City misrepresents outcome of lawsuit
Tweet
Phil Bellfy
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.”
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.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Phil Bellfy
(10/05/09 2:21pm)Report
It should be noted that in the quote, above —“The issue before me is whether [Mr. Bellfy] may appeal this decision not who can file a petition with the [Historic District Commission],” the word “not” was underlined by the judge. By doing so, the Judge was quite clearly emphasizing that he was NOT being asked to decide the case on its merits. Even Mr. McGinty should know that.
Sol Bilderberg
(10/05/09 5:18pm)Report
This should serve as a warning to all citizens/fraternities/sororities imprisoned in a Historic District!
City Center II is a public/private partnership involving $60 Million Dollars in Tax Captures and $30 Million Dollars in Taxpayer Obligation Bonds. The City and Strathmore are in cahoots.
Apparently, the City attempted to leverage their threats of Eminent Domain,when they obtained a permit to demolish private properties that they did not own within the Historic District.
Why? To acquire the land so that the taxpayers can build a $15 Million Dollar parking ramp for a self-described insolvent developer.
Dr. Bellfy raises a serious question: Does the City have the right to obtain a permit to demolish properties that it does not own? The judge did NOT address THIS question!
Currently, it appears that the City is trying to get as many properties into Historic Districts, so that they can more easily force private property owners to sell to the City.
Mayor Loomis and City Attorney McGinty appeared to have deliberately deceived the citizens about the Judges decision, when they suggested that the Judges ruling did address this question and that it suggests approval of the Citys tactics.
Mayor Loomis and City Attorney McGinty would love to have us all believe that this Judge approves of the Citys actions: threatening Eminent Domain, attempting to demolish private properties that they dont own, building a parking ramp for a private housing project, and abusing Brownfield/TIF/MEDC/HUD funds, in order to bailout an insolvent private developer.
THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE JUDGE!
The City is on a reckless spending spree, pretending like they are the Donald Trumps of East Lansing, ignoring Free Market Forces, trampling on the rights of the citizens, and deceiving us all about the real financial risks in the taxpayer funding of the City Center II Project.
There is no demand for a new theater. Wharton Center recently announced their $18 Million Dollar expansion/improvements. Without the PUBLIC THEATER, there is no PUBLIC NEED for PUBLIC FUNDING for City Center II.
There is no need for more housing units. There is already a surplus of vacant units for rent and vacant houses for sale. According to Planning Director Dempsey, adding more units makes things WORSE!
The Naya Bistro restaurant, City Center IIs flagship restaurant went out of business in Grand Rapids, because of gross mismanagement. City Officials assert that the recession forced Naya Bistro to fail. Notice how they arbitrarily BLAME the recession when its convenient and IGNORE the recession when its convenient?
Parking Director O Connor stated that demand for downtown parking has DECREASED. There is no demand for a parking ramp, UNLESS City Center II is built. Thus, we would essentially be building the parking ramp for the private developer.
Hey, if I build a mansion in Whitehills next to Mayor Loomis and City Manager Staton, SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS BUILD MY GARAGE FOR ME?
This whole project is a SHAM! Eventually the truth will come out, and those officials will pay the price for their mistakes that they continue to acknowledge.
In the mean time, the Developer can enjoy his 51 foot yacht and laugh, because WE THE TAXPAYERS are footing the bill after the Developer consistently FAILS to pay his property taxes. The Jokes on Us.
SB
Sol Bilderberg
(10/05/09 8:47pm)Report
Rather than admit their mistakes, for failing to perform proper due diligence and market analyses, as well as trampling on the rights of the citizens, City officials continue their UNCONDITIONAL support for the insolvent developer. The Mayor suggests that all the developer has to do is pay his delinquent property taxes, in order to receive a fat taxpayer funded bailout! He’ll probably just put it on his VISA card, like he did before when he put a nearly $100,000 tax bill on his credit card, according to the Ingham County Clerk. The developer is drowning in debts, liens, lawsuits, foreclosures, and failed projects. Mayor Loomis and his goupthinking Council want to bailout the developer and let the citizens drown with him.
SB
City Attorney a Disgrace
(10/07/09 9:49am)Report
Yesterdays City Council Meeting was another display of deception by City Attorney McGinty.
The ISSUE is whether or not it is proper and fair for the City to obtain a permit to demolish private homes that they do not own?
City Hall used this tactic, when private homeowners expressed that they did not want to sell their homes to the City. While the City/Developer threatened to use Eminent Domain to take their homes, they also obtained permits to demolish their homes.
If you are a homeowner in a Historic District how would you react, if the City was granted a permit to demolish your home?
McGinty is a disgrace for diluting the truth and suggesting that a citizen with a PhD cannot understand basic legal argument.
Dr. Bellfy should be commended not attacked!
Phil Bellfy
(10/07/09 1:17pm)Report
I, too, would like to comment on Mr. McGinty’s most recent lie to the Council (last night). The entire section of the Finding that Mr. McGinty referred to —Conclusions of Law— was solely in refereence to MY “standing” to file an appeal, NOT, as the Judge ruled, whether the CITY had “standing” to file their demolition request with the HDC.
What the Judge said, in “layman’s” terms, was that I was not the “owner” of the properties, nor was I the “applicant.” Consequently, becasue I was neither the owner, nor the applicant, I had no “standing” to file an appeal —and the Judge threw it out.
And here I’m going to repeat the Judge’s Finding: “[Mr. Bellfy’s] August 12, 2009 brief asserts that the city of East Lansing had no standing to file the request for demolition. But that is not an issue before me.” (This “not” was not underlined; that came later in the paragraph).
The entire Finding, along with other supporting documents, will soon be posted on PublicResponse.com.