If Mayor Margaret Doud wondered whether the public would support the city's efforts in improving Mackinac Island's National Historic Landmark status, the show of more than 100 hands raised in support of the idea at a public hearing at Community Hall Wednesday, September 24, should have convinced her.

That very public will be looked upon by the city to adhere to the process of not only maintaining, but improving, Mackinac Island's status as a National Historic Landmark, which, the city learned earlier this summer, is in jeopardy of being stripped, owing to an absence of standards to preserve structures and a gradual erosion of contributing structures to the Island's historic theme.

The hearing was moved from the council chambers to the larger Community Hall downstairs to accommodate the number of people in attendance, which included residents, business owners, and visitors.

With the public support it received from the hearing, Council, at a meeting that followed the hearing, officially began a process to improve its status by asking the mayor to appoint members to a study committee.

Before holding the public hearing, the city's Ordinance Committee considered adopting a state historic preservation ordinance that would allow the city choices in dealing with plans for new construction and alterations of existing contributing structures. It also would have given the city a choice in appointing a Historic District Commission that would adhere to U.S. Secretary of Interior standards, or implement an emergency moratorium to allow the city time to find a direction in setting building guidelines.

Council decided, instead, to create a study committee to look into all elements of the process, including establishing historic districts on the Island and creating building guidelines that developers and the city's planning commission can follow.

Appointing the five-person study committee is only the first step in a process that may prove to be long and arduous, but necessary to the Island's tourist industry.

The process is something that the community, both residents and business owners, should participate in, but are not required to, said Amy Arnold, preservation planner at the State Historic Preservation Office.

The first 59 structures and features on Mackinac Island were listed on the National Register in 1960, but in 2000, Mackinac State Historic Parks asked for and received the Historic Landmark designation for the entire island, following a comprehensive inventory of all buildings and other resources, including the breakwalls, docks, and historic homes. Some 445 historic buildings, sites, structures, and objects on Mackinac Island contributed to the Historic Landmark designation, while 432 other resources did not.

Mackinac Island is one of fewer than 3,000 historic landmarks in the nation and one of 34 in Michigan. It is unique in that its designation encompasses the entire island, the state park and city, rather than just a historic district or building.

The Mackinac Island State Park Commission protects its resources and requires leaseholders of the Victorian cottages on the West and East bluffs and across from the Marina to adhere to the Secretary of Interior guidelines for rehabilitation and preservation. But the City of Mackinac Island has no plan in place to protect structures outside of the state park, and since 2000, some of its contributing resources have been demolished or been changed beyond recognition.

The National Park Service, which administers the National Historic Landmark program, has, therefore, put Mackinac Island on "watch," meaning it recognizes that the number of buildings and landmarks that contribute to the landmark status is decreasing while the number of non-contributing resources is increasing. The Island's historic character, its main draw in tourism, is slowly disappearing.

Mackinac Island's status has actually been under scrutiny since 1998, according to Dena Sanford, architectural historian with the National Register Programs of the National Park Service in Omaha, Nebraska. It was triggered, she said, because the city lacks a design review process and is under development pressure for new construction and to change existing buildings.

The sour economy has added to the concern of state and national preservation officers, but Mayor Doud contended that the city did not know the Island's landmark status was in jeopardy of being downgraded to the "threatened" category until earlier this summer, when historic preservation experts and design consultants met with city officials.

The "threatened" category is the lowest category a landmark can have before its status is stripped by the National Park Service.

Mrs. Arnold said the State Historic Preservation Office recently stepped up its interest and began placing some pressure on the city to begin work in preserving the Island's landmark status because of the state's bleak tourism and economic conditions.

"This is bigger than just the Island," she said in an interview with Mackinac Island Town Crier. "People have to realize that this is more responsibility than just a person's business or home on the Island.

"Tourism is eroding in the entire state, and Mackinac Island is Michigan's jewel," she added. "If Mackinac Island's tourism is hurting, you know that the state in general is hurting. Mackinac Island has to be a leading example of great places to go in Michigan for

tourists."

Removing historic landmark status from the Island, she warned, could be a blow to Michigan from which the state may have a hard time recovering.

Ms. Arnold suggested that Mackinac Island's status is so important that she encourages community leaders to talk with state legislators for support that could go above and beyond state and national standards, and to involve entities like the Society of Commercial Archaeology, an organization devoted to preserving commercial signs and architecture.

One concern that Pat Pulte brought up at the hearing is someone giving up property rights to adhere to preservation standards.

Mr. Pulte, owner of Murray Hotel and Inn on Mackinac, believes he would set aside his property rights to protect the Island's historic theme, which he considers more important overall.

He encouraged the city to implement high building standards, enforce them, and even suggested the city put in place a building moratorium similar to what it did when it reached its sewer capacity only a few years ago. The moratorium, he said, would allow the city time to implement a complete plan of building standards.

"Weighing the public's interest versus a person's property rights is the number one issue with historic preservation," said Ms. Arnold, and individual property owners don't have to accept the designation for their property. But those who adhere to the national standards, she said, are eligible for tax credit and federal and state financial assistance in rehabilitating a structure.

Owners of historic structures that need to install a new heating system would also be eligible for funding, added Ms. Arnold, but there is no governmental financial assistance for repainting historic structures, one issue that affects many Island property owners annually.

Certain annual costs associated with historic preservation will have to be absorbed, however, as that is just what comes with owning a historic structure on Mackinac Island, said Frank Pompa, who is rehabilitating his Pte. Aux Pins estate near British Landing.

"If you own a historic building on Mackinac, you must keep it up. If you don't want to do that, then don't own a historic building on the Island. Sell it," said Mr. Pompa to the audience.

He said that along with losing its National Historic Landmark status, the Island will lose the benefit of promoting itself as a historic vacation destination.

He also noted that Mackinac Island has been nominated as one of the most endangered historic communities in America for 2009 at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private, nonprofit advocacy and resource organization.

He encouraged the city to adopt the national preservation standards.

"It's human nature to want to modernize," said Mr. Pompa. "And I know it can be hard to keep up with these standards, but we have to draw the line in the sand."

David Levy, who purchased a home on the East Bluff in 2000, opted to restore the structure to its original 1895 design, rather than a subsequent remodel to another era, and worked closely with Mackinac State Historic Parks to follow the Secretary of the Interior standards.

He said he was inspired because historic architecture is important to the visitors here.

"I hope everyone sees it the same way," Mr. Levy told Mackinac Island Town Crier. "There's a unique flavor on this Island that I encourage everyone to protect. I couldn't be happier with my house."

Visitor Kathleen Carter said at the hearing that the reason she and many others come to Mackinac is to step back in time. But the importance of retaining that historic sense, Mrs. Arnold said, may not be widely understood on the Island.

"When owners of historic structures begin using modern materials and people come here, they're going to see that. They're going to begin asking, 'What would make me come to the Island, especially for $25 a boat ticket?' "

Resident Matt Myers argued that cooperation is also needed from other state agencies when they develop and expand facilities on Mackinac Island. He pointing to the remodeled marina, which he said "fell through the cracks" during the city's review process. Some residents objected to the Michigan Waterways Commission's use of artificial stone and wood used for the fence that runs along Main Street the entire width of the facility.

Mr. Myers said the there should be better communication between state agencies and the city and that they should be supportive in the Island's efforts to restore its landmark status, much as the community is expected to.

Cottager Lorna Straus said she believes the State Historic Preservation Office would have intervened, but she said it was not informed of the marina plans.

Cottager Candi Dunnigan said the community has proven it can come together in the past, pointing out it successfully prevented stateproposed expansion of the state marina and the airport.

"Now it's crunch time again," she said, "and we cannot lose this status because once we lose this, we can't regain it."