The Place Where Ludington Talks
Ludington City Council, December 19, 2022: The Ghost of Christmas' Yet to Come
The Ghost of Christmas Present
The last meeting of the year of the Ludington City Council in an election year has always been, in my opinion, the most nauseating time of the year. It grows exponentially if there is going to be a change of mayors, as we found out when Mayor Henderson and Mayor Holman took their last hurrah as meeting chairperson. At the 12-19-2022 meeting, sycophants and his peers could not heap enough praise on one term incumbent Mayor Steve Miller who couldn't even muster two out of every five votes in securing his reelection.
It was easy to notice why he lost his bid so resoundingly by just looking at who he thanked at the end of the meeting before he received his parting gifts. At 1:26:05 into the meeting he listed the people who he wanted to thank: Deb Luskin, City Attorneys Richard Wilson and Ross Hammersley, City Managers Shay, Brock and Foster, Mayors Henderson and Holman, Jackie Steckel, Heather Tykoski, all city supervisors and employees, all councilors, all board appointees, Patrick Lopeman (who hired him at WMOM to bring him back to town), and tearfully, his two sons, Charlie and Jack (who weren't present).
Other than his fellow city officials/employees he mentioned only three regular people who don't even live in Ludington. It was obvious before he became mayor that Miller was the king of all sycophants, a bootlicker without any equal. But once he got towards the top of the food chain, those below him who didn't garner a city paycheck were somehow beneath him and it ultimately cost him that second term as he couldn't adapt his behavior to appeal to the electorate.
Replacement mayor, Mark Barnett, will almost assuredly lead the meetings over the next four years with a religious invocation, as he had for many years back when he was police chief, so this would likely be the final one for a while where 20 seconds of silent meditation would come before the meeting. This evening would have the pledge come immediately after, but then a surprise closed session was called for by the outgoing mayor.
"I seek a motion from council to go into closed session, pursuant to sections 8(e) and (h) of the Open Meetings Act as the purpose of moving into this closed session, limiting discussion to specific pending litigation. Do I have a motion?"
Shortly thereafter they did a roll call vote and the six councilors present (Fifth Ward Councilor Wally Cain was absent) voted 'yes'; a supplemental vote had them bring along all officials on the panel (other than the interim police chief) along with the mayor-elect into the closed session that lasted about 30 minutes.
This last-minute decision failed in many ways to follow the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Section 8(h) requires the body to show that they have "material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute" to deliberate over, they mentioned nothing before or after their motion. Section 8(e) allows them to "consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation". They never mentioned my litigation as they should have, but in that case, there is no scheduled trial, nor is there any settlement as the judge has ruled for summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff's claims.
This closed session was definitely illegal, but our city officials don't seem to care anymore. Their secondary motion allowed Mayor-elect Mark Barnett into the closed session without any plausible reason for his participation in the quo warranto issue, and none was ever given. The present state of the city does not want to allow for transparency or abide by the law.
The Ghost of Christmas Past
After reconvening, the council chose to take no action at this point and so it was public comment time, where I was the only one to comment. My costume likely gave away my topic for discussion, as I had a Rudolph hat and a pullover that resembled deer fur. Fresh from the rut I spoke:
XLFD: "I'm not here to gloat about two resounding legal victories over the City I've had since the last council meeting; however, I am here to encourage this council to reconsider their vote on a deer cull before that money goes to waste. Back on October tenth, City Manager Foster misled this body and the public when he told us that there would be 3-4 sites in the city where the cull would take place, he told us all that the killers would be sworn officers, he doubled down at the next meeting by saying the slaughterers were "licensed law enforcement professionals, duly authorized"
Those statement totally contradict the signed contract entered into that I recently received through FOIA. One site on private property is marked on the WS 12A Form, the acreage of that one site closest conforms to the school forest, which lies outside city limits. There are zero sites within the city limits.
The small print in section 19 of this form that says that "all schools that have a school zone within the area where activities will be conducted have approved the program activities as described in this agreement and work plan in accordance with 18 USC 922(q)"
The school has not approved the work plan's activities of unlawful baiting and unlawful shooting using any firearm from ATVs and trucks on school grounds. This cull is in violation of federal law, state law, and school bylaws.
Additionally, Article 7 of the contract four of you agreed to states plainly: "Nothing in this agreement shall prevent APHIS-WS from entering into separate agreements with any other organization or individual for the purpose of providing wildlife management services..." They can hire any crazy redneck off the street that has an opposable thumb to conduct this massacre of innocent life on school grounds.
Three of you sensibly opposed this wasteful spending at that October meeting, I encourage two of you to move and second a reconsideration of this agreement at this meeting. For the other four (actually 3) of you, take into consideration that you were misled on multiple grounds and that it is more noble to back out now rather than to have a shameful legacy of promoting this unsportsmanlike slaughter on school grounds." [END comment]
It could have been Mayor Miller's crowning achievement had the council kept to its prior vote, as then the issue would have been tied 3-3 and Mayor Miller could for once show that he could embrace the popular position of not having a deer cull and put the $58,500 to use in the city limits on something useful or helpful. But he never got the chance as councilors saw all the city flunkies out in the audience and figured that they would leave this totally in their past rather than listen to common sense. Miller would have likely failed to grow a pair and vote against it anyway.
The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come
The budget had a public hearing; without any comments it passed. The Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate for 102 Second Street had Chuck Sobanski note that the property had a long history of OPRA benefits without any business or apartments showing up at the ancient business site. He noted that there wasn't enough parking for the two businesses and residences envisioned. Chuck would be the only citizen who commended the mayor for his service over the years. He was informed that an adjoining lot would be available for parking once the structure on it was removed. The property will have OPRA tax benefits for up to 12 years.
Before looking at the last public hearing, there was a bit of regular business that pointed to next year. The 2023 salaries for the clerk and treasurer were approved by ordinance, showing modest increases below the inflation rate. The 2023 water and sewer rates were adjusted upward by 7.5% and 4.9 % respectively. A 2023 contract with the county for services in regard to the senior center was approved, as were 2023 alternates for the Mason County Fire Authority (Andy Larr and Jackie Steckel).
Mayor Barnett was tapped from the audience to set the 2023 meeting dates (no change), appointed all official boards, appointed standing committees, and re-retained the law firm of Olsen Bzdok & Howard PC.
Two ordinances were presented for first reading: a 3-year contract with document managing firm OPG3 and a 3-year contract with Cintas for mat cleaning. One first reading was tabled for next meeting for manning the concession areas at Stearns Park. This is all found in the council agenda packet.
The last budget hearing was about approving a Brownfield Plan that included a tax increment financing (TIF) plan that would generate over two million over a twenty-year period by skimming all the local taxing authorities (other than schools) and subsidizing immediately the development at 106 Laura Street. I was the only one who spoke:
XLFD: (53:35) "At Michigan’s 1962 constitutional convention it was asserted by the delegates:
“If we want to stimulate sound growth in Michigan, and sound business, let the free enterprise system do this through fundamental economic law and not through the form of government meddling and socialization.”
“The soundest and most wholesome economic development will not be an artificially stimulated state industrial subsidy … but one based on a positive, forward-looking leadership, sound government and free enterprise.”
Sixty years later, we have city officials bending over backwards to subsidize the developers of 106 Laura Street to the extent that they would triple the corporate welfare the County's Brownfield Authority would allow for the development, by creating their own Ludington Brownfield Authority so they could allow these developers to rape the pocketbooks of the rest of our businesses and individuals and put the gift over $2 million to some faceless limited liability company.
When you go to look up information about 106 Laura Street LLC, you can't even find a developer, the only person you ever run into is a Grand Rapids attorney and there's never anything in the packets. For all the public knows, city officials, their kin, or their benefactors could be the recipients of this largesse wrested from our pocketbooks. Thanks for all the transparency.
If we're going to give away two million dollars to wealthy panhandlers can't the homeless people starving in the streets and the folks down the road from the project who won't be able to keep up with their heating bills this winter at least see who is actually getting their money that city leaders are throwing out so easily? [END comment]
As if to emphasize that I was upset that we were giving a $2 million TIF to some unidentified party, and no city official was stopping the pillaging, concerned with who the recipient was, or caring where the money comes from, a Christmas spirit had me slap the podium at the end of my comment at 55:50 in a rare moment of uncontrolled emotion I usually keep in check at meetings.
It was at least noticed by the mayor who warned me: "[XLFD] I appreciate your input. The action afterwards, I ask you not to repeat that again or I will have to ask you to leave."
The council would pass the Brownfield Plan that would steal as much as $142,789 from local taxes over the next 20 years, without any additional information coming from them. This and the city's other Brownfield TIFs are the scary ghosts of Christmas' yet to come; the millions they generate for private companies do not come from trees but rather from the same place our taxes come from.
Views: 364
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
