Students speak with candidates, dive into local politics
Current East Lansing Councilmember Roger W. Peters speaks during a East Lansing City Council candidate forum hosted by ASMSU on Wednesday evening at the Union. Peters is one of five candidates for three positions on the council. Josh Radtke/The State News
Tweet
A question and answer forum with East Lansing City Council candidates held Wednesday night at the Union attempted to bring local government politics to MSU students.
About 40 students and residents attended the forum, which gave participants the opportunity to ask council hopefuls their views through written questions.
The candidates also were given three minutes each to address the audience.
The forum was sponsored by ASMSU, MSU’s undergraduate student government, and the city of East Lansing.
This year’s Nov. 8 city council election will set three incumbent council members against two challengers for three seats on the council.
Candidates include Councilmember Nathan Triplett, Councilmember Roger Peters, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Goddeeris, East Lansing residents Don Power and Hans Larsen.
Paddy La Torre, ASMSU’s community liaison, said student involvement in local politics was particularly important, considering decisions made by council impact students on a regular basis.
“This is what impacts (students) day to day, as compared to the federal government and state government,” La Torre said.
Many of the questions asked of council focused on how council candidates proposed to engage students into city affairs, including ordinances, outreach and the city manager search process.
The party litter ordinance enacted by the council last year was the cause of some concern for Larsen, who said the fine was too stiff for the actions.
“It’s absolutely absurd to expect students to pay $400 just because they had a party,” Larsen said.
After the forum, candidates and students mingled at a reception hosted by ASMSU — a move implemented this year to facilitate more face-to-face discussions between council and interested MSU students, La Torre said.
James Robinson, a English senior and member of the Community Relations Coalition, said he attended the forum to represent student voices.
“We feel especially tied to the future of our organization and the city,” he said.
Peters said the student population makes up a significant part of East Lansing, and said a major goal of city officials should be to encourage education and participation from the student body.
“It’s important that the city continue to reach out to them and provide opportunities to participate in the government,” Peters said.
“It goes both ways.”
Power said during his many years as an East Lansing resident, participation in local government among students has declined exponentially.
“We are what we are today because of the students who participated then,” Power said.
“We are one community — we are East Lansing, we are MSU.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Olivia Seifert
(10/26/11 10:41pm)Report
I attended the forum tonight and thought it was a great opportunity to hear from the candidates. I do want to make one point of clarification on a figure that was brought up several times by Mr. Larsen. The $400 figure that Mr. Larsen mentioned several times is the fine for a FOURTH offense, so it is not “$400 just because they had a party”. The first offense is $50, the second is $100, the third is $200, and the fourth offense is $400. Since this was mentioned several times during the forum, I thought it important to clarify.
Not advertised, Minimal Student Turnout, NO QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE!!!
(10/26/11 11:55pm)Report
Actually, he did mention that it was a tiered fine system, but that was not the point that I believe he did make his point clear though.
The fact is that there IS a $400 fine, given without warning. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd offenses may have happened last year, during welcome week, on consecutive days—with different tenants. It’s possible.
Parking and Code Enforcement PACE won’t know and do NOT care WHO lived there in June, when there are totally different tenants in August. PACE officers are there to justify their own jobs and to generate money for City Hall—look at the numbers.
SO THE NEW TENANTS GET PENALIZED FOR THE PREVIOUS TENANTS’ PARTY LITTER!!! That is totally unfair. That’s why this ordinance is totally anti-student. It takes advantage of the fact that different tenants live in a given house, year after year.
What if it’s windy? And another yard’s party trash blows into an adjacent yard?
Now what? What if none of the tenants were home and other people placed trash in their yard? I’m just saying. It’s possible.
The point is that you can levy a stiff fine—$100—and change their behavior.
$400? Well, why not make it a cool $1000? This City Hall intends to raise $386,000 from these fines off these MSU students.
This has nothing to do with picking up trash; it’s all about stickin’ it to the MSU students and squeezing them for more money.
If you truly hate those student rentals, then move out of that neighborhood and don’t drive down there on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
You're both idiots
(10/27/11 1:42am)Report
Let’s just look and see how corrupt these fools on council really are. I’m sure they’ll find a way to make sure all four offenses occur within a single party. I wouldn’t put it past them. Even if they can’t they’d still cite it that way and then what do they expect you to do? Shell out thousands and thousands of dollars on a lawyer? I’m so sick of this city and their manipulation of the masses. It’s no way to run a town.
Alice Dreger
(10/27/11 7:52am)Report
ASMSU might as well have not invited the public. They pre-screened questions and allowed no unfiltered questions from the audience. If anyone tried to object to false claims being made (e.g. Diane Goddeeris reading quite selectively, 2 council members talking about coming into our neighborhood to pick up trash and talk to students — which they’ve done ONCE and only right before the election!) the person was told by the moderator to shut up.
There is no real place in this town to actually hold Council members accountable, to make them answer questions live, on the record. Why is that?
But I’ll keep asking Goddeeris about the money she got paid by Blue Cross to abandon her neighborhood in the vote related to the BC property. I asked her last night again, after the “forum,” and she again refused to answer. This time she even claimed she had no conflict of interest! So why did she recuse herself from that vote? (Probable answer: the hush money paid to her by BC. You want healthcare reform? Start with the mayor pro tem disclosing her financial ties.)
The people paying attention know the truth. I encourage everybody to watch the tape, to see which Council candidates can speak in complete sentences, finish a thought, and formulate a meaningful idea, not just spin.
Alice Dreger
(10/27/11 9:30am)Report
Dear “Not advertised”: You obviously don’t know how the system works. PACE targets houses that are repeat offenders week after week. The tenants have not changed since last week, no magic wind or evil neighbor is throwing the trash on their lawn, and they have been warned we will not keep putting up with it. It’s a fair system, and it is working. Radical improvement around here.
As for the logic, “if you don’t like it, then move!!!”, that is so moronic. So basically we have to put up with everything our neighbors — who are here for all of a year, when we’ve been here decades — do, or move? Gee, give me your address so I can buy the house next to you, trash it up, and say to you, “If you don’t like it, MOVE!!!”
Peters and Goddeeris tried to claim they know these neighborhoods? Please. They come out once every four years, two weeks before the election. Triplett doesn’t even bother to come out then. You know who we see? Kevin Beard with his happy map (he seems to forget we in Oakwood, Bailey, etc. do live right behind his imagined buildings — so maybe he could listen to us now and then?) and Vic Loomis, who actually comes to help with the brownie brigade, the clean-ups, and our concerns.
If ASMSU had run a fair forum, we’d have been able to call the incumbents on their b.s. Instead all we got is spin from them.
Spot on Sparty
(10/27/11 11:19am)Report
Because Victor Draine feels the need to be the center of attention no matter what. Have you ever seen him in one of our assembly meetings? If I didn’t get a little pleasure out of hearing his ridiculousness I would tell him to shut up.
Gotta love the aura of self-righteousness!
whoops
(10/27/11 11:20am)Report
Wrong article…this was meant for the diversity dinner article.
Olivia Seifert
(10/27/11 11:36am)Report
Some important points in response to the issues you mention:
First, the warning system IS still in place; the purpose of the new ordinance was, as Alice said, to give the ability to ticket the small number of repeat offenders who were abusing the previous warning system week after week. The wording of the ordinance says that officers should issue tickets only when it is obvious that the party litter generated from that property. That wording was included due to student input in the process.
So far this year, only about 20% of the houses that PACE has visited for party litter have been ticketed; the rest have still received warnings.
Also, this part of the new ordinance is important:
“For purposes of this section a prior offense means an occupant or owner of the property for which the current violation applies has had a judgment entered against them for a violation of section 14-37 for that property within the last 180 days.
(d) To charge a violation as a subsequent offense, the issuing officer shall note on the citation that it is a subsequent offense and all dates of the prior offenses and all of the names of all persons or entities to whom the prior citations were issued that make it a subsequent offense.” (emphasis added)
Again, this wording was included based on student input. So no, “Not Advertised,” people will not be considered a repeat offender because of the people who lived there last year. If you receive a “repeat” citation and it is your first, you should go to the Court prepared to prove that you are a new tenant. And to “You’re both idiots” – no, please don’t shell out thousands on a lawyer. Take advantage of the free lawyers available to you through ASMSU!
You also suggest that party litter citations will be issued on consecutive days. Do you believe it is reasonable and fair to your neighbors to have parties on consecutive nights?
Part of living off-campus is learning how to live in a community. The purpose of all this is to deter the behavior – to get people to clean up their mess before heading in for the night. If you take responsibility for your actions and clean up your mess, guess what…no ticket! A win-win for all.
More Lies.
(10/27/11 8:03pm)Report
First, the headline is false! There were NO questions from the students in the audience. Apparently, the questions were pre-screened, chosen to benefit Triplett—who received the questions ahead of time which was fine—because ASMSU was willing to give the questions to the debaters only if they asked for them. There was no interaction among the debaters, no back-and-forth or feedback from anyone. Five questions; that’s all.
As for the party litter. How would you like it if party animals walking by your house dropped their cups and trash in your yard three times? On the fourth time, you get hit with a $400 fine?