John Gallagher

Detroit Free Press

A collective shudder ran through Michigan’s historic preservation community these past couple of weeks as details emerged about proposed legislation that could all but wipe out local historic districts in the state.

From Detroit’s Indian Village to Grand Rapids' Heritage Hill neighborhood, preservationists are crying foul.

The twin legislation, HB 5232 and SB 720, would sunset, or end, any historic districts in the state after 10 years, forcing residents and preservationists to apply anew every decade. Renewing a district’s standing would become much more difficult under the legislation; it would require not only a two-thirds approval of property owners in the district but a majority vote of the entire city in the next general election. Other restrictions would apply as well.

For believers in preserving such treasured neighborhoods as Indian Village, Corktown, Lafayette Park and Palmer Woods, the presence of a local historic district has provided a bulwark against changes that would destroy the character of the area.

Without such protection, says Suzanne Schulz, planning director for the city of Grand Rapids, greedy developers would be able to snatch up properties in such districts and do what they will with them. Schultz estimates that perhaps two-thirds of the historic houses in her city’s Heritage Hill district would have been lost by now if not for protections offered by the local historic district.

“You’re always trying to stabilize these areas and provide some level of confidence for homeowners and business owners that when they invest in an area, their investment will be preserved,” Schulz told me. “Being a homeowner in an historic district, you can have confidence that the home next door won’t have the front porch torn off and vinyl siding put up and vinyl windows installed.”

Changes to historic district designation up for debate

Nancy Finegood, director of the nonprofit Michigan Historic Preservation Network, echoed that.

“The value is that your neighbor can’t do something inappropriate,” she said. “They can’t put up a chain link fence around their house and change the look of your block, which would affect your property value as well. There’s been research done that property values are higher in local historic districts.”

This dispute is the latest in a long line of actions by conservatives to place the rights of individual property owners over a broader community-wide benefit. A decade ago, conservatives in the name of property rights gutted the ability of municipalities to use eminent domain powers to assemble properties for redevelopment, removing a key tool used by cities like Detroit to promote large-scale redevelopment.

I spoke with state Rep. Chris Afendoulis, a Republican who represents a district in the suburban Grand Rapids area, who sponsored this new legislation. He said he did so out of concern for property rights — that residents in historic districts often cannot remodel their houses due to the restrictions in the state’s PA 169 law, which established historic districts in 1970.

He called his proposed changes a “common sense” way to address those concerns. For example, he said that requirements that any remodeling work fit within the general historic look and feel of the district may drive up the cost of repairs or remodeling. His legislation would loosen up those requirements, taking power away from historic commissions and giving it to local politicians who could disregard historic standards for any reason.

“I always felt that was a little restrictive,” Afendoulis told me of current rules on historic districts. “If you live in an historic district, in some ways you don’t have control over your property…. If you’re not flexible, then a lot of people can’t afford to remodel their homes.”

And, he said, the fact that local historic district boards are usually filled with preservationists means that “people feel like the deck is stacked against them” when they propose changes to their property.

A problem or not?

It’s true that over the years we’ve heard some low-level complaints about how tough local historic boards can be in protecting the integrity of their districts. But this proposed legislation goes way too far in trying to correct a so-called problem that is hardly a problem at all.

At least 78 communities in Michigan have created local historic districts within their communities, including all of the state’s major cities — Grand Rapids, Lansing, Kalamazoo, Jackson, Saginaw, and others. Detroit features multiple historic districts including Indian Village, Palmer Woods, Corktown, and the Mies van der Rohe homes at Lafayette Park.

Finegood estimates that some 20,000 properties in Michigan lie within local historic districts, including many of the most distinguished historic houses in cities like Detroit.

The districts allow residents to preserve architectural and historic integrity that otherwise would be open to anything individual property want within the zoning laws, from demolition to new construction that might be out of character with the neighborhood.

Fewer protections

Afendoulis’s proposed changes to the law would destroy many of those protections. Take the provision that renewal of a district every 10 years would require the vote of the entire municipality. That means that if Indian Village residents wished to keep their historic district protections, they would need to persuade voters in the entire city of Detroit to vote that way.

There are other changes, too, that would threaten the protections now offered by PA 169. Under the proposed legislation, a local city council could simply abolish a local historic district as it wished, eliminating the current protections. And it would in many ways loosen the restrictions on what a property owner can do with his or her property in an historic district.

“It’s so ironic," Schulz told me. "This bill is saying that it’s out to protect property rights and create a more transparent process, but really it would have the effect of leading decision-making in a very ambiguous way across the state of Michigan, rather than providing really clear direction and standards.”

What will Snyder do?

Preservationists and planners across the state are echoing those concerns. The Detroit City Council's advisory staff has recommended that council pass a resolution opposed to the legislation.

And Roberta Henrion, a Southfield resident who volunteers with the historic preservation committee of the Belle Isle Conservancy, has been urging friends to write representatives to stop the Afendoulis legislation. She resents the notion that individual property rights should trump a community’s right to maintain a district of exceptional character.

“If you want to look at the most basic art form that humans create, it’s their home,” she told me. “If there are certain districts that exemplify some form or some theme of culture or humanity, then those should be preserved.”

Perhaps the big question is what position Gov. Rick Snyder will take if and when this legislation reaches his desk. Dave Murray, the governor’s spokesman, told me in an e-mail that the governor is concentrating now on the Flint water crisis and Detroit Public Schools reform and will review the Afendoulis legislation if and when it gets to him.

I hope that’s not another “not-on-my-agenda” stance, where the governor refuses to declare a position but signs a questionable bill when it gets to him.

Contact John Gallagher: 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @jgallagherfreep.