Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Dates - Block Meetings, updated, Dayton, Bissell, Fremont, Belden

Tonight (November 30) is the block meeting for the 2100 block of Dayton Street, 7pm, St. James' school.
Tomorrow (December 1) is the block meeting for the 2100 block of Dayton and Fremont Streets, and the 800-900 blocks of Belden, also at 7pm, St. James' school.

December 6 is the RANCH Planning committee meeting.
December 6 is also the 1800-1900 blocks of Fremont street block meeting.

December 7 is the block meeting for at least the 1800 block of Bissell.

More updates to come...

Monday, November 29, 2004

2100 Block Meeting TOMORROW, Nov. 30

Just a friendly reminder that the block meeting for the 2100 block of Dayton street will be tomorrow, November 30, 2004, at St. James' school (corner of Dickens & Fremont) at 7pm.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Alderman Daley's ballot myth

So at the Webster Street meeting Alderman Daley said that she would be mailing out ballots for people to decide whether they wanted to landmark their block or not.

At present, I wouldn't count on that.

I spoke to one of the 2200 block of Dayton Street residents (recall that they had their block meeting back in October of this year) and he said that they've gotten nada, zip, zilch in the mail vis. voting on landmarking for their block.

Hmmm, perhaps she doesn't want to have a paper trail at all of the vocal opposition to landmarking.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

2100 Block Dayton - Block Meeting NOV. 30

Please be advised that the block meeting for the 2100 block of Dayton Street is set for TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2004, at 7pm, at St. James' school (St. James' is at the corner of Fremont and Dickens, 2101 N. Fremont). Block captain is Jean Oelnik. If you cannot attend the meeting, please contact either Jean or me immediately via vocalneighbors@hotmail.com, and we will arrange for you to be heard by proxy.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Pro-landmarking forces - where are you?

FYI, In response to my long-ago request to pro-landmarking people to put in writing why they think landmarking is a good idea for our neighborhood (this includes the RANCH people, Preservation Chicago, etc.): I continue to get NO response.

Block meeting date updates: Belden, Dayton, Freemont

Here is my most recent information:

800 and 900 W. Belden blocks will be Wednesday, December 1, 7:00 pm, St. James' School.
2000 blocks of Dayton and Freemont will be Monday, December 6, 7:00 pm, St. James' School.
1800-1900 blocks of Freemont will be Monday, December 13, 7:00 pm, St. James' School.
2100 block of Dayton will be Thursday, December 30. Location TBD.



From someone who has to deal with landmarking in Old Town...

I suggest you read this, which was posted to the comments section: what the landmark proponents won't tell you (emphasis mine):

I am an architect who lives in the Old Town Triangle Historic District, and I thought you’d be interested in hearing about how the historic district concept has evolved into a nightmare.

I have never been involved in anything political in my life, but the hypocrisy underlying this drive for landmarking everything is disgusting. The system is broken and dysfunctional. The only accurate comment that I have ever heard a public official make on this issue came from 42nd Ward Alderman Burt Natarus. In the 7/16/2003 issue of the Chicago Tribune, he was quoted as follows: “These preservationists –it’s a one way street with them. They believe that a building lasts forever and either you are with them or against them. And if you are against them, they equate it with evil.”

The extremist preservationists are nut cases, and disturbingly, they are organized, and they play hardball. One of the reason they have had success with their agenda is that they have made allies out of those who feel zoning controls have let us down. When people see a new building erected that they find ugly, their reaction is that there should be a law against it. Not everybody believes in freedom of architectural expression. What they yearn for is community based design review, and Chicago does not have an ordinance for this. Therefore, the Landmarks Ordinance has been abused to fill this void.

Architects would prefer to not have others meddling with their work, but I think we could mostly accept properly structured design review. Unfortunately, the strange dynamic that has arisen in historic districts is not properly structured. Here is how the process operates.

The “historic” review process is 100% political. The Landmarks Commission members are appointed by the mayor, and he can fire them at will. He has given them standing orders. They are to give the aldermen anything they want within their wards. After an area gets landmarked, zoning laws and property rights are thrown out the window, and the alderman is free to micro manage EVERYTHING.

Needless to say, they love this power. Any time a squeaky activist complains about something, the aldermens’ reactions are predictable. You be one of my political operatives, and I’ll give you what you want.This has given rise to pockets of neighborhood “Nazis”, at least that is how the population of Old Town refers to them. In effect, it’s all back door community based design review, but the problem, besides having a hypocritical underpinning, is that the neighborhood Nazis can be unpopular extremists on a power trip. They’re not elected. They don’t have to reveal their philosophies or credentials. It leads to neighbors policing neighbors. It leads to intense animosities and vendettas. It has a bizarre effect on the urban environment.

In Old Town for example, we have noticeable blight in an affluent district. The neighborhood Nazis want the area frozen like a museum similar to colonial Williamsburg. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit and text of the Landmarks Ordinance. When a landmarks proponent claims that there will [be] flexibility, do not believe it.We’ve all heard the expression “Good fences make good neighbors”. It’s probably more accurate to say “Good zoning laws make good neighbors”. The historic district concept is bad zoning law. It’s been my observation that the creation of an historic district can also establish a pervasive and on-going poisonous atmosphere.

William Barrywjbarry@sbcglobal.net

Contact VOCAL

Just re-posting for those who want to contact us:

vocalneighbors@hotmail.com

6 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610.

We're pretty good about responding to correspondence to the hotmail account quickly.

Webster - overwhelming majority opposes landmarking

All:

I attended the Webster Street block meeting last week. Of the 20+ who attended, virtually all were opposed. There was one vote in favor, one vote which consisted of, "I'm not supporting landmarking, but I would like it if there were some better way to stop people from tearing down old houses," and all the rest extremely opposed.

One of the most amusing arguments that came up: one gentleman who lives on Webster Street noted that given the recent expansion of McGee's bar down the street, if his home were required to meet the historical standards for windows (required in a Landmark district), he couldn't use soundproofed windows and would have to do a lot more listening of the drunks down the street.

One of the most disappointing things about Alderman Daley's presentation: repeatedly misstating that landmarking will give people the opportunity to take advantage of property tax freezes. THIS IS FALSE. As has been noted in prior posts, if you already have a house that could be deemed contributing, there is a state program that allows you, on a one-time-only basis, to freeze your property taxes for 8 years IF you invest 25% of your home's value in historical renovations. Your property taxes will then increase over the course of the next four years to get back to the market assessed value. You do NOT need to landmark your block (or your district) in order to apply for this program. (Also, as I noted re donating your facade for charitable purposes, once you landmark yourself, the IRS will not consider a facade donation to have ANY value whatsoever. You've already encumbered your property, so giving up a further easement has no value. Perversely, the lone guy who was in favor of landmarking said that he would just donate his facade before block-based landmarking went through. Yeah, right. Talk to your lawyer and accountant on that one, buddy, cause I wouldn't want to explain to the IRS that you took a deduction for something that you knew was coming down the pipeline that would cause it to have zero value...getting nailed for income tax evasion is not a pretty thing).

Alderman Daley also claimed that a benefit of landmarking is that you can get fee waivers for building permits. Again, THIS IS FALSE. You have to essentially show that you're destitute in order to get a fee waiver, and a public hearing before the commission is required. (See Landmarks ordinance at Article V).

Alderman Daley further stated that landmarking is the only legal way to prevent tear-downs. This is misleading, at best. Under the Landmarks ordinance, you can still tear down a building; it just has to get to a state of structural disrepair in order to do it. (See Municipal Code, 2-120-825.) So, great, what that means is that an owner who wants to sell the property as a tear-down just has to let it fall to pieces and become an eyesore first, then they can tear it down.

Alderman Daley finally got to the heart of the matter: landmarking will allow her, and the local neighborhood associations, to exert control over how you present and rebuild your property from a design perspective.

This, regrettably is true. But think about what it means: in exchange for landmarking, the supposed "benefit" you get is that now Alderman Daley, and the architectural nannies on the RANCH and SNA planning committees, and those on the Landmarks commission themselves, get to tell you what to do with your property. This includes everything from paint color to windows to front doors to fences. Does that sound like a good enough "benefit" to you??? It didn't to virtually anyone else at that meeting either, which is why there was an overwhelming "NO" vote against landmarking.

Unlike Alderman Matlack, Alderman Daley did not commit to taking Webster off the table, BTW. She claimed that she si going to send out ballots for people to fill in and send back to her office. IF these ballots ever make an appearance, make sure you keep a copy for yourself and send a copy to VOCAL at 6 W Hubbard Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610. We wouldn't want all of the "no" votes winding up in the proverbial circular file on Wrightwood.

Monday, November 15, 2004

URGENT - Webster Block Meeting

Webster block meeting will be held on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 7pm, 839 W. Webster. Please attend and spread the word!!!

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

RANCH members stay silent.

So we know that there are some people within the RANCH association who have expressed their pro-landmarking views to Alderman Daley. We issued an open invitation to have such people write to us to explain why they think that landmarking would be good for the community.

As of today, WE HAVE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE.

Another letter to Alderman Daley

November 6, 2004

Alderman Vi Daley
735 W. Wrightwood
Chicago, Illinois 60614

Dear Alderman Daley:

We have lived in the Lincoln Park area for over 30 years and in our current home on Dayton Street for 19 years. We are writing to express our concern regarding the proposed designation of our block, and the entire Sheffield neighborhood, as a landmark district. We are equally concerned regarding the process by which a decision will be made.

We understand landmark designation brings dramatic changes to the area affected, changes that restrict property owners’ ability to alter their property including changes that would normally be considered routine maintenance and repair. These types of restrictions limit, and in many cases eliminate fundamental property rights normally enjoyed by property owners. A decision of this magnitude requires careful deliberation and the informed consent of the people affected. Landmarking should move forward only if the support of the neighborhood is overwhelming.

It is our understanding that a primary issue for the group that would like to see the area granted landmark status is the tearing down of existing homes and the construction of new homes that may not blend in with the existing architecture. We appreciate this concern but it does not square with either reality or our experience. Our street, and the surrounding neighborhood already incorporate a broad range of architectural styles, and significant change has occurred over the time we have lived here. However, we cannot identify a single case of either renovation or, teardown and new construction that did not improve the neighborhood. The teardowns that we are aware of have been eyesores that the neighborhood has been happy to see gone. That is not to say that every new building has been what we would have liked to see. But that is a matter of taste. We cannot justify elevating taste over property rights.

We recognize that when a property has been designated a landmark that a process is available by which property owners can seek permits to make repairs or otherwise alter their properties. However, we have spoken with people who own property that has been designated a landmark and they have made it clear that even minor repairs can become very expensive. They tell us that the process adds time, costs, restrictions and a level of uncertainty that impose an unreasonable burden on homeowners who do not seek this designation. These restrictions create a disincentive to keeping their properties in good repair and can only have a negative impact on property values. Furthermore, we have been told that anyone, without regard to expertise or motive, is free to comment on and potentially affect proposed changes. Can this possibly be correct?

One of the complaints I have heard from the pro-landmark group is regarding the construction of what they call “McMansions,” often accompanied by the comment, “why does anyone needs a 5000 square foot house.” If fact we have several of these in our immediate neighborhood; we invite you to look at them. We believe you will find them attractive and not out of character with the surrounding area. As for the comment regarding size, we consider it absurd for someone to use this as an argument for landmarking. Size is determined by zoning and zoning laws exist to deal with this.

In fact, when we first moved into the Sheffield area its long-term viability was anything but certain. The renovation and new construction that has taken place over the past 20-30 years has made the area a very desirable neighborhood. In addition, upgraded and new homes have expanded the tax base that supports city services and helps keep Chicago a vibrant place to live.

We would also like to express our view with respect to the process by which your final recommendation will be made. Frankly, although our personal preference is to not have the neighborhood declared a landmark, we would accept landmark status if the majority of our neighbors desired it. We live in a democracy and the desire of the majority should determine the outcome.

How this is determined is extremely important to us. Landmarking would affect everyone and it should only be recommended if a substantial majority of the property owners desire it. This should be determined through block-by-block polling or a similar process that ensures that the opinion of everyone who is affected is gathered. We understand that you intend to hold block-by-block meetings and we commend you for this.

At the same time we are concerned by rumors suggesting that supporters of the proposal are trying to hijack the process through control of the appointment of the block captains and by inviting only known supporters to the block meetings. Silence should not be read as consent. We look to you as our elected representative to ensure that the people are informed, that their views are solicited and that the final recommendation represents the will of the majority.

While a few of our neighbors appear to be undecided the majority appear to be strongly opposed to landmarking. Given this we urge you to consider, and to urge the proponents of landmarking to consider other alternatives for preserving and improving the area. We have already made reference to zoning laws. Our experience has been that whenever a property owner desired to deviate from the zoning requirements they have been required to obtain the consent of their neighbors. If a review of these laws is in order then perhaps a neighborhood committee could be formed to review them.

Over the past several years we have received numerous mailing regarding an alternative program whereby a homeowner whose property does have some architectural significance can receive a substantial tax deduction by donating their façade in a way that requires its appearance to be maintained. This seems to me to be a much more intelligent approach. It limits the impact to those buildings that deserve it and to those property owners that want it. Perhaps this alternative deserves more attention and should be posed as an alternative to those who desire landmarking.

Finally, it would seem possible to provide landmark status to individual homes when the owner desired it, or even to individual blocks where a significant percentage of the property owners supported it.

In summary, it is our view that designating the entire Sheffield neighborhood as a landmark district is a drastic step that is neither justified by the situation nor desired by the residents. It would restrict and remove property owners’ rights, increase the cost of maintaining our homes and have a potentially negative affect on property values. Its impact is widespread and unless the overwhelming majority support it, landmarking amounts to imposing the desires and taste of a few on the many.

We apologize for the length of this letter – there are many dimensions to the issue – and we appreciate you taking the time to consider our views. We would be happy to discuss any aspect of it with your or your representatives.

Sincerely,

[Names withheld, two homeowners from the 2100 Block of Dayton Street].

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Alderman Matlak Hears Constituents

The 2100 blocks of Seminary, Clifton and Racine are OUT for Landmark consideration due to vocal opposition from homeowners on each block.

2000 Block Fremont - Block Meeting Date and Time

All: Just heard word that the 2000 block of Fremont's block meeting is scheduled for Dec. 6, at 7pm at St. James' school.

Another letter from homeowner to Alderman Daley

Alderman Vi Daley
735 W. Wrightwood
Chicago, Illinois 60614

By Registered Mail
Nov. 4, 2004

Dear Alderman Daley:

We write to you seeking a reasonable resolution to what is becoming the most divisive issue facing your constituents in recent memory.

We have very serious concerns over the efforts of a vocal minority in the Sheffield neighborhood to force a Landmark designation on all of our homes, despite the objections of a majority of the homeowners.

We are dismayed to learn that the primary motivations of these proponents to establish a Landmark designation for the entire neighborhood are disingenuous in that they fall outside of the sole criteria to be considered by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. (See Chapter 2-120-620 of the Municipal Code, as provided by your office.) In fact, not one of the seven sole criteria established for consideration for Landmark status apply to our home. It is clear that the concerns of the proponents of the total district Landmark status are related to zoning issues, not landmarks, and should be dealt with accordingly.

We moved to Chicago in 2003. We are proud to live in the Sheffield Neighborhood and we are members of the SNA. We view the diversity of the housing stock to be an asset to the neighborhood and one that has created a dynamic environment for investment in older homes as well as new construction. Not only has this investment been good for the neighborhood, but all residents have benefited from the economic appreciation of their property, and the City of Chicago has enjoyed a dramatic increase in the property tax contributions.

The reasonable position we ask you to support is both fair and simple. Let any individual homeowner who seeks a Landmark designation for their individual property pursue it through the established Landmarks Ordinance procedures. We have not heard of a single objection to this approach from either side of the debate. We further ask that you not support forcing the self-interest of a few over the objections of the majority.

Sincerely,

[Name withheld]

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Another bum rap for landmarking

One of the big items that gets touted by the pro-preservation societies is that if you are in a confirmed historical building, and donate your building facade to them, you can get a charitable tax deduction. Theoretically, it could be as high as 10%, which is viewed as corresponding to the diminution in value of your home as a result of the easement you donated to the preservation society. (Of course, like all charitable deductions, this one is inherently limited by all of the other limitations in the tax code on the availability of Schedule A itemized deductions, disappears if you are subject to the alternative minimum tax, etc.)

Guess what? Not only is the IRS starting to really crack down on these things from a valuation perspective, BUT, if you are already in a landmarked district, you CANNOT get a tax deduction at all. I'll try to publish a link to the IRS letter rulings as soon as I can find a good one, but if you are in a district that is already landmarked, the IRS perceives that you have nothing of value to donate anymore. From their perspective, you were already limited in what you could do with the property by virtue of being in a landmark district, so the charity gets nothing of any further value. So you get no charitable deduction, and have put an easement on your property for nothing.

Another letter from homeowner to Alderman

October 29, 2004


Alderman Theodore Matlak
1824 W. Webster
Chicago, IL 60614

Dear Alderman Matlak,

I am writing regarding my concerns about the proposed landmarking of the Sheffield neighborhood.

There is concern among the neighbors that only certain people (those who are for landmarking) are being included in the process. Notices of meetings have been spotty and many people are uninformed. At the moment I have even been unable to find out if my block is included in the proposal.

Reasons not to landmark

1. City revenue
Like them or not the people building big houses are paying much more in property taxes than the
rest of us. Our taxes will go up not down if they are driven out. If every Victorian bit of trim must be saved the growth of the city will be hurt. We need this high end tax base.

2. Quality of the neighborhood.
The character of the neighborhood has been changing for thirty years. I say for the better.
I am an Architect who has won numerous awards for historical preservation. I am generally pro preservation. This said the historical building stock of the Sheffield area is some of the least distinguished in the city. Is the city going to landmark every place that people wish to build big houses?

3. Arbitrary taking of value from anyone who does not have the maximum square footage on their lot.
People’s life savings are in these buildings. Is it fair to take this from them?
Larger buildings tend not to get torn down. The smaller tend to be the least Architecturally inportant.


4. Who gets to be the design police?
Most of the new construction in the neighborhood is not inconsistent with the traditional character of the area. If the zoning laws were enforced every one would have the same right to the maximum value of their land. If landmarking is passes all decisions will go to Landmarks Commission. They will try to save everything old regardless of its value. You will become a lot busier with requests from people needing help to negotiate this cumbersome process.



[Signature]