At a second public hearing on creating local historic districts on Mackinac Island, residents and business owners presented strong arguments for and against the move. The debate continued after the hearing at Community Hall, as when more than 30 people filed out into the hallway and into the street Wednesday evening, October 14. Adoption of an ordinance that would allow the city to create historic districts now lies in the hands of City Council.

On one side of the debate, the city and some residents want to see an ordinance that could ultimately allow the city to protect the Island's historic buildings and protect property values, while on the other side, some property owners regard the move as the first step toward an infringement of their rights and a drag on both residential and commercial property values.

Questions and confusion over the meaning of establishing a Historic District Ordinance dominated the first public hearing Wednesday, September 30, and fueled the need for the second hearing, which was called by Mayor Margaret Doud. The second hearing was not required.

Adoption of the ordinance would not define a local historic district or anything about a district, said city attorney Tom Evashevski, rather it opens the door to allow the possible establishment of such a district, including one already proposed in Hubbard's Annex. Property owners in the annex already have competed a study and need the city to adopt the ordinance before the area can be designated a local historic district.

But the ordinance could allow the city to call a moratorium for up to a year on construction projects, including tearing down historic buildings, and the immediate push is to prevent a developer from tearing down McNally Cottage, an old home on the city's main stree.

"I think the bigger picture is Mackinac is history," said Trish Martin in support of the move. "That is part of our story that we try to tell and share with people and the more unreal Mackinac becomes, where we aren't the genuine article anymore, the less appealing we are going to be to the rest of the world. People are not going to want to be coming here. There are places people can go these days. We have something unique to sell and we really ought to preserve the unique character that we have here, and I think this is a great step in that direction."

Ms. Martin is a year-around resident, owner of Bogan Lane Inn, and a member of the city's Planning Commission and Tourism Bureau.

Another district may be considered downtown if the city decides to create such districts, prompting more discussion about the old McNally house.

Ira Green, one of the owners of the house, challenged the politics of decision-making on the Island. His proposed demolition of the 120-year-old Main Street structure sparked the movement toward establishing the Historic District Ordinance. Mr. Green asked city leaders why owners of the Coal Dock are being allowed to replace the wood deck with concrete without scrutiny, while his project has caused controversy.

He asked for a response from Mayor Doud.

"Has anyone been watching the renovations?" he asked her? "Does anyone care? There are concerns about McNally and the future and I've given my word that I won't touch it for a year until you solve all of this, but here we have a wooden coal dock from 1910 and it's covered with concrete. It used to have wood. Did anybody notice?"

Mayor Doud replied, "That dock is still in existence, Ira. What you are proposing to do is demolish McNally Cottage."

"I would like to move the building," he said, and he is looking for a location.

Mayor Doud held up a copy of a special tribute from then- Governor James Blanchard recognizing the historic significance of McNally Cottage when it turned 100 years old in 1989.

Mr. Green responded, "Maybe [Governor Blanchard] wasn't aware that you had zoned it nonconforming."

Mayor Doud replied, "You keep playing on that tune. There are many non-conforming uses and buildings in this town and, let me tell you something, they still exist and will exist."

"It's political," countered Mr. Green. "Today it's this way, tomorrow it's that way, and it doesn't mean anything that's going to stand the test of time."

"You also knew what you were buying when you bought it," said Mayor Doud.

"A non-conforming building in a commercial zone," replied Mr. Green.

Again, Mayor Doud, said, "Let me rest my case. You knew what you were buying when you bought it."

Mr. Evashevski added, "This isn't about McNally Cottage, this is about historic preservation and the study committee is looking at the entire Island, and the coal dock is part of that."

Mr. Green previously argued that the purpose of the city's zoning ordinance is to phase out nonconforming structures. The building is not a non-conforming use, said Mr. Evashevski, but it is allowed by a special use permit. The city approved the use change from a bed and breakfast to employee housing. That change came at Mr. Green's request when he purchased the building last year.

During the first public hearing, said Mr. Evashevski, some residents had suggested that a local historic district not be established without the majority vote of property owners within the district.

It is doubtful property owners could qualify for any tax credits they might seek, said Mr. Evashevski, who had researched the question of property owners voting to approve their own district. Such a vote could be considered a conflict of interest and would weaken the ordinance.

Some residents attending the hearing said they see the move as a potential weakening of their control as property owners.

Margaret Horn said she is concerned about not knowing the specific requirements that would be placed on property that might be in a proposed district. Mrs. Horn owns a home with a vacated storefront in the Mission District on Main Street.

"I think passing the ordinance sets up the potential for a series of events to occur that become beyond our control," she said.

Resident Chuck Kleber disagreed.

"Passing the ordinance doesn't set up any districts," he said. "Passing of the ordinance sets up study and getting answers."

If a local historic district is proposed by the study group, said Mayor Doud, a public hearing would be held to provide property owners the opportunity to express opinions, discuss requirements, and offer suggestions.

Other questions concerned how the city planned to define a historic building in terms of age or historical period, and what restrictions would be placed on buildings in a historic district that are not historic. Several in the audience asked that the city define what a historic district will be before asking for public comment on it.

Mr. Evashevski said the study committee is in the process of gathering more information. Much of the information so far, he said, comes from people who have explained the city's regulatory ability, but none has come from communities with local historic ordinances in place.

"What we haven't heard yet is how has it worked or what can people do. We want input from property owners [about how] it has worked in other communities; have they been happy with it and has development gone forward, or has everything just frozen. . . . We need that other side of the argument because there is historic preservation, there's concern that impact that has on property values, property use, and we haven't gotten that side of it."

Mayor Doud read five letters in support of the proposed ordinance from Frank Straus, Dianne and Patrick Shea, Susan Lenfestey, Chuck Kleber, and the Trayser family. She also made reference to a letter from Eric Starck, who represents the Save Our Island group.

Business owner Sam Barnwell thought the city should contact city appraiser Joe Stakoe and get his opinion on the impact of property values after a local historic district is established in other areas. This would be something for the committee to look into, Mayor Doud said.

Businessman Bob Benser said some historic downtown buildings are in disrepair, including the Opera House on Main Street, and should be rebuilt, but in keeping with its historic look. Tourists, he said, are not coming to the Island to see historic downtown buildings, rather they want to see Grand Hotel, horses, and bicycles.

"I don't think if you asked 100 people why they came here, it is not because it is a Historic Landmark," he said.

Business owner Joe Plaza said the Island should have thought of historic preservation 50 to 80 years ago.

"Now you want to turn everything into historic and make this Island a monument," he said. "So you best tear down all of the business district, plant grass, and put some benches out where visitors can come and enjoy the historic aspects of the Island. Without the fort or the horses, I think we're talking hyperbole."

Also, Mr. Plaza said he is not concerned with the proposed demolition of McNally Cottage. The owners of McNally Cottage had not invested in the structure in more than 50 years, said Mr. Plaza.

"As it stands today, it is nothing more than an eyesore," he said. "It either should be improved or removed."

Resident Kathleen "K.C." Carter asked if McNally Cottage could be saved.

Mr. Green said he would work with the city to save it, but not at the Main Street location.

"I don't know that it can be saved where it's at, but I'll make every effort. Anyone that can help us find a new home for McNally, we'll move it and move on with its restoration. It will still be a contributing property like so many that have been moved. It can still add to the value of our history, but we need to find a place that it can be moved."

No date was set when the proposed ordinance would come before the city council.