Scottville City Commission, January 8, 2024: Missing the Target

[XLFD]

The year 2024 looks as if it will be a year of tough decisions as to whether the Ludington Torch covers the Ludington or Scottville city council meetings when the two cities in Mason County hold their meetings at the same time intentionally, so as to prohibit us from giving the public full coverage of both.  Since we have not the manpower to do both, our top reporter will cover the most interesting, from our perspective.

The Scottville agenda packet indicated they would have a public hearing for, and presumed passage of, an amended rental inspection ordinance as their main event.  I have already spoke out strongly against this massive intrusion into the homes and pocketbooks of tenants in Scottville, a struggling demographic that can solely afford additional costs of eking out a living.  

The meeting began with two notable absences, City Attorney Mark Nettleton and Commissioner Randy Wyman.  Not surprisingly the two comments I had prepared for the meeting were mostly addressing these two officials who must have had some premonitions about what was coming up tonight.

Once again, Scottville residents were absent.  The only people attending were officials giving their reports:  County Commissioner Steve Hull, the two SPD officers (including former Ludington PD Captain Steve Wietrzykowski), and the rural fire authority representative.  Not surprisingly, I was the only one who addressed the group during the first comment, which addressed the other two items of business in front of the commission:

XLFD:  "I'm pleased to see that the city attorney has finally taken my advice and has introduced an ordinance to establish the city's authority to exact parking fees at the boat ramp, albeit the year after the city manager directed the posting of signs threatening fines, and that even before the commission passed a resolution to create a fine for parking unlawfully there.  

This commission, led by your professional staff did the whole process in reverse.  If Barrister Nettleton read his "Providing Legal Advice to Cities for Dummies" book, he would have saw that you always put the ordinance on the table first when you are making rules that exact user fees or fines.  Once passed by the commission, you put out a resolution establishing those fees and/or fines if the ordinance didn't provide those values.  If the ordinance provided those values, then it would take another ordinance to amend them.  Once you've done that you can start putting out the signs and the permit dispensers.

I hope the commission can heed this additional legal advice for their own sake, though I make no claims to be a lawyer.  Tonight, you have the first reading of an ordinance establishing the authority of the city to collect fees for boat ramp parking, you also have on the table a resolution passing the fees/fines for effectively breaking the ordinance you haven't yet passed that authorizes those fees and fines.  Table that resolution until you establish the authority for those rates through the mother ordinance in February, if you should pass that ordinance then.  

Passing the resolution tonight will not only show that your city attorney has to read deeper into his book to get things done right, but that passing the ordinance has already effectively happened outside of an open meeting of this commission." (END Comment)

As you can see, I missed the target since Nettleton didn't show up, but I actually hit the mark of making them reconsider passage of the boating fees resolution that night.  City Manager Jimmy Newkirk, hearing the correct procedure during my comment, decided to table the resolution, covering for himself by saying that was always the intention.  But the packet contents and past practice say otherwise; the original intention was to pass it, that's why they label it Resolution 24-01 and don't say they are introducing it (resolutions by practice, are always considered the meeting they are on the agenda).  This wouldn't be the only whopper that the city manager would lay on the commission at this meeting.  

After reports were heard, mostly dealing with calendar year routines, the public hearing was held regarding the rental inspection amendment ordinance.  When this had come up the first time, Commissioner Wyman had a well-meaning defense of the city's position on this ordinance, saying how much it was needed for improving the city's image and improve the rental stock.  He was good enough to bring it up as an argument for the city's position, I would have liked to hear his response tonight, but the target was missed, and no other commissioner would defend their proposed change during the hearing or after.

XLFD:  "This city commission established rental inspections five years ago and set rates.  The costs to tenants and landlords set then for a three year period will be increased by a factor of eight with the passage of this ordinance.  The inflation rate since that time is about 22%, but their costs for city mandated inspections jumped 800%, is that fair?  Councilor Wyman offered a limited defense for the city's greed by characterizing some landlords as avaricious slum lords and characterizing the inspection program as a way to get better housing stock in the City.  

Commissioner Wyman, what would happen if your costs to cremate or inter a body jumped by 800% due to arbitrary city policy, while costs for Oak Grove out in Amber Township remained stable?  You'd most assuredly go out of business if you stayed within the city limits and complied with that policy, because you could not remain competitive.  You could advertise all you want about being city-certified, it would do no good once people found out thousands of dollars are tacked on their bill for that redundant certification.  Scottville's landlords and landladies are small business owners just like you, please show some compassion and realize that this could just as easily apply to you and your business.  

I've FOIA-ed the city for information regarding complaints registered with the city over the last couple years regarding rental properties.  It amounts to one address with several unverified and unsupported complaints.  Does this really justify invading every tenant's privacy by contracted government agents every year and potentially making them homeless, even after they have entered into a contract with another person that the government has no business being involved with.  You have already passed a resolution setting the rates, now pass the ordinance and continue Scottville's tailspin by hobbling dozens of small businesses.  (END comment)

And the city commission would take up that last challenge by passing it 5-1, but not before their newest commissioner, Eric Thue (the nay vote), would challenge the city manager who said that he received no comments from citizens who were against the new amended policy.  Thue would claim that he received correspondence from a citizen who had told him that he contacted both the city manager and mayor about how outrageous the proposal was.  Both officials did not reply to that refutation of their claims, but their body language effectively acknowledged Thue's point.  

Why weren't citizens, especially landlords and tenants not up in arms over the new proclamation octupling their rates?  Simple, very few knew about it.  One can look at the Scottville website and social media pages and find nothing about this rate hike occurring.  Scottville's own Mason County Press has said zero about it; the COLDNews has only put out that the rental inspection program was being reintroduced, without any attention to the details. 

Unless a citizen has looked deep into one agenda packet that came out during the beginning of deer hunting season or read an obscure social media site from a neighboring town called the Ludington Torch, they have no idea that this fee-pocalypse is coming.  With less than 400 page views of our original story on this, it definitely isn't enough to get the word out to the general public, and not a task we usually do as a commentary site for our primary target, Ludington.  

This action will cripple Scottville and cripple our county's efforts to provide affordable housing, especially if Ludington follows suit.  The action of adding boat parking fees will have similar negative effects on Scottville's overall economy, just as adding parking fees at Stearns Park in Ludington would to Ludington's overall economy.  And the only thing these acts accomplish is to grow the local government at the expense of the citizens, their businesses, their economic health, and even their visitors and potential visitors. 

When small business entrepreneurs see what has just happened in Scottville, whether they want to rent out living units or sell marijuana, they will factor that into their decision on whether it is a good place to set up.  And that's truly the city leaders missing the target.

[Willy]

Excellent report X. Love the funeral home cost comparison. Can you imagine all the corpses of citizens relatives sitting on  porch swings waiting for the extra cash to provide their final  resting place. Your comparisons of the problems caused by politicians being applied to everyday life gives me a good laugh. Well said.

[XLFD]

Thanks for the affirmation that I hit at least one target that night.  And the analogy I created for Commissioner Wyman's funeral home is a realistic consideration.  State licensing and certification of funeral homes already add a lot to people's funeral bills, so as cities look to get more creative in funding their own growth, the concept of having some expensive local permits or licensing on small businesses isn't that far-fetched-- technically it's already happening in the rental property sector with at the least $525 per unit every three years being charged to landlords/tenants by Scottville's City Hall for a service nobody wants-- except perhaps one address's tenant. And when the tenant is told it will cost them $150 per visit (and force their vexed landlord to take a day off), likely a significant portion of their monthly rent, I think they will have second thoughts and save their money, just like they are doing by voluntarily living in a less-than-4-star unit.