Opinions are wonderful.  Everybody has one.  They are part of what is unique about people.  People have a right to have opinions.  But what is amazing about opinions is that they usually change depending upon how much information a person has been given.  Someone may initially say, “My opinion is...” and after you give them more facts say, “Oh, well that’s a different story...”  Indeed, opinions depend on the facts. 

When it comes to community issues it is natural that people have opinions.  That is a good thing.  But it never ceases to amaze me how certain issues take on a life of their own.  That is usually a direct result of a lack of information.  Things may appear to be one way and only upon obtaining all the facts does the picture become clearer.  Some people disseminating information on an issue may not know all the information.  Unfortunately, others may intentionally leave out critical facts or choose to have a selective memory.  The latter is neither productive nor justifiable on the basis of one’s zeal on any issue. 

One such issue is the Fuerst Farm.  The City is finally moving forward to develop the property as a park, centrally located, as part of our civic center campus, in conjunction with the building of our new library and available for all to use and enjoy.  At this time questions are being raised, accusations leveled  - “What’s the rush?”; “Why act without a plan?”; “Why not seek grants and private funding?”; “Didn’t the city obtain this property in the first place to preserve the buildings?”  Upon first blush such questions are absolutely valid.  However, upon understanding the history of the City’s acquisition of the Fuerst Farm and what has occurred in the eleven years  since the City obtained the property the answers to these questions become clear.  Let’s review the “History” of the City’s acquisition of the Fuerst Farm and the past eleven years during which private groups have failed to raise funds for preservation.   

THE CITY DID NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY
TO PRESERVE THE BUILDINGS 

The City acquired the Fuerst Farm property, the 6.5 acres at the corner of Ten Mile and Taft roads,  in 1997.  The Novi School District acquired the entire farm in the early 1970's.  In 1997 the City owned 104 acres of property at Wixom and Eleven Mile roads.   The City and the Novi School District worked out a cooperative arrangement whereby the City would sell 52 acres to the School District for the construction of what is now Novi Middle School and keep 52 acres for the development of what is now Wildlife Woods Park adjacent to the Middle School.  When the City sold 52 acres of land to the School District the City received as payment two things: 1) $819,414.01 and 2) the 6.54 acre parcel of land on the corner of Ten Mile Rd and Taft on which sat the Fuerst Farm buildings. 

What is most enlightening is why the City wanted the property at the corner of Ten Mile and Taft.  The answer is that the City did not obtain the property for the purpose of preserving the buildings.

The initial Offer To Purchase document submitted to the City by the School District provided that the School District would pay the City $819, 414.01 and transfer ownership of the Fuerst Farm property.  However, that initial document also provided that the City’s use of the Fuerst property must be for historical purposes.  The initial Offer To Purchase document read as follows: 

“City’s use of the Fuerst Property shall be for historical and other relate purposes.” 

“City shall renovate such of the barns and other structures located on the Fuerst Property as City shall reasonably determine to be structurally sound...” 

That initial Offer To Purchase was discussed by the Novi City Council at a public meeting on June 23, 1997.  At that public meeting the City Council specifically voted to remove the language requiring historical use and specifically removed the language requiring renovation of the barns and other structures.  The following discussion is taken directly from the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 23, 1997:

“Councilman Schmid stated since this agreement suggests that this land will belong to the City, he wonders why does the school have any say how the city will maintain the barns.  Mr Byers [President of the Novi Board of Education] stated they could strike that provision if the city would like to. 

Councilman Kramer said they could strike items B, C, D,
                        E, and F.

Mayor McLallen stated they would want to keep Item F because of the truck easements for ingress and egress. 

Mr Fried [city attorney] asked what items do they want to strike.  Councilman Clark believes it would be B, C, and D. 

Councilman Kramer believes all those items simply address renovation, raising, maintaining and so forth. 

*                      *                      * 

Councilwoman Mutch suggested if the city changes what they do there from what they outline in the agreement, then the city would have to return the land to the school.  She asked what would happen if lightening destroyed the buildings; would the city have to sell the property back.  She believes they would have plenty of reason to continue use of the property and asked if they are suggesting the property would have to be returned to the school.

Councilman Schmid would not agree with that statement and he also does not agree that they should even have the right to buy it back.  Councilman Schmid asked what would happen if the city decided not to use it as a historical site and planned to use it as a small park. 

Mr Byers said the only thing they are dealing with is that the city should take care of the barns where the school has items stored.  He said they have no problem with what the city wants to do with the property.  However, if the city decides to put the property on the market, the school would like the first right to be able to buy it back. 

Councilman Schmid noted the language states “historical”.  Councilwoman Mutch added it also includes “and other related purposes.” 

Mr Byers believes “public purpose” would satisfy them.

*                      *                      * 

Mayor McLallen advised there seems to be a consensus to retain the ability for the school to have a right of first refusal on the property if the city ceases to use the property for any public purpose.”

The ultimate motion made and passed by the Novi City Council authorized entering into the agreement for the purchase of the Fuerst Farm property “with the elimination of Paragraphs B, C, D, and E...with the change of historical references to public uses...”

The ultimate Offer To Purchase signed by the City and the School district on July 17, 1997  provided regarding the use of the Fuerst property, “City’s use of the Fuerst Property shall be for public purposes.”  There was no requirement of solely historical use of the property or buildings.  There was no requirement that the buildings be maintained in a historical manner.  In fact the School district could use the barns for storage “Until such time that the City notifies Novi School District that it will begin use of the barns...”

It is most interesting to note that it was then City Councilwoman Kathy Mutch who stated that if the buildings were destroyed “She believes they [City] would have plenty of reason to continue use of the property...”  The City purchased the Fuerst Farm not for historical purposes but for “public purposes”.  Using the property as a park was specifically discussed.   City Councilwoman Mutch voted in favor of purchasing the property for those purposes.

The Deed by which the City took ownership of the Fuerst Farm states that the only restriction on the use of the property is “that grantee’s use of the above described parcel be for public purposes only”.  No historical purpose was included..

Moreover, at the same City Council meeting of June 23, 1997 a question was raised about possible historical restrictions on the use of the property because of its designation on the National Registry of Historic Places.  Once again, it was Councilwoman Mutch who explained that such a designation provided no restriction on the use of the property:

“Councilwoman Mutch advised it is not restrictive when someone pursues a National Registry nomination unless federal funds are used.  Consequently, no restrictions were placed on the school or city when the (sic) pursued that for the Fuerst property.  Councilwoman Mutch advised any organization or individual could have pursued the historic site registration, but noted they do not require that they have the property owner’s cooperation because the significance is determined independent or who owns it.”

Indeed, as pointed out by Kathy Mutch, the historical significance, according to the National Registry, is of the site itself not the use of the property.

Thus when we examine the “History” of the City’s purchase of the Fuerst Farm property we discover; 1) the property was not purchased specifically for historical preservation, 2) the use of the property as a public park was discussed, 3) the City Council specifically removed any requirement that the property be used for historical purposes and 4) the National Registry of Historic Places designation places no restrictions on the use of the property.

PRIVATE FUNDS/GRANTS MUST BE AVAILABLE.
WHY DOESN’T THE CITY ALLOW TIME FOR
PRIVATE FUNDS/GRANTS TO BE RAISED? 

In answering this question we must first ask, how much time is a reasonable time to allow for the raising of such funds?  How about eleven years?   That is exactly how long the City has been waiting for those interested in preserving the buildings to raise the funds to do so.  Virtually nothing has been raised in eleven years.

In the year 2000 a Fuerst Farm Task Force examined the property.  However, they did not examine the property from a neutral standpoint as to potential uses.  They examined the property with the specific intent to “restore and maintain the Fuerst Farmstead”.  Indeed, the Fuerst Farm Task Force reported that “Since 1991 both the City of Novi and the Novi School District have been discussing and studying various alternatives for use of the Fuerst Farmstead.” [Report of Fuerst property Task Force, June 2000]   So we know that this issue has been discussed for the last 17 years!  What has happened in that 17 years?  Has anyone interested in  preserving the buildings raised any money to do so?

The Fuerst Property Task Force in 2000 specifically recognized that private funds, grants and gifts must be obtained for the preservation of the Fuerst Farm buildings.  The Task Force recommended a 5 year plan during which time the City would contribute $65,000 toward the Fuerst Farm and $335,000 would be raised by “Park Events, Gifts, Grants”.  Their Mission Statement specifically provided, “To use the property in creative ways to raise necessary funds for the maintenance and enhancement of the property and its activities without putting an undo burden on the city finances - making the property self-sustaining and even profitable for future enhancements and use.”

In the eight years since The Task Force issued its report in 2000, the City has spent in excess of $70,000 directly on the Fuerst Farmstead.  This is in excess of the $65,000 recommended by the Task Force.  In that same time period only $500 have been raised privately rather than the $335,000 as promised.  Thus, the City has contributed its share but no action has been taken by those wishing to preserve the buildings.  They presented a five year plan.  The City has waited eight years.

Thus when the question is asked, “ why doesn’t the city allow time fo the rasing of private funds, gifts and grants?” when the “History” of the City’s ownership of the property is examined it becomes clear that the City has allowed more than ample time.

It is one thing for someone to say, raise private funds.  It is another for someone to actually do it.  The City cannot allow this wonderful piece of property to lay fallow, unused any longer.  Residents of Novi have a right to use this property which was acquired with the use of city funds.  Eight years is enough time.  It is time to move on.

THE CITY’S PLAN

It has been suggested that the City is proceeding without a plan.  The City does have a plan.  The plan is to implement the property for the very purpose it was originally acquired - public purposes, a park.  McKenna Associates was retained by the City to hold public input sessions, conduct a comprehensive study of the property and structures and make recommendations.  Their study was conducted in public, with public input at various levels:  community input meetings were held; an online survey was conducted; discussions were held at public Parks, Recreation and Forestry meetings; a survey was conducted at the Civic Center;  Departmental staff participated.  All of these public sessions were advertised and the public did participate.  McKenna submitted its recommendations showing the cost of both historic preservation of the buildings and use as a public park..  Given the “History” of the property since the City’s acquisition, the City Council has decided to move forward and develop the property for public use.

The cost of restoring the buildings for historical purposes is cost prohibitive.  Indeed, even the Fuerst Farm Task Force, eight years ago in 2000, recognized that city funds could not afford to be used to pay the cost of historic preservation.  To preserve the buildings alone (without any contingency funds) would cost $1.5 million.  That would not include any improvements to the site to make it usable.  In contrast that same $1.5 million would be sufficient to pay for all the improvements to the site noted in the McKenna report for use as a park except the building of the multi-use building, which is not essential to the immediate use of the site as a park.