Mt. Pleasant Sounds Off

The Morning Sun, a newspaper serving central Michigan, provides an online edition allowing reader interaction. Controversy over a Mt. Pleasant, MI City Commission decision to reduce the drinking water fluoride level provided an opportunity to engage readers regarding misconduct in office, breach of statutory duty, described in this blog and the related website Perpetual Confusion.

Comment follows highlighted screen name, date and time:

bojoda wrote on Jun 22, 2010 9:56 AM:

City officials act legally reducing fluoride levels (and responsibly given growing cautions regarding ingestion and fact that individuals can easily supplement their intake). - outcry

City officials act illegally administering zoning (and feloniously given state statute and local code). - silence

Additional evidence fluoride impairs mental facility!

JonJoslin wrote on Jun 22, 2010 11:47 AM:

Skate War did provide a $2 million insurance policy to the city, and had a detailed outline with MMR on standby and a complete itinerary of events. Once again, someone has their own agenda and our kids suffer."

I'm not sure who posted that Sound Off, but if you do have any information on this, please contact me.

bojoda wrote on Jun 22, 2010 2:43 PM:

Earth to JonJoslin -

Don't know who posted information regarding Skate Wars.

Interested to know why felonious zoning administration is not among your concerns.

JonJoslin wrote on Jun 22, 2010 5:12 PM:

bojoda... aka Mr. Nims.

Yea, I didn't know who posted the info about Mr. Levitt getting the insurance certificate to the city, so I was curious if someone had information that I didn't.

Mr. Levitt did take the time out to contact me to give me the additional information I was seeking.

In regards to your felonious zoning administration... thats your opinion and your entitiled to it. It's not like I haven't heard your same story for the past 5 years coming from you and sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation.

Nobama wrote on Jun 22, 2010 6:26 PM:

JonJoslin

you've sunk to a new low by calling a person by their real name when they prefer to go under a username..
it speaks volumes of your integrity.
if you let a person get under you skin that easily, you shouldn't be in any government office.

congrats on enforcing my opinion that all politicians are thin skinned and can't take anything dished out to them...
you must love it when the council is in session where you can abuse you power and muzzle anyone speaking....
how sad.

bojoda wrote on Jun 22, 2010 8:21 PM:

JonJoslin - apologies, omitted personal pronoun 'I' in previous post.

I don't know who posted information regarding Skate Wars.

How do you interpret:

City Code 154.169(D)
Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(4)
A decision shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance

City Code 154.164(D)
To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3604(7)
If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances or unnecessary hardship for use variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance; The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances

O'Really wrote on Jun 22, 2010 8:37 PM:

Okay, I'll bite and maybe I'm making a huge mistake, but...

Yo Yoda...okay Bojoda...just what the heck you talking about and I'm trying to figure out why I should care?

JonJoslin wrote on Jun 22, 2010 10:13 PM:

Nobama,

To be honest, I'm guessing on the name. The blog seems familar and to be honest, hard to understand and follow. He or she isn't under my skin at all. I just disagree with his opinion that our planning commission now or in the past have done illegal activities.

Nobama wrote on Jun 22, 2010 10:23 PM:

guessing ?
dude, you have been stating that this place is full of nonfactual information, and you GUESS ?

i'm thinking that by guessing, you were just hoping it was fact...
mr, pot....pleae meet the kettle.
and you fit in here just fine..:)

bojoda wrote on Jun 22, 2010 10:37 PM:

O'Really -

Review blog and website materials.

Public record shows official actions contrary to the seemingly unambiguous statutory requirements excerpted in previous post.

In immediate context, if the enjoyment of your property anticipates certain statutory protections, you should care.

In broader context, if any aspect of you existence anticipates certain statutory protections, you should care.

O'Really wrote on Jun 22, 2010 11:10 PM:

Wow...bodega...just give me the quick version of it and cut thru the high and mighty lawyer/scholastic lingo.

Bottom line you feel you were wronged and the City Commission violated you, how??

bojoda wrote on Jun 23, 2010 9:58 AM:

O'Really -

The community has been, is being, violated.

My interest was sparked by May 7, 2004 article in the Morning Sun. Click the Denied Due Process link in the website.

Subsequently learned residents on east side of Glen had contacted the city with their concerns regarding the development; and, were essentially told to bad, so sad, there is nothing you can do, go away, leave us alone.

Currently your anticipated statutory protections remain whatever city officials 'interpret' them to be at that moment.

bojoda wrote on Jun 23, 2010 3:06 PM:

O'Really -

Subsequent to learning Glen Ave. residents had been misled, I was informed city officials conspired to cause loss of statutory protections (see page 6 Denied Due Process).

bojoda wrote on Jun 24, 2010 8:17 AM:

O'Really - short answer

Misleading residents and conspiring to cause loss of statutory protections.

union wrote on Jun 24, 2010 5:27 PM:

Bojoda, where have you been? Haven't seen you bashing the city and township boards in a long time. Great to have you back.

bojoda wrote on Jun 24, 2010 6:05 PM:

JonJoslin - on 06.22.10 you Wrote 'sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation'

How do you interpret:

City Code 154.169(D)
Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(4)
A decision shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance

City Code 154.164(D)
To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3604(7)
If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances or unnecessary hardship for use variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance; The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances

O'Really wrote on Jun 24, 2010 8:29 PM:

Abe Bojoda...c'mon fella, this is clearly the last time I'll ask, just what the heck are you talking about. You cite a bunch of statues and expect us to understand your gripe?

Let me dumb it down again...how did the city hurt your feelings what is your gripe and how does the cities decision affect you, me or anybody for that matter? Or do you just simply not agree with the statues you cite.

I'm so confused by your superior intellect (all sarcasm intended)! It's sad when you can't even tell me the "who, what, where, why and how" of your arguement!

bojoda wrote on Jun 25, 2010 7:46 AM:

O'Really - information you requested

Who: Residents
What: Loss of statutory protections
Where: Mt. Pleasant, MI (Isabella County)
Why: City officials have not provided an explanation
How: Breach of statutory duty

O'really wrote on Jun 25, 2010 8:23 AM:

"Do joda"

Wow, guess I'm naive and ignorant for not understanding how the city cripple you based on some decision?

Again, and again what and how did this AFFECT YOU, personally? Did the city commission rule that poor "Do-jo-da" could not do something, and if so WHAT? You keep leaving out the statutory protections we (residents) lost?

Feel free to retort with more cryptic respones

Dear sir, your responses are cryptic, arrogrant, free of adaquate explanation.

bojoda wrote on Jun 25, 2010 9:46 AM:

O'really - my apologies, don't be so hard on yourself

Home page of website Perpetual Confusion presents an inverse chronology of occasions where city officials have acted contrary to published responsibilities.

union wrote on Jun 25, 2010 8:45 PM:

Bojoda, why don't you file a complaint with the Michigan Attorney General? Local Prosecutor? Sue yourself? I've been to your site (very impressive) and see that if they do comply probably nothing would be built in the city and everything would head to the township (easy greenspace) leaving more blight in the city. Maybe the city planning code should insert " the planning commission could allow variances in Non Conforming uses on a case by cases basis with a majority vote of the board" Then they would not be illegal" in your conclusions. What do you think?

bojoda wrote on Jun 26, 2010 9:28 AM:

Union -

Administration conforming to ordinance provisions would not have prohibited existing developments. Additionally, the ordinance would reflect current minimum standards, the process to permit would have been more efficient, and the community would have realized other benefits.

1)Go legal - Put the ignore then compound regulations routine on hold Conform process to permit with code/statute provisions
2)Conform Code 154.169(D) with MCL 125.3501(4)

These two actions will allow the ordinance to lose substantial bulk and evolve into a set of standards and requirements recognized as minimums.

Variances are intended to facilitate equity amongst property owners, as administered in Mt. Pleasant variances create inequity. Other planning documents are intended to facilitate Planning Commission approval flexibility you suggest.

Experience with OMA complaint indicates you are going nowhere unless you spend some money. Cox dumped back to Burdick who disposed of the complaint with an opinion letter no less absurd than Martineau's 07.05.05 opinion letter. May get bored to point entertainment value justifies the cost.

Thanks for feedback on web materials.

bojoda wrote on Jun 26, 2010 9:32 AM:

JonJoslin - on 06.22.10 you wrote 'sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation'

Admittedly, I did not recognize a need to 'interpret' regulatory provisions. What is your interpretation of the following:

City Code 154.169(D)
Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(4)
A decision shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance

City Code 154.164(D)
To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3604(7)
If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance; The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances

Tea party wrote on Jun 26, 2010 9:59 AM:

Bojoda,

We have seen your posts in here off/on for quite some time. My suggestion, just come out and say what is pi$$ing you off about the city commissioners; your use of legalase(?) is impressive, but I am getting lost in the translation. How about Yhis, I will ask some straight forward questions:

1. What persons are you upset with

2. Specifically, what did they do

3. How can it be fixed

bojoda wrote on Jun 26, 2010 11:14 AM:

TeaParty -

1. What persons are you upset with: City Officials, collectively and individually, see webpage Misconduct in Office

2. Specifically, what did they do: Breach of Statutory Duty

3. How can it be fixed: Stop breaking the law. As ODB stated, 'it is still the law, and breaking it is breaking it'. See Prescribed vs Actual Practice.

The use of legalese is necessitated by, as PaPa observed, 'The City picks and chooses when and where to enforce its ordinances and laws', see webpage Perpetual Confusion. Without a 'legal' appearance unwanted comment is simply dismissed with 'sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation'.

O'really wrote on Jun 26, 2010 11:41 AM:

"Blow-joda" your arguements fall on deaf ears, simply because you speak in terms us commoners aren't familar with. Points to consider...

1) You still haven't told me what happened TO YOU that prompted your outcry? What were YOU specifically denied?

2) Are you just such a wonderful person that you have the time & need to police the City Commissioners and look out for the public welfare?

3) Just what prevents you from running for City Office? Filing suit against the City? Or are you just one of the blow-hards that complains but doesn't act?

Lastly, you website it very unclear to your intent. Hence, most individuals in their right mind (even if they agree with you) do not want to take the effort to try and decipher your message of disgust!

JonJoslin wrote on Jun 26, 2010 12:06 PM:

bojoda,

Its difficult for me to understand many of your post, but let me see if I got the earlier one correct.

You sent a letter to the City's Attorney, Steve Martineau on 07.05.05 which he disagreed with your "interpretation' (sorry not sure what other word to use... defination is To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms.. isn't that what we do with regulatory acts) anyway, Martinue disagreed. Then you sent something to the attorney general Cox who did nothing but send it to the County for Mr. Burdick, who also gave an opinion that he disagree's with you?

truth wrote on Jun 26, 2010 1:37 PM:

The problem with bojoda is that he can never get around to telling us in plain English what he is trying to get across. I went to his site a couple times and was clueless as to what was being said. Apparently I'm not alone.

union wrote on Jun 26, 2010 2:42 PM:

Bojoda, most planning and zoning ordinances are written the exact same way. If they were intrepreted exactly as written (or as strict as your read them) nothing would ever be built in any town. You have to give some latitude to these "volunteers" to make decisions that cause better then before buildings. If they didn't have those latitudes then blight would continue across the city and other city's in the state because those owners would do nothing for improvements and / or just build in areas that are easier to build upon.

Is there any room in your big heart...?

Tea party wrote on Jun 26, 2010 4:09 PM:

I sure would like to know, in plain English, what the city did or didn't do that has Bojoda upset. 6 months ago I went to his blogspot and it is as vague as his posts. I am not a lawyer and do not understand legalese language...I can only assume that either he or a client he represented did not get a variance granted to them for a commercial project. JonJoslin, is that what has Bojoda upset??

goober wrote on Jun 26, 2010 5:12 PM:

bojoda, I've made my way through enough of your website to convince me you are a whiner, not a do-er. You have been very prolific with your legalese cut & paste adventure, posting information completely out of context which does nothing to help the reader understand what you're trying to say.

I think I have determined that you are upset at certain members of the Mt. Pleasant City Government either because you were denied a variance (rightly or wrongly) or because you're bored and are looking for someone to bust for not following ordinances to the letter because it will make you feel important. You make as much sense as a couple of lawyers I know in Mt. P; I wonder if you are one of them.

bojoda wrote on Jun 26, 2010 6:14 PM:

JonJoslin -

The 07.05.05 letter you refer to was sent by the City Attorney to Tony Kulick in response to a Planning Commission request for an opinion.

bojoda wrote on Jun 26, 2010 6:16 PM:

Union -

The Planning Commission has flexibility, and should be using that flexibility to promote improved developed. State statute specifies the Planning Commission can approve site plans based on other planning documents.

The Planning Commission is free to approve whatever it desires, provided it creates a plan and informs residents as to what may be approved.

union wrote on Jun 27, 2010 9:21 AM:

Bojoda, Ok, i'm working with you on this issue... If the Planning Commission has that flexibility and if they provide residents with an explaination of their decision are they still ciminals? I would agree there needs better planning for long term goals of any planning commission and I see that more of a problem in the township (sidewalks, roads, big box development without character) but if the state and local law officials don't consider these boards to be operating illegal then I don't think it's fair to call them that.

I could see them being called poor planners, or worse, they have no future vision for all categories of development but ciminals..?

Thank you for a good debate. I look forward to future discussions on this.

bojoda wrote on Jun 27, 2010 3:51 PM:

Union -

In response to your question - ... are they still criminals?

If the decision:
A) does not violate regulatory provision - No
B) unintentionally violates regulatory provision - No
C) intentionally violates regulatory provision - Yes

In C above, there may be acute conditions justifying violation; however, it is unlikely a Planning Commission or ZBA would be found in such a circumstance.

Intentional breach of a positive statutory duty is among the grounds for the common law charge of misconduct in office, a 5 year/$10K felony.

goober wrote on Jun 27, 2010 10:17 PM:

Wait a minute, the Planning Commission can't just approve things willy-nilly, they must follow the current ordinances or pass the applicant onto the Zoning Board Appeals process for a variance. There has to be public notices, etc.

bojoda wrote on Jun 29, 2010 7:49 AM:

goober -

The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans.

The Zoning Board of Appeals is authorized to hear and decide appeals of enforcement decisions.

OnlyUs wrote on Jun 29, 2010 8:25 AM:

bajoda has been asked repeatedly to disclaim what his actual problem is. Maybe he just likes to spout off and knows he doesn't have a valid issue??

union wrote on Jun 29, 2010 8:06 AM:

No more fluoride talk....

Bogoda, The ZBA can make any change if they feel there is a hardship. Anyone can disagree and file in circut court. Still you call them criminals.... What single incident caused your crusade? The Planning Commission or ZBA did something to get you fired up...

truth wrote on Jun 29, 2010 9:06 AM:

We need to just ignore bojoda, he never answers questions, seems like just another troll.

bojoda wrote on Jun 29, 2010 12:23 PM:

goober -

Public Record Establishes:
1) Site plan decisions are not based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance
2) The ZBA is not hearing and deciding appeals of enforcement decisions
3) Dimensional variances being authorized when practical difficulty criteria are not satisfied

Statutory provisions require:
1) Site plan decisions be based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance
2) ZBA hear and decide appeals of enforcement decisions
3) Practical difficulty criteria must be satisfied for variance authorization

Union - Intentional breach of a positive statutory duty is among the grounds for the common law charge of misconduct in office, a 5yr/$10K felony.

Illegal site plan approval (SPR-04-08) sparked my interest. City officials had opportunity to correct defects and choose instead to deny residents due process.

Administration in conformity with statutory provisions would have avoided illegal site plan approval and will improve efficiency in the development process. Additionally, it will bolster confidence in expectations for what may occur next door.

Tea Party wrote on Jun 29, 2010 12:53 PM:

Bojoda,
We promise not to ask anymore if you just come out and say "this______ did ______ to me after I applied for _________ and that is why I am pi$$ed

union wrote on Jun 29, 2010 8:35 PM:

Bojoda, denied due process? Really? No appeal to the ZBA or Circut Court? Don't know anything about the case you talk about but were they physically prevented from going through the process stated above? Are you sure all this doesn't stem from something a bit earlier in life? Maybe a development near your home that didn't make you very happy... Please spill..

mpfan wrote on Jun 30, 2010 8:11 AM:

When you go to the Zoning board and the Planning commission meetings, or watch them on TV, you will see that there are requirements that need to be met and are ignored. Jeff Grey is expecially good at pushing through items on the agenda which do not meet the criteria in place to protect public interests. I understand Bojoda's fight, it is truly infuriating. It is almost as if they do not understand the law and follow along with any of Grey's suggestions. Although, he is not allowed to push a plan through, Grey can make a recomendation but that recomendation has to meet the criteria and zoning laws. Grey doesn't care. He talks them into decisions. I know of several items that were purposfully pushed through as favors. I doubt he has even opened a book on zoning laws in Mt. Pleasant. He just gives the ok and has no idea how many requirements he ignored (unless he purposfully ignores them) like little sheep the planning commission follows along, they do not do the research themselves before making a decision that effects all of us, some of them need to explanations AT THE MEETING what the codes are. THAT is what Bojoda is talking about.

bojoda wrote on Jun 30, 2010 7:42 AM:

Union -

Synopsis of events, documentation and details are available on blog and website, click Denied Due Process link.

Morning Sun publishes story indicating the Planning Commission approved nonconforming site plans

Three days later I e-mailed city officials stating Planning Commission did not have authority to approve nonconforming site plans and requested reference for approval authority

Month later I attended City Commission meeting, explained Planning Commission did not have authority to approve nonconforming site plans

Forgot about the issue until a neighbor stopped by distressed that her friends were going to sell house on Glen Ave. because of the West Campus Dr. development. After hesitating in disbelief when I said 'you know it's illegal' she told me friends had contacted the city and were told there was nothing they could do about it.

In conversations with Glen Ave. residents I was told they had contacted city shortly after the approval and were told 'I'm sorry, there is nothing you can do about it.'

Subsequently I received e-mail indicating city officials had recognized approval was illegal and determined to stonewall Glen Ave. residents until 30 days had passed.

It is my understanding, by the time residents realized they had appeal rights, the city claimed ZBA was not possible because 30 days had passed. The cost to proceed in circuit court was prohibitive.

Tea Party -

I'm not angry with anyone, simply public officers should perform duties and responsibilities in conformity with statutory provisions.

Administration in conformity with statutory provisions would have avoided illegal site plan approval and will improve both the efficiency of the development process and the desirability of future development.

union wrote on Jun 30, 2010 8:56 PM:

Bojoda, if that is what happened then the city was totally wrong in telling those people that. I still believe that the Planning Commission should have the right to approve a better development even though it doesn't meet the current zoning requirements. If this wasn't possible blight would continue because developers would continue to keep these old buildings around and just develop in the township where greenspace is abundant (got to love Jamestown off of Isabella Road, looks like a prison) Having said that if a non conforming use is approved there should be a public statement by the Planning Commission stating the appeal process if anyone opposes the approval. This would make sure something like the Glen Street issue doesn't happen.

bojoda wrote on Jun 30, 2010 9:09 PM:

Union -

Planning Commission does have the right to approve a better development even though it doesn't meet the current zoning requirements. Failure to create a plan is the their only obstacle.

union wrote on Jul 1, 2010 7:18 AM:

Would you say that the new Conditional Zoning law causes a plan?

bojoda wrote on Jul 1, 2010 8:27 AM:

Union -

Conditional rezoning is a limited duration variance authorized by City Commission rather then ZBA. If all properties in an area received same variance(s) it could cause the appearance of a plan.

cmufan85 wrote on Jul 1, 2010 11:05 AM:

Bojoda - looks like they went thru quite the ordeal to build the new sorority house on main. Surprised they are going thru so much, considering they will try to purchase from them in the future, so can't imagine a lot of profit coming out of it. That is unless the rent they are paying is astronomical.

bojoda wrote on Jul 1, 2010 5:10 PM:

cmufan85 -

I imagine the parties directly involved are satisfied with value/dollar.

If the area can support development at 150% of the current density standard, 802 S. Main will not be an example of development by variance creating inequity amongst property owners.

bojoda wrote on Jul 2, 2010 6:58 AM:

JonJoslin - on 06.22.10 you wrote 'sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation'

The Planning Commission continues to approve site plans that do not conform to standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.

Please explain or provide your interpretation of statutory provisions:

City Code 154.169(D) - Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(4) - A decision shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance

The ZBA continues to conduct variance request hearings that are not appeals of enforcement decisions; and, grant variances without addressing all variance approval conditions.

Please explain or provide your interpretation of statutory provisions:

City Code 154.163(A) - The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to hear and decide upon appeals of enforcement decisions

City Code 154.164(D) - To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3604(7) - If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance; The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances

union wrote on Jul 2, 2010 8:33 AM:

Bojoda, are you fired up again because of the approval on Mission? It will be a great improvement to that aging look. Would an explaination of "it will look much better" work?

sensible123 wrote on Jul 2, 2010 8:52 AM:

I think what Bojoda is saying is that there is actually city codes that cover the how and why a variance can be granted. In reality about 5% or less should pass the written statutes and laws that allows for a variance.

SR71 wrote on Jul 2, 2010 9:10 AM:

I think what Bojoda is really saying is that he is the only person that cares about this issue and/or the council has decided to do as it sees fit and will just stonewall any attempts to derail their plans. If the allegations are true and illegal, it's going to take more than one person to head them off. Gather up the people who want something done about this and get a lawyer, otherwise you are wasting your energy. Posting the same links here over and over aren't going to help.

bojoda wrote on Jul 2, 2010 9:50 AM:

Union -

The approval on Mission is legal, conforming to standards and requirements. I anticipate it will improve the site. Don't know if 26% reduction in required parking will be a future problem.

bojoda wrote on Jul 2, 2010 10:28 AM:

sensible123 - In other communities I reviewed less than 5% of variance requests were granted. In Mt. Pleasant, if you base expectations on published standards, nearly 100% of the time you will be incorrect.

SR71 - I suspect the residents who have been burned may also care. It appears nothing will change unless residents spend time and money to cause compliance with statutory provisions. Sad thing is compliance would save everyone time and money; but, that's not the bureaucratic way.

When is it not OK to violate statutory provisions?

union wrote on Jul 2, 2010 11:15 AM:

Bojoda, parking could be a problem but mostly for the business. I think the code needs to be changed. The PC and ZBA will continue to violate because the standards are too strict. Codes that were written in the past when redevelopment wasn't an issue. You are probably more educated then anyone on the City Codes, could you write ammendment to allow for good redevelopment to happen? Something that allow people to actually want to tear down old and replace with new? It's easy to say they need to redevelop to current codes but some (most) developers will just let thier buildings sit until they die. Lets find a middle ground?

bojoda wrote on Jul 2, 2010 2:55 PM:

Union -

Hundreds of individuals invested countless hours developing regulations and the method for administration. Failure to administer the regulations in the prescribed manner has caused any obsolescence that may exist.

Administering the regulations in the manner prescribed is the best approach to realize the development desired. Standards and requirement will be updated because officials are not be allowed to simply ignore what exists.

It is funny - we got here doing what we've been doing, which happens to illegal; but, by god the last thing we will try to correct the problems is follow the regulations.

SR71 - Intentional breach of a positive statutory duty is among the grounds for the common law charge of misconduct in office, a 5year/$10K felony.

union wrote on Jul 2, 2010 4:02 PM:

Bojoda, maybe I wasn't clear in my last post. The City ordinances were created decades ago when the city was an open playground for development. Now that the entire city is developed and aging I don't think they correctly address proper ways to foster redevelopment.

The Planning Commission and ZBA need better tools to foster this to better the city. That is why amendments to the code need to be written. I was thinking since you know a great deal on this subject you could be a solution instead of pain. Your cause will never go anywhere and will continue to be laughed at. Help them, write up amendments to make the city better.

Become a solution, not another Sound Off poster..

bojoda wrote on Jul 2, 2010 5:48 PM:

Union -

I understood your post and maintain administering the regulations in the manner prescribed is the best first step toward update. The regulations have languished because officials have been allowed to ignore provisions.

Question - Do you have any difficulty understanding, 'interpreting', the statutory phrases I posted above?

Question - If you haven't used the old tools, how do you know they simply don't work and need to be replaced?

Ask yourself - Who benefits from maintaining those provisions are not straight forward and require interpretation?
Who benefits from maintaining those provisions simply don't work rather than demonstrating an understanding by implementing their use?

bojoda wrote on Jul 3, 2010 9:12 AM:

Union -

Public record indicates city officials are not competent to administer current regulations, why would you think they are competent to administer new regulations?

bojoda wrote on Jul 8, 2010 6:57 AM:

Wednesday comments regarding property rights and public duty reminds me -

JonJoslin - on 06.22.10 you wrote 'sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation'

Please explain/provide your interpretation of statutory provisions:

City Code 154.169(D) - Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(1) - The zoning ordinance shall specify the body or official responsible for reviewing site plans and granting approval

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3501(4) - A decision shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance

City Code 154.163(A) - The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to hear and decide upon appeals of enforcement decisions

City Code 154.164(D) - To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist

Michigan Statue MCL 125.3604(7) - If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance; The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances

Prescribed vs Actual Practice, left table column, reflects statutory provisions.

JonJoslin wrote on Jul 8, 2010 12:14 PM:

bojoda...

I'm really not sure how I can make my statement any clearer to you.

It's the ZBA's job to determine practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship

It's the planning commission job to approve site plans.

I believe they have done their job. Our attorney believes they have done their job. The prosecuting attorney believes they have done their job. The attorney general believes they have done their job.

Six years later you still don't believe. That's fine. I commend you for holding on to your opinion but it will not change mine. Please quit asking me the same questions.

goober wrote on Jul 8, 2010 1:16 PM:

bojoda, do you have a grudge against Mr. Joslin or other members of the city government? I know, it is pretty obvious but I want to read your response. Yes or no? If yes, either take them to court or stop posting about it. If no, stop posting about it. Please. You're just babbling and still not making a whole lot of sense. Quit harassing the council, the planning commission, the ZBA and boring us to death with your incessant drivel.

amazinblue wrote on Jul 8, 2010 2:39 PM:

Mr. Joslin,

My only correction to your last post is that it is the obligation of the planning commission to approve "Conforming" site plans. They should never approve a site plan that has items in it that violate the local ordinances.

bojoda wrote on Jul 8, 2010 2:59 PM:

goober -

Public record establishes city officials are not performing their duties in the manner prescribed by statute. In addition to grounds for a 5yr/$10K felony, their conduct wastes time, money, and otherwise yields sub-optimal results.

No, I do not have a grudge against city officials; and, administration in conformity with statutory provisions should not require court action.

goober wrote on Jul 8, 2010 7:58 PM:

bojoda, would you please state exactly what actions you're referring to? You keep quoting statues but no one is disagreeing with them. Be specific! Who approved what that you don't agree with? Also, if the ZBA approved something AND gave a specific reason why, and you're still not satisfied, take it to civil court. They have the legal leeway to use their judgement with variances.

rebel from alma wrote on Jul 8, 2010 8:21 PM:

bojoda.....please turn the record over. the song is starting to get old.

daroofa wrote on Jul 8, 2010 8:25 PM:

Oh, leave bojoda alone. I like watching him wave his tiny fist of anger at the city.

bojoda wrote on Jul 9, 2010 7:45 AM:

goober -

Among statutory violations public record establishes:

The ZBA does not hear and decide appeals of Planning Commission site plan decisions.
[City Code 154.163(A) - The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to hear and decide upon appeals of enforcement decisions
City Code 154.169(A) - The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans]

The ZBA authorizes non-use or dimensional variances without finding all conditions for approval.
[City Code 154.164(D) - To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist]

The Planning Commission does not base site plan decisions on standards and requirements contained in the ordinance.
[City Code 154.169(D) - Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances]

Not angry, no grudge

Hundreds of individuals invested countless hours developing a time, cost, and equity efficient administrative process - disappointed that none of the 28 individuals engaged with zoning administration is interested in efficiency or statutory duty.

PMSwithESP wrote on Jul 9, 2010 8:02 AM:

bojoda: grudge, or no grudge, we've got your point, and it's really time to lay off. We're all sick of it. The weather is making a turn for the more tolerable, so really, get out there and go for a nice long walk....you'll feel better eventually.

goober wrote on Jul 9, 2010 1:36 PM:

bojoda -

Good grief man, can't you answer a simple question? Well, I tried. I told you before, I've been on a ZBA and a planning commission and I know what the job entails. There is no need to keep quoting statutes because it doesn't make you look intelligent. You're still not explaining what wrong was done to you or why you keep at these people other than to say they've been derelict in their duties, even breaking the law. Please. Show specific examples with cases or just be quiet. By the way, just because there is an ordinance in place, doesn't mean it's a good one or that it serves the community. They are not written in stone.

No grudge? HAH! Pants on fire...

PMSwithESP wrote on Jul 9, 2010 4:28 PM:

Okay, goober, no more fuel to the fire!! Each of you, goober and bojoda, TO YOUR CORNERS, and knock it off, you two!

Think: puppies and kittens, puppies and kittens, puppies and kittens.....

bojoda wrote on Jul 9, 2010 4:41 PM:

goober -

Following are four(4) sites where administration included violation of one or more City Code 154.163(A), 154.164(D), 154.169(D):

ZBA Case 06-2010 - SPR-10-07 1023/1025 S. Washington - existing development raised and replaced with nonconforming new construction

ZBA Case 06-2009 - SPR-09025 802 S. Main - existing development raised and replaced with nonconforming new construction

ZBA Case 02-2009 - SPR-09-08 1028 S. Lansing - existing development raised and replaced with nonconforming new construction

ZBA excepted - SPR-94-08 West Campus Dr. - existing development raised and replaced with nonconforming new construction

bojoda wrote on Jul 9, 2010 4:43 PM:

JonJoslin - on 07.08.10 you wrote 'Our attorney believes they have done their job. The prosecuting attorney believes they have done their job. The attorney general believes they have done their job.

Please provide link or means to obtain copies of the city attorney, prosecuting attorney, and attorney general opinion letters regarding zoning administration.

I have copy of an opinion letter from the city attorney dated 07.05.05 that concludes the Planning Commission was acting illegally.

PMSwithESP wrote on Jul 9, 2010 5:46 PM:

...puppies and kittens, puppies and kittens......

Karen Kay wrote on Jul 9, 2010 6:55 PM:

At least one of them is not listening to you, PMS. How 'bout we put them on "ignore?!

PMSwithESP wrote on Jul 9, 2010 7:49 PM:

Yes, Karen Kay, imagine me with my fingers in my ears every time bojoda posts.

mpfan wrote on Jul 10, 2010 9:03 AM:

Bojoda, Keep posting and holding the commissions accountable for their decisions.

PMS. She is just another liberal who feels the right to free speech is so she can jabber idle nonsense and entertain herself. She would never want to communicate anything of any substance. This is why this country is falling apart. No one really gives a dam any more, or they are too uneducated to care. I am sure she is bored with it as she does not understand what is written. Kudos to you Bojoda!

bojoda wrote on Jul 13, 2010 6:48 AM:

JonJoslin -

On 07.08.10 you wrote: 'Our attorney believes they have done their job. The prosecuting attorney believes they have done their job. The attorney general believes they have done their job.'

I was not aware these attorneys had reviewed city zoning administration. Please provide internet or other means to obtain copy of their opinion letters.

I have copy of city attorney opinion letter dated 07.05.05 that concludes administrative actions were illegal.

I would like to incorporate opinion letters you reference into blog and website.

perz wrote on Jul 13, 2010 8:31 AM:

BOJODA GIVE IT UP YOU LOST

goober wrote on Jul 13, 2010 9:42 AM:

Here we go again. Bojoda, just file a FOIA and get the documents yourself.

I Know a Little wrote on Jul 13, 2010 8:58 PM:

If history repeats itself, we'll find BOJODA on the city Planning Commission one day.

bojoda wrote on Jul 14, 2010 7:04 AM:

JonJoslin -

Attorney opinions, re: city zoning administration, cited in your 07.08.10 comment.

If you are unable to provide internet access, please provide dates opinion letters were issued and/or other information that would facilitate state, county, and city responding to FOIA requests.

JonJoslin wrote on Jul 14, 2010 12:11 PM:

bojoda

You had mentioned in one of your post that you had contacted the AG office. They in turn contacted the prosecuting attorney's office. The letters I was referring to are the one I thought you had. If I am wrong, I do apologize. I was just attempting to decipher your message.

This is the last post I will comment on about this issue to you. I ask you again, please quit asking me the same questions.

goober wrote on Jul 14, 2010 5:13 PM:

bojoda - please, stop. Do your own research, the City has all archives that you are free to ask for particular things from. Stop harassing Mr. Joslin about something you apparently haven't proven to your satisfaction.

warthogg64 wrote on Jul 14, 2010 11:35 PM:

As far as Bojoda goes - Who cares? All you do is whine. Go get a lawyer and fight them in court not in a forum, WE DON'T CARE!! IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM!! I have reported you for abuse a number of times, now it's going to be calls to the MS.

bojoda wrote on Jul 15, 2010 6:58 AM:

JonJoslin -

Thank you for clarifying your 07.08.10 statement, 'I believe they have done their job', is based solely on the 07.05.05 city attorney opinion letter that concludes administrative actions were illegal.

Explains, but does not excuse, illegal zoning administration ongoing six years later. Thanks again for finally answering a question.

Open Meetings Act violation, 08.02.07, was context of reference to the attorney general and prosecuting attorney.

warthogg64 wrote on Jul 15, 2010 7:31 AM:

Same old crap by bojoda but earlier this morning LIKE WE CARE!! Once again I have asked the MS to remove his posts but they probably won't. This person needs to learn that courts are made for his problems not this forum BECAUSE WE DO NOT CARE!!!

truth wrote on Jul 15, 2010 7:59 AM:

Bojoda why don't you post your stuff, whatever it is, in the sports section or someplace where no one ever gos since we just don't care about it. Or post it late at night when the trolls come out? Or better yet take peoples advice and give it up.

Nature Girl wrote on Jul 15, 2010 8:58 AM:

Bojoda - Why don't you run for Jon Joslin's position -- it seems you have all the answers.

PMSwithESP wrote on Jul 15, 2010 9:44 AM:

bojoda has a fan in mtpfan, maybe they could exchange e-mails and entertain each other, while leaving us simple-minded liberals (lol) to our free speech and things which we do understand.

mr.c wrote on Jul 16, 2010 3:18 AM:

bojoda reminds me of Rain man...