VOCAL Neighbors

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].

posted by The Grants @ 11:15 AM