Reinvigorating Historic Preservation in Marinette: An Assessment of Necessary Changes to Marinette’s

Historic Preservation Ordinance

Wm. Jason Flatt

March 15, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Historic Preservation in the City of Marinette has been virtually non-existent for the last decade and largely dormant since the Main Street program and Marinette Renaissance efforts of the 1990s, efforts that followed in the wake of Shopko’s aborted plans to raze a significant swath of the historic downtown for a shopping center. Marinette’s current municipal leadership has indicated an interest in reinvigorating local historic preservation efforts. Unfortunately, the Historic Preservation ordinance contained in Chapter 13 (Zoning) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marinette has been changed since first being enacted in 1995. While some of those changes are arguably beneficial, others have rendered the ordinance ineffectual with regard to its intent and purpose. In order to provide the tools necessary for historic preservation to have a meaningful resurgence in Marinette, this report recommends that portions of the current historic preservation ordinance (portions introduced after the ordinance was first enacted) be revised, including, at a minimum:

Removal of the owner consent clause in Ordinance Section 13.3105 Part A, Inclusion of city recourses other than demolition for dealing with threatened local

historic landmarks as identified in Ordinance Section 13.3105 Part C, and Reintroduction of a section for Definitions or addition of definitions appropriate

to historic preservation in Section 13.4400 DEFINITIONS.

INTRODUCTION

The City of Marinette first enacted its historic preservation ordinance on July 5, 1995. The purpose of this ordinance was, in part, to stabilize, protect, enhance, and preserve elements of Marinette’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history. To that end, a Historic Preservation Commission was created and entrusted with the power to designate historic structures and the task of recommending to the city council the designation of historic districts.

During the nearly two decades since Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance was first enacted, a number of changes have been made to the ordinance, the ramifications of which may not have been fully appreciated at the time. Of those changes, two have significantly weakened the potential efficacy of the ordinance to the point of undermining its very purpose. First, an owner consent clause has been inserted that precludes the City of Marinette’s Historic Preservation Commission from designating historic structures without first obtaining the consent of the current owner. This prevents local historic landmarks from being protected by the ordinance and is widely recognized as a hallmark of a very weak preservation ordinance. Second, in the event that fines are not a sufficient deterrent to prevent a threatened historic structure from being demolished, either willfully or through owner neglect, the ordinance now provides for only one recourse—specifically, the city has the power and authority to condemn and raze the building. This approach runs counter to the intent of having a preservation ordinance and, rather than protecting historic landmarks, ensures that threatened landmarks will be destroyed. By contrast, the historic preservation ordinance of neighboring Menominee, Michigan, is a relatively strong one which, like many others nationwide, does not require owner consent and provides for a number of actions other than demolition that the city might take to safeguard its historic resources.

Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance needs to be revised in order to fulfill the original intent of the ordinance. Given that the ordinance recognizes that historic preservation is

1

a public necessity and required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, and welfare of the people, individual property owners should not be the judge of whether or not their property is historically significant. Furthermore, in the event that a historic landmark is threatened with demolition through the willfulness or negligence of the owner, the city should not be limited to the sole recourse of razing the building, thereby making the city complicit in violating the intent of the preservation ordinance. If the purpose and intent of the historic preservation ordinance are to be upheld, then key sections of the ordinance require revision.

BACKGROUND

The practice of historic preservation in the United States began in the mid-nineteenth century largely through private efforts such as those to preserve George Washington’s plantation, Mt. Vernon. Government was largely absent from historic preservation, with some notable exceptions: the City of Philadelphia purchased Independence Hall from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1816, in part so as to prevent its demolition; and in 1850, the State of New York acquired General Washington’s longest-serving Revolutionary War headquarters at Newburgh, New York, for use as this nation’s first publicly operated historic site1. Government involvement in historic preservation would remain similarly limited until well after the turn of the century.

By the 1920s, local zoning regulations began to appear that put restrictions on what uses land could be put to within a city. In 1931 historic preservation would first become part of these relatively new land-use laws when Charleston, South Carolina, created a preservation ordinance establishing a historic district within that city. This ordinance, and the more than 2,300 like it across the nation that have since followed, controls major alterations and demolition of both individual landmarks and properties within a historic district2. New construction within historic districts is also often controlled so as to ensure that new buildings are compatible in style and size with the character of the historic buildings nearby.

Today, well-written local preservation ordinances are typically thought to require twelve basic components. Those components are 1) a statement of purpose, 2) a definitions list, 3) the creation of a preservation commission, 4) a description of the commission’s powers and duties, 5) criteria for designating historic properties, 6) procedures for designating historic landmarks and districts, 7) a description of what types of changes to historic resources are subject to review, 8) a process and standard for evaluating economic hardship claims, 9) interim protection provisions, 10) an affirmative maintenance provision, 11) penalties, and 12) an appeals process3. Beyond the elements described above, a historic preservation ordinance may also contain additional information relevant to the community that it serves.

Historic Preservation in Marinette

Significant organized historic preservation efforts in Marinette began to take shape as the city prepared for its centennial celebration in 1987. At that time, the fates of the historic downtown buildings were very uncertain. A market study for downtown redevelopment, prepared by RDR of Chicago in 1986, suggested that many Main Street and Hall Avenue properties should be razed to make way for new retail development4. By 1987, it was 1 Listoken, Listoken, & Lahr, Contributions of Historic Preservation, 431.2 Beaumont, A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Historic Places, 1.3 Beaumont, A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Historic Places, 3-6.4 Marinette Eagle-Star, May 22, 1986.

2

anticipated that a Shopko retail store would be built on or near Dunlap Square, the historic center of downtown Marinette. Also in that year, the historic Stephenson building on Hall Avenue, between the court house and Stephenson Street, was razed5.

Aside from the loss of the Stephenson building, much of downtown Marinette was spared and Shopko eventually located its new store near the Pine Tree Mall at the southern edge of town. Between 1989 and 1992, a Main Street Program was undertaken in tandem with the Alexander Company’s rehabilitation and adaptive use of five buildings as part of the Dunlap Square project6. The Marinette Downtown Revitalization Committee was optimistic of future preservation success, and Marinette Renaissance, Inc., published a Guide to the Renovation and Rehabilitation of Downtown Marinette.

In 1991 the Marinette Redevelopment Authority had an Architectural and Historical Intensive Survey Report prepared7. That report included proposals for four potential historic districts within Marinette and it set forth five recommended objectives for future action on preservation in Marinette:

1. Preparation of an official Preservation Plan and its adoption as part of the City Master Plan.

2. Creation of a Local Historic Preservation Ordinance and Commission.3. Certification by the State of Wisconsin as a Certified Local Government.4. Preparation of a Multiple Resource Nomination to the National Register

Nomination of the proposed commercial and residential districts.5. Implementation of a systemic plan of public education concerning preservation of

historic resources.

The Guide to the Renovation and Rehabilitation of Downtown Marinette may have partially fulfilled the first objective and, it should be noted, the City of Marinette 2020 Comprehensive Plan does make brief mention of historic preservation in Marinette. The second objective was realized through the enactment of the historic preservation ordinance in 19958. It is not clear if the other three objectives were ever begun, but they were certainly never achieved, nor did Marinette establish a single historic district.

Unfortunately, just as Marinette’s preservation ordinance was enacted, interest in such efforts largely disappeared. In the years that followed, the fates of the Milwaukee Road Train Depot and the Colonial Building would become polarizing political issues and lead to changes in both the mayor’s office and in the preservation ordinance. The Depot, which the railroad closed in 1989, would become the sticking point of a proposed Walgreens development in 2003 before ultimately being relocated and rehabilitated in 2005. In the case of the Colonial Building, the Historic Preservation Commission designated the building a local historical structure in 19999, thereby putting an end to the owner’s plans to raze the building. Ownership subsequently changed hands, but repairs were never made to stabilize the granite façade. The fate of the

5 Emich, City of Marinette Centennial Program and History 1887-1987, 18. 6 Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Wisconsin Main Street 1988-1998 10th Annual Report, 28.7 Thibodeau, Intensive Survey Report, 2.8 City of Marinette, Ordinance No. 1633.9 Eagle-Herald, October 19, 1999.

3

building would continue to unravel until the city condemned the building in 200710 and razed it in 200811.

Revisions to Marinette’s Historic Preservation Ordinance

It is interesting to note that while the sagas of the Depot and Colonial Building unfolded, Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance was revised; however, it is difficult to determine when, precisely, the revisions occurred. Calls to the office of the city attorney and city building inspector revealed that these departments do not maintain a revision history of ordinances and current ordinances do not include any note as to when they were last revised. Further research might pinpoint when any revisions were made. Regardless, while the Historic Preservation Commission was able to designate the Colonial Building as a local historical structure without owner consent in 1999, the ordinance now requires that owner consent first be obtained before any historic structure can be designated as such. Specifically, a key section of the ordinance, as written in 1995 and as it now appears, is listed below.

SEC. 13-7-5 POWERS AND DUTIES (as written in 1995)A. The Commission shall have the power, subject to Section 13-7-6, to designate historic

structures and historic sites and to recommend designation of historic districts within the corporate boundaries of Marinette. Such designations shall be made based on Section 13-7-4. Historic districts shall be approved by the Common Council. Once designated, such historic structures, sites and districts shall be subject to all the provisions of this ordinance.

This stands in contrast to the ordinance as it now appears.

13.3105 Powers and Duties of Commission (current)A. Designation

Upon the request of the property owner, the Commission shall have the power, subject to this Ordinance, to designate historic structures and historic sites. The commission shall have the power to recommend designation of historic districts within the city limits. Such designations shall be made based on this Ordinance. Historic districts shall be approved by the common council. Once designated, such historic structures, sites, and districts shall be subject to all the provisions of this chapter.

This owner consent clause may appear to be a subtle change (“Upon the request of the property owner”), but it has the effect of rendering the ordinance ineffectual with regard to its intent and purpose. Now the determination of historic significance rests not with the standards adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission, but rather with individual property owners. This begs two questions—is the actual historic significance of a property in any way dependent on the wishes of the current property owner? What incentive does a property owner have for voluntarily subjecting their property to additional regulations? The answers are “no” and, with the exception of a plaque per Section 13.3107 of the ordinance, “none”. Owner consent (and

10 Eagle-Herald, January 9, 2007.11 Eagle-Herald, March 26, 2008.

4

objection) clauses such as this lack any standard for decision-making regarding historic significance by property owners. As such, the often uninformed and misguided intentions of private individuals are put in a position of being able to determine the public good and for this reason, as discussed later, owner consent clauses are likely not constitutional.

Beyond owner consent, the current ordinance now includes some lengthy details about the recourses available should a designated landmark fall into serious disrepair. These recourses were largely absent from the ordinance as it was originally written and they appear to have been designed so as to encourage demolition of threatened landmarks. The recourses are primarily twofold:

13.3115 Emergency Conditions (current)In any case where the building inspector determines that there are emergency conditions dangerous to life, health, or property affecting an historic structure, site, or a property in an historic district, the city may order the remedying of these conditions without the approval of the commission. The city shall promptly notify the commission of the action being taken. When the emergency conditions do not require demolition, the city shall make every effort to carry out the intent of this chapter and to use the design guidelines of the commission when remedying the emergency conditions.

Did the deteriorating façade of the designated historic landmark Colonial Building require the demolition of the building? Arguably not, as the façade could have been repaired. The building was razed in March of 200812 at a cost of around $80,000, most of which was borne by the City of Marinette. Although no cost estimate of the façade repairs remains readily available, one might speculate that $80,000 would have covered either most of or all of the cost of those repairs. Unfortunately, the ordinance does not specify any recourses available to the city other than demolition. On the contrary, if an owner actually wants to raze a historic landmark, the ordinance has been revised to provide clear guidance on how this might be accomplished, as noted below.

13.3105 Powers and Duties of Commission (current)C. Certificate of Appropriateness Approval

Upon filing of any application for a certificate of appropriateness with the commission, the commission shall approve the application unless:

6. Except as provided herein, in the case of a request for the demolition of a deteriorated building or structure, any hardship or difficulty claimed by the owner is self-created or is the result of any failure to maintain the property in good repair. Upon the request for a demolition permit for a structure determined to be unfit for humanhabitation, occupancy, or use by any authorized public official or agency, the commission may defer the granting of approval for a period of up to six months from the time of such application, during which time the commission and the property owner shall undertake serious and continuing discussions for the purpose of finding a method to save such property. During such period, the property owner and the

12 Eagle-Herald, March 26, 2008.

5

commission shall cooperate in attempting to avoid demolition of the property. At the end of this six-month period, if no mutually agreeable method of saving the subject property bearing a reasonable prospect of eventual success is under way, or if no formal application for funds from any governmental unit or nonprofit organization to preserve the subject property is pending, the building inspector may issue the permit to demolish the subject property without the approval of the commission. If such mutually agreeable method for saving the subject property is not successful or no such funds to preserve the subject property have been obtained and available for disbursement within a period of two months following the end of such six-month period, the building inspector may issue the permit to demolish the subject property without the approval of the commission.

In brief, if a historic landmark is no longer fit for occupancy, then it is up to the owner to make necessary repairs. Should the owner desire that the building be razed, the owner can effectively block any efforts intended to stabilize the building knowing that, after six months’ time, the city will ensure that a demolition permit is issued (the city has no alternatives per Section 13.3105 above). The cost of fines associated with demolition by neglect (addressed in sections 13.3113 and 13.3114 of the ordinance) can simply be quantified and factored into a purely economic cost benefit analysis of razing a building without regard to historic significance. Again, the owner has been put in a position of determining the public good and the ordinance is unable to fulfill its intent or purpose.

Although not as critical an issue as owner consent and demolition of historic landmarks, one of the hallmarks of a good historic preservation ordinance is a Definitions section. As originally written in 1995, Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance included a section for definitions of key terms, including Certificate of Appropriateness, Commission, Historic District, Historic Site, Historic Structure, and Improvement. That definitions section has since been removed in its entirety. Perhaps there was intent to relocate the definitions related to historic preservation to the all-encompassing Section 13.4400 Definitions, but that has not been done.

Relative Strength of Marinette & Menominee Preservation Ordinances

Local preservation ordinances can vary greatly from place to place and, unsurprisingly, the strength of each community’s ordinance may be greater or lesser than those of its neighbors. This is very much the case for the cities of Marinette, Wisconsin, and Menominee, Michigan. These sister cities share a common history, but the state of their historic centers indicates that only one of the two cities can be said to have taken a successful approach to historic preservation. While a historic preservation ordinance is only one component of an overall approach to historic preservation, it is nonetheless of vital importance to a successful preservation effort. Briefly comparing the two cities’ preservation ordinances further illuminates the issues with Marinette’s policy.

Both Marinette’s and Menominee’s ordinances start with a clear statement of purpose and link historic preservation to public purposes, including improving property values, safeguarding heritage, education, and aesthetics. Where Menominee’s ordinance has a substantial definitions section, Marinette’s has none. Menominee’s preservation ordinance, as enacted, created a

6

historic district in Menominee’s downtown waterfront district consisting of four distinct sets of zoning overlay boundaries, the boundaries of which are well defined. Although four historic districts were proposed as part of the 1991 survey13, Marinette’s ordinance does not establish the boundaries of any historic district and, to this day, there are no officially designated historic districts within the city of Marinette.

Continuing on with the major sections of the preservation ordinances, both Marinette’s and Menominee’s call for the creation of commissions to oversee the execution of the ordinance provisions. Both commissions consist of seven members, appointed by the mayor with clearly defined period of service terms. Of those members of Menominee’s Historic District Commission (HDC), one must be a graduate of an accredited school of architecture and one must be endorsed by a preservation society. Marinette’s Historic Preservation Commission must include one registered architect, one historian, one licensed real estate broker, and one council member. Menominee’s ordinance, unlike Marinette’s, goes on to specify a code of ethics by which members of the commission shall be governed, as well as requirements and procedures for regular meetings, record keeping, and an annual report. Marinette’s ordinance is silent on these subjects and, as a result, several years have gone by since the last meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

Menominee’s preservation ordinance grants a number of powers to the HDC within the procedures for plan review. Any application for a building permit to alter, repair, move, add to, excavate, or demolish any resource within the historic district must first be reviewed by the commission so as to obtain a certificate of appropriateness. Any denial of a certificate of appropriateness is to be accompanied by a statement of reasons for the denial and may also include a description of what the commission thinks is proper. The applicant can then either modify his or her plan or appeal the decision through a clearly stated appeals process.

Marinette’s preservation ordinance grants similar powers and authority to its historic preservation commission insofar as designated landmarks are concerned, but designation of an individual landmark can only begin at the request of the property owner, as described earlier. This owner consent clause is a weakness that Menominee’s ordinance does not have.

Assuming that a historic landmark falls into serious disrepair, Section 105-57 of Menominee’s ordinance grants their HDC the power to require the owner to repair all conditions contributing to demolition by neglect. Failing that, the commission or its agent may enter the property to make repairs provided that the city council authorizes funds or the commission secures money, through grants, donations, or other efforts, to cover the costs of the necessary repairs. These costs are then charged to the owner and may be levied by the City of Menominee as a special assessment against the property. If all efforts to preserve a resource fail, the City Council may acquire the property using public funds, gifts, grants, or proceeds from the issuance of bonds. The City may then sell the property with protective easements, if needed.

Marinette’s preservation ordinance also requires that owners of landmarks maintain their property so as to prevent demolition by neglect. From there, the Marinette ordinance takes a drastically different approach to dealing with threatened resources. As noted earlier, there is no provision for the HPC to make repairs, nor is there provision for the city council to intervene in an effort to prevent the property from being razed. On the contrary, the only recourse that the city has for dealing with historic buildings that are determined by the city building inspector to be unfit for human habitation is the eventual issuance of a demolition permit. Had Marinette’s

13 Thibodeau, Intensive Survey Report, 2.

7

ordinance been similar to Menominee’s, then the Colonial Building could have benefitted from a course of action that would not have guaranteed its demolition.

With regard to penalties, Menominee’s ordinance is also the stronger of the two. There, violations of the historic preservation ordinance carry a one-time fine of up to $5,000. Furthermore, those who violate the ordinance may be ordered by the court to pay the costs to restore or replicate a resource that is unlawfully constructed, added to, altered, repaired, moved, excavated, or demolished. Marinette’s ordinance also carries a fine, but falls short of specifying any measures to restore or replicate a historic resource. In Marinette, each violation of the provisions of the ordinance carries a fine of no less than $200 a day. Those violations that are specified include failing to “keep in good repair” interior and exterior portions that, if not maintained, can lead to demolition by neglect. The “deterioration of” exterior walls, roofs, chimneys, mortar, the surrounding environment are all included, as is the peeling of paint. Each day during which a violation continues shall be deemed to be a separate offense. No other penalties exist for violating Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance—there is no requirement for violators to restore or replicate a historic resource. This leaves open to interpretation the total fine should a resource be demolished. Furthermore, in the absence of any definitions, it is difficult to determine with certainty what constitutes a violation.

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSED REVISIONS

In determining whether the local preservation ordinance should be revised, there are likely to be arguments made concerning the legality, economics, and necessity of the proposed revisions. In each of these cases there is strong impetus to proceed with revising Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance.

Legality

As mentioned earlier, local zoning regulations began to appear in the 1920s. The constitutionality of these zoning ordinances was upheld by the Supreme Court with the case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)14. Local historic preservation ordinances, a subset of zoning ordinances (Chapter 13 of Marinette’s Ordinances is entitled “Zoning”--the Historic Preservation ordinance, 13.3100, is contained in the Zoning chapter), are made possible through state enabling laws. These laws transfer to local governments the right of the state to regulate private property through its police power. Historic preservation gained strength through being addressed on a local level rather than at the state or national level. These ordinances were put to the test in the case of Penn Central Transportation Co v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). In this case, the owner of Grand Central Station, a New York City landmark, appealed the denial of an application for partial demolition of the station and the construction of a high-rise office building atop the existing structure. In upholding the denial, the United States Supreme Court specifically validated the right of municipalities to regulate private property through police power in an effort to promote the public good. Here the Supreme Court found that preservation ordinances, if properly written, serve a valid public purpose and do not constitute a taking15. As such, historic preservation ordinances do not violate the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

14 Byme, Two Cheers for Gentrification, 5.15 Beaumont, A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Historic Places, 2.

8

Regarding owner consent provisions, one might be inclined to believe that including an owner consent requirement enhances the legality of a local preservation ordinance. The exact opposite is true—an owner consent provision is likely an unconstitutional delegation of police powers to private individuals16. In deciding whether a law will apply to themselves through owner consent or objection, property owners assume the legislative authority that is reserved for public officials and agencies. Owner consent and objection clauses also lack any standard for decision-making by property owners. The result is that the often uninformed and misguided intentions of private individuals are put in a position of being able to disregard the historic value of a resource as deemed by objective experts and of determining for themselves the public good. Two early cases before the United States Supreme Court found the practice of owner consent in zoning regulations to be unconstitutional, including Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887), Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912) and State of Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928). In these cases, the consent of property owners and their ability to veto zoning regulations was found to be unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Ammendment.

The power to designate historic landmarks and historic districts should rest with professionals who are credentialed in the field, objective in their posture, educated on standards of significance, and acting in accordance with standards as set forth in the ordinance. For this reason, the owner consent clause in Section 13.3105 (“Upon the request of the property owner”) should be removed from Marinette’s preservation ordinance.

Economics

Economic arguments concerning historic preservation can take many forms. For example, some might be concerned that having their property designated as a historic landmark will create an economic hardship. Designation as a historic landmark has no impact on property taxes or values. Furthermore, as written, Marinette’s ordinance allows owners of historic landmarks to undertake ordinary maintenance and repairs without the need for a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission, per Section 13.3105 part I. Only significant alterations to historic properties require the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and, in the event that the owner feels that a denial of a certificate of appropriateness for proposed alterations creates an economic hardship, an appeals process is included in the current ordinance. Conversely, designation as a historic landmark does not entitle a property owner to receive any money from the city or taxpayers.

Economic arguments might also be based on concerns about gentrification—a process in which the influx of affluent people displace established residents of more meager means—of historic districts. As noted earlier, Marinette currently has no historic districts and, should the Historic Preservation Commission wish to nominate a historic district, the City Council must approve the creation of said district. Gentrification of historic areas is a topic of significant and ongoing discussion throughout the country with arguments both in favor of and against17. Regardless, given the conditions of both the local economy and properties within potential historic districts, gentrification is a very distant concern, if a concern at all.

16 Beaumont, A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Historic Places, 8.17 Byrne, “Two Cheers for Gentrification”.

9

Necessity

Many people believe that historic landmarks are afforded the highest protection through nomination to and listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Within the City of Marinette there are currently seven properties listed in the National Register (one house, five former commercial buildings, and one archaeological site). Per the National Park Service, the government entity that maintains the National Register, “National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property”18. To be clear, a property that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places can, for example, be torn down by the owner without any penalty. The same is true for properties listed in the Wisconsin State Register of Historic Places.

While federal and state preservation laws offer little protection for historic resources, it is at the local level that historic landmarks can be provided the greatest protection—through a strong local historic preservation ordinance19. The strength of the protection for historic sites varies based, in part, on the powers granted to the historic preservation commission, the level of interim protection afforded to properties that are potentially eligible for nomination as historic landmarks, and explicitly stated significant penalties, including substantial fines that accrue on a daily basis, a requirement to restore landmarks that are willfully damaged or destroyed, denial of permits to rebuild on sites where a landmark has been willfully destroyed, or even jail time.

Research done for the purposes of preparing this report suggests that the City of Marinette currently has no properties that have been designated as local historic landmarks (more research within city records to verify this is warranted). This is not to say that there is a total lack of local historic resources worthy of nomination—for example, the seven properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places likely warrant the real protection that only a local preservation ordinance can provide. On the contrary, this highlights the need for a reinvigoration of local historic preservation efforts so as to safeguard those yet-to-be-designated local resources.

IMPLEMENTATION

Revising Marinette’s historic preservation ordinance to eliminate the owner consent clause is a relatively straight forward proposition. The “Upon the request of the property owner” should be struck from Section 13.3105. Similarly, reintroduction of a list of Definitions, either within the historic preservation section of the ordinances or within the catch-all definitions Section 13.4400, is in order.

Augmenting city recourses for dealing with a historic landmark threatened by demolition should be discussed further. If we look to Menominee as an example, then possible suggestions include providing authorization for the historic preservation commission to enter the property to make repairs, charging these costs to the owner, and levying these costs as a special assessment against the property. Also, an option for the City to acquire the property using public funds, gifts, grants, or proceeds from the issuance of bonds may be in order, after which the City may then sell the property with protective easements. These recourses should be added to Sections 13.3105 and 13.3115 of the ordinance.

18 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Program: Fundamentals.19 Miller, A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law, 7.

10

CONCLUSION

Per Marinette’s current preservation ordinance, “the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements or sites of special character or special architectural or historic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, and welfare of the people”. Indeed, the greatest argument that is likely to be made against revising the current preservation ordinance is that private property rights should take priority over the public necessity described in the purpose and intent of the preservation ordinance. If that is the consensus of the people of Marinette, then the ordinance should be scrapped altogether. If, on the other hand, we are to continue to hold the assertion to be true that historic preservation in Marinette is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, and welfare of the people, then the current ordinance needs to be revised to provide local landmarks with the protection that they require as this protection is not be provided by state or federal laws. To that end, Marinette should remove the owner consent clause and add possible recourses that the city can pursue to prevent a historic landmark from being demolished similar to those that Menominee already has in place. Revising the ordinance as listed above will recapture its original intent and begin the process of reinvigorating historic preservation in Marinette.

11

READING LIST

Eagle-Herald (newspaper). Marinette, WI, various dates.

Eagle Star (newspaper). Marinette, WI, various dates.

Beaumonth, Constance E. "A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Historic Places: Local Preservation Ordinances." National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2002. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/smart-growth/additional-resources/toolkit_citizens.pdf (accessed December 7, 2012).

Byme, J Peter. "Two Cheers for Gentrification." Howard Law Journal 46, no. 405 (2003).

City of Marinette. "Code of Ordinances of the City of Marinette." August 2009. http://www.marinette.wi.us/files/zoning/pdf/City%20of%20Marinette%20Code%20of%20Ordinances_2.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013).

—. "Ordinance No. 1633, Creating Title 13 Chapter 7 Entitled "Historic Preservation"." July 5, 1995.

City of Menominee. "Menominee Ordinance Code: Title 11 - Zoning and Planning." April 19, 2004. http://www.cityofmenominee.org/images/stories/pdf/codes/zoning-2004-04-19.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013).

Emich, Howard L. City of Marinette Centennial Program and History 1887-1987. Marinette, Wisconsin: City of Marinette, 1987.

Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development." Housing Policy Debate (Fannie Mae Foundation) 9, no. 3 (1998): 431-478.

Miller, Julia H. A Layperson's Guide to Historic Preservation Law: A Survey of Federal, State, and Local Laws Governing Historic Resource Protection. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008.

—. "Owner Consent Provisions in Historic Preservation Ordinances: Are They Legal?" Preservation Law Reporter Vol. 2, February 1991.

National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places Program: Fundamentals. June 13, 2011. http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm (accessed March 15, 2013).

State of Michigan. Local Historic Districts Act - Act 169 of 1970. n.d. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pvoi5b45o0w1vl55lhebf155))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Act-169-of-1970&query=on&highlight=historic%20AND%20preservation (accessed March 10, 2013).

State of Wisconsin. Historic Preservation 60.64. n.d. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/60/VIII/64 (accessed March 10, 2013).

Thibodeau, Todd, Michael D. Lempinen, and Less Ross. Intensive Survey Report - Architectural and Historical Survey Project, Marinette, Wisconsin. Marinette, Wisconsin: Marinette Redevelopment Authority, City of Marinette, Wisconsin, 1991.

Wisconsin Department of Commerce. "Wisconsin Main Street 1988-1998 10th Annual Report." 1998. http://inwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CD-WMSreport88-98.MainSt1.pdf (accessed March 10, 2013).

12

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jason Flatt is a Naval Architect, Professional Engineer, Member of the City of Marinette Historic Preservation Commission, and full-time graduate student enrolled in Goucher College’s Master of Arts in Historic Preservation program. This report has been prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Goucher College’s Master of Arts in Historic Preservation program. This report has also been prepared for the benefit of the elected officials of the City of Marinette and the people who they represent, as required of members of the City of Marinette Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marinette, Section 13.3108.

13