Opinion: Township Could Look Very Different if Certain Candidates Are Elected

(Editor’s Note: Jim Floraday writes that if one group of Peninsula Township candidates win, the township might look very different in the years to come. Read on for his thoughts. -jb)

If this primary has shown me anything, it is how divided the community has become. The last time I witnessed this community so divided was in 2015-2016, regarding the events around The 81 on East Bay. Those events caused seven OMP residents to unite and run as a group in the 2016 election. That group won by a wide margin.

We now have a new group of OMP residents (band of five) who profess unification and the need to change the makeup of the existing elected officials. Unlike what we witnessed in 2016, when the seven candidates met with residents in open meetings to explain their unified position, the band of five has not provided a focused perspective nor met with the greater community.

This year, each candidate had the opportunity to respond to a questionnaire the Old Mission Gazette provided, yet not all candidates took the time to respond. From the band of five, J.P. Milliken did not respond, and candidate Mark Luea failed to answer many of the questions. Additionally, candidates Sheila Johnson, Warner Qweeny, and Julie Alexander did not respond.

I understand being busy; however, if one can’t find the time to answer the questions, how will they ever find the time to represent me as a Trustee? I could surmise reasons the candidates didn’t reply, but the simple fact is that without understanding their positions and ideas on various issues, I can’t support them.

This band of five and their supporters have taken multiple jabs at the incumbents. If the incumbents have shown anything, it is how resilient they are. They are strong and have the stamina and character to stay the course.

It appears that candidate Dave Sanger has the largest target on his back because of this dual role as Trustee and Enforcement Officer, and whether it should be allowed.

In 2015, Michigan’s Incompatible Public Offices Act was amended to allow more flexibility for townships with a population of less than 40,000 inhabitants. [MCL 15.183(4)(c)] The amendments allow township elected officials to render (for compensation) “other additional services for the unit of government” if the township has less than 40,000 residents. [MCL 15.183(4)(c)]

Additionally, The Michigan Attorney General has opined that the exception allowing an official to perform “other additional services for the unit of government” is so broad that it allows individuals to serve dual roles with fine lines between reporting relationships (Michigan Attorney General Opinion No. 7295, 2017). Accordingly, given the current state of the law, there is a strong argument that such an employment arrangement is permissible.

As the enforcement officer, candidate Sanger has the difficult job of enforcing the ordinances by contacting property owners. These contacts have caused some to dislike candidate Sanger; thus, they want to see him replaced.

I understand that desire and wonder how many of you have thought of what it would be like to walk in his shoes. Mr. Sanger is the policeman for our ordinances. I’ve had several moving violations in my younger years, creating a negative taste for law enforcement individuals. However, since then, I became a convert, as events caused me to interact with police officers, allowing me to see their empathy and genuine concern for me.

While I didn’t walk in their shoes, I realized that while they had to carry a big stick, they did so to protect me and to keep me from harming myself or others. Similar to changing my perspective of law enforcement by seeing them differently, I hope to change some individuals’ perspective of candidate Sanger.

While I haven’t walked in candidate Sanger’s shoes, I had the occasion to witness an aspect of what he has to deal with. If I had to deal with this on an ongoing basis, my shell would harden from the ongoing lies, negative interactions, and continued flagrant violations some property owners commit with no concern for the township, its ordinances or its residents.

It would be interesting to see a table of each type of violation, with a yearly breakout of the number of violations by type, and the number of visits/hours required to resolve each violation. I bet many would be astounded by the sheer number.

It is through repeated violations of an ordinance that I learned to respect candidate Sanger and the challenges he faces. In 2016, we contacted Mr. Sanger regarding a neighbor renting their home on weekends and weekly intervals. This situation continued for two seasons. During the second season, we approached candidate Sanger about what was being done to stop the short-term rental activities. He informed us that the property owners denied they were renting the home.

The process was very frustrating, and the renters’ behaviors resulted in five calls to the sheriff. I can’t say how many renters crossed the threshold of that house nor how many times the owners were approached by candidate Sanger, but for two years, he continued gathering information. His data collection provided enough evidence to schedule a court hearing. On the day of the hearing, the property owner finally agreed to no longer rent.

I can’t say for certain, but it seems that candidate Sanger had to drive to the residence more than 20 times to obtain the necessary information. He was lied to by the property owners 20 times, which equates to 20 times he may have had a heated discussion with them. This is just one example of many, as I learned that Neahtawanta had an even worse situation than we did.

Some residents have stated that they dislike how candidate Sanger approaches violations. It seems he is impersonal, his letters are not the nicest, and he has been too tough from the beginning. How would you conduct business if you were in his shoes? For seven years he has performed this thankless job. He gets it from both sides: first there’s me getting on his case for not resolving the situation, and then there’s the property owner lying, lying, lying … while intentionally violating an ordinance.

I began this opinion stating that I have not witnessed this community so divided since the issues facing the community before the 2016 election. It is for this reason that I decided to write this opinion, as I am concerned this community will be even more divided if the band-of-five are elected.

We are all facing door number one or door number two. Number one will keep things moving in the present direction; however, possibly those incumbents will understand that there is a perception that some things need tweaking. Or we can choose door number two and in four more years we can look back to see what has happened to this amazing place.

Will it be a haven for investors who swoop in and purchase homes once the short-term rental ordinance is changed? Investors who have no desire to maintain their property and have no need to follow ordinances, who simply want the exorbitant short-term rents?

Will Center Road become similar to South Airport east of Garfield, where commercial business establishments are heavily concentrated before the residential properties grouped near Three Mile Road?

Will the wineries be given an open door, as one of the first agenda items is to drop the lawsuit, thus giving the wineries the freedom to basically do any activity they desire on their property without any regard for residents?

Will the open arms of the new Township Board members towards commercial development, winery operations, and short-term rentals create an even greater desire for tourists to visit our peninsula, thus causing traffic to become 50 to 100 percent more than it already is?

Some will say these things will not occur. I say, go to the Outer Banks and try to drive from one end to the other in less than two hours on a Saturday. Visit the Finger Lakes area or Napa Valley to witness the impact tourism has had on the community. Do a web search for Foley Beach in North Carolina and see what percent of the homes have been purchased by investors and are operated as short-term rentals.

One of the things that makes this community so special is that we are willing to pay to preserve its beauty (passage of the PDR and funding the purchase of Pelizzari Park). Let’s not allow the vocal few to influence what we desire.

We need elected leaders who respect our ordinances and desire to preserve this amazing peninsula. Keep the slate: Sanders, Sanger, Shanefelt, and Wunsch.

-Jim Floraday

Also Read…