Historic Decision: A Prelude

[XLFD]

At this weeks City Council meeting, they had an open discussion about the proposed historic district that will affect about 80 properties in and around Ludington Avenue between Staffon and Harrison Streets.  I had accumulated already a bit on this movement to put in place a historic district, as it has been underway for several years, as has been my own personal interest in it.  I will present a thread over this winter showing a little bit about the history of the historic district.  Until then, I will present a brief overview and showcase two of the speakers, one for and one against, who spoke up at this long meeting, and the video where you can see them live.

A historic district, according to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is one of the few ways a community can provide legal protection of historic resources.  What exactly does that mean?  It means that if you own property in such a district, a board in the community may determine how you can improve or alter that property.  You may object, but the decision is taken out of your hands, so that the community does not get robbed of historic resources.  Here is the full state law showing how in-depth this Historic District concept is  Historic Districts Act.

                                                      Part of another historic-looking district.  Can you guess where?

 

Here is a slideshow presentation about the East ludington Avenue Historic district which leads up to the report they made about this district in June 2011.

In last Saturday's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) Heather Venzke-Tykoski that property owners in that district are stewards of the property, and that the historic district's board may be able to impose fees of up to $5000 to make sure all comply with the board's dicta; she continues her 'popular appeal' at 24:10 into the last city council meeting's video:

"As most of you are aware, the State of Michigan has done away with most of the tax credits for districts like this.  What we have been doing to hopefully combat that is we've been working with Senator Hansen's office for the possibility of a local tax abatement or the possibility of a local tax abatement wherein it would work similarly to the OPRA statute that we're used to dealing with some of our industrial properties so that we would be working with him and he is supportive of our venture, he's waiting to hear what our public comments and our resolutions on this go on tonight and the coming months.  And what we hope to do is abate local taxes on any significant improvements on historic homes..."

She's talking with a conservative state senator about a local tax abatement that is similar to an Obsolete Property Rehab Act district for a historic district?  That will surely be a test to her notorious feminine wiles.  If there are tax abatements for several of these houses, City Hall will make up that lost tax revenue by other means, like from everyone else, and recoup extra administrative fees in the process.  Over a quarter of the Downtown Development Authorities revenues already go to administrative fees which flies back to the Ludington City Hall.  That section of Ludington Avenue gets about $120,000 per year for discretionary spending, oft-times on projects of dubious public merit.

Tom Tyron for two minutes starting at 55:43 offered what I think is a better rebuttal that I had prepared, because it was heartfelt and made the argument against such a district more than just a political issue and into a personal issue from someone who owns property in the area.  It surprised me, since we had spoke up on different sides of the recent tax abatement to Whitehall, with him in agreement of it:

"I own several parcels in the said district; I haven't heard anything tonight here to convince me that we need a historic district-- as I think we already have one.  I have been here several years, my family has been here a hundred years, and the avenue hasn't changed much-- and I don't think it will.

I wouldn't be opposed if someone did change the avenue, I just would ask every one of you: How would you like to go in to talk to a committee when you remodel your house?  No matter what they say-- goes.  Would you like that?

I believe I own my own property.  I believe we have building ordinances and rules that I have to follow and that everyone else has to follow-- so I feel that that's adequate.  If something comes along and changes the avenue, then, so what?  The whole development from the city limits out to Stiles Road.  Everyone thinks that's bad; I think it's good.  It's progress.  It's what happens.  There's nothing wrong with it.

And yes, there will be a day, some day, some day when we will all be dead, but those houses won't be there anymore.  Is that too bad?  Yeah, maybe, but that's the way it is.  But I don't want people telling me what to do with my property.  I don't need any grants from the government to keep my property up.  I don't need any bureaucrats telling me that I should have porcelain commodes.  All I need is to be left alone, and I'll pay my taxes and go on living.  Thanks."

I will just add my closing argument to Tom's eloquent piece, spoken with honest conviction (and immediately followed by two other great testimonials by the head of our DPW, Shawn McDonald and Friend of the Court's Mark Niemeyer).

Promoting freedom of choice and private voluntary action —not command and control regulation and extortion of tax dollars— is the best way to encourage people to restore and protect historic resources, to instill pride and to revitalize our communities.

[XLFD]

Interesting note:  If you check the Historic District Study Committee, you will find that only two of the seven members (Stumpf, and Germain) are in the 'Historic district', only three of seven live in the City of Ludington (Venzke). 

However you will find that three of these people (B. Anderson, Venzke, R. Wood) also serve/served on the Cultural Economic Development (CED) task force, a group that spent $60,000 plus on consultations last year, where many ideas were thrown about on how to culturally market the area.  Apparently establishing a lot of aesthetically challenged wind turbines across our agrarian properties wasn't thrown into the mix, as was looked at in Cultural Economic Development. 

Both of these groups have more in common than just three members, with Bill Anderson in the lead.  They desire to get money from the federal, state and local governments to utilize for specific individuals or businesses.  This will lead to cronyism and drain public money away from its intended purposes, with further power being put into the hands of local government officials who can pick and choose how to distribute the loot. 

This is the 'momentum in our community' the Committee for a Stronger Ludington mentions, and is why the signers of the petition, and the endorsers of the historic district and the CED are the strongest proponents of keeping a mayor who condones all the wasted taxpayer money involved, and are one and the same.

[Willy]

Excellent work X. My hats off to you. This Historic  proposal is in my opinion the final link in the chain. It all makes sense now. Especially the idiotic 5 term mayoral proposition. This has all been a ruse for the good ol boys to garner more control and money. I have never been a proponent of a "historic district" unless all of the land owners, 100%, agree to the idea. I've been privy to the workings of these types of sweetheart arraignments conjured up by pushy business people and politicians and have seen property owners steamrolled by useless and unnecessary regulations, codes and ordinances that are needed to implement these types of over reaching bureaucratic freedom robbing schemes. This proposal shows just how sneaky those that have been given the honor of serving the public are. Any public money used for this project should be voted on and approved by the citizens who pay the bills.  This is the type of information and reporting that should be in the LDN. Well done.

[XLFD]

I always like seeing you doff your headgear, but it's starting to get colder, so just do a slight tip until spring arrives again.   It's cold season. 

Tom Tyron's refutal is classic, took two minutes to deliver and touches the main points.  Why do we need a historic district (as recognized by a lengthy and socialistic state law) when we already have a historical district, that has been here over a hundred years and has been upkept over the last few generations better than it was before? 

The answer is tax abatements, grants, and maintaining history, according to the Historic District pushers, but Tom's argument deflate those and other minor arguments for the district, and reveals the dark side.  Of which you don't have to go too far to find.  I would have offered two examples. 

In December, 2000, the Owosso, Michigan, City Council passed the “Oliver Street Historic District” ordinance. Local residents were outraged when they learned how they had been hoodwinked by the council and by supporters of the plan with clever propaganda and underhanded tactics to give the appearance of broad public support. Former Councilman Burton Fox stated, “Why should it be up to a committee to determine what changes we may or may not make to our homes? We own the property, pay the taxes on it, and incur the expense of keeping it up.”  On August 14, 2001, the residents voted to repeal the ordinance by a margin of 70—30 percent.

And to show the madness isn't just in Michigan's water:  Police in Little Rock, Arkansas, arrested 70 year old Betty Deislinger at a meeting of the city's Historic Commission. Her “crime” was a refusal to remove illegal burglar security bars from her 1870's house, in violation of the Historic District Ordinance. She was threatened with fines of up to $500/day until she complied with the ordinance. What would you have done about such an unlawful action by your city council?