Feel free to comment on whatever you would like today.
Here’s my comment just kick things off: Thank goodness the Minnesota bridge collapse wasn’t due to terrorism or you know we’d all end up having to take off our shoes and submit to a full body cavity search every time we wanted to cross any river in the U.S.
Shhhh! Don’t give them any ideas. They are working hard to turn this county into a police state. They don’t need any help.
Speaking of hot and muggy – yesterday 3 zip code areas of north Peoria and Dunlap were without power for nearly 5 long, hot hours! Naturally the Peoria rag carried no news about it. Just curious if anybody knows why the outage occurred. ^oo^~
An organization is defined by its bylaws.
If the organization ceases to abide by its bylaws, does it cease to be an organization?
Your papers please….
Nothing says that only single family houses are allowed. While that is the goal, some 25% of the neighborhood is rental. Who is to say if the Church didn’t buy that house, that it would have sold to a family and not a landlord. The Church never HAD to come to the association and ask our thoughts, they did that out of trying to be a good neighbor to the neighborhood.
I guess the church should sell it and a landlord can buy it so we can see “bitch” written on the garage like it is down the alley.
Hello neighbor,
If you want to bring up concrete examples then please read the bylaws.
I quote:
“The Purpose of this Association shall include, but not limited to:
1) retaining the original vision of the Uplands as a single family residential neighborhood.”
Order matters a great deal in these sorts of things. This is our first and foremost responsibility as an organization. There is not obscurity in what was written. The original vision did not call for church offices. These homes should be for single families only. That is the position this neighborhood association must… I repeat must advocate for. Not offices, not nonconforming rentals, not a hodge podge of people; but reather single families. Indeed these bylaws were specifically revised in 2004 (following the med tech ordeal) by, ironically enough the same people pushing for church offices, to prevent this very sort of thing. It was revised because of the discomfort that was felt with some, advocating for mixed use dwellings in the Uplands that were not single family.
Just in case you are not fully aware of how important the ‘purpose’ of the organization is, the bylaws reaffirm it in Section 9: “Any officer who fails to support the stated purposes of the Association or abide by the by-laws of the Association may be removed from office….”
Roberts Rules of Order is quite clear that the By-Laws cannot be suspended.
The status of a house might well change irregardless of anything a neighborhood association does. Those things that are beyond our control are well beyond our control but that is far different than taking active roles in surrendering the neighborhood to other institutional interests who intentions are certainly unclear and not shared with ours. Our purpose is clear and that is to advocate for single family residences. Taking the opposite position is not a valid option. Our bylaws say so.
Hey neighbor… the bylaws state, “The Purpose of this Association shall include, but not be limited to: 1. retaining the original vision of The Uplands as a single-family residential neighborhood….”
Turning a single-family residence into an office does not “retain[] the original vision” of a single-family neighborhood. Don’t get me wrong — I think the church will take fine care of the house. They’ve shown themselves to be responsible neighbors with the houses they already own.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is that an association can’t violate its own bylaws. It would be like the Legislature passing a law saying no one can own guns — they can’t do that because it would violate the Constitution. Our bylaws are our constitution. The proper action, if we’re indifferent to the church’s request, would have been to take no vote at all and simply not oppose it. But we can’t vote to support it without rendering our bylaws meaningless. That’s Mahkno’s point.
Yes, the goal is to retain single family residences. Sometimes a single family resident isn’t an option. Nowhere does it state that someone can’t sell to a landlord and no one knows if she would have held out and sold to a owner occupied if the church hadn’t bought it.
I think when it comes down to it, I want to keep a the very nice neighborhood we have and the church will be a great owner. They take care of their house and yes, it looks a lot better than most rentals.
Neighbor,
It isn’t just our goal, it is the neighborhood associations Purpose, their mission as it were. Aside from a handful of properties at the corner of Main and University, and arguably the Pi Phi house, I cannot think of any residences that cannot be a family residence. 1216 N Elmwood is hardly optionless. It is a beautiful home with a beautiful yard, that has been well maintained. It is immaculate inside. Even the basement is in incredibly good shape. The house is ideally suited for a single family residence.
Landlord’s can rent to single families. A lot of families do choose to rent for a variety of reasons and at all income levels. I would still say as a neighborhood and as a city we need to find a means to control the number of rentals.
The church is a great owner? You need to talk to more of the old timers. The church being a ‘good neighbor’ is a recent experience. A church that seeks to turn the back yards of houses on University or even tear them down, is not what I would call a good neighbor. A church that cannot articulate what it’s long term plans are and is unwilling to make long term commitments is not what I would call a good neighbor. If you were there when they first presented to the neighborhood their thoughts on expansion, you would have heard that nothing they plan to do will resolve their perceived problems. Which begs the question as to what the real motivations are. The church wants a new building on their existing lot. No one is opposing that in principle. The opposition is in their insistence of expanded parking where parking should not be nor is necessary and using homes for uses that are not at all remotely single family.
Let us not forget that there are still commercial interests eyeing the other end of the block. These include a desired Avanti’s expansion. Avanti’s goals curiously resemble those of the church, backyard parking and or tear downs. Hopefully Rafferty lives a good long time, he is probably the only one holding it up.
Now you are probably going to point out that many of these homes along main and university already have paved over backyards. Yes the do, but this organization paradoxidly has been looking at how to undo that. One step in that direction is the pending Overlay district, which has been pushed by the hard work of Pat McNamera. One of Pat’s goals is to see those backyards return to grass. Returning those backyards to grass is essential to seeing them return to single family occupied, by the sorts of middle class families we want to see. Allowing the church to move forward undermines those very efforts.
Yes, landlords can rent to single families, but in our neighborhood, that doesn’t happen. I would say well over half of the rentals in our neighborhood is college students. Supply and demand.
I was there when they first presented it and I didn’t like it then. After talking to the Pastor & his wife and looking at both sides of it, I feel the church owning the house isn’t that bad. Is it ideal? No. Ideal would be knock the church and advantis down and build single family houses. But that isn’t going to happen.
Chris is right, that the neighborhood shouldn’t have done anything in regards to the Church to abide by our bylaws. Although, there isn’t one person on this blog or any other blog that thinks sitting back and doing nothing is a good idea.
Obviously, we have to agree to disagree.
“Yes, landlords can rent to single families, but in our neighborhood, that doesn’t happen. I would say well over half of the rentals in our neighborhood is college students. Supply and demand”
First you say there are no single family rentals, then you say there are… you seem confused? I will answer for you; There ARE quite a few single family rentals and there can be more. We have to insist that the city enforce the codes, get those yards restored, and incentivize the landlords to seek out higher valued tenants or sell of the bloody things. What I think you are getting at is that you think the Elmwood house would be a rental. You do realize the number of rentals on Elmwood have declined in the last 5 years? Did you also know that there were a couple families seriously interested in that house prior to it being quietly sold to the church? The Elmwood house is hardly a problem house and would likely NOT be a rental. It was sold well undervalued. If the church were to sell it off at a market rate, they would make a good return.
The problem isn’t with the church owning it per se, it is what they plan to do with it and more importantly, its role in the bigger picture of their plans. The officers of the neighborhood insist on wanting to separate it out as an independent consideration. Bullshit. I don’t want to see the residents of Elmwood finding 2, 3, or 5 years from now, a church having all the properties they need, planning to tear them down, while those who have been pushing it throw up their hands like they did with the Arbors, saying ‘there is nothing we can do’. If you don’t think that those pushing it and the city won’t let them move forward with the project, then perhaps I could sell you a house on Cooper? You put a parking lot back there and more houses on Elmwood will become rentals. I could probably point out which ones are most at risk for just that. It will be just what is happening in the Arbors with more rentals pushing further into the Uplands. Just the exact opposite of what you seem to think will be achieved. It will also reverse five years of progress on this street.
I have no idea why you are suggesting removing the church and Avanti’s entirely… no one is suggesting that. I think everyone would agree that, in their own way, they add to the neighborhood. No they are not single family residents. That is an important distinction. The houses are gone. They wont be coming back. That hardly justifies encouraging them to move forward and get LARGER. If they tear down more homes, they wont be coming back either.
The pastor has said they would like the neighborhoods support as they move forward. They don’t want to find five years down the road that the neighborhood really doesn’t want what they want, and therefore in opposition. Don’t you think we might be doing them and us a favor by putting a stop to it now? You know darn well the city won’t turn them down after they spent those hundreds of thousands of dollars. A step forward is a step in support of the end result.
I firmly believe that some individuals in this neighborhood want to see the church get most if not all that they want.
Is there a stigma attached to living near a church parking lot? My church tore down five houses for parking and it looks much better.
Does the absence of the homes on Maplewood in the Arbors improve that area?
I should have been more clear between owner occupied and single family residence. Yes, the number of rentals have gone down on Elmwood, but there is no guarantee that the house in question would have been sold to an owner occupied. If people where that serious in that house, they should have done a better job at letting the owner know that. I doubt she would have turned down more money if it would have been that easy.
I’m not suggestion that the church and avantis be torn down. You didn’t get my point. My point was the ideal situation would be all single family homes in our neighborhood but that isn’t going to happen. No, that doesn’t mean the church or any other business can do what they want.
If the church had all 10 properties they want, left the houses as is, and put a parking lot behind them; I don’t think it would be that bad. I know you don’t agree with that. The church already owns 3 or 4 houses and have taken great care of them as I think they would with all of the houses. If the church puts a parking lot behind the houses, as they want to, isn’t that part of new urbanism?
I agree with you that some in the neighborhood want the church to get anything they want. Then there is you that doesn’t want the church to change at all. I think there needs to be a happy medium. What do you want the church to do?
“If the church puts a parking lot behind the houses, as they want to, isn’t that part of new urbanism?”
That is a ridiculous statement. Yes, New Urbanism is all for parking in the rear. However, I doubt any real New Urbanist (scholar or otherwise) would ever advocate more parking in a residential area. Now, if the property along University was turned into a mixed-use development, then the “parking in rear” would be the best option. But I doubt most Uplanders support that notion.
Here is what I don’t understand: Why can’t there be a divergence of opinion. If Mahnko wants, he can organize the group of Uplanders who are against this and make that position known. My guess is that those who live along Elmwood, and hence closest to the church and most impacted, are the ones truly against this. While the official position of the URA might be one of support (what was the final vote?), wouldn’t the zoning commission or council also be attentive to the expressed, collective (and individual) concerns of immediate neighbors? You can either complain about the vote that was taken and the officers and others who supported it and basically bang your head against a wall, or you can organize your own movement and organize your neighbors. This can either result in a coup at the URA or just in vocalizing your opposition to this issue.
I never said I didn’t want the church to change at all. I am willing in principle to support them building a new church where the current church resides… or they could flip it and put the church where the parking is and the parking where the church is.
I disagree with the premise that they ‘Need’ more parking. There is plenty of on street parking within an easy 2 blocks which is rarely ever fully used up. The concern that they need the parking to meet code requirements has been addressed by Barbara Van Auken and the city; that the city would wave the requirement, counting on street parking to meet their code requirement in lieu of off street parking lot. The argument that the congregation wants off street parking is also dubious. I have talked to some of the people who park on the street. You can even over here their comments as they come n go to church, admiring the homes and the landscaping of many of the homes. They love walking in this neighborhood. They occasionally even talk to me when I am working the medians.
I am perfectly willing to support the church in its efforts to get that waiver.
So yes.. I am willing to accept change. I happen to think that what makes BEMC attractive to its congregants and the neighborhood is its current size and its location. Making it bigger, muddled, and neighborhood unfriendly, diminishes that appeal.
Now about the parking behind houses. I need to rebut something first.
The argument that the homes on on University or even Main could never be owner occupied or single family tenants is deeply flawed and insulting. It rests on the premise that home owners don’t buy homes along busier streets and that renters have lower standards than home owners. I will agree that the number of would be home owners and renters willing to live along such corridors is smaller than those who won’t. Home values and rents would probably be lower because of that. Go north along any of the major corridors and you will find home owners. Renters also want the same things home owners want, safe livable homes and neighborhoods.
Because these homes are along busy streets, the front yards are essentially for display only and wholly unsuitable for children or even good relaxation for adults. For these homes along busy corridors, the back yard takes on paramount importance. The backyard is the refuge and play ground for the residents; more so than for those living further in the neighborhood. To remove that back yard makes a less desired residence, far less desirable. Indeed you are more likely to get the undesirable tenants that we seek to avoid. Your middle class person or family is not going to waste their money on a house (renting or buying) with asphalt behind it. You can walk behind the homes on University and see my point. There are families living in some of these homes, yet we seem to have acquired a basket case of problem kids who don’t respect others property. It is sad watching these kids play on a three house wide barren stretch of asphalt in this heat.
It is going to be very very difficult to undo this practice but it will need to be done to better improve the quality of people living there and the appeal of this neighborhood.
Having the church come along and reaffirm this practice of paving back yards and extending it, ensures that if they ever do sell them, we will be housing a much a less desirable pool of tenants or home owners. What you might be gaining in the short run in the form of improved maintenance on the part of the church will be undermined by lower potential home value increases and lower rent potentials.
Now if the church were to restore the back yards, tidy them up, limit the parking back there to two spots (preferably in a garage exiting into the ally) for ‘potential residents’, we might begin to have something to talk about.
“Now if the church were to restore the back yards, tidy them up, limit the parking back there to two spots (preferably in a garage exiting into the ally) for ‘potential residents’, we might begin to have something to talk about.”
That is pretty much what the church has done to their house on University. There may be 3 parking spots off the alley with a garage and the back yard is nicer than 75% of back yards in this city. They have done what you wanted and you say if they were to do it, you might have something to talk about. What else do they need to do?
“They have done what you wanted ” regarding 1215 N University.
Umm.. no not really. They put 4 parking spaces, eating up a third of the yard space, in addition to the garage. The current configuration is not family friendly. The house is NOT occupied by a single family. Furthermore, the church has made no such commitment to that sort of layout for any additional properties. That is not what they want for the other properties along University, including the one they already got rezoned (1215 N University). The current layout is temporary in nature and was implemented as a ‘compromise’ in order to win support. The effort failed in the short run, the neighborhood association DID NOT SUPPORT the rezoning of the house on University. In the long run, it seems to have weakened the resolve of some neighbors.
The pastor has been asked before if they would be willing to limit parking to just a car deep from the alley, to maybe 2 spaces or even 4 spaces (covering the lot width). He REJECTED it. He went further to make clear they are very interested in much more parking than that, ie pave over or demolition that is contiguous with the existing church.
I opposed the rezoning for 1215 N University for much the same reasons I oppose the rezoning of 1216 N Elmwood as illustrated in above postings. I also opposed University because it encourages them to move forward. Surprise, surprise, they have bought 2 more additional properties since then and seek to rezone one of them (ie Elmwood). Had we given them a firm NO on University, I don’t think they would have continued. Businesses (and yes a church is a business albeit with lots of special rules) don’t spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars if they don’t think they are going to get what they want. Church’s don’t normally go into the landlord business for the sake of making money from rents. They buy up properties to either expand or give them a better marketable position for relocation.
I got the hand it to BEMC, they are doing a fine job of keeping their options open to maximize value. Commit to little and keep growing.