The Political Struggle of Krauch and Lange

[XLFD]

An interesting and somewhat public turf war is being waged in Mason County between County Commissioner Chuck Lange and council-appointed Ludington City Councilor Michael Krauch in otherwise discrete and civil disagreements over political issues. 

This battle may be hard to recognize without knowing a bit of the background of their other jobs and pursuits.  When these are considered, the dispute is seen in detail.

Before Krauch assumed his Fourth Ward Councilor job a little over a year ago without benefit of one vote from anybody in the Fourth Ward, he was the District 5 Coordinator for MSU Extension.  Krauch began as an educator in the Homeownership Division of MSUE, and served less than a year before his promotion.  His professional demeanor, qualifications and legal scholarship in Illinois appealed to MSUE and, less than one year later, to the Ludington City Council.  Here's his MSUE page:

Like Michael Krauch, Lange achieved a promotion in 2013, becoming the chairman of the Mason County Board of Commissioners, a position he has held since.  Lange is owner of CL Enterprises a machinery shop east of the city limits which reportedly brings in between $1 and $2.5 million each year and employs 5-9 folks.  He also owns four rental properties inside the city limits, two of those within the fourth ward.  Chuck is the leftmost commissioner getting sworn in on this photo.

There are some similarities between the two men, such as they are both short in stature and serve on governing bodies.  But there are clear differences that define this struggle.

As you may note, Lange is a small businessman in both his shop and landlord capacity who has got his position by appealing to voters during the several elections he has won.  Krauch answers to federal, state, and county governments in his regular job he was appointed to, and has only answered to the Ludington City Council in getting his position while arguably holding it illegally after the city failed to put his position on the ballot in 2014. 

The MSUE and its programs, like 4-H, are partially funded by the county, meaning that Lange has some measure of control over this aspect as a vote on the county board.  The City of Ludington, in considering a rental inspection program, will allow Krauch to have some measure of control over whether this passes and affects Lange's landlord business. 

In fact, Krauch not only has one vote, but has been instrumental in reviving the viability of the program over loud objections from the public, hammering out details of what should be involved while on the Building & Licensing Committee.  City officials praise him for his work, while many in the public dwell on his choice of words after meeting with some landlords-- intimating that inspections were coming whether the landlords like it or not.  His rhetoric at committee and council meetings have also reflected that he thinks its passage in inevitable, and is only common sense.

Meanwhile Lange has been attending many of these meetings, speaking at the initial committee meetings and at the August special meeting dedicated to the ordinance:

"Chuck Lange, chairman of the Mason County Commissioners and Ludington landlord broadcasted a study that indicated Ludington was in great need already of low rent housing and that this would aggravate the current situation, intimating that such a program would never fly in the county."

Rental Inspection Meeting August 13, 2015

Lange was at the last meeting where the first reading of this ordinance came up Krauch wasn't.  A couple of speakers held issue with Krauch and his words; one mentioned Lange as a landlord that brought a rental and spent a lot to fix the furnace.  Lange didn't speak other than to acknowledge the fact.

One day afterwards on October 13, the Mason County Board met, with Chuck Lange as chairman.  Commissioners were considering whether to spend money on making another full time assistant prosecutor or on making the 4-H director a full time position.  They decided on the former, however, Commissioner Vanderwall wished to also make the 4-H director a 30 hour/week position rather than 20 hours.  This would cost $15,000 extra taken from the contingency fund. 

After discussion the vote was on, three of the regular commissioners were for it, three were against it, but Chairman Lange, with the deciding vote coming from his throat, voted no.  This is significant because the 4-H Program throughout Michigan is ran by MSUE, and the person pushing the county for more funding was, you guessed it, Michael Krauch:

Fortunately, Krauch isn't angry at commissioners, including its chairman, so his vote on rental inspections won't be to avenge Mr. Lange's vote on the 4-H program.  But the MSUE also is engaged in more than 4-H, as noted by Mr. Krauch's first appearance before Chairman Lange in August 2014:

The purpose behind the MSUE's homeownership program is to allow as many people to own homes, even if it is effectively bailing them out.  Step Forward Michigan was a half of a billion dollars of stimulus money to keep people from getting foreclosed from their homes, Krauch was in charge of this for the Region Five area before becoming the director.  It's not too surprising that the MSUE who focuses on homeownership over rental agreements only extended this money to owner occupied homes.  The MSUE has no programs or assistance for rentals and looks on such usage of property in a mostly negative light.  Councilor Michael Krauch follows the MSUE's lead.

Some may even view Krauch's deep involvement in the rental inspection program as a conflict of interest, since more homeownership in Ludington/Mason County, which this ordinance would promote would result through the conversion of rentals to owner-occupied homes or the loss of the rentals entirely. 

Congratulations Councilor Krauch, your MSUE leadership in homeownership has been assisted through your city council leadership in rental-busting.  Maybe you should seek the sound advice of someone who not only provides real jobs for the area, but also supplies real housing:  County Chairman and Ludington business owner and landlord, Chuck Lange.

[snide]

No, I am not contesting that Lange didn't have the legal right to evict the family...(the mom was/is a real piece of work) but I am saying as a human being the ruthlessness of being a landlord takes over the sense of compassion for our fellow human.....Kids don't deserve ,especially ones in a situation like that to see all their belongings outside in the winter......

[XLFD]

As a long time apartment manager, I had my own compassion held in question by others when we had to go through the eviction process, so I can empathize somewhat with Mr. Lange for having to do this eviction and cannot assign anything villainous as to his part in it, with the facts as presented.

I presume that Lange had initiated the eviction due to non-payment of rent, likely caused by the incarceration and legal fees the household had to contend with.  Lange had to be concerned with several things:  his pipes getting frozen if his tenants weren't paying the gas bill, the health and welfare of the kids in such a household, the prospect of having no further payments of rents coming in, etc.

Evicting this family may have allowed the kids to live in a better environment at a relative's house or even the woman's shelter, where this piece of work woman would at least be supervised.  Landlord's may be assumed ruthless by their actions, but the position does not preclude any humanity residing inside them... and living there rent-free.

[XLFD]

Snide,

I have had to go through an eviction as an apartment manager by getting a writ of restitution and helping to move the person out.  With an officer present, I started moving stuff out before the tenant realized it was game over for him and we eventually worked a deal that allowed him to move the rest of his stuff out by the day's end.  I helped him with the transport. 

As the officer told me that day, it was perfectly legal to move his stuff out while he was there and the writ was issued ordering possession of the unit back to the landlord, which is confirmed here.  Let's give Chuck the benefit that he went through the proper eviction process, since there hasn't been a civil suit against him since for this. 

[AQUAMAN]

Now that I searched my mental archives snide, I see what you're saying. I too had a landlord that wouldn't keep renting to me for a less monthly amount due to two roommates deserting the aptmt.. I had my 1/3, but it was not good enough, even temporarily. He went in and thru out everything of mine in the dumpster, and the neighboring tenants got it all. I even saw other guys wearing my clothes days later, and they would not give them up, without a fight, or gunfight! So not worth it, and a dirty deed perpetrated on the tenant that could have been averted, and settled like adults. Not to be. Laws are meant to protect both sides, and sometimes, the law comes down on the wrong side, due to technicalities. Oh yeah, forgot to add that I was NOT there when my belongings were thrown out. Happened when I was at work. 

[XLFD]

Your landlord blatantly violated the law Aquaman, but it was a bit naïve on your part to believe that the landlord would accept 1/3 of the rent for his unit just because the population was 1/3 of what it was.  Landlords generally have a set rate for their units which do not fluctuate whether they have 1 or 3 people inside it.  Nevertheless, the jerk landlord you had should have been sued in small claims court for your losses, and you would have likely won in a fair court, but he would have likely countersued you for damages or extra rent if he had any minimal basis.

[AQUAMAN]

Well X, I full well know all this after this took place some 40+ years ago now. I just wanted temporary residence while seeking a new apartment, and still working by day construction carpenter, and p-t nites as a cabby. I still think he violated the law, as no court ordered eviction notice ever came. Btw, he and I had a long talk about me even helping get it rented out to a couple of good looking gals in the neighborhood too, so, that was help from me on no terms I was obliged to meet, nor agree to, just a friendly gesture to be a good tenant. I thought we had a meeting of the minds, but, not so in the end. Sad and not exactly legal imho. But, I learned a lot about how to trust landlords after that experience for sure.  

[Nonfiction]

Having been a landlord of several units and a tenant also, in several units, i am not understanding why some are against the RIP, other than the exceptions of the city making money off of it and some clean up with aspects in the proposal. Many times after renting a unit, there are occurrences where some landlords will perform cover ups which look like the problem is fixed, but instead the outer shell look great yet the inner is still a hazard. Yes Michigan has programs for tenants who have difficulties with landlords who do not correct problems, but i would think many are afraid of backlash from landlords when they take those routes. There are many landlords in Ludington who do not have issues with having this inspection, because they do believe it is a good thing not only for their tenants, but also for themselves, a landlord with good inspections is favorable to rent from. Wouldn't this proposal also benefit landlords as in protecting them from those slum tenants who damage and do not take care of property, then try to take advantage of landlords by not paying rent or taking them to court under false accusations?

[dowland]

What does the Constitution say ?   Not a bunch of power hungry council members. legally this will not stand.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/02/judge-rules-ohio-ci...

[XLFD]

Bring it, Shinblind, or have a similar-minded friend bring it, to the city council to read.  I would like to see the next city council meeting last well into the night by dint of public comment against this ordinance.  This is a ruling that mirrors the very reasons why this ordinance must not pass; even though it's a ruling from Ohio it's from a federal judge using federal principles and precedents of federal law to claim its obvious shortcomings.

The long session would be the first of many headaches that the City of Ludington will self-inflict on itself from passage of the ordinance as written.  I guarantee I will stand up and make a point of order when the City marches in its own appointed and hired stooges to shill for the RIP without stating their employment with the city.  They make themselves look like opportunistic beggars that would put hoped-for grant and developer money ahead of the rights of the citizens they supposedly serve.

[XLFD]

Nonfiction,

Thanks for your candor and concerns.  In the multiple meetings that have taken place, the first attended by over 100 landlords (who were the only ones to receive notice of it) and some tenants, there have been no landlords that have stood up and said that they want the inspections and given any reason why they do.  

The Ludington landlord set that you speak of likely exists even if it hasn't made itself known, but you would not expect that ones who do not feel passionately one way or the other whether it passes also do not care whether it fails.  

If we presume that the set of landlords who are actually for the ordinance is not empty, then their motives come into question, just like some of the ones who have spoken out against it have.  Let's assume they know that all their units would pass over things that they can control, lest we forget that an annoyed tenant could easily spike an inspection they objected to. 

Why do they want to pay $65/unit (and ever-increasing) and suffer the inconveniences due to time used and tenant-prodding of multiple inspections just for a piece of paper from the city that truly is meaningless except in the eyes of this ordinance?

The only logical reason I can think of is that they either want to convert their units to non-rental purposes like condominiums so that they charge more or they can justify a dramatic raising of their rents for the rental unit shortage that will arise from the RIP, or that they have been led to believe that they will receive grant money to offset the inconveniences or that a developer will be interested in buying their property at a great rate.

There is no extra bonus for landlords in removing what you call slum tenants; sure, it would give the landlords extra incentive to get rid of them so they could pass inspection without hiring a dumpster and cleaning crew every three years, but the landlord already has the option of getting rid of a tenant that chooses to trash their apartments; the RIP won't negate the use of an eviction proceeding to get rid of a problem tenant. 

In case you do not have the proposed ordinance, here it is.