Citizens for Property Rights is a coalition of citizens dedicated to the preservation of property rights, 
in favor of voluntary historic preservation, but opposed to mandated historic designation..

Tracking an issue through City Hall
The suggestion that "establishing historic districts" might be one way to prevent the erection of larger-than-conventional houses in existing residential areas brought an immediate call for Citizens for Property Rights to man the barricades. A little follow-up by VersagiVoice revealed that the prospective threat goes further than historic designation and deals with tracking how things get done at City Hall. The initial follow-up resulted in the article reproduced in the right-hand column, and this page. I (FJV) will report about and comment on developments as the subcommittee of the Plan Commission does its work.

CPR, as a group, is hibernating because the original attempt to mandate historic designation was defeated in the year 2000, and those who felt threatened are at ease. About this current possibility of revising Royal Oak's Zoning Ordinance, I (FJV) will not be writing as CPR's spokesman, as I did in 2000, but concerned citizens may use the CPR-designated space on VersagiVoice to conduct their dialogue.

Compare property restrictions to traffic laws
 When I need to turn left off a 2-lane street I momentarily halt traffic behind me, momentarily depriving those drivers of their right to proceed. Traffic laws offer the same rights to all drivers, and all drivers recognize that the exercise of those rights will occasionally cause inconvenience.

So it is with zoning ordinances, except that what for traffic is a mere inconvenience becomes for property owners a serious threat to ownership rights. However well-intended are prescriptive standards for lot sizes or roof heights, for example, such regulations do impose restrictions which cannot always be justified on public health and safety grounds, as traffic laws can be.

When zoning ordinances seem designed to enforce the aesthetic preferences of those who write the language, instead of addressing health and safety, the mutually acceptable  inconvenience which applies to traffic regulations breaks down. If what my neighbor wants to do on his existing house or on his existing lot does not adversely affect health and safety, on what grounds should I ask government to prohibit his efforts? 

"Neighborhood compatibility" restrictions, historic or not, reflect the desire to mandate, then enforce purely aesthetic preferences. -- Dec 2005

Tall garages, Birmingham, and the Detroit News
"You can't please everybody. So don't try," the Detroit News advises city officials in general, in an editorial comment about objections to the height of structures by some Birmingham residents.

Stressing the subjectivity of aesthetic preferences, the News made such other comments as: Homeowners have different ideas on how to improve their property and maintain their lifestyles . . . One resident's garage castle becomes someone else's eyesore  . . . A complaint that high garages shade sun and cast shadows conflicts with previous desires to protect trees which, like garages, provide shade., cast shadows. The News concludes: "Residents should not ask officials to micromanage growth in the city, which has accommodated shifting trends in home styles and lot development." 

Coincidentally or not, there is a movement afoot in Royal Oak to amend the Zoning Ordinance to restrict the size of new and renovated homes in existing neighborhoods. -- 04 Jan 2006

 

 

 

The original article -- 14 Dec 2005

Some see a possible threat to property rights --
Subcommittee explores revisions to Zoning Ordinance
Possible revisions to Royal Oak's Zoning Ordinance -- as it applies to neighborhood compatibility in single-family residential areas -- are being considered by a subcommittee of the Plan Commission. The effort is thought by some to be a threat to property rights and specifically an attempt arbitrarily to ban construction of larger than traditional houses. 

The Planning Department provided the subcommittee with a background memo (29 June 2005) which includes five options, ranging from going back to the language of the previous ordinance to establishing historic districts [1]* or neighborhood conservation overlay districts. The opening paragraph in that memo refers to "concerns regarding in-fill development in established single-family residential neighborhoods." Who and how many expressed those concerns is not stated. [2]

One factor in the deliberations is to replace subjective decisions with objectively measurable specifications. [3] There is talk about applying a statistical formula to specify the total area permissible on any size footprint. This leads some to wonder if the intention is to limit all construction and renovation to a size which may have the unintended consequence of discouraging families with children from moving into Royal Oak. [4]

Made up of the mayor, a couple of residents, a developer, an architect, and staff, the subcommittee has met twice. Because the subcommittee is ad hoc, rather informal, no minutes have been prepared or published. [5] Although its meetings are not posted, they are open to the public. Those who are concerned pro or con should reach out to the Planning Department, at 248-246-3280, to (1) request the names of the subcommittee members; (2) request a copy of the 29 June 2005 memo; and (3) ask to be notified when the subcommittee is to meet. Otherwise, the suspicious will contend that the public is being presented with a fait accompli developed behind the scenes. [6]

* The numbers in brackets [ ] will be used to identify related comments in column at left.