I had this topic on my list of things to cover, but I didn’t think I needed to move it to the top. Unfortunately, HDC Commissioner Lisa Paterscak; former council member and former city manager Carol Eberhardt; Toni Smith, the city manager’s wife; improperly seated Melissa Luginski, the HDC Commissioner who permanently resides in Independence Township and who will apparently not resign from the Clarkston HDC until a court forces her to; and the “Charming” group created by Luginski’s husband to push lies and indirectly boost the candidacies of Amanda Forte, Al Avery, and Ted Quisenberry (who is trying to oust mayor Sue Wylie) are out there making false statements on social media and in your mailbox about the charter proposal. I guess they figure lying will buy them some votes. They’re probably right. Lies can circle the globe before truth can put her shoes on.
I have no problem meeting these people head on, letting you see their claims, and addressing them directly. I only ask that you remember there’s an army of them versus two of us. It takes much less time and effort for a very well-funded and mostly unidentified group of people to create scary one-liners and drop them in your mailbox as part of a slickly designed advertising campaign than it does for me to write these posts and explain in detail why their claims are untrue. We’ll do our best to try to keep up because we think the proposed HDC charter amendment is important.
As I mentioned in my last post, the “Charming” group has posted a bunch of scare talk on their website claiming that unnamed “developers” would benefit from the proposed HDC charter amendment, which is patently untrue. Their latest pack of lies came in the form of a postcard sent to residents. (Didn’t I tell you they would send a slick postcard? 😂 The only thing I was wrong about was they didn’t include a photo of a slum but there’s still time for them to prepare a second “scare” mailing.) The recent postcard claims that some unnamed “they” aren’t telling you the “bad news” and you should vote no on the charter proposal if you don’t want a four-lane Main Street, the downtown ruined by generic commercial buildings, and if you want to protect your home value and community character.
How would this happen? The “Charming” group doesn’t say. The truth is there is nothing in the proposed HDC charter amendment that would do any of these things.
Who are the unnamed “they” referenced in the post card who supposedly aren’t telling you the “bad news”? Um, that would be little old me and my husband. Not sure how a claim that I’m not being transparent squares with my husband’s and my involvement in transparency issues in Clarkston for almost ten years now. I write about Clarkston government issues on this website and always provide proof for what I say. I run the Clarkston Sunshine website where I provide people with an informal transcript of city council meetings that can be searched using keywords or topics. It’s a lot of work, but I do it because I believe that being able to see what your government officials have said about an issue over time helps to hold them accountable today. Not only did I tell you that we were working on a charter amendment and why we were doing it, I posted the language of the proposed charter amendment months ago, provided a number of explanations for it, and set up an email address for questions.
Since I’m the “they” referenced on the postcard, I can unequivocally state the proposed charter amendment isn’t going to create a four-lane Main Street, cause the downtown to be ruined by generic commercial buildings, or affect home values or community character.
These are the things the proposed HDC charter amendment would do for us:
-
- Reasonable, publicly available policies and procedures
- Publicly available recordings of HDC meetings
- Publicly available, detailed meeting minutes that explain why a decision was made
- Meeting minutes that are posted within the time required by the Open Meetings Act
- Eliminating secret deliberations and decisions
- Applications and decision notes kept as city records
- Not discouraging people from attending meetings
- Preferring informal dispute resolution before enforcement action is taken
- Limiting the HDC’s authority to only those things permitted by the Local Historic Districts Act (the law that created Clarkston’s historic district)
- Prohibiting onerous or unreasonable fines
- Prohibiting orders imposing unreasonable financial burdens on property owners
- Prohibiting threats of unreasonable sanctions
- Treating residents courteously
- Prohibiting entry on private property without permission
- Having a resident complaint procedure that allows for removal of HDC members by city council where appropriate
- Requiring council approval before tax dollars are expended
- Requiring council approval before lawsuits are commenced
If the “Charming” group and its supporters would lie about me on their website, on social media, and in a mailing, claiming I’m secretly hiding information about the charter proposal, then why would you believe anything else they have to say? 🤔
I want to directly address the developer comments made on social media by people who are obviously “Charming” group supporters. Most of the city is already developed, but the opponents are now being more specific on social media about what they’re referring to – and that is the vacant lot at Waldon and Main and vacant home at 42 West Washington. So, let’s talk about them.
The vacant lot at Waldon and Main
Nothing in the proposed HDC charter amendment would allow a new commercial building at Waldon and Main without all the approvals required for any new construction, including rezoning, planning commission approval, city council approval, and HDC approval. This property is privately owned and zoned for five residential lots. A Clarkston News article reported the owners are Ed Adler and Deanna Olsen, and the property generates thousands of dollars for the city each year in property taxes. Personally, I don’t know how five homes could fit there, but that’s the way the city zoned it. I’ve always thought it would be a difficult property to build on due to the slope and the high water table, but I’m a lawyer, not an architect, so what do I know.
There used to be trees and white and purple wildflowers growing there. I thought it was pretty and so did many others. I guess I didn’t notice that a lot of people carelessly threw trash on the property, and because of that, the city ordered the owners to clean it up, and if they refused, the city would do it for them. After getting permits relating to soil erosion and permission from the Department of Natural Resources, the owners began to clear garbage, trees, and vegetation from the lot. Former HDC chair Cara Catallo obtained a stop work order from our contract building department – something she had no authority to do – because she apparently liked the trees and thought the HDC should have something to say about trees and vegetation on a vacant lot that had no historical significance whatsoever (and Catallo never claimed otherwise). When the dispute ended, the city paid over $3,000 in legal fees, the owners paid around $15,000, and Catallo petulantly refused to sign the settlement agreement even though her misconduct started the dispute. The Clarkston News published several stories about it, and I pulled my facts from these articles that are linked here, here, here, and here.
I remember a development proposal for the property a couple years ago, and there’s apparently another one now. Both proposals would require the city to rezone the property from five residential lots to some other zoning use, and these rezoning requests go to the planning commission who can (and usually do) say no. And, even if the planning commission approves rezoning, the city council must then approve it by amending the city’s zoning map. Though I’m sure they find it frustrating, the owners really can’t be heard to complain about it since they bought the property knowing that it was zoned residential, and the city isn’t under any obligation to change the zoning if it doesn’t want to. If the owners don’t like it, they can sell the property.
Enter the hysterics of Paterscak, Eberhardt, Smith, Luginski, the “Charming” group, and the false claim that the HDC charter proposal would allow Olsen and Adler (or whoever owns it now) to develop the property without approval from the HDC, assuming the owners were able to get the planning commission and city council to rezone the property, which is about as likely as snow in July. Even though this section hasn’t been hiding anywhere, our city sleuths “discovered” section 16.8(e), which states:
Limitation of Authority Over Open Spaces. The City finds that the land in the Historic District is almost completely built up with no significant remaining Open Space existing, except for Depot Park. Other than Depot Park, there is no Open Space in the Historic District 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. The City finds that, other than Depot Park, there is no Open Space in the Historic District that constitutes a Resource that the Commission may regulate. The Commission has no authority to regulate Open Space in the Historic District other than Depot Park.
Paterscak, Eberhardt, Smith, and Luginski have been telling the public to vote no on the HDC charter proposal, and I’ll discuss what they’ve been saying below. Patercsak posted the “open spaces” language quoted above on social media several times, falsely claiming this language would allow the Waldon and Main property owners to do whatever they want at the corner lot without HDC involvement. But that’s simply not true.
The purpose of Section 16.8(e) is to prevent the HDC from abusing property owners like Catallo did when she improperly used the force of law to tell property owners that they couldn’t clean their vacant lot or cut down trees – even though they were following another city order demanding that they clean up the lot. If the Waldon and Main property owners want to build a single home, up to five new homes, or were granted a rezoning and wanted to move forward with some other structure on the property, then the land would no longer be vacant and Section 16.8(e) wouldn’t apply. I don’t think this could be clearer, but then again, I’m not reading the charter proposal with paranoid eyes and hate in my heart.
The bottom line is Section 16(e) wasn’t hidden anywhere waiting for someone to discover it, and it certainly offers no help to the property owners or to any developer that wants to propose something at the corner of Waldon and Main (or anywhere else in the city). Section 16(e) deals with open space, not new construction (which, by definition, eliminates the open space). There will be no shortcut from the normal process, which includes submitting plans for any new structure in the historic district to the HDC for approval.
Sorry ladies, you’re pushing lies.
42 West Washington
Nothing in the ballot proposal would allow demolition of this house, something the owner already applied for, was denied, and they’ve exhausted all their legal remedies. The ballot proposal opponents haven’t even pointed to any specific provision of the proposal that would affect this property. This property is a 1950s cinder block home that was not considered a “contributing” resource to the historic district at the time the district was formed. This means that the city didn’t find it sufficiently important at the time and/or it was too newly built to be considered. But there are people who believe the building should be preserved because of its connection with the city’s history. (The original owners were pretty awful people who ended their relationship with Clarkston by locking out their Clarkston employees from their small Clarkston business location just before Christmas – and never reopening.)
42 West Washington is zoned residential, just like the Waldon and Main property. Eberhardt is correct that at one point, a boutique hotel was proposed for adjacent property and the property where the house is would have been part of that project, serving as an entryway to the rest of the project behind the house. This would have required a zoning change from the residential designation. The zoning change was denied, and that was the end of the boutique hotel idea. I’ve linked Clarkston News articles about it here, here, here, and here.
At some point, the 42 West Washington property owners (Lehman Investment Company) asked the HDC for permission to tear down the home. They didn’t ask for a zoning change; they just asked the HDC for permission to tear down a non-contributing structure. I don’t know why they asked, and I couldn’t find any news article that provided a reason.
The HDC denied the demolition request, and Lehman appealed the decision to an administrative law judge within the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The administrative law judge ruled in favor of Lehman and against the city. The city filed exceptions to the administrative law judge’s decision and got the administrative law judge’s decision reversed.
This was the end of the road for the state administrative appeals process. Lehman filed suit in Oakland County Circuit Court to appeal from the SHPO decision, claiming the city withheld critical information from Lehman and SHPO during the administrative appeal of the HDC decision denying Lehman’s request to tear down the building. Lehman argued the city was aware of significant structural damage to the home caused by a city storm sewer collapse near the home and failed to disclose it. The previous owners sued the city over the structural damage to the home caused by the storm sewer collapse and the city settled the claim for $80,000, a huge voluntary settlement amount for the year 2009. The city claimed it didn’t have to disclose the information, but the city also undoubtedly knew that it would be important information for SHPO to be aware of in connection with a demolition request and would have increased the likelihood the city would lose the case.
There’s a rule that applies to appeals that prevents parties from submitting new evidence during the appeal that wasn’t considered in the proceedings being appealed from. The city objected to entry of any evidence showing the home had serious structural damage, information that Lehman obtained from the city in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
I’ve linked to some Clarkston News articles about the sewer issue here, here, here, here, here, and here. I’ve linked to some Clarkston News articles about the SHPO proceedings here, here, here, and here. Here is a link to a post I wrote about the lawsuit, which includes links to court filings with exhibits containing engineering and soil reports as well as a report from Walter Pytiak of Pytiak and Company, a building and construction company. Walter Pytiak once served as the dangerous buildings hearing officer for Waterford. Pytiak’s report concluded:
The combination of costs to hire professional engineering services along with construction repair costs would greatly surpass the value of this home.
The foundations of this house are sinking, and because of this, the house is moving. Soil conditions are compromised under the house, and directly under the heavy, multi-story masonry fireplace. This house is sinking into the ground under its own weight due to the compromised soils from the water damage. This house is a danger to itself, to anyone who enters it, and to the general public. This house is far beyond any reasonable repair and I strongly recommend this house be condemned and razed as soon as possible.
What happened in the lawsuit? The city eventually won in court because it successfully prevented the reviewing judges from considering evidence that the 42 West Washington home is dangerous, would cost more to repair than the value of the home, and even if someone wanted to repair the home, the vibrations from driving support pilings underneath it to keep it from collapsing would damage surrounding homes that contribute value to the historic district. With a win at all costs attitude, the city claimed that if the previous owners didn’t disclose the information to Lehman, then the city didn’t have to disclose it to anyone either – even though the city undoubtedly knew any judge hearing the issue would want to know this information.
Imagine that. Clarkston city government was more concerned about winning than public safety. 🤬 Taxpayers spent thousands of dollars so the city could keep information secret. Again.
And win the city did. Lehman lost its appeals, and the dangerous building still sits there. No one can live in the home because it’s structurally unsound. None of the people interested in preserving this home have put up the money to do the extensive repairs of the home or to compensate the owners of the surrounding homes for any structural damage that could occur if repairs recommended by Pytiak were ever undertaken despite the excessive cost to make the repairs.
Lehman had its day in court on whether it can tear down the home and it lost, even though the city cheated the judges and officials reviewing the case out of having critical information. I think it’s a travesty on many levels. The city should have been more concerned about public safety and broader historic preservation of the homes surrounding this one than winning at all costs by hiding information and creating a huge taxpayer expense in legal fees.
But what does any of this have to do with the ballot proposal? Absolutely nothing.
I understand there are concerns that Lehman wants to put up a parking lot in place of the 42 West Washington home. I haven’t ever found evidence of a statement from Lehman that they are interested in doing that, but I have heard rumors from people who claim to “know” that for some reason. I’m not a mind reader and can’t say one way or the other, but I do know for a fact that even if Lehman had been allowed to demolish the home, the property is still zoned residential. This means there would have been no parking lot – or anything other than a residential building on the property – unless the city approved a zoning change and the HDC approved. Rezoning is something the city has not been willing to do (and probably won’t ever be willing to do). I wouldn’t want to see a parking lot there either, but I also know that it’s not something anyone should be worrying about.
The HDC charter proposal will not allow Lehman to demolish the home. Even the opponents don’t point to anything specific in the ballot proposal that would address this. This home will no doubt sit there until it falls in on itself and the city finally agrees with Water Pytiak that the building is a danger to itself, to anyone who enters it, and to the general public.
Other developments?
I’m honestly not aware of any. Our little half square mile town has been almost completely built up. I’d be glad to discuss any other development, but since the HDC charter proposal doesn’t alter the ability of the HDC to review new construction or construction that would change the exterior of a structure within the historic district, the answer would be the same. There is nothing in the HDC charter proposal that would interfere with HDC review and approval.
There is also nothing in the HDC charter proposal that would allow other historic buildings in the historic district to be torn down. Anyone wanting to do that would have to go through the same procedure that Lehman did and undoubtedly receive the same result – that the HDC would refuse to allow it. And that would be the end of the story.
Given the facts about the properties the “Charming” group and their associates are complaining about, you might want to ask who are the people funding the opposition to the proposed charter amendment? While you will never who is involved as non-financially contributing volunteers, you can suss some of them out by paying attention to who is repeating the same false claims on social media.
You will eventually find out who’s been contributing financially to their slick and expensive campaign of falsehoods once they start filing detailed campaign finance statements. When they do, I’ll let you know. But never forget that it’s just me and my husband on the other side and we’ve been paying the expenses ourselves. If that’s not good, old-fashioned, transparent American grassroots advocacy, then I don’t know what is. The best part is we don’t have to lie to people about what’s in a charter proposal that can best be generically described as “Make Clarkston Kind.”
Initially, the “Charming” group were making vague claims that the proposed HDC charter amendment was dark, dangerous, and destructive, and they made veiled references to “developers.” My personal theory is they didn’t name names because they don’t want to be sued for libel.
Recently, it became clearer who they’re talking about based on social media posts from people echoing the “Charming” group’s talking points. It started with an unobjectionable post from Caryn Nicholson asking for comments about what looks like an artist’s rendering of a proposed building that we were told has been suggested for the empty lot at Waldon and Main. (Ms. Nicholson also commented on my last Clarkston Secrets post in support of 42 West Washington. No issue there; I welcome comments on this website.) I mention her original post only because of the comments that followed suggesting the HDC charter proposal has something to do with the vacant home at 42 West Washington and the vacant lot at Washington and Main.
You can think what you want about the conceptual building drawing posted online. It doesn’t suit my personal tastes, I don’t want something that would significantly worsen the parking problem, and I don’t think it visually fits with the rest of our downtown, but that’s just my opinion. You may have a different one. That vacant “lot” is actually five lots that are zoned residential, and it would require a zoning change to build a structure like that. Since the Waldon and Main property is located in the historic district, the Historic District Commission would also have to approve any new building.
Ms. Nicholson’s post of the photo exploded into a cacophony of people criticizing the building drawing, which drew the attention of Patercsak, Luginski, Eberhardt, and Smith. They used the opportunity to do some electioneering about the HDC charter proposal and made a series of false claims, discussed below. Notably, the “Charming” group and these four have not commented on what the ballot proposal would actually do to protect Clarkston residents from HDC abuse, preferring to make things up and then say how bad the made-up things are.
What originally started out as a post saying “hey, what do you think of this photo of a purported building proposal on the corner of Waldon and Main” devolved into “if you hate this photo, then you must vote NO on the HDC charter proposal!”
Over multiple posts, HDC Commissioner Lisa Paterscak urged a “no” vote on the charter proposal, falsely stating the property at Waldon and Main is “exactly why there is a ballot proposal to hand authority to City Council!” She repeatedly pointed to Section 16.8(e), which limits the HDC’s authority to regulate vacant land, as the basis for her claim that the charter proposal has something to do with advantaging the people who are proposing the building on that corner – despite the fact that putting a building there would no longer make the property vacant and would trigger the need for a zoning change, all city approvals, and approval from the HDC since the property is in the historic district. Patercsak falsely claimed the HDC charter proposal is “written to the strong advantage of developers” and is “not really about the HD Commission!” Referring to the photo of the proposed building, Patercsak stated “VOTE NO on the proposal if you don’t want this development in our town! This is the part they want you to skip over….”
Really? Remember, my husband and I are the “they” Patercsak is referring to, and we don’t want anyone to “skip over” anything. That’s why the HDC charter proposal has been posted on my website for over three months now. I am extremely concerned that an HDC Commissioner is suggesting she would conduct herself in a way that’s unfair to any applicant because of her personal opinions, rather than trying objectively to apply the legal standards as much as is humanly possible.
Carol Eberhardt went straight to a personal attack against council member Peg Roth for carrying a petition for me when I was unable to walk due to a broken bone in my foot, but personal attacks and hyperbolic claims are her signature approaches to everything she doesn’t like. Eberhardt claimed “[i]t’s no coincidence her family which owns Washington management is proposing the structure on the corner and also wanted to tear down the house on West Washington to make way for a boutique hotel.” (Eberhardt didn’t always dislike the idea of a boutique hotel – here’s an article that includes Eberhardt’s smiling photo with quotes from her gushing over the project.) Eberhardt falsely stated the charter amendment “will dismantle our protection with the state” and people should remember it when they’re writing in to vote for candidates for city council. Here’s a doozy, even for Eberhardt – she claimed the HDC charter “[p]roposal basically renders our current historic district ordinance, impotent, in other words it will have no real jurisdiction over the restoration of homes in the district therefore jeopardizing our national Historic district designation.”
None of that is true.
Eberhardt also claimed a charter amendment was very inflexible. Um, no it’s not, and Eberhardt knows that. A few years ago, the city went through the process to remove the “resign to run” requirement from the charter simply because former mayor Haven was miffed that he was caught red-handed running a secret campaign for mayor before he resigned from his city council seat as was required by the charter at the time. The process to amend or change the charter is laid out in the charter and state law, and it requires approval from Clarkston voters. In fact, it’s easier for the city to submit a charter proposal to the voters than it was for us because the city doesn’t have to circulate signature petitions that are flyspecked for compliance with all the legal requirements about font and text placement, for example. The problem for Eberhardt and others is that anyone who wanted to change the charter back would have to convince Clarkston voters that the HDC should have the unfettered ability to abuse people living in the historic district, and that’s kind of a hard sell. Better to lie and trick people from voting for protection in the first place.
Toni Smith, the city manager’s wife, told people to “research this and do not believe the ‘Clarkston Secrets” version. They are the ones behind the proposal and the repercussions on the downtown area would be abhorrent.” That’s pretty amusing. You shouldn’t believe the “Clarkston Secrets” version of the proposed HDC charter amendment that my husband wrote and that I’ve had posted on this website for months. No, you should believe in the copy of the HDC charter amendment proposal the “Charming” people are using – that is either a copy of what was provided by us to the city or was downloaded by the “Charming” people directly from the Clarkston Secrets website. 😂 And the very best thing to do is to ignore a lawyer discussing statutory construction or explanations from either of the lawyers responsible for the proposed HDC charter amendment. It’s far better to listen to wild hyperbole topped with a huge dash of cray from laypeople who don’t know what the eff they’re talking about. 🤪 Smith also parroted the “Charming” group’s talking point that the charter proposal would allow Main Street to be widened, something that’s just not true no matter how many times they repeat it.
HDC Commissioner Melissa Luginski said “a NO vote on the Charter Amendment would allow the HDC to continue to be the last line of defense against building proposals that serve to overwhelm the surrounding historic homes and detract from the historic district as a whole. The proposed Charter Amendment seeks to remove that ‘last line of defense.’” That’s also a false statement. I’d note that HDC commissioners have often been accused of substituting their personal preferences for those of the property owner, and it’s amazing to me that Luginski and Patercsak are saying the quiet part out loud. The HDC is supposed to apply the standards found in the federal register at 36 CFR 67; it is not their job to “protect” the city based on their own personal taste.
And honestly, please just read the proposed charter amendment for yourself. You can find it here. You don’t need Paterscak, Eberhardt, Smith, Luginski, me, my husband, or anyone else to explain things to you, though I am a little bit biased and think lawyers are better at explaining the legal import of a charter amendment than a biased layperson – since we went to school to be able to do fancy stuff like that and my husband actually wrote the language. To be fair, of the four people making false claims about the charter proposal that I’ve mentioned, I give credit to Paterscak for her willingness to engage in discussion with my husband and me about the charter amendment on social media. Even if we weren’t able to convince her, she put her allegations about the charter proposal out there for the public to see and allowed us to respond to her about why those claims are untrue.
(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.)