Historical Figures in Ludington

[XLFD]

Is the Historic District Coming to Town Whether We Want It or Not?

 

The headline in the May 17, 2013 City of Ludington Daily News paper clearly states that the (Ludington City) Council seeks opinions on proposed historic district.  Back in late October 2012, the City Council had a regular meeting seeking opinions on the proposed historic district to be located along East Ludington Avenue, the Bed and Breakfast area plus.  Four people that were for the historic district (only one of which lived in the area, Bill Stumpf) spoke for over five minutes of the virtues of the district.  A wide cross section of people that lived in the district came out with many reservations. 

 

Looking into forming a historic district in Ludington is a concept that began back in 1996 when Thom Hawley, Rose Hawley's (of the former museum named after her) grandson, did a lot of the historic research and footwork that the present committee has used.  It included monthly meetings with several local figures, one of whom was Mark Niemeyer who has been critical of the latest incarnation's foray into district-making, and would be in the district itself.  The committee back then was created by the Ludington DDA and had a goal of making the area have 'uniform development' by establishing the district.  This first effort never developed any legs, due to almost universal resistance.

 

Historic District, Version 1.0

 

On 1-27-1997 the first committee was formed:

Discontent with the scope of the project appeared on February 23, 1998:

This grew only more in the April 13, 1998 council meeting: 

On April 27, 1998, the Historical District Committee disbanded with regrets:

And the issue was basically left off the table for seven years.

Restoring the Historic District Committee

 

When Mayor Henderson gained power in 2002 and City Manager Shay entered the picture the next year, the historic district was not discussed openly until the City's Downtown Development Authority rued the fact that they could not qualify as a "Cool City" without one on 2-27-2012:

The lack of a college in Ludington probably pushed any consideration of a historic district into mothballs for nearly four years, where the genesis of the idea started in the Planning Commission by Cartier Mansion's Sue Ann Schnitker on October 7, 2008 :

In a half of a year's time, it gained another mention by Schnitker on February 3, 2009:

And was subsequently followed by the creation of the current Historic District Committee, which has once again found little traction in getting the members of the district cooperating with them.  Not surprisingly, because unlike in the past, the State of Michigan has dropped a lot of the benefits available to those in the district, given before as an incentive to forfeit their individual choice as of what to do with their own property and give that power to the collective will of local bureaucrats.

The Last Push? 

 

Friday's paper documented the latest meeting between the City Council, the historic district committee and others interested in the results.  Let's analyze what the paper reported on, noting that the newspaper has seemed to be rather pro-district in its reportage in the past.

Yellow:  Unlike the mayor's quote, the council is not obligated to give an up or down vote on the historic district.  The voluntary disbandment amid the absence of any great support ended the prior committee's existence.  With the mayor's commitment to democracy he voiced last fall when trying to get a fourth and fifth term, he should put it to a vote by the citizens-- all citizens.

 

Red:  Twelve property owners contacted the council's point man, all NOT wanting the district.  "Totally against giving up control":  no mincing of words there. 

Purple:  The Committee Chair, Bill Anderson, admits the loss of property rights being a problem and problems with property rights being disparate throughout the City.  Prior he noted that early on in the committee's life, there were a lot more incentives offered.

 

Pink:  Heather Tykoski puts out once again that she's been talking with important people about cash handouts from the state (tax abatements) that 'might' happen in the future.  In true Pelosi fashion, she says you first need to pass the HD ordinance to see what may become available.

 

Orange:  Councilor Rathsack verifies that you are stuck with being in the district just because of your property's location, no matter what the city council may subsequently do.

 

Green:  Linda Wallace asks a valid question about vinyl, gets no answer, and makes an appropriate statement concerning the loss of freedom.

 

Black:  Though I think he may have been misquoted because it makes little sense, Mayor Henderson seems to think that a majority of people want this district, even though there hasn't been any recent positive input from anyone not on the HDC and in the district who wants this to go into effect. 

 

One would think that even if a simple majority of people within the district voted to make this leap, that there would be a lot of vocal opposition among the minority since they seem to be the only ones talking now.  Unfortunately, the decision to make this will not fall on their shoulders, or Ludington's citizens as a whole, but likely by city councilmembers who don't live in this district who will like the idea that the City will get only more power over what to do with private properties in what is already a scenic, historic area in Ludington, without any ordinance or designation.  If you live in this district, you must fight this. 

 

If you live outside this district you must fight this.  The reasons are fairly obvious:  1) if there is any tax abatements ever granted, your share of local taxes will go up  2) the restrictions on the properties in the district will make the City more bolder in taking away your property rights in the future, using the district as a precedent or example.  By the way, the four photographs of houses all show some of the many buildings and locations inside the historic district, where the owners will now have to check with the new layer of bureaucracy before they get changed.  Pretty historic. 

[Willy]

There really is nothing historical about Ludington"s downtown except that some of the buildings are older than others. There is no obvious architectural importance that stands out. All this historical preservation will do is cause financial hardship for the businesses that remain. Ludington is no Mackinaw Island where architecture has remained unchanged since it's beginnings, unlike Ludington where there exists a hodgepodge of different aged buildings with totally different architecture. The brainchild will only force businesses who are financial marginal to close up shop and move on. I noticed the newspaper in the topic header had adds for many downtown businesses that no longer exist.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19980318&id=7...

[XLFD]

That's an interesting point about the variety of different styles that exist in the historic district area, even the B&Bs differ in style, age, and construction.  The first try did try to incorporate some of James Street and downtown Ludington Avenue, and the owners there were the biggest protesters, hence one may believe this second attempt which basically includes just properties east of Harrison Avenue, was done to avoid the conflicts that may have arisen from the downtown and HD clashing together.

Without tax breaks, abatements and grants given to the district, there is no sane reason to join and create a useless bureaucracy.  With tax breaks, abatements, and grants, there is no sane reason for the rest of the city to be behind this, as even more of the tax burden will shift to them.  We are already subsidizing the downtown's excesses.