Ludington City Council, January 12, 2026: Horrible Heather and Marvelous Marco

[XLFD]

The first meeting of Ludington City Council (agenda packet) in the year of our country's 250th birthday went down at 6 PM on January 12th.  Most of what happened this Monday evening will be lost in the course of our city's history, but this meeting should be remembered primarily for an announcement by Mayor Mark Barnett that he would not seek re-election, indicating personal demands on his time. 

But this should also be remembered secondarily as the meeting where our community development director, Heather Tykoski, uttered an odd manifesto on woman's history and a former City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) reporter Marco Iafrate pithily refuted her blatant sophistry with a single sentence.  

The majority of this meeting, however, would be in a closed session of the council to discuss settlement strategy for the Riemer lawsuit (ASR Real Estate LLC v. City of Ludington) which was set for a zoom hearing earlier that day, but was rescheduled according to court records to Friday, January 23rd for an evidentiary hearing at 10 AM.  The council would be in closed session in the basement for roughly 100 minutes.  And when they came back, they would give no indication what was going on in the case, only moving to approve a "consent agreement" with the plaintiffs that they took great pains not to give any details of. 

One can understand why they might want to discuss their trial and settlement tactics in private, but one would expect some manner of accountability with the people to show exactly what their vote agreed to.  The city council has a duty to the folks to let them know what they voted on in open session and any details that would not interfere with their bargaining position.  In open session, these folks have done some really foolish things. 

This is part of what I covered in my opening salvo of public comment which came just before the closed session.  

XLFD: (7 minutes in) "Tonight, the public won't hear about the lengths that our elected representatives will go to in order to prevent a business who invested millions and millions of dollars in our downtown area from opening.  Nope, our elected agents will go into closed session to discuss what happened in Zoom court earlier today in regard to an emergency injunction against the city for preventing AndyS from opening their doors, as city administration has shut them down from opening for nearly half a year.  

What we have heard of is attempted extortion, our prevaricatin' city manager, set for an unearned 4% raise, airing that the city will forgive pillars that were approved in the site plan, if and only if they install a protected bike lane down south Rath, using the city's financial resources further to pay an engineering firm to determine the cost.  Our elected representatives have gone along with this idiocy and will undoubtedly continue down the stupid path.  City hall is not friendly to our local businesses, which can be shown clearly by how they have lied to and mistreated the private marinas, a former car wash owner, and many others that I could mention.  This should not be surprising; one would be hard pressed to show how city hall has done anything positive for the community lately without exacting a terrible cost.

Now, I had a FOIA request regarding a DWI stop on Sergeant Mendez of the LPD back in June, 2024, and the LPD (albeit much later than they should have) proactively put out videos of that incident which they likely would have tried to illegally charge me hundreds of dollars for if they wanted to cover the incident up for more than 19 months, and it was showing an obviously drunk Mendez committing multiple moving violations driving back from the bar after closing.  He would get a free pass, and the only reason it would not be fully covered up by LPD is that the responding sergeant decided she wouldn't cover it up a few hours later.  

She was demoted; Mendez would receive two LPD awards at the end of 2024 for meritorious service and criminal enforcement-- not a joke.  He would be promoted to sergeant last year.  The LPD is still covering some of this incident up, I will still be appealing the FOIA request I made with amendment, and another one too, but that will primarily be a fee appeal. [END comment]

Details of that fee appeal would be in my second comment, which was for another recent cover-up by the LPD for another traffic stop involving an obviously drunk young man.  But first I would have to sit through a city official misquoting me and engaging in the poorest performance of sophistry I have ever seen, claiming a mantle of undeserved moral traits for herself all while branding undeserved moral turpitude on someone who called the community development director horrible. 

A briefer history lesson is that Tykoski at her job has regularly used her position to enrich the private businesses belonging to her and her husband over the last two decades and most recently has tried to say that raising the rental registration rates by 840% would be the only way for her department to recoup the costs of a program that has been running tremendous surpluses over the last few years.

Heather Tykoski:  "Good evening.  Heather Tykoski, Fifth Ward.  At the December 22nd city council meeting, I was referred to as a horr-ible woman (aside towards me) did I get that right? [EDITOR:  actually that is incorrect, what was said was "that horrible community development director."]

I will not respond with anger but with history, truth, and clarity.  What compelled me to speak is not personal defense but responsibility.  Young women, professional women building their careers and young men were listening.  I speak not for myself but for them.  Those who are certain to receive similar vitriol in their careers.  Throughout history, women who challenge power, spoke truth, protected the vulnerable, or refused to be silent have often been given that name or ones like it.  It has been used against woman who would not submit, who dared to lead, teach, question injustice, and place conscience over comfort.  

Many of those women went on to change the course of history.  Not because they were accepted, but because they were unwavering in their conviction.  The term has long been used to diminish women whose voices would be ignored or inconvenient.  It is not new, and it is not original.  What is original is the courage of women who continue to serve, lead and stand firm, despite it.  

If this is the name given to women who lead with integrity and accountability and serve with truth, then I wear it as a badge of honor.  If this label is for a woman who serves with honesty and conviction, then it is not a mark of shame, it is evidence of impact.  

History is clear, it is not the woman that the label condemns, but those who reach for labels when they have nothing else to offer.  I remain committed to serving this community with professionalism, courage and character.  Titles and insults fade, character does not.  I am not diminished by such language, nor should any woman be.  Power only exists where we choose to assign it, and I assign none to insults rooted in insecurity rather than substance.  

In truth, I found the comment more revealing than wounding.  When discourse descends into name-calling, it signals the absence of reason, integrity and decorum.  That needs no further explanation.  

To the young girls who may have been listening, I have spent decades working to ensure women's voices are heard, respected and valued.  Some will still rely on age-old tactics to belittle and intimidate; do not stand down, do not cower, do not stop.  Be bold, be more, be too much, if necessary.  Let them talk.  Let them; then go lead, make a difference, leave a mark and remain faithful and true to yourself always."  [END comment]

We regularly see this same person claim victimhood such as when she has secured $150,000 sign contracts with her husband's company and many other instances since then when she has deigned her reputation injured enough to comment, so this was expected.  What was somewhat unexpected was the number of virtues she ascribed to herself and all other women in general in under three minutes being horribly high even for one afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder over the last two decades, as she appears to be.   

Her position is far from noble, dealing primarily with begging to other government agencies for money (grant-writing) and overseeing a coercive government program that sends government agents into people's homes to invasively look around in a manner that would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment and then exact fees and fines for doing a service nobody wants (running rental inspections).  That she would hear the word "horrible" (with an admittedly accented first syllable) and equate it with herself only lends credence to what her cucked husband has woefully admitted to others in the past.  This is the type of behavior one would expect from a public official who has made a career out of enriching herself by dint of her public service.  

I could write a lot more about this corrupt official's history, and I already have in our archives, without assigning any fault due to her gender.  But what was most impressive was that cryptic refutation by Marco Iafrate that immediately followed her soliloquy.  Simple and succinct is the best way to describe it and it was amazingly on point and made one wonder what was actually being conveyed: a thought provoker for sure.  He would say just after a smattering of applause by the usual city sycophants was dying down for the CDD's sermon:

"There are women who do what Ms. Tykoski is saying; she nor this council, is among them." 

One small impromptu and truthful sentence invoking humility and reality, challenged and conquered three minutes of prideful claims and misrepresentations.  It should serve as a message to this council that the people are seeing through their charades and theatrics, their bread and circuses, and seeing what's behind the curtain without even an assist from Toto.  While they may be used to the criticism when I point out that they are not doing anything positive for the community, this subtle echo of that sentiment by Iafrate noting that the words of Tykoski citing virtuous ideals and people do not apply to them was a non-telegraphed punch to the solar plexus.

The business of the meeting followed after the 100 minute recess for the closed session, it included:

-- Reappointing Cheri Stibitz as the Mayor Pro Tem, with accolades as to how she performed in that position in 2025.

-- Hearing an Economic Development Annual Report from Kristi Zimmerman of the county's Chamber Alliance.  This would mostly mirror the reports she has given at the county, touting the 144 unit complex going in south of Family Fare, and indicating the industrial park was full.

-- Approving a 4% raise for the city manager in an employment contract to be reviewed at year's end.

-- Approving a basically unchanged 2026 designation of depositories.

-- Approving a park permit for Saunaty LLC.  The company would park portable saunas near the Loomis Street Boat Launch about once every six weeks during the off-peak tourist season beginning in March.  Discussion primarily centered on the city's lack of policy concerning letting private ventures set up temporarily in public parks, but they would approve the permit for now, and use the new city attorneys to draft a policy for future requests.

-- Approve this year's version of the poverty exemption policy for property taxes without significant changes.

-- Approve continuing Olson & Howard as city attorney for limited projects that they were already engaged with (before being replaced by the Mika Meyer law firm).

-- Expanded social district territory to cover Pier to Pier Picnics (222 W Ludington Avenue).  Councilor Mike Shaw would vote no, indicating his belief that the time for social districts is past and that drinking in public was not an image that Ludington should pursue.

-- Passed in consideration of the FOIA appeal for Mendez DUI records, based on my earlier public comment.  The withheld records are voluntarily made statements made by Mendez and potentially Sgt. Babinec.  

The second public comment featured the council's introduction to a new LPD scandal that they are once again trying to cover-up, this time by demanding a ransom for the records.  

XLFD: (2:51:30 in) "Early on the morning of Christmas Eve, a very drunk young man, let's call him JT, drove his vehicle off clear pavement, under good conditions into a utility pole on M-116.  JT was a very lucky man that day, not only avoiding not killing himself or others, but also by getting a favorable draw with the officer that responded to the scene, LPD Officer Trey Forfinski.  Forfinski would allow JT's father, a respected man in our community, to drive him home, reportedly without administrating any type of sobriety test even though he was clearly drunk and drove into a telephone pole.

As for me, hor-rible LPD administrators along with the city's paid prosecutor have arraigned me three different times for what amounts each time to trespassing on public property, a losing proposition for them.  I was minding my own business, disobeying no laws, no real or imagined victims, but I'm still facing three criminal counts in the local courts, while garbage like Austin Mendez and JT speed and drive recklessly through my city endangering myself and my neighbors by their criminal actions.  

Thirty-one years ago, I was hit by a superdrunk driver at the end of M-116 and came within an inch of dying because of his bad choice.  Thankfully, it was not Chris Jones or Mark Barnett's LPD that responded, as the man was charged for nearly killing me, his nephew, and his niece, nor were the records suppressed. 

Currently, Thief Jones is keeping information regarding JT's crash from me by using a paywall, over $130 for Forfinski's body cam footage, presuming he didn't shut it off like Officer Noble did to protect Mendez.  There wasn't one single exemption claimed in the response, but they want to charge me over $130 to separate out exempt information... [time ran out, I would have continued] That's the crime of public extortion in a nutshell, a crime that our police thief keeps committing in order to cover--up the crimes and omissions of his department while criminally pursuing those who call him out on it.  [END comment]

Why would any dedicated public servant who swore oaths to affirm the laws of the land not look at the facts of such a case, and not be outraged by the conduct of the LPD?  They claim no exemptions but want $130 to separate exempt materials out of the public record.  Our sick, corrupted public officials just listen to what I say, have no doubt it's the truth, and still avoid doing what they should by dint of their official duties.   

Heather Tykoski is their representative who will assign herself and her peers with the noblest of virtues and assign those who say otherwise as insecure, misogynistic, etc.  The truth is a much different animal than she perceives, and the public sees it at every meeting, should they decide to watch it with knowledge of what's happening.  Marco Iafrate would cap off the night's comments, giving the council a much better local history lesson than what was snarkily related by the community development director.  

"This council is just like the first council that this city ever had.  When James Ludington founded this city, his wish was it was not to have alcohol.  No saloons, no bars, nothing of the kind.  When it was chartered, when he was away, the first ordinance was to make alcohol, saloons... Maybe you should change the name of the city to "Bar-nett"... You defy the founder."

A concise and precise lesson from history from a late arrival to our Lake Michigan shores.  When the founder of our city had a vision for what our city could be, the city council as its first act would travel the "stupid path" I mentioned earlier.  We could get rid of the social districts absent the over-regulation our governments invoked during COVID on the interiors and operations of our businesses.  We could have public officers provide information in line with the FOIA law.  But that doesn't happen, because of the horrible direction our city leaders are going, and everyone seems to know it other than them.  

[Marco Iafrate]

I overheard Ms. Tykoski say "anybody wanna go for a drink" after I refuted her lies. I think she may have needed to go and drink down some pride, the lady was clearly offended at Mr. Rotta, I think, because she twisted his words and projected what she came up with in her mind onto him.

[XLFD]

In the past, Heather Tykoski has used public comment in order to assault the truth that has come out about her public actions that led to her own enrichment.  Monday night's exhibition was probably her best showing yet, she came off less condescending and snobbish than usual, so maybe experience is helping her out (or maybe it's artificial intelligence, she struggled with the word "vitriol" if you noticed, as if it wasn't a natural word for her).  

Heather had a couple problems with this speech, however, other than twisting words to assist her presentation and I offer her this for future faux defenses of her honor.  First, she failed to mention that she was one of the highest officials in the city and that her comments were her own and not those of the city she represents and is paid by.  This leads me to believe that the city may have paid her extra for bomb throwing-- not that she wouldn't have done it for free.  This also explains why the language in her speech was more sophisticated than what she usually uses in her grant writing and past diatribes.

Second, you can see in the video that she started off her comments directing them at me and glaring towards the side to look directly at me multiple times.  If you review recent meetings, I was gaveled by the mayor for glancing over at the police thief for a moment while I was talking about his latest debacle, the mayor also did this to Jeff Henry when he was directing his comment toward Tim Large sitting right next to the mayor.  I guess when a high city official directs her public comments towards a citizen it doesn't merit the same sanction.  

You definitely have to show me how to be more succinct with my comments.  I always seem to have so much to critique at LCC meetings that I can't narrow it down too much without missing some necessary points.  That fedora was classic too; I may have to steal that meme.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks Marco for seeing thru the BS of Ms. Tykoski and for boldly speaking up!

Thanks X for your courage as always.

Is Ludington in for bigger problems if Stibbitz runs for mayor?

[XLFD]

To answer your question, Stibitz is an improvement over Barnett, and the Fourth Ward can probably get a better match for the folks.  I haven't been impressed at all by her abandonment of all those private marinas in her ward in favor of the public marinas in my ward (Third), but that may work for her in a citywide election.  

She has already run once for mayor and lost a very closes race against Ryan Cox and appears to be being groomed for the spot, as it sounds like the mayor may miss more meetings as a lame duck.  Would be hard to beat since the power brokers in town would likely look at her record and consider her safe and controllable.  This could potentially make for bigger problems, since I don't believe Barnett was as safe and controllable as some would have liked.

[Rick]

Several years ago, the citizens of Ludington voted overwhelmingly for the legalization of recreational marijuana. Fast forward a few years when there was a proposal to allow cannabis dispensaries within the city limits. The consensus of the City Council was to not allow them as it would tarnish the reputation of Ludington. Yet here they are expanding the alcohol social district, allowing a larger area for inebriated consumers of alcohol to roam the streets of Ludington while carrying their libations with them. A couple of years ago, The council made it easier for beach goers to consume alcohol on the beach by allowing the concessionaire to sell alcohol. Cannabis would have been sold behind closed doors under very tight rules and regulations. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?!  

[XLFD]

I think everyone does, even the city councilors when they imbibe some of that liquid courage themselves, but the unfortunate truth is that they are not afraid of being hypocritical and they have a lot of undue influence from a certain local Budweiser bottling company, headed by the very same people whose influence led to the two public marinas being built and totally endangering the thriving and flourishing private marina market that existed before that.

Thus, in true hypocritical fashion, they can say that their policies and actions are pro-business in Ludington, at the same council meeting that they approve a grant from the Waterways Commission for $2 million in order to improve the public City Marina.  They can say they are working towards affordable housing, while their horrible pick for leading the building department attempts to raise rental registration rates by 840% and claim it's proportional to costs, for a public service that nobody other than power-hungry city officials want.  I may be sounding repetitive, but these iniquities are allowed to exist and flourish without the substantial public hue and outcry they deserve. 

And now they are raising wages well above the inflation rate and hiring more people while not adding any extra services and wondering why they are not keeping within budget even when they raise tax rates every year.  Hypocrisy and idiocy lives at city hall.