On Saturday, October 12, 2024, the opponents of the Historic District Commission (HDC) charter proposal finally figured out there are people who live outside the historic district and hand-delivered lying flyers about the proposed HDC charter amendment to them.
Well, that’s not quite true. The people behind the “Charming” group who want you to vote “no” on the HDC charter proposal are certainly aware that people live outside the historic district; they just arrogantly treat those people as walking wallets who should have no input into any historic district matters. If the charter proposal is defeated with the help of people living outside the historic district, then the “Charming” group and their ilk will happily go back to treating everyone outside the historic district as a poor stepchild. It’s wrong, but I’ve watched it happen time and time again in the years I’ve lived in Clarkston.
I’ve posted photos that someone provided to me of the lying flyer below. I’ve always said I don’t have a problem addressing questions and issues head on, so that means I don’t have a problem publishing this moronic junk (especially so people can see how hyperbolic and silly the claims are):
You’ll notice the “Charming” group provides no citations or quotes from the HDC charter proposal in the flyer. It simply makes false statements as though they are true. Using that same approach, I suppose I could say the people behind the “Charming” group meet on Saturday nights and copulate with goats before sacrificing them to Moloch. I don’t have any proof anything like that is happening, but making false goat allegations is no different than the claims the “Charming” group has been making about the HDC charter proposal. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, even if you do it a thousand times.
Let’s have some fun separating this steaming pile of excrement into smaller piles of excrement before disposing of them in the trash (which is where the lying flyer belongs).
Digging into my memories of American history classes, the shadow group starts by apparently borrowing from the dated “domino theory” behind the Cold and Vietnam Wars with this dark photo (exactly how old are these people?):
Oh no! Let me get this straight – so, if the proposed HDC charter amendment passes, then lots of unidentified buildings will be demolished for some unknown reason against the financial interests of the owners, and then we’ll be taken off the National Register of Historic Places, and then we’ll have a four-lane Main Street, and then your home value will plummet. (And I have a goat I’d like to sell you.)
I hope we can count on your informed “yes” vote on the charter proposal, so let’s move on to the second domino.
Building demolition:
There is nothing – and I mean absolutely nothing – in the proposed HDC charter amendment that gives permission to anyone to destroy any buildings in the historic district or anywhere else in the city. No buildings can be destroyed in the city without city approval. If the building is in the historic district, that city approval also includes HDC approval.
This domino isn’t going to fall anywhere.
National Register of Historic Places:
I suppose I could stop with the second domino but let’s go on to the claim about the National Register of Historic Places. The area we identify as the entire historic district was placed on the National Register on May 15, 1980, and you can see the entry here. The reason residents worked to get the historic district onto the National Register was because they believed M-15 might be widened right in the middle of our downtown. Being on the National Register provides protection against destructive highway projects. It’s not foolproof, but any attempts to widen M-15 in the middle of our downtown will now require an analysis that recognizes there are historic structures that would be affected by federally-funded road work (referred to as a “106 review”).
Four-Lane Main Street:
Frankly, I’m not sure how valid the downtown M-15-widening fear ever was. I found a Clarkston News article from May 23, 1979, quoting Jack Morgan, manager of the public involvement section of the Michigan State Department of Transportation. The article stated: “[T]he real worry, as he understands it, is the potential widening of M-15 through downtown Clarkston . . . there is just no such proposal.” (My bolding.) Clarkston News, “June Hearing on M-15 Plan,” May 23, 1979, at page 1.
FYI, a Clarkston task force recommended M-15 be widened to three lanes through downtown, and the plan was approved by the village council (Clarkston News, “M-15 Task Force Proposes 3 Lanes,” October 20, 1982, at page 1). In 1990, discussions about widening M-15 in Independence Township (between Dixie Highway and Paramus Street) arose again, prompting Clarkston officials to express a belief, without any objective evidence, that M-15 could “someday” be widened in downtown Clarkston.
To date, the only entity proposing M-15 widening was the Clarkston village council in 1982, and that proposal was for three lanes. But whether residents were responding to an imaginary fear or a real one, the fact remains that Clarkston has been on the National Register for 44 years and any future widening of M-15 through our downtown would require a “106 review” before it could occur. And that review would “identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.” 36 CFR 800.1(a).
And now that we’re on the National Register, we’re not going anywhere. The only basis for removing Clarkston from the National Register is that “the property has ceased to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register because the qualities which caused it to be originally listed have been lost or destroyed ….” 36 CFR 60.15(a)(1); § 60.15(b). In Clarkston’s case, “the property” means the entire historic district.
Are the people who wrote the lying flyer suggesting that people are going to raze, burn, or alter all or most of the buildings in the historic district because of the HDC charter proposal (that doesn’t even provide an avenue for doing these things)? Because that’s the kind of extraordinary change that would have to be made within the entire historic district before we would ever get kicked off the National Register. And removals don’t happen unless someone petitions for removal to begin a long procedure to consider it. (You can read about it here: 36 CFR 60.15(c)-(k).)
But in the impossible scenario that Clarkston lost its spot on the National Register because the city and the HDC stopped doing all enforcement under the city’s ordinances, then I suppose the state could widen M-15 through the downtown area (even though they expressly said they never wanted to do that anyway). This particular domino relies on the claim that so many of the almost 200 properties in the historic district would be demolished or altered that it would be unrecognizable based on some mechanism outside of the HDC charter proposal. How would that happen exactly under the city’s ordinances, including the historic district ordinance? The “Charming” group doesn’t say.
Plummeting Home Values:
So, I guess the thinking here is that if we demolished, burned, or altered a huge number of buildings in the city, lost our place on the National Register, M-15 were widened (even though the state hasn’t expressed an interest in doing that), then home values would go down. This is a very bizarre claim and so hypothetical that it’s impossible to address.
But as I said, this whole series of claims doesn’t go beyond the second domino. No one is going to tear down or alter buildings throughout the city for no reason. The normal city permit process wouldn’t allow it, and the HDC wouldn’t allow it.
All The Dominos Fall:
This last sentence claims the HDC charter proposal is somehow “gutting” the current historic district ordinance.” That is false. The proposed amendment concerns the charter, not the historic district ordinance. It requires that HDC expenditures be approved by the city council (just like any other expenditure), that the HDC follow the Open Meetings Act, it limits the HDC’s authority to the state law that created it (which is expansive), it encourages informal dispute resolutions, and it provides for a complaint procedure for removing HDC members who treat residents badly. If you’d like to see how the charter proposal stacks up against the Local Historic Districts Act (the state law that authorizes our historic district and historic district ordinance) and the historic district ordinance, I’ve prepared this chart. If you’d prefer a much longer written discussion, you can read this post. If you’d like to see a discussion of individual sections of the proposed charter amendment, click on the green boxes on the right-hand side of this webpage.
The “Charming” group has continuously tried to blur the lines between the historic district ordinance and Clarkston’s place on the National Register. They are entirely different things, and you don’t need a historic district ordinance (or an HDC) to be on the National Register. I think the State Historic Preservation Office does an excellent job explaining the difference between the two in this publication.
Did you know we didn’t have a historic district ordinance at the time Clarkston was placed on the National Register? It’s true, because that’s not a requirement. Not only that, but there was also a lot of local turmoil concerning the historic district ordinance, it was repealed at one point, the world didn’t come crashing down (nor was the highway widened), and what we have now isn’t what we had then.
You’d never know any of this from the way the “Charming” group is acting. I didn’t know any of this until I took the time to review almost 350 articles published by the Clarkston News over the years that mentioned the phrase “historic district” because all these things happened before we bought our home in 2002. It was eye-opening to say the least. (I’d be happy to send you a bibliography on request if you’d like to read the articles yourself.)
The proposed HDC charter amendment does not “gut” the historic district ordinance.
That said, I’d like to tell you the story of Clarkston’s historic district ordinance and how the world didn’t end during the long stretches of time when we didn’t have one. And you know what? People associated with the “Charming” group likely know this history, but they are hoping that you won’t find out about it because it reveals their scare talk as the lunacy it is.
On June 13, 1979, the planning commission started working on the first draft of the historic district ordinance which would then be submitted for review by the village attorneys, the village council, and followed by public hearings. (We were a village at that point in time.) On August 8, 1979, a five-member HDC was planned (with two members from the existing preservation society [presumably the Clarkston Community Historical Society, CCHS] and one architect. The ordinance wouldn’t apply to newer buildings, but the HDC would be required to work with the property owner to reach a satisfactory solution for both parties (something the HDC charter proposal requires). The planning commission chair harshly suggested a $100 fine and 90 days in jail for violations.
A final draft of the historic district ordinance was nearing completion as of May 6, 1981. It was criticized for giving too much power to the HDC to determine what changes are “compatible” with the building’s size, character, etc. Proponents noted the HDC could consult with an architect at city expense if there were questions. (It was interesting to me that aluminum siding was likely allowed provided it had a “wood grain” appearance, something that’s not allowed now.)
Approximately 30 people attended the public hearing on the proposed historic district ordinance, and they were generally supportive (though there were some objections). The ordinance was ultimately adopted on December 14, 1981, the village council heard a report on the organization and procedures of the HDC (also similar to the HDC charter proposal), and the first HDC meeting was scheduled for February 22, 1982. After six months, HDC chair Jennifer Radcliff (still a member of the current HDC), claimed everything was going very well.
But the public didn’t agree. Nine months after the HDC was created, the council heard complaints the HDC was causing costly delays to residents, one of whom said: “These are a small group of non-elected people with a lot of power. I think you should be keeping better tabs on them.” (Sound familiar?) Radcliff disagreed with the resident complaint. The council agreed to review the HDC’s procedures and ask for a quarterly report. The commission was also accused of being inconsistent, approving aluminum siding for one resident and disapproving aluminum siding for a different resident. (Sound familiar?)
By November 1982, there were calls to suspend the “controversial ordinance.” Recommendations for changes were made after doing a door-to-door survey of residents. These recommendations included monthly rather than quarterly HDC reports to the village council, shortening the 30-day HDC decision deadline, providing a method to appeal HDC decisions without having to go to court, that all HDC guidelines must be approved by the village council, the “reasonable rights” of property owners should be respected, chairpersons should be appointed annually, and the HDC membership should be expanded from five to six, with the sixth person voting only in case of a tie. Radcliff took exception to the complaints and blamed one resident who was upset that his aluminum siding request was denied. (FYI, allowing appeals of HDC decisions without having to go to court would have made the HDC an advisory body. Contrary to the claims of the “Charming” group, the HDC charter proposal does not allow for appeals to be made to the council.) The HDC was attacked for “poorly educating the public, arbitrary decision making, and failure of the council to regulate the commission.” Residents participating in the door-to-door survey criticized the HDC for unprofessionalism and inconsistency. 74.03% of 174 participating homeowners were so angry with the HDC that they told the questioners they did not favor the historic district and 85.43% were dissatisfied with the HDC itself.
As a result of the complaints, the village council voted to repeal the historic district ordinance entirely in November 1982. Without the ordinance, there was also no HDC.
Surprised to hear this? I was. Even though the proposed HDC charter amendment wouldn’t “gut” the historic district ordinance in any way whatsoever, when the ordinance and the HDC were actually eliminated by the village council, the sky didn’t fall, and M-15 wasn’t widened.
Fun fact. Do you want to know who was the deciding vote to repeal the historic district ordinance? That would be none other than Carol Eberhardt, the same person who has been spreading lies about the HDC charter proposal at city council meetings and on social media. (I’ll bet she didn’t think anyone would find that Clarkston News article. 😉) Back then, Eberhardt said she preferred a new ordinance.
On January 24, 1983, the village council proposed drafting a new ordinance, and an ordinance committee was formed from five of twenty interested residents. A member of the CCHS suggested adopting the federal government’s standards for rehabilitation (which is what our current ordinance and the Local Historic Districts Act use).
Historic district residents didn’t appear to be very interested in hearing about the reworked ordinance, even though unfounded claims about M-15 widening began circulating again. Eberhardt sent 96 invitation postcards announcing an informational meeting to discuss the reworked ordinance in May 1983, but only 12 people showed up. After the low turnout, the village decided to conduct a postcard poll of all 174 historic district residents and give them a copy of the new proposed historic district ordinance. 97 people voted no, and 81 people voted yes.
In September 1983, the village council decided to table the historic district ordinance issue indefinitely, leaving Clarkston with no active historic district ordinance and no HDC. The village council set up an advisory board to offer advice to interested residents who wanted to renovate and remodel their historic homes. The village president claimed the historic district ordinance could result in M-15 widening, but a village council member responded the two things were not related. (The village council member was correct – they weren’t related then, and they aren’t related now.)
Clarkston lived with no historic district or an HDC for four years after that, the world didn’t end, and M-15 wasn’t widened.
In 1987, the village decided to try an “anti-demolition” historic district ordinance that would prohibit the destruction of buildings in the historic district. They planned to use “positive words” to make people feel less like they were being “bossed around.” The new ordinance was passed on October 26, 1987, and five residents were appointed to the HDC. This ordinance was concerned only with “substantial alterations” of a historic building, meaning more than 30% of the structure must be affected. Additions in the rear of the building were not included because they couldn’t be seen from the street. (This is similar to the HDC charter proposal.) The ordinance was amended in November 1989 to include new construction over 500 square feet or additions that increase the floor space by more than 25%. Concerns were expressed about the ordinance, and one person thought the HDC would get “so strong that it gets out of hand.”
In 1993, the HDC began lobbying the council to revise the ordinance to make it consistent with Michigan’s Local Historic Districts Act. The focus was on windows, door openings, and artificial siding to the side of the home facing the street. Some council members objected to the HDC having control over what residents do to their homes, but the proponents insisted they didn’t want to tell residents what to do. On February 26, 1996, the historic district ordinance was modified to something that is mostly a cut and paste of the Local Historic Districts Act, and except for a minor change that allows council members to nominate HDC appointees rather than the mayor alone, the ordinance has remained unchanged since then.
I spent the time to give you that bit of history so you can see just how bat poop crazy the “Charming” group’s claims of impending disaster are. Oh, and for the “Charming” group people sitting in the back of the room, let me repeat – the HDC charter proposal is an addition to the charter and doesn’t “gut” the historic district ordinance in any way.
Apparently, this is the “Charming” group’s suggestive “evidence” the HDC charter proposal would cause a widening of M-15 through downtown Clarkston. So, let me get this straight. Roadwork that was actually done fifty years ago in 1974 could somehow be relevant to Clarkston’s addition to the National Register six years later in 1980 and also created a risk to the downtown area even though we didn’t have a continuous historic district ordinance in place until 1987, which was thirteen years after the construction took place. Is that really what they’re implying?
Placing this on the lying flyer is so misleading that it deserves profanity, but I’ll settle for linking to the original October 10, 1974, article here. The relevant quote about the work is as follows: “Highway Department spokesman Edward Boucher said the traffic and safety division is looking into the possibility of widening to four lanes 900 feet of highway north of US-10 [Dixie Highway]. They are also looking into the possibility of adding a right-turn lane on M-15 for access onto Waldon Road, and the addition of a taper lane for access onto Laurelton on the east side of M-15. Plans are not definite for the improvements . . . The State Highway Department will be letting bids in February of 1975 for the four-foot widening of M-15 from U.S. 10 up to the southern village limits; they will also be widening 2 feet on either side of the road just north of the village up to the pavement of I-75. And they plan to blacktop the whole portion of M-15, from the Dixie Highway north through Clarkston to I-75. The changes, if made, will be done for safety reasons . . . ”
This 50-year-old Clarkston News reference has absolutely nothing to do with the historic district, but it speaks volumes about the attempts to mislead by the “Charming” group people who put this lying flyer together.
It’s obvious to anyone who actually reads the HDC charter proposal that it has nothing to do with the historic district ordinance, and it wouldn’t weaken the historic district. And, as I’ve explained above (with a link to a publication from the State Historic Preservation Office), the historic district ordinance has nothing to do with the city’s place on the National Register of Historic Places. You can read about Clarkston’s checkered history of having, and then not having, a historic district ordinance with no adverse effects above. (I’ve done the research, so you don’t have to.)
I have no idea where this claim came from because it doesn’t match the data on the National Register of Historic Places website. They publish both a weekly list of actions taken on properties including listing and removal and a pending list of actions.
I can tell you that in 2023 and 2024, five Michigan entries were removed from the National Register: Mellious Newspaper Building in Lincoln Park was removed on July 24, 2024, St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church and Rectory in Detroit was removed on July 23, 2024, Trowbridge Road-Grand Trunk Western Railroad Bridge in Bloomfield Hills was removed on July 10, 2023, the Oscoda County Courthouse in Mio was removed on July 10, 2023, and the Saint Claire steamer ship in Detroit was removed on December 20, 2023. Why were they removed? Because they don’t exist any longer. The first three were demolished, the fourth was completely destroyed by fire, and the Saint Claire (Bob-Lo) steamer was burned so badly in a fire that it was deemed irreparable.
Clarkston’s place on the National Register isn’t limited to one building – our entry on the National Register consists of the whole historic district. Does the “Charming” group foresee someone destroying and burning almost two hundred homes at any point in the future? If not, National Register delistings have nothing to do with the HDC charter proposal.
Once again, the “Charming” group attempts to conflate the historic district ordinance with the HDC charter proposal, and they are not the same. The city’s position on the National Register of Historic Places is the best defense against a four-lane highway through the middle of downtown (a possibility that apparently exists only in the imaginations of people in Clarkston since there were never any plans from the Michigan Department of Transportation to actually do this).
The HDC charter proposal is “overly complicated and written to deceive”? Geez, tell us you think people who don’t live in the historic district are stupid without actually saying you think they’re stupid.
The charter proposal is written in plain English, and it’s been posted on this website since June. You can read it here. You can find an annotated version here. You can find bullet points here. And you can find a short, written summary here. Prefer a chart? You can find one here. Like a long discussion? You can find one here. Prefer to look at the proposal section-by-section? Then click on the green boxes on the right-hand side of this web page.
You know what you won’t find at any of those links? Lies.
You know what you won’t find in any of the “Charming” group’s material? Truth, facts, or any citations to authority.
The only people being deceptive are the people in the “Charming” group who put together the lying flyer along with everything else they’ve published since their shadow group came into existence.
The biggest part of what the HDC does is make decisions on applications for work on historic properties at its monthly meetings. People who disagree with those decisions can appeal them administratively to the State Historic Preservation Review Board. If someone is unhappy with the final board decision, they can file a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court. The HDC charter proposal doesn’t change any of this. Look at the proposal and see for yourself. The HDC will continue to have “real authority” over decisions it makes.
The savings to taxpayers would come in three exceptional circumstances where costly lawsuits could be avoided because the HDC needs to come to council to get approval to walk down a litigation path before it does it on its own.
Two of the three exceptional circumstances would occur when the HDC wants to issue an order to force someone to repair a structure that is at risk of being demolished by neglect (Demolition by Neglect orders) or when someone has done work that alters the appearance of a structure without getting approval (Restoration and Modification orders). The HDC charter proposal requires the HDC to issue a warning letter to the property owner explaining the issue and working with the property owner to agree on the scope and completion time of the requested work, including using city-funded mediation. Other than mediation (which is just formalized talking to reach a solution), this is no different than the city’s non-historic ordinance enforcement. If that informal process doesn’t work, then the HDC would need to include the city council in any formal order it wants to issue to the property owner or if it wants to get a subsequent court order (because “getting a court order” requires filing a lawsuit to allow the HDC or its representatives to enter onto private property against the owner’s will and forcibly do the repairs it wants done). Why? Because issuing an order or getting a court order would involve the city attorney’s time, and that means every taxpayer in the city is on the hook all those costs. The third exceptional circumstance that would require city council involvement is if the HDC decided to issue a civil infraction with a fine up to $5,000, not only because taxpayers will be forced to pay for the city attorney’s involvement, but also because unpaid fines can eventually result in a tax foreclosure and the owners can lose their property over it.
Why should there be a check and balance before spending our tax dollars on litigation? Because the HDC consists of five residents who are nothing more than people who think preservation is fun and interesting and who may or may not have taken a $150 class on historic preservation. They’re not experts. In fact, they’re no better than you are, yet they have the extraordinary power to not only financially destroy people living in the historic district but also to involve the city in costly litigation paid for by taxpayers living inside and outside the historic district. The charter proposal provides taxpayer protection from costly litigation for everyone living in Clarkston, not just people living in the historic district. The city council must approve all other litigation, and the HDC shouldn’t be excluded from that approval.
Other than these three exceptional circumstances, the HDC charter proposal doesn’t affect what the HDC normally does, including the normal appeal process through SHPO from decisions made at the HDC’s monthly meetings.
It’s true that people living outside the historic district are not affected by the restrictions found in the historic district. But since the HDC charter proposal doesn’t affect the “charm of downtown” in any way, you can also continue to enjoy it by voting YES on the charter proposal (and I hope you do!)
The majority of HDC decisions are made in monthly meetings where the commissioners consider applications for work. People who disagree with an HDC decision can appeal through SHPO. The city council would not be involved in this at all, and it’s just another lie for the “Charming” group to say the HDC would be turned into an advisory board.
The only time the city council would be involved would be in the three extraordinary cases described above (Demolition by Neglect orders, Restoration and Modification orders, and civil infractions with fines). While I’ve heard suggestions (and threats) that demolition by neglect or restoration and modification orders could be a possibility for one or two homes, they haven’t happened – yet. Nor has the HDC issued a civil infraction with a fine – yet. (They did try to introduce an ordinance earlier this year that would allow them to do it, but it was withdrawn . . . for now.)
To suggest the five HDC residents are “trained in historic preservation” is a bit of a joke. They can take a $150 class. They can read a book. The criteria for appointing them is nothing more than they have an interest in historic preservation. (The last person appointed to the HDC demonstrated her interest by saying she loved living in the historic district, and she’d had work done to her home.) Other than that, HDC members are no different than anyone else. To suggest they are “educated” – and others are not – is really an arrogant stretch. The city council is directly responsible to you because you elect them, you can recall them, and I would note they’ve been very deferential to the HDC.
The only thing that changes under the charter proposal is the HDC would be fiscally accountable to the city council before willy-nilly embarking on litigation that would cost all taxpayers dearly. We make our city manager come to council to ask for permission if he wants to spend more than $500, yet the “Charming” group takes umbrage to a requirement that the HDC must have a discussion with the city council before taking an action that could cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. This allows the council to ensure the money is available in the budget (and to decide what other budget priorities need to be sacrificed to pay for the litigation) – and before requiring that any resident hire a lawyer and spend thousands of their own money to defend against the HDC allegations.
Since Clarkston is a half-mile square city that has been mostly built up, there are very few places to put new buildings. Should someone want to build something new, the HDC charter proposal doesn’t change any of the current requirements. Every property owner would still need to go through the regular permitting process for new buildings, and if the property is within the historic district, then the HDC would also need to approve the new buildings. There is nothing in the HDC charter proposal that removes the HDC from all the input it has right now regarding new buildings.
There has been a lot of deliberate twisting of the “open spaces” section of the HDC charter proposal and it’s worth the time to talk about – again. Because unlike the “Charming” group, we’re not afraid of questions and we’re not afraid to give full answers.
Both the Michigan Local Historic Districts Act and the Clarkston historic district ordinance define an “open space” as “undeveloped land, a naturally landscaped area, or a formal or man-made landscaped area that provides a connective link or a buffer between other resources” and a “historic resource” as “a publicly or privately owned building, structure, site, object, feature, or open space that is significant in the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of this state or a community within this state, or of the United States.” (Italics mine).
The “open spaces” reference in the charter proposal declares there are no open spaces left in the historic district for the HDC to regulate, other than Depot Park, because there are no open spaces that are significant in the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of this state or a community within this state or of the United States except for Depot Park.
Our half-mile square city has almost completely been built up, so there are very few vacant areas in the city outside of Depot Park beyond a handful of privately owned, currently vacant lots. Placing a building on an empty lot means the lot is no longer empty and all city requirements must be met, including HDC approval of the construction if the new building is within the historic district.
The “open spaces” section was added to avoid a repeat of the actual misconduct of former HDC chair Cara Catallo in connection with the lot at Waldon and Main. After the property owners were ordered by the city to clean and clear the lot because people had been throwing trash there, Catallo obtained a stop work order to prevent the owners from complying with the city’s order. She had no authority to obtain a stop work order, and her actions resulted in significant legal expense to both the city and the property owner.
This section of the charter proposal would also protect the city and the taxpayers from the expense of “takings” lawsuits that could occur should the HDC simply declare that someone’s private, vacant lot must remain vacant because the HDC commissioners have decided it makes the historic district look nicer based on their personal preferences.
Please take a minute or two to review the chart comparing the Local Historic Districts Act to the historic district ordinance to the HDC charter proposal. If you do, you’ll immediately see the claim that the current system would be “gutted” in any way is just another goat-sacrificing lie.
I want you to step back and consider what the “Charming” group has done regarding the HDC charter proposal and decide if they really want to work with anyone. They have lied with impunity, and they have bullied and still are bullying people who want to put up a sign (or have put up a sign) in favor of the proposal.
People have come to the city council to complain about abusive HDC treatment over the years, and nothing was done to address it. The most egregious example was a resident who was visited by the former mayor, former planning commission chair, former HDC chair, and the current city manager and was yelled at because this group didn’t like work he’d done in his yard – even though he’d obtained city permits to do the work. They outrageously threatened to bulldoze the work he’d done and revoke his existing permits because the HDC chair had different preferences. That same HDC chair was reappointed a few weeks later.
Do you think for one minute that these same people wouldn’t attack any attempt to “work within the current ordinance” to make any changes?
If you do, then I’d keep an eye on your pet goats.
We love questions! Unlike our opponents, we’ll give you honest answers with lots of evidence to back up what we say. Feel free to send questions to: ClarkstonCharterProposal@gmail.com.
(And if you’re tired of HDC abuse and favoritism, then please consider voting yes on the proposed HDC charter amendment on November 5! And because I’ve just said that and even though I haven’t spent any money, I’m going to add the following text though I’m not sure I have to:
Paid for by Susan Bisio, P.O. Box 1303, Clarkston, MI 48347 with regulated funds.)