Hypocrisy in the Tall Grass

[XLFD]

In the article Tall Grass, Easy Cash for City of Ludington in 2015, we saw that the change the Ludington City Council made in the tall grass ordinance had some very bad consequences to the good people of Ludington.  The City published two small  'notices' in the local newspaper in early March telling the citizens that they could be charged for having tall grass and forcing City Hall to mow it, even without them giving you formal notice that you are in violation.  That notice given to you when you could only see snow on your lawn was enough notice. 

The Ludington Torch has petitioned city hall to find out how much they plan on charging, but they have no written document showing how much they would charge you for the service and the bureaucracy.  Of course, there was nothing said in the ordinance about costs or about any other of those sticky 'property rights' guaranteed you in the state and federal Constitutions (as discussed in Ludington Posed to Weed Out More Rights). 

What they could conceivably do then is have one of their code enforcers decide, or perhaps a disgruntled neighbor of yours tell them, that you need to cut your grass because it's over ten inches.  Then they simply make a call to their landscaping contractors and have them make a visit to your yard to cut it and assign charges for the transaction.  You don't even need to be involved at all, after all those two March notices in the newspaper was all you needed to know.

The City owns well over fifty properties in the city and a look at the wording of the city ordinance Section 18-32, etc., shows that everyone owning land in the city is vulnerable to the section's mandates of battling tall grass.  "All persons who own or manage, lease, rent or occupy any premises or vacant land within the city whatsoever shall be equally responsible..." means that City Manager John Shay and crew have the duty to make sure their grass is cut below ten inches. 

So what would we find if a civic-minded citizen took a ten inch marker to those various properties over this last spring weekend to make sure the city is keeping up to speed?   Would the city be a good steward of their property or would they be found wanting?  Let's take a look at my measuring stick, what I call The "Big Grass Ten inch Stick".  Others have misread the title and gotten a different name for it.

As you can see, the orange section is ten inches long.  The first city property I inspected was 815 S. Washington, a vacant lot just north of the bar on the corner of Washington and First Street, some place you would not expect was a city property, but it is.  It needed a grass cutting:

The City was not totally negligent in grass cutting, I found many more of its properties that were in compliance than not.  Many were in partial compliance like the Danaher water tower property, here's a picture from the south of the water tower, you can make out where the contractors finished the mowing, which was still well within the property lot, but you can barely make out the orange stick twixt the tall grass:

The worst offender noted was the City warehouse property up on 806 N. Harrison where the land is alternately bare, weed-strewn, or otherwise littered with what the city would call junk if it was on your lawn.  Here's some tall grasses near a city vehicle that probably hasn't moved in over ten days (otherwise known as a junk vehicle in Ludington):

Another view from behind some City of Ludington weeds measuring about twice the limit on that lot:

Now I could go and say that the various city parks have areas where they are not in compliance with the law, show areas at the water treatment plant, the DPW building, etc. which were out of permissible grass length parameters, but I will not be unreasonable like the City could be with this infernal ordinance.  But I will finish with the City of Ludington's main property, the Ludington City Hall, which is where they conduct their business and sets an example for many of our guests.  Surely, they would be in compliance.  But then, here's the front of that facility:

Yes, that is common grass infiltrated among the 'decorative' clipped dead grasses which are also too high for the ordinance.  The ordinance, in case you were wondering, has no distinction between landscaping grasses and common grass anyway.  All the way around the city hall and police station are these dead grass/live grass combos that get over ten inches easily.  Why aren't they being cut down?

And let's not forget their backyard, where the common grass grows in the shadows of the city hall, and these aren't even part of the landscaping:

Will the City Code Enforcers notify the city manager that blight is all around the city-owned properties and get things squared away?  Of course not, any of our public servants will tell you the City of Ludington has no problems of their own making.

[Willy]

Somehow I bet they knew you were going to check for tall weeds on City property but amazingly the City didn't do a very good job following the new ordinance. There's one area that falls under this ordinance that will never see a mower and if the City is smart [no pun intended] they would immediately exempt it from the ordinance. That would be sandy property that has "dune grass" growing on it. Maybe this will be an excuse to level those pesky mounds of sand so a big parking lot and walkway can be installed. Dune grass is also growing tall on all the lots on Lake Michigan that are located inside the City. Won't those property owners be happy to receive a notice for their beach front property. I forgot, they City does not have to send a personal notice so, I expect to see a dune buggy converted to a riding mower chopping down those noxious weeds that are  growing on the sunrise side of Lake Michigan. Like Forrest' mom said "stupid is as stupid does". That should be on a plaque above City Hall's entrance.

[XLFD]

I did give them fair warning of my intentions earlier on.  Although it's not part of the written law, I also gave the city parks an exemption from the tall grass ordinance or else I would have had a field day [pun intended] with the beach grass at Stearn's Park and all those tall grasses in the natural areas of Cartier and Copeyon Park.  If those were privately owned, you can bet the savants at the City of Ludington would go hog wild with the money-making opportunity it would present. 

Here's a couple more noticeable examples at one of my favorite places, see if you can guess where these pictures are taken (there are some context clues in the pictures themselves):

[AQUAMAN]

Well, if confronted on these nuisance sites where grass length isn't being conformed to, you can bet the COL will either have someone out with a weedeater asap, or they will state that it's for green areas. Either way, it's still one rule for citizens, and another for the city. Nice pics. and investigation again X, again showing the blatant hypocrisy from John Shay and the crew at city hall.

[XLFD]

As a community service I offer these pictures to all Ludington citizens, home and business owners so as to give ammunition for any complaints they may have when they are cut off by the city's buzz crew. 

There's nothing like showing the city's warehouse property well out of compliance after they tell you that you owe them money.  It could be an interesting summer.

[stump]

Isn't all grass decorative? I'll give the city a pass on that grass as it is a special land scape type grass, but not the weeds. I can see that this whole ordinance change that our council didn't think through before passing going down the toilet quickly. Money saved on postage will be spent multiple times over on grass contractors now [ when they get around to it ] making our city properties well manicured. Time for another FOIA on how much money was expended in 2014 for outside grass cutting that we can compare to what 2015 will end up.

[XLFD]

Don't worry, the money spent on contractors will be passed along to the homeowners, along with a more than fair administrative fee paid to the city for their bother in checking your lawn and getting the ball rolling.  That rock lawn wasn't a bad idea, the city noted hundreds of tall grass violations last year.

I do have a standing FOIA subscription to receive copies of any notices sent out or delivered, and any billing statements made vs. a homeowner.  Haven't received any yet.  That other FOIA is in the future. 

[Willy]

Stump. I agree that dune-grass should be exempt but, in fact, it is not. According to the ordinance, if it exceeds 10 inches it is considered a nuisance and must be cut. The only way to exempt it from the ordinance is to establish it as a species that is not considered a nuisance and state so in the ordinance, otherwise all dune-grass over 10 inches must, according to code, be trimmed. Whenever codes like these are initiated the municipality must be specific as to what constitute a violation.

"The city council, by adoption of the amendment to the City Code that added this Sec. 18-32. - Weeds; definition. hereby finds and determines that grasses in excess of ten inches long shall be regarded as common nuisance in the city and shall come within the scope of this article."

[Jasper]

Let's be real here---those grasses in the beds are ornamental grasses. Don't believe it is what the COL has a problem with, just as the beach grass.  Yes, the other photo's are definitely grass/weeds and the COL should be maintaining their property, if the expectation for landowners are to maintain their property.  

Just another example of "big brother" overseeing property owner's rights.   

[stump]

The way this city works they probably won't even tell the property owner anything and just put it on there tax bill.

[XLFD]

That two small notices in the COLDNews when everyone had over ten inches of snow on their front yards is all the notice that the city is required to give you with that insane new law.  I see a class action lawsuit if they decide to totally avoid noticing property owners that their grass is too high when they claim it is.