Ludington's Tax Policy: Rob from the Poor to Give to the Rich

[XLFD]

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before. --H. L. Mencken

 

Last year, the Ludington Torch published a couple of threads on the Municipal Services Fee applied to The Arbors (previously Longfellow Towers), a housing facility for low-income senior citizens oversaw by the state.  The first asked the question about why the City tripled the local 'fees  Tripled Taxes for Longfellow Towers, and the second explored why the added 'fee' was indeed a tax Fees/Taxes.    I have heard from nobody since that time who believes this tax was justified, fair, or needed by the City.

Since then, I have managed to acquire the Municipal Service Agreement that was signed between the City and the new owners.  This agreement was penned by the City Attorney, and pushed and signed by the City Manager, John Shay. 

The Agreement was made effective March 1, 2010, and the Arbors was expected to pay the extra $20,750 on April 15, as seen at the top and section 1 of the agreement. 

The prior Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) was a tax concession for the State housing authority to cover municipal services the facility used-- just what the MSF is stated to do.  It amounted to 4% of the rents collected each year.

The City Council voted to raise the City Attorney's yearly retainer in April by $20,000, a 70% raise from before.  Effectively, the City transferred $20,000 from poor, fixed-income senior citizens in mid-April and gave it as a reward to the drafter of the agreement and ordinance (City Attorney Richard Wilson is far from being poor or a Ludington citizen).

A charge I believe is accurate, because of the way the agreement itself is written.  For instance:

While section 1 of the agreement says the money is for "enhancing and improving those municipal services which address the public health and safety needs of the citizens of the City and specifically those of the residents of the development.", section 3 states emphatically that such applications will be the sole discretion of the City, with no actual or implied obligation or disclosure regarding the nature or application of the subject payments.

They can pay, but they can't expect anything from this $20,000 'fee', nor can they ask what it is to be used for.  Is this then a 'user fee' as it is purported to be, and why doesn't any other Ludington address have a MSF?  This is not saying that anyone else wants such a tax!

To make matters worse, the MSF will go up based on the rate of inflation of rental units in Mason County (up to 3%, section 2).  CM Shay has said that the PILT and MSF for the Arbors added up to the rate a normal building would pay in property taxes as of last year.  Under proper conditions, the combined total in future years could add up to more than the City's rate, making these poor old folks have to pay more than you and me for their local property 'obligations'.

The limits and obligations the owners of the Arbors have to the City in this agreement, are rather draconian in scope, as can be seen throughout the remainder of this contract. 

 

One can readily believe the new owners were given this unfair one-sided agreement to sign as a necessity if they were to acquire the property. They will no doubt pass the $20,750 bill onto the frail backs of the Arbors low-income renters.  Which will also serve to increase the Arbor's PILT as well, by over $800 if the occupancy is unchanged. This unfair, unlawful TAX should not be allowed by conscientious Ludington citizens. 

Taxing the poor to give to the rich is not new in Ludington, however. Consider the DDA millage and its tax increment financing.  The money comes from the tax rolls, but is used for benefitting the politically well-connected businesses downtown.  Consider also tax abatements, where the tax burden gets shifted off the favored businesses that ask for it onto the rest of us.  Poor businesses and individuals trying to make an honest living have no such luck.

[AQUAMAN]

One way taxation tickets designed by the City such as this Arbor's agreement, have no business being issued, written, nor enforced w/o the citizens voices being heard, and to pick on senior citizens like this, well, it's disgraceful and totally w/o merit. But, as we have seen in recent and preceding years, being reasonable and wise where taxation and fees are concerned by the city fathers, is a foregone conclusion for ineptness and greed.

[XLFD]

This unfair tax was one of my major motivations in going against Councilor Holman in the upcoming election-- why did she vote so willingly for this tax raise and the 70% raise for the City Attorney, when she has lived with and helped senior citizens for much of her life, and has been such a factor in such events like Relay for Life for so long.  It just seems incongruous, and I hope I can eventually get an answer from her. 

[Willy]

XLFD

What exactly is the "Munincipal Services Agreement"? Why did the City require it? Are the condo complexes or any other rental complex required to have this type of agreement? Can this agreement be applied to any rental dwelling in the City or for that matter to any resident or business. Something just doesn't seem right about this situation. I would call a Councilor but I don't have the patience to wait a year or two for an answer or have the money to pay their outrageous fees for public information. I remember reading about it in the LDN but as we all know that paper does not really involve itself with reporting facts that require a deeper form of investigation so we rarely get the whole story.

[XLFD]

This is the only such agreement in Ludington.  A google search when this came out shown that MSAs were only previously assessed to Casinos (I had a thread called the Arbor's Casino, where that was expounded on).  The intent of PILTs are to allow such housing to avoid some of the local tax burden normally assessed to a multi-unti dwelling, this MSA Tax goes contrary to that.  Be aware if any of the other PILTs in town change hands, like Birch Lake, the greedy hands of the city will draw up another of these to pick the skeleton clean.

[Eve Alone]

Heres a question.  What has the City of Ludington done since 2008 that has made life better for the poor members of the community?  Be specific please if you can name any.  X asked that question to me the other day and I was surely stumped.

 

He then went on to talk about the Rental Rehabilitation program, and its abuse.  RR is targeted to help the poor, but like most gov. programs, the well-connected better off people get the dough.  Maybe he'll write about that here soon. 

[XLFD]

I've been procrastinating on that one, Eve, but I hope to get that out soon.  But, let's open that question to anyone, even City Hallers.  What have tax dollars been used to benefit the low to medium income people around here?  All I see in the City Council's policies are higher taxes and fees for everyone and less rights.  Marina and downtown business improvements, unnecessary water tower painting, and tax abatements do not mean anything to the common folks.