Carol
I wanted to pass along a reply I received from one of the realtors I have used in the past as have a number of my friends. As this was personal information, I am withholding her name, but she is a Broker, GRI, ABR with a major residential Chicago real estate firm (non-development affiliated).
WTPO has always told us to verify the information for ourselves, so that is what I did. I went to my realtor to ask her opinion on how the landmarking would impact property values and neighborhood development.
In her first reply, she said that they had someone come in last year to give a seminar to them on landmarking and its full effect which everyone in her office considered the authority on the area. She did not have the notes handy but looked them up. It turns out that it was Andrew Fisher from the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois. His overall message was that landmarking had no negative effects on any area.
Now, we have seen many discrepancies in public reports from groups that have one side or the other to push regarding landmarking. For instance, developers generally say landmarking is disastrous for property values, and reports from landmarking commissions/groups say that property values either are not affected or are actually improved.
So, I asked my contact to go back and do a little more research. Apparently, there is not a lot of unbiased information available on the subject, but here is her response regarding the proposed landmarking and downzoning for our area:
“My opinion is that I think it will negatively affect values in the area if you go landmark. The limitations will have long-term effects. Even in Lincoln Park, where it has been built up for a while, over time, some of these side by side, higher end properties have been destroyed to build a spectacular property. This couldn't happen with landmark. In Old Town, where there are some really small frame houses, they haven't been able to be improved to the point where you can live in them comfortably, yet their taxes are sky high due to the neighbors, who improved before them.”
“I am also concerned about proposed downzoning as well. In R-3, you can have single family only, not the complex you live in. I would like to see a mix of styles and sizes to attract different economic levels, kids, ages, etc. On the map you sent me, I was wondering if the proposed downzoning areas are maintaining the housing stock already there, or placing a limitation, possibly devaluing land value? I believe the city is trying to prevent some of the god awful units that clearly do not fit in the landscape, and it's not an easy task to come up with standardized zoning. More input is needed from your neighborhood groups who have enough other groups in other neighborhoods who can bring them up to speed on what has transpired elsewhere and then have these opinions voiced to the city. It's a lot harder to undo something after it gets passed formally.”
Now, I love the neighborhood and do not plan on leaving for many years, so property values are less of a concern directly. However, I am concerned with what this will mean for the overall value of the area, as taxes are one of the primary sources of school funding, and I have heard of price drops of 20% to 35%. I support the overall goal of protecting individual buildings that have historic significance or are architecturally significant. I simply do not support district landmarking that says that each building on its own is not significant enough to protect, but together they have this “feel”. I know that is not exactly what the code says, but that is my view of it (after going to the last commission meeting, reading the actual landmarking code and speaking with several people at the commission office).
Everyone is free to make their own decision on whether this is good for the neighborhood or not, but I wanted to pass along the reply I received.
posted by Carol M. @ 1:51 PM
2 Comments:
This should be a new post, but I don't know how to do it.
Cheryl Corley (sp?) did a 4 minute report on All Things Considered on Flores's city council measure to block grocery store anti-establishment/competition clauses in grocery stores that are being sold. This was aired around 4:20 Fri afternoon (July 8). A shuttered Dominic's at 79th and Pulaski was featured.
I don't know much about the issue or whether it is in fact even a problem worthy of legislation. Dominic's does seem to be one of the more poorly run of the "Let's have 900 brands of every item we stock" stores. They closed a giant store in Hanover Park in spr of '04 (along with many others at that time). It is still empty.
Flores appears to be sponsoring innocuous (as possible), insubstantial legislation highlighted by selective press releases to NPR so as to position himself as a progressive. There was that proposed measure informing hotel costumers that the hotel worker's union was on strike (if I understand it correctly).
There is an opportunity here to send a letter or email to All Things Considered about Flores. Secondly, WBEZ should give us equal time to complain about Flores. They put his activities on the air and had Johnny Fine on a few months ago to advertise his warehouse landmarking proclaimation.
I like the comment “district landmarking that says that each building on its own is not significant enough to protect, but together they have this ‘feel’,” from the post.
The Alderman told CBS2 “We're dealing with an issue of a vicious cycle of rampant, haphazard, and unplanned development -- and even at times illegal development -- that necessitated action." ISN’T IT HIS JOB TO STOP THIS THROUGH PERMITS AND LEGAL ACTION. Just because he cannot control the “unplanned” or “haphazard” development through normal channels does not give him the right to take away our property rights or to lower the value of our homes.
If a building is important, protect IT NOT THE AREA.
Post a Comment
<< Home