The N-G's watchdog stand here is a hypocritical joke. Time and time again, the paper has backed the fatcat against people who are "not in a position to fight back."

Posted by Wenalway on November 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM Suggest Removal

The City of Urbana is all too willing to trample the Property Rights of those who own houses, lots and businesses. They have elevated the "unseemly appearance" of "abusing people" to a fine art. Of course not all of us have the same appreciation for art, but we all know what we like.

We who have chosen to live in Urbana, for what ever reasons, can only hope and pray for a new mayor and aldermen sympathetic to the people.

Posted by on November 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM Suggest Removal

Investment in property carries risk. Only a foolish business person would say otherwise. I don't want to fund their bailout either. Big boys don't cry.It is not like these were owner occupied homes. They were investment propterties.

The Mayor and council are accountible to the citizens not investors,who don't even live here and in these cases that is who was represented, the neighborhood, we the people.

Posted by aantulov on November 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM Suggest Removal

The News Gazette is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. My personal view is that in this case the News Gazette is correct in questioning the Urbana government's recent actijons regarding historic (or not) properties. Although in the past I may not have agreed with some of the views the News Gazette has expressed, I do not see what it has to do with this particular issue, nor do I take it that they are always on the side of "fat cats" and against those who are "not in a position to fight back." Rather I view it as they see the issue differently then me, often for valid reasons.

It really is possible to respect others that do not have the same views as ones-self, an ability that is seldom demonstrated in todays society.

Posted by wmb on November 22, 2008 at 11:13 PM Suggest Removal

"nor do I take it that they are always on the side of "fat cats" and against those who are "not in a position to fight back.""

Always? No. Frequently? Yes.

http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/3102

Support Chief Billyjackwek!

Posted by Wenalway on November 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM Suggest Removal

I am a former resident of 809 W. Main St, the Wakeland property at the root of this issue. I lived at this residence from 2001 to 2005. The house had beautiful hardwood floors, unique wood molding throughout the entire downstairs, and a wooden staircase in the foyer that would have been gorgeous if the owners had properly taken care of it over the years. Wakeland Properties were not negligent in making repairs, but the repairs were always short term fixes and often actually damaged the house. For example, when our stove stopped working Wakeland replaced it, but they dragged the new stove through the length of the house, gouging a permanent furrow in the hardwood floors through the foyer and the dinning room leading to the kitchen. Shortly after we moved in we requested that the uneven floors be repaired, but were told that it was too expensive to do so. Wakeland obviously always planned to let this house fall into such a state of disrepair that it would be seen as not worth saving. It was a beautiful house and Main St. will be a less rich place without it. These sort of deliberate actions to erode our community should not be tolerated by the Cit of Urbana. I sincerely hope that Mayor Prussing can come up with stronger legislation to prevent landlords from abusing their properties out of historic status for the stake of making a bigger profit than they are already making.

Posted by on November 23, 2008 at 1:04 PM Suggest Removal

Yes, bigger, more intrusive government is always the answer.

http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/3102

Support Chief Billyjackwek!

Posted by Wenalway on November 24, 2008 at 12:11 PM Suggest Removal

My issue with the landmark designation of 508 W. Elm was not that it became a landmark, but the city's abuse of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the process. If you own a home (or other real estate) in Urbana you need to get a copy of Article XII Historic Preservation Ordinance. You can get a copy from the Department of Community Development Service, phone: 384-2439. Do not get fooled by the legalese language. It is in the language where the danger for you lies. Section XII-5, C lists the criteria for designating any property in Urbana a historic landmark. The property does not have to be old. It is possible to be brand new or even empty with no building at all.

Paragraph 1 in Section XII-5 lists the Landmark Criteria. Your home may be declared a landmark if anyone states that your home meets only one of the seven criteria. My arguments before the preservation commission and the city council were based on the vague language of these criteria. I expected that before my home would be declared a historic landmark someone would specifically define how my property was “significant” to the “heritage” of Urbana, or would specifically show how some person or event “ associated” with the property was “important”. The meeting of that expectation never happened. Instead, the city continued to defend their position by repeating the phrases that 508 W. Elm is “significant” and that the occupants were “important”. Your concern and interest in the wording of this ordinance is that that vague wording can be applied to your home as well, if the city desires.

The ordinance spells out your obligations to the city before you do certain improvements to your home. For example, if your home was built before 1959, you are required to go before the preservation commission to install even an energy conserving storm door. If your home is brand new you would have to ask the city permission to change or add on to your privacy fence. These are only a few of the restrictions placed upon the owners of a landmarked home. The complete list is in the ordinance. Get a copy and read it. In the event you sell your home the requirements will be placed upon the new buyer as well.

It is the vague language in the criteria section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance which threatens all property owners (and potential property owners) in Urbana to an unsupported landmark designation or even supported designation for that matter.

For clarification I did live in one of the apartments at 508 W. Elm from 1996 through part of 2005. I moved to Normal, Illinois when I married my wonderful wife. Yes, Elm Street was an investment, but it also was my home.

Posted by on November 25, 2008 at 5:52 AM Suggest Removal