When & Why CPR was formed

It was in April 2000 when homeowners in the Barton Towers area learned that a move was under way to have the entire neighborhood designated historical. After a vigorous citizens' rally at the M&M Community Center, that threat was eliminated but so long as Royal Oak has its four historic ordinances on the books, all property owners -- residential or not -- must remain alert. 

The Threat to Your Property Rights
The basic debate is whether the City's current interpretation of its four historic ordinances makes it too easy for government to restrict property rights, both residential and nonresidential.

First, let's acknowledge the human dimension. Because the core issue in this historic battle is property rights, the emotional component is higher than if we were planning a picnic:

* One who opposes your position is an enemy.
* Motives are questioned, names are called.
* Principles are buried under a mass of detail.
* Hidden agendas are suspected.

To deal briefly with hidden agendas: Opponents of historic designation see that many of their current adversaries are the same people whom they faced during the heated Master Plan debate, people who used "protection of neighborhoods" as a cover for their anti-development beliefs. Those who today promote historic districts see many of their current opponents as the same ones who fought them during the Master Plan debate and suspect the hidden agenda here is not to protect homeowners property rights but to foster development.

Some suspect a political agenda behind both those hidden agendas: lobbying and posturing to re-elect or to unseat specific City officials.

In addition to the human dimension, there is an element of confusion caused by the desire of some people on both sides the historic designation issue to bury principles in details. Arguments about the complexity of tax breaks (how much, for how long?) tend to obscure the debate over whether unwanted historic designation comes close to governmental "taking" of private property. To suggest that a property owner might be permitted to use "appropriate" aluminum siding in an historic district is to avoid addressing the issue of why it should be necessary to seek permission in the first place.

Let's describe briefly how the debate has reached the point of being an historic battle which is likely to last at least through local elections in 2001. [UPDATE: The debate is likely to last as long as the historic ordinances are in place.]

From December 1994 through June 1996, the City of Royal Oak enacted four ordinances which deal with historic preservation. Three or four committees and commissions were set up, staffed by City-appointed volunteers. For several years the volunteers worked to get organized and mounted a couple of projects like saving the Starr House garage. For the most part, though, the public was unaware of the existence of the historic agencies and of the historic ordinances.

Then, early in 2000, came the fight over the Fourth & Main Bank Building. Suddenly everyone became aware that a small group of City-appointed volunteers were depriving a property owner of the right to use his property as he had planned when he offered to purchase it. The appointees were enforcing an historic moratorium of which very few citizens were aware.

About the same time, word began circulating that one result of a City-funded Windshield Survey conducted in 1999 is that 41 neighborhoods have been identified, and mapped, as prospective historic districts. Then some citizens learned that Royal Oak's historic ordinances permit — encourage — the government to impose the same restrictions on a proposed historic district as on an actual historic district.

Some of those individuals formed Citizens for Property Rights (CPR) and with only a few days' notice scheduled a public meeting which was attended by more than 100 people, including four City Commissioners, the City Manager, the City's General Counsel, and several of the City-appointed volunteers who support historic designation. After two hours of dialogue, what is already being called a historic battle was joined.

CPR spoke at the City Commission, wrote letters to the editor, called in anonymous comments to the Mirror and Trib. So quick and intense was the tangible objection to mandated historic districts that the next City Commission meeting moved to declare the entire process "voluntary." That resolution, passed 4-to-3, does not resolve CPR's concerns. Why not?

For those who are working to repeal the historic ordinances, there is an unseemly ad hoc-ness about the way the City and its historic appointees are going about their business. There has been and continues to be an almost cavalier attitude about addressing several fundamental issues.

1. How many homeowners really asked for historic designation in the first place? In what form did they make their request? To whom?

2. On what does the City Commission base its authority to distinguish between residential and nonresidential property, since no such distinction exists in the historic ordinances?

3. How much money has been budgeted, how much has been spent on matters historical? Where did the money come from?

4. Has the City acted on the Historic District Study Committee's request to create a permanent line item in the budget to fund historic activities?

The casualness so far shown by historic proponents might be acceptable when planning a City-sponsored picnic, but such nonchalance is inappropriate when citizens have expressed concern about their property rights.

CPR maintains that governmental directives, city ordinances, should be enacted only to protect the public health and safety. CPR finds nothing in Royal Oak's four historic ordinances which addresses public health and safety. Instead, we have language about preserving beauty and aesthetics and culture.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you know. Do you really want the appearance of your property to be determined by a city-appointed beholder?

CPR has no desire to deprive any property owner of the right to seek historic designation. CPR objects, however, to any interpretation of the ordinances which make it possible for historic designation to be forced on unwilling property owners, residential or commercial.

Before the old Barton School was demolished decades ago, there was vigorous public dialogue about the desirability of saving that truly lovely structure. The decision to demolish was based on the testimony of experts that there was no cost-effective way to convert it for other uses while preserving its truly historic exterior appearance.

CPR maintains that those who feel strongly about preserving someone else's bank building or house should buy the bank or house, rather than force historic designation on an unwilling property owner. Put bluntly, "If you want to save it, buy it!"

CPR maintains that historic designation cannot be considered truly voluntary so long as four enforceable ordinances exist.

Where do you fit in? As a citizen, especially if you own property in Royal Oak, become familiar with the arguments in this historic battle. If you agree that mandated historic districts are a good idea, that they benefit the community, stop reading!

On the other hand if you are uncomfortable with even the possibility that historic designation can be forced on unwilling property owners, express your support for repealing Royal Oak's historic ordinances:

• Talk about the subject with your family, friends, co-workers, church clubs;
• Write letters to the editor;
• Call in to the Trib's and Mirror's voice mail service;
• Help distribute CPR literature;
• Make comments at City Commission meetings;
• Sign a CPR Support Card — which doesn't ask for money.

Click here to send us your thoughts about anything expressed in the CPR. We welcome and encourage your feedback