Ludington City Council Meeting March 11, 2019, pt. 1: A Splash of Shame

[XLFD]

I rarely characterize the way a Ludington City Council meeting goes as being shameful, but the March 11, 2019 did not just have its moments of shame, as many do, but over two hours of it. This article will only cover the main item of the night, a public hearing on a grant.

Early year meetings often have a lot of material, with annual reports from departments, preparatory actions for this year's events, and meeting the deadlines of grants. Tonight would have all that and more, yet there was an extra element this night. Instead of the city hall regulars filling about ten or a dozen of the cheap seats, there was a packed house of over 60. Several of the attendees were not that far out of diapers.

Why all of the youths? A look at the agenda gave a hint; the council would be resolving to approve a MI DNR grant that would potentially provide $150,000 for the splash pad the City is forcing into Copeyon Park. It would have been fine had these kids just been used as window dressing, but the kids would be used as political props, forced to go to the podium and say the lines they were fed. Pawns utilized by the City's grant writer, Heather Tykoski, an accomplished director and performer in local theater herself, to achieve her goal of silencing the large opposition to locating the pad in the smallish, ill-equipped park. These were the Heather Youth:

The use of these kids during the public hearing was bad enough, but it also had one early-elementary-aged girl ushered up to the podium, saying a line or two, then breaking down crying and seeking her mother, the one who allowed her to speak at a scary public forum may have just fostered something the girl can tell her therapist about later in her life.

Heather's directorial talents was on display when the youths hit the microphones. She's to the right again, directing her supporting cast below:

The public hearing started at 9:00 minutes into the meeting's video. Chuck Sobanski, a leading spokesman for the Fourth Ward, led off by declaring no opposition to the splash pad but saying that Copeyon Park is the wrong venue. He submitted an application with 51 signatures against putting the pad in the park.

The two girl contingent went up immediately after with what appeared to be a parent-prepared statement surprisingly in favor of the splash pad. Following were two comments that were amazingly similar delivered first by Christmas Tree farmer, Ben Nickelson, and then by Danny Vargas, both saying how wonderful the pad was going to be and decrying the community's collective resistance to new things.

The main problem with Ben & Danny's theory is that none of the opposition to the splash pad is against it because it is a new thing. They have voiced concerns strictly due to location and the process used to get it rammed into that location. That was made clear in their presentations-- all are fine with having a splash pad in Ludington, they just see a lot of extra problems at where the city leaders and a public-private committee unilaterally decided to put it, and the way the very non-transparent five year process went down.

The crying girl went next, and said a well-rehearsed line or two before running over to her mommy. Can you imagine what would have been said about the parents if some of the dozens of landlords and tenants who came in to argue against the rental inspection ordinance in 2015 had brought in their kindergarten kids and they told the council: "If this passes, mommy says our landlord is going to kick us out of the only home I ever knew, sob, our new homes will be in the, sob, streets. Why are you acting like meanie pantses?" Heather's orchestration of this drama was shameful, the exploitation of the kids was sickening.

Stephanie Reed, the chairman of the Splash Pad Committee (SPC) went next, and she gave a brief history saying how beautiful Copeyon Park looked when they first saw it-- before they massacred about half of the trees, nearly all healthy, to clear out a spot for their pad. This was confirmed by former Planning Commission honcho, Tom Coleman at a Tree Advisory Board meeting. She said she performed a decidedly non-scientific poll conducted outside the Fourth Ward Market to determine, in her words, that the "whole community is behind us". She may want to look at that petition with 51 signatures.

Corrie Brandt, another SPC member went next, and would reiterate that they have spent a lot of time figuring out what they wanted to do with the splash pad (outside of the general public's ability to participate). She was the seventh straight proponent.

Dianne Seelhoff, who lives across from the park went next and mentioned the lack of openness of the debate that led up to getting the splash pad approved for Copeyon. She noted that the 51 signers of the petition would fill the chamber much like it was (the COLDNews estimated there was about 40 people attending).

She was followed by myself, who made perhaps the only argument neither for nor against the pad. Instead I focused on the process which even now was lacking any kind of rigor. I said, with links provided here:

XLFD: "The public input required for this grant is fairly minimal, and yet the grant writer has not afforded the public the ability to look at this application. Page three of the 2019 RECREATION PASSPORT GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION GUIDELINES states: "The applicant is responsible for providing the public adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposed application." The minutes of the February 11th meeting, held a month ago, also noted: "The City must provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed application."
This grant application has not been put in any council packet, nor has it been put on the city website or anywhere else, so I stopped by city hall just after 2 PM this afternoon asking to review the recreational passport grant under consideration tonight.

The clerk checked in back, asked me whether it was in the packets and then asked the grant writer herself, Heather Tykoski. Heather informed her in my earshot, that the application was not finished yet.
One month ago exactly, the council acknowledged the City's duty to provide the public the opportunity to review the proposed application. Yet, we cannot. Furthermore, the application guidelines mandate that adequate opportunity be provided to the public to review this proposed application. Yet, we cannot. Furthermore, the city council has not adequate time to review and consider the grant application in any kind of diligent manner, even if Heather finished it later this afternoon and has it in front of you now. If you decide to vote to adopt this resolution tonight approving submitting this grant application that has had no public review, zero, you will find yourself with very diligent opponents."

When nobody else came to the podium after me as part of the public hearing, Heather marched the girls who participated earlier up and had the mayor acknowledge their bravery in getting up and speaking. Having me get the last word was not in her script, so get those frightened girls back up and be exploited some more.

Heather began speaking, showed a short video of one of the girls being used to market the splash pad at Copeyon, and gave a fine presentation for a couple of minutes with the fib that the project started with the kids, and that it wasn't anybody else's idea. Councilor Serna reminded her that the idea actually originated from the "Great Starts Parent Coalition", and would later claim to be the brainchild of the splash pad (albeit, not a Copeyon Park). But then she went a little off the script, irked a little by my comments or by my presence, I'm not sure which.

Heather: (31:00 in) "There is still three weeks before submission of this; you will get to view the application, no worries, but just to reiterate that this portion of what we are doing tonight is part of that application, so I don't give out incomplete applications to people, sorry.
So once this application is completed, it will be available, you will have three weeks to look at it and review it. That's more than enough time. (Directed) And if that's all you got for tonight, Tom, I'm disappointed."

Mayor Steve Miller saved a potential train wreck by telling her to stay on task, but you heard right. The council invited the public to review the application one month prior, the grant rules stipulate that public input requires that the public have the opportunity to review the application before the public hearing, yet, she somehow thinks the application cannot be reviewed before the public comments on... that application they cannot ever see because of its incompleteness of not having that very public hearing thereon. Can anybody explain that convoluted way of thinking to me?

She would go on later to explain that other portions were also unfinished, when Jefferson Henry effectively asked for some clarification (see 48:30 in). This is just gross incompetence on her part. Maybe if she wasn't making downtown marketing videos each Friday and trying to play act city manager by getting a force majeure declared unlawfully, she would have more time to do the insipid job she landed and the one she keeps through the Peter Principle.

A question by Councilor Johnson stated that four places had been looked at for the splash pad (note, when it came to the council for the first time, Copeyon Park was presented as the only option, so much for public involvement, these decisions and many more were made at meeting non-compliant with the OMA). Councilori Rozell walked a tight line asking questions about parking, accessibility issues, Councilor Serna asked other questions pertinent to some of the issues raised about Copeyon. I appreciated them keeping the grant writer honest and yet still Heather would relate that handicap access would be available through Pier Pointe at the Washington Bridge. Guess again, there is a steep incline and three sets of stairs (in yellow highlight) taking you from Washington into Pier Pointe, and quite a lot of extra space to cover too:

The Mayor opened up the floor again to public comment over anything Heather brought up, and former Mayor Kaye Holman rose with a couple of good points (51:00 in) involving the sparse parking and the need for the Ludington Yacht Club to use those parking spaces over the weekend and the impact of the geese of the area and their droppings. Fourth Warders Sobanski and Seelhoff also made some points regarding dog poop, Pier Pointe's reluctance to serve as an alternate access point, and the lack of handicap access in the backway 'public' route. Jeff Henry asked his earlier noted question.

The last person to talk was Jenna Sanders who said her three children don't really care for the splash pad but they are hyped for the fishing pier. With the hearing over, the city council voted on whether to approve the resolution for the recreational passport grant application that none had yet seen.

And whereas you might think that a group of seven seemingly reasonable city officials would table the vote until the public (and their own selves) was actually given a chance to review the application, and thus have it come back for vote at the next meeting (still before the deadline) for a legitimate public hearing, this council once again, shortchanged the public's confidence in them (if any remains) by unanimously passing the resolution.  Unless they 'reenact' something at the next meeting, this public hearing was invalid for grant purposes, and as I said, the opposition is going to be diligent, and fierce.

[shinblind]

I might have been mistaken but I thought I  saw Heather brandishing a wire coat hanger in the video.

Maybe this should be retitled Heather Dearest.

In the last photo in your post X, you can see all the cracks in the  adjacent  parking lot, usually a sign of construction on unstable soil.  Is the soil the same where they want to locate the splash pad in Copeyon Park? Will the splash pad suffer the same fate in a few years?

[XLFD]

I wish I could answer your question, but I don't have the grant application that would have a map and all the specifics of what exactly they would be doing with all that money.  A picture taken after the meeting of Heather seems to have her brandishing a wire hanger, but she was upset about something else I think:

[Du Wright]

I have thought the same thing, shinblind.  The whole area was Brownfield and may even have extended south where the park is, and we have no knowledge of these closed meetings discussing ground pollution.  If you walk along the waterfront sidewalk you will see in certain areas the seawall and parts of the sidewalk with large cracks, some wider than an inch and dropping nearly a couple inches.  And who maintains that if it is public?  If I lived at the condos I wouldn't want hundreds of screaming children running in front of my peace and quiet.  Kids don't know private boundaries from public.  And what about their private swimming pool that the "public" sidewalk runs by.  Kids and ooglers staring at the sunbathers.

[Willy]

I think that's the parking lot located near the condos. The drive is the first entrance off the main road after the bridge. I believe that's where the tug that pushes the barge docks.  

[Willy]

Now that i see a bird's eye view of the area, I'm wondering how much influence the condo owners and management had with trying to get this approved. It  would be a good selling point to have a water playground near the condo buildings. I wonder what, if any, compensation was exchanged for having this fiasco pushed on the public.

[XLFD]

Unless the condo owners dusted their fingerprints off of the project, I have seen nothing to make me deduce that they have anything to do with promoting this project.  To the contrary, what I have heard and believe is that most existing condo owners would prefer the quietude of a traditional fishing and picnic park rather than the helter-skelter that would develop on warm days for traffic and parking.  Not to mention the extra background noise they bought the condo to get away from.

A splash pad in the 'backyard' may appeal to a certain type of condo owner, but I would think that most people in the market to afford a condo in Ludington as a seasonal retreat would have 'empty nests' or older kids.