Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Alderman Daley's decision

All: receiving somewhat conflicting information re when Alderman Daley will be deciding if landmarking is to proceed. Alderman Daley said (at LP Chamber of Commerce meeting) that at the beginning of Feb. she would decide; this past Friday I was told by her office that there was nothing to report; but word on the street is that Chuck Eastwood and Alderman Daley are still consulting with Brian Goeken at Landmarks before making a decision, and would be sending out notices, whatever that means. (This runs rather counter to Mr. Goeken's statement to me at the last Landmarks commission meeting that the decision would be all Alderman Daley's, and that Landmarks would not be involved in it.) Will continue to monitor...

Supreme Court on property rights.

The US Supreme Court today is hearing oral argument on a case titled Kelo vs. City of New London, in which the city is claiming that they have a right to take Kelo's waterfront home and property (via eminent domain) because the property can be put to a higher and better tax use. The city also gave a private organization all kinds of powers to decide what was the "best use" of the land. You can find out a bit more about it here:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/02/will_leviathan_.html

Essentially, the issue before the Court is this:

Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to take property from one private party in order to give it to another private party because the new owner might produce more profit and more taxes for the City from the land?

This is a heavy constitutional issue, because government is not empowered to take land for private benefit; the benefit must be PUBLIC. (And even if public, the homeowners must be compensated for the taking).

I had an earlier post where I noted that if multiple blocks get landmarked, that will necessarily prevent the highest and best use for our property. In the above case, the Connecticut S. Ct. allowed the city to take the property because its value wasn't being maximized. Can you see the long-term thread here? City landmarks property, which itself is a taking of your property rights. Two decades from now, city says land isn't meeting its full potential (duh, 'cause it is landmarked), and can be put to a better use, so seizes it under this principle.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Happy Valentine's Day

So quite a bit has happened over the last few months in our grand neighborhood. Here is a recap.

Alderman Daley conceded at the Clifton block meeting that, having sponsored several block meetings, there was not the support for landmarking that certain so-called neighborhood activists had claimed there were. So let's ensure that the ballots that she sent out reflect that. (BTW, I have heard from several of you that you have not received ballots. Call her office ASAP if you have not received them; they should have been sent and returned by now).

Alderman Daley also stated at a recent Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce meeting (hat tip, Ed Lowe from Inside newspaper) that she would be making her decision on landmarking in early February. Note that Alderman Matlack has stated again for the record that he has told the landmarks people that he won't support landmarking in his ward after hearing from constituents.

SNA has issued a formal resolution against any district-based landmarking, by an 8-1 vote. Here is their resolution:

The Sheffield Neighborhood Association is opposed to land marking on a district-wide basis. It is the position of the Sheffield Neighborhood Association that landmarking should be done voluntarily on a house-by-house basis at the election of the property owner or on a block-by-block basis only where an overwhelming majority of the property owners on a given block have affirmatively expressed their support for the landmarking of their block.

Based on what happened at the block meetings, this standard won't be met. So if Alderman Daley recommends landmarking any blocks north of Armitage, it will not be with support from the neighborhood association.

What of the blocks south of Armitage, in RANCH's purview?

The RANCH website (www.ranchtriangle.org) does not have their 2005 meeting schedule posted. Keep in mind that elections for new board members will be coming up soon. I know that some of the pro-landmarking people are considering running; after the mess that they've initially created on this process, they should be held accountable, not given a reward.

RANCH's planning committee has also issued their nutty guidelines which basically is an attempt to have design control over new construction in the neighborhood. This will be one of the next things that will need to be opposed - it is FAR BEYOND their mandate.

Be that as it may, that means that the main blocks of interest are Dayton, Fremont and Bissell south of Armitage. Vi has already said that 1800 block of Dayton is off the table. 1800-1900 blocks of Fremont - well, just walk along the street and count up the "no" signs vs. the "yes" signs (34 to 3, last time I checked) and there is no overwhelming majority there.

So that leaves the 1900 block of Dayton and 1800-1900 Bissell, i.e., the blocks of Bill Scott and Diane Levin, who were central to initiating this process in the first place. The Dayton and Bissell block meetings had extremely low attendance, given their proximity to the holidays. Lots of renters on those blocks as well; I doubt that the property owners have gotten true notice. But all in all, I don't see why Alderman Daley doesn't just let Bill Scott landmark his rowhouse and be done with it.

But we'll see what happens next.

Several of you also alerted me to the Jonathan Fine Preservation Chicago press release that claimed that our neighborhood was in dire straits and about to lose its archtectural heritage. (See http://www.preservationchicago.org/C7-2005/C7-2005-overview.asp). Chicago Magazine also did an article on these guys.

Basically, here is their argument:

The entire Sheffield district needs to be landmarked (of course, they say nothing about the fact that landmarking the district will destroy the one economic tax incentive, facade donation, that owners of old buildings have), further downzoned, and that people who aren't landmarked but have old buildings should be penalized for not preserving them.

Oh, and he also says that anyone who doesn't agree with what he says must be disseminating "misinformation" on behalf of developers.

Hmmm. I am not a developer or real estate agent, and neither is my husband. I also provide cites to back up what I post here, and anyone is free to post a correction in response.

I am interested in property rights and the state of my neighborhood, but more on that in a sec.

You may recall that a while back I wrote a letter to Preservation Chicago telling them to put in writing why they thought the Sheffield neighborhood met the landmark criteria. I offered to post it here for all to see. What response did I get? Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Apparently, it is far easier to be a demagogue (or maybe "gadfly" is the more appropriate word?) than to actually persuade people based on facts and reason. Or, actaully do the hard work to raise money to buy and rehab old buildings. I mean, if it is so profitable, he should be able to buy these buildings, rehab them, and sell them -- this would pay for the next restoration, etc. He could then put his own restrictive covenants on the deeds to prevent the buildings from being torn down.

Of course, people with far more skill and experience than he would do so if it was, in fact, profitable. It ain't. Which is why, again, landmarking will hurt the most the very people we should be encouraging to rehab old properties, by raising costs dramatically.

The Chicago Magazine article also made me laugh. The message is, Fine and Moran don't live in the neighborhoods that they are trying to "save." They are big on flash, low on substance. They want to landmark mediocrity (Chris Struminski can attest to that -- a house that has been boarded up and is crumbling down on Dayton just north of Armitage for over a year, Fine told her should be rehabbed, not torn down, because it has a pretty window on one side. Sheesh.). They think that the new construction makes us look like "Anytown." (I'm sure the Metzler-Hull and BCBG folks will be thrilled to hear that).

As one who has lived in Boston, New York and DC, I can tell you that the older buildings that are supposedly so "unique" look just like the older brownstones in those three cities. But that's for another day.

The tale of Moran fighting over a strip of copper was equally ludicrous. Why not offer the guys $50 and put it in the back of your car with you if you want it "preserved"?

If you read between the lines, Fine and Moran have been unable to save any old buildings based on their efforts alone, and the one that they did get some press on, a building owned by the Chicago Archdiocese, has been standing crumbling and vacant instead of being torn down. So, great. Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face? We save the building but get blight in exchange.

Oh, and the theory that Chicago City Hospital should be converted into doctor's offices? Clearly they have no experience in medicine. Just try eradicating the nasty staph infections sure to result without first tearing the place down. (Fact: the nastiest bugs you're going to pick up are likely in a hospital b/c the bacteria -- particularly staph -- get resistant to most antibiotics over time).

But when you read the article, there is no there, there. Fluff, really. But what do you expect from people who thrive on drama?

Ultimately, these guys are treating this as a religion for them -- but perhaps they should recall that we "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." In other words, we accept laws because we have agreed to live by them, and because they have been arrived at through a just, democratic consent process. Preservation Chicago's insistence that our property rights be taken for their benefit without our consent is morally reprehensible.

ANYWAY. Enough about them. Here's an intriguing contact I recently made: Al Hannah. Basically, he's gonna sue the city if Deming gets landmarked, and the basis of his suit would be similar to one that we would file if landmarked. He has already had great success in fighting City Hall on zoning-related issues, and is perfectly willing to say that this landmarking process is also unconstitutional.

Stay tuned!!!

Cheers,
Dee