Ludington City Council Meeting 7-28-2014: Of Sidewalks and Sidesteps

[XLFD]

 The meeting's agenda looked rather quiet for this meeting, two potentially controversial topics being deferred to the next meeting on August 9 with a public hearing for each.  The first involved a tax exemption for new about $1.5 million of new House of Flavors equipment (see page 20-25).  This tax abatement will last six years and should be spoken out against simply for the fact that it will lead to higher taxes for everyone else, just like if you got an abatement for paying taxes on your property would lead to the City government looking elsewhere to make up that revenue loss for themselves.  The council won't even need any free ice cream to approve this for the House of Favors, but for your abatement?  Good luck on that! 

The second hearing will occur because a 'tentative determination of necessity' for sidewalk repairs at 505/507 E Ludington Avenue was passed on this day without input from the councilors.  This was somewhat disappointing because I used most of my five minutes of speaking in declaring what a waste of time it was to repair 'fair condition' sidewalks when there are so many places in Ludington that could use new sidewalks, and places that are mandated to have sidewalks (but don't).  To see the problem from the city's perspective, see page 26-29. 

As John Shay notes, this property belongs to the Mustaikis family.  Nancy Mustaikis was a vocal opponent of the proposed historic district, and had some friction with the City leaders before this sidewalk flap.  On June 10, 2013, she got up during public comment and stated (according to the minutes): 

"... her husband along with her neighbor Jan Dues received letters from the City of Ludington requesting that they repair the sidewalk in front of their homes on East Ludington Avenue. She explained that they do not have an issue with this request. These letters make reference to a trip and fall and when she inquired about this complaint she was informed that this happened last July 4th but no copy of the complaint was produced. Nancy Mustaikis is requesting a copy of this complaint as she should have been notified earlier if there had been a problem. She stated that the yellow marks on the sidewalk made by City employees have been there for over a year and she simply wants verification of what she has been told is correct."

I talked with her after the historic district was denied at a future meeting, and was told that the City Manager (the FOIA Coordinator at that time, before he was fired from that task) still had not produced that complaint, and if we take Nancy at her word the yellow repair marks were already there before the supposed complaint ever occurred. 

City Manager John Shay has willfully swore falsely in a court affidavit, has asked for $150 for records that his police chief reported to MSP authorities never existed, has libeled me at a public meeting without any regard for the truth over serious allegations, and I have heard from four others that they have been lied to by him, so I will believe Nancy over anything John says.

The only other issue was to allow placement of signs in the right-of-way of streets to advertise the Travelling Wall Project coming to Ludington.  Councilor Holman made her principled stand against it, while everyone else passed the measure.  The only other speaker besides me was a representative of that wall who talked just after me at 7:40 into the video.

My speech started at 2:35 into the video and is represented in it's entirety, even to its finish below the video.  I was interrupted by Mayor Cox midsentence talking about Oriole Field so that he could tell me that my five minutes was up; I asked if his honor would allow me to finish the sentence, and he bluntly denied it. 

It almost makes me look back at the Henderson years with a little nostalgia.  At least he would usually allow me to finish a sentence before he gonged me, and another bonus was that he didn't serve illegally as a sergeant on the police department.  You will note I recant a couple of topics from last meeting, which are ignored; even though they are valid questions and points, the city has no easy answer to any of them. 

 

LCC July 28 2014 from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"I asked the City elders four questions at the last meeting, the first dealt with making fires on the beach, where the city charter says it is against the rules, and yet the city allowed a well announced bonfire without any permission granted by this body.  You made the laws against having fires on the beach, yet this was allowed without your expressed permission.  I'll ask again:  "Is it now permissible to build fires on Stearn's beach for anyone?"

 

A second question was also ignored regarding an accident that happened at an intersection where the city's negligence to remove vegetation from in front of the stop sign led to an accident involving an LPD vehicle.  I'll ask again:  "Will the City of Ludington freely admit that this accident was due to their gross negligence of maintaining sight lines to their regulatory signs?"

 

This is a condition that has been finally addressed by city management finally having dozens of intersections made safer by sending a crew out to trim the vegetation throughout the city.  It is something I’ve asked to be done since 2010.

 

My third question was the only one answered and this was done by Chief Barnett, effectively informing us that the beach patrol will freely leave the beach unattended for over an hour, as I witnessed, which to many is an unacceptable answer.  Which begs question four, about why not reinstate the lifeguard program, which was cheaper and put 2-3 rescue certified personnel on the beach even during lunchtimes.  Does our City value writing parking tickets and appeasing our police department over saving lives?

 

To clarify another city response from last meeting, let me reassert that a neutral assessor said the cleared lot at 420 S James was worth $50,000 back in 2003, and now the City wants us to believe that selling the lot for $5000 this year was a fair price to sell this public holding.  They used various reasons such as saying the real estate market tanked in 2008, and that a recent assessment of the lot was only $16,000.  They didn't tell you that this recent assessment was made by our hireling City Assessor Brent Bosley, someone whose interests would be severely conflicted in making such an assessment, and that the two neighboring parcels of land have had their summer taxes more than tripled and quadrupled respectively in the period between 2003 and 2013.  Isn't it kind of odd that the value of the lot between them decreases by a factor of ten in that same period?  Only in Ludington, I guess.

 

This meeting, the City will vote to tentatively determine the necessity of repairing the sidewalk at 505 East Ludington Avenue and I would suggest they vote "no".  I have rode my bicycle and walked over this section of sidewalk often over the last year without any problem, and without any notice of any problem until I read this meeting's packet.  This section of sidewalk is not perfect, neither are several other sidewalk sections in the 700 and 800 blocks of east Ludington Avenue, and many other sections of sidewalks throughout town are in worse shape.  Worse yet, the City is tacking on what appears to be an illegitimate $250 fee for the bother of holding this meeting within a meeting.

 

But what really bothers me about the city prosecuting sidewalk assessments like these are that each of our schools in town are adjacent to properties where the owners have not installed sidewalks.  Within each school zone, there are many blocks worth of properties that totally lack any sidewalks, often forcing our kids to walk in the street if they want to get to school and back.  We have a teacher as our mayor, our newest councilor is a retired teacher; why aren't they making any statements on that deficiency instead of lining up against this inoffensive bit of sidewalk that is safer to walk on than the brick-concrete mosaic in the downtown area and outside of a school zone?

 

And why aren't you people getting on businesses like the Viking Arms Hotel further up on Ludington Avenue and in the city limits for not constructing a sidewalk at all, when one is definitely needed there?  They have their hotel sign where most people would have their sidewalk.  Why has there been a plethora of medical buildings constructed in town, most of which do not feature any sidewalk at all, when the city code mandates that they need them?  I see people in motorized wheelchairs travelling on the streets because of the lack of any pedestrian facilities.

 

I see the City's relatively new DPW building constructed without a sidewalk in clear violation of city law, I see the big expanse of school grounds at Oriole Field neighboring three city streets without absolutely any sidewalks and I wonder why this city would waste the time and effort to go after people that already have serviceable, but not perfect, sidewalks?  This is about priorities. 

 

Why did we pass a complete streets resolution when you don't even try to follow it by constructing sidewalks when you repair streets?  I point specifically to Fifth Street, Mitchell Street, and Staffon Street.  Staffon Street, where five blocks of streets within a school zone were left without sidewalks, but the city paid to have new driveways installed.  This is mismanagement on a grand scale."

[AQUAMAN]

Excellent reporting again X, and you made your valid and undeniably accurate faults by the COL true to color. FIVE MINUTES ARE UP, and NO, you CANNOT FINISH YOUR SENTENCE EITHER! Thanks again Fuhrer Cox! It's too bad, really? Yes, it's really too bad that some city officials can't answer to fault, as God tells us since the scriptures, that NO MAN is without SIN! And Fault!!! NO MAN is PERFECT! This Shyster Shay character just cannot and will not admit that he too, is without perfection, as well as the (CA) what's his name? City Attorney Tricky Dicky boy! Then comes the (HOF), House of Flavors, for yet another tax exemption? Heck, if they need so many tax abatements/deferments, can we see their books of finance? The ones that pertain to p/l, that's profit and loss? The ones that show if they really need and deserve it? How many decades have they asked and been granted such exemptions? NEVER DENIED! It's to the point of silliness if you ask me....lol. 50 tourists for 4 hours lining the sidewalk all summer looking to get an ice cream cone! I admit not seeing the entire fiasco, but I must defer to a more convenient time, thanks. Oh yeah, and let's not forget that some city council persons have no time for this nonsense in the summer, like Johnson and Marrison, where are ya folks?  Perhaps Wanda is at a dog show, that's okay, except which is more important? And I guess Les, (Less) Johnson is also excused? Selling so much alcohol to the public across from a vacant lot, that he just can't make the occasion? It's okay Less, we understand, you have alcohol contracts with the COL to offset your constituents...lol.. 

[XLFD]

Something that I caught in the video right before it fades, is Mayor Cox, watching me leave the chambers and then using some papers in his hand to obscure his lips to the camera (just like a pitcher with his glove in baseball will do when talking to someone on the mound), whispers to John Shay while looking in my general direction, a cleanly-shaven John Shay listens.  Probably some comments along the lines that I didn't bring up anything about the reserve officers or the 5 year McAdam brutalization anniversary this time. 

I dare say that it is potentially a problem for the mayor and his crew to avoid questions of public policy brought up before them.  I have asked about making fires down at the beach twice with no answer; I would encourage anyone to take a firepit, some wood, and some friends down to Stearn's Beach one of these nights to have a lesser fire than the one that was allowed without any permit earlier this summer.  I'll freely supply a couple of ricks of wood to anyone who has the mind to-- anyone who believes that laws should be enforced equally to the organizers and participants of that event.

It's too bad City Councilor Nick Tykoski (and his friends in the DDA and City Hall) doesn't live by the three or four signs that he put up, and the citizens paid for, down at the beach (thanks to Aquaman for the photo).  As per the usual ethics lapses of Councilor Nick, this money he received from the city was not specifically noted in the minutes of any meeting, a violation of state ethics laws.

 

[Willy]

I agree, very good reporting and very good points X. As far as HOF tax exemption, I have to agree with it as long as it is only for the new equipment that was installed. This type of exemption encourages businesses to reinvest in their buildings and equipment  so I think it's a good idea. Cox only shows how easily he is swayed and how easily he can be duped by those that indoctrinated him when he started his life as a politician. It's obvious by the way he acts toward you. He doesn't want to know all sides of a situation, he only listens to those who he serves with on the Council and reacts like a little kid whose friends have just told him that Billy up the street broke his bike even though his friends are lying. He doesn't take the time to find the truth and that's why he is the wrong person to represent the voters of Ludington.

[XLFD]

The vote on HOF's abatement will come after the vote on Proposal 1 which, if passed, will do away with the Personal Property Tax and make this point moot, to my belief.  I am all for doing away with the PPT so we don't have to waste time doing these exercises, but I am against Prop 1 because it creates a new authority without oversight, and vague focus and direction for replacing the revenues lost. 

My beef with these abatements is that it makes the businesses that request them look like opportunists, and the officials that give them look like they favor the beggar businesses over the ones that are too proud to do so, a point I made recently in Twas Brill and the Slithy Goves.