Together we say No
You will probably not be surprised that we keep up with what the folks who are advocating for the repeal of our new code are saying.
They have listed 22 reasons to repeal the code. A few of the reasons are the same (#2, #4, #15 & #19 are all about community oversight, #5 and #22 are anti-development, and #7 and #16 are about preserving character).
Some seem more akin to achieving world peace and curing cancer. You know, things we all want like preserving green spaces, character and scenic views. They say they want more affordable housing (#6) while wanting to fight density (#23). From a planning perspective, those two are kinda contradictory.
They want to preserve the "stately homes" (#18) and "family cottages" (#17) of our town without much concern for most our neighborhoods except saying they want to "protect" them (#7). Unclear their proposals for accomplishing any of that.
Others are semantics, like #8, which says they want to go back to using the term "carriage houses" instead of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), the more modern term for the same thing. While it is a quaint term, we haven't parked our carriages out back for about a century-not sure out kids will relate to that one. And on the same note, they want to bring back Agricultural Zones (we haven't had working farms in the city limits for a while. We are only 1.3 square miles, not sure encouraging farming is the best use of our limited in-town land).
They say they want more community control (#2, #4, #15 and #19) over zoning, though the controls haven't changed in the new code from the old code (Except for minor/routine requests. And if the administrative committee gets it wrong, in your opinion, a decision can still be appealed).
They want to maintain(?) the two story limit downtown (#14) even though the limit in the old code was three stories and the new code actually closes a loophole for elevator shafts that can push things taller. Keep in mind, several of our most iconic buildings downtown are three stories tall. (The Clarke building housing First Community Bank, and the Historical Society/Old City Hall are three stories-both are from the 19th century).
But all and all it is not a terrible list. What it is lacking is specific changes that they want made. Zoning codes are legal documents that need to be clear and fair for all. Our friends and neighbors spent two years working through these complicated issues and have crafted a well thought out new code. Voting "yes" repeals that code and takes us back to square one with no real proposal as a replacement-just a list of things that are pretty vague. Additionally, the things listed are also mostly covered in the new code in effect today.
For instance, just like in the old code, the boogie man of big development would need to come before the citizen committees and council to get approvals for anything they might want to do. If we don't like something we can fight it-just like we can now. Building a Walmart Supercenter or a McDonalds or a five story apartment complex are not "By right" activities. Each would require significant exceptions to the current zoning rules. Exceptions we as a community are unlikely to give. The new code makes it no more likely than the old code that some big developer is going to scoop up the really expensive property in Harbor Springs.
But here is the thing about all this business. We all have to be vigilant. We have to participate. Not at the last second or after the fact, but BEFORE decisions are made. That is the appropriate time to discuss and come to community consensus. Citizenship requires effort. You have to want to be involved and seek it out. Otherwise it just becomes an after action activity for those who didn't get their way.
Let no one convince you they couldn't be involved in this process if they wanted to be over the last two years. Thirty meetings, that were open to the public, were conducted. Each of those meetings could be attended by anyone or watched online. Lots of comments were made and listened to along the way. Some comments persuaded the volunteer committee members, others did not. As we try to teach our kids, we don't all get our way all the time and getting angry rarely solves the problem.
Here is a thought exercise. What if instead of going through all this effort to repeal the work our neighbors did to pass a new code, those who want changes worked with the committees to propose, draft and enact changes to the new code. Reasonable people could have worked with the city and our volunteer boards rather than turning it all into a referendum. That seems much more like the Harbor Springs we want to preserve.
But, here we are. "Yes" signs on one side of the street. "No" signs on the other. For a group that says they love Harbor Springs-they sure as heck divided it. It is time to move beyond the misinformation, distrust, fuss and anger.
Our options are a vote "yes" to REPEAL the new code and go backward or vote "no" to KEEP it and move forward. Our hope is that together we will say "NO" on November 5th.