Conflicts of Policy at Ludington Planning Commission

[XLFD]

On January, 4, 2016, the Ludington Planning Commission decided to rezone the property at 916 North Washington from single family residential to a use that could see the construction of five multiunit structures with up to 80 apartments.  The last Planning Commission meeting was quite contentious, including a public hearing where many opposed forces were marshalled.  This meeting had no public hearing, just a regular public comment period, which had none of those voices this time. 

The public comment did feature the daughter of the current owner of the property, Heidi Nagel, who made the point (4:15 into video) that her mother was not able to afford the $10,000 tax bill they had to pay each year (5:40 in), so they needed to sell the parcel because the house was uninhabitable and they couldn't afford the taxes. 

Heidi was hard to believe since her numbers are way off, and the livability claims seem stretched.  The taxable value for the property is under $80,000 in 2015, and this left the property's taxes at $3378 for 2015.  An even closer look at that amount reveals the owners claiming a homestead exemption, meaning that they told the taxman that they were living in this uninhabitable parcel this year.  But they sure didn't mow the lawn very often, as they were billed by the city $150 for mowing their lawn, as seen in their summer tax bill: 

Kaye Holman went next (7:20 in) telling us there was a dire need for housing and no place to live in Ludington.  Why was she basically mute throughout the rental inspection ordinance (RIO) hearings, when it was a given that many existing rental properties would be lost in the city if the RIO passed?  She then told a receptive Planning Committee that Ludington really could use the extra tax money this zoning change would generate.  

Perhaps-- if this change went through-- she could finally cut taxes rather than raise taxes-- the only action this city councilor has done in her twelve plus years as a councilor?  Holman admits that even though she voted against the RIO, she believed in COL rental inspections (an odd position), and she admitted once again that she was a councilor expressing her own personal views at the front of her speech, a good thing.  PC members Madsen and Moloney would be well-versed in seeing how she announced that her view was her's alone.

The last public comment was by Kitty Tuinstra (10:15 in), the executive director of Oceana Home Partnership (OHP).  OHP is a group that looks for housing grants, offers renter and homeless services, provides homeowner classes, etc.  She expressed that she was so glad that the RIO passed and also that these apartments would be market rate rental units to alleviate the fears of the nearby Forest Hills community worried about low rent tenements coming in.  Good quality people would be moving into these apartments.

Her whole arguments went against common sense and reality.  The RIO, as Commissioner Madsen points out later, only exacerbates the housing shortage (as does Madsen's purchase of a multiunit rental and kicking the tenants out), but it does provide agencies like Kitty's OHP a reason for their existence-- and more funding.  If these are made market rate housing, the current people looking for affordable housing would still either be out in the street or living outside the city limits.

 

The people that could afford the market rate won't stay there for long once they have enough of the local environment.  The foundry's air, the bottling company's noise make this a terrible location for living, especially if the sound and air pollution absorption of the thick pine forest is removed.  There will be a clash of uses here, I can almost guarantee it.

At about 15:30 into the meeting the subcommittee chairman reviewing the zoning change indicated that the Target Market Analysis (TMA) and the recently made LIAA Master Plan had been duly consulted and found not to be in conflict with the development, in fact it seemed positive.  A little banter about the rental housing shortage in Ludington and the absence of places to put new facilities were also brought up. 

At 22:30 in, Ray Madsen admitted that the RIO would take away a lot of rental properties over time, which exacerbated the need for such development.  This same official wrote in the local paper and also got up at a city council meeting and advocated for the RIO while never saying anything about the current rental shortage and the drastic shortage yet to come.  He freely pointed to a 25 year old fire that wouldn't have been thwarted with the current RIO; the RIO would have only exacerbated the resources and time of the landlord.

January 5, 2016 Ludington Planning Commission from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Some Analysis

Both the TMA and the Master Plan for Ludington relies on the presumption that there is a shift in housing-think going on with people, namely that the American Dream standard of owning a home is being overcome by young and old folks desiring more to live in rental units, whether they be traditional apartments, townhouses, duplexes or the like.  They rarely take into account the long range plans of the younger or the mortality realities of the older, making rentals the right choice at times.

The NAR HOME Survey: Desire to Buy Strong reveals that an overwhelming majority of current renters who are 34 years of age or younger want to own a home in the future (94 percent). Overall, 83 percent of polled renters have a desire to own, and 77 percent believe homeownership is part of their American Dream.  This idea is fairly uniform among all levels of economic levels:

And that same study indicated that more than 5 out of 6 people in every age group thought that homeownership was a good financial decision.  Therefore, while older folks may choose another housing option, it is not because they feel it's a bad investment, it's more likely concerns of maintenance, upkeep, and the uncertainty of who will keep paying the mortgage if their health falters.

If you don't believe such results, go to the apartments just up the street owned by the same developers looking for this rezoning and poll each resident young, old, or in-between on whether they want to live where they are, or live in a house (of the same quality as their apartment) that they own by a mortgage paying out the same amount each month they currently pay for rent/utilities. 

At 36:00 into the meeting, a discussion developed over the legalities of discussing things at subcommittee meetings.  A quarter of an hour discussion developed where our city attorney made things a little bit foggier for all (see this related story).

[Willy]

I am a firm believer that anytime a law, ordinance, rule, regulation or statute is legislated and passed, it would require each member of the Government who is responsible for the passing and or approving said legal notice that they, in writing, give the reasons why they voted to approve or disapprove of the law they passed. This includes the notarized statement that they in fact read the law in it's entirety and fully understood the action they decided to take. This policy would / should be mandatory for all levels of Government.

[Barry R. Schrader]

You mean you want them to notarize their lies?

[Willy]

Absolutely

[XLFD]

Most politicians couldn't really give good reasons for why they voted a certain way, it seems to usually involves party or crony loyalty; someone telling them why they need to vote a certain way.  This wouldn't be bad if they were doing so in the best interests of those they represent, but that isn't often the case. 

A good counterexample would be Justin Amash, a US representative from Michigan who almost always posts a good analysis of how and why he voted the way he did (see Justin Amash's Facebook page).  Amash always seem to vote his conscience, with a good mix of libertarian values and common sense.  If we could get more people like Amash in government, we wouldn't be in such a mess.

[Barry R. Schrader]

Until you (we) own our government that is a lost cause. To own our government is the task and so far we have failed. How? Get all money out of the election process except federal government money we pay in and (with rules) a 1-900-vote number that gives us an immediate vote. There is more, but that is a start. Just a thought.