Wanda, you are 100% correct that last meeting was only a first reading of the Cat Ordinance and that there hasn't been a vote taken on it.
Where you are incorrect was that, beyond the comments made by two members of the public saying that the ordinance really was not needed (including one of the people who started all the hullaballoo), no city official commented on it-- there was no discussion.
On the previous meeting they "discussed" and had decided to review the materials and meet with folks to discuss it. Hon. CC Holman also had noted that she had received 22 calls against the ordinance, and only five positive calls. That's a rather unscientific poll, but that's over 81% saying it's a ridiculous ordinance. Yet, this meeting the Clerk noted in the minutes: "The changes made to this ordinance are in line with what was discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, 2011."
There has been no complaints regarding stray cats handled by the LPD or written complaints about stray cat problems to the City in 2011. I don't think there's been any problems with people feeding the seagulls either. What possible reason is there for this ordinance?
I am not part of the Public Safety Committee, so I cannot say why.
When first brought to the council by way of public comment, it was directed to the Public Safety Committee by the mayor. (watch taped meeting to see) Up till that meeting no one knew about the cat concern. Pubic comments that are presented to council seem to go to a committee first for discussion. If concern warrants it. Of course not all public comments warrant a committee meeting.
At least that is how I am seeing it. Hope this helps.
BTW I have had many calls also AGAINST this ordinance and only 1 for it.
Thanks for your inside information, Wanda. What happens in Committees stays in Committees, one would think, but I hope you take into account all of your constituents concerns (but 1), and not vote for this next Monday.
It really comes down to whether you think there is a cat problem because of a couple of oral anecdotes directed to the mayor, or whether you actually roam the City where the problem is supposed to be an epidemic, and see that it isn't.
I have walked that area numerous times in the day and night since this was introduced and I saw one young cat in the day and one cat at night. If you find that out, note that there has not been any written complaint to the City and no LPD police report about any stray cats, or any problems noted with the birds who have found there way into this ordinance, you may find that this ordinance has no effect on stray cats or birds-- just the taxpayer or tourist that happens to feed them and get caught by a code enforcer.
Pardon me, please: Let me clarify and be MORE specific. There is a huge difference between ZONING ordinances and a City Charter and / or Code of Ordinances withing the city charter. Depending upon which you are refering to, my statement still stands. I was referencing a city charter and /or Code of Ordinances - check with YOUR atoorney if you still doubt me.
P.S. I am VERY familiar with the OMA, it seems that you lack some interpretation and case law skills yourself.
I would presume you have some knowledge of the OMA, Roman, but back your statement up with facts please. The Ludington City Code has inside it a section that says the City Council can only raise their salary by ordinance. They can only pass ordinances in an Open Meeting.
What part am I not getting, and why aren't they breaking the law if they accept such illegal gains?
© 2025 Created by XLFD. Powered by