Ludington Leaders are Lying About Junk

[XLFD]

In a previous thread, Ludington City Council Meeting 12-15-2014: Fun-Raisin' and Gift Givin', I spoke during the period of public comment of two ordinances (one on junk and one on weeds) that came up for first reading, and explained why I thought the amendments they made to the existing ordinances were improper, having read the revisions.  A scrap dealer on the PM Highway named James Nash also commented on the junk ordinance unfavorably after what he heard on the radio. 

He asked some questions, and like good defendants, the city officials took the fifth, saying they cannot answer questions at that time.  Dialog between the citizens and the officials, for some reason, has been deemed forbidden at Ludington city council meetings in recent years.  It wasn't always that way, and the city councilors should allow questions to the panel of officials, if those questions are of curiosity about public policy, which Mr. Nash's were, and happen during public comment.  The details of most actions the council take are not publicly available.  If they are afraid of me asking questions, they need not worry, because I would be afraid myself of them taking too many seconds of my five minutes away from me.  The video of that meeting included for reference:

December 15, 2014, Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Councilor Kathy Winczewski read the following memorandum almost verbatim starting at 25:23 into the video:

Right after that at 27:23 into the video it was further explained

City Attorney Richard Wilson:  "In order for a car or a recreational vehicle to be deemed inoperative under the proposed amendments there has to be three separate conditions that are satisfied. 

First of all the vehicle whether it's a car or a recreational vehicle has to be inoperative in the sense that it is not capable of being propelled under it's own power. 

Second of all, that vehicle has to be visible from a road or an adjacent parcel, so as to address the concerns that you might not be able to work on your 1963 Corvair which hasn't run in twenty years, the solution is to simply pull it into your garage and work on it in your garage. 

Third, and this is the most important, because this is the one where the courts have focused on is that this vehicle whether it is a car or a recreational vehicle has to be a potential, either a threat or a potential threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, by virtue of to damage or deterioration and the presence of leaking fluids, broken glass, whatever else may be going on with the vehicle, it would become what lawyers would refer to as an attractive nuisance to the neighborhood children, who might want to come in and play on it.  So if you've got a brand new car, parked on the garage for 60 days or 160 days, we're not going to ticket it because it's not an 'inoperative' vehicle under the terms of the ordinance." 

Analysis:  Here is the actual definition of 'inoperative' inside the ordinance, found on p. 37 of the Dec. 15, 2014 Packet:

Wilson is correct on the second point, visibility, with what the proposed law says, but he varies a little from the third point, and quite significantly from the first point.  

The proposed law's first point says 'inoperative' for motor vehicles is ones 'not being used for its intended purpose' or 'is incapable of being self-propelled' for a period in excess of 10 days.  Wilson totally ignores the clause before the 'or', but that first clause would have any motor vehicle not being used for its intended purpose (whatever that is) for ten days as being inoperable.  Thus if you don't operate your car, your bicycle, your lawnmower, your motorcycle, etc. in a ten day period for its intended purpose, you fail the first point, showing that going on vacation and leaving any vehicle visible from outside your property meets the first two conditions. 

The third point as written is almost impossible to deflect.  Even new vehicles are deteriorating every day it's left outside and idle, and in broadest definition every vehicle threatens to become a potential harm to the public health safety and welfare.  The City does not have to show it is, just that it could become so, a much smaller threshold.  If someone takes a picture of kids playing around your parked vehicle or one of Ludington's famous feral cats beating the cold by living in your car's wheel well or a suspicious puddle (new or old) under or near your car, someone could reasonably see the third point being satisfied. 

City Attorney Wilson (continued):  Second of all, a violation of this is a civil infraction, we do not arrest anybody for civil infractions, nobody goes to jail for civil infractions. 

Analysis:  Wilson goes by a mistaken presumption that he isn't in Ludington, where we take our civil infractions seriously.  The only way you go to jail for a traffic civil infraction is if you are found in civil contempt for not paying a fine authorized.  In most cities, you can't be arrested and go to jail for a municipal civil infraction, but not Ludington.  Here's the end section of the junk ordinance, newly added with Wilson's approval.

Section 1.7 of the LCCode section (c) allows the following penalties:  "a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00, and costs of prosecution or by imprisonment for a period of not more than 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance, with respect to violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time, each day that the violation continues is a separate offense.

So if you leave your brand new vehicle outside near an old oil spill while you take a two week vacation (16 days long if started on the weekend) you could come back and find yourself with six violations with up to $3000 in fines and 540 days in prison and costs of prosecution.  Thanks to Ludington's tough-on-crime laws that do not apply to any of our sixty city attorneys, but would apply to any citizen.  But let's have him continue:

City Attorney Wilson (continued):  "And last but not least, and thank you Mr. Rotta, for a copy of the Fifth Amendment, but we also do not tow vehicles without notice and opportunity for hearing, because of the pesky Fifth Amendment (watch Mayor Cox laugh at this point at 29:32), which says that you cannot deprive somebody of their property, like towing their car away, without due process of law. 

Analysis:  My choice of adjective for the Fifth Amendment is precious, not pesky, which shows the base contempt that Wilson shows for the rights of people.  But it should also be noticed that I never said the city could come  and tow a car away, this was something Mr. Nash brought up; the ordinance doesn't allow that.  My Fifth Amendment reference applied to the weed ordinance.

City Attorney Wilson (continued) :  "And so we follow the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that's your Constitutional lesson for the night, but back to the ordinance.  It's only when those three conditions all happen at the same time-- you have an inoperable vehicle that's visible to the neighbors or to the public and three that threatens or is in danger to the public health, safety, and welfare because it is leaking gasoline, or it's got broken glass, or the doors don't lock, or the trunk is open and the lid is tore off...  Only then can the car be deemed inoperable under the ordinance.

Analysis:  Letting Richard Wilson be your Constitutional scholar, is like having President Obama serve that role.  This is the same author of the Workplace Safety Policy, which had zero due process protections.  Notice the once again inaccurate repeat of the first condition and the expansion of the third condition's threatening and potential dangers.  Does that crack on your windshield apply?  Does any vehicle without a door lock (like motorcycles, snowmobiles, bicycles, lawnmowers, etc.) automatically become an 'attractive nuisance'?  Is the fact that your SUV or classic car gets bad gas mileage threatening the public health and welfare?  It may if city hall just doesn't like you.

Attorney Wilson (concludes):  So for those of you who think we are going to tow your new car away, we are not.

City Manager Shay: "So if someone goes on vacation for a few weeks, they're okay?"

Attorney Wilson:  "They're okay, yup."

Analysis:  Don't believe them, these are the same guys who thought it was okay to overbill you up to $135 per hour extra for attorney work for three years; believe the broadest interpretation of the written law from their side. 

The 'inoperable' recreational vehicle ordinance parallels the former as you can see here, including campers, boats, other watercraft, trailers, etc.:

So heaven forbid if you don't take the boat out on one weekend, and some birds or squirrels roost under your tarp or on the mast, or maybe you have some zebra mussels visible.  Two Ludington civil infraction may result (one for the boat and the trailer), and a large fine or jail term could follow.  Because that's the law.  Maybe they will keep track of marinas to make sure boats are used at least once every ten days.

And if you think the City of Ludington will be reasonable in their enforcement and give you some leeway on your first offense, guess again-- they took such idiotic nonsense out of the existing laws:

Remember my caveat when we had a couple of citizens calling for a war on blight this spring and summer.  Asking this council and manager to attack a problem like this would entail the trampling of basic rights already put into laws, so that a little expediency is given to them.  These solutions are not solutions, they only make the problem worse by empowering the police state mentality of the city leaders, making further indecent encroachments into your basic rights all that much easier.

[Willy]

Great work X. You are absolutely correct on your analysis. Either they have not made the exact meaning of the code known because they are not knowledgeable of the codes or they are trying to conceal what they are doing. They fail to site the exact ordinance and sections that will be altered.  Also what the City has failed to do is differentiate between which zoning parcels are going to be subject to this change in the ordinance. Most Cities have "junk" issues under their zoning ordinance because there are some areas that may be zoned for the storage and processing of "junk". Most municipalities have zoning and housing issues separate.

I didn't hear any mention about changing the following code language:

Sec. 18-66. - Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Abandoned, in reference to a motor vehicle, includes, without limitation, any vehicle that has remained on private property for a period of 48 continuous hours or more, without the consent of the owner or occupant of the property, or for a period of 48 continuous hours or more after the consent of the owner or occupant has been revoked.

Dismantled, in reference to a motor vehicle, includes a dismantled or partially dismantled motor vehicle from which some part, which is ordinarily a component of such motor vehicle, has been removed or is missing.

Inoperative, in reference to a motor vehicle, includes a motor vehicle that comes within any one of the following:

(1)

A motor vehicle which, because of dismantling, disrepair or other cause, is incapable of being propelled under its own power.

(2)

A motor vehicle which is eligible to be licensed for use upon the highways of the state and which is not licensed for a period in excess of six months, except unlicensed but operative motor vehicles that are kept as stock and trade of a regular licensed and established new or used car dealer or motor vehicles which are on the premises of a licensed junk dealer.

(3)

A motor vehicle not eligible to be licensed for use upon the highways of the state, but which is eligible to be registered under the laws of the state which is not registered pursuant to the laws of the state, whether or not such registration is mandatory.

Motor vehicle includes any wheeled vehicle which is self-propelled, or intended to be self-propelled.

[XLFD]

Yep, that's the language which is to be replaced-- it's all going bye, bye.  It's more of what one can understand as an 'inoperative' vehicle, the new language allows inoperative to be used to describe a vehicle or RV that can move, is licensed, but hasn't been.  This applies with the new language even if the inoperative vehicles are on a new or used car lot or a junk dealer. 

If this is duly enforced, Ludington has effectively legislated car and junk dealers out of the city.  Nash is outside the city limits in PM Township, so his concern may not only be motivated by his altruistic desire for Ludington folks, but by his fear that PM's Township Board making a similar ordinance.  I know from my LIAA contact with the PM planners and board members, that they would like to beautify the section of road around his dealership.   

[stump]

Well I can see that ordinance revision is going to piss off a lot of boat owners and the guy down by the small marina in the forth ward.

[XLFD]

City officials are on record for saying they run their marina like a business, and their history echoes that sentiment.  Sounds innocent enough until you realize this city marina business has so many unfair advantages over all the private marinas that pre-dated them that those marinas can't compete on an even playing field.

Not only did the City get millions from state and federal sources back in 1980 to construct it, they have received millions in the past from the state DNR, and will receive millions in the future from them.  Indications from the last Municipal Marina Board meeting is that the 'floating docks' they are prepared to buy will cost a couple million to put in and remove the old ones, plus a few hundred thousand more in electrical and water hydrant upgrades and engineering costs. 

Meanwhile, the city marina pays no property taxes, gets gas tax-free (significantly cheaper than the private marinas can buy it), and the city marina, against their initial compact saying they would hold NO charter boats, has housed charter boats since its inception, luring them away from the private marinas with all the amenities it can offer with all that extra free money from the state. 

It's totally immoral what they are allowed to do; it's a testament to the strength of the private marinas that they have been able to survive vs. the city marina and the public/private Harborview marina.  Particularly when our current city leaders are being just like a business in driving their competition down to Davy Jones' locker.

[Willy]

My understanding is that the specific code to be changed regarding junk cars is 296-14. The code section I posted is Sec. 18-66. I heard nothing in the video referencing that section. The reading of the ordinance was not a "reading of the ordinance", it was an explanation. Why wasn't the ordinance read verbatim so citizens could hear, with their own ears, exactly what the changes will be. Any place in the code which refers to this must be changed. Again, most Cities will make a copy of the entire code section to be changed then cross out the portion to be deleted then add the new wordage in order for those who are concerned can see the before and after. Am I missing something here?

[Willy]

X. Is the link you posted for the City Code for the entire code because when I type in a search for 296-14 nothing comes up.

[XLFD]

It's what is presented as the entire code and charter, though some ordinances at least from the 1990s were overlooked, such as the discrete action in 1994 that raised councilor salaries from $50 to $3600 by introducing a transportation allowance.  The sections in both go no higher than section 66, though in the zoning law they do go higher, but are all divisible by 100 (i.e. 100:1:2, 300:3:2). 

The 296-14 is the name of this new and improved ordinance.  The appendix '14' signifies it was introduced in 2014, the 296 distinguishes it from the other ordinances passed this year, starting at 277-14 in the first meeting in March.

As for 'why don't they read the ordinance verbatim?', 'why don't they tell us how the old ordinance was changed?', 'why do they out-and-out lie about what's inside the sausage they feed you?', and (I'll add) 'why doesn't the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) just report on what is said in the meetings by officials rather than introduce the actual materials when it's substantially different?'.  The answer is the same one I've been going over for five years, highlighted by the Workplace Safety Policy, passed and used without anyone knowing what it was except for a few city officials. 

This city council is not working with transparency, or for the people, over five years of records detailing that are found herein.  If the reader doubts the statement, ask yourself how much your property taxes have increased over that time, ask yourself how much your water bill has grown, ask yourself how many new fees the council has passed, ask yourself how anything they have passed in this time has improved the city known as Ludington, not just the City of Ludington's power to take more of your property and rights.

The honest answer won't make you happy, unless you're a city official or employee. 

[stump]

Most people in the city of ludington just go around fat dumb and happy with no knowledge of what the city is about to do to them. How many boat owners use their boats every week of the summer? The same may be said for the campers, Are you using your snowmobile when there's no snow? Not everyone has a garage and I'm sure blue tarps will not get you by the revised ordinance . People need to know what is happening. The first reading is for the council , not the people, the next reading it will become law without the knowledge of the people. Even if they put it in the daily news the people won't get the whole story, lust a highlight which omits almost everything.. HEAD LINE: CITY TO CRACK DOWN ON JUNK AND TALL WEADS . It's not like the late Paul Harvey with the rest of the story, you will hear the rest of the story when the city comes on your property and gives you a ticket . OH, I forgot that most people don't get the paper anymore.

[XLFD]

Oddly, they just changed the format of the city code/charter page about a month ago, right before they threw the old website designers under the bus.  The new municode format is more visually appealing, yet harder to navigate, IMO, though I say that about most new things at first that have replaced older things that work swell.

The city should update the website city code at least yearly and probably during the period from January through March, because there shouldn't be a lot to do for all those full-time city clerical and office workers during that time.

[Willy]

The code of ordinances should be updated as soon as new changes are made to the code. The current COF has not been updated since Oct. of 2013. How are people supposed to keep track of what is going on? If the City has time to come up with new ways to put their boots on peoples throats then it surely has the time to make those changes to the code for all to see.

[XLFD]

Maybe it's difficult to keep their boots on the people's throats and type in new ordinances at the same time.  I don't know, but it's a point well taken, Willy.