UPDATED: Citizen Participation, One Community Voice Sparked it…Add Your Opinions about “Michigan Block Grants” Comments below

https://www.michigan.gov/mshda/-/media/Project/Websites/mshda/neighborhoods/CDBG/Policy-Manual/CH-03/03-Citizen-Participation.pdf?rev=34cc4aa5ac73480584fdc26c11bc13ce&hash=AC00B60F3675D73B325B31E93C13C73B

How Did This Come Up in Harbor Springs ?

ITS’ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT are grants from MSHDA’s Neighborhood Development Division program to support housing rehabilitation and community infrastructure to units of general local government—including cities, towns, townships, villages, and counties that do not receive direct CDBG allocations from HUD.’

 

Read the FAQ to understand community oversight, the details that need to be accomplished BEFORE applying  and the program’s requirements.

Here is the link, FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions and please read the letter below sent to City Council 

Letter to City Council 

Dear Members of the Harbor Springs City Council,

I write with deep concern regarding the proposed $60 million “Neighborhood Program” and the request that the City move quickly to submit a Letter of Intent for $150,000 in State funds under the Michigan State Housing Development Authority program.

Before any paperwork is filed, before any committee is formed, before any funds are allocated — we must ask a simple question:

Is this program truly for Harbor Springs residents, or is it another vehicle for intertwining State-directed development agendas with our local decision-making?

The voters of Harbor Springs spoke clearly when Ordinance 439 was rescinded. That vote was not just about density or zoning technicalities. It was a mandate. It established a rigorous community “smell test” for every proposal concerning development and land use placed before this Council.

• We will no longer lean back and trust without fact-based research.
• We will no longer allow State grant availability to dictate local land-use goals.
• We will not trade community character for outside funding incentives.

We have already seen what happens when outside funding drives local policy.

The now-defunct Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) effort attempted to align Harbor Springs’ future with how much State grant money we were willing to pursue. We rejected the zoning necessary to enable that framework. We rejected the premise that grant eligibility should determine our community vision.

And here we are again.

This proposal — though framed as modest homeowner rehabilitation assistance — is connected to a broader network of organizations that promote the ideology that “Housing Development is Economic Development.” That philosophy is actively advanced by groups such as Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, and the Michigan Strategic Fund.

Locally, this network includes the Little Traverse Bay Housing Partnership, Housing North, and other affiliated groups that were present in the lead-up to Ordinance 439. Their advocacy has consistently aligned with increased development density and State-financed growth tools.  We have seen how similar initiatives unfold. The Lofts at Lumber Square project — supported by State tools and local philanthropic backing — promised affordability. Rents reportedly began around $350 and later reached approximately $1,200. Ownership ultimately enhanced the portfolio of a nonprofit entity while delivering limited truly affordable units.

This is not a critique of nonprofit status. It is a question of outcomes.

Now we are asked to believe that the State of Michigan — funded by taxpayer dollars — intends to provide grants to homeowners in one of the most affluent regions of Northern Michigan so they may replace roofs, windows, or HVAC systems.

Why Harbor Springs?

In a community where private jets land daily at the local airport, where 17 billionaires reportedly reside in the broader area, and where property values rank among the highest in the state — are we truly the intended beneficiaries of limited State housing funds?

• If this program is about need, where is the needs assessment?
• If this program is about hardship, where is the data?
• If this program is about equity, why are we first in line?

Before a Letter of Intent is submitted, the City Council must:

1. Produce a documented, data-driven assessment of housing rehabilitation need within city limits.

2. Disclose all administrative, compliance, and long-term reporting obligations tied to acceptance of funds.

3. Clarify whether participation obligates Harbor Springs to future zoning or planning alignments with State housing targets.

4. Establish strict conflict-of-interest disclosures for anyone involved in drafting, promoting, or administering the grant.

We must also address optics. When a proposal is advanced rapidly, paperwork prepared in advance, and deadlines framed as urgent, it does not build trust. It undermines it.

Everything must pass the smell test.

We should also ask: If $150,000 is to be allocated, who decides which residents receive it? On what criteria? Under what oversight? And would we consider forming a committee — headed by the very individual promoting the initiative — to distribute taxpayer funds?

Recent history reminds us to tread carefully. 

This is not about personalities. It is about governance.

Spending taxpayer money — whether routed through grants, tax increment financing, or State block programs — is still spending our money. And we have been clear: Harbor Springs will not allow State-driven funding mechanisms to steer local policy without thorough scrutiny.

Other communities in Michigan may face severe housing distress. If funds are limited, perhaps they should go where need is demonstrably greater.

We must resist the reflex to say, “What could it hurt?”  We have been here before.

The responsible path is not speed. It is diligence.

If this program is truly beneficial, it will withstand research, transparency, and public debate. If it does not, that tells us everything we need to know.

Respectfully,

A Resident of Harbor Springs 

Comments:

 COMMENT: And there it is – should the city ie taxpayers pay for property management through city hall of the potentially only 5 houses that would qualify…great way to make bigger government and tax the tax payers twice 1) providing the money for the grant 2) to manage the project during the building phase AND to collect if the folks don’t stay during the lien period. It’s a big government solution for a problem we don’t even know if we have.

COMMENT: Why Harbor Springs Might Skip the MI Neighborhood Grant—And That’s Okay For small cities like Harbor Springs, state and federal grants for housing improvement—like the MI Neighborhood (MIN) program—can seem appealing. They promise funding for exterior repairs, safety upgrades, and neighborhood stabilization. But in our town, the reality is more complicated than the check might suggest.

Consider the numbers. Harbor Springs has roughly 1,311 homes, and about 70% are second homes or seasonal residences. When you apply the program’s rules—income limits, primary residence requirement, and target neighborhood boundaries—the pool of truly eligible homeowners shrinks dramatically. In some neighborhoods, only three or four homes might qualify for assistance.

Now, think about what administering the grant actually entails. Even a small program requires: 1. Preparing and submitting a detailed grant application to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. 2. Documenting neighborhood need and holding public meetings. 3.Reviewing homeowner applications and verifying income, taxes, and insurance. 4.Coordinating contractors, inspections, and payments. 5. Filing compliance reports and tracking liens for 5–10 years

For a city hall staff already juggling multiple roles, this is a significant investment of time and resources—all for a handful of households. Add in the political sensitivity of helping a tiny subset of residents, and it’s easy to see why some councils opt out.That’s not to say Harbor Springs doesn’t care about its neighborhoods. On the contrary, city leadership must balance competing priorities—roads, water and sewer infrastructure, public safety, and other public services. In this context, the administrative and political costs of a MIN grant may simply outweigh the benefit, even if the money is “free.” In short: passing on a grant round doesn’t mean ignoring housing needs. It means the city is being pragmatic, prioritizing staff capacity and strategic impact. When conditions align—enough eligible homes, strong local support, and available administrative help—Harbor Springs can revisit the program. Until then, skipping a round is responsible stewardship, not a failure.

COMMENT: Another valid point is who – our governance process continues to seek outside funding instead of cutting programs we no longer need – who is driving governance growth? The RRC has supposedly left. And we are still unable to focus on big issues – how to pay for the substation, what to do about the crappy sidewalks, how to pull out of the DDA…we have got to learn to identify our city governance issues and issues folks need to solve on their own.

COMMENT: Found this link of FAQ …https://www.michigan.gov/mshda/-/media/Project/Websites/mshda/neighborhoods/MI-Neighborhood/MIN-FAQ-30.pdf?rev=60e2fa479be44d0c9d33c314232846d1&hash=0672FDF369610AC6231F62441F14492C

COMMENT: The federal government taxes us. This is for income qualified people that want  to make basic improvements to their property. They then give out the money. In this case they route the money through local municipality. If the municipality does nothing the money goes to someone else. I hate the process. They should not do it. But maybe that is what they are doing. Only income qualified can apply. I like the idea of identifying if people care. The practical reality is this money is only available if managed through city. It’s a job.