web analytics

Categorized | Post Scripts

We need new city council

Dear Citizens of Cedar Springs,

I have been looking though the council minutes all the way back to 2009, and what I have seen is disturbing. Time and again, citizens showed up and voiced their objections to proposed changes in ordinances, and despite that, the council went ahead with no documented public support and changed them. People were being ticketed for parking on their own property. It is my understanding that if I wish to put up a tent in my backyard, I must first secure a permit. Why does the council feel that they have the right to dictate to us what we may or may not do on property that we pay taxes on? Cars parked in public lots have been vandalized. Citizens have told me that when they have spoken out in a way that the city did not like, code enforcement showed up at their door. To say that if they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear is untrue. My next door neighbor parked 23 ft from the side walk and 60 ft from the center of the street. The car was in front of her own garage, and was ticketed. She had to fight it all the way to the doors of court, despite talking to city hall.

Another matter I would like to call to the attention of the public is the city’s purchase of 95 N. Main. *In council member Fahl’s own words: “It’s a mess.” “The city can’t make money off of it.” “We paid like $19,000 for the entire property, it’s actually 3 lots and a building, and the reason we paid that is because that’s what the IRS…was owed on the back taxes. So we picked it up because it was actually a really good deal, at the time.”  She also explains the city can only sell the property for the original purchase price, plus any upkeep. I wonder who was this a good deal for? If the city legally is not allowed to make money off of it, why did we enter the real estate business? According to the council minutes from 3/08/12, “City Manager Christine Burns stated that the buyer for 95 N. Main St. had rescinded his offer and had presented another offer due to the discovery of asbestos contamination during a property inspection. The buyer now only wanted to purchase the two vacant parcels associated with the property.” The council voted to not allow this sale, but rather demolish the building and sell the property as a whole. According to council member Fahl, “There is a fuel tank that’s underneath that building…and that was one of the city’s requests that whoever buys that building remove the fuel tank due to … possible contamination.” She continues that removing just the asbestos from the building was estimated to “cost us close to $80,000.” She states that if the building did not have so many issues “somebody could have made good money off of it.” So, if I understand, the city legally cannot make a profit, and we now own an asbestos contaminated building sitting on top of a fuel tank that could potentially be a source of contamination? We bought it because it was a good deal?

Christine Fahl, Bob Truesdale, and Patty Troost are all on the November ballot for City council. Christine Fahl was the only one of them on the council in 2009 when we bought this poisonous building. I don’t know about the rest of Cedar Springs, but Christine Fahl will not get my vote.

Molly Nixon

City of Cedar Springs

*The quotes from Mayor Pro Tem Christine Fahl were from a private meeting in Ms. Nixon’s home, which Ms. Nixon videotaped, without Ms. Fahl’s knowledge.


This post was written by:

- who has written 7972 posts on Cedar Springs Post Newspaper.


Contact the author

7 Responses to “We need new city council”

  1. Cedar Resident says:

    Molly,

    If you are so unhappy with the current City Council,than why not run yourself. I find it interesting how people want to complain but don’t do anything beyond that to find a solution. Public Service is not as easy as you would think.

  2. Fact Checker says:

    Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins. -Edward Kennedy

    Ms. Nixon….do you sleep well at night? Had you asked Ms. Fahl to video tape her when she offered to speak with you in your home, I bet she would have agreed. Anyone who knows her, know she is an open book. Instead, you come off as petty, vindictive, desperate and lacking integrity. You are nothing more than a puppet for the RFF. The very vocal minority who show up and complain at meetings do NOT speak for our entire community. They sure don’t speak for me. The majority of your followers on social media do not live or vote here. What does that say? It says find another hobby and LET IT GO ALREADY!

  3. Charlie Towns says:

    Fact Checker,
    It is interesting that you take a quote from Edward Kennedy on integrity….. Because the man had none!!

    Have you ever heard of Chappaquiddick: “I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately,”. Then he stays in office. You should have a better example.

    The counsel is a public office, when speaking to the public you should be prepared to go on the record at anytime.

  4. katie says:

    Whatever is the matter with Molly Nixon that she continues this vendetta against first the Mayor and now the Mayor Pro-Tem? She behaves like a spoiled child who, finding she was WRONG about the Red Flannel Festival paying the city $8000.00, throws a tantrum and flails away at whomever she sees as an adversary. Being wrong holds no shame but dishonor comes from refusing to admit it. Someone needs to tell Molly that the building at 95 Main is no longer the city’s problem! Now who will be next on her hit list?

  5. Fact Checker says:

    OK…Charlie then disregard who said it. The quote remains true. We’re not really debating Kennedy’s integrity are we? This whole thing boils down to a witch hunt led by the RFF and them using Ms. Nixon as their puppet. Too bad she isn’t bright enough to see that she is being used by the RFF and all 3 of her equally crazy neighbors.

  6. Charlie Towns says:

    Katie,
    Even if we take the Building on 95 off the table and say the issue is resolved, Molly does raise an interesting point. I heard from multiple people back home about how the Parking Nazi was after them. The post even ran a story on it. So Molly is the only one who is complaining all of a sudden?

    While I am not on ground in Cedar Springs it is still my home, and I keep in touch with people there. City Hall from my past experience will blow people off. It is routine for them.

    Now in their (city hall) defense the reason why is hardly anyone ever speaks up, and civic participation is almost nothing. So when the one or two people do show up to complain the counsel says “well no one else is complaining”. Then they just do whatever they want, not realizing almost everyone is upset with them.

    Molly is right about them not listening when people show up to complain. It took a massive outcry from the public to make them rethink the parking ordinance, if one or two people showed up like normal they would not have thought twice about keeping such a foolish ordnance. She does make an interesting point, perhaps you should consider the content of what she says instead of just going to a knee jerk reaction to it.

  7. katie says:

    Charlie,
    Molly “assumes” she needs a permit to put up a tent in her back yard? How ludicrous! She “assumed” she had city legal fees correct? She was wrong. She “assumed” the RFF paid 8k for services? Wrong again! And the list goes on. She apparently takes gossip as fact and uses it as the basis for personal attacks against anyone who doesn’t agree with her or the RFF Board.

    Perhaps a more unbiased approach to her “research” would result in fewer printed “assumptions” causing her to appear less ignorant of the facts. A person of integrity would apologize for all the unjust comments that have been publicized. I’ve heard no such apologies coming from her.

    I’m thinking the knee-jerk reactions apply to Molly, not me.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks