Monday, January 30, 2006

Landmarking, a few years later

So the Armitage/Halsted commercial corners were landmarked by Vi Daley awhile back, over the objection of at least 90% of the property owners. The result?

We've lost our local hardware store, a women's clothing store, another store has halved its size, and a few other "local" stores have left for greener pastures.

The latest RANCH newsletter reprints a letter of a 14 year old to Alderman Daley asking why all the cute little stores have left the neighborhood, and what "we" can do about it.

Now, I can understand a 14 year old lacking a background of economic theory and history with the neighborhood to understand the laws of supply and demand.

I would argue that "we" are part of the problem, because landmarking the commercial district translates into higher maintenance costs, higher risk factors, ergo, higher prices to rent there in the first place.

Alderman Daley's response is inexcusable. Among the more laughable portions, she suggests that she will work really really hard to make sure that when someone else comes in (i.e., national chain retailer, if the landlord is so lucky, since Vi is also refusing to allow any new banks to set up shop on the street) they will be forced to change their business practices to be more "local" in style (i.e., the cost of doing business will become even MORE expensive).

Good grief. So much wrong with this mentality.

Now, think about it. If retail square footage is renting on the order of $63/sf, and assuming that the average retail space on the block is maybe 1000 square feet, you're talking maybe 63K a year in income BEFORE expenses. The building housing Charlie Trotter's pays in excess of $20K a year in property taxes. The commercial condo where Lori's Shoes is located pays on the order of $14K a year. The building where Studio 910 is located pays out over 10K a year. How much do you think is left over to pay a mortgage, or pay for repairs??? Property taxes being what they are, and ever-rising, of course that will push people out of the market.

Gee, if local businesses can't afford to be where they are, maybe the Alderman should try to cut out the costs of government for a change. Start with getting rid of the landmark designation. Cut the number of city agencies you need to go through to even get your business up and running in the first instance. Cut city expenses, cut the burden of property taxes. Oh, and if you want to ensure that there are enough people in the area to patronize the businesses in the first instance, maybe you can allow some areas to have their zoning upped, so that there are more condos, leading to higher density and foot traffic.

It irritates me to no end that the only solution the government can think of to the messes it creates is Ta-DAAA!!! more government. Sheesh. We're not worthy of those who turned Boston Harbor into a big teabag because they were ticked off at paying the King's new taxes.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The brains of Chicago Aldermen

So, ok. Not everyone loves Wal-Mart. (I'm a Tarjay-on-Elston gal myself). Spare me the pontifications on big box retailers from those snobby enough to not have to worry about watching their pennies. But our beloved Chicago Aldermen refused to allow Wal-Mart to build within Cook County borders. So Wal-Mart built about a block across the border in Evergreen Park. The result? At a new Wal-Mart, over 25,000 job applicants for 325 full-time jobs (starting salary: $10.99 /hour on average).

Putting it another way, at best only 1.3% of the applicants will get jobs (2.6% if they are all part time, which they supposedly aren't). Applicants have a better chance of getting into Harvard (10.3% admission rate in 2004) or Yale (9.9% admission rate in 2004) than you do of getting a job at this Wal-Mart store. Oh, and the City is foregoing somewhere around a million a year in property and sales tax revenues.

But yeah, this is supposed to be what constitutes taking a stand for "the little guy" on behalf of "corporate greed." Hmmmph. Maybe this time I'll just restrict myself to saying, "Idjits." And a reallly easy stand to take for people raking in around 90K a year to listen to people bitch about potholes.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Contact us.

Feel free to send an email to vocalneighbors@hotmail.com. Give us a return email, or phone number, and we'll get back to you. We know that certain aldermen in particular (Vi Daley, Manny Flores, Tom Tunney, to name a few) are being particularly abusive with the landmarking ordinances towards their constituents. We'll give you some suggestions.

Oh, and don't forget: the Aldermen are up for reelection in 2007.

Where preservation really gets out of hand.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-1881612%2C00.html

Some local villagers in Scotland don't want a developer to start his project because, no joke, they claim that fairies are living under the rocks, and the development process would disturb them.

Now, once you have confirmed that you are not actually reading "The Onion," you would think that such objections would cause their makers to get laughed out of town, right? Or, perhaps told, even if a bit tongue-in-cheek, that if they just start clapping and saying "I believe in fairies," they will ensure the ressurection of the fairies a la Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, even upon movement of the rock?

Oh, not if you are a planning bureaucrat with a cushy government job that insulates you from what we call the real world, rather than fairyland. What those ilk do is buzz back to their little list of rules and regulations. Amazingly, the Planning Inspectorate has no specific guidelines on fairies. But the developer nevertheless has to redesign his project, because, a spokesman said (with all apparent seriousness) that “Planning guidance states that local customs and beliefs must be taken into account when a developer applies for planning permission.”

Maybe Preservation Chicago can try that next. I'm sure they can trot out some ghosts who are living in various neighborhoods, and use that as a reason why nothing new can be built, or anything old improved. Have a seance or two invoking the first Mayor Daley, Al Capone and the Ghost of Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, and you could never change anything in the city ever again! Because if you don't, you're not respecting my beliefs! Quelle horreur.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

A philosophical point.

I've been much chided for the use of the phrase "neighborhood nannies." I suppose I could adopt those of the great author of our U.S. Constitution, and fourth U.S. President, James Madison and just say "obnoxius individuals."

In the Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison discussed why there will always be factions in society that will demand from those in power (i.e., government) sanction and the use of force to effect their interests. He did not expect men to act like angels, and rather presumed that they will always act pursuant to their own selfish interests. He rightly discerned that in raw democratic politics, "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual."

He concluded that "the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controling its effects."

Hence, the need for a republican government (and I am using the term in its classical sense, not the political-parties-of-today sense). Hence, the need for controls on the government's very ability to exercise power in the first instance.

Madison, BTW, was also the primary author of the Bill of Rights, which contains the Fifth Amendment. He, in turn, based a good chunk of it on the Virginia Bill of Rights, which stated:

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

(6th article in Virginia, I believe, but I don't have a direct cite).

The founders of this nation recognized that securing property rights from individual and government tyrrany was essential to liberty. Pity some haven't learned that lesson.

Maybe it is not just "death and taxes," just taxes.

You know the gallows humor of the only things you can be sure of are death and taxes?

So let's assume that you are a little church in Oklahoma. You have a small congregation, and your church is paying no property taxes. If you are a government bureaucrat hunting up revenue, which gospel do you follow: the church, or a big-box retailer?

Why the latter, of course!

The city government is trying to eminent domain the Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. Reverend Roosevelt Gildon opposes it. But in this post-Kelo world, as blessed by our U.S. Supreme Court, the City can grab the land and tear the church down, under the theory that property tax revenues from a strip mall on the land will exceed those proffered by the church.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wilhelm200601170926.asp

Yet another reminder of why protection of property rights is essential to our right to experience all our other liberties...

Alternatives to the Chicago landmarking ordinance

If the city was really serious about supporting the preservation of older homes, then the present ordinance is diametrically opposed to that goal. What are some alternative approaches? Here are a couple:

1) Actually do take the steps to refund/freeze property taxes on older homes to property owners. (Of course, the better result would be for the City to stop wasting money so that our property taxes don't keep rising (and pricing people who have been in a neighborhood for over 30 years out of it as a result of increased assessed values, to boot) -- but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one).

2) Some of you may have heard of what are called "TIF" districts, or tax increment financing districts. They are typically used to revitalize areas of the city that have experienced economic depression of some sort. The basic mechanism of their operation (and I am grossly oversimplifying here) is that property's assessed values are frozen for a certain period of time, and then, as they rise, the extra property tax revenues resulting from the increase are reinvested back into that particular neighborhood's infrastructure (i.e., parks, streetlights, improved sidewalks, etc.). Well, why can't the City do the same with their landmark districts? If you want to motivate landmarking, why not return a good chunk of the property taxes generated from the property owners in the landmarked area back to the homeowners as earmarks so that they can invest them in performing historical renovations/maintenance to their properties?

3) If there is a particular block that has, for example, a series of look-alike homes, or attached houses, you can always privately covenant with each other to not tear down homes, or to maintain certain standards for height/facade/color/building materials of the home, without having to deal with the City or neighborhood association's input. In this way, you can decide what is really important to you (maybe you all just want 3 foot high iron fencing, maybe you only care that the brick or certain architectural detailings remain on the facade, maybe you don't care about the height of additions placed on the back, maybe you just don't want a house paited turquoise) or not. One of the big problems with the Chicago Landmark ordinance is that repairs have to be made according to US Department of the Interior regulations. This is where a lot of the nuttiness about repairing rather than replacing windows, using original building materials, etc. come into play. If you have a privately-negotiated standard, you can decide what elements YOU want to preserve (not what Washington DC thinks you should preserve), and why. So if you don't care to incur the expense of replacing windows with custom varieties made using circa 1910 methods, you don't have to.

Similarly, it would also be possible to establish a local homeowner's association (even if only for a few homes on a block) in which the association (or other homeowner) would have a right of first refusal to buy any home slated for teardown. Again, you would NOT need to go through the city, alderman, neighborhood association to do this. But you would know that whatever agreement you sign with your neighbors is one that you willingly agree to, not one that is shoved down your throat.

I can't tell you how many homeowners I have spoken to who have dealt with the landmarking provisions, who hate the landmarking provisions, but would be willing to accept any one of the above approaches to help preserve homes in their neighborhoods.

Oh, and here's a little anecdote for you. Sitting on the plane, traveling for work. Happen to sit next to a guy who lives in the Old Town/Mid-North landmarked area. A guy on his street wanted to renovate one of the old homes that was starting to look shabby. Part of the renovation involved moving the front entrance to his home from the second floor down to the ground floor. (Doesn't seem too unreasonable, does it?) He also raised his fence height to be identical to that of his other neighbors on the block. He did it, and the neighborhood association went insane. He was forced to rip out his new front door, rebuild some stairs, and return his front entrance to the second floor. And he had to go to court TWICE in order to be able to get his fence approved.

Some say that being anti-landmarking isn't good for neighborhoods. Empowering people do use neighborhood associations to pull this kind of garbage isn't good for them either.