Grace Hall - TWI weighs in

A lengthy editorial about Grace Hall was printed in the May 6 issue of The Woodstock Independent (TWI). Labeled “Our View”, it doesn’t say whose view it is. Is it the viewpoint of co-owners Cheryl and Paul Wormley? Or the view of John Trione, General Manager? Or of Mike Neumann, the Editor? Or of all four?

You can read the editorial here: www.thewoodstockindependent.com/ (as soon as their website hosting problems are solved). TWI is also on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/The-Woodstock-Independent/33099827764

Better yet, part with $30-35 and subscribe to your hometown weekly paper.

I was going to head over to Traffic Court this morning and watch the County rake in huge court costs on Woodstock traffic tickets, but responding to the TWI editorial is far more important – to me and, I hope, to fair-minded residents of Woodstock.

Numerous statements in the editorial call for comment and correction. Let’s start at the top with the notion of a spirited debate at the April 21 City Council meeting.

Any “spirit” was initially squashed by the mayor’s motion to table the Landmark recommendation that had been made by the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission in November 2008. This has been languishing on somebody’s desk at City Hall for months, but it finally made it to the City Council Agenda for April 21 as Item D-2-1, placing it ahead of the motion to allow WCLS to demolish Grace Hall (D-2-2).

Mayor Sager immediately moved to table the landmark consideration, and not one member of the City Council voted against his motion! CORRECTION 5/11/09: The vote to table the landmark consideration was 5-2. City Council members Dick Ahrens and Maureen Larsen voted against tabling it.

The next inaccuracy was the statement that WCLS had to “attempt” to find alternate locations or an adaptive reuse for the building now popularly known as Grace Hall, but known also as Harrison House. If you were to walk around Woodstock and ask residents what Harrison House is, they’d say, “What’s Harrison House?” But they know what building you are talking about, when you mention “Grace Hall”.

The requirement in Ordinance 08-O-62 was “The Petitioner (WCLS) shall review and consider implementing alternate site plans and adaptive reuse alternatives which would preserve Grace Hall.”

“Attempting” or "shall review and consider" something allows a lot of activity and no results, and that’s exactly what happened. The goal of WCLS is to demolish Grace Hall. That’s it; plain and simple. Sugar-coating it with fancy footwork and chatter doesn’t produce any result. What result was expected? A result “which would preserve Grace Hall”.

The reason that the Council did not vote on April 21 is that the mayor handed WCLS an “out”. The Council was ready to vote 6-1 against WCLS, and the mayor decided he was not going to let that happen. How did he stop the vote?

By stating, more than firmly, that WCLS had the right to ask the Council not to vote that night. And then by asking if WCLS wanted to ask the Council not to vote!

The vote was going south. Everyone in the room knew it. The smartest person about the law in the room knew it. If he wanted to ask the Council not to vote, he could have done it. Why did the mayor ask him if he wanted to ask the Council not to vote?

Because the mayor did not want the Council to vote against WCLS.

The article stated that WCLS was forced to request the City Council to have the question (motion) pulled off the table. No one “forced” WCLS to request the Council not to vote, unless you want to call the mayor’s statement and question to WCLS “forcing” them to ask for it.

Even so, the Council could have received the request from WCLS not to vote and then gone right ahead and voted, anyway. The vote might have been 6-1, but you never know. The Council has a habit of barking, but then not biting. They might have indicated that they were going to vote against it (as they have at other times) and then voted with the mayor in a unanimous 7-0 vote. We'll never know (until the next vote on this issue, which will probably be coming up fairly soon).

The argument about the subjective nature of the Ordinance was, in fact, exactly the argument that needed to happen. With all due respect to TWI’s “Our View”, the argument had to happen, once you take apart the Ordinance and the manner in which it was enacted.

Was the Ordinance unfair? Is it unfair?

It was and is unfair, and I believe that it is illegal. I believe it is no Ordinance at all. I believe it should be rescinded, repealed, declared null and void, whatever needs to take place to rip it right off the books. Why?

Because the wording in the Ordinance was changed substantially AFTER the City Council approved it. The City Council approved one ordinance. The City Attorney crafted the wording after the City Council meeting, and then Mayor Sager signed the re-worded Ordinance into law.

The ordinance that the mayor signed (08-O-62) is not the same ordinance that the City Council passed.

Now, what action or sanctions should occur after such an action? Unfortunately, the Attorney General won’t get involved. The Office of the AG ducked and said it doesn’t get involved in municipal issues. “Hire a private attorney.”

Okay, so back to fairness. The re-worded ordinance, 08-O-62, imposed “activity” on WCLS, yet it imposed “results” on two residents by name, Dan and Caryl Lemanski. All WCLS had to do was look busy, but Lemanskis had to actually do something. And that “something” was to come up with a contract to buy and move Grace Hall.

WCLS was going to get its permit to demolish Grace Hall either way.

But a problem arose on April 21. Six members of the City Council said they didn’t think WCLS had looked busy “enough” and they were going to vote against WCLS.

Was this going to look like defeat for the mayor? The way you avoid defeat in a game is to extend the game. It’s kind of like flipping a coin. Didn’t get your “heads” on the first toss? Don’t like one toss? Okay, how about two out three? Didn’t get the win you wanted? Okay, how about three out five? No? Okay, then, four out of seven. Care to go on?

Why is it “lucky” that the preservationists “had any opportunity at all to save the building”? That’s what preservation is. Do you want Woodstock to turn into little duplexes? “Oh, you live in Duplexville. I’ve been through there.”

WCLS never agreed to have the Council vote on Ordinance 08-O-62 in the form in which it was enacted. At least, WCLS did not so agree on the night the full City Council voted. In fact, six members of the City Council didn't even agree, because the wording was substantially changed after the vote was taken.

Or maybe WCLS really did agree to it, because they didn’t disagree with it within the 30 days allowed after the mayor signed it. Their wise attorney would have known about the period within which to disagree, but your ordinary residents wouldn’t know about that 30-day period. (Nothing here should be construed as indicating that the Lemanskis are “ordinary”; there are “extraordinary” for taking up the cause here.)

When the Ordinance, as signed by the mayor, was mailed to the Lemanskis, the City Attorney’s letter said it was the "final ordinance." His letter did NOT say, “You have the right to object to this ordinance within 30 days. Do you want to object to this ordinance, because it is substantially different from the wording passed by the City Council?”

Why hasn’t the City Council, as a whole, objected to the underhanded way in which Ordinance 08-O-62 came into existence? They all now know that the Ordinance signed into law by the Mayor is not the ordinance they passed. Why are they silent?

Whether Grace Hall (TWI prefers to call it “Harrison House”) could be adaptively re-used is definitely not a “moot point.”

Councilman Mike Turner was partially right, when he said, “I think you’re making a mistake in tearing it down...but that's not my decision, it's yours.”

While it is WCLS’ decision, the City Council gets to tell WCLS whether it can make that decision.

The game has gone into over-time. This gives the preservationists, as TWI wishes to call them, time to rally support and to continue to influence WCLS to find a better solution than hauling away a pile of bricks and putting up four duplexes.

Find a way to build three of them around Grace Hall. Maybe ask the City to close off Christian Way and give you more green space.