Ludington's ORV Petition: Minority from Ludington

[XLFD]

It was revealed in part one of the article Blessing of the Golf Carts that at the July 27, 2015 meeting of the Ludington City Council that ORV/Golf Cart entrepreneur Dan Quinn presented the Ludington Mayor and fellow unproclaimed ORV/Golf Cart entrepreneur, Ryan Cox, with a petition featuring 82 signatures of people who were for the ORV ordinance in Ludington. 

This petition has little more legal significance than inferring there is at least 82 people around town that agreed to lend their name to a cause they may have not knew a lot about.  Since it had been presented in an official manner to the mayor, it became a public record that was available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and so it was of public interest to see what these writings amounted to, since Quinn and Cox were instrumental in the passage of both ORV and Golf Cart Ordinances.

The results were probably what could be expected from an informal petition with no legal significance, and likely to be seen by only the mayor who through duplicity, helped the ordinances get the required four councilor votes.   Here is the first page of signatures:

You will note that the wording is simple:  "Do you want to ride your ORV in the City of Ludington?"  Nothing more.

With such wording, one may expect that Mr. Quinn gave this petition to those who just brought ORVs from him or have done so in the past, for it presumes the signer had possession of an ORV. 

 

Someone who has just purchased or owns an ORV should logically desire to ride that vehicle anywhere they may want to go.  It's only normal for free people, so asking them whether they want to ride it in a place that is currently forbidden is almost a given affirmation.  The converse "Do you not want to ride your ORV in the City of Ludington?", should elicit the response "I want to ride it wherever I may roam."

Even if you don't own an ORV, people's first inclination would be to say "Why not?" to the question posed, until they see the law and think about how the traffic and safety issues may affect the bustling downtown area of Ludington during the tourist season which already has a lot of issues.  They may rationalize that no ORV facilities exist in the city, and there are no golf courses, and that the recreational use of those devices would not be a good fit. 

I use an ORV in Sherman Township for retrieving firewood and other purposes, but cannot think of a reason why I would move that into town and use it on their streets without causing major problems with the traffic flow and my own safety. 

Page two also has the same question at top and a variety of names.  Due to the widespread differences between addresses, it lends further credence to show that Mr. Quinn did not go door-to-door for these signatures, but likely just went through his customers.

Interestingly, there are few names in the petition that are involved with any form of government, and it is hard to say what 'info' about the ordinances they shared with the signers, other than what comes up in the back of this petition page written on the margins:

The last page features eleven of the first twelve signers living outside the City of Ludington in either Hamlin, PM, or Amber Township.  You may have noticed similar numbers throughout the petitions, where 47 of the 82 people do not come from within the City of Ludington.  Less than 43% of the people signing were from the city that would be affected by the ordinances for ORVs, and for the much more dangerous one for golf carts. 

Typical for Ludington policymakers, let outside influences decide the issue even before the citizens of our city hear anything about it.  See the .pdf at Signed Petition ORVs.pdf

[AQUAMAN]

I think one of the basic rules governing petitions, is that a certain percentage of voters must sign one, in order for it to be a binding issue. 82 signatures doesn't sound very high in number, nor a question of binding the issue for a new ordinance. Maybe 500-1,000 signatures, but 82?

[stump]

I myself would think that the voters in the city should decide if this ordinance should be passed . Not the people outside of the city. Sure the people who have or want ORV/golf carts would want to ride, they want to ride anywhere. Next thing they'll want is a ordinance passed to allow them to have guns strapped to their handle bars because it's their rights . If the 82 number is all that's needed, someone should get a recall for the dumb shits who passed this, I'm sure there would be enough voters in the city for that.

[XLFD]

By state law, such a decision does not have to be voted on by the people but by their representatives, but I have to agree with you on how it should go.  In ideal situations, the people would be well informed about the pros and cons of such an ordinance and be allowed the opportunity to weigh in well before any final decision is made by their representatives.

What happens here in Ludington is that a group of three people making up a committee are approached by special interest groups, pressured, incentivized or beguiled into championing their cause, passing their recommendation at the committee level where meetings are informal, conversations are not recorded, and otherwise not necessarily following the open meetings act.  The public gets fed the city manager's take on the issues unfiltered in the local media the weekend before their Monday meeting, often with an impression that the legislation is immutable and the die is already cast. 

The petition and its number of signers is nothing more than the entrepreneurs', Cox and Quinn, manufactured propaganda used to illustrate that the public is for these ordinances.  Any persuasive guy could go door-to-door in the city and get 82 of the first 100 people they meet willing to sign a petition for not allowing golf carts/ORVs on city streets and say the public is against them.  I contend that an informed public would rule against golf carts (and likely ORVs) on the streets of Ludington resoundingly, but that effectively won't matter.  Four people on the council, half of which were swayed by a sunset provision that is effectively meaningless, is enough to make this the law in Ludington.

[Willy]

Something as major as allowing slow moving, obstructive vehicles on Ludington's busy streets should be decided on by the citizens who have to live with the golf carts and orv's. One problem with orv's is that their tires are made for off road conditions and do not work well on hard surfaces. Anyone who has operated one know's this. A small city like Scottville or Custer is much more suited for these types of vehicles not a city as busy and congested as Ludington.

[AQUAMAN]

Absolutely guys, a much smaller village without all this busy summer traffic. I think the whole thing is a way for the beach patrol and municipal marina to get a green light for their illegal operation of these golf carts to begin with. The means to an end for the issues that X brought up at previous CC Mtgs.. Shame on the co-conspirators for safety like Barnett and Castonia, deaths will be laid at their feet first into the future. 

[Jasper]

I understand "No Fault Insurance Law," in the event of an accident.  But, citizen's can still to file a "suit" in Court for whatever injury etc...  Why is this even an issue?  Mason County and the surrounding area has plenty of areas to ride these off-road vehicles.  

The COL is very congested with traffic during the summer months.  The COL is not even a friendly Bicycle City, let alone motorized golf carts, and ORV'S.  

And yeah, those signature's mean nada...nada...!  It is hilarious those signatures were even considered as part of the decision by Ludington City Officials.  

[Willy]

Aquaman I think you nailed it. This ordinance would allow the city's illegal use of orv's to become legal. That way the City won't have to "bothered" with complaints.

Good points Jasper.

Why is the City so concerned with orv's? Let's get sidewalks installed so children don't have to walk in the street on their way to school especially on icy roads during winters dark mornings.