchphrases one could use to get everybody to wear a gun in public, even when you don't want to, such as:
"The gun you wear protects others. The gun others wear protects you."
"Don't be a gunhole, strap on that gun."
"Wearing a gun is not only important, it's life-saving."
"Better to wear a gun than a ventilator."
"Don't be that guy: cover your friends and family."
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
