VOCAL Neighbors

Matlack Speaks at the SNA

A few quick notes from the SNA meeting last night. Alderman Matlack claimed that whether his blocks get landmarked or not is his decision, and admitted that it was a judgment call by him, but stated that this is what he was elected to do. He said that his plan on going forward is to see if it looks like there is support for the measure. If there is, he'll try to do some type of balloting process. He identified Jonathan Fine and his landmark preservation group, and Brian Golken (with the City of Chicago) as people that he was aware of who were supporting landmarking, and who originally proposed boundaries for the Landmark district. Matlack was asked for a "formal" celaration of which blocks were even under consideration, as there was some confusion over whether some blocks were in or out, whether certain blocks were in his ward or Vi Daley's, etc. If the Alderman's office issues one, please let us know so that we can post it for all to see. The general boundaries within his ward appear to be between Webster and Dickens and Racine and Sheffield.

One positive happening: The 2100 block of Clifton meeting attended by Matlack last night took a show of hands of property owners in favor of and opposed to Landmarking, after a lengthy discussion period about the topic. Apparently there was nearly 100% turnout. No votes came out in favor. Matlack said that as a result, the 2100 block of Clifton is OUT for landmarking.

This should emphasize for everyone that making sure your individual voice is heard DOES MATTER. For your block, keep on the Aldermen to schedule the meetings, attend them, and be VOCAL.

Now, as a personal aside. Yours truly was mentioned as someone who was unfairly "demonizing" or having "pilloried" Vi Daley in public when I don't live in the district. I have a few thoughts on that, which I think warrant clarification, for the Alderman may not be aware of a few facts.

First, I have lived in Lincoln Park for four years, and my husband has lived in the neighborhood even longer. We own a home on Dayton Street within the original boundaries identified at the September 13, 2004 St. Theresa's meeting as "under consideration" for Landmarking.

We want to raise our family here. We have a vested interest in seeing neighborhood growth, not stagnation. If real estate values decline a block to the north of us (a block still under Landmark consideration), and a block to the west of us, is it that unrealistic to suggest that we will be blissfully unaffected? I think not.

Second, my home is within the RANCH Triangle region. I am a dues-paying member of the RANCH association. If the RANCH neighborhood association is not representing the homeowners within the neighborhood, and has been hijacked by some people who are on a bit of a power trip, and acting in a manner that is contrary to their stated mission, I am fully justified in being concerned about that and trying to take action that will counter such forces.

Third, if Landmarking is to occur on a block-by-block basis, based solely on the desires of the residents, why then has Alderman Daley put 30 blocks on an adminstrative "hold" for Landmark consideration? Has she received a petition or documented request from people on every single one of those blocks to get landmarked? I doubt it. When Diane Levin took Alderman Daley on a block-by-block walking tour to promote Landmarking, was she told that her interest in Landmarking didn't count beyond the block of Bissell Street where she actually lives? I doubt it. When pro-Landmarking speakers were invited by the Aldermen to talk at the September 13, 2004 meeting at St. Theresa's, were they told that their views didn't count since they don't actually reside on one of the affected blocks? Nope. I mean, under that standard, since Alderman Daley lives in Old Town, she shouldn't have a say in the process either. So, that really is a red herring kind of standard here.

And, the argument for even block-based landmarking is that it is a "neighborhood character" issue. If it is a neighborhood character issue, then I, as a resident of the neighborhood, should have a say.

Fourth, as a resident of the City of Chicago, paying some serious property taxes, I have a right to call an idea a bad idea because it will adversely impact the overall property tax base.

Fifth, as an attorney, I also am more than willing to call out those who I think are unjustly depriving others of their rights without adequate procedural protections.

Sixth, I don't believe in the concept that I should not help out my neighbors (who do live on specific blocks "under consideration") if they think that they are getting screwed over by the City.

Now, as for the charge that we "pilloried" Alderman Daley? I wouldn't call it that. We asked her for information after a dinner where three tables worth of people wanted information about the subject. Why landmarking? Who are block captains? When are meetings? What is the process? We did this in a public location, after getting no response through private communications. And, the day after we did that, suddenly we started getting responses to three-week-old letters.

So I wouldn't call that unfair. I would call it trying to hold elected officials accountable.

Accountability requires a public process. It requires transparency. It also requires people to speak up, which many are afraid to do, or don't know how to do.

I have heard firsthand from people who have gotten nothing but the cold shoulder from the Alderman's office. They thought that they were doing the right thing, and were made to feel as though they were being stupid, or called irrational. I have felt their frustration as they try to find out what they can do, what they should do, to make their voices heard, when the usual channels are not working. Even FOIA requests have gone unanswered.

That is what prompted formation of VOCAL. We are trying to give those folks who individually felt that they were being ignored a forum where they can be heard.

And, to be more colloquial, "gimme a break." We weren't calling her names. We weren't asking her unfair questions like, "when did you stop kicking your dog." We weren't using off-color language. We didn't challenge her to a duel in the manner of Hamilton and Burr. We didn't ask her to detail her husband's property holdings and whether they would be affected.

But she's a politician, for cripe's sake. In the City of Chicago. Last time I checked, that was not a realm for fragile souls. If this issue has been hellish to handle, then drop it. But we didn't pick this fight. We had it imposed upon us. So don't complain about the consequences.

posted by The Grants @ 11:45 AM