i would be glad to see this elitist group fold.for to long they have dictated what people do with there own property.just because they have some romantic fantasy about how a home should look doesnt give them the right to force private property owners who are doing the best they can to go broke trying to conform to there "vision" stay out of our lives and get real jobs busy bodies.

stjoguy, if you live in a local landmark district then you ought to be aware of the protection that those designated areas receive. you should be happy...... the property values are rising, owner occupancy is up, and the neighborhood benefits from the designation. preservation is an industry, preservationists spend huge dollar amounts locally caring for their homes, and preservationists have pride in their community and property. if that is elitist, so be it.

I agree with stjoguy. I look at it this way. If you own the place, it's your business. I don't think it's necessary for the city to come in and mandate what you do with it. The only time the city should be allowed in is if the place in uninhabitable. I live in a nice neighborhood and don't have to worry about that but some fo my friends and family do. I know this city has spent a fortune on rebuilding but you can't step on your citizens toes in doing so. You need new siding huh? That's at least 4 grand. And they give you like 6 months to do it. For most in this city, thats 25% of what they make. If they don't have GOOD credit to finance the job they are screwed. It's totally unfair.

Stjoguy - anyone not wanting to governed by the principals of historic preservation should not purchase such properties.
There are no secrets in how identified parcels will be dealt with and it becomes the buyers choice at that point.
For the most part communities far more benefit from these efforts in economic terms created not only by the investment itself but also the ability to attract from the outside.

i find it interesting that the chairman of the landmark commission will be voting tonight to distribute funding for a program which he himself is in default with. is this newsworthy? darn tootin'. just another example to the taxpayers of this city that poop can in fact roll uphill. johnson was not involved peripherally on this project. he initiated the transfer of the property, he took the "bids" (of which his was the only one), contracted the work, purchased materials, and did not perform to the contract which he negotiated with the city for. he stood before the city council over a year ago and boasted of his efforts. not only was mr. johnson prepared to be paid on the initial project, but he planned to sell this property to one of his benefactors, furthering his profit. now, he choses to hide behind the skirts of the now defunct organization which had to sue for a reckoning on misuse of funds awarded by the city. pfffffft. no wonder there are now no active historic preservation societies left in this city.

It is too early in the morning for me to comment extensively on this, but everything Heritage has to say on her previous comment I can back up. I find it absolutely perplexing the entire transaction of this property was signed off on without verification of president's signatures and board approvals as it relates to city involvement. The president of the organization at the time was required to approve several key elements prior to the purchase and grant authorization as per the corporation guidelines and they were not followed. Mr. Johnson operated on behalf of the organization without final approvals and that created the mess the situation is in now.

heritage & ww - right on. this is the type of thing that brings criticism to worthy programs. verification and accountability are required and appropriate - including restitution.

correction, other bids were solicited, but rejected.

Those bids were done for formality purposes. The decision was already made and while the bid solicitation was in progress, the other elements were proceeding forward without communication between board members and the president. Mr Blumberg, if you ever want to pursue this further, take a look at the paperwork trail with this and interview me. When I was VP, I recommended this whole thing go into a different path, but it was not a popular path the organization wanted to take.

After reading this article and Wag the Joe, I'm worried about SJPI, our city government, and the Landmark Commission. It's one thing to disagree about design guidelines, but Mr. Johnson's actions are too out of bounds to serve as Chairman. Joe Blumberg is a good journalist and I'm glad he thought the article had merit. Thank You.

http://www.wagthejoe.com/2008/08/profiting-from-not-for-profit.html#respond or if this doesn't work just the site.... this is an entire different slant on the story. i agree with you localgirl. (and i am a big fan of JB.)