The community meeting last night regarding the threat by the City of Aurora to intrude into people's lives and force a near west side neighborhood into a "historic district" had a large turnout.
Shirley Flaherty, a resident of the area and Jan Mangers from the City of Aurora are leading the threat and frivolous intrusion. Mangers is apparently doing so with the blessings of Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner.
We strongly agree with residents like Leonard Stoecker who oppose the historic district designation and we caution people in other neighborhoods to pay very close attention because you could be next if this is not stopped.
As we have said, we have no problem with history, but this official designation is not necessary and may actually backfire by choking smart and efficient decisions to improve properties.
Shirley Flaherty, a resident of the area and Jan Mangers from the City of Aurora are leading the threat and frivolous intrusion. Mangers is apparently doing so with the blessings of Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner.
We strongly agree with residents like Leonard Stoecker who oppose the historic district designation and we caution people in other neighborhoods to pay very close attention because you could be next if this is not stopped.
As we have said, we have no problem with history, but this official designation is not necessary and may actually backfire by choking smart and efficient decisions to improve properties.
28 comments:
AURORA — An informational meeting became a shouting match Thursday as residents from the near West Side turned out to vehemently oppose a much-discussed historic preservation district on Downer Place.
Roughly 100 people packed the sanctuary of New England Congregational Church to make their opinions known regarding the proposed district, which would cover Lake Street to Highland Avenue, and would include the Copley Mansion and Our Savior Lutheran Church.
Homeowners in historic districts are required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission for any large additions or repairs to their homes. It's that very approval process that had tempers flaring.
"Look at our neighborhood," said Downer Place resident Eric Wade. "There are no problems. The only problem is we will have faceless bureaucrats who will be empowered to do more."
Thursday's meeting was organized by Shirley Flaherty, who lives in the easternmost part of the proposed district.
She said that historic preservation districts help foster a sense of community and result in higher property values and reduced crime.
"The main reason is sprawl," she said. "Lake Street is going west, and things like McDonald's and the Dollar Store would have to be reviewed before they could build in the district."
Flaherty assembled a panel of homeowners from other historic districts in the city, all of whom spoke in support of the idea.
They emphasized that Thursday's was an informational meeting, and that no application for a historic district has been filed.
But the assembled were not impressed. Many were rallied to oppose the proposal by West Downer Place resident Leonard Stoecker, who sent letters and distributed fliers around the neighborhood.
"This is a case of not wanting governmental intervention any more than we already have," he said.
City ordinance allows any city resident to apply for a district, but Historic Preservation Commission Director Jan Mangers said a primary criteria for approving the application is community support.
"It doesn't make any sense to force something on people if they don't want it," she said.
Mangers said that the restrictions of a district are not as strict as some have said, and that the commission approves 95 percent of the additions and repairs it considers.
Nice job Leonard and Openline for getting people involved on this.
If there is another meeting, count me in to oppose the historic district.
Is Jan Mangers related to Bob Mangers, the guy that Weisner is putting as Grand Marshall for the July 4th parade?
When the drive to a historic district started it appeared on the surface that there were just a few people in the neighborhood that wanted to create the district. That has not changed there are still just a few people that want this district to be created.
What has changed is my perception of the nature of the motivation of some people to create this district. I am not so sure that the desire to create the district is now or has ever been altruistic.
A major proponent of this district lives at the east end of the proposed district in a fairly large red colored building on the south side of the street. I invite anyone to compare that property with just about any other house on Downer Place and you be the judge of who and who is not maintaining their property.
The reason for this comment is that upon my own realization after making such a comparison as I have just suggested I was offended and I took the attempt to create an historic district as a personal affront.
We have reason to believe that irrespective of public comment by Jan Mangers or the proponents of the historic district designation this effort is being spear headed by Jan Mangers. We have reason to believe that she is actively pursuing properties for historic designation. If that is true I am not surprised. She is the head of a department that is dependent upon the existence of historic districts and historic land marks and similar things. If these did not exist her position would not be necessary as she and her staff would have nothing to administer.
About three weeks ago I went to Jan Manger’s office because I had misplaced my copy of the map of the boundaries of the proposed historic district. I asked several questions starting with I would like to have a copy of that map as I had misplaced mine. They also included who is proposing this district (because the proponents did not identify themselves on their flyer), there must have to be a meeting to do this and others.
The answer to each and every question was, “I do not know anything about that.”
At the end of the conversation, all of about three minutes, I again reiterated that a meeting must have to held she then told me that she could tell me that there is to be a meeting at 7:00 P.M., June 22, 2006 at the new England Congregational Church and that she had been asked to speak.
I have to tell you that I was then quite taken aback by her prior responses that she “did not know anything about that”.
In addition I was outraged by it and decided that the City was not my friend here and that if I wanted to know anything I better learn it for myself because it was clear that she was of no help and had no intention of helping or informing me or anyone else. I wonder if she is informing the people whose properties that she is pursuing for historic designation as well as she was willing to inform me?
The result of that outrage is now history.
If that is how Jan Mangers runs the department, that alone is reason enough for me to be adamantly against this thing.
To all of you that have paid attention to this issue do not think for a minute that this is over. It was made very clear to me last night that the proponents are not going to back off of this irrespective of neighborhood sentiment and desires.
“It’s not over till its over”
(did Yogi Berra say that?)
Yes, Bob Mangers, the grand marshal, is Jan Mangers' father.
After reading the article in the fish wrap, I have to agree with Leonard. Shirley Flaherty's home is one of the worst maintained in the neighborhood. Flaherty fought the Dollar Store and the McDonalds on Galena as she felt that they would destroy the neighborhood. Last time I checked, that area of Galena was all commercial. How would more commercial destroy a commercial area?
Flaherty is also the one leading the charge to prevent Our Savior from building a handicapped entrance to the church on Downer. She claims that it will destroy the character of the Copley mansion. However, the owners of the Copley mansion destroyed the character of the mansion when they sold off all of the surrounding land. All that remains is the small portion that the house itself sits upon. Flaherty wants to tell everyone what they can do with their property, and I believe she would be snooping through the neighborhood looking for any violations to report.
I would like some of the benefits of the district, but not if Nazi Shirley is involved.
Mangers and Weisner are also keeping Juany Garza and her Ward committee from fixing up McCarty Park. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?
We also were somewhat puzzled at Ms. Flaherty's quotation in the fishwrap regarding McDonald's and the Dollar General store.
Those are commercial properties and NONE of them would be included in the proposed historic district and would NOT be subject to review.
We've seen the map of the proposed area and with all due respect to Ms. Flaherty, she's incorrect.
I was surprised at the lack of correct information being disemniated by those opposed to the historic disctric. They claim "more government control," "dictacting what color to paint your home," "faceless bureaucrats" all competely ridiculous. An historic distric committee would be made up of those that live in the area--there would be no Nazi's scouting for violations, and no dictacting what color to paint your house. False information is being used to promote fear and a 'threatening" atmosphere. The area has many residents that are maintaining their property well and having an historic distric insures this committment for the future by new residents. The benefits exceed any detriments. We really all want the same thing. A stable, well maintained neighborhood, now and into the future.
The historical preservation committee will not admit that they have the authority to find you $50
to $500 per day per violation if you do not comply with their rules. I can't believe some of their members would stand in a church and lie.
The description of the outcome of the meeting last nite makes me think that there must have been two different meetings. The one I attended was open, informative and had a panel of people from other historic districts ready and willing to answer any and all questions. There were no questions other than loaded ones with slurs and venom. Someone in attendance said she counldn't wait to get back to the east side where it's safe. Shame on those of you who were so rude.
The prevailing theme of the opposition was, "there are no problems here" and "we have a wonderful home, who cares what happens to yours"
I care what happens in all of Aurora. This is my home town and I believe that everyone is responsible for it, not just government.
I want to thank those persons who agreed to come to speak on the panel and apologize for the behavior of my neighbors.
The main fear is this government control crap, which is so over the top. Give me a break. Where do these people get these ideas that the goverment is going to come in and control your house. So ridiculous. Seems like some education needs to take place by those that support the district to dispel all these silly rumors.
We were told at the meeting that 30 people were in favor of historic designation. Perhaps those people could reach out to their neighbors to help educate them. Most of those who monoplized the meeting were speaking out of ignorance and they didn't give the rest of us a chance to be heard unless we shouted over them. Bad manners prevailed. It's pretty scarey to see who is living here.
I agree I can't believe anyone would stand in a church and lie through their teeth.
Don't they know that's for City Hall and City Council Meetings?
I have experienced the humilation of having to "appear" before the Historic Preservation Committee and believe me it is scary....
You stand before a group of people who have no fiscal responsibility for your house, no social responsibility for your neighbors and neighborhood and no sensitivity for good taste.
Okay, so those of you who believe these people should have authority over your homes, feel free to contact Jan Mangers and her band of "historical design authorities." I am certain that they will be happy to give you advice, but as for the rest of us who married "historical design authorities" we'll are committed to follow their advice. It was part of our wedding vows.
All anyone has to do is read my posts and you will see my position on most of what has been raised here. If I am wrong with respect to the power of the Historic Preservation Director and commission then show me where I have misread the ordinance or any other document that I have read or to which I have referred.
If you cannot or chosse not to look at the documents that is your choice.
Anyone can make a bald faced assertion that someone else is wrong. When you do that what do you have? A bald faced assertion.
Do you have any further information? No
Do you have a solution? No
Do you have clarification of an issue? No
Do you have proof of the error? No
So what are we left with? A bald faced assertion.
I for one will not accept the bald faced assertion. I and all of the other neighbors have no choice but to look at the ordinances and regulations as they are written. These ordinances and regulations say what they say.
I read and speak english and understand the words.
If you have any courage of conviction you would identify yourselves and we and everyhone can make an informed decision as to whether or not you actually live in the neighborhood or if you have some other agenda.
As everyone now knows spokeswoman for the creation of the local historic district is Shirley Flaherty. At the meeting last night she mentioned a few reasons for the creation of the district.
They include;
1. signs on businesses at the very east end of the district
2. a six unit building for sale
3. another building on a corner for sale
4. McDonald dumpsters
In today’s newspaper Shirley was quoted as saying,
“The main reason is sprawl,” Lake Street is going west, and things like McDonalds and the Dollar Store would have to be reviewed before they could build in the district.”
I am not sure which signs she referenced and it is possible that the commission would have some input into signs, if those signs are located in the district. I doubt if the commission can keep a legal business from placing an advertising sign on its own property.
With the exception of the signs, I do not see how the commission has the authority to affect any of these items.
Each of these complaints is based in zoning and not in historic preservation. I fail to see how the creation of an historic district will help Shirley or anyone with these items.
Someone wrote somewhere that Shirley opposed the placement of McDonalds at that site. I am glad she did. She was and remains correct that it was not such a great place to put it. Again this is a zoning issue. Believe it or not I also attended the public hearing and as vociferously as I could, tried to state a case against McDonalds.
Why am I or any other neighbor expected to submit to the creation of an historic district for the purpose of protecting me from issues over which the commission appears to lack authority affect?
By the way, neither McDonalds nor the Dollar Store is located within the boundaries of the proposed historic district.
As someone who lives in a new subdivision, I've read through the comments and I definitely see flaws with the historic district.
The area being discussed doesn't need "stablization" and the excuses about commercial properties don't even apply.
If you like history, take care of your home and keep it up, but this district isn't necessary to accomplish your goals.
In some cases, a historic district can be a good thing, but you do need to understand that if your home is located in a historic district, it severely changes what you can and cannot do to your own home.
For example, your roof must be historically accurate. Have you priced an historically accurate roof?
Putting in new steps, windows, paint colors, all have to be historically accurate.
That means that if you house was built with wood steps, you have to replace them with wood steps. You also have to replace windows with wood windows.
This makes home repairs cost a lot more then they need to be, and in some cases, the historic windows and steps are not as efficient as the new ones. You can improve your home without compromising its looks, and save money with the newer replacements.
People that want to add on a deck would be told no, because it isn't historically accurate, each and every decision you make for the looks and up keep of your home WILL need to be approved.
The bottom line is, that is a beautiful neighborhood already, and making it an historic district only gives the government more control.
Dear anonyous of 10:54 pm,
wish you had said that at the meeting. About half of what you said is true, the other half is myth. You could have received some answers that would have dispelled your fears. The object of an historic district is to preserve the architectural integrity and you are mistaken about cost.
I put vinyl windows on my upper storey at the cost of $350 to $500 each, installed about 12 years ago. The thermopane seals are cracking and the locks are coming off. These things cannot be repaired. Last year I removed nine 100 year old windows on the first floor and had them reglazed, the wood repaired and repainted at about $100 to $150 each, depending on size, and had them restrung with weights. They will probably last longer than I will, and I hope to not deal with them again.
Yes. you could put on a deck at the rear of your home. No. you don't have to restore your roof with original materials, wood shingles are on most homes over 100 years old and are not used today. You would not have to argue that one with the preservation department.
Most repairs or restorations are not more expensive if done according to guidlines, thats a myth.
The people who sit on the commission also are under the guidelines (gladly) and have to deal with reality also. Why do you think that those of us who are in historic districts love it?
I said this at the meeting the other night and I have written this over and over again. Either I cannot write or many people cannnot read.
The issue here is UNWANTED government intrusion into our lives.
The issue is UNWANTED governmental intrusion into our lives.
The issue here is UNWANTED governmental intrusion into our lives.
Why is it that the proponents of the historic district seem to not be able to read and understand those words?
Why is it that you insist on pushing your notion of what is good for your neighborhood on our neighborhood.
Part of what I see here is that many of you bought into a neighborhood and paid comparatively lower prices for your house than you would have had to pay in other cities. When you moved in you discovered some problems and you decided to try to fix them with amoung other methods the imposition of an historic district.
The desire to improve the your homes and the neighborhood is precisely what everyone would like to see. The use of an historic district was your choice and I admire your bravery.
But do not come to me and tell me or anyone else that we need or must or should follow your lead and try to impress an historic district on me or my neighbors when we do not want it.
If anyone including my neighbors would like to have their home designated an historic landmark and bring themselves under the rule of the the Preservation Commission be my guest. I will not stop you.
But do not tell me or try to force me to accept UNWANTED governmental intrusion into my life.
I have said this before and I repeat it.
I do not want to give up, assign, abdicate or in any other way give the decision making process of for the maintenance of my house to you or the commission or any other governmental body.
All I have to say is the East Side historic district commission has been very difficult to deal with, even with things that are designed as "historic". Many, many years ago, the large Pink house on the corner of North and Lincoln wanted to put in proper period screens for their back porch. The old owners researched and got estimates for the screens, and the historic district told them no. Then another couple had to sue the historic district to get a garage put in. The commission is made up of a bunch of busy bodies who enjoy having power over their neighbors.
The East Side would be much better if the crappy landlords from Naperville were gone, the houses were back the way they were, and the inspectors would do something about the overcrowding.
It doesn't take a historic district to do this, just a Mayor who knows what they are doing. Which we don't have.
Don't let the historic distric fool you, we've been fighting a house with trash all over the back yard for years, and because it's in the historic district, only one inspector can inforce it; which means nothing gets done.
So some of the comments say an historic district will bring down the law on your heads and the preservation police will be all over you, and, some of you say you live in a district and there is no inforcement. WHICH IS IT ???
I would say like most things in Aurora it is selective enforcement!
If you are bud with the mayor and boys ou can pretty much do as you please regardless of the law.
But if you are not an old school cronie, Watch Out you better not JayWalk or spit on the side walk or you will be toast!
Anonymous 6/25/2006 6:38 PM
This issue of enforcement is not a question of which it is.
In the instance of an historic district we are not talking about getting caught speeding if you happen to be unlucky enough to be speeding where the traffic officer is running radar. In the case of an historic district the analogy is not the random stop for speeding. With the creation of an historic district the radar gun is always running and always pointed at the owner of the homes within the district.
We are talking about the very decision making process for the care and maintenance of your home. As I said and written before, what you have is a situation wherein the homeowner is required to have a partner in his home at a very basic level. The commission becomes the final arbiter of the outside maintenance of your home.
When considering a response to the stated interest by a few people to create an historic district all we had and still have to form the basis of our opinion and position is that which is written. By that I mean all we can do is read the ordinance, the guidelines and anything else that applies to historic districts. We cannot base our decision on whether anyone is a nice person or we do not enforce that element of the rules.
Anything that is subjective in nature cannot be considered, it must be eliminated from our decision making process.
Why you say? It is very simple. The fact is that even if something is not today enforced, that fact that is remains as a rule it can be enforced and we have to presume that it will be enforced. Anything less is foolish.
The issue is UNWANTED governmental intrusion into our lives.
I say again.
If anyone out there wants to have their home landmarked and thereby submit to the regulation of the preservation commission then I say by all means do it.
Do not make me and others do that just because you think it is a good idea and have that desire.
I say again, if you have such courage of conviction then identity yourself and we can all know if you live in the affected area or if you have some unknown agenda.
Jan Mangers does not need more work. There are over a thousnd properties in historic districts now. She is not behind this.
Mayor Weisner is not a preservationist. Remember what he just did to the historic drive-in?
Shirley Flaherty does not need to have her house designated. If the area became a district, her house would be under a microscope for every exterior improvment.
Ask yourself this question; when I vote, do I only consider how this effects me, or do I vote for what's best for the community?
Think it through, what kind of neighbor am I?
Weisner didn't save the drive-in because of $6,500 and who knows how much else more. He has done everything to preserve the old-guard and his cronies.
If I lived in a neighborhood that was going to be micromanaged, I'd move out. Don't let this happen to your neighborhood.
They should get rid of the preservation commission if this is what they do.
To annon 6/27 @ 10:41 AM
You are right on all acounts. Also made me think about when I vote do I vote what is best for me or my community. In thinking on this I realized that I have voted on what is best for my community, but that also means me. I did not vote for my Alderman, Burns last election even tho she did not have anyone running against her. I also did not vote for Linda Chapa LaVia. The reason for this was because a person who represents her was supposed to be helping me and never even got my last name right when I talked to him, did not return phone calls, and suddenly remembered me when I was working at the polls, asked me how things were going and he would get back to me as he thought he had some helpful information. This representive also was wearing a sticker for Linda Chapa LaVia on the inside of his coat, I caught it and kicked him out. This is against the rules. He argued with me but I stood strong. Also called the election committee to let them know what I had done. To bad for him as I already had voted, she had no one running against her if I remember right. I did not punch for her tho and that also goes for Alderman Burns. Knew they both would get it, but made me feel better. Still waiting for the call from him with his information. Also he pulled a really bad thing at the polling place where I was working and it was at a school so children saw this. I don't care how much good someone might do, but when someone is representing them and does what he did, it tells me that the person running for elecion or re-election is not doing their job.
Post a Comment