Heritage Row editorial misplaces blame on council minority for protecting historic neighborhood
Your editorial (Council can still salvage Heritage Row, Sept. 18, 2011 print edition) misplaces the onus for our community predicament.
You blame the council minority who objected to this scheme. That minority had consistently opposed destruction of a historically, culturally and aesthetically valuable downtown neighborhood that happened to be outside a historic preservation district.
Envision the mindset of a person who systematically acquires for destruction a lovely neighborhood. Does anyone believe that such a person cares about Ann Arbor?
An owner who allows houses to deteriorate, then claims they are beyond restoration, is grooming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The city powers have pandered to this game, leaving the community with a Hobson’s choice. What significance do zoning standards have if they are routinely subverted to accommodate a pro-development perspective?
A society that elevates self aggrandizement as the paramount civic virtue, extinguishing other considerations, reduces “architecture” to the garish utility of City Place or the gutted facades of Heritage Row.
Regardless of their putative party designation, the American love affair with acquiring riches beyond the needs of a comfortable life usually prevails in public decision makers.
As an enlightened citizenry is increasingly rare, a press that buys into predatory development is not helpful.
Marilyn Seeger Bigelow
Ann Arbor
Comments
DonBee
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 1:34 a.m.
Ms Bigelow - Federal law sets out property rights, they come from our fear of government and the taking the British did before the revolution. One of the allowed restrictions is zoning. The zoning in the area of City Place/Heritage Row allowed City Place. To not allow it would have been a lost lawsuit and a large payout by the city of Ann Arbor to the developer. There would have been no way for Ann Arbor to win. The developer offered something better, the planning board, and most of the city council agreed. A few opposed, knowing that City Place would happen instead. The developer never had to offer Heritage Row. If you don't like what happened, get the zoning laws changed before it happens again, because it will and there will be nothing the council can do about confirming developments.
John Q
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
Who's driving the bulldozers here? The developer? That's who is responsible for any destruction that takes place on that site.
Tom Whitaker
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
Once again we have the usual flurry of anonymous posters spewing false information and hyperbole on this subject with no accountability. The houses were unanimously deemed worthy of historic district protection by a committee of experts who were backed 100% in the legality of their actions by the City Attorney and the State despite some pretty ridiculous claims from the developer's attorneys. One of the houses, the Beakes house (home to two mayors--one also a congressman--and one of the oldest houses near downtown) was previously designated with the full support of its owner, Alex de Parry. Unfortunately it was part of an individual sites district that the Michigan Court of Appeals said was not structured properly. The Mayor and Council never appointed a committee to correct this and let this house, and numerous other buildings remain unprotected (like the Planada and Anberay apartment buildings, now both demolished.) When presenting Heritage Row (a concept, in a much smaller scale, that the neighbors paid an architect to sketch as an alternative to City Place), Alex de Parry proclaimed the houses to be historic and that their preservation was one of the primary public benefits of his project. (A substantial public benefit is supposed to be required for developers to set aside existing zoning for a planned unit development, which is usually a major windfall for the developer.) Unfortunately, the inflated version of the neighbor's concept presented by de Parry was not financially feasible so until now, it has been a moot point. By deleting the expensive underground parking (valued at $1.5 - $2 million) and using City spaces instead, the developers have a new opportunity to not only make Heritage Row feasible, but highly profitable. Let's hope they take advantage of this windfall on top of a windfall and do the right thing. They are sure to be back for approval of future projects. A positive outcome here could really help their cause.
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
@DonBee: You clearly do not know the law regarding historic districts. The State gives municipalities the power to stop demolition to protect historic resources and to create an historic district to protect them going forward. There is nothing in State or Federal law about "development papers being filed." This is typical of the misinformation perpetuated by anonymous posters. Why do you say it violates the law, but then say we should try to get the district approved again? @Mick52: So the developer was lying when he submitted his "development papers" proclaiming the houses to be historic and therefore worthy of preservation (and having this treated as a public benefit of his PUD)? @MB111: The State law requires that experts be used to evaluate the historic value of properties being considered and it only makes sense that those most affected (property owners) also be involved. Wouldn't you be MORE upset if people with no expertise in architectural history, and non-property owners made this recommendation? And by the way, I was the only property owner selected. We had other volunteers, but the Council appointed one of the Mayor's pro-development, public policy students with absolutely no experience or connection to the issue to fill the last spot. She voted for the district, too.
fjord
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
"The "committee" was made up of neighbors and preservationists - of course they were going to designate the houses as historical." They designated them as "historic," not "historical." People use those words interchangeably, but their meanings are quite different.
MB111
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.
The "committee" was made up of neighbors and preservationists - of course they were going to designate the houses as historical. The outcome was pre-determined.
Mick52
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 3:50 a.m.
What DonBee said. But please try to find something historic about an area to be designated as such. There is nothing about these homes that make them so. Just because a couple mayors and one who became a congressman lived there, does not make it historic.
DonBee
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
Mr. Whitaker - The problem with the attempt at the Historic District was it was (and is) Ex-post-facto. If it had been tried 3 or 4 years earlier, it would have been legal. But after the development papers were filed it violated state and federal law. If you want to avoid it happening across the street from Heritage Row, now is the time to redraw your boundaries and get the district approved.
demistify
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
The law on establishing historical districts has serious and reasonably explicit standards. It needs to, as such designation imposes a heavy burden on the owner of the property. If the designation is applied capriciously, the owner can justifiably sue for damages. The deteriorated houses in question were not deemed worthy of such status. The author of this letter seems to admit as much. Proclaiming a historical district frivolously merely as an end run around zoning would be a display of cynically bad public policy.
MB111
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
The use of logic does not work for those who fear change.
rusty shackelford
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
Let's see, council could have rejected City Place, but didn't. They could have accepted Heritage Row (which the developer was not obligated to propose after CP was approved), and didn't. How is this not the council obstructionists' fault again? They thought if they stalled long enough they could kill both projects. They failed, as everyone sensible knew they would. They should have listened the MANY times they had the chance to accept the project that would have preserved the houses. It's a beautiful day outside, I'm going to hit the grill. You're all welcome to stop by for crow burgers.
Chip Reed
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
There are those who would argue that the "American love affair with acquiring riches beyond the needs of a comfortable life" is one of those things that makes us so exceptional and "special".
MB111
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
The fear of change runs deep in Ann Arbor. While I imagine that you would like to have Ann Arbor remain the way it was on days of yore, the World, Nation, State and City have changed. The City Place neighbors bear responsibility for this fiasco. By fighting any change, the best possible alternative (the flawed Heritage Row) was stonewalled. As a result of the fear of any change, we are subjected to a far worse solution - City Place.
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.
"Adjacent" is right. We live in an R4C neighborhood NOT D1 or D2. Boundaries exist for a reason, and the reason we have D2 adjacent to our neighborhood is to buffer us from downtown-sized buildings in the D1. We didn't support it because de Parry took our reasonable, compromise concept and inflated it to a size that was above and beyond some of the parameters for Downtown zoning, let alone an R4C neighborhood. The north building, at 40 feet tall and 5 feet from the property line would have shaded neighboring houses from the sun. ALL property owners have the right to protection of their interests, not just developers. These developers are only trying to target cheaper residential-zoned land for their downtown-sized projects and the City is not enforcing its zoning or master plans to stop them, so it has been left to adjacent property owners to uphold the law. Heritage Row was not even financially feasible as proposed by the developer, so the claim that we were the ones who somehow stopped it is specious. The developer did not resubmit it for discount reconsideration, where it would have been approved. We didn't stop anything--the development pro-forma did.
MB111
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.
So why did Mr. Whittaker and the rest of the neighbors fight Heritage Row? They did not want change in their neighborhood - despite living between campus and downtownk adjacent to the exact zoning that allows development.
PersonX
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
Please read Mr. Whitaker's posting before repeating the senseless mantra about the neighbors "fearing change." The idea of preserving the houses and the kernel for the concept of Heritage Row actually came from the neighbors and was presented to Mr. De Parry, who developed the concept further. The fear is not of change itself, but the kind of change that does not add to and preserve the evolving nature of a neighborhood. City Place would completely ruin it for pure greed.