Students should register in hometowns with census, not Mount Pleasant
In last week’s article concerning the upcoming United States census, Mount Pleasant city planner Jeff Gray indicated that people who have been in Mount Pleasant for six months, and are here this spring when the census is conducted, are to state it as the city of their residence.
The piece further says that the city wants students to list Mount Pleasant as their city of residence so that they can get additional funding.
I’m curious why someone wants to increase funding for a city they are only living in temporarily? For most students it’s four years. For me, I’ve only got a few months left. In either case, residence in Mount Pleasant for Central Michigan University students is usually transient at best.
I also have issues with Mount Pleasant as well — denial of property rights that would preclude me from ever considering living here after graduation and attempting to start a business, which I plan to do.
I’ll start by mentioning the assault on property rights that the city has participated in when it limited ToDblD’s hours of operations. This whole issue ran from late 2007 to fall 2009, when the lawsuit filed by Todd Gurzick came to an end at the doorstep of the Michigan Supreme Court.
What was really lush (no pun intended) was when Frances Lichtman, then the vice chair of the planning commission, asked Mr. Gurzick if he would relinquish his liquor license during the September 2007 commission meeting.
A party store without liquor? May Lichtman be in support of outlawing work on the Sabbath?
The second significant case of property rights abrogation wasn’t carried out by the city itself, but rather 1,112 of its residents back in fall 2007. I’m talking of the case where United Investments was looking to develop a piece of property on the corner of Broomfield and Crawford roads. It was bad enough they had to jump through the hoops of getting zoning approval. The worst part, however, was when the approval was challenged, put up for a vote and shot down.
The result was the aforementioned 1,112 residents saying United couldn’t develop its property as it saw fit. It didn’t even look trashy. You can see the drawing of the proposed development. In regards to the legality of not claiming Mount Pleasant as my city of residence, there is absolutely nothing within the US Code or Code of Federal Regulations concerning the census (Title 13 and Title 15 Secs. 30-199, respectively) that I could find that substantiates Mr. Gray’s claim.
Mr. Gray and any others who want student census participation in order to benefit Mount Pleasant won’t be getting any from me.
I refuse to allow a city that disregards property rights to reap long lasting benefits from my temporary stay.
