Guest Opinion: Condo Kingdom in Royal Oak or Quiet Enjoyment?

(Editor’s note: the views expressed in the op-ed below are those of the author.)

By Sue E. Fabian

Mayor Jim Ellison flatly admitted, “Yes, it IS all about the money.”

I am a 60 year resident of our great city — a city that is diminishing in character, in my eyes. On behalf of fifteen of us that are known to exist on Midland Boulevard’s west leg, and echoing similar concerns of 18 known people on Midland’s east leg, I laid out objections to the proposed condominium project on the old St. John’s Episcopal Church at Midland Blvd. and Rochester Road, just north of 13 Mile Road:

• Traffic impact
• Pressure on city infrastructure
• Diminution of our right to quiet enjoyment and privacy
• Other resultant harm
• Violation of the City’s Master Plan and the Planning Commission’s own stated purpose

Detailed below, it all fell on deaf ears and pre-determined minds.

Sad is the current reality that our city is so strapped for cash that the Planning Commission is approving seemingly every condo project developers propose.

From the vantage point of long time and single-family dwelling residents, this recent phenomenon is increasingly encroaching on our way of life and long-standing patterns of quiet enjoyment in our home sanctuaries.

While developers walk with their profits, the City coffers are a bit more assuaged with each cache of new property tax revenue, the church board unloads a financial albatross, and nearby businesses are happy for increased customers, us residents are left bearing the brunt of everybody else’s good fortune.

The 10-point Reply

For one, Midland Boulevard between Main Street and Rochester Road is now anticipated to transform into “Mini 13 Mile Road,” as new condo residents will no doubt opt to cut down our lovely street to avoid 13 Mile Road’s traffic to access their Midland accessing parking lot entrance. Many additional objections were raised, most of them being feebly rebutted, in my view, by commissioners…(responses paraphrased, but verifiable by watching the meeting’s on-line recording):

1. As to the increased traffic load (created by the addition of 23 units with 2-3 parking spaces each) already saturated by traffic flow by several nearby businesses, creating further risk to school children at a two-blocks away elementary school and neighborhood children ‘We study traffic patterns and reports all the time. This will not significantly impact traffic flow.’

2. As to creating “Mini 13 Mile Road,” no reply.

3. As to increasing pressure on city infrastructure, such as adding scads of concentrated populations on a pared down police and fire force (foreseen to create diminished response times to all RO citizens), ‘We do not believe this will be an issue. A recent millage was passed. Further, you have a fire station within blocks of your area.’ This is a quick-and-simple reply to an issue requiring in-depth consideration. I would like to hear from the police and fire force on this.

4. As to increasing inability to comprehensively respond to any emergency preparedness scenario, whether natural or man made in this new global age of climate change (in part contributing to the Great Flood of August 2014, per some investigators), and terrorism, same reply as above—again, a quick, simple, and in my view, un-informed reply.

5. Speaking of the Great Flood, does this new development help in any way our sewer system woes? ‘The exiting parking lot creates runoff. The new development will have a retention basin lessening runoff.’ Score one for the City.

6. As for increased noise pollution from increased traffic and 23 balconies: no reply.

7. As for invasion of privacy that immediately eastwardly adjacent residents will face with three stories of occupied balconies towering above them: ‘Your desire for single-family dwellings create the same problem, what with 35’ maximum heights on dwellings.’ Point lost: I’d rather have that problem with a much more appropriate and mathematically-complying-to-existing-code 14 houses than 23 balconies.

8. As for highly possible diminution of property values for those residents immediately adjacent: no reply.

9. As for invitation of rat-infestation by dumpsters, where I pointed out that a former neighbor whose back yard abuts a cement wall from an apartment complex parking lot—he’s killed 30 rats already this year, with 8 in one night! No reply.

Tell Us:

• What do you think about the direction Royal Oak is going?

10. As for what I perceive to be violation of the City’s Master Plan, and the Planning Commission’s own stated purpose, i.e. (a) “The end result [of the Plan] will be a plan that recognizes distinct neighbor identities…”, (b) “The City of RO recognizes this demand and is working to ensure the small town feel.”, and (c) “The City of RO proposed the development of this Plan to preserve existing residential neighborhoods.”, this assuring intention rings hollow in light of yet another condo complex that directly breaches this trust. By the way, no reply.

Score: 9 for long-term residents, 1 for the city.

In fairness, local businesses are entitled to their profits. Most of the nearby businesses are local independents—I personally spend extra for their wares to support them. And, the city requires funds to maintain its infrastructure, and badly needed funds are being generated by such condo developments.

However, it has become sad state of affairs when long-time residents who have fed the city coffers with their property taxes for decades, are run over by the city’s zeal for more property taxes. Sadly, our city is quickly transforming from a quiet single-family dwelling community to a more transient condo kingdom with mushrooming pockets of highly concentrated populations, stressing police, fire and roads, and saddling us “Royal loyals” (single family dwellers) with the brunt of the lost right of quiet enjoyment in what is fast becoming Condo Kingdom.

P.S. The Commission denied my request for a 30 second rebuttal to point out their non-replies—more evidence that our (single family dwellers) requests and concerns continue to fall on deaf ears. They are working hard to keep our city viable, however, in my opinion, they ought to seek out community-generated ideas for solutions versus unilaterally riding roughshod over us.