Nobody gets permission to build anything in Harbor Springs for roughly the next three weeks, at least.
In last week’s election voters in the small resort town in northern Michigan, across the bay from Petoskey, approved a ballot question to repeal the city’s zoning ordinance. The ordinance was less than a year old. It had been unanimously adopted by the city council in May to update an anachronistic, baroque zoning code, and slightly expand allowances for certain types of housing development within the 1.3 square miles of the city limits.
The city council instituted a 35-day building moratorium after the repeal proposal passed. Next month the city could re-institute the older zoning rules, or extend the moratorium as it works to develop a new ordinance.
Adoption of the now-repealed ordinance (Ordinance 439) inspired acrimonious backlash, conspiracy theories about state government intervention in city planning, worries about the city losing some of its quaint small-town nostalgic character, and financial contributions to the pro-repeal campaign by an out-of-town political group that doesn’t have to disclose its donors.
Many full-time residents in Harbor Springs are retirees. Most of the homes in the city aren’t primary residences, but are owned by people who vacation to Harbor Springs in the busy summer season. For some supporters of Ordinance 439, it was a possible way of slightly increasing housing accessibility for families, and possibly helping attract and retain workers.
City Manager Victor Sinadinoski said he thinks part of what is driving city planning, and policy initiatives like the zoning changes, is an active attempt to imagine the city's future.
“Do we want to be a community that is primarily for those who resort here and those who come in to retire?” Sinadinoski said. “Or do we want to have a balance of a community where we have people who are here year round, supplying the businesses, supplying the people who make the city run?”
It's a quiet town in the offseason, but the boom of part-time residents and vacationers each summer is a testament to how desirable it is to live there.
A draft copy of Harbor Springs economic development strategy says the median age of residents is nearly 63 years old, the employment rate is below 40% due to the high number of retiree residents, and while median household income is below $70,000, the median state equalized value (half of cash value) of residential homes has increased over 80% since 2019.
Sinadinoski says that of roughly 30 full-time city employees, he’s aware of one that has a home in the city limits.
The updated zoning ordinance allowed for the construction of duplexes and accessory dwelling units (or “granny flats”) in most parts of the city, expanded possibilities for mixed-use development downtown, and adjusted lot size requirements.
Danny Rotert is a Harbor Springs resident who published an independent blog urging his neighbors to vote against the repeal measure. He believes the city needs more housing, and that some affluent residents with expensive homes and pristine views don’t want to have less affluent neighbors.
“There are some (homes) up on the bluff that have these beautiful views … and then this big concern that maybe taller buildings, apartment buildings, might block our view, or we’re going to have 'those people' move into our town.” Rotert said. “It’s worrisome to be honest.”
Sinadinoski said similar concerns have been explicitly expressed in public hearings.
“We’ve seen comments from different folks about not wanting to attract certain ‘lower demographics’ here,” Sinadinoski said. “And that’s a verbatim quote from public comment”.
The ballot question committee that gathered petition signatures to get the repeal question on the ballot was supported by a 501(c)4 non-profit called “We Love Harbor Springs, Inc.” and managed by a law firm in Toledo, Ohio. It urged residents to repeal the ordinance, and donated $20,000 to the ballot question committee. By law, “We Love Harbor Springs” does not have to disclose its financial contributors.
The committee leading the repeal petition spent over $14,000 to hire a political consultant firm in Lansing to support its efforts.
John Iacoangeli, a partner at the Ann Arbor based architecture and planning firm Beckett & Raeder, who works with Harbor Springs as a city planning consultant, said he believes some people who own property in Harbor Springs but cannot vote there, because it’s not their primary residence, and also pay more in property taxes than full-time residents, believe their voices should “be heard more."
“This was a well-organized, pretty well-funded effort by folks — we don’t know their names — to basically derail the zoning ordinance,” Iacoangeli said.
The committee urging a “no” vote on the repeal question, by contrast, received $3,470 in contributions, all from individuals with Harbor Springs addresses.
J.R. Eliot is a full-time Harbor Springs resident who worked with We Love Harbor Springs and the ballot question committee to advocate for a repeal vote and gather petition signatures to get the question on the ballot.
“We’re different here, and I don’t know why we can’t remain different,” Elliot said.
Elliot said there may be generational differences when it comes to workers wanting to live in the places where they work, or those places wanting to develop housing for their workforce.
“I got jobs in places I wanted to work and I didn’t expect them to, you know, provide me housing,” Elliot said. “It seems like there’s an attitude that’s changed.”
