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.
Fine. Then do away with the ability of the city to tell ANYONE what to do with their property in the name of historic preservation.
As troubling as it is for one body of government to have that much control over another, it’s even more troubling for there to be rules that apply to the governed that do not apply to those who govern.
Troubling, hell. It’s a threat to Democracy.
The two situations are different, Billy. I’m talking here about one representative body trying to regulate another representative body. That’s like the House trying to regulate the Senate. This has nothing to do with a representative body being subject to its own laws.
I’m not surprised to see Billy Dennis far down on the individual liberty end of the spectrum regarding property rights. However, there is the little fact that what one person does to their property can significantly affect the value of their neighbor’s property. The larger society does have a stake in what one person does with their property, and a government elected by the people is sometimes justified in regulating that. Can this be abused by a governmental body that has lost touch with its electorate? No doubt! But it’s not always a bad thing.
Sorry, CJ, can’t agree with you on this one. To begin with, if the City can regulate other buildings within its boundaries, it should be able to do so in the Park. Secondly, I don’t agree that the Park District should be “sovereign” in the first place. We have way too many “sovereign” (a/k/a taxing) bodies. We need to start doing away with them, in my opinion. Nevertheless assuming that we don’t, the argument still doesn’t hold water. Elected bodies DO have oversight over other elected bodies. Remember checks & balances. If you don’t believe in that, then let’s just make the President a dictator and be done with all the inefficiency. After all you can always vote the guy out at the next election, right?
CJ: I have to agree to disagree with you.
Zoning authority of a municipality is exercised over the entire municipality, in this case, the city of Peoria. If not, then the park district and the school district (mentioned in the school code)could build whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted, in whatever manner they wanted and then become their own law. The city of Peoria also has some authority over Peoria County zoning issues perhaps due to home rule, annexation within 1.5 mile of the city’s boundaries (I would have to do more research to verify the specifics)
That was the contention with Ridgeview school construction, COP having authority over a Peoria county issue.
There are also appellates cases on this issue.
The zoo expansion involves the PPD wanting to put smelly, loud animals with bright lighting next to residences — so the city imposes industrial standards for lighting, sounds and smells — if I were an adjourning owner — at least I would receive (for whatever it is worth) protection via COP rules, however, if the PPD uses its own rules, well, seems reasonable that no industrial standards would be put into place (you know that means spending more taxpayer dollars to help the taxpayers). And I disagreed with the COP decision to allow this special use — wrong place to put a zoo in a sardine can and then rezone an entire regional park for potential zoo expansion via Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5.
I also do not support your arguement that the COP should be allowed to regulate ‘historical edifaces’ on private properties and not public properties — what is the point?
And, since the park district has not shown proper stewardship in the past — just review other blogs about the demise of Glen Oak Park …. what makes you think that they will be self-correcting?
(Think no money for the parapet restoration at $65,000. Think PPD approves $2.2 million in principal repayment plus 3.5% interest/per year for up to 10 years on $10.2 million which should also allow for removal, demolition of the pedestrian footbridge (I have been told)for the zoo expansion).
That is not responsible stewardship of our history nor taxpayers’ dollars.
The City should have seniority over the Park District. I just don’t understand why the Park District is an independent body. I don’t agree with it.
Mahkno:
http://www.peoriaparks.org/geninfo/giovrvw.html
The Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria, organized in 1894, was the first park system formed in Illinois. Seventy years later in 1963, the City of Peoria Playground and Recreation Department merged with the Park District, thus expanding the potential program and facility responsibilities of the Park District.
And it has been reported that the demise of Glen Oak Park started in the early 1960’s … hum ….
Well, you all make some good points. I’ll think about it a little more. It’s also come to my attention that the park district does have the ability to tell the city what to do in some situations; for instance, it can declare a street a pleasure driveway and control the speed limit on it among other things…. So maybe there’s more precedent for intergovernmental meddling than I thought at first….
Still, the breadth of the request is troubling to me: declaring the entire park an historic site. Doesn’t that seem a bit sweeping? (I mean, could you just designate all of downtown Peoria as an historic site? After all, it’s been there since the 1800s and has a lot of historic structures and features.) Or should historic preservation be more narrowly-defined? For instance, if they want to save the parapet and foot bridge, should those features be the subject of the historic preservation request versus the whole park?
CJ, I’ll go along with the more narrowed definition of historic sites. While I feel they should be held to the same standards as others, naming the whole park historic is a bit of an overkill. It then requires them to ask for permission before making any substantial changes and that’s not a good thing. Specific structures or park elements, perhaps – the whole park – NO.
Maybe the Kellar branch could be considered historic and the City not be allowed to turn the historic rails into a trail….
CJ, your original opinion seems correct. The City should not be allowed to turn the whole park into a historic anything. MAYBE a specific building or the like, but certainly not an entire park. What’s next? Trees in the park?
Karrie mentioned “stewardship.” How would any of you rate the “stewardship” of Peoria’s history, be it the material culture or local architecture?