Accountability, transparency, ctd.
Apparently, Chuck from Vi Daley's office informed someone today that there was no intention of actually releasing the "feel of the community" votes that they intend to take at the block meetings.
Why? Afraid of the results???
Keep cc'ing letters to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com, or to 6 W Hubbard Street, Suite 500, Chicago, 60610. We'll be happy to keep the running tally and keep it public.
Other ways cities can abuse your property rights.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/js20041029.shtml
Here, the city is claiming a need to take over people's homes so that they can improve the property tax base. Hopefully we won't have to fight this fight 20 years post-Landmarking...
Letters to the Alderman
We've been getting cc'd on lots of letters such as these. Please continue to make your opinion known. If you would like to have yours posted, just let us know and we will.
=======
Dear Alderman Daley,
We would like to register our opposition to the proposed landmark status inthe Sheffield Neighborhood. We currently own a wonderful vintage row home on the 2100 block of N Dayton. While we are partial to restored vintage properties, we believe the eclectic mix of old and new homes on our block creates a growing vibrant community.
We welcome anyone wanting to landmark their own property and believe properly enforced zoning laws create neighborhood stability and safety. However, we are deeply troubled with a heavy-handed approach to force homeowners to encumber their property for essentially aesthetic reasons.
We are equally troubled with the current decision process you are undertaking. As our elected official, we need you to make sure this decision is open and democratic. A democratic process in our view is one homeowner has one vote and only actual votes are used to determine what the majority wants. There is no presumption about how non-participating homeowners would vote. After all, a fair democratic process is how you were elected. We feel that a piece of legislation that will restrict the rightsof property owners should receive the same treatment as your election did. It is our belief that anything short of an open, democratic vote ofinterested homeowners will hurt the community and lead to a divided neighborhood.
Deeply concerned on Dayton,
[signature].
PS We are not builders, realtors or lawyers and so we have no conflict of interest
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.
The block by block meetings - UPDATE.
So now, apparently, our man Chuck is telling people that Alderman Daley is just going to send a letter to the property tax payer on a property telling them when their block meeting is. Won't be appointing block captains through the Alderman's office. Pray your letter arrives in advance so that you know when the meeting is.
Word on the street is that the meeting for Fremont's 1800 and 1900 blocks will be December 6 or 13, possibly at the Old Town School of Music.
We'll try to get a schedule from the Alderman's office to post.
Also, if the Alderman isn't going to be organizing block captains anymore, we'll gladly do it for her. I'll try tomorrow to circulate a list of people who have volunteered for various blocks to be kept informed...
UPDATE:
2000 Block of Dayton meeting is tentatively set for December 1, 7pm. The location will probably be at Christine Struminski's house or at St. James school. More to follow...
Skyline News
All: please check out Skyline News, which publishes today. They have an article on last Monday's meeting. And, naturally, support their advertisers.
I'm going to see if I can post to a link.
Hey Chuck - protecting our property rights is not uncivil discourse.
So this is the "spin" being offered by Alderman Daley's office, courtesy of her chief of staff, from a homeowner and voter who said that their household opposed landmarking. I fisk below.
Chuck: "Thank you for your message. Neither the City nor the aldermen, are proposing a landmark district."
VOCAL: The original flyer that went out under Alderman Daley's letterhead specifically stated that the September 13, 2004 meeting was "Regarding landmark designation for the Sheffield Historic District" and the topic was "Whether the City should propose landmark designation for the general area between Willow and Belden and Halsted to Racine."
Chuck: "There is no official consideration at this time."
VOCAL: According to a September 24, 2004 letter on Alderman Daley's letterhead sent to Commissioner Denise Casalino, over 30 city blocks were personally placed on adminsitrative "hold" by the Alderman for landmark review.
Chuck: "We are facilitating the discussion on the topic because many residents and the neighborhood associations had expressed an interest earlier this year."
VOCAL: The residents and people pushing for this on the neighborhood associations are one and the same. It seems to consist of Don Higgins, Diane Levin, and Bill Scott. That ain't many, and it ain't a groundswell. If this has been going on since April, why was it not until September that some of us heard about it, and had it presented as a "done deal"? Why won't you identify all of these people individually? Where are they?
I'm proud to say that VOCAL's membership rolls now exceed 150 households, and we've been formed for less than a month. Can SNA and RANCH claim to represent that many constituents?
Chuck: "We're spending much time in these block by block meetings so that people can learn as much as possible and so that we get a real sense of whether there is support for initiating such a proposal."
VOCAL: Why aren't you scheduling all of the meetings openly, publicly? Why not put it to a referendum or make it a special question at the next election, if you want to get a "real sense" of whether there is support for such a proposal? Or do the actual voters and homeowners not count? How many times do you have to be told that there is no support for this, that we want to preserve our property rights, before you drop the idea?
Chuck: "The alderman could say we're not going to have mtgs and not going to discuss this process, but that would not be responsible leadership and would be unresponsive to the residents who have organized to promote this as a proposal."
VOCAL: The Alderman could also just say that she's going to drop the issue, in view of the vocal opposition. Why do the residents who want to infringe on our prpperty rights get more clout than those of us who will be affected? Why isn't the burden of proof and persuasion on them, rather than on us?
Chuck: "It's the alderman's responsibility to sponsor the discussion just as she would on any other zoning or planning matter in the neighborhood..."
VOCAL: We only wish that we were being given the procedural process protections of the zonimg laws on this one. Alderman Daley has more than a responsibility to have a "discussion." She has a responsibility to justify why the City's permanent takeover of our property rights is economically, legally, ethically, morally warranted. Warm fuzzies about landmarking being "nice" or personal bewilderment about how to prevent an older building or two from being torn down on Clifton or Dayton street doesn't cut it.
Chuck: "...but she should not be demonized as a proponent of landmarking when it's not true."
VOCAL: You've admitted, Chuck, that Alderman Daley is the sole person who gets to make the call, and that if she wants it, we're landmarked, and if she doesn't, we're not. She is still pushing it, and trying to build consensus for the project. The "open meeting" at St. Theresa's was a one-sided pro-landmarking display. Don't kid us by saying that she is not pro-landmarking.
But if it will make you feel better, would you prefer that we "demonize" Alderman Daley because essentially what she is doing is stealing our property rights?
Chuck: "I think it's very unfair to [say] shame on the alderman when the community is not demonstrating the civility and sensibility to discuss this as a rational planning issue. "
VOCAL: Oh, thanks, Chuck. I see the logic clearly now. People who scream about "McMansions" being built on private property, that developers are horrible money-grubbing people, that we move out to the suburbs if we want to live in more than 1500 square feet, wax nostalgic about old brick and a dirt foundation, whine about noise in a busy city, or get hysterical about a house's color are "rationally" discussing "planning issues." My desire to protect my home from legal encumberances, bureaucratic red tape, nosy dictatorial neighbors, and permanent economic devaluation is IRRATIONAL.
I see. I should just meekly give up my private property in the name of the public good. As should 1000 of my neighbors, again, to satiate a noisy few.
They tried that in Soviet Russia, Chuck. It was called communism. It is a failure.
This is America. We have property rights here, and it is what made our country great.
Know what else they tried in Soviet Russia, Chuck? Dictators. A whole string of em. They had a tendency to oppress people, and could do so upon personal whim, and swallowed people up in their bureaucracy.
The Alderman gets to decide if we are landmarked based upon her personal whim. A majority can refuse their consent to landmarking, and yet we can be landmarked anyway by a bunch of rubber-stamping bureaucrats.
In America, we are supposed to be given due process of law. We have a constitutional right to just compensation if our property is to be taken "for the public good." Proceedings should be fair, open, and criteria should be judged by objective standards that themselves were enacted pursuant to a legal process. Officals are supposed to be accountable for their decisions, and able to justify and explain them.
The American Way isn't your way, Chuck.
VOCAL.
Nuttiness at RANCH
So apparently, one of the members of the RANCH planning committee (the source of many of the pro-Landmarking forces) thinks that even though our district hasn't been landmarked, people should start going through Landmarks and the RANCH planning committee for all projects anyway.
Why?
Cause no-one has told RANCH that they CAN'T force them.
Who was it that said the road to hell is paved with good intentions? (And that is giving this guy the benfit of some serious doubt).
Tell 'em no, people.
Tell them that if they want to dictate what happens to your property they can buy it off you. If they don't want to put their money where thir mouth is, STOP INTERFERING WITH OUR RIGHTS.
Next planning meeting for RANCH: 7:30 pm. Monday, November 1. 1919 N. Seminary. This is a PUBLIC meeting.
You may want to bring your copy of the Bill of Rights from the U.S. Constitution. Particularly that Fifth Amendment part. You know, the one that says that we have a right to our private property, and that neither you, nor "the public," can take it from us without just compensation?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentvi
Another insurance issue - FYI.
One gentleman that I spoke with last night told me that long ago, he had the opportunity to landmark his row home on Lincoln. Was he glad he did not! As it turned out, a neighbor wound up doing renovations to the row house next door. Could not get any indemnifications for construction-related damages. The neighbor wound up cracking his stone foundation. What was homeowner's insurance willing to pay for? Someone to caulk the crack, a minor repair. What would he have had to do if his home was landmarked? Aside from the permitting process, he couldn't have used caulk; epoxy is not considered to be historical building materials. He would have had to replace a nearly 8 foot wide stretch of stone. None of it covered by insurance Do that out-of-pocket-expense math...
Upcoming RANCH Triangle Meetings
All:
Next meeting of the RANCH planning committee is on November 1, 2004. Next meeting of the RANCH Board is on November 10, 2004. Both meetings will be at 1919 N. Seminary, 7 p.m.
Can anyone available to cover these meetings email in?
Thanks.
So is it a community issue, or a property owner issue? Just wondering...
Anyone want to offer any insights on this issue?
According to Alderman Daley, it was appropriate to landmark the commercial district at Halsted and Armitage because the community wanted it, even though the property owners did not.
Yet when it comes to the residential side, only those who actually are the property owners get to "vote" to decide if they want landmarking or not. But the justification for landmarking in the first instance is that it is a "neighborhood character" issue, separate and apart from any particular piece of property.
So which is it - a neighborhood issue (in which case ALL in the neighborhood should have a say) or a personal property issue (but then, it was plainly not appropriate to landmark the commercial district)? Or do we just decide to discriminate against commercial property owners?
For the record, I was never invited to "vote" on whether I thought landmarking the commercial district was a good idea. Did you?
Block Captains and Meetings We Know Of - Updated
Steve Jackson is the block captain for the 2100 block of Seminary. A meeting is scheduled with Alderman Matlack on Wednesday, November 3, at at 2129 N. Seminary at 7:00 p.m. (Benn Feltheimer's home).
For the rest of the 2100 blocks in Matlack district:
Clifton: Josh Vincent, Meeting Oct 28 at 8pm at 2109 N Clifton [UPDATE: 2137 N. Clifton]
Racine: Mark Swanson, Meeting Nov 4 at 7pm at 2109 N Racine
Kenmore: Greg Kachoris, Meeting Nov 10 at 7pm at 2120 N Kenmore
Alderman Daley's office has confirmed that she will not appoint a block captain and will not attend any block meeting for the 1800 block of Dayton Street.
Courtney Craig is the block captain for the 800-900 block of Webster. She has been unable to get Alderman Daley's office to commit to a date for her block meeting. [5:00 pm Update: Late this afternoon, Courtney was informed by Chuck Eastwood that the 800-900 block of Webster "block meeting" is now scheduled for November 16th at 7:00 p.m. Courtney will update us on location; it will either be someone's home, if they want to host, or at St. James' school. Let's hope this marks a new scheduling trend for Alderman Daley.]
Mary Jo Weiss is the block captain for the 1900 block of Fremont Street. She has been unable to get Alderman Daley's office to commit to a date for her block meeting.
Jean Oelnick has tried and failed to get the Alderman to confirm the date and time of her block meeting, let alone the identity of her block captain, even though it is supposedly scheduled for November 1.
I also got a call from a resident who physically went to Vi Daley's ward office today asking for a list of all the dates and times for when block meetings were scheduled, as well as block captain names. He was told by a member of her staff (one of whom informed him that she was at the VOCAL meeting last night, we think it was Barb Guttman) that they didn't have any additional meetings scheduled, or know of block captains. He told her he would be back tomorrow, and the next day, until he got his list.
Hmmm, are we sensing a disturbing trend on Vi Daley's end?
All: Please forward any dates, times, captains, etc. that you know of, or feel free to post them in the comments section.
The Pro-Landmarking Position, Dee has a few points to ponder
Yesterday, I asked Alderman Daley what purpose landmarking (whether district-wide or block-by-block) served. Here is what the response came down to:
Alderman Daley has had a very positive experience living in Old Town, which is itself landmarked. Mid-North is landmarked. Lincoln Park is now a nice neighborhood, so why not landmark it too? No disaster befell the commercial property owners after Armitage and Halsted was landmarked.
People are concerned about preserving the "neighborhood character." This essentially consists of keeping older homes, and not seeing big new ones, which are referred to disparagingly as the McMansion phenomenon. (A misnomer, actually, as McMansion usually refers to a big house that uses sloppy cheap construction. Last time I checked, the large homes being built in the neighborhood were not being done on the cheap. Also, whether we should disparage McDonalds in that way in the first instance can be debated, as my McDonalds meal yesterday was pretty good on a tastiness-per-dollar value, but we can do without that digression).
According to the Alderman, the only way to build the big houses that really tick a certain noisy few off is the owners use multiple lots. There is no way to keep people from assembling multiple lots to build homes. Landmarking is a tool available to stop tear-downs, which will help to prevent people from assembling the multiple lots needed to build the bigger homes.
They claim that zoning cannot control this. I have my doubts (given the availability of height restrictions, surface area restrictions, green space requirements, etc.), and if there is anyone out there with more experience on this point, I would appreciate greater details.
But let's take their argument at face value.
It essentially boils down to, some people don't want to see bigger homes being built in the neighborhood.
Is that really what landmarking is designed for?
Is that a sufficient excuse to justify permanently encumbering the property on an entire city block?
If it is purely the age of the building that matters (and we can debate whether a building's age means it has historical significance), will we really be able to keep more of the older buildings if the Landmarks process makes it twice as expensive for their owners to maintain them, and adds a new layer of permit-based bureaucracy to boot?
Was the neighborhood character better or worse 30 years ago, when there were a lot more old buildings, but no-one wanted to really live in them?
[On this point in particular, since someone raised the Burling street objection last night: Has anyone seen pictures of what some sections of Burling street looked like 20 years ago? It is precisely because no-one wanted to live on Burling street south of Armitage that the larger homes were able to be built. (Oh, and BTW - most people do not know that that particular stretch of Burling and Orchard received special zoning exemptions to encourage building on those streets, because the situation was not very ideal there; they thus have the right to build taller buildings, have a greater area taken up with building bulk, etc. etc. that does NOT apply to the blocks presently under landmark consideration. In other words, you couldn't build some of the Burling-sized houses a few blocks over on Fremont or Bissell even if you tried...)].
Does the aesthetic objection to a bigger home on your block get weighed against the benefits of the increased property tax revenue (30-40K for most of the new large single family homes)? Where will that tax revenue be made up, if not from the newer homes?
I suppose that leads me to what has bugged me personally about this whole process. (I'm speaking individually, not on behalf of all VOCAL members when I say this).
If it is a question of aesthetics, I'm sorry, but I think that it is rather arrogant of someone to say that their sense of aesthetics for a piece of property that they do not own should trump the person paying the mortgage on the property. Which is why if someone wants to preserve their old building, they should be encouraged to do so. It would be fantastic if the City came up with some real tax breaks for the people who do that, because as far as I can tell, it represents a labor of love.
But is it really my place to tell someone that the City bureaucrats should force them to undertake that burden?
For someone who may have bought their old home for $50,000 back in 1960, and is counting on selling their old property at a high cost to a developer, using the monetary appreciation to fund their retirement, can I in good conscience tell them that I think they should suck up a hundred-thousand-dollar plus hit (or more) so that I can continue to admire the colors in their first-floor leaded glass window when I walk past? Is it even worth it to my family's home investment in the neighborhood to take a cut in future appreciation for that same purpose?
Is the character of our neighborhood really so shallow as a compilation of building facades?
Or is it the people who live here and expectation of continued growth and prosperity that give us a flourishing community? We are lucky to have a mix of young and old, families and singles, long-term residents and new. A whole range of income groups. Isn't that what makes our neighborhood so enjoyable and dynamic?
If it is the character of the neighborhood that we are interested in preserving, wouldn't our efforts be better focused on getting real tax relief for long-term residents, so that they do not get priced out of their homes via ever-increasing property tax bills?
If it is the character of the neighborhood that we are interested in preserving, wouldn't it be nice to see these types of efforts put towards improving the local school systems, so that we don't lose young families to the suburbs?
If it is the character of the neighborhood that we wish to preserve, why do we think that unelected city bureaucrats, with no financial stake in our homes, will do a better job making the "preservation" decisions than our neighbors who live here?
I have yet to hear a pro-Landmarking person address these questions.
I invite them to do so. If you are pro-landmarking, or know someone who is, have them send in their position, and I promise to post it (assuming the tone is civil; I don't want inflammatory invective). Diane Levin, Don Higgins, or one of you folks who has put a pro-landmark poster in your window, I hope that you are reading this site and respond.
Cheers,
Dee
VOCAL Fax, Address
VOCAL can be contacted at:
vocalneighbors@hotmail.com
by fax at 312-222-6325;
and at the address of 6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60614.
Address, phone info for your elected officials
City Elected Officials:
Mayor Richard M. Daley
Phone: 312/744-5000
Website: www.cityofchicago.org
Area Aldermen
43rd Ward Alderman Vi Daley
735 W. Wrightwood, 60614
Phone: 773/327-9111
Fax: 773/327-7103
Website: www.chicago43rd.org
email: vdaley@cityofchicago
32nd Ward Alderman Ted Matlak
Phone: 773/384-3011
Fax: 773/384-1874
44th Ward Alderman Thomas Tunney
1057 W. Belmont
Chicago, IL 60657
Phone: 773/525-6034
E-Mail: ttunney@cityofchicago.org
Members of the Landmarks Commission:
David Mosena, Chairman
Larry Parkman, Vice Chairman
John W. Baird, Secretary
Denise M. Casalino
Lisa Willis-Brown
Phyllis Ellin
Michelle R. Obama
Seymour Persky
Ben Weese
Location:
33 N. LaSalle St.
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
TEL: (312) 744-3200
TTY: (312) 744-2958
FAX: (312) 744-9140
Contact Landmarksmailto:Landmarkslandmarks@cityofchicago.org
All of the other state, federal elected officials can be found here:
http://www.lincolnparkchamber.com/residents/electedofficials.cfm
To all our neighbors -- thank you!
All:
I was gratified to see the high turnout for last night's meeting. We had over 280 people sign in for the meeting, and added well over 75 people to our VOCAL list. And the donations - thank-you!
I will be posting in greater detail on a few things in a moment, but wanted to go through the highlights of what was discussed at the meeting for those who could not be there.
1) The only way to stop landmarking is to ensure that the Aldermen do not submit your block for landmarking in the first instance.
Alderman Matlack has said that he will not have a voting process; he will merely attend block meetings, with block captains selected via SNA so that people can (theoretically) be "heard." These block captains are responsible for setting up the meetings, scheduling them, and providing neighbors with notice of the meetings.
Alderman Daley informed me that she made a "promise" to commit to block-by-block meetings. It has not been made clear who will be selecting block captains, whether it will be through her office or by the RANCH Triangle neighborhood association. Several people have expressed frustration that they have not been able to find out whether they have a block captain; who their block captain is; and whether and when their meeting is scheduled. I know that the 2200 block of Dayton held a meeting last night; if anyone has any info as to what occurred, please email in to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com.
A major concern of some people present was that this whole process seems to violate what should be our Due Process protections. Whether this process ripens into a lawsuit or not, we will be hard-pressed to complain of disenfranchisement if we do not make every effort, both individually and as a group, to find out how to participate in the process. That being said, document everything! Document when you called the Alderman, when you contacted the RANCH association members, put requests to identify block captains and attend meetings and voice opposition to landmark districting in writing. Copies of any communications you make can be faxed to VOCAL at 312-222-6325, or sent by mail to 6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, or sent via .pdf or other attachment method to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com. If you are not getting any feedback, let me (Dee) know and I can also try to follow up with the Alderman's office.
In particular, we think it is important for each homeowner/voter to write to their Alderman and state that (1) they oppose district-wide or block-wide landmarking, including for your own block; (2) your personal reasons why you disfavor it; and (3) that if this is not stopped by the Alderman, you will become a single issue voter and vote against the Alderman in the next election. If you have previously donated money to any political campaign (i.e., Obama for Senate (his wife is on the Landmarks Commission), Mayor Daley, state representative, etc.), you may also want to mention that no further campaign funds will be forthcoming from you if this issue is not resolved in favor of the homeowners wanting to respect property rights.
Either way, it is apparent that this is a fight that needs to be fought now. Once it gets to Landmarks, it will be rubber-stamped for approval.
2) Please use the VOCAL group to organize additional efforts that you think will prove beneficial. If you want to organize a rally, know when a block meeting is supposed to occur, or who a block captain is, have a flood of people descend on the Alderman's offices, contact the press, meet up with like-minded neighbors on your block, etc., simply send an email to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com with "please post" in the title; I will review it and post it here on the blog spot so that people can organize and participate. If it is a block meeting notice, I will send a notice out by email as well to all of you who have submitted your email addresses.
3) There are issues regarding district or block-based landmarking on the merits that have not been discussed by the pro-landmarking forces. Several of these I have written about in previous posts with the word "myth" in the title, such as alleged property tax benefits, the landmarking process itself, how property tax values will be harmed, the supposed 1 day turnaround in permits, etc. (On the latter point -- if those of you living in Landmarked homes want to send me your stories of dealing with the bureaucracy, please do so, and I will post them.)
4) Why landmark? Having spoken to Alderman Daley personally, and in view of a few comments spouted off at the meeting last night, the best that I can figure is that there are a vocal and noisy few who think that old buildings are per se good, and big new buildings are per se bad, and Old Town is really nice and sweet, so shouldn't we want to be like that too? There is also the vague "neighborhood character" standardless standard. We can debate the merits of our aesthetic views, obviously. I'll separately post on that in a moment. But let's look at the actual Landmark criteria. They simply are not met here for our neighborhood as a whole. Individual buildings or small sets of row houses may qualify, and if that is the case, we applaud your preservation efforts. But that can still be accomplished by individual homeowners, just as zoning can address most of the bulk issues; district-wide landmarking is not the solution.
5) For all you lawyers out there, or others who have had experience with landmarking issues, it would be great to bulk up our background files on how the historical criteria have been interpreted by the courts, identifying Illinois and federal/Supreme Court cases discussing what constitutes a compensable taking, and whether the clause in the municipal code that allows 51% or more of homeowners to reject districting, if a majority of Commissioners vote in favor, has ever been subjected to legal challenge, whether on due process or other constitutional grounds. Also, since it seems as though there are also specific non-governmental individuals and organizations who seem to be spearheading this effort, one question that I have is whether their efforts could be classified as tortious interference with an economic expectation, particularly if their preservation efforts are based on material misrepresentations regarding the impact of landmarking itself. If you have a few hours of your time, or associate/paralegal time to devote to this issue, please send me an email with LEGAL in the header, and we can separately organize.
6) If you know of individuals in Lakeview, Ukranian Village, etc. who are also experiencing the landmarking onslaught, please direct them to our site. I see no reason why we cannot use our experience to try to help others facing the same scenario; if this truly becomes an out-of-control phenomenon, more direct action with Mayor Daley's office will be required.
7) Finally, for those of you who donated money, again, we thank you! We will also see if we can set up a PayPal account to accept donations via credit card.
Cheers,
Dee
Joining VOCAL
We have had several people ask how they can officially join our organization. All you need to do is send your name, telephone number, number of registered voters in your home, and email address to:
vocalneighbors@hotmail.com
with "Join VOCAL" in the header. We will add you to our database (already over 100+ strong!) and keep you posted on block meetings, block captains, what is happening at the neighborhood associations, etc.
St. Theresa's Meeting
All: It is CRITICAL that you (and as many others that you can find) attend the Landmark meeting on Monday, October 25, 2004, at St. Theresa's Church (corner of Armitage and Kenmore), 7pm. We will have presentations, handouts, and suggestions for action items on how to proceed. We will include for you some "talking points" that can be used to dispel the myths that have been sent around by the pro-Landmarking people. We may never have another opportunity to get together before the onslaught to our property rights becomes irrevocable.
Who We Are.
Welcome to the Voters & Owners Coalition Against Landmarking (VOCAL) web page.
VOCAL is an organization that, as the name suggests, has members who are voters and homeowners, living in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of the City of Chicago.
Why did we organize?
In August, 2004, a long-term Lincoln Park resident heard an off-the-cuff comment from a Board member of a neighborhood association bragging that "it was a done deal" with Alderman Vi Daley to designate the majority of the RANCH neighborhood (city area bounded by the streets of Racine, Armitage and North, and the Chicago River), as well as parts of the Sheffield district, governed by the Sheffield Neighborhood Association, as a Landmark District.
Landmark districting has a monumental impact on the ability to use one's property, and places multiple layers of bureaucratic nonsense on homeowners looking to improve their properties. It takes away your autonomy over your property, and transfers it to the whims of the local alderman, neighborhood association, and unelected Landmarks Commission.
How could this happen, we asked?
And, more importantly, why had we, as the homeowners directly affected by such provisions, never heard of this?
We started to gather information, and found out that several closed-door sessions had already been held with the neighborhood associations, a few pro-landmarking individuals, and alderman Daley and alderman Matlak. A few of our founders learned that there was supposed to be an open meeting that would be designed to promote landmarking designation for the district, with presentations from Alderman Daley, the City of Chicago, and historic preservation groups supporting landmarking. The idea was that they would hold this unpublicized but "open" meeting to create the illusion of widespread support for the project.
Some of our members tried to spread the word to their neighbors. We found out that the meeting was to take place at St. Theresa's Church in September, 2004.
When we showed up, we were appalled at what we heard presented.
-Half-truths about property taxes that would supposedly go down.
-False promises about property values that would go up.
-Assurances that there would be no bureaucratic hurdles with landmark designation.
-Obfuscation about the actual procedural process that would be used to decide whether landmarking was appropriate or not.
Even more disturbing was that ordinary folks -- our friends and neighbors, not political people, not builders or developers, not brokers, who showed up at the meeting genuinely confused as to what landmarking was about, who wanted it, why it was good for them, and wanted to know what landmarking meant for their homes (in many cases, people's primary asset) -- were addressed rudely. They were shouted down. They were given vague responses that failed to answer their questions. They were told that their voices would be "heard" without saying how. They were treated to a litany of complaints about "neighborhood character" and aesthetics, but nothing concrete about why landmarking over 20 city blocks was the answer.
We tried to get more information individually. The problem is that when we started comparing notes, neighbor to neighbor, we found that we were getting conflicting information, from the Alderman's office on down. The promises of due process and voting made at a RANCH association dinner by the aldermen were contradicted by the City's own municipal code, which said that a majority of homeowners could vote against the idea, yet still have landmarking imposed upon them if the Alderman and the Landmarks Commission wanted it enough. The Alderman's staff would say one day that a street was under consideration, and then tell someone else that they did not have to worry about landmarking because that same street was off the map. We could not trust those who seemed to want to lull people into complacency. We could not trust our neighborhood associations to look out for us, as powerful Board members had been infected with landmarking fever.
All the usual checks and balances were gone.
So, we felt we had to do something different. We had to find someone who would explain what was really going on, who would take the side of the average voter and homeowner living in the neighborhood who just wanted to make sure that things were being done right. Someone who would be able to get vocal and communicate what the people really thought.
We realized -- that someone would have to be us.
So who are we?
We are the Voters and Owners Coalition Against Landmarking.
VOCAL is made up of an organizing board, and many homeowner-volunteers. We are trying to serve as a clearinghouse for information about Landmarking, and to assist people wanting to get straight facts. We also want to use our organization to communicate to Alderman Daley and Alderman Matlak that we do not take their interference with our property, our homes, lightly. That this stunt will cost them votes at the ballot box.
There are undoubtedly issues that arise in the neighborhood. Density, parking, taxes and the character of the streets are important to all of us. Perhaps the aldermen tire of hearing complaints about these things, and want to use the Landmarking process as an easy way out, shift the blame to some other faceless bureaucrat.
But these issues are not easy ones; they are part of the normal give-and-take that comes with City living. Some issues can be addressed through better guidance and enforcement of zoning regulations. Preservation of individual buildings can still be accomplished without landmarking the entire district. Complaints can be filtered through neighborhood associations. Private enforcement actions are permitted under the Municipal Code already for certain zoning violations left unaddressed by the City, and could be used more effectively by homeowners. Equity in property taxes needs to be addressed in the Illinois legislature as well as with the City.
VOCAL members support the idea of better enforcing zoning restrictions, and cracking down on variances to politically-connected developers. We are heavily invested in our neighborhood, and want to continue to see it grow and flourish. We do not want long-term residents to feel as though they are being forced out by ludicrously high property tax assessments, but we also do not want to permanently chase out the tax base of single-family residents who pay property taxes exceeding $30,000 a year per lot.
VOCAL members have thought a great deal about these issues, and what we do know is this: district-wide landmarking is not the answer.
Our next meeting will be at St. Theresa's Church at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 2004. Information you may not yet have heard about how district-wide landmarking will harm your property will be distributed. We encourage you to come by. We hope that you join us, and become VOCAL. We look forward to meeting you.
Warmest regards,
Dee
Local homeowner, registered voter.
The myth of the one day permit turnaround.
One statistic that seems to get thrown about to assure people that landmarking won't constitute a bureaucratic hassle is that 70% of all permits get approved witin a single day. Really? That is not what the Municipal Code sections say. Here is the real drill:
1) NO permit for alteration, construction, "or other work" shall be issued to an applicant by any City department without the written approval of the Commission for any district which has been designated as a Chicago Landmark. 2-120-740. If the City gets a request for a permit has to forward the plans to the Commission within 7 days. It is a violation of the ordinance for an owner to perform, authorize or allow work or other acts requiring review without a permit. Id. What are the penalties for the violation? Not less than $500 for each offense, and if you altered your property too much without the Landmark Commission's approval? You get NO permits for your property at all approved for the next FIVE YEARS. 2-120-910. Oh, and the City reserves the right to force yo uto revert the property to its original condition before you did the work. Id.
But let's assume the process works as it should. You show up at City Hall to make a permit request, they get seven days just to send your request to the Landmarks commission. It is unlawful for that permit to issue without commission approval.
2) Commission gets your request. How quickly do they have to respond? Fifteen days to give you their "preliminary" opinion. 2-120-760. If they approve it, you have to meet not just their standards, and City standards, but also the Standards for Rehabiltation st forth by the US Secretary of the Interior, as published in 36 CFR 67. I checked, and the most relevant provision is 36 CFR 67.7, which has all the stuff in it about how you have to repair, not replace, and if you replace, it has to be the same type of materials as the old, etc. etc. That is where you get the requirement that you can't just fix a broken window, you have to replace it with the same type of window case, with individual windowpanes, of the identical size as your old window, etc. etc. You can get at it by: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi.
3) What if the commission doesn't approve your request? Well, you get 10 days to request that you work things out informally, and they are supposed to hold the meeting within 15 days. 2-120-790.
So, we're already up to around 45 days, here, before we even get to the commission.
4) If your informal meeting doesn't go well? Wait 30 days. Then the Commission has to initiate a public hearing on your permit, to take place within 90 days. They have a further 30 days to come to their decision. 2-120-800.
So we are now at 6 months after your permit application date, and you are still not out of the Commission yet.
5) If they decide against you? Congratulations! You get to pay a $289 filing fee (and a lawyer) and go to Municipal Court of Cook County to file a legal complaint. 2-120-810. The City has 30 days to file an answer to your complaint. Tack on 60 days to get before a judge on a status conference, maybe another 60 days to brief the issues (if you are lucky), another 30-60 days or more for the judge to decide. You've gone over a year, with no resolution. And the City cannot issue you a permit unless you get the Commission's decision overturned.
Oh, and BTW, if you want to overturn the Commission's decision? You have to convince the judge that their decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Their decision is presumed to be legally and factually correct.
Nah, no bureaucratic hassle at all. That is saved for the really big stuff, like demolitions and additions, where you have to get a vote from the whole City Council. 2-120-825.
Feeling tired yet?
Here's a link to the selected Landmark Ordinances fro mthe Municipal Code, if you want to check my cites.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/Ordinance.html
City of Chicago landmark property tax relief -- not as good as you would think.
Reviewing City of Chicago information on property tax relief, I found some information that shows that property or income tax relief is not as goos as you would think based on the hype.
Check out this flyer:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/Preservation.html
Moral of the story?
If you are an owner of a residential building, and using it for rental purposes, you can get a 20% income tax offset on your rental income, but ONLY if you invest 100% of the building value into the historic improvements.
If you want to actually live in your historic property, and want to invest 25% of your property's market value into approved rehab projects, your property taxes will be frozen for eight years, and then they will increase back up to market value over the next four years. (This is the State of Illinois program).
You can donate the facade of your house to a preservation society, take a charitable deduction on your income tax, and then you will forever be bound to make repairs per Landmarks Commission instructions.
Oh, and the City might be willing to waive all building permit fees if you landmark your house. Of course, under the Municipal Code, you have to get an Order of the City Council before that happens. See 2-120-815.
Link to Illinois Historic Preservation Agency - Tax Information
According to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, you cannot get any property tax breaks unless 25% of your property's market value is spent on rehab projects for the historic property:
To qualify for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze, a property must:
Be a registered historic structure, either by listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or designated by an approved local historic preservation ordinance;
Be used as a single-family, owner-occupied residence or condominium, or as a cooperative, or as an owner-occupied residential building with up to six units;
Have at least 25 percent of the property's market value spent on an approved rehabilitation project
Be a substantial rehabilitation that significantly improves the condition of the historic building;
Be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation."
Find out more at:
http://www.state.il.us/hpa/PS/taxfreeze.htm
Insurance - Perils of Landmarking
One issue that has not been given much attention is homeowner's insurance. We've done some initial checking, and it looks like if you are in a landmark district, it is extremely expensive to insure your home for replication purposes.
Normally, if the roof falls in, or you have a kitchen fire and need to re-build, the insurance company assesses what it would cost to repair with modern-day materials, and that is the sum of your reimbursement.
But, if you are landmarked, that won't be good enough; you are not allowed to rebuild with modern-day materials; you have to essentially replicate what was previously there, with historical materials, to historical standards, etc.
Since the replication costs are outside normal insurance costs, what you have to do is massively over-insure your house to hope that the $$$ will be there. Neither Allstate nor State Farm offer policies for replication costs.
No matter what, you are looking at a jump in premiums. Yet another hidden cost of landmarking that no-one wants to talk about.
Another Myth Debunked - Property Values Will Not Decrease After Landmarking
There has been a suggestion that under landmark distric status, Lincoln Park property values will continue to appreciate at the same rate they have been, and that the appreciation rate will not slow. Guess what?
WRONG.
Here is my take on it:
From what I can tell, the Mid-North Landmark District homes that are owned fee-simple (i.e., not condos, etc.), that were turned over in about the past 15+ years had an annual appreciation rate of about 15%, and were owned for about 4.3 years on average.
Lincoln Park residential properties (again, non-condo) that were sold and resold over the same approximate time frame had an annual appreciation rate of 21.27%, and were owned for about 4.8 years.
The average sale price for homes in the area was about $1.1 million dollars.
What happens if you do the math on the appreciation rates for the average holding period in Lincoln Park, versus the appreciation rate for the pre-existing Landmark District in Mod-North?
After five years, you LOSE at least $500,000.
Quick calculation:
(1,100,000 x 1.2)x1.2)x1.2)x1.2)x1.2) = $2.7 million non-landmarked district.
(1,100,000 x 1.15)x1.15)x1.15)x1.15)x1.15) = $2.2 million in landmarked district.
Difference: $500,000.
I don't know about you, but I don't have half a million dollars to give up on a vague theory or a promise that my property values will not be harmed by landmarking based on studies performed elsewhere. (Actually, I don't live in, and can't afford, a million dollar house, but even doing the same math on my humble home, we ain't talking chump change. It's certainly going to make a dent in the firstborn's college tuition costs...)
Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 36, Volume 1
Revised as of July 1, 2004
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
CITE: 36CFR67.7
Page 365-367
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 67_HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SEC. 48(g) AND SEC. 170(h) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986--Table of Contents Sec. 67.7
Standards for Rehabilitation.
(a) The following Standards for Rehabilitation are the criteria used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a certified rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located.
(b) The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. (The application of these Standards to rehabilitation projects is to be the same as under the previous version so that a project previously acceptable would continue to be acceptable under these Standards.)
(1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
(2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
(3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
(4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
(5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
(6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
(7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
(8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
(9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
(10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
(c) The quality of materials and craftsmanship used in a rehabilitation project must be commensurate with the quality of materials and craftsmanship of the historic building in question. Certain treatments, if improperly applied, or certain materials by their physical properties, may cause or accelerate physical deterioration of historic buildings. Inappropriate physical treatments include, but are not limited to: improper repointing techniques; improper exterior masonry cleaning methods; or improper introduction of insulation where damage to historic fabric would result. In almost all situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in denial of certification. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will result in denial of certification. For further information on appropriate and inappropriate rehabilitation treatments, owners are to consult the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings published by the NPS. ``Preservation Briefs'' and additional technical information to help property owners formulate plans for the rehabilitation, preservation, and continued use of historic properties consistent with the intent of the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation are available from the SHPOs and NPS regional offices. Owners are responsible for procuring this material as part of property planning for a certified rehabilitation.
(d) In certain limited cases, it may be necessary to dismantle and rebuild portions of a certified historic structure to stabilize and repair weakened structural members and systems. In such cases, the Secretary will consider such extreme intervention as part of a certified rehabilitation if:
(1) The necessity for dismantling is justified in supporting documentation;
(2) Significant architectural features and overall design are retained; and
(3) Adequate historic materials are retained to maintain the architectural and historic integrity of the overall structure. Section 48(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 exempts certified historic structures from meeting the physical test for retention of external walls and internal structural framework specified therein for other rehabilitated buildings. Nevertheless, owners are cautioned that the Standards for Rehabilitation require retention of distinguishing historic materials of external and internal walls as well as structural systems. In limited instances, rehabilitations involving removal of existing external walls, i.e., external walls that detract from the historic character of the structure such as in the case of a nonsignificant later addition or walls that have lost their structural integrity due to deterioration, may be certified as meeting the Standards for Rehabilitation.
(e) Prior approval of a project by Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations does not ensure certification by the Secretary for Federal tax purposes. The Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation take precedence over other regulations and codes in determining whether the rehabilitation project is consistent with the historic character of the property and, where applicable, the district in which it is located.
(f) The qualities of a property and its environment which qualify it as a certified historic structure are determined taking into account all available information, including information derived from the physical and architectural attributes of the building; such determinations are not limited to information contained in National Register or related documentation.
