City misrepresents outcome of lawsuit

In the article “City Center II still could move forward” (SN 9/16), the mayor of East Lansing, Vic Loomis, is quoted as saying: “The integrity of our process had been challenged … and we withstood that challenge.”

Phil Bellfy

The mayor was, of course, referring to my “challenge” — my appeal — to the State Historic Preservation Review Board, as was reported. But the newspaper didn’t report the city attorney’s response to that statement made by the mayor (his statement actually posed a question).

Before I get to that response from Mr. McGinty, I need to provide a little background: The city, using threats of eminent domain, was unsuccessful in forcing a sale of three student rental homes on Evergreen Avenue, just north of The Peoples Church. The properties lie within the Oakwood Historic District, as does my home. So, in order to increase pressure on the owners of those rentals, the city asked the East Lansing Historic District Commission to approve a “Notice to Proceed” with the demolition of those historic homes.

It is important to note that at the time the city made its application — in August 2008 — it did not own any of the properties they were seeking to demolish. In fact, the city still does not own them.

Yet, in spite the question of “ownership” that was raised at the hearing, the Historic District Commission approved the city’s application and issued a “Notice to Proceed” with the demolition of those historic properties.

I “challenged” that decision, filing an appeal in April 2009 with the State Historic Preservation Review Board. The city responded to my appeal by asking the administrative law judge to dismiss my appeal due to the fact that I lacked “standing.” That is, the city claimed that under the Historic District statute, I had no “legal right” to file that appeal because I was not the “applicant.”

My counterargument was that the city had no legal right to seek demolition of homes they didn’t own.

Now, back to the article; it correctly reported that my “appeal was dismissed in court.” But a review of the cable broadcast of the Sept. 15 council session shows that portion of the council session that wasn’t reported in The State News article — and the city attorney’s full report to the council distorts that judge’s “dismissal” ruling.

Here’s the “clarification” from the city attorney, made in response to the mayor’s question, concerning the “substance” of my appeal: My charges “that the city had no legal basis to apply for the demolition permit, and that the Historic District Commission had no jurisdiction or legal authority to hear the application, were found by the judge to be without merit.” This is taken from the cable feed.

In response, I’d like to quote the judge’s finding that the city attorney was referring to. The finding states: “Petitioner’s (Mr. Bellfy’s) August 12, 2009 brief asserts that the city East of Lansing had no standing to file the request for demolition. But that is not an issue before me. The respondent (the Historic District Commission) accepted the city’s petition and decided in the city’s favor. The issue before me is whether (Mr. Bellfy) may appeal this decision not who can file a petition with the (Historic District Commission).”

So, when Mr. McGinty says that the judge “found (my legal arguments) to be without merit,” he was, quite simply, lying.

There is no way that Mr. McGinty could have innocently “misinterpreted” the judge’s very clear and precise statement — whether the city had “standing to file the request for demolition. … is not an issue before me.” What could be more clear? And why lie about something so important?

I know this word is not very “lawyerly,” but I can only think of one word to describe the city’s action in this entire City Center II controversy — including the public statements of the mayor and the city attorney in this “demolition-of-historic-homes-we-don’t-own” example: bizarre.

I have filed a new appeal, and I’m going to keep fighting this, because if the city can get a permit to demolish historic properties they do not own, then every property owner in every historic district in the city of East Lansing may very well face a very serious challenge to their property rights.

I would like to add a special warning to the fraternities and sororities that recently had their houses declared to be part of a special historic district. If you think threats of eminent domain are a horrible problem — think FarmHouse and East Village — add the threat of demolition to that abuse of power and things will be much worse.