This "process" is turning into a farce
Hmm, people aren't getting ballots, people who call to request ballots who report that they are pro-landmarking are told by Chuck, Vi's chief of staff and her self-professed "right hand man" that he'll put them down for a "yes" to landmarking, and despite overwhelming opposition to landmarking at some block meetings, Chuck continues to say that people are pro-landmarking.
Everyone: it is CRITICAL that you keep a copy of your ballot, forward a copy to VOCAL, and return ballots on time.
The message that I am getting from all of you is that you feel that Vi simply cannot be trusted to support the property owners. She (or, at least, her staff) certainly is not doing much to inspire it.
BLOCK MEETING REMINDER - Dayton, Fremont
REMINDER that tonight is the block meeting with Alderman Daley for the 1800-1900 blocks of Fremont street, St. Theresa's church, 7pm;
The 1900 block of Dayton street will be on the 15th, also St. Theresa's church, 7pm.
It is important that you attend these meetings and speak up; Chuck, Vi's chief of staff, keeps telling people that the majority of those attending these meetings is in favor of landmarking, despite the fact that every meeting we've had people attend has had at least 60-80% opposed to landmarking, 1-3 people in favor, and the rest feeling somewhat blindsided and needing more information. Naturally, Vi has never told people that they can get the anti-landmarking view by viewing this site, though she is having her staff monitor it.
What you have to "look forward" to if landmarked.
One issue that has been raised vis. landmarking is that it will impose extra layers of bureaucracy on the building approval process, including requiring neighborhood association approval for some things. Some have suggested that this won't be a big deal; others have pointed to Old Town as an example of neighborhood associations run amok.
Here is something for you to consider:
Last night at the RANCH Triangle neighborhood association meeting, the following guidelines were handed out; these Residential Planning Guidelines were adopted unanimously by the 6-member RANCH planning board (which includes Bill Scott and Diane Levin, two of the people who have brought you the block or district-based landmarking proposal in the first instance). They have not yet been adopted by the full RANCH board. You may want to contact RANCH board members to express your thoughts once you read them. You can contact Rich Chehoven at president@ranchtriangle.org.
(Background: You may not be aware, but anyone who wants a zoning variance has to go before RANCH's planning board to attempt to get their approval for the variance; many other redevelopment proposals also go through the RANCH planning committee. This is Vi Daley's way of obtaining community blessing on the projects.)
These "guidelines" are supposed to be what you need to do to make the planning committee happy. What do they include?
-The planning committee will look "most favorably" on rehabs, not rebuilds.
-They want any new development to have comparable design, building materials, etc. consistent with the historic residential and commercial structures in the neighborhood.
-They want a facade that is "compatible" with the other buildings in the immediate area;
-They want your building materials to be compatible with other buildings, and "specifically discourage" any use of split face block, cinder block, and dryvit on any exterior surface;
-They want to require a minimum of two parking spaces per residential unit.
In other words, the RANCH planning committee is attempting to impose their personal design aesthetic and elements of landmarking on people by default via their review process.
Keep in mind, that the people sitting on this committee are not required to have any architectural/building experience or any other credentials that qualify them to decide what is or is not historically consistent, compatible, etc.
They also put in a whole laundry list of things that they want people to bring with them (floor plans, drawings of elevations, locations of trash receptacles, etc.) to even get the process of review started.
Anyone wanting a copy of these please email vocalneighbors@hotmail.com; I'll forward on a copy to you.
My two cents: I have no problem with establishing a process for securing the planning committee's approval if that is required to do a teardown, or seek a zoning variance.
But my question is this: why is the emphasis NOT on securing consent of the people who will have to live with the consequences of the variances on the block? I have a feeling that if you are the guy next door to the property seeking side-yard variances, you are going to care a lot more about the extent of the intrusion towards your house than whether the siding will be dryvit.
There are also some statements about you have to present a reason why you need the variance, but there are no criteria for what that "need" is. Wouldn't that be the better emphasis of this document for people seeking variances (and in spirit of deciding whether a variance is required or not) than whether the building facade is made up of brick?
Put another way, why aren't the criteria more along the lines of:
-if the requested variance is for reduction of side yard, we'll give approval if deviance is less than X%, with neighbor consent; if greater than X%, need neighbor consent, and have to justify expansion for building structural reasons (or to meet certain building code requirements, or because you are losing space on the other side because of drainage issues, etc. etc.)
-if the requested variance is for exemption to height restriction, we'll give approval if buildings on either side would already exceed your requested height; we will require neighbor consent side to side and front to back if you want to exceed by X feet or 10% of total, etc.
The above allows for objective, predictable standards that can actually be planned for. "Your facade isn't historical-looking enough without a window over the door" is NOT an objective standard, predictable in advance.
Maybe I am missing something. I would be interested in hearing what architects, builders and homeowners who have gone through this process have to say about these types of things.
Quote of the day
Sorry, all: I just couldn't resist. This was from the December 6, 2004 article written by Thomas Sowall (nationally syndicated columnist):
"If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as we wish. That is why Utopian planners end up as despots, whether at the national level or at the level of the local 'redevelopment' agency."
Substitute "landmark" for redevelopment in the above quote and I think you get the idea of why many people are opposed to adding a few more layers of bureaucrats to dicate how we use our property.
Another question re penalties
One question that came up at a block meeting is whether you can be penalized from doing work on your landmarked property without a permit. Here is the Ordinance on that issue, reprinted verbatim:
Penalties and Remedies
2-120-910 Penalties and Remedies. The following penalties and remedies
shall be applicable to violations of this ordinance:
1. Penalties: Failure to perform any act required by this ordinance or
performance of any action which is prohibited by said sections shall
constitute a violation thereof. Every day on which a violation exists shall
constitute a separate violation and a separate offense. Any person violating
any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a fine of
not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 for each offense. In addition, if
the owner of property designated a "Chicago Landmark" willfully or
through gross negligence causes all or any part of the property to be
demolished or substantially destroyed or altered without the approval of
the City Council or the Commission, as the case may be, then no permit
to construct a new structure or improve said structure shall be issued for
said property or for the land upon which the landmark stood within five
years of the date of the demolition or alteration. Thereafter for a period
of 20 years, commencing at the end of the five-year period herein before
stated, any application for a building permit on the subject premises
shall follow the procedure heretofore set out in Sections 2-120-740
through 2-120-800.
2. Remedies: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) hereof,
in the event any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed,
altered, added to, or demolished in violation of this ordinance,
the City of Chicago may institute appropriate proceedings to prevent or remedy such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration,
addition, or demolition.
In other words, if you fail to perform "any act" required by the Landmarks Ordinance, you get fined no less than $500 per day. What does "any act" include? Well, it certainly includes permits. So if you are the owner of a landmarked property and you cause any part of your property to be demolished or "altered without the approval of the City Council or the [Landmarks] Commission," then your penalty is that you get NO permits to construct anything new, or improve the structure, for "five years of the date of the demolition or alteration."
What types of alterations require permit approval under the Landmarks Ordinance?
There are many, but they include changes to "materials of roofs, and windows and exterior walls visible from a public street."
So, you change your roof or windows without the proper permit, and that change is visible from the street, you can't get a permit to improve your home for 5 years, and can get penalized $500 a day to boot. The City can also sue you to demand that you alter what you did or change it back to how it was.
The full text of the ordinance and what it says about what type of work requires permits is below:
13-32-020.
A permit shall not be required for any minor repairs, as may be necessary to maintain existing parts of buildings, but such work or operations shall not involve [i.e., you need a permit to do all of the following] sandblasting, the replacement or repair of any structural load-bearing members, nor reduce the means of exit, affect the light or ventilation, room size requirements, sanitary or fire-resistive requirements, use of materials not permitted by the
building and environmental controls of this code, changes in the
materials of roofs, and windows and exterior walls visible from a public
street of properties designated as Chicago Landmarks in accordance
with applicable provisions of Chapter 2-120, nor increase the height,
area, or capacity of the building.
13-32-120 Construction Contrary to Permit -- Stop Work Order.
Where any work done under a permit authorizing erection, alteration,
or repair of a building, structure or portion thereof, is being done
contrary to the approved drawings and plans, the building commissioner
or the president of the board of health shall have the power to stop such
work at once [....] Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
prevent minor changes in arrangement or decoration which do not
affect the requirements of any provisions of this code, except where they
affect significant features, as communicated in the report of the
Commission of Chicago Landmarks, of a Chicago Landmark designated
in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 2-120 of this code.
13-32-200 Fences – Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any
person to erect or construct any fence more than five feet in height, or a
solid fence of any height visible from a public street on property
containing a Chicago landmark designated in accordance with
applicable provisions of Chapter 1(2-120) of this code, without first
obtaining a permit from the building commissioner.
IRS rules re charitable donation of facades
Questions have been raised about the impact of landmarking a district on whether that will hinder the ability to gain any value from a facade donation by an individual.
Alderman Daley suggests that that should not be a worry, as she claims that she has heard of people in Mid-North who have made facade donations after being landmarked, and talked to some preservation people who say that the IRS doesn't have a problem with them.
I would suggest that such individuals -- indeed, any individual considering a charitable donation via facade donation -- contact their tax lawyer to learn about all of the implications and current state of the law. I would further suggest that Chuck and Alderman Daley be extremely careful about rendering such legal advice, particularly in a public forum, to try to deflect an anti-landmark district argument.
Here are FACTS:
IRS publication from June 30, 2004, dealt with agency interpretations of charitable deductions for real property, whch covers facade donations. A link is provided below. Also provided below are statements by IRS officials regarding the June 30, 2004 publication and charitable contributions for facade donations. All text in purple is my emphasis:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-04-41.pdf
Note that the above IRS publication expressly states that:
"If the donor (or a related person) reasonably can expect to receive financial or economic benefits greater than those that will inure to the general public as a result of the donation of a conservation easement, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i). If the donation of a conservation easement has no material effect on the value of real property, or enhances rather than reduces the value of real property, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(ii)."
===
My take on the above is that if a facade donation does not reduce the value of your property, then you get NO charitable deduction.
Here also are statements from the IRS regarding the above publication as published in the IRS News on July 28, 2004 (sorry, I don't have a direct link available, but I can fax or email you copies if you email me at vocalneighbors@hotmail.com):
===
"IRS officials have responded to questions raised by Historic Rehabilitation Advisor, which sought clarification on several issues related to the recent publication of Notice 2004-41 on conservation easement deductions. The IRS issued Notice 2004-41 on June 30 [2004] advising taxpayers of its intention to disallow certain improper conservation easement deductions and levy penalties and excise taxes on rule breakers.
"IRS: The Notice states that the IRS is aware that some taxpayers may be claiming inappropriate deductions under Section 170 for conservation easements, and that deductions under Section 170 for conservation easements will only be allowed when all the requirements are met. The Notice applies equally to all types of conservation easements.
"IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson stated in a press release announcing the publication of Notice 2004-41 that the IRS "uncovered numerous instances where the tax benefits of preserving open spaces and historic buildings have been twisted for inappropriate individual benefit." [He continued:] “Taxpayers who want to game the system and the charities that assist them will be called to account.”
"IRS: As Notice 2004-41 points out, overvaluation of conservation easements is a major concern. However, it is not the only concern. Notice 2004-41 highlights several rules and requirements for the allowance of a deduction for a contribution of a conservation easement, and explicitly states that the rules discussed are just a few of the many requirements that must be met for a deduction to be allowed. All types of conservation easement deductions will be subject to scrutiny.
HRA posed the following question: "At the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 2002 Annual Meeting in Cleveland, OH, there was a session on conservation easements. One of the speakers said easements are typically appraised at 5-15 percent of the fair market value of the property - even higher in some cases. What's your [IRS's] reaction to that statement? Is that a fair "safe harbor?"
"IRS: There is no IRS safe harbor or any other IRS rule that provides that conservation easements are valued at 5-15% of a property's fair market value, or at any set percentage of a property's FIVE. When valuing a conservation easement, the rules of Sections 1.170A-1(c) and 1.170A-14(h) of the Income Tax Regulations must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The result may be higher or lower than the 5-15%, depending on the facts of the individual case.
"HRA: How does IRS determine whether a conservation easement dedication may be overvalued?
"IRS: The valuation of an easement must take into account several factors, such as: the current use of the property; an objective assessment of how immediate or remote the likelihood is that the property, absent the restriction, would in fact be developed; zoning, historic preservation, and other conservation laws in place that already restrict the property's potential highest and best use; whether the grant of the restriction either has no material effect on the value of the property or in fact serves to enhance, rather than reduce the property's value; whether the restriction allows for any development on the property, and the effect of the development; the access permitted by the restriction (in the case of an historic structure); whether the restriction has the effect of increasing any other property owned by the donor or a related person; and other factors (this list is not exclusive). The IRS applies these and other relevant factors to determine whether the taxpayer's valuation of the conservation easement is correct. For more information, see Sections 1.170A-14(h) and 1.170A-1(c) of the Regulations."
=====
Here also is text from an article reporting on statements made by IRS counsel, Karin Gross, on facade donations (published on November 24, 2004, by the Bureau of National Affairs; anyone who wants the original send an email, and I'll send you my fax copy. Note that I provided a copy of this article to Alderman Daley last week):
“Karin Gross, acting branch chief of the Office of Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting) [said] that there is a misconception among practitioners that donating the façade of an historic building automatically triggers an entitlement to a deduction for a percentage of the value of the house. Gross said that the issue that arises with respect to façade easements, as well as conservation land, is that, if the property is in a zoned area and cannot be modified, the value of the deduction may be very little. ‘You can’t get a deduction for a façade easement if you’re not giving anything up,’ she said, adding that it is an area in which the IRS thinks that there is some abuse.”
=====
My take on the above is that one of the factors that the IRS will use to determine whether a conservation easement like facade donation is overvalued, is by assessing whether the present status of the building is already restricted from its highest and best use by zoning, preservation status, and other conservation laws in place. Also, according to IRS counsel, you can't get a deduction unless you're giving something up.
We are repeatedly told that landmarking under the City's auspices means that the Landmarks Commission will be most concerned with preserving the facade of the building. That would seem to confirm that a facade donation will, under IRS rules, be viewed as already subject to restriction from its highest and best use as a result, and that given the restrictions that will already be in place on your facade, a donation of it will mean that you are not giving anything up.
As I noted above, these obviosuly are complicated tax issues that should be discussed with competent legal counsel for anyone thinking about a facade donation.
But in the larger view of things, it is wholly incorrect to suggest that landmarking a block or district will have no impact on people's ability to get a charitable donation for facade donations.
One issue that came up at a block meeting was that it seemed like there were insufficient economic incentives to encourage people to rehab and restore older buildings. Ironically, landmarking the district may reduce, if not eliminate, the one major economic incentive people have at the federal level to protect older buildings.
2000 Blocks of Dayton, Fremont, block meeting TONIGHT
St. James' school, corner of Dickens and Fremont, 7pm.
To those that attend, please send an update of what occurs to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com.
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.
