If you watched tonight's city council meeting closely, you could see the Urbana Development Corporation holding a gun to the head of Julian Gorski, the owner of 508 W. Elm who is trying to sell his property.
To make a long story short, the city council passed a 45 day period preventing demolition to preserve historically "significant" properties. 508 is not a historically significant property by any rational argument. Yet, the historic preservation commission and Brandon Bowersox are willing to do anything to prevent apartments from being constructed in their neighborhood.
In this particular situation:
1) Reps from the Urbana Development Corporation encouraged the owner to donate the property or sell it to them at a lowball price, threatening the hassles that await.
2) The Urbana Development Corporation submits a low-ball offer just in the past few days in hopes their political efforts force the owner to sell them at below-market prices. They didn't have the votes tonight, so Charlie Smyth deferred until next council meeting.
My prediction:
Expect a political curve ball to be thrown by Charlie Smyth and Company to ensure the Urbana Development Corporation gets the property at a deeply discounted price.
Property Owners Beware:
According to the precedent set with this protest, ANYONE can petition that your house is historic if ANY of the following apply:
1) If a postmaster lived in your house. There are currently 14 of you according to Julian Gorski.
2) If someone lived in your house who had prominent pallbearers.
3) If a women lived in your house who was president of a state-wide organization, without any reference to influence of the organization.
4) If someone lived in your house who was in a newspaper article.
5) If someone is historically significant (any one of the above), but only lived in the house for 6 years.
Basically, if your neighbor doesn't like your taste they can petition your house historic against your will if it meets ANY of the criteria. This is NOT an exaggeration. You would need their permission to make any changes to the exterior of the house.
The argument against the 45 day period was that this process would be leveraged to screw property owners. I encourage you to watch the city council meeting and listen to Julian Gorski's argument. Take note that an independent expert reported the property was not historically significant. Take note the city staff argued the property was not historically significant. Take note that the Urbana Development Council did not have any interest in the property until someone else wanted it. Take note that Julian Gorski has a contract on his house CONTINGENT upon permits. Get used to ridiculous contingencies if you want to sell your property to an investor in Urbana.
Kudos to the Urbana Development Corporation. They are ruthless and they know how to get their way. Even if this vote goes in favor of Gorski, this is a huge loss for property rights unless they reform the process and provide more SPECIFIC guidance in determining whether or not a property is historically "significant".
I can't believe our laws were written to allow this type of thing, but what can you do?
"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson
yeah, the historic preservation people are friggin nuts. i understand protecting structures with historical value, but the ordinance shouldn't be used to keep out apartment buildings. the appropriate ordinance for that is zoning. and since this property can build an apartment by right in their zone, they should be able to do so (or to sell to someone who will).
but the ordinance shouldn't be used to keep out apartment buildings. the appropriate ordinance for that is zoning.
Agreed. This abuse of "historic preservation" can only hurt future legitimate preservation efforts.
If the property owners around them want to make a "district", then let them put enough money into "a Fund" to buy those properties at a rate that would give them the right of first refusal. I'm not sure I entirely understand the concept, but "I" think it means that They (preservation district, PD)would have to offer market rate and any competing offers would have to be %10 higher than PD's offer. At which time they (PD) could match it, and the "other" would have to go up 10% again.
If the city is SO interested, let them put 3-5 years of their share of property taxes ( from affected properties) into the fund for start up. And IF the city can't do that, because of some law or whatever, then they should shut up, because in my mind that make them a "dis-interested" party!
Whether "First Refusal" works that way or not, I think that's reasonable.. Allowing the PD, and the City, to be "dogs in a manger" is ridiculous!
Basically, Put up or shut up!!!
Converesly, Whatever the seller gets above market rate ( I personally don't think this is right, but maybe as a compromise) perhaps they have to give/donate %10 of the overage ( or some percentage, I made that number up off the top of my head) of that to "said fund". And again not my taste, but compromise, maybe apartment buildings built in that area give %1 per renter (again, off the top of my head, but not an un-pass-on-able amount) of rents into the said fund. The "per renter" clause (I think, but I am not an apartment landlord) discourages 4bdrm apartments ( more parties and unruliness) and encourages better/lower # bdrm apartments.... hopefully = more responsible and less noisy neighbors.
In a few years, some apartments will be built, BUT the fund will be able to buy out the several remaining properties, and/or begin to pay back to the PD for the funds put into it by the originating "single resident" members.
Everybody loses something upfront ( put up or shut up), but everybody gains too, depending on how it's structured, and how big "the fund" is allowed to get before it pays back. In the long run, it could help property owners refurbish or upkeep homes at low to no cost to them, AND increase their property values. And also allows for some apartments, WITH profit to the developer, and with minimal payout (per dollar in) to the developer.
Given my moniker, I HATE compromise that forces all the hurt upon the property owner... but with a little give and take from ALL sides, it hardly seems undoable. AND could be profitable to ALL involved, AND AT LEAST... NOT detrimental to the property owner who bought years ago, with the intention to sell for some future profit.
I agree with curious. IF there are changes to be made to keep out apartments, then zoning is where they should happen, and that would be after full discussion.
Even if that were to happen, it's probably too late to change this property, so, such is life.
That said I DID want to quibble with some comment made earlier on this in the paper, which seemed to imply that if a house has vinyl siding or some other similar update, it should not qualify as historic. That seems silly to me, if a house really IS historic and has other legitimately qualifying features, it's pretty easy to take the siding off, that shouldn't be a deal-breaker. (Not that I am claiming that should be done here.)
B for Business appears to be very upset about this series of events and decisions. I do not live in Urbana, nor do I have an interest in this project, which is filled with many misspent decisions on both sides. Nonetheless, the circumstances are not unusual and happens all the time in many communities across the country. As communities change, good or bad, based on decisions made by city councils, developers are playing along as a game. One of which is "benign neglect." So I the owner lets my property go to rack and ruin. This puts me in the perfect position of making the argument that nothing can be done with it, the cost is too great, it is an eyesore, needs to be torn down, replaced by something that will bring me more money, etc. This applies whether historic or not. And if not historic, the property may have given context/fabric to the whole block/area. So what does a city council do. Play hard ball back, whether through zoning, restrictions, historic preservation, etc. Property rights are very important, but let's be honest and evaluate just how property rights are often misused.
About the Urbana Development Corp--you might double check your facts as to when and how this group wanted to obtain this property and others to help save them and the fabric of downtown Urbana.
Akibare, thanks for mentioning the aluminum siding. This is just a ruse, as is all that I have written above. Whether a place is historic or not, aluminum siding ought not be the deal breaker, can be removed, and if we are lucky, might have preserved the original siding, though this is not often the case , unfortunately because aluminum siding is basically a moisture trap.
My bias comment about what has happened within this community when a building is torn down--95% of the time the replacement building is as ugly as sin and built to last maybe 20 years, the last 10 of which it looks terrible because we are now into the benign neglect cycle.
Caveat--I am one of the 5 people who founded the Preservation and Conservation Association and wrote the by-laws. So I do have a bias.
Pattsi Petrie
I find this whole discussion disturbing. Something I think is funny though is that I bet that this same group of people who fight against compact cheap housing would also denounce “urban sprawl”.
I suppose they just don’t want people to live anywhere or perhaps they just don’t want poor people getting too close.
"My bias comment about what has happened within this community when a building is torn down--95% of the time the replacement building is as ugly as sin and built to last maybe 20 years, the last 10 of which it looks terrible because we are now into the benign neglect cycle."
Similarly, I have a disdain for fat people. I just can't stand the sight of them. Does that make me a good person because I would rather see pretty and it people? I mean, that would be better for everyone, right?
I would argue that it's not so much the issue of apartments per se, but rather the sort of apartments that are often tossed up on the cheap and built to last only 20 years max.
Balloon frame apartments on stilts over a bare parking lot, dumpsters on the side. What possible excuses for green space remain are generally not maintained, and become weed patches, often with deep ruts filled with mud as drivers aren't so careful about making the corner and utility vehicles follow suit. Eventually some end up with what amounts to gravel parking lots on the side, also there are the obnoxious light up advertising signs on some buildings.
Bottom line is, people living in those neighborhoods who have been around a while KNOW what happened to the Champaign part of campustown - block after block after block of these cheap apartments, causing the street level to be nothing but one parking lot after another with trash around. When these start to get shabby, the look is even worse. As a result, people are saying hey, you know what? We don't want that to happen to our neighborhood. Because you know what? It brings our property values down.
So, there are zoning plans (long term, discussed as areas, majority vote taken) and there are style requirements (mainly to say that the standard balloon frame apartment block on stilts is no good, you must have a nice street fronting and longer lasting materials). Apartments have been built to those standards on Green and elsewhere (in Urbana!), and I've not heard much complaining about those.
Thing is, very often the next complaint is "b...b...b...but if you don't let me toss up the standard cheap econo-box, I can't make enough profit." That is when the council, as always, says "don't let the door hit ya on the way out."
Like I said above, I agree with curious, I don't think the historical preservation is going to win out on this house and having talked with some people related, I don't think it's really the appropriate way to go, although I do understand the "try everything we have" motivation. But at the same time, these cases shouldn't be looked at only in isolation either, these are skirmishes in a much bigger conflict over the direction of the neighborhood and what sort of building standards/zoning people want to see there.
Furthermore, if more of the campustown apartments were more pleasant to look at and better maintained, they would not engender quite the visceral "apartments??? No way!!" reaction that so many plans get. If there was NOT in fact a pattern of "benign neglect and teardown" going on for decades, every person wishing to sell a house and retire wouldn't be jumped on like this, either.
Is it a few people screwing it up for the rest? Quite possibly.
Anonymous 9:53A--wow, comparing an animate to an inanimate object. Now if ever there was a ruse, this is it in spades.
Pattsi Petrie
"So I the owner lets my property go to rack and ruin. This puts me in the perfect position of making the argument that nothing can be done with it, the cost is too great, it is an eyesore, needs to be torn down, replaced by something that will bring me more money, etc."
Nobody is making this argument for 508 W Elm. You are assuming this is the argument because Howard Wakeland made this argument on his contested property. The argument is whether or not the property is historically "significant".
"Play hard ball back, whether through zoning, restrictions, historic preservation, etc. Property rights are very important, but let's be honest and evaluate just how property rights are often misused."
Playing hardball is not letting the conservationists have the property and watching it whither into itself while bombarding them with costly litigation. The only ones playing hardball are the activists stealing properties from their rightful owners under the premise of historical preservation. Even Howard the Horrible is only asking for him to continue with his development and is not seeking financial rewards.
I just read the N-G article about the Urbana city council meeting where this was discussed. Most of the N-G article focuses on the 100+ properties in east Urbana that were "down zoned." (Actually, a much better term is zoned to present usage.) In any case, this leads me to wonder if B fo B has a vested interest in the Elm St. property or other property purchased for development.
Whether benign neglect is being used with the Elm Street property, implicitely it is the issue.
Not only are the replacement property not an addition to improving the look of the community, they are not sustainably built, thus adding to the pollution within the community.
Pattsi Petrie
I think there are two different issues here.
Normally, I'd say, sure, this is a zoning issue, not a historical preservation issue. East Urbana just downzoned over a hundred lots to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, based on a very clear mandate from the home owners in the area. But
-- there are strong arguments to be made both for and against the historicity of this particular house;
-- there are historical landmarks very near it on either side;
-- there is a very sore thumb of a cheap, damaged, siding-peeling apartment building jutting right out almost to the sidewalk (owing to a zoning loophole that is now plugged), right next to the property in question, hanging out there being exactly the nightmare example it shouldn't be, and it's a good part of the reason the neighborhood came out in such force with the only tool they had to keep the same thing from happening again.
This is a close one, and there are good arguments on both sides, but the home owners in the neighborhood are very plainly saying they don't want their property values being driven down by the removal of a century-old mansion and the appearance of yet another JSM vinyl beehive on stilts.
I would argue that it's not so much the issue of apartments per se, but rather the sort of apartments that are often tossed up on the cheap and built to last only 20 years max.
Balloon frame apartments on stilts over a bare parking lot, dumpsters on the side. What possible excuses for green space remain are generally not maintained, and become weed patches, often with deep ruts filled with mud as drivers aren't so careful about making the corner and utility vehicles follow suit. Eventually some end up with what amounts to gravel parking lots on the side, also there are the obnoxious light up advertising signs on some buildings.
I agree that those are horrible and have no problem with zoning laws. However, it would be nice if there could be minimal surprises -- ideally, someone purchasing a property would have a clear idea at the outset what they could and couldn't do with it. There are many empty storefronts in downtown Urbana, and I've wondered whether that has anything to do with Urbana being considered less business-friendly than Champaign.
One ought to take a few moments to talk with the folks at the Co-op to get another view about which community is more business friendly. The Co-op had identified a downtown Champaign property that better met their venue criteria. However, the lack of willingness on the part of Champaign to be business friendly enabled Urbana, being more business friendly, to facilitate the present location.
Pattsi Petrie
Why is it that when I see people apparently complaining about "apartments", part of my brain thinks the word they really mean to use is "students"?
What is co-op and how was Urbana more business friendly than Champaign in this particular instance?
nattering.nabob mentioned the eyesore of an apartment building next to the structure in question. one thing that has changed in recent years is the establishment of development review in that area. so any apartment building that would get built has to meet design review criteria and pass the development review board (and probably city council too i suppose). the design criteria easily weed out these types of eyesores. there are a couple of very nice new apartment buildings on the southeast and southwest corners of busey and green that i think would meet the criteria (although these may predate the actual establishment of those criteria).
in other words, the neighborhood is unlikely to see anymore ugly apartment buildings no matter what happens with this case.
I think what is troubling to me is the suggestion that the Urbana Development Corporation is able to use the City to try to force a sale at a low-ball price or demand that it be donated to them. It may be legal, but it doesn't appear to be a great way to generate support or a wise use of government.
Wow--this is just what one poster stated. Why take this as fact without consulting with someone connected with the organization? Misinformation flies on this blog, especially secondary and tertiary data.
Pattsi Petrie
Fascinating. I thought the folks on this blog were big into democratic process and the power of the people. This action on the part of the Urbana City Council was in response to the overwhelming majority of the people who live in the neighborhood. In addition I find it fascinating that the same people who claim that action by government has reduced their property values and that they should be compensated feel no such obligation when it comes to the increase in the value of their property when government supplies the property with value by improving infrastructure, changing zoning, etc. Why should the tax payers not profit from the increase in your property value since they paid for the improvements that created the increase in your property value in the first place? Add in the fact that the vast majority of the residents asked for this change and it seems to me that the democratic process worked just as it is supposed to.
Pattsi, to pretend that the Urbana Development Corporation is not intending to force a low-priced sale is absolutely crazy.
Just because they incorporate shady tactics under the umbrella of "historic preservation", does not make those tactics any less shady.
Kudos to Curious who knows what's going on in Urbana. There are clear building guidelines to ensure that MOR conforms with the look and feel of the neighborhood.
The actions of the EDC are probably legal, but Urbana is showing what they are all about with this property. Completely unpredictable and unreasonable!
"(Actually, a much better term is zoned to present usage.)" Looking around 508 W Elm, it basically apartment buildings and apartment houses.
Everyone who owns a house in Urbana has a vested interest in this case.
"implicitely it is the issue" You must be smarter than the rest of us simple folks who look at the rules and follow them as they are written. Can you advise on all the other implicit issues investors should consider since they cannot rely on plans, rules, and guidelines?
"Fascinating. I thought the folks on this blog were big into democratic process and the power of the people."
In the USA, individuals are insulated from majority rule with certain rights and privileges. Clearly those rights and privileges are not as strong as I'd like them to be when a small group of vocal political activists (who are very good at what they do) can steal a property in such an obvious manner.
Misinformation flies on this blog, especially secondary and tertiary data.
So I will repeat my question,
Pattsi- What is co-op and how was Urbana more business friendly than Champaign in this particular instance?
"Wow--this is just what one poster stated. Why take this as fact without consulting with someone connected with the organization? Misinformation flies on this blog, especially secondary and tertiary data."
I encourage everyone to contact that organization and ask them what they offered on the property after the set up the process so nobody else would ever consider buying the property. You will probably get a good laugh and realize what I'm talking about. I encourage you to ask them if they threatened the owner with the "hassles that await".
These people know exactly what they are doing. Trying to steal a property so boldly is almost impressive to me.
Here's a better idea. Why don't *you* do it, and then tell us what they tell you. Unless of course you're simply inviting people to harass them by phone.
Speaking of which, there's no "Urbana Development Corporation" in the phone book. Who exactly are you recommending we harass, again?
I certainly would not suggest that anyone "harass" them, only "consult with someone connected with the organization" as Pattsi suggested if you want to validate the information posted in thread.
Watching the council meeting, I understood the Urbana Development Council made an offer. Sources confirm the offer was very low and this information will be public soon enough. If I noted the name of the organization wrongly (I was watching the meeting and noted it), please correct me.
The only person being harassed is Julian Gorski who is likely to take a huge hit to his retirement plans. 508 W. Elm was his only income property.
Compare
with
If you're asking lots of people to ask them exactly the same question, then in my book you're asking people to harass them.
So when you contacted them, whatever they're called, what did they say about their bid?
What is the definition of a liberal? I think a liberal is someone that wants to spend your money because they want to do what is best for themselves. I have found that a liberal is really not very liberal when it comes to someone elses property. Basically they want to have a say in what you do with your property whenever it suits them. I will give you a good example of that. In about 1980 the liberal members of the Urbana City Council-Bernadine Stake, Frieda Washer, to name two, were all for changing the definition of a single family home to include no more than two, unrelated persons. The same group that brought you the Urbana 9 (really 10) open meeting act violation. They were unsuccessful in changing the definition from 4 to 2, but it sure was not for lack of trying. They wanted to keep students out of the parade of State streets. It is the same folks who are back there now. Back then I remember the picket signs, "last one out of Urbana, turn out the lights."
There was a rebellion against this when the tax base started to contract, but I can assure you that comments such as the ones I have seen here does not attract and keep a tax base in this town. Does anyone disagree with me on that?
To Anonymous 4:57P--the Co-op is the grocery store once housed in the Disciple Church at the corner of Springfield and Wright and now moved to the west side of Lincoln Village. I was not directly on the Co-op venue selection committee so I can not tell you point by point, but generally as reported to the Co-op membership, yes, I am a member, and reported via email to the membership, the major difference between the two communities was the overt willingness to enable as best as could be done the move of the Co-op to Lincoln Village compared to the "we could not care less and we are not doing anything to help" reception given by the city of Champaign. As always, I encourage anyone to check with someone who served on this Co-op committee. It was a very long, democratic process to choose the new venue.
Just because I make a suggestion that individuals of an organization be contacted to make certain information being shared is accurate is not harrassment. And for this to be explicitely posted helps me better understand why so many posts are "shoot from the hip" rather than concrete information. I do know the people connected with the Urbana Develpment Corp and some of the information connected with the Elm Street situation. But my knowledge is much to sketchy to post because all I would be doing is giving an incomplete picture. Carol Baxley, who owns the Cinema Gallery, is involved. The Gallery is open during most days so just stop by and ask her.
Pattsi Petrie
"What is the definition of a liberal?"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
"Does anyone disagree with me on that?"
Yep.
"If you're asking lots of people to ask them exactly the same question, then in my book you're asking people to harass them"
I supplemented my initial statement and certainly do not encourage anyone to "harass" someone for the sake of doing so.
"And for this to be explicitely posted helps me better understand why so many posts are "shoot from the hip" rather than concrete information."
Did that group threaten the owner with the "hassles that wait" while encouraging him to donate or sell their house to them at a lowball price - Yes.
Can someone go in and build one of those crappy apartments after the new building guidelines were recently established - No.
Does the zoning permit apartments? - Yes, under strict design guidelines.
Does this impact homeowners in Urbana with the new precedents set - Yes.
Was the historical preservation process used to stop apartments from being built even though the house is not historic? - No doubt.
Is this legal? Probably.
Again, kudos to the Urbana Development Corporation. They are very good at what they do!
Thanks Pattsi for helping the clown. I did not note the individuals who were speaking at the council meeting.
Sorry for the continued threadjack, but I am intrigued by Pattsi's idea of business friendly. She makes a definitive statement that Urbana is more business friendly than Champaign and cites the co-op as an illustration, but admits that she does not know the circumstances surrounding that situation. Upon researching I found this nugget..."The relocation price tag will be paid with help from city funds,". Is it possible that Champaign was unwilling to use taxpayer money to fund the move of a private business, a business that you have to buy a membership in to use at that? Is it also possible that Urbana was so desperate to get a business in Lincoln Square that they were more than happy to write a check? If so, I would argue that Urbana is doing it's other grocers and markets a dis-service by subsidizing this particular one and not being business friendly at all.
Business friendly is a weird term, and I would suggest that for a city to truely be business friendly it must be friendly to all businesses evenly and allow them to succeed or fail on their own without too much interference.
It's not necessary to be a member of Common Ground to shop there.
There are many empty storefronts in downtown Urbana, and I've wondered whether that has anything to do with Urbana being considered less business-friendly than Champaign.
There are actually way more empty storefronts in downtown Champaign these days. Check it out for yourself - downtown Urbana is almost full at this point.
The family went out to the Monicals at Windsor and Philo last week - wow, is that a nice new development. I know some folks who live just south of there and they're not happy, but with a so many local businesses putting up new storefronts and doing good business I have to say it seems like a big success. And the kid just loved the bear statue - nice touch, along with the mandated brick fascades (sp?) and the excellent landscaping. It's almost like a park back there.
Of course there is also the new Meijer, which I am ambivalent about. However, I get the feeling that a lot of students are going to find the quick trip down Windsor an easier drive than the painful trip up to N. Prospect Meijer. And Meijer seems to be a favorite with the students, so this definitely seems like a cash cow for the city.
New Menards should be going in soon as well. This worries me because I love my trips to Sunnycrest True Value, but I have feeling they'll survive.
All in all, I think Urbana has turned it around pretty mightily. And they've done it without bending completely over for the business community. They have sensible regulations and demands on new developments, which makes everything much nicer and built to last.
Does anyone know anything about the impact fees these new developments are paying? I haven't been paying attention lately.
If so, I would argue that Urbana is doing it's other grocers and markets a dis-service by subsidizing this particular one and not being business friendly at all.
The Co-Op is an institution in CU and was a real coup to bring it to Lincoln Square. Since I live close to it now I will be using it all the time, as will many of my neighbors. It is actually a little exciting piece of news in our hood that the co-op went in - many people are thrilled. But either way, I don't understand why large tax breaks and free land for out-of-town developers in Champaign is considered "good business practice" but assitance for local businesses to grow and expand into Urbana is "not business friendly at all".
Someone remind me -- how much taxpayer money did Champaign put into One Main and M2? Bucketsful, if I remember right. But that's different. That's Champaign.
Thanks Anonymous 9:56A for reminding everyone just how much money Champaign has put into projects. The inequality of targeted projects ought to be a point of discussion--who gets help and who does not. If one analyzes the costs to the community for all of the TIF districts and Enterprise Zones, the handouts are massive. The county board this coming Thurs. will probably approve the extension of an EZ in conjunction with the agreement with Champaign. It is a situation that does not need this incentive as is the case with most of the economic development in this area. Again, I encourage people to read Greg Leroy's book, The great American job scam. No, I do not get a cut for mentioning the book. As I listened to the arguments given for supporting the EZ entension last night at the Democratic caucus meeting, I shuttered at the banal arguments for support. All of which have no concrete data to back up the statements. There have been no studies to show whether any of the economic development incentives actually correlate with the development or how much would have occurred otherwise. Most companies just play one community off the other about the incentives when back in the board room the decisions are based on the quality of the work force, good schools, safe community, public transportation, good park districts, access to a good airport, etc. Not how much can be gotten out of the community to pay us to come.
Pattsi Petrie
Deleted a duplicate posting. Pattsi Petrie
You do not need to belong to the co-op to shop there.
The #5 Green Hopper bus goes to the new Meijer (it's even listed as a destination on the sign) which makes it very easy to get to for students.
Last night, I took at look at the property, and it was dilapidated. The back yard was a mess of overgrown vegetation, including trees. I couldn't get close enough to tell whether there were any junk trees near the house's foundation. The attic window on the west side of the house appeared to be completely uncovered.
How much did the Urbana Development Corporation offer for the house? If they buy it, would they have to come up with the money to fix the problems?
The #5 Green Hopper bus goes to the new Meijer (it's even listed as a destination on the sign) which makes it very easy to get to for students.
Orange might too. Meijer always seemed more pleasant than Wal-Mart, and I'm happy to see it going up. It also impressed me that they were selling biodiesel (IIRC, cheaper than diesel).
I will respectfully ask that everyone try and stay on topic. There are plenty of tools on this site that enable someone to create a thread about any topic....without having to go on a tangent about other topics. (e.g. the business friendliness of Champaign vs. Urbana)
You can see a lot of the relevant documents (along with some photos of the property) at http://www.ci.urbana.il.us/Urbana/City_Council/Agendas/09-15-2008/ordinance_2008-09-117.pdf
The clown stated, "This is a close one, and there are good arguments on both sides". While I agree there are passionate arguments one side, there are only good arguments on one side. If anyone has a good argument to argue that the property "significantly" contributes to the history of Urbana, please share with us. What exactly are those "good" arguments?
Thanks for the link Wayward.
"While I agree there are passionate arguments one side, there are only good arguments on one side."
An opinion asserted as fact, as even a clown can recognize.
I admire your wit. So what are those "good arguments" that demonstrate the house has significantly contributed to the history of urbana? You are the one who said it so that's why I'm asking.
I'm swallowing the regurg coming up my throat right now and saying publicly, for the record......I agree with B on this......I guess that wasn't so bad.
I find it extremely frightening that a group can use backdoor tactics to keep a property owner from selling their property. That's not democratic, it's sleazy.
"I find it extremely frightening that a group can use backdoor tactics to keep a property owner from selling their property. That's not democratic, it's sleazy."
I would like to think most rational people (not just conservatives who care about property rights) would agree with that statement. On that note, kudos to Lynn Barnes for calling them out at the council meeting.
I would also like to think that all urbana folks would like to fight the "urbana bozo" reputation. Instead, they only enhance that reputation and pull this kind of stuff. It is not the " overwhelming majority of the people who live in the neighborhood", but instead a few activists acting like Al Capone.
But it IS the majority of folks living in that neighborhood.
This is not happening in isolation. Far from it.
I don't think the history or structure of 508 W Elm justifies any special historical status.
I have lived in my home for 28 years. Am I enough of a historically significant
characterfigure so that my house or one or both of two small apartment buildings I have owned in Urbana for 25+ years should be given historical status ? I probably have more name recognition than most of the city council membersMichael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
It has been shared with me that the Urbana Development Corp is a new community development corporation whose purpose is to acquire single family houses that have been converted to apartments, reconvert them, and resell them to single family owners. John Moloney's comments above seem to be on track.
It certainly supports their cause when they force property values low enough to support their pro-formas by eliminating the competition. These people are are geniuses. A book should be written about them. They can give the most notoriously-shrewd CEOs a run for their money.
"But it IS the majority of folks living in that neighborhood."
Based on what?
If the Urbana Development Corporation feels that strongly about wanting to rehab the house, why don't they just match or beat the existing offer on the property? If they owned it, they could probably get it registered as a historic building with little controversy and it would be clear to any future buyer that the house could not be torn down for an apartment building.
The various votes taken on the rezonings and such, and word on the street just walking around there. Same with the recent zoning changes in East Urbana.
"If the Urbana Development Corporation feels that strongly about wanting to rehab the house, why don't they just match or beat the existing offer on the property?"
Because they'd have to break-even. They probably cannot do this unless they force property values low enough to make their numbers work. I suspect on this type of project, they have to completely gut the inside no matter the existing condition.
"The various votes taken on the rezonings and such, and word on the street just walking around there."
There are certainly passionate and vocal people in the neighborhood. I'm not convinced they represent the majority of residents.
And I'm not convinced it's some small person conspiracy. So I guess that makes us even.
I suppose it all could be an incredibly convenient coincidence. I am a proponent of keeping all options open. : )
Without question there has been some nice development in southeast Urbana, but if you will check the history of that development you will find it was Bruce Walden who was at the point and not the present administration. As I have said before, these things take time and the Meijer store was on the shelf for many years. As for it being a cash cow, one might check the perks given to them to build here.
The Menards store will cost Urbana dearly for the Rte 130 improvements being required by the State of Illinois. The last I heard Menards was NOT going to contribute to those improvements.
It is now common knowledge and I have gotten the petition papers for running for the Mayor of Urbana. I do so because the Urbana government is out of control with micromanagement and absent creative development ordinances to support the green ideas (which I also support in theory). Mayor Purssing has spent a lot of money traveling around the country and has not learned a damned thing about historic preservation or business improvements. Saying those trips benefited her is idle tongue flapping. If I were Mayor, and any of the Staff or Elected Officials traveled on Public money, I would REQUIRE a complete informative written report that describes the benefit of those trips for the City of Urbana. No report, no expense reimbursements. I have neither seen nor heard any constructive details of those travel expenditures.
The Historic Preservation Ordinances and organizations are ineffective and random in doing what they should be doing and no one is around to suggest any administrative changes. We have not had any REQUIRED Administrative Officer for over a year and those are things that office normally initiated. In fact, in Urbana, in the Historic District, the oldest tree in Champaign County and Urbana was recently fatally damaged because the strict Urbana ordinances (by Mayor Prussing) did not allow a simple sanitary hook up to be constructed and required the roots system of a tree which was nearly twice as old as Urbana to be fatally injured. What the Hell is Historic preservation if it protects old houses with aluminum siding and not long standing historic trees?
And to Curious,
This is another time we are in complete agreement. I have said many times before, other ordinances are in effect that do control many of these re-visited issues and looks like you have been paying attention. Thanks.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex wrote: Saying those trips benefited her is idle tongue flapping.
Your ranting about this is unconvincing. Your propensity for hyperbole and metaphor rather then substantive argument will condemn you mayoral bid.
Rex wrote: If I were Mayor, and any of the Staff or Elected Officials traveled on Public money, I would REQUIRE a complete informative written report that describes the benefit of those trips for the City of Urbana. No report, no expense reimbursements. I have neither seen nor heard any constructive details of those travel expenditures.
It would be better if you requested, before the official attended, a paragraph or two concerning the likely beneifts to the city. A post-trip page or two or a several minute meeting with you would also be justified.
Rex wrote: .....strict Urbana ordinances (by Mayor Prussing) did not allow a simple sanitary hookup ..
What ordinances by Mayor Prussing are you referring to ?
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
I will respectfully ask that everyone try and stay on topic. There are plenty of tools on this site that enable someone to create a thread about any topic....without having to go on a tangent about other topics. (e.g. that Mayor Prussing should be required to submit travel summaries)
I'm really dissapointed that nobody can make a good argument FOR historical designation. I guess the process doesn't require you to make one.
Michael,
The ordinances concerning Sanitary sewer connections to the city sewer system. The specifics are no sanitary sewer connections from two different lots cannot be connected into a single sanitary sewer connection to the main line. And in this case, the connection already existed but the building on the lot was being replaced. How's that?
Meet me at your convenience at a place of your convenience and I will take you on a tour of the damaged tree, with the City Arbourist if you like.
The brochures concerning those meetings and conventions, are adequate information to determine if you BELIEVE they may contain some material of benefit. But the benefit is naught if you don't share it with the general public.
Just think when ideas or suggestions are public, like this site, then individuals like you have the opportunity to suggest or criticize or applaud and everyone benefits from constructive input because the information became public. That is the point.
And for god's sake, cut out the crap about all the detail for a suggestion. Even Obama does not give all the details to an idea in his speeches. Sure any ordinance requiring a report should include many other details, like method of travel, amount of registration, other similar nearby meetings with same information, ad nausum, but not at its conception.
B, here is the argument.
History cannot be replaced, it exists at a singular moment in time and its destruction is irreplaceable. To turn a blind eye to the destruction of history is to invite repetition of mistakes or any other issue associated with that history. The protection for that history must take place when the history exists. But the preservation of History should be complete, otherwise the History is clouded by incompleteness by those who visit it later.
Historical preservation ordinances should be complete and address not only inhabitable structures, but also streets, walkways, vegetation, furnishings, literature and unique architecture not ever seen (Frank L Wright for instance). Age is not necessarily the only criteria, but completeness should be.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex,
You are arguing that history cannot be replaced and the preservation of history should be complete. This is extremely vague. At some point we need to descend from 20,000 feet and determine whether or not a property "signficantly" contributes to the history of urbana. This is particularly important if we are going to designate a property historic against the will of the property owner. The current ordinance provides that if a property "signficantly" contributes to the history of Urbana in any one of three areas, someone can designate a property against the will of the current owner. Considering the implications, we need to be less vague and be more clear about what consitutes historically signficant. If we are vague, an individual who doesn't like you might designate your house as historic because a postmaster lived there.
B,
I could not agree more with you.
Brevity, which I am rarely accused of on this site, leads to vagueness.
But you are right on point about what you are saying. When the Council was originally considering the renters ordinance and to some degree, this historic ordinance, I testified in front of them warning of the perils of "knee jerk" legislation, and the absolute need to carefully consider all aspects of what they were doing. They ignored my suggestion and we are at this point with some very very very owner invasive laws. Hence my reference to the completeness of any such ordinances.
One of the missing criteria in these ordinances is compensation to protect history. Obviously, I am all for preservation of necessary history, but not on the backs of an unsuspecting owner. For example, let's say a property owner, unknowingly owns a Frank L. Wright home and it is discovered by the City to be one of Franks homes. Clearly, because of its significant historic and unusual nature, the public should have a right to view and benefit from that home and its architecture forever. But the owner should have the right to recover his unknowing investment. Both issues are very important, we cannot allow the home to be destroyed because history is lost, but we cannot financially destroy the owner, either.
So a vehicle such as a historic tax source by the State, Cities, Park District, could be formed and a fund to protect both issues would be available to implement that protection.
That responsibility to spend money removes the possibility of historic designation for hate reasons, and still protects the history and rights of ownership.
All the present ordinances duck the issue that the Public might not mind paying for the preservation of history, but only for that history the public deems proper for protection. They instead put all the burden on the ownership of property. I said it was wrong when I testified, and I say it now.
Hope that helps and is a little more clear on one of my criteria for completeness.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
O.K. I know I ought not write this post, but I can not resist since Frank Lloyd Wright (FLW) has been brought into the conversation mix. What is needed here is a complete negation of viewing this property as a scraper and creatively integrate what FLW did with the Dana House. This little white house on Elm is being dominated by some of the ugliest apartment buildings allowed in the community and archored by two great Queen Anne houses that are being treated with benign neglect. If one were willing to think outside the box, a creative architect could save the Elm Street house and turn it into an interesting co-op or cohousing by wrapping an appropriate addition around the house, just like the Dana House. So we do not have FLW in the community, but there are plenty of architecture students who would jump at such a challenge. Think big, think creatively, make a statement on Elm Street.
Pattsi Petrie
"Think big, think creatively, make a statement on Elm Street."
I can picture that on a sign. : )
I call it creative when people get to decide what do with someone else's property without having to pay a fair price for it. A think it is a big deal if a small group of people can use government to screw a property owner out of his investment. A statement has certainly been made on Elm street.
Ah, you miss my point, the present owner of the property could show more creativity.
Pattsi Petrie
I personally think he should paint his house red, but I don't think he should be forced to.
Pattsi,
The creativity should be in the protective ordinances, not up to the property owner. Many property owners have different priorities than complete historic preservation and are more often than not driven by the dollar. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but it does not serve for the protection of the history.
I have said it before and in the council chamber. Take a trip to New Orleans, and check out their historic ordinances. They work and they work for more than one good reason. In New Orleans, ,with limited exception, if a developer wants to put up a new building, they must retain the old appearance from the street, if the City allows the destruction of the old interior structure. A great idea and can be accomplished by what you suggest, creative architects.
Prussing took a trip to New Orleans, but did she check out the Ordinance?........Nope.
But any such ordinance cannot be SHOVED down the throats of property owners. Such ordinances must allow the property owners time to adjust his plans for his investments, seek other avenues to realize return on his investment while still not destroying history. 3 to 4 years would not be a bad time frame before an ordinance was completely implemented.
Knee jerk legislation, which is what B's blog is all about, NEVER nethier considers nor allows any financial reaction time for the owners, and does not provide any compensation for the ordinance. At the very least, Urbana should spring for a jar of Vaseline for the owners, if they want to continue this type of legislation.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
It is a bit of a tough comparison Urbana v. New Orleans; one not steeped in history and the other so deeply steeped. Besides this, there is an interesting Louisiana Supreme Court case. Basically, the case brief had to do with a historic building that had decayed beyond repair, argued the owner, and all due to benign neglect. The counter argument had to do with the historic value and fabric of the block and area. It was shown beyond a doubt that the condition of the building was due to the fact that the owner did not put any money into keeping the building in good repair, not even bare minimum. The SC decision was that, indeed, the building was of historic value and it was up to the owner to bring the building back to original historic condition. This probably is a bit of a different context than Urbana, IL. And lends understanding to the historic preservation ordinance(s) that exist not only in New Orleans, but the rest of the state. There are even historic places in the NE that have not only exterior easements/covenants, but also interior. Again, this is not likely to happen here. Just a bit of background history--preservation history. :-)
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi,
Yep, but it is a great place to start. I would prefer looking at New Orleans as a source of possible ideas, than not looking at all.
Thanks for posting some of the history,
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
It is too bad Urbana doesn't have a comprehensive plan that you can reference to make assumptions.
Rex wrote: The ordinances concerning Sanitary sewer connections to the city sewer system.
But these ordinances are not Prussing's doing as you suggested in a previous post
Rex wrote: Meet me at your convenience at a place of your convenience and I will take you on a tour of the damaged tree, with the City Arbourist if you like.
Could you arrange a News-Gazette reporter or the weekly environment columnist Rob Kanter to do a story on the tree and its demise?
I can meet you Monday, Wed or Fri afternoons to view the tree.
Rex wrote: And for god's sake, ....
Appealing to a deity will hurt your election bid in Urbana.
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
Michael,
Give me a call, I am in the book, sounds good to me. I will call Bob or Tom K.
Every year when the City Council votes on the general updates of the codes, they vote on the approval of the new codes and the continuation of codes which are presently existing. Last time I checked she does vote.
Also when a Mayor is inflexible in the code enforcement, with the threat of termination to any city employee who does differently, they become her codes, which they are anyway, she is the mayor and it is her office or under her authority that enforces the code. The Mayor has the authority to allow that flexibilty and she does not.
"hyperbole and metaphor rather then substantive argument...."
Michael, I am not sure you understand how vindictive Prussing is, and my not being absolutely detailed in some of my comments is to protect some of the City Employees from being fired. If she even THINKS someone is making her look bad or discourages her from doing something not quite above board, they will be fired. I never want to jeopardize anyone's livelihood in the interest of something like this blog or a political campaign. You can dash off every synonym or related element of speech suggesting differently and it "ain't" gonna happen.
I have been very careful to not suggest or prove things which I feel are important that should be in the public eye for exactly those reasons. (That proof obviously would lead to an individual(s) and Prussing would follow the trail. My doing them would allow some nay sayers to imply it is just political hacking and lose track of the importance of the issues. However, they do not show up in the News Gazette by accident and when it is in the paper, it gives a little more credibility. Besides, just exactly how responsive and detailed a report do you think the City Clerk would give me if I made the Freedom Of Information request?
A year ago, I said when she fired Bruce Walden, for "personal reasons" that the City would be unable to find a qualified candidate for his replacement, because what truly qualified Administrative Officer would give up their present position to work for someone who fires 33 year employee for personal reasons. Especially, when that employee was doing such a bad job he was hired by the neighboring City to do similar tasks in less than two weeks. There are 4 or 5 very qualified individuals employed by the City now, who could certainly be the Administrative Officer, and are ABSOLUTELY not interested in working for her in that position. If I am elected, that office will be filled immediately by a very qualified local individual.
Government by ineptness and fear is a very ineffective government.
The destruction of that historic tree in the historic preservation district formed by her under her ordinances is but one of many examples.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Mr. Bradfield: Will you, if elected, ask Mr Walden if he wants to return to his position as CAO ?
Interesting,
I have a close friend who said, that sometime soon someone would ask that exact question. Maybe he should be in the Soo Sayer Business.
The (Chief) Administrative Officer, is a position that requires extensive familiarity with the City and its Ordinances, Staff, Operations and other local and State Government officials and Elected Representatives or a resume' that includes previous job performance in a similar employment position in another City or large corporation. By ordinance, it is the most important City Staff Position in the Government of Urbana.
Clearly, Mr. Walden probably has the best credentials of any candidate who would apply for that particular position. In fact, his credentials would make him a leading candidate for any Administrative Officer Position, especially in this area, or to a lesser degree, other municipalities in the State of Illinois.
But Mr. Walden has re-settled his life and is now employed locally in a position that requires similar skills. He has obviously not been treated very fairly by the City of Urbana and I do not know if he would seek that position again. Obviously, if he chose to submit an application and resume' for the position it would be considered with all others, with the ultimate choice being what is best for the City of Urbana.
Presently, the City of Urbana, has a complete novice in that position with absolutely no prior experience. I would never choose that type of individual for the most important administrative position in the City. Would you chose a novice for the most important position in your business?
It will be very very very difficult for the City to fill that position now, because any potential applicant, has to understand the Mayor office might change in 7 months and their employment be tenuous at the very best. The position has the stain of a Mayor that fired an individual who was there for 33 years, and now the additional stain of there being a possibility of it being a short term position because of a the possibility of a Mayoral change and the new Mayor not wanting a "YES MAN", but rather someone who can run the City.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield