One year later and two weeks later, we review two real estate deals Ludington City Manager John Shay arranged, which initially appeared to be two big losses for the City, two big wins for crony politics.

 808 East Danaher:  The Deal is a Total Bust for Us

The deal acquired a property looking to be put on public auction at 808 E Danaher Street back in 2013.  The City of Ludington used a special power that municipalities have to acquire such land before auction, they need only state that they would use the property for a public purpose.  On July 22, 2013 Councilor Wally Taranko made a motion: 

"The property (808 E Foster) is composed of two lots.  The next door neighbor has expressed an interest in acquiring the lot closest to their property in return for paying half the acquisition and demolition costs.  The City would retain the lot closest to the water tower, and I so move."

Immediately following this, City Attorney Wilson only appended the motion to suggest that the amount the city would have to pay in back taxes and fees may be more if the City had to mow the lawn any more times.  The vote unanimously was approved (see more at Public Purpose Purchase )

The City Manager had conducted bargaining sessions with the neighbor before during and after the property transfer, showing that he acquired a full lot with a storage shed thereon for under $10,000 (see more at Operating against the Public Interest).   Part of the lot showing the storage shed as it appeared one year ago in October 2013 is pictured below.  You will note that one of the glass panels is missing a small pane of glass. 

The other lot to the east of this which had the house on, had the building razed and trees removed shortly thereafter, and the land was rough, mostly grassless, but flattened out before the snow flew.  This year, the neighbor has gotten the dumpster taken out for a long time, but the rest, well, see for yourself:

The replanted lawn doesn't look like it's taken root too well, definitely not near as well as the grass in the 'before' picture, and the pop-up camper, from what I have noticed, seems to be a permanent fixture of the property.  The one missing pane of glass is gone, replaced by three four-paned glass windows being boarded up (the three visible to the left).   There appears to be more missing panes without being boarded up towards the right. 

The particle board window patches seem to be the extent of the maintenance that the neighbors have done on the shed.  For the other lot, as noted, the grass is intermittent up to this point and the City has yet to use the land for a public purpose, nor do they have a public purpose in mind, even though the law required it. 

At least, they are continuing to mow the lawn, and only charging themselves (aka the taxpayers) for it, not the former property owner who seems to have been forced out by the City doubling their taxes between 2009 and 2012 while dropping the taxes in the neighborhood up to 47% for other properties in the same period.  Councilor Winczewski would undoubtedly tell us these two vacant lots are needed green space areas, I believe they are more like an eyesore when compared to what it used to be.  That just happens to be what John Shay called the before picture:

The City even decided to take the sidewalk out without replacing it, effectively working in the reverse of public policy for sidewalks.  When property transfers occur, city law says existing sidewalks are supposed to be replaced if needed, and the sidewalk definitely needed replacement.  They took out the existing sidewalk and totally disregarded any idea for public purpose for this lot by not replacing it, making Ludington less walkable and violating the Complete Streets Resolution they passed three years back. 

It's not difficult to see who lost out here.  If the property went to auction and was sold to the highest bidder, the City would be getting about $2500 more in property taxes per year from someone who would likely upkeep the property and fix the sidewalks.  With "the deal" that $2500 per annum is lost, the city spends probably a couple hundred per year in maintaining the one lot, after they spent over $10,000 on demolition costs.  That's $10,000 + $2700/yr. the taxpayers are in this for, and what we have is one less sidewalk and a new eyesore courtesy of the neighbor's poor upkeep skills. 

420 South JamesCurb and Price Cuts

Quietly, the Ludington City Council finalized this purchase at the last meeting, an even sweeter deal than the previous, where a lot once valued at around $50,000 (after the City (taxpayers) paid about $50,000 for the building's demolition) sold for the low price of $5000 to the city manager's daughter's soccer coach.  The neighbors experienced much greater assessments of their properties, but this one lot apparently devalued 90%.   There was not a hint of them trying to place this property on the open market, but they dismissed two neighboring property owners who were interested in the property a few years previous

Also arranged with the deal was an unheard-of extra curb cut negotiated with MDOT who just years prior, were closing James Street curb cuts for safety.  This was to provide parking space for the new owners for a trailer along the building, the City Manager saying the trailer could easily turn around in the open space, so that it didn't need to back in or back out of the proposed garage. 

I was walking down James Street earlier this weekend and saw a man with his young kid putting up a structure on the lot, I presumed it was Nathan Grubich.  The kid called him Daddy, and was lingering around the worksite, as kids will do.  About an hour later I came back with a camera to record the new construction, he was still there working without the kid:

A couple things I noticed.  First, the garage was going to be rather thin as garages go, and I couldn't foresee how a vehicle and any trailer would be able to get in the garage without backing into the garage, particularly if the green space adjacent was going to be utilized how they envisioned. 

Second, part of the conditions of sale was for the purchaser was to repair the south wall (you can see its disrepair to the right of the construction picture).  But the person putting this up has failed to repair any of the wall that will be covered by the future garage, and he has attached a couple of vertical four by fours to the wall and another board that will help support the roof.  The crumbled masonry in this section is untouched, and likely to crumble further over time.  Perhaps, this could lead to a future failure of the garage structure that doesn't seem all that sturdy to begin with. 

Unfortunately, the city management team that made these unholy deals seems to keep rolling on with their ethical lapses and economical losses not making a big impact on many Ludington citizens, and will have a hard time crumbling down with their support team able to carry on without batting an eye.

Views: 156

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I also noticed the man and the boy working on the new construction. I'm sure zoning approval is required as well as a building permit. Both zoning and building permit should give the reason for the new construction. What a sweet deal someone got when they were allowed to gain ownership of a commercial lot for pennies on the dollar. I wonder if the City has anymore deals on the works. I also wonder what kind of price could have been gotten if this parcel had bee sold on the open market.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service