TOWN HALL MEETINGS
The Town Hall Meetings are now over. They were NOT what we had asked for. The pros and cons were not presented only the planned pros. Many people found these meetings were insulting and much information was not true.Landmark people used East Lake Shore Drive, Wicker Park and Astor Street as examples of successful Landmarking as if our community was comperable to these areas. I wish our glasses were as rose colored to enable us to see the similarity between areas and housing stock.
Insurance people insisted that when replacement is required and the Landmarks Commission insists that the original design is kept (which usually means having to create the replacement, thus the major increased costs) that the insurance company won't have an issue with the increased costs. They probably won't providing we pay out of our pockets the additional costs to duplicate the original parts, unless, we take out additional insurance for Landmark status. Call you insurance broker, confirm your coverage.
Regardless of what is said, it's important to check everything out. That way you'll know where the deception is coming from and what you need to do.
More to come.
Carol M.
posted by Carol M. @ 12:40 PM
4 Comments:
I agree that the meetings were nothing but a sham.
Relative to the insurance issue, make sure that if you are in a landmarked home, the insurance is set at the "reproduction" cost (true replacement cost wil almost always be less). This will likely make the underlying policy limits higher (and therefore the premium), but it is always better to fully insure rather than underinsure. Your broker should come out to your house to check to see that you are insured to the reprodcution cost.
Hello everyone - make sure you check out the reader that came out on Thurs, May 12th. Look at the letters to the editor.
EXCELLENT. Finally we have a voice in the reader.
yeah, the meetings were a total sham, but as teresa said, we did get a letter to the editor in on the may 12th issue of the notoriously pro landmarking reader here it is:
Ben Joravsky oversimplifies the argument of anti landmarking supporters in the East Village battle in When is a Landmark article. Yes, economic factors play into the issue, but that is not the sole reason so many residents are so irate about the issue in this area.
As Mr. Joravsky points out, the alderman, in these issues, is essentially god. The residents of east village who oppose the radical move of landmarking a district (not worthy of such status) object to the lack of due process and input in the decision. Manny Flores argues that the greater public good supersedes property owner rights, yet when the public objects he turns a deaf ear.
Mr. Flores has proven to be extremely hypocritical on this issue and his performances at recent public meetings, concerning this issue, have only caused more and more people to oppose landmarking. Why? Because he chooses to ignore our concerns and cannot give direct answers to questions.
The process for landmarking in Chicago is extremely flawed. Any and all issues regarding this issue in front of the landmark commission should be stopped until a more representative way of dealing with the issue can be constructed. As it is now, the process is unfair and fascist.
Randy Buescher
east village resident
Look at this site if you are looking for Term Life Insurance Quote excellent site having relevent information If your
Post a Comment
<< Home