Massive changes being proposed to Michigan's historic district laws

[mpchicago]

A nice feature in Rapid Growth today by Rebecca Smith Hoffman on the destructive bills introduced in the Michigan legislature, along with background of the grass roots effort of historic preservation in Michigan.  I can't believe I never knew that the Michigan historic preservation movement started in Grand Rapids, and that John Logie initially drafted the MI Historic Act 169. 

In the Chicago area, where I live, these bills would be considered laughable, as I'm sure they would in most places around the country that have enjoyed the fruits of historic preservation.  Whether we live in a historic building/district or not we have all benefited from these designations.  

If you haven't already contacted your state rep or senator get on the horn and oppose these foolish bills right away.

[mpchicago]

The Press' Garret Ellison does a little digging to find out who is behind the effort to dismantle Michigan's historic preservation act of 1970. Ironic this law was conceived in Grand Rapids, and the folks trying to take it down, nearly 50 year later, are from East Grand Rapids.

 http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/michigan_historic_districts_bi.html#comments

[x99]

3 hours ago, mpchicago said:

The Press' Garret Ellison does a little digging to find out who is behind the effort to dismantle Michigan's historic preservation act of 1970. Ironic this law was conceived in Grand Rapids, and the folks trying to take it down, nearly 50 year later, are from East Grand Rapids.

 http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/michigan_historic_districts_bi.html#comments

Interesting.  You have to wonder how badly Afendoulis is kicking himself now. Honestly, he personally seems to have a few ideas on the subject that are not entirely awful, but none of those even made it into the bill.  They only make it into press releases and public statements.  I assume he must have figured this out by now.

There actually is an argument to be made for the idea that modern materials could be suitable where they are a reasonable visual facsimile for the historic material.  You could also probably make a pretty decent argument for allowing one old house to be demolished if the replacement is architecturally compatible and enhances the character of the district of which it is a part.  The latter is a somewhat more dicey argument, but not completely off the wall if you view historic districts not as collections of artifacts, but as an entire unit showing a commonality and continuity of design and an established sense of place.  Removing one or two cogs does not necessarily threaten the mechanism so long as they replaced with cogs which are the functional equivalent.  Anyhow... that gets a bit academic and in depth rather quickly, but I think the point is made.    

The critical point is that the whole "substitute" or "modern" materials bit--or even substitute house, if they really wanted to go there--is nowhere in the bill.   Had they drafted a bill delimited by its stated goals--1) Allow modern materials that are visually facsimiles of historic materials or which fit within the character of the district, and 2) Obtain greater consent prior to implementation of a new district--they would have had a bill that would have been much harder for preservationists to combat.  Instead, with no lack of hubris, they chose to draft a "kill the historic districts" bill and sell it as a "modern materials" bill.  The rub of it seems to be that the lobbyists and consultants who wanted to "communicate their message clearly" (to paraphrase) communicated nonsense that did not match the bill.  Rather along the lines of "if you like your doctor... "   Burying the truth after an asterisk knows no bound of party.  It's also a really stupid idea when your bill is all of 5 pages and not 5000 pages. 

I wonder how long it took Afendoulis to realize he had been played by a bunch of people with an axe to grind. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't.  Shame to mobilize thousands of people against you in an election year.  Hopefully the guys bankrolling the lobbyists wrote him a fat check.  Might need it.

[GRDadof3]

8 minutes ago, x99 said:

Interesting.  You have to wonder how badly Afendoulis is kicking himself now. Honestly, he personally seems to have a few ideas on the subject that are not entirely awful, but none of those even made it into the bill.  They only make it into press releases and public statements.  I assume he must have figured this out by now.

There actually is an argument to be made for the idea that modern materials could be suitable where they are a reasonable visual facsimile for the historic material.  You could also probably make a pretty decent argument for allowing one old house to be demolished if the replacement is architecturally compatible and enhances the character of the district of which it is a part.  The latter is a somewhat more dicey argument, but not completely off the wall if you view historic districts not as collections of artifacts, but as an entire unit showing a commonality and continuity of design and an established sense of place.  Removing one or two cogs does not necessarily threaten the mechanism so long as they replaced with cogs which are the functional equivalent.  Anyhow... that gets a bit academic and in depth rather quickly, but I think the point is made.    

The critical point is that the whole "substitute" or "modern" materials bit--or even substitute house, if they really wanted to go there--is nowhere in the bill.   Had they drafted a bill delimited by its stated goals--1) Allow modern materials that are visually facsimiles of historic materials or which fit within the character of the district, and 2) Obtain greater consent prior to implementation of a new district--they would have had a bill that would have been much harder for preservationists to combat.  Instead, with no lack of hubris, they chose to draft a "kill the historic districts" bill and sell it as a "modern materials" bill.  The rub of it seems to be that the lobbyists and consultants who wanted to "communicate their message clearly" (to paraphrase) communicated a pack of lies that did not match the bill.  Sort of like, well, uh, "if you like your doctor... " or "if you like your plan"  Burying the truth after an asterisk knows no bound of party.  

I wonder how long it took Afendoulis to realize he had been played by a bunch of people with an axe to grind. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't.  Shame to mobilize thousands of people against you in an election year.  Hopefully the guys bankrolling the lobbyists wrote him a fat check.  Might need it.

 

No kidding, and I always thought Mark Murray was a pretty decent guy when he was at Meijer. Sounds like he's one of the big money people behind this. It also sounds like they've got their hands in the Mackinaw Policy CapCon magazine, which wrote a few scathing (rumored to be paid for) articles against historic districts. Like this PR firm went to the Ginny Seyferth School of Public Relations going back to the Acme Meijer debacle near Traverse City. Oh wait, there's a connection there..

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/features/search/?site=MCC&text=historic&x=0&y=0

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2014/05/ex-meijer_attorney_tells_panel.html

 

[GR_Urbanist]

Now I remember why I dont visit Mlive.

Snarky class-warfare-ish article aside, I can completely understand why EGR residents are spear-heading these changes after recent events there, and the fact that folks that move to this "affluent suburb" generally want to engage in massive renovations or whole rebuilds. They have money, want to pay EGR's high taxes, and are willing to invest in creating new housing stock (i.e. higher property values) for the privilege.

Unlike the usual "if you dont like it, dont move there" retort, these people are not currently living in an historical district, and were in danger of having one imposed on them, which is not ok, and there should be an open, and very difficult process to just carve out these districts from places where people already live.

At the very least there should be massive financial compensation to the home owners, and this should be treated as no different than eminent domain. Groups should not be able to just hide behind "I care about history, and you are a bad person" shields to skew the argument to their favor, nor should they crow about "increased property values" as if that is compensation enough. They are basically turning these neighborhoods into pseudo-museums and forcing the people there to live in it. Some needed reforms are also not going to "hurt Michigan's urban revitalization efforts". That one was just a bit of an exaggeration. We could just turn any inner-city neighborhood into an "historic district" and revitalize it then. Technically Heritage Hill juts south like a peninsula into some very depressed parts of town. Why not make those historic districts too as those homes are just as old as the one in HH?

I swear some of the people I've read that are opposed to any rational changes seem to be over-reacting with charges of hundreds of historical buildings being wiped-out and historical districts will all be abolished. Pure hyperbole that only gives the other side the evidence it needs to paint historical preservationists as control-freaks that couldn't care less what actual property owners want or think. Local Historical groups have definitely been making some loopy decisions in the Uptown area, so they are far from perfect.

 

There has to be a agreeable middle.

 

 

 

 

[mpchicago]

38 minutes ago, x99 said:

The critical point is that the whole "substitute" or "modern" materials bit--or even substitute house, if they really wanted to go there--is nowhere in the bill.   Had they drafted a bill delimited by its stated goals--1) Allow modern materials that are visually facsimiles of historic materials or which fit within the character of the district, and 2) Obtain greater consent prior to implementation of a new district--they would have had a bill that would have been much harder for preservationists to combat.  Instead, with no lack of hubris, they chose to draft a "kill the historic districts" bill and sell it as a "modern materials" bill.  The rub of it seems to be that the lobbyists and consultants who wanted to "communicate their message clearly" (to paraphrase) communicated nonsense that did not match the bill.  Rather along the lines of "if you like your doctor... "   Burying the truth after an asterisk knows no bound of party.  It's also a really stupid idea when your bill is all of 5 pages and not 5000 pages. 

I tend to agree with you on the modern materials issue.  Their are some materials that do look like the real deal, and will hold up better, but there is also garbage too.  

These guys really did go about this the completely wrong way.  Maybe they should have engaged the historic preservation community before trying to ram this through.  

[mpchicago]

2 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

 

Now I remember why I dont visit Mlive.

Snarky class-warfare-ish article aside, I can completely understand why EGR residents are spear-heading these changes after recent events there, and the fact that folks that move to this "affluent suburb" generally want to engage in massive renovations or whole rebuilds. They have money, want to pay EGR's high taxes, and are willing to invest in creating new housing stock (i.e. higher property values) for the privilege.

Unlike the usual "if you dont like it, dont move there" retort, these people are not currently living in an historical district, and were in danger of having one imposed on them, which is not ok, and there should be an open, and very difficult process to just carve out these districts from places where people already live.

At the very least there should be massive financial compensation to the home owners, and this should be treated as no different than eminent domain. Groups should not be able to just hide behind "I care about history, and you are a bad person" shields to skew the argument to their favor, nor should they crow about "increased property values" as if that is compensation enough. They are basically turning these neighborhoods into pseudo-museums and forcing the people there to live in it. Some needed reforms are also not going to "hurt Michigan's urban revitalization efforts". That one was just a bit of an exaggeration. We could just turn any inner-city neighborhood into an "historic district" and revitalize it then. Technically Heritage Hill juts south like a peninsula into some very depressed parts of town. Why not make those historic districts too as those homes are just as old as the one in HH?

I swear some of the people I've read that are opposed to any rational changes seem to be over-reacting with charges of hundreds of historical buildings being wiped-out and historical districts will all be abolished. Pure hyperbole that only gives the other side the evidence it needs to paint historical preservationists as control-freaks that couldn't care less what actual property owners want or think. Local Historical groups have definitely been making some loopy decisions in the Uptown area, so they are far from perfect.

 

There has to be a agreeable middle.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that the Press article was all that inappropriate. It was just giving us a background on how this started and where it came from.  Really kind of interesting.

I think the process did work in EGR.  In this case, the majority of people were against this idea and it died. The process for historic designation, is a laborious process, and is not taken lightly by anyone.  That's part of the reason the majority of out towns, cities and buildings are not historically designated.  I would say there maybe cases in EGR that some of these homes should be historically designated, but sounds like that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The historic designation process is not perfect, i.e, maybe they could consider some alternative materials, but it's worked pretty well for nearly 50 years.  

Also, aren't there financial incentives for those that live in historic districts?  Historic tax credits, and the like?

So in the end there is probably room for some compromise, but these guys (Afendoulis, etc) really went about this the wrong way IMO.

 

[GRJohn]

I can tell you that between 75-80% of the people in the proposed historic district in EGR were in favor of it.  The vast majority of people against it were from outside the proposed district.  I guess it was a little too much local control for EGR.

[mpchicago]

4 minutes ago, GRJohn said:

I can tell you that between 75-80% of the people in the proposed historic district in EGR were in favor of it.  The vast majority of people against it were from outside the proposed district.  I guess it was a little too much local control for EGR.

I stand corrected.  Then maybe the process didn't work.  

[GRJohn]

Just now, mpchicago said:

I stand corrected.  Then maybe the process didn't work.  

I depends on who you ask.

[mpchicago]

11 minutes ago, GRJohn said:

I depends on who you ask.

Any thoughts on all this since your town is at the center of this controversy 

[GRJohn]

Regarding the process with EGR, there were roadblocks put down as soon as the process started.  

The way something like this goes is an informal survey is taken of a neighborhood where signatures are gathered to gauge what percentage of the neighborhood would like to look into the possibility of creating a district.  Once a majority is reached, in this case it was around 75-80%, then a petition is created to commission a study committee that may create a non-binding recommendation for the creation of a district.  The mayor of East created a pre-study committee that determined if we should create a study committee (this pre-study study had never been done before in the 40 year history of the legislation).  The pre-study committee was made up of 3 elected officials and 3 residents.  The results were 4-2 in favor of creating a committee to study whether there should be a district created.  The commissioners took that 4-2 to mean that we should not proceed.  The district was killed 5-2 by the commissioners and mayor.  Democracy at work.  

It was a tough blow but I accepted the loss.  What I don't like is this bill is being touted as "Not letting others tell you what to do" but that is exactly what they want to do.  They told us what to do with our neighborhood and now they want to tell others what to do with their neighborhood.

To be clear, I'm very pro-development.  I love reading all of the posts on UrbanPlanet and have enjoyed seeing the growth of GR.  I know that some historic districts can get a little out of hand but if you follow the guidelines setup by the secretary of the interior, they are pretty easy to follow.  I just hope people actually read the guidelines before they make blanket statements regarding them.  If I see one more post about paint color! 

I'd like to think that a balance can be found.  I think historic districts offer stability and certainty.  A developer knows that a certain area is off limits while everything else is fair game.  The residents know that the area won't be clear cut by development but lose a bit of the moral high ground when any NIMBY or BANANA screams about any development.

I'm saddened by this bill and feel responsible for it because my neighborhood wanted something that others didn't want us to have.  It appears winning that battle wasn't satisfying enough for them.

[mpchicago]

29 minutes ago, GRJohn said:

 

The pre-study committee was made up of 3 elected officials and 3 residents.  The results were 4-2 in favor of creating a committee to study whether there should be a district created.  The commissioners took that 4-2 to mean that we should not proceed.  The district was killed 5-2 by the commissioners and mayor.   

 

Okay then.  Sounds to me like the process DID fail.  Democracy NOT at work.  The more I read about this, the more distressing it is.

[GRDadof3]

40 minutes ago, GRJohn said:

Regarding the process with EGR, there were roadblocks put down as soon as the process started.  

The way something like this goes is an informal survey is taken of a neighborhood where signatures are gathered to gauge what percentage of the neighborhood would like to look into the possibility of creating a district.  Once a majority is reached, in this case it was around 75-80%, then a petition is created to commission a study committee that may create a non-binding recommendation for the creation of a district.  The mayor of East created a pre-study committee that determined if we should create a study committee (this pre-study study had never been done before in the 40 year history of the legislation).  The pre-study committee was made up of 3 elected officials and 3 residents.  The results were 4-2 in favor of creating a committee to study whether there should be a district created.  The commissioners took that 4-2 to mean that we should not proceed.  The district was killed 5-2 by the commissioners and mayor.  Democracy at work.  

It was a tough blow but I accepted the loss.  What I don't like is this bill is being touted as "Not letting others tell you what to do" but that is exactly what they want to do.  They told us what to do with our neighborhood and now they want to tell others what to do with their neighborhood.

To be clear, I'm very pro-development.  I love reading all of the posts on UrbanPlanet and have enjoyed seeing the growth of GR.  I know that some historic districts can get a little out of hand but if you follow the guidelines setup by the secretary of the interior, they are pretty easy to follow.  I just hope people actually read the guidelines before they make blanket statements regarding them.  If I see one more post about paint color! 

I'd like to think that a balance can be found.  I think historic districts offer stability and certainty.  A developer knows that a certain area is off limits while everything else is fair game.  The residents know that the area won't be clear cut by development but lose a bit of the moral high ground when any NIMBY or BANANA screams about any development.

I'm saddened by this bill and feel responsible for it because my neighborhood wanted something that others didn't want us to have.  It appears winning that battle wasn't satisfying enough for them.

Agreed! I've probably even railed against some of the historic district standards on here and how they can be onerous for households that don't have a high income, but I never wanted a wholesale repeal of the historic districts or preservation laws. 

If the powers that be in EGR got what they wanted, why did they have to take it a step further and try to rewrite the entire law in Michigan? Were they all sitting around drinking Scotch at one of the local watering holes and decided "to hell with them?" Plus, if you have that kind of money, why do you care if the area becomes an historic district? Because you can't add your 4000 square foot addition to the top of your 1200 square foot bungalow? 

 

 

[egrguy]

23 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

If the powers that be in EGR got what they wanted, why did they have to take it a step further and try to rewrite the entire law in Michigan? Were they all sitting around drinking Scotch at one of the local watering holes and decided "to hell with them?" Plus, if you have that kind of money, why do you care if the area becomes an historic district? Because you can't add your 4000 square foot addition to the top of your 1200 square foot bungalow? 

 

 

That's the part I have not ever understood. The historic district was a pretty limited area within the city. 

[GRJohn]

54 minutes ago, jdkacz said:

That's the part I have not ever understood. The historic district was a pretty limited area within the city. 

It was going to be Cambridge Blvd. and Briarwood Ave. from Wealthy St. to Lake Dr. 

[egrguy]

Battle lines drawn over Michigan historic districts

From the Detroit News. Interesting that I do not see much public support for this bill other then politicians that are pushing this bill. It also ppears that Afendoulis tried to modify the bill to make it more palatable.

[ctpgr34]

Info on this regarding Murray- http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/meijer_murray_historic_distric.html#incart_river_home

[GR_Urbanist]

2 hours ago, ctpgr34 said:

Info on this regarding Murray- http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/meijer_murray_historic_distric.html#incart_river_home

Ugh.

This whole thing has just become a bunch of partisan sniping and "I hate rich people" slams. I dont think 1/10th of the people commenting there couldn't care less about historical preservation of property rights. Just dopes looking to score political points. Those of us that live in historic districts actually have some diverse opinions on the subject that are not 100% one way or the other and it is a disservice for us to have these childish trolls turn the topic into a flame war.

And Mlive? They aren't even writing news articles so people can decide for themselves, just opinion pieces with snarky statements:

"Meijer Inc. co-CEO Mark Murray is not a fan of historic districts in his backyard.

Or anywhere else for that matter."

Where in the world does this guy get that idea that this is what Murry wants?

 

 

[GRJohn]

On 2/22/2016 at 3:57 PM, jdkacz said:

21 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Ugh.

This whole thing has just become a bunch of partisan sniping and "I hate rich people" slams. I dont think 1/10th of the people commenting there couldn't care less about historical preservation of property rights. Just dopes looking to score political points. Those of us that live in historic districts actually have some diverse opinions on the subject that are not 100% one way or the other and it is a disservice for us to have these childish trolls turn the topic into a flame war.

And Mlive? They aren't even writing news articles so people can decide for themselves, just opinion pieces with snarky statements:

"Meijer Inc. co-CEO Mark Murray is not a fan of historic districts in his backyard.

Or anywhere else for that matter."

Where in the world does this guy get that idea that this is what Murry wants?

 

 

I can't speak for Mr. Murray not wanting it anywhere else but I can say that he does not want a historic district in his backyard, his neighborhood, or his city.  Even if his house would not be in the district.

[x99]

1 hour ago, GR_Urbanist said:

This whole thing has just become a bunch of partisan sniping and "I hate rich people" slams. I dont think 1/10th of the people commenting there couldn't care less about historical preservation of property rights. Just dopes looking to score political points. Those of us that live in historic districts actually have some diverse opinions on the subject that are not 100% one way or the other and it is a disservice for us to have these childish trolls turn the topic into a flame war.

Where in the world does this guy get that idea that this is what Murry wants?

Nonsense.  The long and short of it is that lobbying firms don't work for free.  Someone paid them, and you can bet it wasn't Chris Afendoulis.  Odds are that Afendoulis was sidling up to the money and sucking up to someone he thought could do him some good if he introduced their bought and paid for legislation.  Too bad nobody bothered to tell him he was also mobilizing a grassroots army against his reelection campaign.  The question now is whether the rest of our politicians on both sides of the aisle will continue to glue their lips to the rear end of the guy with the money, or pay attention to the angry hordes on both sides of the aisle.  So far as Murray, see https://watapama.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/mr-murray-of-meijers-friend-or-foe-to-democracy-in-michigan/ for an interesting read.

[walker]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

. . .   So far as Murray, see https://watapama.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/mr-murray-of-meijers-friend-or-foe-to-democracy-in-michigan/ for an interesting read.

Well that link was entertaining even if it is a bit over the top.

Today the Detroit News had a more bland article:

Detroit News article

What new information that I got from the News news was that 1) Afendoulis has introduced a new supposedly more palatable version of the bill which is actually worse, and 2) "It’s part of a Republican campaign being waged in several states, including Wisconsin, where similar legislation has passed. In Utah, similar legislation has been introduced."  So maybe instead of just being some kind of local Michigan snit, this is some kind of national issue.  I'm confused, while there are a lot of differing opinions about historic preservation, I never thought of it as a right-wing vs left-wing type of thing.    

[jas49503]

I'd hate to say this but they might make me vote democrat. I can tell you that I'll give it my all to see that Afendoulis isn't re-elected. My pockets might not be as deep as Murray's but I'm a lot more committed after this stunt. 

[Nancy Kotting]

https://watapama.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/meijer-poised-to-potentially-reap-millions-if-hb-5232-approved/

[GRDadof3]

16 minutes ago, Nancy Kotting said:

https://watapama.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/meijer-poised-to-potentially-reap-millions-if-hb-5232-approved/

Welcome Nancy. Thanks for the link.

Interesting that I hadn't put Meijer's plans for more stores in Detroit together with this legislation. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but these back-room conversations are certainly plausible, and certainly likely.