For some reason, Mayor Eric Haven – who doesn’t even live in the historic district – wants to make the upcoming election about the historic district, and his favored write-in candidates have tailored their bios to use Haven’s buzzwords. I guess Haven figures that focusing on the historic district is better than discussing the fact that the city has spent money that we don’t have on things that we don’t need and now we have no money to fix sidewalks and streets. Or the fact that one business owner always seems to get favorable treatment while others do not. Or that the city has no problem hiding records from the public or unlawfully closing meetings. And that’s just for starters.
I decided to go through our city attorney’s bills for three projects to illustrate some of the cost of Haven’s insistence on rule-following – 10 Miller, 177 North Main, and 42 West Washington. After all, you should know what you’re paying for. And you can then decide whether you think that Haven’s love of rules (shared by his chosen city council candidates) is worth the money you’ve paid.
Keep in mind that this is just what you’ve paid the city attorney for these matters. The neighbors who were affected by these decisions have had their own fees and costs to pay as well, and their ability to fight is limited by their assets. The city’s fees and costs have not been constrained by the city council in any way whatsoever – because our city officials believe that there is an endless supply of tax dollars, apparently.
David, meet Goliath.
Some of you know that our city attorney bills us in half-hour increments, which is a very unusual practice (many attorneys bill in six-minute increments, not thirty-minute increments). This means that if the city attorney touches something, he bills for a half-hour, even if it takes a lot less time than that. (I plan to write a post about our city attorney’s billing practices but suffice it to say that billing in larger time increments can result in an effective hourly rate that is much higher than the $95/hour shown on the bill.)
As I was going through the city attorney’s bills and adding up the legal fees for these three properties, I noticed that on very few occasions, the city attorney must have been feeling generous because he billed us for more than one item in a half-hour entry. In those few instances, I divided the charge by the number of items to come up with a fractional rate. And, I limited the legal fees I considered to only the main issue, excluding any legal fees relating to zoning and FOIA issues concerning these properties.
Let’s start with 10 Miller. This is a newer house that the owner received approval to build. The plans called for vertical spindles on the porch railing. The owner installed horizontal slats. The city disapproved. Here are two photos of the horizontal slats:
Cost to the taxpayers – $3,918.75
Almost four grand in legal fees over horizontal slats. I am not sure if this is an ongoing issue or not. The last billing entry that I found was in March of last year. If the owners decide to appeal to the circuit court, you can expect to pay more. I’m sure those vertical spindles are totes worth it. And remember, this is a freaking new house, not some historical artifact.
Moving on to 177 North Main. The homeowners put up a fence because they needed to keep their dogs from running into the street. If you’ve been following the latest traffic studies, you’ll know that some members of the city council have been endlessly complaining about speeding down Main Street. By “speeding,” I mean that the vast majority of people are doing less than 35 miles an hour in a 30 mile per hour zone, but even 30 miles per hour is enough to take out a dog. If you’re a dog lover, I’m sure you’ll understand how the owners felt about that risk.
The city claimed that the owners didn’t follow the rules, even though they provided photos of other, similar fencing within the historic district. By the way, these same homeowners agreed to let the city pave a sidewalk over their property so that we would have a continuous sidewalk to walk on. Apparently, this was the city’s way of thanking them for their generosity.
Here are photos of the fencing that the city found objectionable:
Cost to the taxpayers – $4,631.25
(and counting)
I would note that the red structure in the top photo is a barn. (You can see a close-up of the barn in the second photo of 10 Miller.) The fence seems very compatible with a property that includes a red barn (but then again, I’m just a taxpayer, not an “expert” city official).
The battle over this fence continues. The city wants them to rip their fence out and put in something that the city likes better.
FYI, here’s a before and after photo of the new sidewalk, and you can see the corner of the 177 North Main fence in the “after” photo:
Before
After
Finally, let’s talk about 42 West Washington. I’m going to be honest here – this is kind of an unattractive house, and it doesn’t look “historical” in any sense of the word. It is just an old, cinderblock home built in 1953 that no one cares about. Though it physically sits in the historic district, it is not included in the inventory of historic homes because it is not a “contributing resource.” This means that the city itself determined that this home didn’t have any historic value or significance at the time the city was evaluating which homes should be subject to historic district rules and which should not.
The owners want to tear it down. The city has refused to let them, claiming among other things that after all these years, it now might be worthy of consideration as a historic structure, and in addition, the original owner had some relation to manufacturing in Clarkston. There was also a history of some animosity between the owners and one of the people acting for the city who refused to let the owners demolish the home. I’m sure that had nothing to do with it. 🙄
Here are photos of the home:
Cost to the taxpayers – $16,547.41
(and counting)
This battle has been going on since 2017. It’s possible that there may be a settlement soon based on the October 11th city council agenda, but we’re still waiting since there was no decision on October 11th.
And here is a photo of a really beautiful fence and yard. The city doesn’t like it, so here we go again:
The battle over this property is just starting. The property owner said that some of our city officials threatened to bring a bulldozer over to his home to force him into compliance. Why? Because they effing thought they could, that’s why. The most recent issue of the Clarkston News discussed both sides of the issue: Fencing issue has resident calling foul on city’s Historic District Commission | Clarkston News. While the point of this post is to talk about how much these arguments have cost you and me, I’ve linked to the article so that you can learn more about this dispute if you’re interested (and also for the close up photo of the owners standing in front of their beautiful fence and yard). I would note that the city denies referring to a bulldozer in the Clarkston News article. (Given my own experience with Clarkston government, I think you know who I believe – and it’s not the city.)
Are any of these disputes worth it? I would argue that they are not. A porch, a fence, and a cinderblock home are not worth almost $25,000 of tax dollars in legal fees. That money would fix a lot of damned sidewalks. Haven’s attitude about all of this is that the legal fees aren’t the city’s fault – they are caused by people suing the city. Well, duh. As one of those people, I think that the real question to be asked is why are people suing the city. Could it be because they are being treated like something that you scrape off of the bottom of your shoe? That they feel that the city has acted arbitrarily and capriciously? That they believe that the city doesn’t follow the law? That the rules seem to apply to some and not to others? That city officials feel entitled to go to someone’s house and threaten them? Gosh, all of the litigation is such a mystery. 🙄
In the meantime, while the city is focused on fences, porches, and cinder blocks, here are some photos of two other homes in the historic district, photographed from the sidewalk and depicting an unpainted house, crumbling concrete steps, and a porch overhang in need of repair:
Obviously, it takes a long time for the state of the disrepair to get to this point. I know that it’s expensive to fix these kinds of issues, and I don’t know anything about the financial circumstances of these homeowners. For that reason, I deliberately did not include the street addresses. I’m providing these photos simply to make the point that there are two Clarkstons. The Clarkston in the photos above showing neglect that has been permitted by city officials, and the other Clarkston where city officials believe that they have the right to show up at a taxpayer’s home and threaten to bulldoze some beautiful (and clearly expensive) landscaping or have their attorney argue with homeowners about porch rails and fences.
Every time city officials treat a resident like garbage or in a manner that’s unfair, they create yet another person who wants them replaced. Note to Mayor Haven regarding angry constituents – we are legion, we aren’t going to go off quietly into the night, and I promise you, we aren’t going to stop pushing back until a positive change comes to the city. We are going to outlast you, and if you really care about the city – please resign.
When I was doing research for this post, I found an interesting comment in the minutes of the Michigan State Historic Preservation Review Board Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2021 in connection with the discussion of the horizontal porch railing at 10 Miller. Based on this vote, and unless there is an appeal taken, the property owners lost and will probably have to rip out their railings and replace them with something acceptable to the city. Unlike the city, I’m sure that their resources are limited. But I want to share an insightful comment from one of the board members, Daniel Bollman – who was speaking directly to Clarkston officials:
Bollman stated he is concerned about this appeal. He indicated that his opinion the guardrails, which may not ideal, but are okay when considering this is a new building and seems to be a reasonable appeal by the Petitioner. He continued that in his own experience in the service with other historic district commissions (HDC’s) he always sought a way to approve the COA [Certificate of Appropriateness] application, recognizing that the city’s interests were protected by the Standards; that the owner also had interests, and that in his role as an architect to use skill and experience as a bridge, not a fence. Now, when presenting to HDCs; cannot focus on cost or that it looks ‘good,’ but must look to the [Secretary of the Interior’s] Standards and to their text. Bollman cited Standards 3 and 9, and noted that the HDC referred to the house’s “craftsman” style, however this is not a 1910s-1920s house, but instead is a 2010s neo-craftsman house. It is not the Review Board’s purview to determine matters of what constitutes ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious,’ that is for the Administrative Law Judge to instruct. He concluded that he was disappointed this matter could not have been settled locally.
Wow. Imagine that. Acting as a bridge, not a fence. Working with homeowners rather than attacking them and grinding them into the ground with legal fees and costs. But that’s what happens when you have a city government that insists on punctilious compliance with the rules that it has been known to apply in an arbitrary way. No rules for themselves of course, since there are many examples of rules for thee and not for me in Clarkston. Worst of all, the people who seem to be most in love with the rules are conveniently not subject to them because they live outside of the historic district. Frankly, I don’t want to hear jack from anyone who doesn’t live under the same rules that I have to, and I also don’t think that people who live outside of the historic district should be allowed to sit on the Historic District Commission.
Grinding people into the ground and dogged insistence by city officials that they’re right and you’re wrong is how it works in Clarkston. I know that from personal experience, since I spent five years and had to go all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court to get records that should never have been kept from me. Most of the city council – including Haven – supported fighting my FOIA lawsuit every step of the way and even to continue the fight after the supreme court ruled in my favor. The city tried to destroy me financially and as a bonus, regularly and publicly dragged my husband and me through the mud with personal attacks as well as allegations that were simply made up out of whole cloth and had nothing to do with the 18 records that I’d asked for. (That’s a nice way of saying that they were lies from the pit of hell.)
That’s how Eric Haven’s leadership works. The machinery of government is wielded without any consideration for the taxpayer. Do you think that he would support candidates for city council who feel differently than he does?
Please consider casting your vote for three people who will represent your interests, not Haven’s – Paul Angelini, Steven McLean, and Christopher Moore. Unlike Haven, they all live in the historic district. They are interested in changing the processes we have to make them fair and consistent, as opposed to applying the rules differently based on whether city officials like you or not.
When you love where you are, you try to improve it. And that’s what Paul, Steve, and Chris would like the opportunity to do.
Please vote.