Aurora Mayor Tom Weiner (that's what the City of Aurora's official press release called him, probably subconscious for "whiner") tried to circumvent the law on Thursday by trying to divert a review of the ordinance involving historic preservation to the Planning & Development Committee (aka "P&D") instead of the Government Operations Committee (aka "GO") or setting up a special committee with approval of the city council.
The GO Committee includes both Alderman Rick Lawrence and Alderman Stephanie Kifowit. The recent controversy of a potential historic district on the near west side around Downer Place is part of the Alderman Lawrence's Fourth Ward.
OpenlineBlog.com's contributor and historic district expert, Leonard Stoecker, has articulated the issue very well and knows the problems with the current ordinance.
Given, uh...Weiner's track record of making decisions with political motives, it appears he disregarded the law and common sense to divert this issue that is obviously a review of a specific government operation, not a particular development.
Unfortunately for Mayor Weiner, if he wants to set-up a special committee, he can't just magically choose or create one that is more politically favorable to him...and he can't do it on his own.
Sec. 2-124. Special Committees shall be established by resolution of the council. Each such committee shall have only the jurisdiction set forth for it in the resolution under which it is created, and it shall cease to exist after its report is presented to the city council. Each special committee shall have the number of members prescribed for it in the resolution under which it is created. The mayor shall appoint the members of all special committees with the advice and consent of the city council (Code 1969 * 2-80)
No advice or consent of the city council was sought. Just as he likes to do with spending your taxdollars to reward cronies, he apparently thinks that applies to the law.
To make things more silly at Thursday's P&D Committee meeting, Aurora's famously incompetent and rude corporation counsel, Alayne Weingartz, showed up to argue why it was okay for the mayor to bypass the rules and law. However, she had nothing to cite, so the matter was postponed for two weeks.
Weiner (that's really how it was written throughout the press release, so we want to be accurate) was trying to set up a committee to review the ordinance, to be headed by Tenth Ward Lynda Elmore.
If the mayor had not been playing politics, all this would have been avoided. He cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants, contrary to what he or his so-called corporation counsel thinks. If he clings to the unlawful process, he may risk serious legal consequences.
Note: We predict the fishwrap will ignore or cover-up the attempt to circumvent the law.
The GO Committee includes both Alderman Rick Lawrence and Alderman Stephanie Kifowit. The recent controversy of a potential historic district on the near west side around Downer Place is part of the Alderman Lawrence's Fourth Ward.
OpenlineBlog.com's contributor and historic district expert, Leonard Stoecker, has articulated the issue very well and knows the problems with the current ordinance.
Given, uh...Weiner's track record of making decisions with political motives, it appears he disregarded the law and common sense to divert this issue that is obviously a review of a specific government operation, not a particular development.
Unfortunately for Mayor Weiner, if he wants to set-up a special committee, he can't just magically choose or create one that is more politically favorable to him...and he can't do it on his own.
Sec. 2-124. Special Committees shall be established by resolution of the council. Each such committee shall have only the jurisdiction set forth for it in the resolution under which it is created, and it shall cease to exist after its report is presented to the city council. Each special committee shall have the number of members prescribed for it in the resolution under which it is created. The mayor shall appoint the members of all special committees with the advice and consent of the city council (Code 1969 * 2-80)
No advice or consent of the city council was sought. Just as he likes to do with spending your taxdollars to reward cronies, he apparently thinks that applies to the law.
To make things more silly at Thursday's P&D Committee meeting, Aurora's famously incompetent and rude corporation counsel, Alayne Weingartz, showed up to argue why it was okay for the mayor to bypass the rules and law. However, she had nothing to cite, so the matter was postponed for two weeks.
Weiner (that's really how it was written throughout the press release, so we want to be accurate) was trying to set up a committee to review the ordinance, to be headed by Tenth Ward Lynda Elmore.
If the mayor had not been playing politics, all this would have been avoided. He cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants, contrary to what he or his so-called corporation counsel thinks. If he clings to the unlawful process, he may risk serious legal consequences.
Note: We predict the fishwrap will ignore or cover-up the attempt to circumvent the law.
54 comments:
What are the motives behind trying to make this area a Historic District? This area has not looked better in the last 40 years.
It is not about making a historic district, it is about making the Historic District Ordinance take into account the actual homeowner's wishes. One person can start the process now that can affect a multitude of houses.
Openline is right; this is about a change to an ordinance, not anything to do with development. This Mayor thinks he is King, and he should be De-Throned!!!
Besides, what does Elmore know about anything Historic??? She lives in the fancy, new construction area of Stonebridge. It should go to the correct committee, and Wiener should stop trying to play these games!
Thank you on behalf of myself and all of the neighbors that take pride in their homes and neighborhood and resisted this blatant power play to usurp private property rights and take away our right to decide on the repair and maintenance of our homes and place it in the hands of a very few people that do not have any stake whatsoever in in our homes or our lives or our families and whose loyalties and duties run to government and not to us as residents and tax payers.
Another great scoop by Openline and excellent angle on this!
Weisner (or is it Weiner?) should let the city council do their job (some do it much better than others) and stop thinking he is king.
Mayor creates committee to review historic district ordinance
By Andre Salles
Staff Writer
AURORA — A committee of residents, led by Alderman Lynda Elmore, 10th Ward, will reconsider the ordinance that covers enacting and overseeing historic districts, officials said Thursday.
Mayor Tom Weisner announced plans to create an ad hoc committee to review the ordinance, responding to complaints by residents of West Downer Place. One resident in particular, Leonard Stoecker, brought his concerns before the City Council, stating his belief that the ordinance makes it too easy to enact a district over the wishes of other property owners.
"Members of the community have raised legitimate concerns about the historic preservation ordinance," Weisner said. "We have a responsibility to respond by thoughtfully reviewing our current process."
Homeowners in a historic district are required to receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission before undertaking large repairs or additions to their houses.
The ordinance states that an application for a historic district can be filed by any city resident, and it then must be voted on by the Historic Preservation Commission. Until that vote is carried out, however, the rules of a district apply to the area in question, for a period of up to seven months.
The issue came to the fore last month when proponents of historic preservation held an informational meeting for Downer Place residents. They proposed a historic district that would cover both sides of Downer, from Lake Street to Highland Avenue, and were soundly shouted down by roughly 100 residents, many of whom signed petitions against the plan.
Speaking in favor of historic districts was Riddle Highlands resident Al Signorelli, who believes that an ordinance that has worked for more than 20 years needs no adjustments.
"In my opinion, this is a waste of time," Signorelli said. "This ordinance was put together carefully, and crafted well – so well, in fact, that other communities have asked us for copies of it."
But Elmore believes that any ordinance that has been in use for so long deserves a second look, to see which sections of it stand the test of time.
"I have no preconceived ideas about the historic preservation process," she said. "We need to look at our current ordinances and best practices and determine whether changes are necessary."
Stoecker had no comment on the process, saying it was too early to tell whether his concerns would be addressed.
In addition to Elmore, Weisner will be appointing members to the committee over the next week. The committee is expected to complete its work and present a recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee before the end of the year.
Geez, ignoring the law and imposing his own kingdom rule--who does UNWISEner think he is--"W" as in Bush?
Just a few corrections to follow:
Thirty homeowners from the Downer place District voted to apply for Local Historic Designation.
The mob that shouted down the panel of experts from other local districts were uninformed and driven by people who were lied to.
Any one person can apply for designation, but that only begins the process. Leonard knows that and chooses to ignore how lengthy the process becomes. The average time from start to finish may be a year or more. More scare tactics.
Alderman Elmore may not be an expert in preservation but that may be an advantage. She will probably be unbiased, unlike Alderman Lawrence, who has been very vocally anti-preservation.
At the neighborhood meeting, Leonard Stoeker stood up and said he was the one who was leading the charge against the issue.
Openlineblog also is very ready to malign those of us who want to protect our area from further degradation. The first three blocks of west Downer are under seige with neon, parking lots, "special use" zoning and destruction of architectural integrity on homes built 100 to 150 years ago. Not fair!!
I'm the last person to be anti- preservation. You propably have not seen my home. I owned and ran RA Lawrence Company Inc. as a general contractor for 8 years who specialize in historical renovations of commercial properties. I grew up in New York where old homes a generally from the 1700's not the twenties or thirties. The home that we still own there was built in 1790 that my father completely restore in the 40's. I grew up in the restoration business and understand it very well and I'm very good at it.
I am opposed to an unelected commission that by a city ordinance has way to much power. You say the approval process might take up to a year but during that year everyone in the proposed district are bound by the guidelines until the final decision is made. According to the ordinance can be establish by the commission against the will of the majority. All this can be done with any notification of the owners except for 15 days prior to a hearing. Nobody wants to kill the Historic preservation commission but there has to be protection for property owners that do not want intrusion of any kind in their lives.
To 1028am anon;
Buying your house gives you NO right to intrude on other peoples' property rights! You have NO right to determine what is or is not preservation or preservable. Your property rights extend to your property line and NO FURTHER! Calling it a 'community' or a 'neighborhood' issue is simply hiding behind an emotional label to inflict your views on your neighbors.
Anonymous At 7/14/2006 10:28 AM,
Your comment: Thirty homeowners from the Downer place District voted to apply for Local Historic Designation.
Response: At no time was there any announcement or other disclosure of homeowners that we in favor of creating an historic district, with the exception of Shirley Flaherty and Mr. Anderson, who spoke at the meeting and some four or five others that lent their names to the letter that came out announcing the neighborhood meeting. To my knowledge the others have not stood up to so state nor have they otherwise identified themselves.
Your comment: The mob that shouted down the panel of experts from other local districts were uninformed and driven by people who were lied to.
Response: There was not mob at the meeting. However, what you did have were homeowners that were very upset about what appeared to be one person that claimed to represent five others that stated very clearly in a letter that they were “going forward” with the historic district.
I stood up an clearly identified myself, which is more than you are willing to do, and since I claimed to be a driving force in this matter I guess I was lied to. I am now wondering how, where and by whom I was lied to. Well the answer is that I read the ordinance and the guidelines and statutory authority and obtained information from other similar places and formed my own opinions and positions. Then the lie is in the ordinance.
Your comment: Any one person can apply for designation, but that only begins the process. Leonard knows that and chooses to ignore how lengthy the process becomes. The average time from start to finish may be a year or more. More scare tactics.
Response: Truth is not scare tactics. Presuming that a full and complete application is presented to the commission the first time, the time frames set out in the ordinance are as follows:
Filing application to regular meeting of the commission one day.
Regular meeting to public hearing 15 days.
Public hearing to decision of commission 30 days.
It is possible that if a full and complete application is submitted to the commission on the day before a regular meeting of the commission the commission at that meeting the very next day finds that the application has merit and all speed is directed to that application and we add say 10 days for purposes of administrative time for notice of hearing etc. the time frame from start to finish can be as short as 46 days plus the 10 days of administrative time for a total of 56 days.
What has occurred in the past is not relevant to the inquiry. What is relevant is what the ordinance provides. I have read the ordinance.
Your comment: Alderman Elmore may not be an expert in preservation but that may be an advantage. She will probably be unbiased, unlike Alderman Lawrence, who has been very vocally anti-preservation.
Response: I find it unfortunate that Rick Lawrence is branded unbiased based upon his desire for what is right and correct and his desire for government in the sunshine and that people be accountable for what they do. I think that if given a change you would find that you would get a very balanced approach from Rick. However, we will not know as the City has embarked on a path, contrary to the very ordinances governing this the actions of the administration of this city to keep Rick and the Government Operations committee from hearing a matter that is well within the GO committee’s jurisdiction.
Your comment: At the neighborhood meeting, Leonard Stoeker stood up and said he was the one who was leading the charge against the issue.
Response: First the name is Stoecker. Second, I had the intestinal fortitude to stand and identify myself, do you?
Your comment: Openlineblog also is very ready to malign those of us who want to protect our area from further degradation. The first three blocks of west Downer are under seige with neon, parking lots, "special use" zoning and destruction of architectural integrity on homes built 100 to 150 years ago. Not fair!!
Response: I do not think that you will find a single word written by openline that maligns you are anyone else. I do not write for openline I merely write my opinion.
The area of which you speak, I believe, is the Chestnut Square block. That is a zoning issue. Unfortunately, that area exists as zoned and has existed, I believe, since the late 1970’s. The houses in that block had major architectural changes many years ago. I must also say that there are several in that block that, as business uses, have been maintained fairly well.
Now if you do not like those apartments being there then pursue a down zoning and elimination of non-conforming uses and I will support your efforts in that. That issue needs to be pursued vigorously throughout this City.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating an historic district in the three block area of which you speak.
I've lived in the East side of Aurora's Historic District since the inception in 1979. In that time I've seen homes that possibly would have been chopped up into apartments saved as single family homes. Thus increasing property values for the neighborhood.
Jan Mangers the head of The Aurora Preservation Commission, not only is she an intelligent caring person, she is also extreamly easy to work with on home projects.
Take a few minutes and drive around the older areas of Aurora you will discover some awesome homes with incredibly unique architecture not offered by the "cookie cutter" modern homes that were built on an assembly line, more fitting in a double wide trailer park.
These unique homes NEED to be preserved. Over the years this city has lost many beautiful homes that were a part of the history of Aurora. The Historic Preservation is important to our city.
On the north east corner of Downer Place and Elmwood there's a white house at one time owned by the Gifford Family, on the parking there's a iron horse, that was mentioned in the book "Singing Wheels".
Saving the historic homes in the city is an important undertaking. I for one wouldn't want to see the White House replaced with a glass and steel building offering no personality. Would you?
I live in an area that has some "older" homes that could be historic, but I strongly oppose these districts.
Supporters of such districts seem to want to impose the will of a few on everyone. I don't agree with that. Some homes are NOT worth preserving, but that doesn't mean one can't preserve a home without some gov't group micromanaging the situation.
By the way, I think Weisner should be seriously stopped from setting up this committee without going through the process and law.
The issue is not about Jan Mangers or the members of the commission. I am sure that she and they are very fine people.
This issue is not about how she or the commission has conducted business in the past or even how they conduct business now.
This issue is about an ordinance and how it is written at this time and what it says.
This issue is about an ordinance that places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of very few people.
This issue is about the process of creating historical districts which totally ignores the rights of the homeowners that will be required to live under the rules of the commission.
This issue is about the words contained in an ordinance, nothing more and nothing less.
Our agenda is to keep out unwanted government intrusion into our lives.
If anyone out there wants to designate their home as a landmark and live under the commission please be my guest, it is your unfettered right to do so.
If my interepretation of the preservation ordinance, as it is presently written, is incorrect please show me where and how.
"Death by Committee" is the Weiner Way
If one person could be so powerful as to individually effect the whole area by initiating the process, then why didn't it happen?
It's really sad to find that I live in a community that the people are so selfish that they only care about themselves. I was hoping for more.
It's too bad that my neighbors don't care about the rest of the area.
They believe that they are an island. Just wait till the mess sprawls down their way. I will fight to avaet that but it seems there are some who could care less.
Alderman Lawrence said if he does not like what his neighbors do he will "just sell." Hows that for community spirit. We have a "cut and run" alderman.
I have property in a local historic district. I am concerned about the ordinance being in danger. I would not want to be in Aurora without the protection that the ordinance offers as a tool for stabilization.
Drive around Aurora and see how different thing are at the borders of a district. It is the best thing Aurora has going for it in the older neighborhoods.
Well considering that just yesterday I bought another home 2 blocks from my own. So a family member could be closer to us. I don't believe that would be considered as a cut and run move. But unlike some if I want things to look better or want to ensure what my surrounding area will look like I spend my own money.
One change to the preservation ordinance must be to allow homeowners to appeal staff and commission decisions to the city council. Right now, they end at the commission level. I want those decision in the hands of elected officials who are accountable to the will of the public, not some off to the side of reality design guideline. City Council members are citizens and neighbors too. I hope this is something that is considered by the review committee.
To Rick Lawerence
Good for you Rick! I am really glad you are there for all of us and that you stand on your morals!I appauld you in your efforts and being forthwright and honest
To Leonard,
You expect us to believe that 56 days is not enough time to protest?
This process was started in April and we are miles away from submitting an application.
You spook easily.
To annon 7/15 @ 1:04 AM
It appears to me that Leonard does not spook easily, he is just stating the facts as he knows them. Are you?
The districts are fine and so are the basic guidelines. The problem comes in with the interpretation of the rules. Like many things governmental, the people overseeing them get way too wrapped up in absolutes, consistency (the hobgoblin of the little mind), fear of a lawsuit for being practical, precedent, and all things preservation. It's great to be passionate about something, but harmful when it is the only thing forming the basis of every decision. I hope this need for flexibility is something discussed by Elmore and the others.
The districts have been a very important factor in helping the older neighborhoods, but the rules and guidelines do go overboard sometimes. The prior postings on this blog and their examples attest to that.
The fifty-six day process is fifty-six days only because the commission has 30 days after the public hearing to make a decision. Keep in mind that the commission could very well adjourn the public hearing, go into regular session and make a decision right then and there. If that occurred the time frame under the facts stated in my example would be 26 days. Further, keep in mind that I have given 10 days for administrative matters. Frankly, now that you have caused me think about this again ten days for administrative matters is very generous. I suspect that this time could be cur from 10 days to say three days. Therefore, the more likely time frame could be 19 days. Are you willing to risk any of your property rights on 19 days?
Nineteen days is not enough for one very serious issue in the ordinance which is a very good reason.
As written, this ordinance provides that decisions of the commission are final administrative decisions. They are appealable to the council and they are also appealable to the courts. The court appeal is the rub. The ordinance provides that decisions of the commission are appealable to the courts only on an administrative review basis.
What that means is that if you decide to appeal the commission’s decision the reviewing court will be limited to and its only function is to review the record of the proceedings of the commission. The court’s decision will simply be whether or not the decision of the commission was proper based on the evidence presented at the pubic hearing.
So in order for the property owner to preserve his or her appeal rights he must present a full case in chief at the public hearing just as if it were a trial on the merits of the case. That is the only way to get a full and complete record for review by the courts. In addition the commission should make a record of the proceedings.
As an aside, if the commission does not keep a record of the proceedings the property owner will have to do that. Another, burden placed on the property owner by this ordinance.
Go to your attorney and ask him or her if he or she can adequately prepare for a significant trial in 19 days?
So just how does the commission view the public hearing? Do they keep a record by voice recording or by stenographer or just how? Do they apprise the property owner that the hearing is reviewable only as administrative review and allow the property owner to prepare a case?
I personally do not know as I have not attended.
I do know that on at least one occasion at the beginning of the public hearing the chairman stated that the proceeding is not a court hearing and no one would be subject to cross examination. We should have every reason to believe that this is representative of the beginning of every public hearing by the commission.
When the average person walks into that situation, a person that has not read the ordinance, a person that wants to believe that the commission (government) has his best interests in mind and after all they are residents of the same community and they would not do anything to harm him and are told such things they will get a false sense of just what is really happening to them.
The reality is that if they do not like the result and then decide to visit their attorney to appeal the decision to court they will have the door slammed shut on them by the very entity that told them that the matter is not a trial and everything will be alright. In fact the truth is that property owner is going to get hammered if they try to appeal.
The issue is NOT the ordinance itself, it is the fact that the MAYOR is going around the committee and thinking that he is a KING. That is not how this country was founded, and that should not be allowed.
THE CITIZENS NEED TO REVOLT THIS TYPE OF TYRANY, IT IS GETTING RIDICULOUS!!
Went to Jewel on Eola and Indian Trail this morning and saw an openlineblog.com sticker posted on a can on my way out.
GREAT!
Hey 11:55 a.m., going around the Committee is the only way you are going to get an unbiased review of this ordinance and process. There needs to be involvement by people other than the preservation special interest group. The applications now are way too narrow. Your rules need some adjusting.
One of the ways to go around the Mayor, City Council, Vaughn, Bigelow and all the other ones is to contact the FBI, States Attorney, Attorney General, and Lisa Madigan. I have and have had responses. I let them know everthing I know about EVERYTHING! Some had better start shaking in their boots as I have gotten replys.
Openline, where can I get some stickers? I know of a few places I would really love to place them at!
Getting back more to the real issue, what kind of problems have people faced with historic district rules? What are some of the issues that have been encountered? There must be quite a few to spark some much backlash. Maybe some of the members of the review committee will check out this blog and can see for themselves.
Most comments on this blog regarding the Preservation Ordinance have come from people who have not been involved in the process.
We have a lot of experts who lack expertise.
I think Leonard should also spend some time to see if he can get rid of all those neon signs placed on houses.
Preservation Guidlines would allow business signs on commercially zoned property, but would determine the size and number allowed according the area in question.
We need a new sign ordinance for all of Aurora.
No More laws and rules and zoning .
How about enforcing existing rules first
To annon 7/15 @ 9:19 PM
This all ties to what you are referring to when you state getting back more to the real issue. Hope you understand this.
Anonymous At 7/15/2006 10:35 PM,
First, I have not claimed to be an expert.
Second, I am able to read and understand english, therefore I can read the ordinance and understand the words contained therein.
In addition I understand the concept of due process and I see very little in this ordinance.
Third, you have answered your own inquiry. Maybe the sign ordinance should be amended to more closely regulate signs on commercial properties located in historical districts.
Why is it necessary to impose another layer of government regulation to cover signs? Isn't it enough that we have an ordiance regulating signs? If you do not like the sign regulations try to get those regulations changed to suit your desires. I would venture to say that the council would be very receptive to some type of special regulation of signs in historical districts.
In fact I will go one better and I will whole hardedly support you in the concept of the effort.
When I purchased the Roundhouse, Historic Preservation gave me the guidelines that the previous developer of the property had negotiated.
I was told:
I could put 2X4 drop-in ceiling with fluorescent lighting throughout the interior covering the original trusses and purlins. I could cover the original limestone walls in drywall. I couldn't plant trees in the Courtyard because it would loose the "industrial feel" but I could put a locomotive in the middle of the Courtyard.
I couldn't imagine doing any of it. And I couldn't imagine not having the trees and plants.
After I completed the project, I received a letter from the National Historic Presrvation Association ordering me to "remove the trees from the Courtyard."
I invited them out and told them I would discuss it with them. When they left, they agreed the trees were an asset.
Three years later, 1999 we were selected as one of the nation's
(14 projects were selected throughout the nation)finest examples of Historic Preservation by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Jan Mangers,Aurora's Historic Preservation Representative, did join Walter's Mom, (Walter was ill and died 10 days later), Pam and me in Washington D.C. Jan paid her own way, the city wouldn't cover her expenses.
No recognition of that award was ever acknowledged by the City of Aurora. One of 14 in the nation. The only building in Aurora to ever receive that level of award in 140 years.
My point is simply that sometimes "they (Historic Preservationists)" don't know better than the Homeowner or in our case the Houseowner. So, what is the point?
We have now heard from a fairly large business on one count. What have some homeowners experienced?
These kinds of comments would come from people "involved in the process."
Let's here from those properties owned by hard-working families that have been on the "told to" end. These people are the real future of the City. Those are people that have been part of the real process.
Very Informative Scott thanks for the post. Unfortunatley I think it also shows of the systemic problems that have existed in Aurora for some time.
Which is a reason why we need a review of the ordinance and the process.
Mr. Ascher, thank you for turning the Roundhouse into one Aurora's best assets and something we can all be proud of. City officials and the current mayor may not care, but we do.
Maybe somebody out there can tell me why it's such a big problem to use modern windows in the historic district and why chain link fencing, even the black vinyl clad type, is so forbidden. What if I want to be able to let my child play in the yard and be able to watch at all times. Or, what if I want to be able to let my dog out and like the total visiblilty of the chain link? As far as the windows go, it's now 2006, and that's the way windows are made. What matters is the way the rest of the house looks, not the small areas encircling the windows. These are the kinds of things that cause people to react negatively when you start telling us about the great benefits of being in a historic district.
The Planning and Development Commitee of the Council appears to consider all of the facade and assistance loans for preservation from whay I've read in the Beacon. The Government Operations Committee doesn't do that kind of review or formulate planning ordinances. They negotiate boundary agreements, monitor civic events, handle street light and traffic issues (Chathan Grove), and other similar things. All past changes to the preservation ordinance went to Planning and Development. So do all zoning changes. Looks to me like the Plan and Development route is the place for this to be.
Preservationists do not know better than the homeowner or the property owner, but they think they do. We, as the great unwashed, are capable of rehabbing our properties and still retaining "personality."
Looks like Weisner is not circumventing anything here. Relax and let's see where this review goes.
I do hope that the review body gets some input from real people living in the districts and not just retirees, empty nesters, those living one and two to a house, DINK's, etc. No offense to those of you controlling this process for the last 20 years, but there are many families out there buying homes in the district that never seem to be factored in to the mix.
If I want to paint my house pink, why should someone tell me I can't. If I want to brick up a window or put another living unit in my basement, who should tell me not to?
I own my property. I can do anything I want to do to it without anyone from the city telling me i can't.
My land is mine and if I want a chain link fence, who's business is it.
There should be no ordinance to regulate me. This is America.
Looks like Weisner IS circumventing the process. Not just by putting it P&D to avoid Lawrence and Kifowit, but ignoring the fact the issue is about an ORDINANCE. It's a legislative question for the city council, not something for the P&D committee that has proved recently it's incapable of protecting Aurora from cronies and corruption.
Preservation regulations that bother the public deal with appearance and style. It's hard to justify those standards, especially the details.
I give credit to Wesiner for his willingness to open up the preservation ordinance and discuss it. It was first approved in the early 1980's and, like anything that has been around for 25 years, it has done some good and is also in need of some adjustments. Forget this committee assignment diversion. The ordinance is the real issue.
Here is the thing. Weisner won't let anything get done unless he can take credit for it. The committees, P&D or GO are aldermanic committees, and the aldermen could take credit for listening to the residents. Weisner wouldn't get any credit. So, he decides he wants his own committee so he can take all the credit he wants. It's a scam. The current aldermen are capable of listening to the residents without another layer of B.S.
Vote NO for the special Weisner committee and hold the aldermen accountable to listen to the people.
What about a committe of aldermen and other citizens? We should be after input, balance and good results. Stop bashing Weisner on the way to the end. Your judgement is really clouded.
Hey 7/17 at 12:10 a.m., guess yours is home on the range, not modern life in a city.
To Scott Asher,
Thank you so much for helping to save the Round House. It's a real jewel in our community.
I'm glad that you pointed out how the interior was preserved instead of doing what the previous owners agreed to with the city.
Many opponents of the Ordinance do not know that INTERIORS ARE NOT REGULATED by the Preservation Commission. You went beyond the guidelines. Again, thank you (and Walter.)
Post a Comment