Please note that I’ve referred to the Local Historic Districts Act (MCL 399.201, et seq) as the LHDA, the Clarkston ordinance (152.01, et seq of the Clarkston Code of Ordinances) as the Clarkston Ordinance, and the HDC charter proposal as the Charter Proposal.
Discussion:
There is no reference to this section in the LHDA or the Clarkston Ordinance (nor should there be). This section of the Charter Proposal simply instructs a court that if there is a conflict between the Charter Proposal and the Clarkston Ordinance, or other existing provisions of the Clarkston charter, then then the language of the Charter Proposal should prevail.
Notes:
This is standard language, but the “Charming” group and their supporters have given it a bizarre reading to suggest that the Charter Proposal entirely replaces the Clarkston Ordinance even though the language that anyone can read for themselves limits it to only rare cases where there is a conflict between the Clarkston Ordinance and the Charter Proposal. I’ve gone through every section of the Charter Proposal so you can see what the different provisions of the LHDA and the Clarkston Ordinance require, and it’s obvious that this is another false claim. The only time this issue would come up is if there were a lawsuit that involved an interpretation of the Charter Proposal’s language, something that is highly unlikely.
Paid for by Susan Bisio, P.O. Box 1303, Clarkston, MI 48347 with regulated funds.)