Use of childrens' photo challenged

The following letter was written by Esther Hall Gordon, formerly of Woodstock and now residing in Battle Creek, Michigan.

"As one of the minor children who appear in the front row of the photograph of the Woodstock Children's Home Choir of 1963, as featured in the 02.17.10 edition of The Woodstock Independent and entitled, "Picture This," I'd be very interested to know who provided this picture for publication without permission from any of us shown in it.

"I'd also appreciate knowing how to access today's "Picture This" feature photo on your web site, or having a scanned copy sent to my email address, a hard copy of which, incidentally, I already own.

"Those of us pictured as members of the Woodstock Children's Home Choir don't appreciate having photographs of our very private experiences of exploitative fund-raising efforts by the Woodstock Children's Home plastered in the form of a photograph in your newspaper. This choir was used to "raise funds" for the home - just another example of how minor children were exploited by those entrusted to their care - in order to build the current financial enterprise known as Woodstock Christian Life Services empire.

"Those of us who spent any length of time as resident of the Woodstock Children's Home, also, soon became convenient minimum wage workers, who were made available to perform menial, as well as illegal, child labor on campus and in the community at large. A few of us were even allowed to care for the elderly in various capacities at the Sunset Manor, formerly located on the site of the current Hearthstone Village.

"Currently, Woodstock Christian Life Services is planning to expand its tax-exempt empire, while continuing to hide behind their "faith-based" facade. That ridiculous motto, "Caring for the Young and the Old" needs to either be discarded or slightly reworded to something more reality-based, e.g., "Our Young Cared for Our Old," to accurately portray how their ever-expanding human services empire was built on the backs of many of the children's home residents just a couple of decades ago.

"Since we have invested enough sweat equity into the current WCLS enterprise, and are watching as WCLS's current board of financiers, led by Mr. Terrence Egan, current CEO of Woodstock's oldest human services organization, demand demolition of Grace Hall, aka Harrison House to those of us who are proud enough to say we made our home in that beautiful old building, I appeal to the Woodstock Independent, as well as the community at large, to respect our privacy, and cease any further exploitative photo opportunities on behalf of former residents of the children's home.

"As a tribute to the hundreds of minor children who, through no fault of their own, found a refuge from "wayward parents" during their years in residence at the Woodstock's Children's Home, formerly the Todd School for Boys, perhaps your newspaper could invest its energies in garnering much-needed support from the local community in an effort to preserve Grace Hall, aka Harrison House as an historical landmark.

"Esther Hall Gordon (Woodstock Children's Home resident from 03.28.63 - 06.08.71)"

Grace Hall or this???

Today I got a look at the "stunning" architectural renderings for the duplex, for which Woodstock Christian Life Services wants to demolish Grace Hall.

Stunning? Well, they stunned me!

I wasn't able to convert the file to present it here, but you can go by City Hall on Tuesday and see it for yourself.

Of course, it's about what some of us expected. Sort of a Plain Jane (no insult intended to the Janes who read this), low-cost, unremarkable duplex, rather than the fine, old, architecturally-significant, historically-important, brick lady standing now at 318 Christian Way.

I'd say, if you want to remember Grace Hall, this week will be a good time to go by, walk around, reminisce and take your final pictures.

Probably the City will approve this plan without much contest, and you can bet that a request to demolish Grace Hall will promptly hit the counter at City Hall. The wrecking ball could be in place and running, with the operator waiting for the phone call from City Hall as soon as somebody stamps APPROVED on the demolish permit.

Won't it be interesting 2-3-5 years from now to examine the financial status of WCLS and calculate whether they made the right financial decision? By that time, the bricks will be long gone and the memory of the building will have begun fading from the minds in Woodstock.

Shame on WCLS.

Was the City Council right? Part 2

Last Wednesday, July 22, I wrote about the Landmark nomination of Grace Hall and asked whether the Woodstock City Council was right to vote and, if it did, would a super-majority be required to defeat the nomination forwarded by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

You may find that article of interest and especially the comments that have been made to and about it. The advice to the City Manager and City Council last week was that only a simple majority was needed to approve Woodstock Christian Life Services' plan to demolish Grace Hall and erect a duplex in its place.

Now it seems that I am not the only one to believe that a super-majority was required. On October 1, 2008, in a letter to the City Manager (and therefore to the City Council), the same Deputy City Manager, Derik Morefield, wrote about the petition to grant landmark designation to Grace Hall. In that letter, Derik wrote, "If the HPC ultimately recommends approval of landmark status for Grace Hall, such a recommendation can only be overturned by a "super" majority" (sic) or 6 votes of the City Council. This could potentially create conflicting actions consisting of a decision to approve the special use permit and the demolition of Grace Hall and approval of landmark status and the preservation of Grace Hall."

This is exactly the argument that I made to the City Council on July 21, before I became aware of Derik's October 1, 2008 Memo. And the October 1, 2008, Memo is marked as Received and Approved by Tim Clifton, City Manager.

Now, what changed between October 1, 2008 and July 13, 2009, when the more recent Memo from Derik said that only a simple majority was needed? A careful reading of the City Code supports the exact position stated in the October 1st Memo.

The City Council's action on July 21, 2009, was not supported by the City Code. The City Council approved the WCLS request by ignoring the pending landmark nomination.

The City Manager should immediately direct the Community Development Department to withhold any permit to build the first duplex in the South Phase, which will then trigger issuance of the demolition permit.

There are some pretty strong words I could use to describe the City Council's decision to proceed with a vote on July 21, especially after hearing the applicable section of the City Code read to them.

Should this cause the City Council (the City) to become financially liable for its action? Should the Council members become personally liable for proceeding to a vote? Or the City Attorney, should it ultimately be decided that his advice was erroneous?

Will legal action against the City be necessary to force it to comply with its own City Code?

Too many public bodies operate on the assumption that the public doesn't know or understand what they are doing or that the public will not have the resources to do battle with them.

No demolition can be allowed to take place without every step being taken correctly.

The City Council's 5-1 vote on July 21 did not meet the super-majority requirement of 6-0. The City's historic preservation ordinance is simple, easy to read, easy to understand. It's not convoluted, like so many of the "modern" ordinances.

Grace Hall is still protected by the historic preservation ordinance. It's that simple!

Death Knell for Grace Hall? NO!!!

Do you hear that bell tolling?

Tuesday night - this Tuesday, July 21, at 7:00PM - the City Council will once again consider the Special Use Permit requested by Woodstock Christian Life Services that includes demolition of Grace Hall.

It is important that every opponent to the demolition of Grace Hall show up at City Hall in time to get into the City Council chambers well before the 7:00PM starting time. Please note - the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is due to use the chambers from 5:00PM for what it hopes will be - and probably will not be - a short meeting.

Before every City Council meeting the members of the Council receive a "packet" from the City Manager. They get their copies electronically, but a printed copy is delivered to the Woodstock Public Library, usually on the Friday before the bi-monthly City Council meeting. The printed packet this time is two (2) volumes, and each volume is one inch thick.

Now, do you think that each Council member will read every word in the packet and be fully informed about City operations and the items on the Agenda? I'd say it is not humanly possible. And not humanely possible, either.

In the packet is a Memorandum to the City Manager (and, therefore, to the Council) about the Grace Hall issue. The Memo, from Deputy City Manager Derik Morefield and dated July 13, 2009, summarizes the progress of the WCLS petition through the City's process. With the Memo are a letter from the Chairman of the WCLS Board of Directors and a Memo from the WCLS President. The haste in preparing Derik's Memo resulted in several date errors, where "2009" crept into the Memo instead of "2008". I say "haste" because his Memo bears the same date as the letter and Memo from WCLS.

Numerous points in both the WCLS letter and the WCLS memo deserve challenge. Hopefully, each member of the City Council and the Mayor will go through those documents with red pencils and mark areas for further explanation and investigation. Except how do you mark electronic copies with a red pencil for attention?

Derik's letter fails to mention that Ordinance 08-O-62 was modified after passage by the Council on October 7,2008. The City Attorney crafted extremely unfair and prejudicial Conditions, imposing obligations on two Woodstock residents that were NEVER discussed or approved by the City Council, and then Mayor Sager signed the Ordinance into effect without ever getting the consent of the other members of the City Council.

And the six members of the City Council have never publicly challenged that action. Why not? Is Ordinance 08-O-62 even valid?

The Ordinance placed a light burden on WCLS and so heavy a burden on Dan and Caryl Lemanski that they could never meet it.

When it appeared that the City Council was going to vote against WCLS' Special Use Permit on April 21, 2009, the Mayor handed WCLS a bye. The demolition matter comes back to roost on Tuesday night.

In his July 13, 2009 letter to the Mayor and City Council, WCLS Board Chairman David Fisher wrote, "There are cases such as this, where preservation is not practical or possible without seriously impinging upon the progress and viability of a business or organization. The length of the process, and the associated costs, has hurt the financial status of WCLS which operates on razor thin margins from year to year. This past year was our first loss in net income in several years due in part to added legal and consulting fees."

The City should have an auditor examine the WCLS books for any "cost over-runs" (such "added legal and consulting fees") directly attributable to any "extra" work to seriously consider adaptive re-use of Grace Hall. How many of the "added" fees would have been incurred, anyway? And how recently were other years of net loss at WCLS? What are the projections for the next 3-5 years? Net income or net loss?

Is WCLS in such financial peril ("razor thin margins") that its business plan needs radical surgery? Administrative staff cut-backs? Salary and expense account cuts? Will the plan for duplexes merely be a band-aid on its Income Statement and its Balance Sheet?

If WCLS had interest in any solution other than the demolition of Grace Hall, it could be worked out. For starters, put four "apartments" in the 7,300 sq. ft. building, not just two.

They keep their heels dug in. It's time for the City to do the same and to refuse a demolition permit.

Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, JUST SAY NO.

Competition for Grace Hall

Did you see the lead article in this week's The Woodstock Independent (July 15, 2009)?

Read the plans for the Resurrection Village. Check it out - a complex of 123 residential units, including construction of 23 single-family residences and 14 duplexes. Where would you rather live? Within feet of a busy two-lane, state highway with trucks and school buses going by - a steady stream of large and small vehicles and bumper-to-bumper traffic at many times during the day? Can't you just smell the diesel fumes and hear the noisy traffic? Or in a quiet, secluded, beautiful, rural setting - free of noise and fumes?

Most of the residents in either place won't have vehicles and won't be drivers, so a lot of parking pavement will not be needed. Will prospective residents choose Resurrection Village over WCLS? How many of them will? Will the existing units and the proposed units at WCLS be quickly filled?

Has the market study for WCLS, which hopes to demolish Landmark designation- qualified Grace Hall and will so ask the Woodstock City Council on this Tuesday night, changed? Would a current market study strongly urge WCLS to put the brakes on their plans and sit out the recession/depression and not get financially over-extended in a very weak market?

The Woodstock City Council seems poised to grant a demolition permit to Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS), even though the Woodstock Plan Commission and the City Council have not seen detailed drawings of WCLS plans for the new buildings. Why isn't the City Council requiring the same plans as it does of other developers before giving a green light to a project?

If the City Council does grant approval on Tuesday night for WCLS to demolish Grace Hall, will it impose a condition that demolition is not to begin until financing is secure to build all of the new buildings and that all plans have been approved by all required public bodies?

What a shame it would be for WCLS to tear down a historic building and then cry
"Poor me" and have to delay construction of the much-talked-about duplexes!

To be or not to be - a landmark?

Picture an acre of ground on North Seminary in Woodstock. Imagine a lot that is 43,560 square feet. An area that is 208 feet by 208 feet. That's 2/3 of a football field on each side.

About a mile from downtown Woodstock. About a mile from the County's headquarters.

What's it worth? $325,000? $7.46/sq. ft.?

Now put a 7,300 sq. ft. building on it. Not new, but in usable condition. In fact, in business use right now. Still $325,000 - total?

Oh, wait. You can buy the building for $1.00. It's for sale. Really? Is there a sign out front? I didn't see one, last time I drove by.

The catch? You have to move the building. How much would Woodstock Christian Life Services pay you to move the building? Maybe a sign out front should read, "For Sale. Nice brick building. Will pay you $200,000. Take it. You can't leave it."

Is there some relationship between the owner's beating a quick path back to the City Council to try again to get its project approved (including demolition of Grace Hall) and this Monday night's meeting of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission?

Will the City Council have the "intestinal fortitude" to postpone further consideration of the WCLS Project, pending testimony, investigation, review and any recommendation of this Commission?

Or will it decide that a City Commission, staffed by volunteer residents handpicked by (guess who? - the City!), is merely a figurehead?

Who are the members of this Commission:

Tim Art, Chairman
Don Frick
Beverly Ganschow
Merida Johns
Lucia Matlock
Allen Stebbins
Erica Wilson

We have numerous commissions in Woodstock. If this Commission decides on Monday night to take up serious consideration of designating Grace Hall as a landmark, the City Council must defer any decision on demolition until receiving the final report from the Historic Preservation Commission.

Grace Hall - down but not out

An item on tonight's Agenda for the Woodstock City Council meeting was "Woodstock Christian Life Campus - Adoption of an Ordinance issuing a Special use Permit for the Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) Campus."

My guess is that the bulk of tonight's audience was there tonight to hear about, and to discuss, the proposal to tear down Grace Hall, currently the operations headquarters of the WCLS. Attorney Mark Gummerson represented WCLS and wanted the City Council to split up the issue tonight into two parts: 1) the North and Central portions of the plan and 2) the South portion, which includes Grace Hall. Gummerson asked that the South portion be tabled.

Heck, with all those people in the room to speak against demolition of Grace Hall, we could have been there until noon tomorrow.

The Council didn't really want to do that, so the Mayor asked Gummerson (or Gummerson asked the City Council) about postponing the whole deal. And that's what they did.

There is jargon for that which probably came from some mayoral retreat or conference or seminar - "postpone to time indefinite..." What's wrong with just saying, "postpone at this time"?

It was clear that the City Council favors the plan and wants to move forward on it. Some of them might even be in favor of working hard to preserve the building known as Grace Hall. The Mayor spoke about upholding private property rights. Two councilmen said specifically that they are looking to "make this happen."

When one man spoke against postponement, the mayor was offended and was clearly defensive about any suggestion that the request of WCLS was, in view of a packed City Council chamber, a ploy to move the item to another date, which would require everyone who came out tonight to return on another night.

My thoughts? That resident hit the nail smack on the head. And, if I had been the lawyer for WCLS, that's exactly what I would have done. Buy some time. Move it off a few weeks, like maybe to the night of an early, heavy snow.