Alderman: Property Owner Should Consent to Landmarks Status
Alderman Duane Paulson weighs in on Waukesha Family YMCA fight against turning former gas station into landmark.
This week, the Administrative Review Board of the city of Waukesha, upheld the Landmarks Commission's July decision that a Tudor house-style gas station at 422 E. Broadway is a landmark. The gas station is owned by the YMCA. Had the Board ruled against the Landmarks Commission, the Commission had already asked the Finance Committee to hire outside council to appeal the Board's decision. Think about it folks, if that had happened, one city Commission going to court against another city Board, and we the taxpayer paying the bill for both.
Based on the city code, I think the board could have ruled either way. Based on the city code, I think the commission was able to make it a landmark, although I also believe they were little overzealous. I am not an architect, but based on early pictures I've seen, you would have to rebuild the building to make it represent the landmark it is supposed to be.
In May of 2009, the YMCA purchased the property with the intent to raze it for a parking lot. The Landmarks Commission designated it a landmark in July of 2009. The YMCA neither asked for or wanted it to be a landmark. Why would they want it, they must now seek approval of the commission to do anything to the building.
For citizens of Waukesha, you should know the powers of the Landmarks Commission. Go to the Internet and look up Chapter 28 of the City code. You will find that without you request or consent, your property could be placed on a landmark. Granted there has to be a reason. I don't know if the old adage, "Lincoln slept here" applies. I can think of several places in Waukesha that could be a landmark based on the Chapter 28. I am not going to name them for fear they would get blind sided like the YMCA did. The Tudor house-style gas station at 422 E Broadway, although unique, is not the only one around. There is one in West Allis, and I believe one in Kenosha.
I will be making a referral to the Ordinance & License Committee. I will request that any landmark designation be made only with the owner's request and/or consent.
Should property owners request or give consent before their property is designated a landmark?
Tell us in the comments.
William Graham
3:27 pm on Wednesday, January 26, 2011
While I can understand saving historic or "landmark" structures, I cannot understand why the owner of the "designated" landmark is financially responsible for the cost of repairing and maintaining the "designated" landmark property. The YMCA purchased this property for a purpose - expansion - and now, after-the-fact of the purchase, is stuck and probably couldn't even find a new buyer. Some millionaire out there who could repair this building, install antique gas pumps from that era and maintain it?
Jeff
8:53 am on Thursday, January 27, 2011
I think that all of these people who were clamoring for it to be a landmark should be responsible for the upkeep. Maybe they should put their money where their mouths are and open a business in there.
Sonia
9:14 am on Thursday, January 27, 2011
There is definitely something unethical and unfair about the landmark designation occurring only after it was clear that the YMCA intended to demolish the building. However, I don't know about your suggestion that landmark designation should be made only with the owner's request and/or consent. There must be a more subtle way to deal with these issues. We should look at how other communities like Waukesha designate historic landmarks.
Elizabeth Schuetze
8:07 pm on Sunday, January 30, 2011
A landmark building meeting the landmark criteria is, a landmark, whether it has been so designated or not. The designation simply gives the protection to a building that it deserves to have.
Part of purchasing a property is to be aware of its status or it's potential status before closing the deal. The present owners bought this property which was a qualifying landmark before it received its designation. It should have known about the landmark possibilities. Did the realtor mention this as part of sale? Buyers should try to be more aware of the ramifications of their purchases and plans for a property before the sale is completed.
My hope is that the Waukesha Landmark Commission will take in the future a more proactive stance to designate buildings which qualify as landmarks. It would be so much nicer for property owners to KNOW in advance the increased value of what they own. The present scenario of designation "by crisis" after it becomes known that the building may be in danger of being razed has been played out numerous times in Waukesha. I can think of at least two city designated landmarks in which the crisis designation was abused and the landmark removed. I hope this scenario does not repeat those.
The building is a city landmark. It should remain so. It is time to stop "stealing" from the public in the name of capitalism.
jeff Barta
8:46 am on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
I think its a ridiculous situation concerning this instance. While unique, I don't think this building should qualify as a landmark. It's not a functional building (it is obsolete with little prospect for finding a use that will benefit the city and its taxpayers) and there is obviously no local interest (backed by finances) to keep it as a museum or monument. The WMCA had a purposeful use intended for this site. They intended to build apartments for people with diseases such as muscular dystrophy and fibromyalgia, hardly a nefarious plot to ruin the fair City of Waukesha. Common sense should have prevailed. And I totally disagree with the concept that developing the property is "stealing" from the public. This is private property not public property. I also don't think the YMCA is the posterchild for capitalism. They are a non-profit and their proposed use of the property would help and enhance the community. Developing the property as proposed would have provided jobs to the community instead of keeping an old gas station nobody wants. It a good example of the nonsense that often comes from too much government!