Ludington officials use surveys much like a drunkard uses a lamppost; for support, not for illumination.  The latest case in point was from a survey given to Ludington Avenue homeowners back in April, and to Facebook subscribers to the City of Ludington webpage.  The results of the survey have never been released to the public, but at the last city council meeting Councilor Kathy Winczewski tells the public and the other assembled officials her interpretation of the results:

August 27th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Winczewski (20:00 in):  "A survey was conducted on this, and a survey was sent out to all the homes on Ludington Avenue. Overwhelmingly the result was that the signs were okay. They were taken down when they were supposed to be taken down... we are currently allowing two per block, which people felt were okay. For a while there seemed to be too many, but we straightened that out, and so it seems like our time can be spent better..."

When this had the first reading at the previous meeting in August, she related pretty much the same idea, but a little more developed.  

August 13th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Winczewski (24:30 in): "I'd like to also just talk about the survey that we did. We conducted a survey of a lot of the people who live on Ludington Avenue as to the sign issue, so we have sent out surveys and some of them responded on the internet. Overwhelmingly, the response was "it's not a problem".

Now there were a few people that felt that there were too many, some people felt, a few people felt it was an accident hazard, because people trying to read the signs are not watching traffic. But overwhelmingly people thought it was really kind of a nice way to come into Ludington; it showed a lot of things were going on, they let people know what's going on, what time it was happening, so I think we were all kind of pleasantly surprised with the responses that we got. So we really tried to get people's input on that also for what they felt."

Results of the survey were never released in the packets of those meetings or anywhere else, so this aroused my curiosity as some of her claims seemed dubious or inconsistent, and I sent a FOIA request to the City asking for "All public records involved with that survey, minimally including ones describing the authorization of the survey, the resources used to conduct the survey, the survey responses, and conclusions developed from those responses." 

The response was enlightening (SurveySays), it showed that seven people responded to the four questions on the survey, not a lot of people when you consider there are 80 residences with different owners on the avenue outside of the downtown area (anything with an address over 400 east or west).  

While I did ask for the resources used, the records do not show that.  One can figure that if there were 80 responses sent out there was $40 in postage used (80 X $.50 or $37.50 if they used a meter) to mail them out and likely the same rate if they included a reply SASE to improve response rates-- although a rate under 9% makes that less likely.  The main cost component, however, would have been unrecorded labor costs, including the time Shay spent drafting the survey and the time the clerks took to run off the copies, get the addresses, and stuff the envelopes.  It's likely the cost of the survey amounted to around $200 or more.  

The city claims it will use the survey results to draft a new policy on special event signage, but when you look at the four questions asked:

You wonder whether the answers led to the final conclusion made by the committee and passed onto the council, which was to only change the power of approval of placing these signs from the city council to the city manager.  You will note that none of the questions deal even remotely with that change, but only with 1) Frequency, 2) Number per block, 3) Recommendations, and 4) Concerns.  Nobody submitted a recommendation or concern that the city manager would be better suited for approving the signs than the city council.  

Now let's consider, Councilor Kathy "Moonbeam" Winczewski's observations about this survey.  She uses the word 'overwhelming' three times, which is a term subject to interpretation, but let's assume the following when we consider there are only seven responses.  If less than four replied a certain way, not even a majority, that wouldn't be 'overwhelming' that wouldn't even be a majority.

At the August 27th meeting:  There was no survey question asking whether the signs were okay (her first claim), there was no question about whether they were taken down when they were supposed to, and only one (of seven) made a comment about them being taken down appropriately (her second claim).  She claims two per block and says people were okay with that, however, this corresponds to the second question where only two people (out of seven) said that number was just right, some taking the time to elaborate why.

Three claims about the survey made on August 27th not supported by the survey, definitely not 'overwhelmingly', sometimes an underwhelming minority. 

Maybe she just had a bad night, for back on August 13th she claimed:  1) Event signs were 'not a problem' to survey takers (when only two surveys returned indicated everything was okay as it was).  2) 'There were a few people felt there were too many' (this was the first truth, 4 of 7 people said that) 3) 'A few people felt it was an accident hazard' (none of the respondents noted that in the surveys) 4) People thought that the event signs were a really nice way to come into Ludington (again none of the survey respondents noted that).

Councilor Moonbeam's only accurate claim among her seven claims at two meetings concerning this survey was that a few people thought that there were too many special event signs.  Underwhelming accuracy. 

There is zero support for the action they eventually took, which was to further remove the right for a property owner to approve these signs, by taking away that power from an elected council to an unelected city manager.  Without being prompted, one respondent says:  "Temporary signs are allowed on private property, not on the right of way."  Another says:  "require placement people to ask people each time... once we gave approval, they think it is (for) forever.".  According to what the surveyed say, it sounds like people want more control over what is put on their front lawn, not less. 

Isn't that self-evident?  Not if you're the type of person who would overwhelmingly misrepresent the results of a survey that had nothing to do with the policy you later established and recommended to the full council.  

Views: 555

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I live on the avenue and did not receive a survey. Did I read this correctly?  7 out of 80 is overwhelmingly . whats she been smoking???     I will look at it this way. If someone places a sign in front of my house on the city right of way that I do not approve of  it will be sent out with the next garbage collection. 

Well, Moonbeam Kathy is just following her usual warped agenda tactics of lying thru her teeth every chance she gets, sad, and getting more irritating over time. Her respondents number 8.75% of the 80 mailings, if in fact 80 actually did get asked. I'd like to see that same survey be repeated, (from Private Sources), with the same and additional important questions, with personal delivery if possible to each home. This way perhaps an accurate result will be had. Then that private source should review the facts, and present them in person at a city council mtg. where the truth could prevail for a change. Shocking that this Moonbeam Kathy gets away with this kind of stuff all the time, and never gets called out for her serious errors in governing.

If you failed to receive one and you own property on Ludington Avenue, then Moonbeam has conveyed one other untruth (the seventh) because she said "a survey was sent out to all the homes on Ludington Avenue" at the last meeting.  

This shouldn't be too surprising considering her Pinocchios on the city's lead pipe problem.

Thanks X for checking into this phony survey. The only information the survey brings to light is how deceitful she is and that she seems to be a pathological liar. Both things we can establish about her without a survey. She should resign from public office for her attempt at swaying public opinion with lies. She can't be trusted and must be watched like a child.

Exactly Willy!

Thanks, X, for another FOIA which exposes the sloppy research the Ludington City Council used in this example which affects most of the citizens of the city, not just the Ludington Avenue property owners. It seems the city council just follows the unexplained recommendations of the city manager. Probably behind this one-sided policy is the DDA director who probably wants more authority to make and place signs.

One may wonder why I committed a couple of minutes of public comment over the last two LCC meetings on the first and final readings of this.  It's because it goes back to the classic local government conundrum about how best to balance the power of city hall with the rights of citizens.

The existing policy was a bit of a compromise in that regard, as citizens effectively had no say as to special event signs, but their elected officials did, so they had a political way to address their grievances with decisions made by the council with their votes in city elections and a chance to comment in a public forum before they decided the issue.

The new policy will have the property owners see the signs pop up on their front lawn without warning because the city manager has decided everything in private with those who market the 'special' events.  This has the effect of disempowering the property owners, which may be the goal of a corrupted city government motivated by increasing its power, yet such disempowerment leads to property owners taking less pride and ownership of the property that they have a decreasing amount of control over.

On Ludington Avenue, many of the residences have a reason to keep their property's appearance appealing, so this psychological effect may be minimal, however, if their Bed & Breakfast establishment has these special event signs throughout the tourist season distracting and detracting tourists from their own product, they have that issue to deal with.  

When citizens are granted the rights that should come with property ownership, they are happy and productive.  When they aren't, when their opinions on surveys get ignored and/or misrepresented, they develop negative emotions and may become counter-productive.

So the city OK's special events signage to be placed on the city right of way in front of my house that I mow and I can't place  a yard sale sign and YOU can't place a ELECT ME sign on the same piece of ground. Something is wrong with this picture.

I agree, Stump--something is wrong. I think there should be owner approval. And are there any regulations on a U.S. highway for placement of advertising? U.S. 10/Ludington Ave. Is still a U.S. highway, isn't it?  Whimsical, wacky and wild.

Great thinking and replies there stump and FS. I'll just bet that there are some rules about signage advertising for this US-10 indeed, and should be investigated thoroughly to see how what the real situation is today. A new FOIA or emails to the officials in charge of this is certainly in order now imho, thanks.

No not city officials, State of Michigan officials is what I mean in Lansing over the US-10 highway, thanks.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service