|
|
"Scary . . .
"
was one reaction to the
tongue-in-cheek picture at left, which was published as part of a Detroit
News article about Citizens for Property Rights. [See]
|
If you want to save it, buy it
God bless them.
"A preservation group is raising a fuss over a plan to bulldoze a
50-year-old house that reeks of cat urine and possibly black mold." If that
sounds familiar, it's probably because it reminds you of the Royal Oak
controversy over the deteriorating Water Works Building. [Update:
17 Aug 05: Latest news is that the city has decided to raze the building.]
In Commerce Township, historical
buffs are doing the usual, including demanding that the city prove that rehab costs
cannot be justified. Reporting the ongoing story, the Detroit News editorializes: "History buffs should seek private funds to preserve the
19th century site."
The Detroit News is apparently on a tear:
one clipping in VersagiVoice's files is a brief editorial reminding Plymouth
history buffs that "Cities should not be in the business of running movie
houses." Some citizens hope to raise $2 million in private and public
donations to save an old, closed, theater. The News suggests that using
public funds is "fine, as long as the public funds are in the form of
grants from other levels of government for preserving historic structures"
and not local taxes.
In Arkansas, a 70-year-old woman living alone
bought a fixer-upper which happens to be in a "historic district."
The area is high-crime, so, many homes in the area have bars on the windows. She
replaced deteriorated windows with vinyl and put bars on them, and she has been
charged with code violations and taken to court. The government wants wood
windows and removal of the bars. Strict rules must be followed, the city
insists, for the district to retain its historic designation. Oh, well. -- 22
March 2005
How
widespread was, is, interest in historic designation in Royal Oak?
At the peak of the Barton Towers battle, the City mailed hundreds of
letters to homeowners, inviting them to volunteer for historic designation.
Proponents of mandated historic designation claimed there were scores of
homeowners ready to apply. Eleven finally did. Some of the statements
made at the time make interesting reading, and 20-some quotations are recorded
here.
All is not
well in Historic Land
Developments from other areas: Franklin, Birmingham, Huntington Woods, Rochester
. . . even a landmark case about landmark designation in Illinois.
Aug 2010
Mandated historic
preservation is an
unfunded mandate
Homeowners are resigned
to having to follow
official rulings about
what the homeowner
cannot do. They are
less resigned to city
officials telling them
what they must
do.
In Clawson, a
homeowner is being told
he must pay $28,000,
instead of $14,000, for
replacement windows.
The less expensive
windows fail to meet
historic preservation
criteria.
The house is in a "designated
historical district,"
and any changes to the
exterior must be
approved by the city's
Historic District
Commission. The
homeowner has been in
trouble with that
commission before,
beginning with the
materials used to
replace an old barn. And
somewhere in there are
examples
of city officials,
including the fire
marshal, getting into
the act by exerting
their power of position
over permits and
protocol. The chairwoman
of the historic district
commission asserts that
her panel's rules are
"similar to those of a
condo association."
The homeowner maintains
that the real estate
salesman who sold him
the house never
mentioned that it is in
a designated historic
district and what that
means. Whether or not
that is true, one
willingly agrees to
abide by the rules and regs of a condo
association. But a
governmental unit
forcing the choice of
doubly expensive windows
for the sake of
appearance is guilty of
imposing an unfunded
mandate. The
preservation effort may
even become a "taking"
of property --
ethically, if not
legally -- depending on
how hard-nosed are the
conflicting parties as
this confrontation
continues.
August 2010
Historic Designation fight in West Virginia
"Our town council hired Taylor&Taylor & Associates from 210 miles away (
so no one would find out what they were doing ), they submitted false
dates for houses ( deed dates are 40+ years newer ) and didn't inform
the owners of the re-zoning designation until 4 years after they had
obtained state and federal designations as historic district ( based on
false application information ).
"Now they are citing everyone for anything. 3 owners cited in one day.
We had standing room only at council meeting but they ignored us."
Brian Hartwell, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, reached out
after seeing previous VersagiVoice coverage of Royal Oak debates re
mandated historic designation. When I
asked if he was willing to provide me with his last name, he agreed
-- and added a more detailed description of the problem in
Martinsburg as he sees it.
A more
detailed description
We were blindsided and by the time they announced a hearing to vote and
take comments, our homes were on the State and National Historic
Registry.
►The firm that our town council hired, Taylor & Taylor and Associates
indicated our homes were on built circa 1890, while some were as new as
1982.►They claimed
all our lots had our houses in a 1907 fire map, but the buildings on the
map were, in fact, structures that were part of a dairy.
►They also claimed that our homes had been built by a "master". Our
research indicates the oldest were simply working class ( half-I ) homes
built by the man that owned the property and his employees. He died
while building mine in 1923.
►They claimed we had Victorians from 1888. There is NO Victorian home on
the street. If it wasn't us, it would be laughable.
We have the same situation as you except a much more rigid town council
that ignored more than 80 homeowners that showed up at the meeting. Only
1 homeowner wanted the designation.
We have contacted Taylor and Taylor for explanation of their material
misrepresentations of fact and the Dept of Interior to complain about
the absolute misrepresentation of fact used to obtain the designation
and what we must do to "de-designate" our homes.
We have, to date, not received a reply from either.
It should be noted that not a single request for modification has been
granted. The promised homeowner grant money is non-existent. They refuse
to answer our complaints on Due Process violations as the vote outcome
was pre-determined.
This in a town where our hourly city workers have not had a raise in 4
years, but they have tens of thousands of dollars in every budget for
their historic commission.
A local attorney was recently ordered to install wood period windows at
a cost of $1,200 per window when the exact same look was available in
vinyl for less than $200 per window.
This wholesale theft of our property rights won't end with "historic
properties" ...what's next?
I am trying to get things rolling to reverse the town's course and have
now been cited for my home ( work was performed by prior owner and
before it was designated a historical district "locally" - but they
concealed the fact that they had 4 years ago had it designated a
historical district at state and federal level )
Now, I have to go before the commission and it's leader, a well known
local activist, and make my case for not being fined or having
to replace my windows, doors, and siding.
Could I get samples of your more successful literature. I want a design
that I can base our arguments on. It may cost me money but we are going
to get organized and change this.
Brian Hartwell
Brian Hartwell reached out to VersagiVoice in August, seeking help
with his fight against mandated historic designation in his
West Virginia hometown. Now, after
several exchanges of information, Brian writes:
We have won our fight.
They capitulated at the Historic Preservation and Restoration Commission
hearing. They agreed (super easily and almost as if they did not want our
allegations of the $15M in misappropriated funds brought up) to do "WHATEVER" we
wanted to our property. They told us we didn't even need a building permit
(we obtained one just out of caution) and we were allowed to place stone on the
face and make the other modifications that we wanted. They were denying everyone
and then just rushed us through without issue....amazing!
Chicago's Landmarks Ordinance declared unconstituional
By:
Thomas A. Corfman
January 30, 2009
(Crain's) — An Illinois
appellate court has struck down the city of Chicago's landmarks
ordinance, saying it is unconstitutionally vague, putting in jeopardy
the city's protection of more than 250 buildings and 50 historic
districts. The ordinance, which was enacted in 1968, prohibits any
demolition or alteration of properties that are designated landmarks by
the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, an eight-member body appointed by
the mayor.
The commission, whose decisions can be overturned by the Chicago City
Council, makes landmark designations based on seven standards that the
court found violated the Illinois Constitution because they were too
vague.
"We believe that the terms 'value,' 'important,' 'significant,' and
'unique' are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad," Appellate Court Judge
James Fitzgerald Smith wrote for a three-judge panel. While the ruling
technically involves only two of the city's landmark districts, the
decision could be applied to all of the city's landmark areas, leaving
them vulnerable to legal challenge, says zoning attorney Jack Guthman, a
partner a partner at Chicago law firm Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., who isn't
involved in the case.
"They are all compromised," Mr. Guthman said. The ruling does not
immediately invalidate the ordinance, which will remain in effect until
the case is over.
The ruling is a victory for Albert Hanna, who has waged a personal
litigation campaign against the city's land-use ordinances and was one
of two plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Hanna, a senior vice-president with
Chicago-based real estate firm Draper & Kramer Inc. challenged the
Arlington-Deming District in the posh Lincoln Park neighborhood.
The Daley administration is considering appealing the case to the
Illinois Supreme Court, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department
said.
"We disagree with the appellate court's analysis and its end result,"
she said.
While the court order technically sent the case back to the Circuit
Court of Cook County for trial, it effectively decided the
constitutionality of the ordinance.
"This could have the end result of invalidating the ordinance because
the appellate court decision doesn't really give the circuit any room to
find otherwise," the law department spokeswoman said. The city's
landmark districts cover some of the city's most historic areas, such as
Astor Street in the Gold Coast and the Prairie Avenue District on the
Near South Side.
Real estate developers and zoning lawyers have complained that the
districts have sometimes been used to effectively "downzone"
neighborhoods, reducing the size of new buildings by limiting any new
construction. The Historic Michigan Boulevard District, which was
established in 2002, was opposed by many property owners in the
district, which stretches along Michigan Avenue from Randolph Street to
11th Street.
The ordinance uses the same criteria for landmarking individual
properties and for creating landmark districts.
The other plaintiff, Carol C. Mrowka, challenged a landmark district in
the East Village neighborhood on the city's Northwest Side. The
plaintiffs were represented by Chicago attorney Thomas Ramsdell.
Appellate Court Judges Margaret O'Mara Frossard and Michael P. Toomin
joined in the decision.
|
CPR Quick Finder
HistoricTroubles in West
Virginia
Chicago's Landmarks Ordinance declared unconstitutional
Why CPR was formed
The
Bank Building at Fourth & Main
has had a lot of historical attention
Homeowners
are as much at risk as commercial property owners
Citizens
for Property Rights organized
When the Barton Towers neighborhood was threatened with mandated
historic designation,.
CPR's
dialogue with the City Commission
Quoted without Comment
Residents, government, the
press -- all had something to say during the battle of Barton
Towers. [go]
Historical Groups
serving Royal Oak
Official and Volunteer
Historic District Study
Committee news
Chopping
down the Bank's Pillars
During the extended public dialogue about declaring
the Fourth & Main Street Bank historic, the Detroit
News published this picture story about the controversy.
HistoricTroubles in West
Virginia
"We won!
|