PAGES

Adiscussion over the latest trash can regulations dominated a more than two-hour special Grand Beach Village Council meeting Monday, June 7.

Councilmembers recently approved a new program on trash can removals that requires that, beginning June 1, a village employee to remove cans from the edge of the street that are set out days before trash and recycle pickup or that are left out after they’ve been emptied from pickup. A $20 fee for this service would be added to the water billing each time the cans have to be moved by the part-time employee.

On June 7, Village Council President Deborah Lindley said the village hired someone to move the cans. Notes were put on the cans; however, there was no charge last week.

During the public comments section (the meeting included nearly 100 participants), GeorJean Nickell said that the cans at the street where she lives are not really a nuisance by the people who live there or occupy their homes as second home residents. She said the more “pervasive problem” is with people who their rent homes, as she’s seen more garbage overflowing after rentals than by any of the residences or “home-owned occupied homeowners.” “To have to be able to maintain everything and then be responsible for cans that really are not an obsolescence as far as I can tell by the owner-occupied residences - it seems unreasonable,” she said.

John Rafkin said that the new program affects the “vast majority of people in Grand Beach and the vast majority are part time residents” who “simply can’t comply – we want to comply but can’t comply.”

He added that a “number of full-time residents can’t comply either” because they’re physically incapable of it or for other reasons.

“I have don’t have a problem with the goal, but I do have a problem with burdening myself and other part time

BY FRANCESCA SAGALA owners with the entire cost of making this happen,” he said.

David Manecke said he’s “100 percent supportive of this issue,” and that he’s driven around the village in the summer and seen trash cans laying over all the time, some of them in the road with “our narrow roads.”

John Walles said that he lives on Knobb Hill and must put his cans on the other side of the street on his neighbor’s property because his street’s so narrow and it’s a dead end, so the truck only comes in one way.

“And now it’s going to be my responsibility and we live in the suburbs and we come up on the weekends and with the garbage dates, there’s really no effective way to do that and be in compliance” with the new program, he said.

Vicky Hoover asked who would be responsible for the process of the fines being added to the violator’s water bill and if someone doesn’t pay, who will “go after them.” She added that she’s seen some homes with a garbage can enclosure, and she would add one of those to her property if that’s deemed a solution.

William Oleferchik said he has an issue with the “discriminatory nature of the solution” and for those who can’t comply, it will “just be a tax on those that are part time homeowners.” As a part-time homeowner, he doesn’t put as much “impact” on the roads and infrastructure in town since he’s not there as much and he doesn’t get a homestead exemption, so he already feels like he’s “contributing to the community through my tax dollars.”

Laura Durkin that she wanted to know how many people have complained about the garbage cans, what has been their complaint and “what percentage of the population are they,” meaning the population of the entire village.

“I think it’s discriminatory to the part-time residents who pay already a disproportionately high tax to support the community,” she said.

Judith Blackburn said that in 2019, the village sent out a survey in which 325 residents responded and the number one issues for all respondents was the “condition and maintenance and beauty of the village.” “All of the issues that the residents voted on to have remediated were all issue of general beautification and a higher standard of maintenance for the village,” she said, adding that respondents included full time and part-time residents. Anne Phillips said she lives on a hill and to get garbage cans “up and down, up and down” would be very difficult in the winter. “We have a space that’s carved out by the side of the road that’s apparently not significant or sufficient by this rule,” she said. Phillips added she feels personally that the cans aren’t that unsightly, and she has a bigger issue with potholes and construction dumpsters that have been there for two years. She feels this is an “overreaction to an issue that maybe we could find a better solution to.” Erin Kerr asked if “there’s going to be someone who comes and moves our trash cans back on our property, what’s the definition of that?” “Is it going to be rolled all the way up the hill so no one can see it to where we normally keep them behind a hidden piece or are they just going to move them back 12 inches so where they’re not right on the edge of the street – everyone’s in a varying situation, so how is this going to be implemented across the community?” she said.

Lindley said that the trash can issue is a problem in the winter, when the cans get left out and they “blow over and we have to remove them.”

“We’ve heard comments that we want our Grand Beach to sparkle and shine, be pristine but the trash cans that are left out take away from that luster,” Lindley said, adding that parking is also made difficult when the cans are left out.

Lindley said that “only a small part of the taxes that you pay go to Grand Beach.”

Lindley added that this isn’t an “us versus them” issue with part time residents. The sole purpose of the new policy is to “get trash cans off the street in a timely fashion.”

LVillage clerk Mary Robertson had talked to Able Disposal about moving the cans off the street once they’ve been emptied for the entire village and they said that can be done for $8.25 per month per home for trash and an additional $8.25 per month put the “cans in amongst the landscaped shrubs and trees.” Others have small for recycling per home. The cans would be moved 15 feet from the edge of the road gravel areas off the street for their cans. and wouldn’t be taken all the way back to the house. the street so that they don’t pose a threat,”

Lindley said if the village would do this, he said. she figures it would be about $89,000 a year. where it’s pretty open and it gets pretty

Councilmember Blake O’Halloran windy and empty garbage cans get blown said that they’re “all striving to make our out in the street throughout the year. village the best it can be – we’re not on the council here trying to figure out how to take the position that it’s fine to leave the make everyone’s lives more complicated.” cans at the edge of the street.” He did hear

O’Halloran said the goal is to get the people saying that they “leave the cans cans off the streetscape as much they can at the edge of the street because we don’t have any other alternative - we’re not here, be, and that moving them 4 feet is “not off the streetscape.” He acknowledged that we can’t bring them back, or we’re not able some residents have issues with no place to bring them or people who live here are to put the cans on their property. not fit and able to bring them back.”

Regarding “service for all,” O’Halloran said the village could do it through Able, he proposed that the village “suspend which “isn’t cheap.” The village could the enforcement or imposition of this also continue with having the part-time resolution” until councilmembers can employee that the village hired for the come up with a better solution. summer and put $2 on everyone’s bill, get rid of the fines, and have the employee that the council didn’t “sit down and “take the cans and put them where you say, let’s create a position here that’s guys want them.” discriminatory and hurtful.”

He also suggested that in some areas, people could “maintain enclosures.” homeowners…I think we should be able

“Maybe we have a special program to react to out of sight, out of mind in the management of two garbage cans,” he where we split the cost or we pay for some enclosures on certain areas,” O’Halloran said, adding that those who are unable to said. bring their cans in due to health reasons

He said all the emails and input should be taken into consideration. have given the councilmembers some “direction.” “exorbitant amount.”

Councilmember Paul Leonard, who said that the council “fields complaints charges regarding garbage cans will be about trash cans” every year, thinks that suspended and that the village will ensure everyone on the council was “a little that cans will be pulled back to the houses uncomfortable” when they passed the for those who cannot do so. A note will resolution and knew people may object to be on the cans if they are pulled back, so the timing and the cost. the village can have an “idea of how many

“Now, everyone’s focused on it and people really need the service” and the village can figure out how to provide it. GRAND BEACH cont’d on page 7

GRAND BEACH cont’d from page 6 there’s been a lot of good input this afternoon from residents on what might be done to come up with a resolution that works for everybody,” he said.

LVillage clerk Mary Robertson had talked eonard said many residents have enclosures just off the street where they put their for the entire village and they said that can cans, while other residents be done for $8.25 per month per home for have landscaping, where they put the “cans in amongst the landscaped shrubs and trees.” Others have small for recycling per home. The cans would be gravel areas off the street for their cans. “The point is to get them far enough off the street so that they don’t pose a threat,” he said. Leonard said he lives in Eiffel Tower, where it’s pretty open and it gets pretty windy and empty garbage cans get blown out in the street throughout the year. village the best it can be – we’re not on the Leonard said he didn’t hear “anyone take the position that it’s fine to leave the cans at the edge of the street.” He did hear people saying that they “leave the cans at the edge of the street because we don’t have any other alternative - we’re not here, be, and that moving them 4 feet is “not off we can’t bring them back, or we’re not able to bring them or people who live here are not fit and able to bring them back.” Leonard said that for the time being, he proposed that the village “suspend the enforcement or imposition of this resolution” until councilmembers can come up with a better solution. summer and put $2 on everyone’s bill, get Councilmember James Bracewell said that the council didn’t “sit down and say, let’s create a position here that’s discriminatory and hurtful.” “We have some very, very intelligent homeowners…I think we should be able to react to out of sight, out of mind in the management of two garbage cans,” he where we split the cost or we pay for some said, adding that those who are unable to bring their cans in due to health reasons should be taken into consideration. He added that he thinks $89,000 is an “exorbitant amount.” Lindley said that for now, any kind of charges regarding garbage cans will be suspended and that the village will ensure that cans will be pulled back to the houses for those who cannot do so. A note will be on the cans if they are pulled back, so the village can have an “idea of how many people really need the service” and the village can figure out how to provide it. GRAND BEACH cont’d on page 7

Councilmembers approved a resolution opposing Michigan House Bill 4722 and Michigan Senate Bill 446 in a 3-1 vote, with O’Halloran voting “nay” (councilmember Ellen Frankle was absent).

On Monday, Lindley said that the Michigan House and Senate are “in the process of exploring bills that would take the rights of the municipalities to govern and overseeing the short-term rental market” and that municipalities would be “stripped of the rights we’ve had for 100 years in making our own zoning ordinance for short term rental resolutions.” Special land use would be denied for the municipality’s use, which is what the village uses to regulate short term rentals. Lindley said the bills would also prevent the village from setting any limits on the number of renters that could be present in the home, as well as setting safety regulations or inspections unless the “same terms were set for private owner land use.”

Bracewell said that “anytime we assign more power to a central governmental group such as we have in Lansing, we are essentially assigning our local power.”

“We are giving up our rights of trying to deal with whatever concerns we might have,” he said.

O’Halloran said it doesn’t seem the resolution “applies to Grand Beach zoning regulations.”

“I don’t see where it’s taking all our power away – they’re talking about residential use and not commercial, so that’s not affecting Grand Beach, we’re not zoned that way,” he said.

Leonard said the “overall scope of the ordinance is to make it very difficult on local authorities to regulate short term rentals.” He said the Michigan Municipal League is “adamantly opposed to this legislation, which is supported by the commercial interests including but not limited to the realtors lobby.” “I think we should add our voice to the Michigan Municipal League to go on record opposing this intrusion of the state into our local governance,” Leonard added.

LETTERS TO THE NEW BUFFALO TIMES:

DEMOCRACY LAYS DOWN WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY THE VIEWS HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE NEW BUFFALO TIMES. THE NEW BUFFALO TIMES ASKS THAT YOUR LETTERS BE UNIQUE, KIND AND BASED ON REASONED FACTS. THE NEW BUFFALO TIMES RESERVES THE RIGHT TO NOT PUBLISH ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR ANY REASON. PLEASE K EEP YOUR LETTERS TO 350 WORDS OR FEWER. PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME, PHONE NUMBER AND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS. PLEASE EMAIL YOUR LETTER TO THE INFO@NEWBUFFALOTIMES.COM. THANK YOU KINDLY IN ADVANCE. DEMOCRACY REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY.

New Buffalo Times

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE — SINCE 1942 —

HELP PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS...

Iserved for 20 years in the U.S. Army and swore an oath to defend the Constitution and protect American democracy. Today, our democracy is being threatened by Republicancontrolled legislatures in many states, including Michigan.

We should be concerned that Republican state legislators have proposed or enacted laws making voting more difficult, especially for lower-income individuals and people of color.

Some of the proposed voter suppression laws would impede voting by :

Reducing the number of ballot drop boxes

Banning prepaid postage on absentee ballot applications

Prohibiting the Secretary of State from mailing absentee ballot applications to all registered voters

Giving partisan challengers stronger protections than poll workers, which will lengthen voting lines and enable more improper challenges

In addition to laws that make voting more difficult, some Republican-controlled legislatures are proposing laws that would undermine the authority of voting administrators and in some instances, enable partisan legislators to overturn the results of an election.

A recent statement by 100 scholars of democratic processes highlighted a number of principles required for a democracy to survive: 1) elections must be fairly administered and free of manipulation; 2) All qualified citizens must have an unhindered, equal right to vote; and 3) Political parties, candidates, and supporters must be willing to accept and acknowledge the legitimacy of legally certified election outcomes.

Republican legislators indicate voter suppression laws are needed to ensure elections are free of fraud. The New York Times contacted multiple Republican and Democratic election officials after the 2020 election. All of those contacted indicated there were no irregularities that affected the election outcome.

Two federally proposed laws would help prevent the attacks on democracy by this wave of state Republicans’ anti-voting laws.

“For the People Act” would authorize a number of important voter protections: Automatically registering people to vote; Mandating more than two weeks of early voting; Facilitating voting-by-mail; Expanding absentee ballot drop boxes; and Restoring the voting rights of former felons who have served their time.

The “John Lewis Voting Rights Act” restores the pre-clearance 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring states and counties with a history of discrimination to get federal approval for new voting laws.

We the People must demand that state legislators pass laws that make it easier, not harder, to vote; and we must urge our US Senators to safeguard the election process by approving the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act”.

— KEN PETERSON

MAJOR, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED

BUCHANAN

ADVERTISING . MARKET . DIGITAL New Buffalo Times