Included in the Peoria City Council’s evisceration of the city’s historic preservation ordinance was a provision that exempts church-owned property from historic preservation. Specifically, the motion said, in part, “No property or structure that is owned by a religious organization and is used primarily as a place for the conduct of religious ceremonies or to further the religious mission or business of the owner shall be subject to the regulations set forth in Articles I through IV of this Chapter by reason of its location within a Historic District….”
That’s all Westminster Presbyterian Church needed to file suit against the City:
Westminster Presbyterian Church, 1420 W. Moss Ave., wants a judge to declare Westminster House has a religious use and therefore can be demolished under changes made to the ordinance Feb. 8…. For years, Westminster has tried to demolish the Westminster House, located at 1508 W. Moss Ave. and in the heart of Moss-High Historic District. The efforts have led nowhere until perhaps now. In 2008, the church unsuccessfully tried to convince the historic preservation commission to allow it to demolish the building. Then they filed suit in federal court, a legal action that was defeated last fall.
The suit filed Monday states the church began holding men’s fellowship prayer meetings on March 9 and that makes the building, which had been used until 2006 as office space, a religious building.
This illustrates the can of worms opened by the council’s action. Do existing historic landmarks automatically get de-listed if they are owned by religious organizations now they are exempt? What if a religious organization purchases an historic landmark building? Does it then automatically get de-listed?
I wonder if those on the council who voted for this amendment had really thought through all the ramifications before passing it.
Good question. I heard a church in Springfield purchased Linoln’s house and thought it would be a good place for a parking lot. Now it’s gone!..I’m kidding, of course, but unfortunately a scenerio like that could actually occur, especially since the National Park Service has no federal action that can be taken on a “protected” property that’s privately owned. They leave it up to the local jurisdiction. What’s the point, then, of the national list of historic places (which this Westminter house is on, I might add?)
Didn’t think; didn’t care.
Why would they have uniquely singled this Council item out to think thru the ramifications????????????? Instant gratification is what its about.
I’m a Westminster member and I hate to see this happen. I’m actually not sure where the overall congregation is with this issue, since it has been years since the congregation has discussed it formally. Ideally, I’d like see the house re-habbed and turned back in to a parsonage. I’m sure that would be a lot cheaper than to keep plugging away in court.
Conrad, I agree. When I visited that church last year for a service, I talked with one of the ladies afterward who told me the church couldn’t afford to restore it to original inside and, therefore, wanted to tear it down & build a new one. She, like many other people (including councilmen Turner) remain ignorant of the fact that they DON’T HAVE TO MAKE THE INSIDE ORIGINAL! The oridance protects the exterior appearance only. It’s misconceptions like this that has caused these churches and citizens to despise (through thorough misunderstanding) the preservation ordinances in Peoria!
Wow, a property owner wanting to do something with their property. Heaven forbid.
No Mr. Hernadez, you are incorrect. The preservationists had the power to overrule owner consent. That power was abused in multiple cases and it was revoked, now there is angry thumping and stomping of feet. Some forthought by this group and the use of that power wisely would have resolved the issue to begin with. Let me remind you when the Med Tech concept was proposed. Moss Bradley, the Arbor District, and the Uplands raised holy hell because they did not want to be a part of that project. They wanted the right to say what was done in their neighborhoods and with their property. Now many of these same people want to dictate what others do with the property they themselves bought and pay taxes on. So why does one group get to keep their property rights and another doesn’t.
If you want to save historic preservation, bad press and bad tactics will not help you. Outside of that circle, there is much resentment on the practices which have happened.
I would strong suggest that this group work on marketing preservation, teaching the value of the historic properties, and show a sincere willingness to work with property owners through education and engagement than brute force.
Marjorie Klise asked a question of the candidates about if they were given a pot of money say $100,000 what they would do with it. To me the obvious plan would have been to mimic the Moss Bradley revolving fund and develop a historic preservation revolving fund for properties outside of the historic districs. There are a number of economic tools which could be used. There are national foundations for grants to apply, etc.
I would submit that approaching an owner with some research about the property, educating them about the value of preservation, testimonies of other landmarked property owners, and some sources of grants or loans would be much more successful than forcing people to go along kicking and screaming.
Too many people’s “rights” start in someone else’s wallet.
It should reach the point where people feel honored to be on a landmark listing rather than cringing at the very thought. Take off the historic preservation glasses and see how past negative efforts have soured the community from the process. When that is addressed thoroughly and a more positive reputation is established then there will be more community buy in.
Paul W. has described the situiation with historict preservation in Peoria quite accurately. The only disagreement is that if you have a successfull revolving fund, like Randolph-Roanke had, envious people will inevitably want their hands on the money and will be willing to use lies to get it.
Thanks for the forum C.J.
yeah I mean rehabbing a large old home that has been vacant for a long period of time is just a few bucks and a little neighborhood can do attitude right…
I agree with that assessment, but Mr. Vega makes a good point and I assure you there are many misconceptions about historic preservation with owners or potential owners of these properties.
Several other revolving funds in Peoria have fallen for one reason or another. It’s a well meaning, but difficult thing to manage and is not the only solution for saving these buildings.
I think a common misconception is that old homes that are in or near knock down condition can be saved on a shoe string budget by johhny and marry diyer’s. Large renovations on homes of the size found in the east and west bluff are major projects that can often cost in the 10’s of thousands. I would bet that to put in a new heating system in the house talked about here you could easily sink 10k depending on whether any of the existing system can be salvaged or cobbed into the new one. Wire the entire place probablly at least another 10 or 15k. Preservationists often arnt realist not that reality should always win out but if these properties are going to be saved I think that people need to be a little more honest about the costs and not just see a minds eye view of the finished project.
Outsider, there’s no denying restoration of a severely damaged house or building can be very expensive. One of the most common misconceptions though, is the notion that it costs more to restore the property than to knock it down & build a new one. That’s a foolish and misguided notion that denies all common sense. Trinity Lutheran argued this about the apartments. They claimed it would be $100k to remodel it to their needs, then suddenly one day that number jumped to $500k. I have my doubts about the 2nd number, but in either case, when have you ever heard about a new 10,000 square foot commercial building that costs less than $500k to build from scratch. Either they were misled or they were lying in order to build a place that matched the appearance of the church better.
Westminister is arguing this about their house because, as I mentioned before, many people of the church believe (incorrectly) that they must restore the inside to its original condition. Simply not true.