Homeowners at Risk
Royal Oak residents must not make the mistake of thinking that the historical battle over the Fourth and Main Bank Building affects only businesses and not homeowners.

For several months, beginning just after Mayor Cowan sent a letter to residents assuring them that historic designation is voluntary, the City Commission has repeatedly been asked during public comment, through correspondence, and in separate conversations to cite its authority for treating residential and commercial properties differently about matters historical. The City has failed to identify such authority.

It is clear, therefore, that the threats to property rights which exist in Royal Oak’s several historic ordinances remain very real for ALL property owners. What the City can mandate for a bank building, it can mandate for a house. The basic threat resides in the following language. 

A “proposed historic district” allows the City to impose restrictions on property which is merely “under review by a committee.” More comprehensively, Ordinance 94-15 applies “the same powers that would apply if the proposed historic district was an established historic district.” Notice there is no distinction made between residential and commercial property. 

Listen to one of those “powers” contained in Ordinance 95-13: “If the owner does not make repairs within a reasonable time, the Commission or its agent may, upon obtaining an order from the Circuit Court, enter the property and make such repairs . . . The costs of the work shall be charged to the owner, and may be levied as a special assessment against the property.” (Bold face emphasis is CPR’s.)

It is no comfort to hear that similar language  appears in zoning ordinances, for example. That rebuttal ignores the fact that zoning ordinances are properly concerned with public health and safety. Royal Oak’s historic ordinances make a single passing mention of safety and concentrate instead on preserving the intangible aesthetic preferences of historic advocates. 

Is Citizens for Property Rights the only observer who questions the legitimacy of mandating historic designation on commercial property when the City Commission has publicly emphasized that such designation must remain voluntary for homeowners? 

And how can the City Commission logically move forward with any part of  a proposal from the Historic District Study Committee which  in the Barton Towers fiasco was so overwhelmingly defeated and disregarded by the public that the committee members resigned? 

CPR is currently researching the details about a report out of Arkansas that a woman has been imprisoned because she failed to meet all the historic requirements when she re-habbed a rundown old house.

So long as Royal Oak’s historic ordinances are in place, there remain these threats to property rights. Therefore, soon after the bah humbug season is past, CPR will vigorously and more visibly pursue its campaign to generate grass roots support for repeal.  

City Commission fails to authenticate distinction between residential and commercial property
Speaking of making ad hoc decisions, readers of this website and viewers of City Commission meetings will recall that while adopting its resolution to make historic designation "voluntary" for the Barton Towers neighborhood, the Commission cavalierly distinguished between residential and commercial property.

Asked several times, during public comment and in writing, to cite the section in Royal Oak's historic ordinances which makes such a distinction, the City has yet to reply. Reminded by CPR of the need to inform voters whether the City had erred or whether CPR simply had been unable to find such a distinction, the City has yet to reply.

Informal dialogue in the streets shows that dedicated historic preservationists assume that CPR is seeking such information "to protect commercial developers." The preservationists seem surprised to learn that homeowners are concerned that they can be subjected to the same arbitrary "moratorium" which the City is using to stall work on the Fourth and Main bank building.

In any case, CPR must conclude that there is nothing in the historic ordinances which authorizes the City to deal differently with residential and commercial property.