The Journal Star is reporting tonight that Peoria’s Historic Preservation Commission is not in favor of designating Glen Oak Park as an historic landmark, but is willing to consider landmarking some individual structures, such as the pavilion.

That’s a reasonable approach. Designating the whole park as a landmark would be overreaching, in my opinion, and would challenge the sovereignty of the Peoria Park District. It would almost certainly have ended up in litigation, needlessly draining taxpayer dollars as the city and park district played tug-of-war.

That said, the park district does need to do a better job of maintaining Glen Oak Park, as well as the other parks under its stewardship. That’s the underlying reason this is being brought before the historic preservation commission in the first place. The parapet has been falling apart for years, and the foot bridge has also been undergoing “demolition by neglect,” to name two very visible examples. There seems to be no end to the resources the park district can dole out for new projects like the zoo expansion and rail-to-trail conversion attempt. Some of those resources would be better used maintaining what they already have.

UPDATE: Here’s Jennifer Davis’s full article from Thursday’s Journal Star. I was interested to read this statement: “Until [March 28], the park remains as if it was landmarked, which park officials protested because it stalls their plans to remove the old stone fort by the lagoon.” It seems their lack of maintenance over the years has caused the parapet to deteriorate to a point that it would cost over $800,000 to fix it, according to the one bid they received.

I don’t know what they’re so worried about. If the commission finds that it’s not an historic structure, they’ll be able to proceed with removing it; if it does get designated an historic structure, I would imagine it would make it eligible for grant money that could be used to repair it.

Clare Jellick (who has a good blog of her own) reports in today’s Journal Star that plans to expand Glen Oak Zoo will be unhindered by the request to designate Glen Oak Park an historic site.

Section 16-86(d) of Peoria’s municipal code states (emphasis mine):

(d) Regulation during consideration period. From the date of filing an application until the date of a final decision by the commission, or if the commission recommends the designation, until the date of a final decision by the city council, the provisions of section 16-61 shall apply as if the subject property were designated as requested; provided, however, that this interim control shall in no case apply for more than 210 days after the application is filed. Once the area is designated as a historic district or a landmark, it shall comply with all the regulations set forth in articles I through IV of this chapter.

So, the next question is, what does section 16-61 say? Here it is:

Work on property and improvements shall be regulated as follows:

(1) Landmarks. No alterations, interior construction which affects structural members, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements which have been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as landmarks except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.

(2) Historic districts. No alterations, exterior construction, removal of significant landscaping (for a shrub mass, more than 25 percent) or exterior demolition may be performed on property and improvements located within an area which has been designated under articles I through IV of this chapter as a historical district except as shall be approved by a certificate of appropriateness.

However, Pat Landes, the city’s Director of Planning and Growth Management, tells Jellick that since the City Council approved a special use permit for the zoo expansion in June 2006, the city is going to allow construction to continue unhindered. She was pretty emphatic and definitive, reportedly saying, “The city has no plans to stop the construction of the zoo.”

Yet, according to section 16-4(c) of the municipal code (emphasis mine), “Whenever there is a conflict between the provisions of articles I through IV of [the Historic Preservation] chapter or a regulation adopted hereunder and the provisions of any other code or ordinance of the city, the more restrictive shall apply.”

It seems to me the City is breaking its own code in deference to the Park District. A plain reading of the code would indicate that the zoo expansion should be halted until the Historic Preservation Commission either approves or denies making Glen Oak Park an historic site. That the City is reluctant to enforce this temporary delay indicates, I believe, the City is unlikely to approve declaring the park an historic site either. Just a prediction.

Why? Because getting into a turf battle of this magnitude with the Park District would be expensive, acrimonious, and arguably disadvantageous for the city. Also, since the Park Board made the right final decision (from the City’s viewpoint at least) regarding the school siting issue, the City is likely to be more cooperative than they would have been otherwise.

The Journal Star has an editorial in today’s print edition (I haven’t been able to find it online to link to it), headlined “Historic or not, parks are province of Park Board,” that criticizes citizens’ attempts to declare Glen Oak Park an historic site, thus making it subject to oversight by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission. They state:

Any move by Peoria’s Historic Preservation Commission to landmark Glen Oak Park as a historic site worthy of city-enforced restrictions on its use should be considered as an assault on the sovereignty of the Peoria Park District.

This may surprise (and dismay) some readers, but I actually agree with them on that. It would set a dangerous precedent if one municipal body (the city) — whether through elected (council) or unelected (commission) representatives — tried to exert authority over another municipal body.

If the city agreed to make Glen Oak Park an historic site, that means that any and all changes to the park would have to be approved by a city commission. That would make the city the de facto governing body over Glen Oak Park. I think that would be a huge overstepping of bounds.

I have to admit that I have somewhat reluctantly come to that conclusion, because I agree with the sentiment behind the effort, which is to preserve the remaining historic structures in Glen Oak Park (e.g., the parapet) and to keep the park land itself from being reduced by encroachments by the zoo and currently-defunct school siting projects. But the proper place for redress of those grievances is the Park Board, not a city commission. If the Park Board is unresponsive, then those trustees should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.

After all, what if the tables were turned? Should the Park Board be allowed to exert its control unilaterally over all greenspace in the city, not just park land it owns? Should they claim to have jurisdiction over what you plant in your backyard or whether you cover part of your backyard to put in a deck? Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

However, I disagree with the editorial writers when they say this:

The petition has everything to do with District 150’s attempt to partner with the Park District in building a new school on a corner of upper Glen Oak Park.

I think that’s an oversimplification at best. Certainly the school siting attempt lit the fire, but I don’t believe the historic designation attempt is based solely on trying to stop the school. Rather, as a result of the spotlight placed on Glen Oak Park because of the school issue, many people are gaining a new appreciation for the value of the park and realizing the extent of its poor repair. That the parapet and foot bridge have been allowed to deteriorate so badly through neglect is reprehensible. But again, these are things for which the Park Board and its staff — specifically Bonnie Noble — should be held accountable, not usurped by the City.

We need to preserve Glen Oak Park, but we also need to preserve the separation of powers between the City and Park District.