Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Works topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges tougher penalties after repeated dumping, says court fines don't cover costs

Mount Clemens City Commission · December 23, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At public comment, resident Fred Huber described repeated illegal dumping on his property, highlighted a court reconciliation that left him responsible for cleanup costs, and urged the city to seek state legislative changes so penalties exceed the cost of dumping.

Fred Huber, a Mount Clemens resident who identified his address as 158 South Main Street, told the commission he has responded repeatedly to illegal dumping on his property and that pursuing enforcement through district court was time-consuming and costly.

"A dumpster costs $500. The maximum fine that you can receive under state law is $500, so why not?" Huber said, arguing that the current penalty structure encourages businesses and others to dump rather than comply with disposal rules.

Huber said a recent case required multiple court appearances, cost his organization time and money and left his group covering the cost of a new dumpster because the judge ordered a much smaller reconciliation payment. He asked the commission to involve state representatives and senators to raise penalties so they exceed the cost of violations.

Commissioners acknowledged the concern and thanked Huber for bringing his experience to the commission. No formal motion or local ordinance change was taken during the meeting; staff and commissioners suggested exploring options and, in comments elsewhere, endorsed checking state-level remedies.

Huber also recounted older incidents he said involved hospital waste entering the Clinton River; those historical anecdotes were presented as examples of why stronger enforcement matters.

There was no immediate formal action; staff and elected officials discussed possible next steps and information gathering.