A less government conservative Republican from Livingston County, MI
Opinions on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Livingston County Republican Party.
Showing posts with label City of Brighton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City of Brighton. Show all posts
Libertarian candidate James Weeks II is organizing a rally to protest a Brighton teenager getting ticketed and fined for swearing in downtown Brighton.
Weeks, who is running for the 8th Congressional District, is calling his event the “This is f------ bulls---” rally.
The
rally will be held noon to 3 p.m. on May 31 next to the Imagination
Station playground, where the Colin Andersen was ticketed.
This is a cheap publicity stunt for a political candidate who got 3.7% in his race for state rep in 2012 against Cindy Denby. He's now running for Congress, and I expect similar results.
I titled this "Bigmouths vs Action" for a reason. This rally isn't about free speech, nor about Colin Andersen. It's about James Weeks II getting in the papers. Weeks is taking the bigmouth route. Bullshit is one of my favorite words in the English language, especially when it comes to politics. It certainly applies here. Livingston County isn't a friendly county for protests in most cases. Calling a rally a f'ing bullshit rally while apt, isn't going to get a lot of support for either his campaign, nor do much for the legitimate cause of free speech. This will do nothing to help Colin Andersen, and may in fact hurt him.
Again, Andersen should not have gotten a ticket. He shouldn't have swore in that situation, but shouldn't have gotten a ticket for it. It shouldn't have been a legal matter.
If Lewis wants to really made a stand for free speech, he should raise money and offer to pay for Andersen's appeals, should he decide to go that route. That would be effective, teach the police a lesson, won't alienate the public, and make an impact for free speech and overzealous police powers.
Swear in downtown Brighton near the Imagination Station playground, and there’s a good chance you’ll be getting a ticket.
Colin Andersen learned this lesson the hard way.
Upset
that his friend had been ticketed for skateboarding in downtown
Brighton and told to leave, Andersen said he was simply venting when he
said, “This is f------ bull----.”
The
19-year-old Brighton resident was hanging out with his friends on a
sunny April day in a parking lot next to the pavilion and Imagination
Station; Andersen said he swore under his breath and no children heard
him.
However, a Brighton Police Department officer heard him and issued him a ticket for disorderly conduct.
“What
got me to start arguing a little bit, they were asking all of us to
leave because he got a ticket,” Andersen said. “That’s not fair. We’re
just standing around.”
Brighton
Police Chief Tom Wightman said it’s OK for teenagers to hang out
downtown, and the city doesn’t have a law prohibiting certain words.
“That’s
fine if they want to behave and use the facility like anybody else,”
Wightman said. “It’s when they misbehave (that) it becomes an issue.
We’re going to be watching.”
Wightman
said the playground is popular, especially with families and young
children. Sometimes, police are called due to teenagers or young adults
acting disorderly.
“That’s what gets on our radar, their behavior,” he said.
Wightman said teenagers hanging out downtown is an “ongoing issue.”
I'm not going to defend the actions themselves. I swear a bit, and in politics use the word bullshit all the time on this blog. It's a great word because it describes so much of what's out there that just can't be covered by other words with the same meaning. I tend to avoid that word in front of it here and don't "F'ing swear" in front of women and children. Time, place, and manner. I also don't use it in professional settings. I wouldn't have used it if I am in a similar situation as Andersen here, today. I'm also 35 years old instead of 19. At 19, I probably would have gotten the ticket and would have said the same thing. I never was (and still am not) that respectful of authority. That's why I'm not a democrat.
There's also a difference between disapproving of a behavior and using government sanctions against the behavior.
Andersen said this was the first ticket he’s ever received; he said he doesn’t even have a speeding ticket.
Andersen
fought the ticket but lost when he went before a Livingston County
District Court magistrate to present his side of what happened. He was
fined $200.
Andersen
said he doesn’t think it was right to issue him a ticket without a
warning. If he had been warned, he would have listened to the officer.
“I would have respected his authority,” he said.
At the hearing, Andersen said the police testified they had given him a warning, something he denies happened.
The infamous informal hearing. The judge/magistrate hears what the cop says and hears what you say. He knows the cops well because he always sees him in court at informal hearings. He likely believes the cop's version. He may or may not believe you. As soon as he said that he swore under his breath, he lost. Informal hearings are like the Judge Joe Brown show (arbitration), not an actual trial. This is a civil infraction with broader rules as well that are not in a defendant's favor. The cops says he gave a warning. I don't know if that's true. It wouldn't be the first time a cop lied in court. Maybe he lied. Maybe he didn't. I wasn't there. Cops tend to have zero patience with a friend of someone ticketed, arrested, or detained.
Before I got my State Bar Association Pnumber, I got a car accident ticket when I was rear-ended. It was for "unable to stop with assured clear distance." I lost in an informal hearing after the East Lansing PD lied in court. Judge David Jordon, now retired (thank God) sided with the cop. I would have argued it much differently today than I did then. Again, that was before I got the P number. First off, I'd always take the formal hearing and deal with attorneys, not the informal hearing with only cops and a district judge or magistrate.
What I don't know is what the exact ordinance Andersen was accused of violating. He might have been screwed just for getting the cop's attention in a "parking lot". There's two "Disorderly Conduct" ordinances listed on the City of Brighton's website. One has to do with parking lots.
Sec. 54-104. Disorderly conduct at parking lots.
(a)Purpose. Because the city council is
convinced of the ever present danger to the safety of persons using the public
parking lots located in the city, it is the objective of the city to prevent
injuries to persons using the public parking lots. Accordingly, in order to
avoid accidents resulting in personal injuries and property damage, and thereby
protect the health, safety and welfare of all individuals using the public
parking lots, the council wishes to prohibit the use of public parking lots
situated in the city for any purpose other than for the parking of motor vehicles
and for purposes incident thereto and for the purpose of serving pedestrian
traffic to and from points outside of said parking lots. This section is not
intended to limit the intent or the effect of this article.
(b)Conduct
prohibited. No person shall:
(1)Conduct himself in any parking lot so as to
create a hazard to himself or others who are using the public parking lot.
(2)Use such parking lot
for any purpose other than the parking of a motor vehicle, or the movement of
such motor vehicle incident thereto, or travelling to and from such motor
vehicle, or traversing such parking lot on foot or bicycle from and to points
outside of said parking lot.
(c)Any person found to violate this section shall be guilty of a civil
infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).
(Code 1981, § 121.3; Ord. No. 482,
§ I, 7-17-03)
If this was a swearing charge, it'd likely get tossed out after the infamous Rifle River case which was unconstitutionally vague. This might be argued on those grounds, but this is a little different of an ordinance. However, it looks like Andersen got the ticket because he said that the cop's ticket to his friend was "F'ing bullshit". He said that and the chief of police didn't disagree with that leading to the ticket.There is a lot that could be tossed out in court. It's not fought because a lot of these are civil infractions or smaller misdemeanors. It costs less money to not fight these than it does to get an attorney and fight these in a formal hearing. It's less headache. No time has to be taken off from work by paying the fines. There's no attorney fees which will be much more than $200.
I don't like catch all ordinances (ie....the annoy law, even disorderly
conduct) and they should often be fought on vagueness grounds among
others. Law should be specific, clear, and easy to understand.
He shouldn't have sworn at the cop, even if the ticket to his friend is "F'ing bullshit." He's not going to help his friend that way and he got the cop's attention. There may have been women and kids that heard that. At 19, he's supposed to be an adult. Should that have deserved a disorderly conduct for that? I don't think so. I don't the road that goes down. Not everything should be a legal matter.
There's three elections here in different parts of Livingston County.
Hartland Schools and Dexter Schools have millage renewal proposals. I don't know who drew up the school boundaries to put a portion of Dexter schools in this county (Hamburg) since it doesn't make geographic sense. Interestingly with Dexter, the village is having a vote on incorporation. It may become a city.
We also have an uncontested primary for District 5's County Commissioner district covering Howell, Howell Township, and Cohoctah Township. Despite that, we need to make sure that our folks vote and vote for Don Parker. Parker may be uncontested, but a good primary showing for him may put momentum on our side for the August general election which IS contested.
There is going to be at least one election this August. District 5 County Commissioner's special general election. There may or may not be more. That depends on how many candidates run for City Councils.
Brighton and Howell City Council have their nonpartisan elections this year. If there are more than double the number of candidates per positions running, then we will have a primary and a general similar to the old southern style elections where there's a run-off.
Howell City Clerk Jane Cartwright said Mayor Phillip Campbell is the only incumbent to have filed a petition.
Cartwright said Nick Proctor has filed to run for the council.
She
said the mayor and three council seats are up for election in November.
Cartwright said incumbents Jeff Hansen and Scott Niblock have pulled
petitions, as have Daria Devantier, Nikolas Hertrich and Richard Grimes.
There could very well be a primary there. This could impact the Parker/Tipton race.
In Brighton, Susan Walters-Steinacker hopes to be the new face on the City Council by making her fifth bid for the seat.Walters-Steinacker
said she has pulled petitions and is planning on running. “I think
Councilmember (Jim) Bohn needs some help on protecting the residents of
the city,” she said.
The four Brighton City Council seats up in this election belong to
Claudia Roblee, Shawn Pipoly, Ricci Bandkau and Larry Schillinger.
Bandkau said she wants to run one more time.
“I
do plan on running, but this will probably be my last time,” Bandkau
said. “I have to stir the pot at least a couple more years.”
These elections don't get the hype of a presidential year, but are still extremely important.
We go to the City of Brighton for this edition of Ridiculous Laws of the Week. While I'm picking on Brighton, these types of provisions aren't limited to Brighton. A lot of cities and some townships have something similar. It's good to take a look at your local municipality and see what laws are on the books in places you live or frequent. One area heavily regulated in almost all areas are animals. If you're a pet owner, look them up. Most city/township ordinances are posted on the internet, just as the state/federal laws are.
There was a bit of a dustup about this back in 2008.
Sec. 54-98. - Insulting, harassing, etc., others.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest ,or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion any person in any public place.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person to harass any person in any public place by striking, shoving, kicking or otherwise touching a person or subjecting them to unwanted physical contact or following a person in or about a public place or places.
(c)
It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.
(d)
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to harass or alarm another person, to communicate with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, mail, or any other form of written or electronic communications, in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm.
(e)
Any person found to violate this section shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).
I'm going to add this one from the environmental section from 81.
Sec. 42-56. - General prohibition.
Whatever annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, comfort or repose of the public; offends public decency; interferes with, obstructs or renders dangerous any street, highway, navigable lake or stream; or in any way renders the public insecure in life or property is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Public nuisances shall include, but not be limited to, whatever is forbidden by any provisions of this article. No person shall commit, create, or maintain any nuisance.
My problem with these are because it's a catch-all. I don't like "catch-all" laws that can be used to ticket someone who's just being a jackass. Laws, especially dealing with the general public, need to be narrow, clearly defined, and understood by all parties. Some laws that otherwise seem vague are usually actually defined fairly well. Disturbing the Peace/Breach of Peace for example or Drunk and Disorderly/Disorderly Conduct. Those I don't generally have a problem with unless they are used as a catch all beyond normal purposes.
That public nuisance ordinance is so vague, it's ridiculous. It's not defined, hence the 'not be limited to' portion. Littering, abandoned fridges, and bill posting (putting advertisements on lampposts, signs, etc) are all listed on there, and those are understandable. Annoy is such a broad term and can cover anything. "Annoy" is such a broad term that isn't well defined. It's subjective. It's not defined in statute. What is considered annoying to a reasonable person? There's been mixed views of that in law to the courts.
"Annoying" laws need to be modified, need to avoid the catchalls, and need to be defined properly.
While we don't have major elections here in Michigan during the off years, we do have some nonpartisan races coming up this November (and possibly August).
The field of candidates for the November city council elections in Brighton and Howell is coming into focus, and it features some familiar yet controversial faces.
In Howell, former Councilmember Doug Heins, who orchestrated the firing of City Manager Mike Herman in 1998, has filed to run.
In Brighton, local government watchdog Susan Walters-Steinacker, who attends any and all city meetings, is making her fourth bid for a council seat.
The deadline to file as a council candidate is 4 p.m. Tuesday. Candidates must have lived in the city for two years, be a registered voter and not in default to the city.
The Howell City Council/Mayor races should be quite interesting. The Streetscapes and mini circles (not quite roundabouts) issues there are controversial, and was an underlying issue in the State Senate primary race between Joe Hune and Paul Rogers. There is some cost/benefit concerns regarding that. There recently was an issue about "free speech zones" (based on something that may or may not happen but hasn't happened) as well. I don't agree with Steve Manor on a lot of issues, but he was dead on in calling that proposal out. Will that be a factor in the upcoming race? I don't know. I haven't lived in Howell in a few years, so I haven't followed things as closely as I did there.
We'll find out the final list Tuesday, but currently it looks like the candidates will be:
While the big elections in Michigan this November is the State Senate's 19th District, along with Detroit's mayoral and city council elections, Livingston County has its share of elections as well.
First off - Hamburg:
Hamburg has a recall election on the ballot. It's a simple yes or no question. "Should Matthew Skiba be recalled from the office of Hamburg Township Clerk?" Much has been written about Hamburg in the papers.What happened if there is a recall, which I think will happen as things stand now?
What will happen? I think Skiba is in a tough go right now, and needs to start defending himself more than he has been. If the election was tomorrow, game over, he's out. This is going to be a real nasty campaign.
So what happens if Skiba is recalled? I have to check to see if things have changed, but I don't believe they have been. The county political parties executive committees choose the nominees for replacement. That means the Livingston GOP and the Dems pick a candidate for Skiba's replacement. I am not on the County Executive Committee, but a different committee, so I have no vote on the replacement. I can give my two cents one way or the other in who to support/oppose, and go with that. I can say that I don't think that works to Hardesty or Hohl's advantage, since they aren't exactly active in the county party. Who's fault is that????? To use one of my favorite sayings, you don't win when you don't show up.
The nominated candidates will then run for the rest of Skiba's term, and face a major battle in August/November 2012.
Fair warning to Hohl, Semprevino, and company. You might not like the replacement candidates if Skiba is recalled. Even though I'm now on a different committee than the Livingston County GOP Executive Committee, I go to many Livingston GOP meetings, and I don't see you people there. I don't think you'll like who the democrats will pick either. I'm going to recommend a real independent voice if there's a replacement candidate after a recall.
Also in Hamburg, is a police millage. 1.5 mills.
Next - Schools.
Brighton and Pinckney have School Board Elections. Pinckney also has a $59,465,000 bond proposal on the ballot. The estimated millage to retire the bond is 2.45 mills. Pinckney also has a millage renewal on the ballot as well.
Pinckney has two candidates running for two positions. This one's over already. Margaret Eibler and George Rogers will win.
Brighton Schools have seven candidates for two positions. I'll have more details on this race later.
Bill Anderson
Joe Carney
Muriel Kaier
Frank Lucas
Randy Swain
Keith Van Hentenryck
Miles Vieau
Some school districts not based in the county, have spillover effect into the county. South Lyon has part of Green Oak. Whitmore Lake also has parts of Green Oak and Hamburg. Dexter I believe has part of Putnam Township. Lansing Community College has areas as well. I suspect Webberville and Stockbridge, but I can not say for certain.
South Lyon has five people running for two spots. I know next to nothing about their schools outside of South Lyon High being a rival of Brighton in football, at least before the school splitting into two high schools. Don't look for me to make an endorsement here. I don't know enough about the candidates, which are:
Steven Brummer
Frank Domonico
Greg C Downey
George Ehlert
Carl Towne
LCC has seven running for three spots. I don't know enough here for any recommendation either.:
Deborah Canja
Brandon D Currin
Lawrence Hidalgo Jr
Larry Meyer
Thomas Patrick Morgan
Robert E Proctor
Deo Wells Jr.
Lastly, all Washtenaw County based districts (Dexter and Whitmore Lake in Livingston) have an enhancement millage of two mills which is on the November ballot.
Lastly - City races:
Howell:
The mayor (Geri Moen) and Board of Review positions (Dee Cole, David Teggerdine) are unopposed. There is a contest for City Council. Four candidates for three positions. I'll try and get more on this race later.
Michael Bartkowiak
Dawn Cooper
Scott Niblock
Paul Rogers
Brighton:
Six people are running for four positions. I'll have more on this later as well.
Ricci Bandkau
Mary Ellen Hundley
James Muzzin
Shawn Pipoly
Larry Schillinger
Susan Walters-Steinaker
In the case of the City of Brighton, there is a city council candidate forum on October 26. It will be held at the Masonic Lodge, 315, West North Street. I believe that's by the former post office building. Old timers in Brighton will get that reference.
Could Brighton High School's mascot be too rough-and-tough looking?
At least one Brighton City Council member thought so and wanted to see something else besides the famed Brighton Bulldog mascot on banners to be placed in downtown Brighton.
"I do not see that banner with the bulldog, the angry-looking bulldog with the spiked collar, as being aesthetically pleasing for our downtown," council member Claudia Roblee said.
Roblee, who has been an active school volunteer, said she would prefer seeing silhouettes of athletes, chess players and debaters on the banners. The school is planning to put up 36 banners along Main Street and Grand River Avenue for the 2009-2010 school year.
If I ever move from Green Oak into the city itself as I almost did in 06, I know who not to vote for right off the bat. I don't know whether she's a Republican, Democrat, or neither of the two. It doesn't matter. Don't mess with the Bulldogs!
I've lived in Livingston County for over 30 years. I've lived in the Brighton area one township away from the city for 27 of those 30 years and am a native of the area. I'm from Brighton, or as I like to say these days, "Old Brighton." I've seen the downtown in the 80's, 90's, and today. I went to Brighton Schools. Now not to go all Al Bundy here, as I unfortunately didn't score four touchdowns in one game, but this disrespect here really ticks me off. I put in a lot of my time for Brighton High as a student, player, and coach. If you object to a bulldog, my teams mascot for as long as I can remember, because it is not "aesthetically pleasing" to our downtown, then you are either ignorant of our community, weak, don't have an appreciation for our history, or all three. I don't know which. Considering that Ms Roblee is a school volunteer, she should know better.
Now, I have nothing against "athletes, chess players and debaters." I've worn all three of those hats at different times myself, but that is all generic. That particular bulldog mascot is ours. Out here, we're bulldogs, and the more intimidating the bulldog, the better. What message does that give to visitors? It's the message of a community supporting its school and their sports teams, which I always thought was positive. Some weak minded yuppies may be offended because it isn't highbrow enough for them like the modern art masterpieces (some of which I have no idea what they are) around town, but too bad. That's not what Brighton was about, and not what it should be about today. Leave the pretentiousness in Royal Oak.
Speaking of Royal Oak, this reminds me too much of this sissified "new urbanism" and wannabe "Royal Oak" stuff that I'm worried about Brighton trying to emulate. First the "annoyance" law, and now this? C'mon. Brighton shouldn't try to be something it isn't. It should be what it is, as that is what made it a great place to begin with. We aren't Novi. We aren't Birmingham. We're not Royal Oak. I'd rather not try and copy those cities, myself.
At least Kate Lawrence came through for us.
"For some of us who graduated from the school district, that's Brighton," Mayor Kate Lawrence said. "I'm in full support."
So, the bottom line is "Go Dogs."
Go Dogs, and time for this suggestion of banners to be chewed up and spit out.
Brighton gained national notoriety for making amendments to its harassment ordinances, which were dubbed its "annoyance ordinances," but it's certainly not the only place with such rules.
Seventeen other communities in Michigan have similar rules, including Fowlerville and Green Oak Township in Livingston County.
Fowlerville has an ordinance identical to that of Brighton, and it states, "No person shall insult, accost, molest, or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion, any person in any public place."
Green Oak Township's harassment ordinance says it is unlawful for a person — with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — to "engage in a course of conduct, or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."
Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.
One common saying among gun owners is that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. One other saying is that everybody breaks the law every single day. Part of the reasons for that is that there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are unknown, vague, unenforced, but still there.
That does not mean that we should ignore them. If it is a bad law - REPEAL IT! The POTENTIAL of a current law on the books being enforced in arbitrary situations that are vague, hard to define, and hard to defend, is bad enough. I don't care if it is "only a civil infraction" and I go irate when it is "only a misdeamenor." Misdeamenors are a very big deal for me. I do not have and can not get them on my record. I can go to jail for misdeamenors, and even civil infractions cost over $100 when court costs are figured into the matter.
Chetly Zarko, an Oakland County political consultant, covered this is depth on his site, Outside Lansing. There's some good reading there.
Green Oak's officials are going to get a call or visit from me real soon about this. Harassment I can understand. Annoy or Alarm are tough to define, and tough to defend against.
These "catch all" laws are ridiculous, especially when there is adequate laws for the real problems. Disturbing the peace has solid definitions. Disorderly conduct (Drunk and disorderly in some other states) despite it's vague sounding to the public, has solid legal foundations through statutes defining the conduct on the state level, as well is common law foundations and precident.
The City of Brighton continues to dig a hole with there comments.
First, from the Cops.
He said these rules help people resolve neighborhood disputes that aren't of a criminal nature. As a civil infraction, he said, police have more opportunity to use these rules to deal with problems "that seem to not be resolving themselves."
Civil Infractions are a ticket. Is this a budgetary measure turning law enforcement officers (LEO's) into revenue enhancement officers? (REO's) Tickets are rarely contested in court as well, since it often costs less to pay the fine rather than go to court and hire a lawyer to fight this. (And I never recommend being a fool for a client).
That doesn't account for the laws already on the books. Disorderly Conduct. Disturbing the peace. Etc.
Kinaschuk pointed out the rules are necessary today because society has changed.
"We don't go and talk to our neighbors, and we don't know our neighbors as we used to," he said.
Officer, who is "We?"
A more reasonable comment comes from Fowlerville, although they have the ordinance.
Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.
Fowlerville Police Chief Tom Couling said the harassment ordinances are "very infrequently" enforced with a ticket. He said cases typically involve neighbor disputes over noise or barking dogs.
Noise ordinances are constitutional, and dogs certainly can qualify. Those are different than these vague "annoyance" statutes. The more telling quote is that they rarely result in actual tickets being issued. That shows that frankly, this law is not needed.
It's time for the City of Brighton to man up and admit it did something stupid in following Royal Oak's annoyance law and repeal it.
