Decision to cut down 17 trees in Copeyon Park made after City approved park for 'Splash Pad'

No plans in the near future to replace those trees

City officials misinform public about project 

On Monday, March 27, a local concerned citizen noted that several trees were in the process of being taken down by city employees at Copeyon Park, and aired those concerns on Facebook.  I did a preliminary investigation and shared it the day afterward in the article  What's with the Chopping on Copeyon Park?.

As noted in the comments to that article, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request out to the city later on that Monday trying to delve into why these mostly healthy trees, all in roughly the same area, were cut down, and to find out whether there were any plans to replace them.  I worded the FOIA as follows (minus salutations and parameters) so as to get all written records in the city's possession pertaining to the removal of the Copeyon Seventeen; I asked for:

"All official written correspondence between officials/employees of the city involving the removal of several healthy, mature trees from Copeyon Park (which was in progress earlier today).  Include any meeting minutes, memos, or notes of the Tree Advisory Board or city subcommittees where this issue was discussed."

In answer, I received two .pdf files on Friday, a rather speedy turn-around for city FOIA responses.  In those records I was able to deduce the three subheadings at the top of this article.  Before I offer into evidence the official record I received, let me expound on what officials had said in the interim on Facebook to allay citizen concerns.  Some comments in the original post have been edited out for brevity's sake.

The March 6, 2017 Ludington CC minutes has the local CDD telling the council that the DDA hired Jen Tooman roughly two years ago as the DDA's Marketing Director, making Jen not only a city employee, but effectively a city official, so her modesty in not coming out as an official itself is either commendable-- or self-serving.  She says an unnamed official told her the trees had been on a list to come down for two years. 

Note, that the post was made three days after my request was made, one day before it was supplied to me, so one could believe the knowledgeable official knew the records were going to be coming out.  The posts continue with others asking more questions of Jen followed by:

 

Becky Cain berates those who were speculating on the topic looking at what the city had released to that point, which was nothing.  She then wonders why anybody would be intimidated by the city council, when other city officials they hire and themselves have spent the last several years intimidating everybody that confronts them.  She asks for facts rather than speculation and presumes that Tooman has accurately stated what she was told, and that the still-anonymous official was accurate too. 

It should come as no surprise that Becky Cain is a city official serving on the Planning Commission, who apparently thinks it's okay to troll the Concerned Locals group spreading the message that our city government would never lie to us, should not be feared, and should only be loved.  She added no substance, rather she demeaned and possible intimidated several citizens in these and other posts in helping to propagate Jen Tooman's posting of false information. 

The original poster was taken aback and considered leaving the group because of the badgering she was getting by these officials which led DDA Marketing Director Tooman to post:

"If transparency is what you want... believe it" 

Frankly, Jen Tooman and Becky Cain, I don't trust either of you since not only did you try to posit a false narrative, one that you probably knew was false, and not only do you serve a city government that allows corrupt actions at every turn, but you also both took the extra effort to block my Facebook identity from seeing your posts.  Are you two intimidated and fearful of a poor citizen whose efforts are to get to the truth and expose corrupt government actions when he sees them?

Enough melodrama from Facebook let's look at the facts and expose the official lies uttered by a still-unknown city official and echoed by their mouthpiece, Jen Tooman. 

My first exhibit is the Tree Removal 2016-2017.pdf list, which includes a Tree Advisory Board (TAB) memorandum.  This was the first record chronologically, you can see it is a revision (red lettering on top of page 1) dated 12-13-2016.  This shows that the 'original' list for the years 2016/2017 likely created before 2016 did not contain the removal of trees in Copeyon.  Otherwise, it would follow that this list would have also been included, or specifically determined to be a 'lost record' in the FOIA response to my request.  This is confirmed by the late November 2016 memo from the TAB on page 3.

Thus, contrary to Jen Tooman's unsourced city official, the removal of these 17 trees were not properly envisioned until the tree removal list was revised two weeks later.  When the TAB was created last year, the officials who were for it were gushing over how well this would work out for Ludington trees, those appointed to the board were so excited about making this a tree city, and how adding trees to the landscape would fall squarely within the city's comprehensive plan.

As Maury Povich is famous for saying, that too was a lie.  The TAB was instrumental in seeing that the trees in Copeyon were taken down (there is no note that the otherwise healthy ash trees were diseased and in danger of falling over), but in this Revised Tree Planting Recommendations 2017.pdf drew up by that agency, there is to be no replenishing of the trees taken out of Copeyon.  Here's there full list of tree plantings for Copeyon:

Being that there is no intent anywhere to replant replacement trees for the seventeen taken down, there appears to be only one reason not to.  The shade trees would interfere with the proposed splash pad's full utilization.  As shown in this picture of the Splash Pad Committees marking off of territory... 

...those trees in the background closest to the water's edge were all taken down.  Their crime appears to be that they would have cast their shadows over the proposed splash pad site; it also may be the case that they prevented this project from being in a more preferred lakeside site.  The latter will only be known if the splash pad does get located over the removed stumps of these majestic trees that are no longer with us. 

Both are reasonable presumptions, for the value of the splash pad would go way down if it was almost always in shade.  But have the developers of this project figured out that parents who are there to watch over their kids will need some shade?  It seems a bit of overkill to take down all of the trees. 

Jen's (pictured left) uncredited city official is likely to be the Splash Pad Committee's quiet member Heather Tykoski, who is often collaborating with her on marketing projects.  In the August 22, 2016 LCC meeting where the city council voted to use Copeyon Park to house a splash pad, city official Heather was uncredited as being a member of the Splash Pad Committee, and her husband, Councilor Nick Tykoski, voted for it. 

In such situations, a full-time city official's involvement in a so-called "group of private citizens" should be mentioned as a matter of public record, and her husband should have properly abstained from the vote as her 'private' group received effectively a gift of more than de minimis nature.  This is part of the City Code (Sec. 2-72) and in state law (MCL 15.322) and (MCL 15.342).

This would appear to be why Jen Tooman ignored several calls from concerned citizens to reveal her official source, since that source has regularly pulled the wool over the publics eyes in numerous local scandals involving our city government.  I would urge both Jen Tooman and Becky Cain to leave the Concerned Locals Facebook page if their purpose there is to only spread misinformation without sources.  If true transparency is what you want... believe that their activities here defy that objective. 

Views: 411

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Frankly, that's why these public servants block me on Facebook from seeing their posts.  They don't want all that knowledge I've acquired with those 330 FOIA requests and other probes to show that they are either fibbing and/or unethical.  Their shame is not my pride, but I wonder:  Why can't they show a modicum of ethics and work for the silent majority of people in Ludington rather than the venal interests of the elites who occupy the positions of power? 

Yup, both Becky Cain and Jen Tooman are very outspoken supporters on everything the city does on Concerned Locals. They have both attacked and criticized me and X for asking questions, and/or stating facts that they insist are incorrect. Truth is, they are the ones deceiving and conniving the most on that forum, along with a few others that feel the city never does any wrong. We at the Torch have been quite busy and informative to the Ludington public, and still, most anything we post on is perceived by the LDN and Shay as just more lies and unsubstantiated. I think X has been more than tolerant and fair, and usually always connects info. with links, so that in itself is commendable and truthful. Others however, have a planned agenda, and if you question it, you'll be scorned and taken down. Thanks for the update on the tree situation X, well done again.

The way Cain and Tooman acted is par for the course. A common practice is for officials to speak at meetings and gatherings as if they were private citizens with no official connection to the Government. X has done a superb job of outing most of these stinkers.

X, I am not a facebook user so I'm not sure how it operates but I was wondering if you can or do provide links to this forum when you comment on that concerned citizens forum. If there are enough people over there who can spread the word it might be helpful to have them check your site here in order to see the truth. It would help them separate the B.S. from the real story such as this Cain / Tooman foolishness.

Thanks Aquaman for the explanation of our search for answers and the city's complicity over the years in trying to quell those answers by attacking those who ask the questions.  And for the kudos.

To answer Willy, linking to Facebook can be problematic, I can link to a Facebook page, like the Ludington Pitchfork or Concerned Locals, but linking to a specific post doesn't seem to work for me. 

As for Concerned Locals, I have no problems with posting my thoughts there and others posting articles from the LT there, but I prefer to play a background role in order to let new blood assert themselves into the destiny of Ludington.  In their ranks are the apprentices of who will ultimately decide if Ludington's fate is in the hands of a handful of 'progressive', unelected officials or the will of the concerned citizens. 

I appreciate Jen trying to track down information and post it online.  However, she needs to disclose that she is a paid city official and is speaking on behalf of the city.  In addition, some of her Facebook posts are made during normal business hours.  Is she using taxpayer money to use social media during the work day?  If she is, I'm assuming it is job related and part of her marketing duties, which would require her to disclose in her responses that she is a city official and is authorized to speak on behalf of the City. 

On Facebook I can almost always tell when a Ludington city official is posting stuff, because almost all of them have my Facebook persona blocked, and the gaps are noticeable when regular folks voice their heartfelt concerns.  I 'forgave' the posting during business hours because of her part-time position (29 hours/week) making it difficult to tell when she's on the clock or not, but she could easily have provided her affiliation with the city in her postings.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service