VOCAL Neighbors

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.

posted by The Grants @ 2:40 PM