Effrontery at the Riverfront

[XLFD]

Usually, you have to go to the Ramsdell Theatre to get dramatic presentations in Manistee, but on Thursday February 2, 2017, the Manistee Historic District Commission (MHDC) featured a spectacle for the masses.  It involved discussions over the latest planned development in downtown Manistee at the old Glik building, recently discussed here:  Developments in Manistee: Riverfront Apartments

In that instance, it should be noted that it referenced that the MHDC would be meeting that very day, and it was a doozy.  Unlike the previous 'open house' this was a public meeting originally held to vote on whether the MHDC would approve the demolition of the upper part of the building, and certify the 'appropriateness' of the proposed structure.  This was just the first hurdle to cross for the development, needing Planning Commission and city council approval as well. 

You will notice in the previous article I claimed that the three locals speaking for the project at the open house were members of the Alliance for Economic Success, the Manistee Chamber of Commerce, and the Vogue Theatre's Board who "would be ostracized from their boards if they spoke against the project". 

It was predictive of what happened at this meeting for some board member who appeared predisposed to be against the project according to what he said in a letter to the editor of the Manistee News Advocate published in that newspaper on January 27th.  In it's entirety it reads thusly:

Resident expresses concern over proposed River Street Development

"Manistee is blessed with at least three great Lake Michigan beaches, pristine water in the Manistee Rivers, a bountiful national forest, world class fishing, a deep water channel to sheltered harbors and marinas, and a Victorian seaport town (Manistee) with the best Riverwalk to the big lake.

The beaches, the rivers and the national forest, can tend themselves as long as not abused, but preserving historic property requires vigilance and dedication.  The hub of the Victorian seaport is the Manistee Commercial Historic District.  This is a revenue generating asset for the city if it is protected and presented as a tourist destination. 

The Manistee Commercial Historic District was initially limited to commercial use, but a provision was added to include mixed-use (commercial and limited residential).  The spirit of the mixed-use provision was that the upper levels and obsolete areas that did not impact the commercial nature of River Street could be used as residences. 

The October 14, 2016 edition of the Manistee News Advocate ran an article describing a proposal to replace the old Glik's building at 400 River Street with a three story, almost 300 foot long residence building masquerading as a commercial building on River Street.  The "massing" of the proposed building is contrary to any other on River Street.  This will appear as a five story block to anyone walking on the Riverwalk, and the worst view in town for the new residents of the higher-end Edgewater Apartments.  Aside from the appearance, the proposal to place 45 apartments with an easy potential for 90 plus residents will impact the balance and traffic patterns on River Street.

The developer will be looking for state, federal, and possibly city assistance to pull this off.  One way or another, any funding from the federal. state, or city comes from the taxpayer.  One example is TIF (Google it), invented in California (what a surprise).  It's a way for a government entity to issue a bond and redirect/capture future tax receipts to pay it off.  So that means the taxes we pay to have our streets fixed, schools funded, etc. won't be adequate because the money was already redirected/captured for something else.  Then we get requests to raise a millage to cover expenses.  By any name, it is deficit spending, a government credit card.

So we have a proposal to build an unattractive building on the most attractive corner of River Street, add 45 residences to 300 feet of River Street that had none, and then have our millage raised as an indirect result.  If any of this doesn't make sense to you, please get involved.  Contact the city manager, attend the Planning Commission and Historic District meetings.  This is your town, there are plenty of folks in city hall working hard for us, please help them help us."

                                         --JIM MATTHEWS, Manistee

It turns out that Jim Matthews just so happens to be a voting member of the MCHD scheduled to decide the issue less than a week later.  Even though I generally agree with Mr. Matthews on his sentiments, I do believe he had a responsibility to inform the reading public he was a public official who served on the MCHD, and the opinion expressed was his own, not the board he serves on.  As a public official expressing a personal opinion, this is always the best course.

And yet, this aspect wasn't what caused the commotion at the MCHD meeting (described in the February 2 Historic District minutes).   The opening salvo came at the head of the public comment, made by the head of the local public body:

Taylor appears to want to declare his innocence of tampering with a commissioner's vote using his considerable influence as city manager even before any such charge has arisen.  The other commissioner (Eftaxiadis) later asserts he never had any such conflict of interest with his other holdings, had talked it over with his attorney, and would not recuse himself from any deliberations or vote.  Member Jim Matthews on the other hand, sought legal advice from Manistee City Attorney Richard Wilson, who was present.  This is the same legal hack that serves the City of Ludington.

Where to start?  As noted, as long as you distinguish the difference between your personal view and that of your agency, an official serving on a board can say anything other citizens can, and have all other rights as well.  The applicant does not have any special "due process" rights beyond what anybody else has under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which does not protect you from opposing views published in a newspaper, or an 'unbiased board'-- whatever that means. 

Matthews' letter to the editor does not indicate whether he will give the request unfair consideration.  He lays out to the public the case that the riverfront area has traditional rules and standards that a proposed development is not scheduled to follow, the impact on traffic, the impact on aesthetics, and the potential impact on the taxpayers and their services.  He gives his opinion that the building is unattractive, and compels the folks to contact their city officials if they too are confused. 

Undoubtedly, he would be a tough sell on this project as given, but does any of his observations in the paper means that any decision he makes will be patently unfair to the people he serves?   Frankly, it more appears he is looking after their interests rather than the developer's interest, and is serving them with more loyalty and good faith than Attorney Wilson ever has exhibited.

Nor had Matthews publicly declared his opposition or do any prejudgments, rather he leveled questions and made observations of what had been made public.  If Richard Wilson thinks communicating with the public by sending a letter to the local paper expressing their views on what comes before the board is somehow automatically forbidden due to some nebulous code of ethics, he might want to remember that when members of the Ludington Planning Commission (like Ray Madsen and Joe Moloney) write letters to the paper and speak at Ludington City Council meetings devoutly in favor (not to mention filled with bias and untruths) of a very unpopular Rental Inspection Ordinance.  They didn't mention their masters either, and Ludington City Attorney Richard Wilson had absolutely no problem with that.

Discussion was limited as to that which first came before the board, the demolition of the above-street level portion of 400 River Street.  The chairman asked whether anybody had a conflict of interest before any votes took place, with Mr. Eftaxiadis declaring he didn't, and Mr. Matthews saying naught.  They all then voted for the demolition:

But after this amity the discord began rolling in with a preemptive strike from the developer Joe Hollander, who interjects himself out of order into the mix, trying to delay the vote after hearing discussions over the building height.  Then more drama unfolds :

According to TV 7&4,  Jim Matthews said:  “If I’m giving up my right as a citizen on this commission then I’ll do so, then I’ll do so.  I’ll give up my commission because if things come up and you begin to question them and you can’t question them then it’s really not worth it."

Matthews had came to realize that his concerns for the city and its people were secondary to the interests of the developer and the rest of the city machine that desperately wanted anything to inhabit the space, regardless of whether it actually benefitted the community or fit within the rules or wound up being a money pit.  The prospect of state and federal dollars rolling in, the taxpayer base possibly going up, and the opportunity to levy TIFs and PILOTs to get even more taxes from the locals was just too inviting.  Let's hope Matthews comes back as an energized citizen ready to make positive changes to Manistee.

The same two abstainers from the resignation vote, along with Commissioner Kracht, then voted 3-2 to table the deliberation until the next meeting on March 2nd.  This could get interesting.  At the end of the meeting a distinguished community member arose to take issue with Richard Wilson's earlier declarations:

Frank Greco is a lawyer and formerly served as the Chief Commissioner for the Michigan Supreme Court.  Currently, Greco provides legal input and advice on all matters involving the Historic Vogue Theatre of Manistee and its processes.  He has had a career in law, and knows that Richard Wilson was way off on his legal terms.  Mayhaps he would be interested in taking up the cause of a public official who was effectively shut down by the current Manistee powerbrokers. 

[Willy]

I''m not in favor of historic districts but I can see the benefits of such a district for the town of Manistee. Preserving the look of the downtown is important for the downtown's economic stability. Manistee is one of my favorite city's and in my opinion is unique in it's proximity to the Manistee river and Lake and to Lake Michigan. As far as Matthews is concerned, even tho I agree with him, he should have divulged his connection to the Historic District when he wrote his letter. Another good job of reporting X.