Save Our Downtown’s Charter Amendment Is Bad Government

Traverse City’s anti-tall building group, “Save Our Downtown,” presents residents with a charter amendment that is bad government and undermines the very principles of our constitutional republic. While too few citizens do anything more than bellow from bar stools, I do applaud their passionate engagement in local government. But the spirit of this charter amendment is in pointed conflict with the basis of our country’s fundamental belief in a representative government elected by the voters.

A quick history lesson: Around 500 BC, the Greeks “invented” a voting system where each eligible (sorry, ladies and slaves) citizen casts their individual vote on each and every issue that came before them. A simple aye or nay by each citizen created a direct democracy. Our founding fathers incorporated the ideals of the Greeks’ democracy with a healthy hesitation that pure democracy could lead to mob rule or tyranny of the majority. They clearly and explicitly established a constitutional republic, where laws are made and administered via representatives and powers limited by the written constitution. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and James Madison were among those at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who successfully argued for a republic.

Again, to be perfectly clear, what every American citizen -- even the most passionate of community loving change agents -- must take to heart is that in the United States, there is no true direct democracy, and for good reason.

True, there are elements of direct democracy at the state and local levels. This occurs through the process of referendums and initiatives. In the case of a referendum, citizens of a state or local government can repeal a local law with a majority vote. In the case of an initiative, citizens of a state or local government can create a law with a majority vote. In both cases, the idea here is that citizens are deciding directly what is or is not the law.

So far, “Save Our Downtown” still has my enthusiastic support for their civic engagement in petitioning for an amendment to the city charter. They lose me, and the red, white and blue Yankee Doodle Dandy spirit, in the actual charter amendment language:

“It is hereby declared the policy of the city of Traverse City that buildings over 60 feet in height are generally inconsistent with the basic residential and historical character of the city. Therefore, any proposal for construction of a building with a height above 60 feet shall not be reviewed or approved by the commission, until after the proposal is submitted to and approved by a majority of the electors of the city at a regular election or at a special election held for that purpose.”

If this proposed charter amendment sought only to change the zoning ordinance to the 60-foot height limit to all future construction, I would still be supportive of their process. But they lose me (and I hope you too, my civic minded reader) when they require a vote of the citizens for each and every proposed building over 60 feet in height before review or approval by the City Commission. What?

The United States of America and the State of Michigan and Traverse City operate as a republic.

I don’t know what your schedule looks like, but I elected city commissioners to do this work for me. What the hell do I know about these things? Or my neighbor? What if Munson Hospital wants to build a 75-foot facility that would greatly improve access to medical care, or NMC an 80-foot story residential housing project to better serve students, or a company like Google came to town with a plan for a 1,500-employee site?

Will voters need to educate themselves on the pros and cons of the impact of each and every development over 60 feet tall on our city and its residents? How many elections are we going to have each year? Will Munson, NMC and Google simply decide it is not worth the investment of their time and dollars to build over 60 feet? Is that truly the underlying intention of the proposed initiative? Do we prefer sprawl? If so, say so. Be honest, and ask voters to decide in a single vote if buildings should be limited to 60 feet in height. Be done with it. Don’t expect or require citizens to vote on everything!

What, says you there? There might be a time when you might like an exception to be made? Sounds like somebody doubts his or her conviction to the 60-foot ordinance. How smart of you. Yes, I can assure you that there will be times that this limitation will be a shackle. So rather than lacking trust in your neighbors to elect representatives to the city commission who agree with you on one single issue, just make us all take on these ridiculously complex issues of civil planning, economic development, zoning issues, availability of federal grant funding and then insert each of our own individual aesthetic preferences. I might not like my neighbor’s roofline design, but hey, it is a free country. What a disastrous waste of our time and the talent of professionals on our city staff and the willingness to pour over the considerations by appointed zoning commission members and elected city commissioners.

I also believe that this charter amendment has more to do with “Save Our Downtown” not trusting or agreeing with the currently seated city commissioners whom we elected. It appears this group is simply too impatient to recall/elect fellow citizens into offices or too wishy-washy to commit to a 60-foot building height limitation. The amendment is a misleading “work around” that requires far too much of ordinary voters like me.

Voters will be making a much larger decision than, “Do I want tall buildings in my town?” Vote no.

Mary Keyes Rogers is a Traverse City resident, professional blogger and podcaster at experience50.com. She is a former business owner, radio personality and has held positions with Civic Searchlight, the nation’s 3rd oldest non-partisan voter education organization, Traverse City Chamber of Commerce, Networks Northwest and the Michigan Small Business Development Center.

View On Our Website