At the January 27 city council meeting under agenda Item #10d (to accept the findings of the Clarkston Historic District Study Committee) and following some preliminary discussion, mayor Sue Wylie read a written public comment submitted to her from Historic District Commission (”HDC”) Commissioner Annette Zemon-Parker. This comment was written in Zemon-Parker’s unofficial capacity as a Clarkston resident. (I’ll refer to the Clarkston Historic District Study Committee group as the “study committee” from now on.)
The city council allows general public comments about non-agenda items earlier in the meeting, but if a person submits a comment about a specific agenda item, our mayor usually reads the comment with the agenda item it relates to as a way to keep things in context. In the middle of reading Zemon-Parker’s comment, Wylie said she thought that Zemon-Parker was referring to the study committee but wasn’t sure, and at the February 10 council meeting, Wylie admitted that she’d added the phrase “study committee” in the first sentence of Zemon-Parker’s comment, something I personally think wasn’t appropriate because the comment was Zemon-Parker’s, not Wylie’s, and the time to disagree with a written comment should follow its reading. (Wylie also noted that another resident had contacted her with a complaint about the study committee.) Like many of us, Zemon-Parker believes the HDC had a hand in the study committee’s report. This is not an unreasonable suspicion as you’ll see from the discussion below.
After Zemon-Parker’s comment was read, study committee chair Nancy Moon said she wanted it to be “crystal clear” the HDC did not control the study, and the study was not done by the HDC. Wylie agreed and said yes, it was done by an independent group.
Apparently, Wylie wasn’t clear enough for HDC Commissioner Lisa Patercsak. Speaking in her official capacity as an HDC commissioner, Patercsak felt compelled to make her own comments at the February 10 city council meeting during the general public comment agenda item.
-
- Patercsak was not happy that our mayor and the city council didn’t sufficiently fact check Zemon-Parker’s public comments made as a resident at the previous city council meeting. Patercsak said it “was irresponsible for a city leader to knowingly present such scathing comments out of context, misrepresenting the actual issue.” Had Patercsak been less focused on attacking a resident (Zemon-Parker), insulting the mayor by calling her “irresponsible,” and actually listened to the discussion, she would have realized that both Moon and Wylie said the study committee was separate from the HDC. I’d also note it’s not the mayor’s or the council’s effing job to “correct” any public commenter since the purpose of public comments is to provide the public with an opportunity to “voice their thoughts” with council and is expressly not intended to be a question-and-answer period. Despite that, Moon and Wylie both said the report was from the study committee, not the HDC. Not only that, Wylie inserted a phrase in the comment that wasn’t there originally (“study committee”) and Wylie interjected her own comment while reading Zemon-Parker’s comment. Apparently, that wasn’t enough HDC butt-kissing for Patercsak.
-
- Patercsak claimed the HDC is committed to following the law and she specifically mentioned the open meetings act. Yet the records the HDC recently published show the HDC and the individual commissioners are still regularly committing open meetings act violations because of the HDC’s continuing practice of issuing Memoranda of Administrative Authority (MoAAs). The HDC invented MoAAs out of thin air so the commissioners could avoid having to meet more than once a month and because the HDC commissioners believe they’re entitled to have a say in all activity within the district, including like-for-like repair (which the HDC is not authorized to be involved in under state law). These MoAAs are issued following a quorum or sub-quorum meeting of one or more historic district commissioners who make an official approval decision without a public meeting, something the open meetings act prohibits. (Guess I’ll see you in court on that one, Ms. Patercsak? FYI, the open meetings act provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations.)
-
- Patercsak demanded that Wylie tell her if there had been complaints about the HDC within the last year and seemed shocked when Wylie confirmed there had been complaints. Shocked? Seriously? The November election was just a few months ago, and even though the HDC charter proposal failed to secure a sufficient number of voters to pass, a significant number of those voters were dissatisfied enough with the way the HDC has been acting to vote “yes” on the proposal – despite all the lies promulgated by the opposition, something Patercsak should be well aware of since she also made false public statements about the proposal. (More on that later.)
-
- Patercsak apparently has a problem with what she perceives as misrepresentations, stating we should be “clear and not misrepresent.” 😂 Oh, so now Patercsak has a problem with misrepresentations? I beg to differ (but more on that later).
After listening to Patercsak’s public comments made as an official of the city, I feel compelled to make my own public comments in response.
On information and belief, Patercsak made similar comments about Zemon-Parker at the February 11th HDC meeting. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to verify exactly what she said because the HDC deliberately hides what’s going on at its meetings by refusing to record them, despite the city manager’s statements that those meetings would be recorded. If you can’t personally show up at the once-monthly meetings, you are out of luck. (Yet Patercsak claims the HDC is transparent. Seriously? 🙄)
As you may (or may not) be aware, the study committee recently completed its “work.” On their own volition, these self-proclaimed expert volunteers forced 18 additional homes in the historic district into a “historic” designation, leaving only 14 of 172 homes in the historic district considered nonhistoric. In other words, 91% of all structures and landscape features in the historic district have been deemed historic by these self-proclaimed expert volunteers. (Such a coincidence! Maybe we can include the whole city next time and they can shoehorn everything under the HDC’s purview – something they likely dream about.)
To accomplish the 91% designation, the study committee skulked around the city, taking multiple photographs of everything in the historic district and collecting data about the current and previous owners – without ever talking to most of the current owners or telling them what the study committee was doing. To be fair, you are allowed to take pictures of homes from a public sidewalk, you can collect information from public records and sources about the property and the owners, and you can publish it all (and all this information will be published on the library website, whether historic district residents like it or not). But just because you can do something, does that mean you should? For example, do you think Commissioner Patercsak would like it if I published photos of her home along with her address and every public record I can find about her and her property on this website? I can do it, but should I do it? What if I did that for every member of the study committee? Would they be OK with that? I doubt it. Yet these people expect everyone in the historic district to be OK with what they’ve done.
Once the study committee finished its “work,” it put its information together into a giant 1500-page report that it sent off to the State Historic Preservation Office without extending any courtesy to city council to discuss the report before it did so – even though the city council created the study committee. Then the study committee held only one public meeting to discuss its findings. Not only was this meeting not recorded, the individual 18 homeowners whose status was changed weren’t advised that the results of the study committee’s “work” directly affected the status of their homes.
When our mayor asked why the study committee deliberately avoided talking to both the council and the 18 homeowners, study committee members claimed state law didn’t require it and golly gosh gee, they were just following the rules. While it’s true it’s not required, it’s also true they weren’t prevented from doing it either. Personally, I think they didn’t talk to the council or notify the individual homeowners simply because they didn’t want to, and I also think it was because they wanted to push the report through with as few objections as possible. The fewer people know, the better, right?
The study committee suggested that it forced these 18 homeowners into a “historic” designation out of the goodness of their hearts. Nothing to see here, folks – they just wanted to make sure more people would be eligible for tax credits. (And we all totally believe that don’t we?😂) What tax credits, you might ask? While it’s true that money is available for certain work on historic homes if the owner jumps through all the required hoops, we were recently advised at a Clarkston historic district presentation at the Clarkston Independence District Library that there haven’t been any residential applications for tax credits in the historic district the presenter was aware of (though there have been commercial applications). And even though HDC Commissioner Michael Moon claimed the HDC treats all homes within the historic district the same way, if you think the HDC is going to march into court to force a homeowner in a nonhistoric home to rip out new porch railings that the owner personally installed, I’m pretty sure you’ve got another think coming. It’s true that all permit applications pulled within the historic district are shunted over to the HDC, but permits aren’t required for work homeowners do themselves.
Personally, I’ve always thought the timing of the creation of the study committee was suspicious and believe it is because the HDC wanted to force the 42 West Washington owners under the “historic” umbrella. Why? Because several years ago, the owners wanted to tear the building down. The HDC eventually won the court battle and prevented the owners from razing the home, but I believe the victory was in large part because the city attorney representing the HDC successfully argued that the reviewing court shouldn’t be allowed to consider evidence that the home is structurally unsound, dangerous, would cost far more to repair than it’s worth, and even if repairs were attempted, it’s entirely possible that the surrounding homes would be damaged. This was a pyrrhic victory, since the unsafe building still stands vacant and there will undoubtedly be more taxpayer-funded court battles should the HDC attempt to force the owners to do repairs, but classifying this structure as historic gives the HDC an additional cudgel in any future dispute. (Or I could be wrong, it’s all totally just a coincidence, and this whole project was simply about giving 18 homeowners the ability to apply for tax credits that no one is apparently applying for. Right. 🙄)
Even though Clarkston has always held itself out as a quaint 1800s mill town, the study committee successfully increased the range of what is considered “historic” to include homes built up to 1970. What an effing joke. No one is going to be drawn here to purchase one of a bazillion 1960s homes. Why would they? Especially since word has gotten around that buying a home in our historic district can make life unnecessarily aggravating for the homeowners. If someone wants a 1960s-era home, there lots of other places to buy one where you don’t have to deal with the Clarkston HDC.
Patercsak is technically correct on one claim – the study committee is separate from the HDC. But let me explain why I think that’s a distinction without much of a practical difference.
Want to know who the study committee members are?
-
- Nancy Moon, chair
- Michael Moon
- Cara Catallo
- Kevin Knapp
- Carole Sawyer
I’m sure there’s no similarity between any of these five members and the HDC, right? Well, not so fast. Let’s look at the overlap:
-
- Nancy Moon is married to Michael Moon, current HDC commissioner
-
- Michael Moon is an HDC commissioner
-
- Cara Catallo is a former HDC commissioner and chair who abused her authority and obtained a stop work order against private property owners to prevent them from cutting down trees on their property, even though the property owners were actively obeying a separate city order to clean up the property at great expense (and their expenses were increased because of Catallo’s interference)
You might recall the HDC charter proposal that my husband and I fought to get on the ballot at the November election that I mentioned earlier. Every part of the proposal responded to specific, historical HDC abuses (like Catallo’s stop work order). As well, the proposal sought to provide additional due process protection to residents in the historic district, many of whom the HDC has abused, and to ensure the city council had input before a bunch of HDC layperson/volunteers embroiled the city in litigation at the expense of taxpayers living inside and outside the historic district. Looking at the names of the five study committee members, do you care to take a guess which of them donated and/or worked on the campaign to oppose the HDC charter amendment, which was merely designed to protect residents and taxpayers from HDC overreach?
-
- Nancy Moon made two cash donations totaling $300
-
- Cara Catallo made two cash donations totaling $88.50 and set up the website that was filled with falsehoods about the charter proposal
-
- Kevin Knapp made two cash donations totaling $350
(Though not on the study committee, current HDC commissioner Jennifer Radcliff donated $100 to the campaign of lies against the HDC charter proposal, and Patercsak made two cash donations and one in-kind office materials donation totaling $417.49. The office materials charges were for labels, likely used for the mailing campaign disseminating falsehoods about the HDC charter proposal sent to city residents.)
I said I’d get back to Patercsak’s newly discovered aversion to misrepresentation, so let’s do that.
In September 2024, someone posted a concept photo in a Facebook group that had been provided to the planning commission in connection with a proposed development project at the corner of Waldon and Main. (The development project was abandoned before the November election.) Patercsak made several comments on that Facebook posting, falsely claiming the HDC charter proposal would:
-
- “pav[e] the way (no pun intended) for this development”
-
- allow historic district residents to “start ripping out windows and porches”
-
- eliminated the HDC’s ability to intervene
-
- made the HDC an advisory body only
Patercsak’s comments also scurrilously – and wrongly – suggested a sitting council member had a personal stake in the proposed development at Waldon and Main. Though Patercsak didn’t expressly name former councilmember Peg Roth, she did describe the sitting councilmember as someone who “walked around to get signatures to ensure the proposal was on the ballot.” This could only refer to Roth, since Roth was the only sitting council member who collected signatures. (For future reference to Patercsak, you don’t have to specifically name someone to slander or libel them.)
During an HDC meeting, study committee chair Nancy Moon submitted a statement to the HDC that she purportedly obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office (in response to her emails containing the subject line, “Promotional Material to Stop the Petition”). The statement Moon provided falsely claimed the HDC charter proposal would change the HDC appeals process and affect residents’ ability to obtain tax credits. Michael Moon, HDC commissioner and HDC secretary, inserted the false statements into the official HDC minutes. Paterscak was one of several HDC members who voted to finalize the minutes to include the false statements. (Michael Moon, Jennifer Radcliff, and HDC Chair Robert Hauxwell also voted to include the false statements in the HDC minutes. The actions of Moon and the HDC are the subject of a campaign finance complaint pending before the Secretary of State’s Bureau of Elections.)
Patercsak’s $417.49 helped to fund a campaign that blatantly lied about the HDC charter proposal to the entire community in numerous ways. Patercsak’s contribution went toward spreading the following falsehoods about the HDC charter proposal, claiming it would:
-
- Harm the city’s place on the National Register of Historic Places
-
- Cause a 4-lane Main Street
-
- Decrease home values
-
- Gut the historic district ordinance
-
- Gut the current system
-
- Remove “real authority” over historic district decisions from the HDC and State Historic Preservation Office
-
- Provide no savings for taxpayers
-
- Provide scant protection for the city against costly lawsuits
-
- Make the HDC an advisory board
-
- Provide few requirements for new buildings
-
- Destroy the historic district
-
- Result in the loss of tax credits for individuals
-
- Result in the loss of grant opportunities for the city
-
- Change the HDC appeals process
-
- Place unrealistic and onerous requirements on HDC commissioners
-
- Manipulate and severely limit the “accepted meaning” of open spaces allowing for an “anything goes” vibe
-
- Hurt Clarkston’s character
-
- Allow developers to tear down historic buildings
-
- Allow generic commercial buildings to be built downtown
Campaign finance records reveal Patercsak donated the labels on September 15, 2024, and $300 on September 26, 2024. Well into the campaign, after these lies were repeatedly published throughout the community, Paterczak made another $100 donation on October 24, 2024, clearly signifying that she agreed with the campaign falsehoods and wanted to support more of the same. Given all the campaign lies and Patercsak’s significant support of it, it simply beggars belief that Patercsak gives a flying eff about misrepresentations, doesn’t it?
For what it’s worth, I’m glad that Commissioner Zemon-Parker agreed to serve on the HDC because we need people who don’t go along to get along with the other condescending jack wagons on the HDC. I also hope that Patercsak’s public bullying of Zemon-Parker exercising her right to make a comment as a private citizen – made in Patercsak’s official capacity – doesn’t cause Zemon-Parker to resign from the HDC simply because she had the audacity to criticize the HDC and the study committee and say what many of us are also thinking. Even though Patercsak is technically correct – that the study committee and the HDC are separate – only a fool would believe the two groups had no influence over the activities of the other.
And that concludes my public comments to HDC Commissioner Paterscak.