VOCAL Neighbors

Hey Chuck - protecting our property rights is not uncivil discourse.

So this is the "spin" being offered by Alderman Daley's office, courtesy of her chief of staff, from a homeowner and voter who said that their household opposed landmarking. I fisk below.

Chuck: "Thank you for your message. Neither the City nor the aldermen, are proposing a landmark district."

VOCAL: The original flyer that went out under Alderman Daley's letterhead specifically stated that the September 13, 2004 meeting was "Regarding landmark designation for the Sheffield Historic District" and the topic was "Whether the City should propose landmark designation for the general area between Willow and Belden and Halsted to Racine."

Chuck: "There is no official consideration at this time."

VOCAL: According to a September 24, 2004 letter on Alderman Daley's letterhead sent to Commissioner Denise Casalino, over 30 city blocks were personally placed on adminsitrative "hold" by the Alderman for landmark review.


Chuck: "We are facilitating the discussion on the topic because many residents and the neighborhood associations had expressed an interest earlier this year."

VOCAL: The residents and people pushing for this on the neighborhood associations are one and the same. It seems to consist of Don Higgins, Diane Levin, and Bill Scott. That ain't many, and it ain't a groundswell. If this has been going on since April, why was it not until September that some of us heard about it, and had it presented as a "done deal"? Why won't you identify all of these people individually? Where are they?

I'm proud to say that VOCAL's membership rolls now exceed 150 households, and we've been formed for less than a month. Can SNA and RANCH claim to represent that many constituents?

Chuck: "We're spending much time in these block by block meetings so that people can learn as much as possible and so that we get a real sense of whether there is support for initiating such a proposal."

VOCAL: Why aren't you scheduling all of the meetings openly, publicly? Why not put it to a referendum or make it a special question at the next election, if you want to get a "real sense" of whether there is support for such a proposal? Or do the actual voters and homeowners not count? How many times do you have to be told that there is no support for this, that we want to preserve our property rights, before you drop the idea?

Chuck: "The alderman could say we're not going to have mtgs and not going to discuss this process, but that would not be responsible leadership and would be unresponsive to the residents who have organized to promote this as a proposal."

VOCAL: The Alderman could also just say that she's going to drop the issue, in view of the vocal opposition. Why do the residents who want to infringe on our prpperty rights get more clout than those of us who will be affected? Why isn't the burden of proof and persuasion on them, rather than on us?

Chuck: "It's the alderman's responsibility to sponsor the discussion just as she would on any other zoning or planning matter in the neighborhood..."

VOCAL: We only wish that we were being given the procedural process protections of the zonimg laws on this one. Alderman Daley has more than a responsibility to have a "discussion." She has a responsibility to justify why the City's permanent takeover of our property rights is economically, legally, ethically, morally warranted. Warm fuzzies about landmarking being "nice" or personal bewilderment about how to prevent an older building or two from being torn down on Clifton or Dayton street doesn't cut it.

Chuck: "...but she should not be demonized as a proponent of landmarking when it's not true."

VOCAL: You've admitted, Chuck, that Alderman Daley is the sole person who gets to make the call, and that if she wants it, we're landmarked, and if she doesn't, we're not. She is still pushing it, and trying to build consensus for the project. The "open meeting" at St. Theresa's was a one-sided pro-landmarking display. Don't kid us by saying that she is not pro-landmarking.

But if it will make you feel better, would you prefer that we "demonize" Alderman Daley because essentially what she is doing is stealing our property rights?

Chuck: "I think it's very unfair to [say] shame on the alderman when the community is not demonstrating the civility and sensibility to discuss this as a rational planning issue. "

VOCAL: Oh, thanks, Chuck. I see the logic clearly now. People who scream about "McMansions" being built on private property, that developers are horrible money-grubbing people, that we move out to the suburbs if we want to live in more than 1500 square feet, wax nostalgic about old brick and a dirt foundation, whine about noise in a busy city, or get hysterical about a house's color are "rationally" discussing "planning issues." My desire to protect my home from legal encumberances, bureaucratic red tape, nosy dictatorial neighbors, and permanent economic devaluation is IRRATIONAL.

I see. I should just meekly give up my private property in the name of the public good. As should 1000 of my neighbors, again, to satiate a noisy few.

They tried that in Soviet Russia, Chuck. It was called communism. It is a failure.

This is America. We have property rights here, and it is what made our country great.

Know what else they tried in Soviet Russia, Chuck? Dictators. A whole string of em. They had a tendency to oppress people, and could do so upon personal whim, and swallowed people up in their bureaucracy.

The Alderman gets to decide if we are landmarked based upon her personal whim. A majority can refuse their consent to landmarking, and yet we can be landmarked anyway by a bunch of rubber-stamping bureaucrats.

In America, we are supposed to be given due process of law. We have a constitutional right to just compensation if our property is to be taken "for the public good." Proceedings should be fair, open, and criteria should be judged by objective standards that themselves were enacted pursuant to a legal process. Officals are supposed to be accountable for their decisions, and able to justify and explain them.

The American Way isn't your way, Chuck.

VOCAL.

posted by The Grants @ 1:03 PM