The Peoria City Council denied historic preservation for the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe, at tonight’s council meeting. First district councilman Clyde Gulley moved to deny the request, seconded by at-large councilman Eric Turner. The vote was 9-1 in favor of Gulley’s motion to not landmark the building (Councilman Sandberg voted against; Councilman Jacob abstained).
This was no surprise. AMVETS members started lobbying the council before the Historic Preservation Commission even heard the case or made a recommendation, so the vote was practically preordained. Several council members spoke to the issue.
- “It’s not pro-business or pro-development,” Councilman Turner said about the historic preservation process.
- Second district council member Barbara Van Auken concurred, but said historic preservation should be pro-business and pro-development and certainly can be; thus, she reported that she has asked Planning and Growth director Pat Landes to look at how historic preservation is handled in other communities.
- Fifth district council member Pat Nichting gave his time to AMVETS Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell to address the council. Mr. Mitchell is opposed to historic preservation for this building because it impedes his organization from selling it to Riverside Community Church, which wants to demolish it. Find more info on the building maintenance and facilities services here.
- At-large councilman Gary Sandberg cited the Easton mansion as an example of a building where a previous owner did not want historic preservation, but was ultimately preserved and is now a beautiful, well-preserved building with a successful business (Converse Marketing) housed in it. He also argued that the item before the council is whether this building meets the standard for historic preservation; it does, and therefore should be landmarked. He also mentioned that, in response to concerns over economic development, not landmarking this building will not give any economic advantage to the city, since it will most likely be sold to a non-profit organization, which is going to raze it.
- Fourth district councilman Bill Spears doesn’t want to vote against a veterans organization.
- Mayor Jim Ardis stated his frustration with the last-minute nature of this situation. He also stated that there’s no independent arbiter to determine whether a building is historic or not. This was a curious statement, as I thought that was why we had a Historic Preservation Commission. What is their role if not to be just such an independent arbiter? Ardis also stated that non-profit organizations such as churches improve the area and make it more conducive to economic development, even though they don’t provide economic development themselves.
Les Kenyon was given the privilege of the floor and spoke in favor of landmarking the building, but his pleas were all for naught. The council voted against landmarking this building, not on the merits of whether the building is historic or not, but on the circumstances surrounding the application.
So, Peoria will soon lose yet another historic building. But we can put big pictures of it in the new history museum we’re going to build downtown once that sales tax referendum is passed. Eventually, a museum is the only place you’ll be able to see any historic architecture in Peoria.
I think this is a good example of why the process has to change regarding landmarking historic buildings. If it is only done immediately prior to a scheduled sale or demolition, the process will only be seen as a negative for the community. This type of designation should be done proactively for the good of the community.
I fear however that the CILF will go over the edge and begin submitting applications for any building with a remote chance of being deemed historic to prevent this situation from occurring again. There has to be some happy middle ground reached on protecting our important structures without overly restricting plans that are already in place for a building.
I find a little ironic the rationale used by some of them to support their position. It makes no logical sense. Bill Spears needs to think twice and speak once – his logic is becoming more and more fuddled and many of the others hid behind “economic development” when as Councilman Sandberg noted – you can accomplish both economic development and historic preservation.
C.J.: If you want to preserve it, raise the money and buy it. It’s that simple.
Billy: Here’s the problem. We have a historic preservation ordinance. If the council is not going to abide by the process established by that ordinance, then they should repeal it. If they’re not going to repeal it, they should abide by it.
Billey is right, If you want to preserve it, buy it. I am sure the Amvets would be glad to sell it. The Amvets might be doomed if they cant sell it or fix it up. What is to keep the landmark foundation from re-appling this proprety to the HPC?
“Ardis also stated that non-profit organizations such as churches improve the area and make it more conducive to economic development, even though they don’t provide economic development themselves.”
Was Ardis talking about churches or the ‘history’ museum? As far as Peoria [downtown] is concerned, I don’t see that either one is “conducive to economic development.” I hope Ardis runs a second time, so I can NOT vote for him again.
Billy & Marty — Property owners do not have absolute rights to do anything they want with their property. It’s never been that way and it never will be that way. Property owners have lots of rights, but they also have responsibilities. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld historic preservation ordinances as constitutional. The process that Central Illinois Landmark Foundation went through to try to get that building landmarked was fair and objective; the Historic Preservation Commission followed the process correctly as well. The building is historic by the measures outlined in the ordinance. The city council did not dispute that fact; nevertheless, they voted against historic designation for other reasons. That was arbitrary. It was the wrong decision. It was a political decision, not one based on facts and evidence. It was not good public policy.
This is just brilliant. Peoria loses another unique piece of its historic character, and it will be replaced by a tax-exempt organization, not a tax-paying business. How the heck is this about economic development???
I get less and less impressed with Jim Ardis and his “leadership” every day.
Also … in case I ever forget, please remind me that I NEVER want Billy Dennis or any like-minded Libertarian (or libertarian) as my neighbor, ’cause my property values would fall through the floor.
Well C.J., I generally agree with you – however I think the process can be tweaked and the criteria made a little clearer. Under the current rules, I think you could get Les Kenyon landmarked as a unique structure and piece of Peoria’s heritage.
I agree that the decision was made for the wrong reasons. I am disapointed in the lack of vision displayed by the majority of the council on this issue.
“Forget the rules, just trust us”
Peoria City Council
Mazr: Yes, that is what it has come too. What is ‘grandfathering’ ? and anything else which one cares to put within the quotation marks. Another slide down the slope of bad public policy.
What restrictions will be imposed on the design of the new building, if any, to keep the Church from replacing this with a ‘modern’ eyesore.
Historic Preservation can have value and be an attraction if the City implements incentives to property owners for building retention. How about grant money or matching programs. What about expedited review process or or reduced/free permit fees. How about an alternative building code for existing buildings that doesn’t require elevators or other mightily expensive improvements from being installed. There are options.
To those blatently against historic preservation claiming an infringement on private rights: Let Big Al’s, Liquor stores, factories, and auto shops locate whereever they want. Allow the house next door to be converted into 6 apartments for Bradley students.
Once again, Sandberg is the only one who got it right.
What was so wrong with the AMVETS talking to the council about an issue with the selling of their property? CJ you know the bldg was for sale for years and this was just thrust upon them. What would you have done, just rolled over and let the Historic Society take ownership of the place without spending a dime of their money? What would have been the next step if this went the other way? Do you think they might start making some Demands on how they say the bldlg should be kept,and with whose money and time?
How long have the AMVETs been in that location?
Mahkno — Since 1969, according to the paper.
CW — There’s nothing wrong with the AMVETS talking to the council about it. What I have a problem with is the council members weighing in on whether they would approve or deny landmarking the building before they even heard the case for landmarking it — before it even came before the Historic Preservation Commission. How could they judge the situation before they even heard both sides of the argument?
So for 39 years they have been slumming it in that building, deferring maintenance on the building, and not putting money aside for the obvious big ticket upgrades that a building that age eventually requires. When you own an older building, the older it is, the more money you need to be setting aside for its upkeep. Look at how much it would cost to build it new and what you paid for it, and you get an idea of where your future costs are.
Sandburg is right: this building holds great potential for the right business, who could benefit from the goodwill of preserving this architectural treasure. Not to mention the awesome, unique windowed office spaces they could provide employees. The rest of the council just doesn’t get it. Think bigger, guys.
I meant Sandberg.
C.J.: “Here’s the problem. We have a historic preservation ordinance. ”
I could not agree more.
Except I like that part about how the Peoria City Council has the final vote.
Billy — Unable to refute the substantive argument? Had to fall back on the easy snarky comment?
Mahkno. Slumming in the bldg? What the h–l do you know about the situation of the Amvets? Are you a member or a vet? I am both and a certified engineer. The post members have to vote on agendas and finances. How much money do you think the post can generate a year after paying for eccentials and putting some back for a fund to move to a location where all the veterans can go to. Some members are older and some have disabilities they didn’t get by natural means. The country has more veterans coming home, they are welcome to come slumming with us anytime. CJ , maybe the council weighed the needs of the veterans over a bldg. I am sure you will find out why. The best thing would be to find a buyer that wants to restore the bldg and the church would be great if they would incorporate the old with a new addition to the church. In the meantime I don’t see the place falling down anytime soon.
C.J. Sorry for going with the joke. But you have GOT to stop feeding me straight lines.
I thought I’d refute your argument with the following lines from a post on my blog, The American Guesser. I am talking about folks who don’t support libertarian, free-market economics because it leads to Wal-Mart and their ilk destroying mom-and-pop stores. But I think what I wrote applies to the idea that property rights shouldn’t stand in the way of preserving old buildings when the people who don’t own the property think ought to be preserved … on someone else’s dime, of course. I wrote:
One of the hardest things Libertarians face is that concept that’s been ingrained into the brains of Americans: It’s the government’s job to tweak the rules so the outcome benefits them. Or, benefits people they find more deserving.
In other words, when other people are allowed to make choices, sometimes it’s not the choices you would make. It’s price you pay for living in a free society that lets YOU make the choices YOU want to make.
I know it’s frightening, but that’s what being an adult is all about.
So grow up already.
Someone told me that the Penguin Tap has been sold to a different buyer and yet the Journal Star stated that the Amvets were going to still buy the Penguin. Who’s right? Does anyone know for sure?