Sobering Thoughts on Free Rides

[XLFD]

The year 2019 saw Ludington compile a ton of research on marijuana related topics by a select committee and heard from dozens of citizens and officials about the pros and cons of having marijuana facilities in the Ludington city limits.  Eventually, the city council decided against allowing such facilities by a 6-1 vote, based on a variety of reasons primarily centering on Ludington's family-friendly image and values.  

It was ironic that at the same council meeting they introduced the report they approved several 2020 events involving drinking beginning with Brrewfest, now just three weeks away from today.  It's also ironic that they and other public agencies have been subsidizing New Year's Eve drinking in excess for many, many years. 

You heard right, local public agencies are paying public funds in order to better facilitate people getting drunk at the beginning and end of every year.  Before we try to justify why this is compatible with Ludington's supposed image and values, let's look at proving the truth of whether our public agencies are paying good money to get us drunk.  

Here is this year's advertisement/public service announcement (PSA) for the Ludington ball drop:

Your first thoughts may be:  "Fantastic, if I live or stay in a motel in that service area, I can be picked up that night, get sloshed, and get dropped off later, all for free.  No need to worry about a place to park or in driving drunk.  I can also get my car towed for free if I drove down and had more drinks than I figured."

But then your life experiences remind you that free rides are rarely free, somebody is paying for your ride.  This ad/PSA tells you who is giving you that free ride, but first a word about what a sponsor is.  Sponsor:  an individual or organization that pays some or all of the costs involved in staging a sporting or artistic event in return for advertising. 

No less than seven of the event's sponsors are public agencies, including four police agencies, the City of Ludington, the Ludington DDA (DLB), and the Ludington Mass Transit Authority (LMTA).  Each pay a cost each year to offer those New Years' services for free, and their funding comes from your taxes.  Some of that money you pay in for your property taxes and all of your local and state police agencies are subsidizing the drinking problems of your neighbors.  

Even more interesting is that I contacted some of the service providers and received some interesting answers to a simple question of who is footing the bill.  Without exception, the towing companies responded that the tows they performed that evening were done for free without remuneration from other sponsors.  Judy's Rides (the taxi service on this year's ad) was not available for comment, but traditionally the local cab services have offered free rides on New Year's Eve for the area even before the ball drop came and made going to and from the downtown area more popular of a notion that night.  One would assume the taxi companies are bearing the cost in return for the favorable exposure, just like they had in the past.

This would suggest that the only publicly-ran service provider, the LMTA, bore the costs of their free rides and that any money the other six public sponsors paid in were to help offset the LMTA's loss of the $1 or $2 ride fees that they normally charge for one-way transport.  Not that this would cover the actual cost of the service provided.  Take a taxi from Ludington to Scottville and see how close to $2 that ride would be.

LMTA operates in the cities of Ludington and Scottville and Pere Marquette Township. Property owners in Ludington and Scottville pay a millage rate of 1.25 directly to LMTA. Pere Marquette Township levies its own millage rate of 0.4 and then pays LMTA.  Even with the many hundreds of thousands of dollars they get through these taxes, they still have a hard time making ends meet charging their token fee for rides.  You can be sure their drivers get premium wages for working the two holidays, and with usually over a 1000 rides during that span, the evening's cost must be significant to taxpayers.

One should also consider the idea that if somebody had enough cash to afford getting drunk at one of our many local bars or at the special tent set up that night, where drinks are far from free, that they could afford a $2 token it would take to get there and back.  Instead, let's charge the many thousands of local taxpayers who drink responsibly or not at all for their transportation tab and think we're spending our collective money prudently.

The same people that suggest it is against our Ludington area ethos to even consider allowing a marijuana dispensary in town to corrupt our way of life by offering a legal substance that can potentially be abused are overtly promoting drinking in excess and funding mechanisms to accomplish that goal.  

Our public officials should not parade about with a hypocritical mantle of family-friendly values when they actively and proudly subsidize drinking in excess through these expenditures of public funds. 

[Du Wright]

Totally agree! If one can afford the drink, one should pay for the ride home. But that free ride home is probably very enticing and may be seen as a benefit to the sober drivers too by keeping the roads safer for everyone. Would that then be an ethical expenditure for public monies as it "benefits all"? Free rides to promote downtown activities have been going on a few years. Maybe the city could make it fair by giving out a free ride to sober people any time at their choosing!

Thanks to the tow companies and taxis that are truly giving out freebies in exchange for advertising. Public transport is another issue. Our tax dollars are paying for a few and that is seemingly against state law for ethical municipal expenditures. But then, it's not the first time it seems Ludington has broken municipal expenditure law and the taxpayer takes it in the backside.

[XLFD]

LMTA should be up for more critical review and should be a lot more transparent.  They are a public entity, they have regular meetings of their board, they have budgets, there are a lot of statistics that could be presented to show its efficiency and efficacy or lack thereof-- but you can't find their information anywhere.  

If it's costing several times more to run folks from one place to another than what they charge ($1 or $2), then there should be some serious cost-benefit analyses going on as to what else could be done to offer similar or better service to local residents, and contain costs for all.  I think we could easily integrate a seasonal and situational Lyft or Uber ridesharing system with evolving technologies giving us better service at a price that doesn't go so deep into the public's pocket. 

[Freedom Seeker]

I'm totally for not having drinks on the road. I applaud the private businesses donating their time and resources. Thank you. The cost should NOT come out of taxpayer money.

If all those listed are financial "sponsors," are the LMTA charges divided and the sponsors get a bill and all pay a portion to LMTA?  If the city, the DLB, the police department are "financial sponsors" then the city council needs to vote on this expenditure and it needs to benefit all taxpayers to be ethical. A free bus day to all, voted on by the city council.  Or is this a "loose" use of the word "sponsor"?  If that's the case, I'm a sponsor too because I think it's a good idea to give rides to people who drink too much, but I am not a sponsor of getting drunk in the first place.   But that's what this young administration started promoting ten or so more years ago, drinking.  It's  not the only way to have fun.  It will be interesting seeing them grow up and all of a sudden promoting Ludington as a non-marijuana family destination.

[Willy]

I don't think they are trying to equate family values with alcohol but they are with marijuana. In regards to the alcohol they are catering to the party crowd and bars trying to bring people into town in order to get plastered so the customers will spend money. So in the case of alcohol it's money they are really concerned with. On the marijuana side of the equation, I believe they are considering family values in that they and myself do not want to promote a substance which will quickly become a mainstay not only on the streets of Ludington but in schools by making it much more easily accessible to children. So the concern for marijuana is not monetary but is of another concern. It is of course hypocritical to promote one mind altering substance over another but I can see the reasoning behind it. I think the rides for free are a great benefit even though it may cost the taxpayers. It does make the roads safer which is a great benefit for the innocent. I don't like paying for some drunks ride but if that drunk kills someone while driving after celebrating the new year it will cost much more than the price of that ride. 

Good reasoning behind your article X. Also good points by dianne and Freedom Seeker. I also commend the private companies for supporting safe roads when so many people seem to loose the ability to party rationally.

[XLFD]

Thanks for sharing your reasoning; I hate to resign myself to the fact that the City of Ludington, and especially the DDA, are hopeless drunks who depend on alcoholic beverages all through the year in order to get by.  I do not resign myself to the notion that it's impossible to wean the City and DDA of its bad habit, for them to divest themselves of drinking events they sponsor or run by passing that responsibility to the approximately two dozen businesses in the downtown area that sell alcoholic beverages (or other interested entities, like the Chamber).  

Until they do, I will continue to think their stance on marijuana facilities is a bit hypocritical and capricious, being mindful that in my opinion, it is more of a public safety issue than a public morals issue.  I am actually of the mind that if we have marijuana facilities operating responsibly, that people like you, I and others, who think recreational marijuana users are a sad bunch, will be able to impress upon our next generation that pot is generally bad for your health and career by being more likely to have a 'talk' with them.  Ironically, teen pot use seems to go down once legalization of rec marijuana takes place, and I think it's due to this factor:

 

[Freedom Seeker]

I don't think you should consider the city of Ludington, especially the DDA, "hopeless drunks."  They are more likely "politically powerful social drinkers" who are promoting one of the city's biggest businesses--drink and food.  A drunk is not really hopeless, imo, until they can't control themselves to act responsibly in one or more socially or legally accepted norms.  And even if they occasionally drink too much and are "hopeless," there is always a chance of rehabilitation and sobriety.  But I agree that drinking too much among the higher-up political cliques does seem to be a worsening trend in Ludington.  And to promote so many drinking functions will likely alienate many families, locally and will in time choke out some of the tourists who would spend on other things.

[stump]

   I was just thinking , do the cab , wrecker service and Dial a Ride take information on their free fare customers as who they are and address of where they live?  Could be a hit list for the cops knowing who the drinkers are in the county if they do.

[XLFD]

You may have just hit on the reason why those four police agencies are qualified sponsors of the RS/RS campaign. 

You and I just might be suspicious of motives of our local police, but I would warn those who know or believe they have an outstanding warrant to avoid identifying themselves or using their credit card when using these services.  Otherwise the new year might begin with some jail time.