Ludington City Council Meeting, February 26, 2024: Drinking Games

[XLFD]

Drinking was on the Ludington City Council menu (agenda packet) for the February 28, 2024 meeting and plenty of citizens approached the bar to express their displeasure with the potential of alcohol sales taking place down at the concession stands at Stearns Beach.  The absences were interesting with both the city attorney Ross Hammersley and this reporter unable to make the meeting.  This meant that the council's decision to move on the alcohol sales issue might advance without proper review by him (or me), and that I would have to craft a report from the simulcast video.

The invoking pastor, Craig Nelson, stated in part: "May [the council] do what is right, even if it goes against the community."  Nelson would be among the nine community members to consecutively approach the podium and express displeasure with allowing alcohol sales at the beach.  The nine comments were wide-ranging and from various parts of the community, so it seemed like a natural procession.  

Unlike the three who spoke for the selling of alcohol, starting with Melissa Hanna who acted like a paid spokesperson, saying:  "I think [Selling alcohol] would allow them to expand this [family experience]."  Ryan Reed, one of the heirs to the Ludington Beverage Bottling Company franchise fortune emoting how tough it was for area businesses to succeed encouraged them to support local businesses. 

Sheri Eaton, owner of the Cluck Bucket food truck also spoke in favor without letting us know whether she would like the opportunity to sell alcoholic beverages when she moves around town-- probably, as this could happen for a food truck if they happen to consider the City of Ludington as someone who could permit such things on a whim, say for a Rhythms & Dunes concert at Waterfront Park which currently does not allow for alcohol.  The owner of a chicken and pretzel franchise was advocating for healthy food alternatives, when the Sandbox features the following prominently this year on their Facebook page.  Looks like a lot of deep-frying in hot oil going on.  

Kudos to all speakers regardless of their motives, the best speaker of the night, however, was the first who spoke, Mike Shaw.  Other than a weak attempt by Councilor Cheri Stibitz to explain his concerns away, Shaw would remind them of what current city law said about selling alcohol at the beach.  Had I got out of my sick bed and came to the meeting with my prepared speech to endure the two-hour plus marathon, I would have said much of the same stuff, but would have led off with:

XLFD:  "I have an idea, and it probably should be ran through a committee first, but I'm not sure which one, so maybe you guys can help.  I want to partner with a local business to bring into city hall a portable bar for council meeting nights.  Hear me out, we'd set it up about a half hour before meetings, sell local beer and ale to officials and public with proper ID verification.  Selections would be served in red solo cups so that those looking on won't know whether you're drinking water or something stronger.  We'd keep it operating until the meeting clears out, and to keep it fun we would have games so that everyone needs to take a drink whenever the mayor says "important" or I say the word "corrupt".  Think about it, drinking at city hall is already legal and this would enhance the city council meeting experience..."

While I don't believe it's the greatest business model, as meeting attendance is normally low and sober, I was hoping to illustrate that city-sanctioned alcohol sales on public property would have a lot of unintended consequences to say the least.  I used many of the rationales the concessionaires used.  I'll have to actually deliver this comment the next time they plan to sell alcohol off city property. Additionally, the mayor does use the term "important" a lot in conversation, it's a rhetorical crutch to suppress what's actually more important. 

Shaw did a fair job in his three minutes, but here's the problem with allowing for alcohol sales down at the beach, other than the public with an opinion is against it by nearly 4-1. 

It's against current city law, and you can't change city law without crafting an ordinance to amend or replace the existing law.   

Councilor John Terzano suggested the topic should go back to committee for further review and recommendation, and they ultimately went the other direction and passed a motion that ran contrary to established law.  Let's look at this, here's a definition that is important, which city law is based upon:

This would cover all alcoholic beverages other than some near-beers that contain less than 0.5% alcohol.  In section 38.74 of the city code, which gives clear direction that any alcoholic beverage cannot be sold in any park, except as provided in another section:

Section 38-75 offers those exemptions and in relevant part:  "The licensed organization shall sell alcoholic liquor only in accordance with the following conditions and requirements and in compliance with the permit issued pursuant to this section":

(2) Such sale of alcoholic liquor shall be allowed only when done for the purpose of raising funds for or as part of a recognized and regularly conducted or scheduled special events open to the general public in the city, and conducted in the city, such as the Fourth of July Freedom Festival, Lakestride Marathon, fishing tournaments, or similar events.

(3) Such organizations shall provide general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00, naming the city as an additional insured.

(7) Service and consumption of alcoholic liquor shall be done only in a specific area designated in the permit, the boundaries of which shall be marked and defined by a fence or other enclosure as required by the permit. No person shall be allowed to leave such enclosure in possession of such alcoholic liquor.

Despite city law, and Mike Shaw's warning of same, the council discussion would not cover why seasonal operation would not directly violate subsection 2.  Or why the city is not scheduled to being covered by the concessionaire's liability insurance.  Or why mandated fencing was never part of the issue. 

The motion they would introduce and pass 6-1 this evening would simply be:  " a motion to allow concessionaires to sell alcoholic beverages at the beach and grant permission to apply for the license."   This hastily crafted motion will have some hangover effects when challenged later on.  

The problem is, our city leaders think they and their actions are above the existing laws and your opinions don't matter, remember my FRUIT reference to them from the last meeting.  It should not be surprising that Councilor Oakes, the mid-term replacement, was the only one to come out against it (1:45:30 in) but did so not because of the existing laws.  The Ludington Torch is against this policy, because if the existing laws are at some point followed, it will segregate parts of the park for alcohol drinking only, and drinkers may get upset when they are told they cannot leave that area with their beverage.  This does not reflect normal park purposes, and one shouldn't be surprised if the Stearns heirs will object to this additional use of their bestowed property.

The rest of the meeting had less debatable subjects.  The Convention & Visitor's Bureau President Brandy Miller gave her 2023 annual report, mostly standard but reflecting the negative effects of having the SS Badger inoperable for half of the season, and the prospect of having an off year in 2025 because of potentially losing a couple of months in normal operation due to the improvements to happen at the Ludington State Park.

They adopted two ordinances approving multiyear contracts for fire alarm and elevator services on city property and passed an ordinance rezoning the depot property at 705 S. Madison so it could accommodate more living units, approving a sketch plan for the improvement as well.  They approved contracting with VC3 for IT services, but not for a contract as of yet.

They appointed alternates for standing committees as well, with Councilor Terzano voting against, probably because of the same concerns I had with potential violations of the Open Meetings Act.  Another action of note was that they sold the Utility Maintenance Building, located just east of the Thompson's Marina, to the Little River Band of Ottawa (LRBO) Indians. 

Councilor Winczewski would note with some glee that the city had introduced 'a reverter clause' into the contract, so that if the LRBO didn't utilize the said property for its intended purposes (offices, educational facilities, and fishing operations) over the next four years that it would revert back to city ownership. 

Funny, I don't recall them making such clauses when they were dealing with other entities that haven't seen most every treaty in the past broken by various levels of the government.  I wonder whether Winczewski believes that once they find out about the firewater being served down at the beach, they might just forget about the purchase contract.   

Pastor Nelson's invocation asking the council to do what's right even if the majority of citizens urge you to do something else, followed by nine straight citizens voicing the popular sentiments, may confuse us as to why the council thinks violating the law and seasonally selling alcoholic beverages on the beach is doing what's right.  It's why we need new representatives who follow the law and listen to the people when they get it right.

[Willy]

Thanks for the report X. Do we know who came up with this idea? I would love for the City to require the release of the names of person/persons who put forth and or promote these kinds of ideas. I think there would be a lot less of these types of propositions put forth if someone was required to take responsibility for being the origin of some of these crazy schemes the City comes up with. It could be that they have a hat full of stupid and costly plans and when they feel exceptionally stupid they choose one of the goofballs from City Hall to pull, out of a hat, one of these nonsensical wishes.

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/photo/another-week-to-choose?cont...