VOCAL Neighbors

Update on issues raised at block meetings last week.

Last week blocks such as 800-900 Belden and the 2100 block of Dayton held their block meetings. Here is an update compiled from several who attended on what happened.

First, there was no outpouring of demand in favor of landmarking. At the Dayton block meeting, filled to standing-room capacity, there was one guy (well-known to be a landmark proponent) who was dismissive of the idea that landmarking would be a difficult thing for homeowners to deal with or that it would affect property values. Another woman (also known to be pro-landmarking) was quite upset that people would allow monetary issues to govern their decision on whether landmarking was good or not. (Don't even get me started on that one. I will point out, however, that all those who decry the role of money are the very same people who are not trying to use their own $$ to preserve old houses, but rather are demanding that the government compel other people to preserve old houses at great financial cost. Make your own moral judgment on that).

However, most of the others in the room were either hostile to landmarking or lukewarm at
best. (Or, bewildered as to why Alderman Daley wanted to do this in the first place, particularly from some who actually own the older homes - one guy after the Belden meeting said that there was no way she would try to do that, it didn't make sense). Once again, Alderman Daley refused to let those present take a vote or even straw poll as to whether they were pro or con.

One thing that was particularly interesting is how the debate has finally started to clarify what really is at issue here: do you want to give unelected bureaucrats and neighborhood nannies a say in what you do with your property, and have design vetos, or do you trust your neighbors to not completely screw things up. It has been pointed out multiple times that you can't legislate good taste. But again, that is completely far afield of what the landmarking ordinance is supposed to be for: preserving old buildings of architectural significance, not design review. But that is what the landmark proponents REALLY want - design review over the new stuff that gets built.

Along these same lines, comments by pro-landmarking people that design review was necessary to ensure that Lincoln Park has the "right" kind of houses and "right" kind of people living there strikes me as depressingly elitist. One woman from the Belden meeting quite strongly stated that the character of our neighborhood is derived from the people who live in it, not the age of the buildings. I've previosuly posted on this at length, so I won't reiterate the point.

An additional but somewhat related thought, though: Chuck and/or Alderman Daley continue to repeat in response to queries as to why we can't let people individually landmark is that some buildings may not meet the threshold standards for architectural significance on their own, so you will lose the "historical" neighborhood character if you don't landmark a block or district. This seems to be inherently contradictory. If the old buildings in Lincoln Park have no architectural merit on their own, then why can it be said that there are enough of them in the neighborhood such that we have a historical "streetscape" that requires landmarking? Or, if the nature of the neighborhood "character" is derived from size and shape of buildings, then once again, you get back to issues that are more properly handled by zoning, not landmarking. To me, that issue has not quite gotten the attention that it deserves.

But, according to Chuck, since very few of us peons in the neighborhood have had the nine years of experience with zoning and building issues that he has, we're stupid if we think that way, 'cause, you know, he knows best.

Second, one question that repeatedly was asked of Alderman Daley was whether landmarks would have a say in what happened to the rear of your property. While the theoretical answer is no IF it cannot in any way be seen from the street, it appears that this may not be true in practice, if the experience of at least one woman who used to live in Old Town is accounted for. She informed Alderman Daley that the neighborhood association there gave her considerable grief about the rear of her property and alterations that she tried to make to it. While there was some back and forth about whether her particular Old Town location meant that the rear view was visible from the street, it certainly does not add to the confidence level that people's backyards will be immune from review. I've heard similar anecdotes from another person who wanted to add a dormer window to the rear of his house in Old Town -- his request got denied. I have also heard that one staff member of the Landmarks commission actually dug up old pictures of what someone's house looked like circa 1925, and tried to use that as an excuse to deny a building permit to glass in a screen porch at the back of the house. He wanted her to rip the entire porch down to get it looking like it did long ago.

Third, a question that came up a lot was the timing for building permits. Alderman Daley is quite fond of quoting a statistic prepared for her that said that most building permits get approved within a day. But she is qualifying that statement with the fact that these stats include all permits for interior work, and work to the rear of the building, where Landmarks is supposedly to have no input. Also, one of the pro-landmarking guys pointed out that usually if you are going to do any major work, you will have "pre-meetings" with Landmarks to give them their design review opportunity BEFORE you even apply for the permit. So that one day stat is really pretty meaningless.

Fourth, property values. Alderman Daley claims to have studies at her office that show that property values do not suffer as a consequence of landmarking. Setting aside the fact that a quick perusal of the list indicates that they were prepared by preservation societies, and do not involve Chicago neighborhoods, she was repeatedly given examples of how Old Town properties are way undervalued and do not appreciate the way similar neighborhoods do because of landmarking. Her response to that was to say that Mid-North is really the neighborhood that should be used as the basis of comparison.

I disagree, because we are talking about the same lot size; the whole point is that you cannot, as a consequence of landmarking, maximize the use of the land.

But, let's even give her the benefit of the doubt and conclude that mid-north landmarked properties is the correct comparative approach.

I went through the list of all single-family properties bought and sold in Lincoln Park and Mid-North since 1986. Found a sale of a Belden street landmarked property in LP, which had a building size on the order of 4200 square feet. So I pulled together the appreciation rates for all buildings that had on the order of 4200 sf in Mid-North and Lincoln Park that were landmarked, and compared the appreciation rates to those non-landmarked buildings around 4200 square feet in Lincoln Park. Guess what? Average appreciation rates for landmarked buildings was on the order of 9%. Appreciation rates for non-landmarked properties was over 35%. And, for the mid-north region, if you take out just one home that the Landmarks survey says is old, but was modernized, the Mid-North appreciation rate drops to around 7%.

BTW, http://w16.cityofchicago.org/landmark/SilverStream/Pages/landmarks.html is where you can find the survey to see whether you home has already been deemed contributing or not.

So, again, not great data out there supporting the concept that landmarking will enhance our property values.

A fifth item that was a source of confusion was Alderman Daley's discussion of what is needed to create a landmark district. The best that I can decipher is as follows.

Alderman Daley believes that the Landmarks commission won't want to do a bunch of little areas piecemeal; they would rather do a whole district, i.e., entire sides or lengths of blocks, or block collections (i.e., 1800-2200 Fremont, or 2200 blocks of Dayton, Fremont, Bissell plus Webster).

One question that was asked of her was whether, if a block votes "no," they will be landmarked. She is finally starting to say that she will not submit a block that votes No for landmarking. (Again, there are some issues of standards to be applied, but that is for another discussion). She also claims that she will make the vote results public. She also said that ballots should be going out within a week or two of the block meetings. (I confirmed with a resident of the 2200 block of Dayton today though that even though their block meeting was back in October, they still have not gotten any ballots, however).

Another question that was asked was whether, if the 2000 block of Dayton votes yes, and 2200 block of Dayton votes yes, but 2100 block of Dayton votes "no," will 2100 get swept into a district involuntarily. At first she said early in the meeting that it might happen if needed to create a district, but then (quite a hostile response to that comment) she changed her statement and said that such a thing would not happen.

Oh, and one other thing: Chuck continues to try to prevent me from attending block meetings, repeatedly insisting that I can't even sit in the back of the room and take notes. When I pointed out how this violated the spirit of Illinois' Open Meetings Act, particularly at a meeting being paid for by my tax dollars, the response was, essentially, he didn't care what I thought, that I needed to stop "meddling" and go away. (Am I the only one who finds it disconcerting that this is the person Alderman Daley refers to as her trusty right hand man of the past nine years???)

So, the demeaning treatment that not only I, but other anti-landmarking individuals, have received at the hands of Alderman Daley's staff continues apace.

Your taxpayer dollars at work, folks.

I apologize for the length of the post. Please keep those emails coming providing me with updates, so that those who have meetings know what to expect.

posted by The Grants @ 3:18 PM