VOCAL Neighbors

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.

posted by The Grants @ 10:04 AM