WMOM Candidate Forum for Ludington City Councilor At-Large

[XLFD]

Today at roughly 8:30 in the morning WMOM radio had the first of four 'forums' with the candidates running for the open city councilor at-large position with Brandy Henderson (pictured below) taking the microphone and fielding some surprisingly tough questions on Ludington topics with her usual vibrance. 

Before delving into the questions and answers of today's event (which I will provide later in a recap), could you give me some feedback on what you thought of today's interview by AJ Guertin of Brandy Henderson.  You may still hear snippets of that interview throughout the day by tuning into the station.

The Questions (Added 7-27-2016)

Deejay AJ Guertin has led off each interview by asking the candidates to give him a brief Bio listing their qualififcations, this has been pretty much covered either in the COLDNews candidate review articles or the candidate forum (co-hosted by the chamber) held at LACA last week.  No new surprises so far.  Guertin then asks some probing questions unlike the fluff-stuff from the COLDNews and Chamber of Commerce exercises.

The Answers too (Added 7-29-2016) condensed to 1-2 sentences.

1)  There have been some noticeable problems dealing with the upgrades occurring at the Ludington Wastewater Treatment Plant.  What could have the city done better?

BHenderson:  Noted it was a $35 million project (considerably higher than the city has stated) otherwise noted nothing that could have been done better.

WCain:  Noted discharge requirements have nee difficult to meet, much negotiations have taken place, and delays in such projects is usually to be expected.

SVonPfahl:  He noted there needed to be a better system for contracting projects like this and more info to the public needed to be dispensed.

DBuskirk:  Said long range planning is/was key.  Expanding waste load from Amber Twp., Scottville should have led to more factors to consider. 

2)  You are familiar with the details of the low income housing planned for the downtown in the bowling alley block.  Is downtown housing for the poor a good thing for the city?

BHenderson:  She admitted living in a downtown second floor apartment.  She loves it for critical mass and invigorating the downtown.

WCain:  Said that the City will receive $1 million for both lots, and it will cost the taxpayers nothing.  The Brownfield will capture taxes and make it cost no city money.

SVonPfahl:  He said it was a betterment, the sale of property is good, and there is no tax abatements therein.  He believes the aesthetics are good

DBuskirk:  He liked it, while admitting the landlords have had to field a charge through rental inspections, but this will not incur a millage increase.  Was against the vote on the North Washington apartments, because the neighboring public was unanimously against it.

3)  What are your thoughts on the proposed west end of Ludington Avenue Project?

BHenderson:  She understands the concerns of people that have spoke against it and would like to see the improvements, yet would like the improvements to be re-evaluated.

WCain:  Unequivocally for it.  No tax money is used, while dunes remain intact and preserved.

SVonPfahl:  Noted he did not have a strong opinion on it, but did note that the council has been responsive to the citizens and have made changes over tie to the plan.

DBuskirk:  Said public sentiment seemed against it and the loss of parking spots.  It looks like it's moving forward, but he said there was no need to spend money foolishly.

4)  A proposed charter amendment looks to give the city manager more expansive role in responding to emergencies without council approval and expand contracts from 1 to 5 years.  Is this good or bad?  Why?

BHenderson:  She is against both, saying multiyear contracts lead to complacency, and that she is worried about what could be considered an emergency.

WCain:  Cain approves both changes, cited the Brother Street project as an example for why such a change is needed (Editor note:  This wasn't an emergency situation and, amended or not, the city acted against the Open Meetings Act in their response). 

SVonPfahl:  Contrary to his lightning-round vote last week, he came out for both proposals.  Noted that he would also be for an appointive clerk or treasurer position if qualified people do not step up.  Said he was a fiscal conservative nonetheless.

DBuskirk:  Against both, saying that there is already language to cover emergencies, and that emergency sessions can be called by council if needed to respond.

5)  What is the city's role in responding to any repercussions of the sewage spill in the PM Bayou in 2008?

BHenderson:  Noted that spills have caused issues and would like to revitalize the area.  But also noted that the multi-million dollar clean up should not fall on the taxpayers.

WCain:  There is no pollution in bayou, it was reported from the DEQ that any spill had no discernible effect on the sediment.  The City should not pay anything for a dredge of the bayou.

SVonPfahl:  Does not believe the city has any responsibility for it.

DBuskirk:  Says the DEQ verified it is okay and no dredging is needed.  Talked with Ray Karboske and is optimistic his watershed council will be able to find a workable solution.

6)  What is your vision of the future of Ludington? 

BHenderson:  Adequate housing, sidewalks and roads.

WCain:  Going in the right direction, making steady progress, wants quality not quantity.

SVonPfahl:  Proud of making a national name for itself wants to implement his three objectives.  Wants to assign ownership of questions the public ask.

DBuskirk:  Expand long range planning.  Wants to finish the walkway from downtown to Copeyon Park, host more music festivals downtown.  Have affordable housing, filled retail spaces, more options for citizens in getting rid of leaves. 

It should also be noted that Von Pfahl essentially passed on his biographical info to highlight his three objectives which were:  1) To improve council communications  2)  Enhance information accountability and 3)  Increase participation of businesses and citizens in affairs of council by removing the informal gag rule that often makes questions to council remain unanswered. 

Hope this helps to make your vote easier-- it actually made mine harder.  Respond to any of these candidate responses in the comments below.

[AQUAMAN]

All these candidates are wrong for Lud. right now. I cannot support any without holding my nose, except that Buskirk is the least stinky. He however doesn't seem to investigate current events enough to answer too many questions of concern too. So, go choose, and hope for the best? 

[stump]

I talked to Buskirk a few weeks ago he gave me his political pitch and my impression was he thinks Shay is doing a great job as is the city council, everything is great in the city of ludington. My vote won't be cast for such a uninformed politician wanna be .He was on the council when Shay was put into office which really doesn't matter as no one knew how things would go so many years ago, but come on, has he been in town for the last decade?

[Brad]

I agree there is no good choice and that you just need to choose one, but I think we need to pick one that we and that FB page can "influence". Some may listen now and ignore us later. I think Buskirk will listen after the election. Wally is already establishment and I think other two will convert quiclky.

[XLFD]

I've reviewed the minutes of city council meetings between 2000-2003 inclusive to gauge Buskirk's previous stint on the council.  Nothing seems to come out of any special votes or initiatives on his part in that time.  The only times I see him not voting with the rest of the council is when he and Engblade voted against aspects of the old/new DPW Building. 

The only thing I see him crowing about specifically on the campaign trail about his past record is voting for Barnett's and Shay's hiring.  But most people I speak with across town aren't happy with those two anymore, and when I rub shoulders with these officials, I have to wipe the slime off my lapel. 

Buskirk did get rid of CM Miller when he was deemed to have overstayed his welcome in 2002 because of a new political will, I hope he has the ability to do that with Shay-- but I doubt it if he's name-dropping him on a positive note and has at least five other councilors willing to do the same.