Jump to content

Massive changes being proposed to Michigan's historic district laws


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
45 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

CapCon is at it again, doubling down on the notion of the "big bad historic preservationists."

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/22218

I have a feeling there's more to this story, from the city's viewpoint.

 

This is a tough one, and this is not just a historic district issue.  You are right we really don't know the whole story here, since the city is not willing or cannot talk about this case.  In most instances I think if the homeowner is working on the issues, city officals are willing to work with the homeowner. I wish we could hear the city's side of the story.   The fact is most towns have ordinances that attempt to protect property values, by making sure residences are keeping up their yards, and homes.  I don't know about Grand Rapids, but in many towns, including where I live, these ordinances, are not just for historic districts, it's the whole town.  

Do all property owners, regardless of where they live, have the right to NOT maintain their yard and home? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

CapCon is at it again, doubling down on the notion of the "big bad historic preservationists."

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/22218

I have a feeling there's more to this story, from the city's viewpoint.

 

Red Herring.

Yes, the City's housing inspections & enforcement department is ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with the state's preservation law. 

Additional time to complete repairs is almost always granted by the housing appeals board if you can show progress and a schedule for completion. But, once inspections has you on the hook, you've got to be active in the process to extract what you need. 

We have local policy and enforcement problems that need to be addressed. Repealing the state's preservation law ain't gonna make the City a better place and won't solve this woman's problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The woman sounds like she ignored dozens of warnings, not to mention biting off more than she can chew with her home purchase. If her home is multi-family, all the more reason to go after her. I don't have much sympathy for folks like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

This is very good news, but I can't say I'm surprised.  The preservation folks came out in full force, I even sent some e-mails to Michigan legislators apposing the bills.  Does anyone think this will just go away, or will the conversation continue about possible tweaks to the law, even with in historic preservation circles.  Do preservationists feel the law is close to perfect as is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope something comes back to make some needed changes, especially as to how historical districts are being misused here in Grand Rapids as pseudo under the table neighborhood rehabilitation schemes. To the powers unelected HPCs have amassed without public checks, and with appallingly inconsistent application, that lead to perfectly reasonable developments being rejected based on specious style points, while other, actually historic buildings are cleared to become parking lots. Also, the overly stringent standards that turn many homes that need to be able to still adapt to real people living there, into virtual museum pieces that almost only the rich can ever afford to live in, needs to be looked at.

Those smaller tweaks will get far more support, and will prevent hysterical cries of people wanting to destroy history from drowning out a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Those smaller tweaks will get far more support, and will prevent hysterical cries of people wanting to destroy history from drowning out a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

They would.  This bill was really aimed at crushing historic districts as a whole, not at making improvements regarding materials usage.  Someone finally got smart and figured out this bill was a huge political problem.  But all they need to do in order to fix 90% of the problems with the existing law (and probably get support of HUGE numbers of people in historic districts) is simple:  

"The use of substitute materials shall be permitted in any historic district so long as a) the visual appearance of the substitute material cannot be readily distinguished from the historic material by an ordinary person from the public right-of-way or 50 feet, whichever is less, and b) the cost of repair or replacement of the existing original material exceeds the cost of replacement.  Any new construction or renovation work performed in a historic district shall be in a style which is the same as or similar to an existing style within the district, but distinguishable by a trained professional upon close examination."

That takes care of an awful lot of issues and ambiguity in only two sentences, please a lot of people, and probably angers only a select few. (I may be one of the few personally, but I try to be realistic for everyone else).  

Case in point:  Aluminum and vinyl siding.  If you read the rules correctly (which is pretty easy since the federal government has published something specifically about this), they are actually permitted in circumstances where the original material is degraded and can be replaced with something visually identical.  However, very few local districts will ever permit those products to be installed...  Vinyl would be tough, but I have seen aluminum jobs (if they still sell the stuff) where it was basically impossible to tell even up close when they caulked it down to the original side boards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adjustment to the rules is better than overhauling the system. I don't think it needs much. The materials rules are a bit draconian. At my old place I wanted to use PVC trim on my deck which was what was there before I repaired it. Literally, indistinguishable from painted wood. I walked by it every day and didn't know it was PVC until I tore it apart. They denied it which was really irritating. 

 

On the other hand they approved my skylight with no questions asked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jas49503 said:

Adjustment to the rules is better than overhauling the system. I don't think it needs much. The materials rules are a bit draconian. At my old place I wanted to use PVC trim on my deck which was what was there before I repaired it. Literally, indistinguishable from painted wood. I walked by it every day and didn't know it was PVC until I tore it apart. They denied it which was really irritating. 

 

On the other hand they approved my skylight with no questions asked. 

These changes should come from within, from people who love historic districts but would like a little flexibility. 

These changes should not come from the Tea Party, like a lot of legislation should not come from the Tea Party. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.