Now you see it; now ...

Well, pretty soon you may not. But at least Grace Hall will be there a little longer.

When Woodstock Christian Life Services presented its architectural drawings to the City on January 8th, I'm sure it expected an easy approval and thought they'd slide right through. And while the City had previously indicated that it would let me know when plans were submitted, it didn't; I learned of the plans about last Friday, Jan. 15.

Thanks to sharp eyes of the City staff, the plans will not be approved as submitted. There were numerous "deficiencies" in the plans, and WCLS will be getting a letter that explains where they fell short. Weren't they listening, when the City Council told them what they'd need to do to get a green light?

Grace Hall deserved landmark status and to be preserved as a historic building. But the City Council didn't think so and greased the way for WCLS to keep going on its path to demolish this grand building and replace it with a duplex.

And the City Council has never, not even to this day, acted on the nomination of Landmark status by the Historic Preservation Commission! The nomination disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle - the black hole where agenda items go when the Council tables them. As far as I am concerned (and the public ought to be concerned), when an item is tabled, it's still alive. It needs to come back to the table for a decision.

Will the City Council bring it off the table after Grace Hall has been demolished and it's too late to designate it as a Landmark? We deserve better.

The way they did it was shoddy, to say the least. But it's about time for the fat lady to sing. I wrote to a friend over the week-end that I wished I could fly in a band from New Orleans and have a dirge played when the wrecking ball shows up.

Take a look at what you'll see in place of Grace Hall. (Click on the image to enlarge it; then click on the Back button on your browser to return here.)

The top drawing is the back side of the unit, which will face Route 47. Classy, eh? An architectural delight, isn't it? Somebody is going to pay $180,000 to move into one end of that?

This is what the City Council is letting WCLS get away with, when it could have facilitated adaptive re-use of Grace Hall with the help with three preservation agencies.

Grace Hall - coming to an end

Today an email from Woodstock Christian Life Services announced the following progress report regarding Grace Hall and the expanding number of duplexes on its property on Route 47, just north of Route 120, in Woodstock.

"Duplex Project Moving Ahead

"Plans for the construction of new duplexes for Hearthstone Court continue to move ahead. Final engineering and approval of the first building permit is pending. The first building permit must be approved prior to demolition on the south section of the campus."

When I read that "approval of the first building permit is pending", I contacted the City of Woodstock.

In the interest of accuracy, apparently it would have been more correct for the WCLS announcement to read that it is still working on building plans and that plans have not yet been submitted to the City. The announcement correctly states that "The first building permit must be approved prior to demolition on the south section of the campus." But the Permit is not "pending".

The first building permit has not even been applied for yet. Why would they jump the gun with an email worded this way?

Interior dismantling (demolition) apparently has already begun. No permit from the City is required for that, according to City officials. Asbestos removal or abatement was in progress just a few weeks ago.

Soon it will be time to say goodbye to Grace Hall.

Many think it is a shame that more serious consideration of adaptive re-use of Grace Hall was not made by WCLS. Prominent historic preservation public bodies were not happy with the response by WCLS officials to preservation interests that could have saved this architecturally-significant building from destruction.

The City's Motto? "True to its past...Confident of its future." Not so true, some think.

Woodstock fan weighs in on Grace Hall

Woodstock fan Dave Wallace wrote today, and I am happy to share his letter with you - with his permission, of course.

Good Afternoon,
On a very recent mini-vacation, my wife and I took the opportunity to drive through Woodstock and look at Grace Hall. I was initially surprised that we got there before the wrecking ball and now glad that I have been able to add another link to my history “puzzle.” While I did not attend Todd School, I did attend the summer camp, Camp Tosebo, and am now one of the owners of that property located in Manistee, MI. We are very proud of the history we have been able to preserve, especially since the Camp closed over 30 years ago. It was very nearly bulldozed for the development of fancy vacation homes. I found your articles on the saga of Grace Hall disturbing to say the least. Having done planning and zoning in my town for 12 years, I believe I have some understanding of how some local governments lose sight of their community when promoting progress. I realized that when I visited Woodstock, unless I went to the Senior Center or the Historical Society, very few residents would even know what the Todd School was, let alone where it was. But it was in their town for 105 years and that should count for something. I consider Caryl Lemanski to be a good friend – she was working at Camp Tosebo when I went there, and her father Tony “Coach” Roskie was probably the most respected, admired, and beloved man during his 41 summers at Tosebo. I’m sure that many will say that Caryl’s view of Grace Hall is influenced by her family’s connection, but I would suggest that her view is similar to why Woodstock still has a Town Square or an Opera House. It helps define what the town has been about and what it strives to be. Too bad such a nice chunk of green space is so unimportant….
Well, enough for now. Glad someone has the desire to give Woodstock the other side of the story. Take a look at www.tosebo.com and see what the developers didn’t get their shovels on.

Dave Wallace
Holt MI
Ddw.hft@gmail.com

Open Request to HPC and City Council

The following are open letters to the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission and to the Woodstock City Council:

1. To the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission:

Chairman Allen Stebbins and members of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission (Don Frick, Beverly Ganschow, Lucia Matlock, Erica Wilson):

Please include the following item on the Agenda for your October 5, 2009 Regular Meeting. Please do not cancel this meeting.

My request is to include "Action on the pending Nomination of the building popularly known as Grace Hall for Landmark Designation including, but not limited to, quoting specific sections of the Woodstock City Code to the City Council, restating the requirements for Landmark designation, restating the supporting statements of Landmarks Illinois, the Illinois Historic Preservation Commission (or Agency), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (or the actual name of such agencies), and demanding that the City Council "untable" this nomination and take action at its October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting and approve the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission.

2. To the Woodstock City Council

Mayor Brian Sager and Members of the Woodstock City Council (Dick Ahrens, Julie Dillon, Maureen Larson, RB Thompson, Mike Turner, Ralph Webster),

Good morning, Mayor Sager and Members of the Woodstock City Council,

In the absence of any acknowledgement or reply to my September 24 message, I'll assume it didn't reach you and I am re-sending it (below).

Please insert a "placeholder" in the Agenda for the October 6, 2009 meeting of the Woodstock City Council for consideration of and approval of the nomination by the Historic Preservation Commission for Landmark Designation of Grace Hall. This matter is of the utmost importance, in view of the pending demolition permit you have approved. It will be too late, once the wrecking ball swings against the first wall of Grace Hall.

The precedent of a "placeholder" has been established.

May I ask that each of you make an independent assessment of the historic and architectural value of Grace Hall and that your decision not be influenced by that of any other Council member? You have the right, the duty and the responsibility to follow the City Code, first and foremost. While you might have a personal opinion that is outside the Code, it seems to me that you are obligated to observe and follow the City Code. If you don't like the Code, then change it.

But this Landmark Designation nomination must be construed under the existing Code.

Thank you.

Gus Philpott

Landmark Nomination - when to be decided?

Yesterday's letter from Esther Hall Gordon, now of Battle Creek, Michigan and former resident of the Woodstock Children's Home from 1963-1971 and Woodstock High School graduate '71, again reminded me once again that, as readers know, Mayor Sager and the Woodstock City Council tabled the nomination of Grace Hall for Landmark Designation at a prior City Council meeting, just before approving demolition of Grace Hall. That demolition is subject to approval of the first building permit for the South Phase of the WCLS special use permit to building additional little duplexes.

On September 14th I asked the City Council, at its joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, to "untable" this nomination and act on it. My request elicited no response from the City Council.

The City Council would like this issue to just die and go away. Residents (voters!) cannot allow this to occur. The City Council must act responsibly and not continue to ignore the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission. They didn't deny it at the previous meeting; they "tabled" it. This means it is still on the table!

The honorable thing for them to do is place this nomination on the Agenda, before a permit request ever reaches the Plan Department, and act on it.

If they approve it, that will slow, stall or eliminate demolition. If they deny the landmark designation, then that opens the door for legal action against the City by the Historic Preservation Commission and interested residents for not following its own Historic Preservation ordinance. The building absolutely meets (and exceeds) the minimum requirements under the ordinance for Landmark status.

Of course, if the City Council approves Landmark status for Grace Hall and refuses to issue a demolition permit, then that will prompt legal action by Woodstock Christian Life Services, through its attorney, Mark Gummerson. When was it - a year ago? - that he intimidated legal action could be expected if the City didn't approve WCLS plans? It was subtle, but every member of the City Council had to hear the threat of legal action.

The Woodstock City Council needs a second, and fully independent, legal opinion on the question of superiority of WCLS' request for special use permit over the Landmark nomination. It is my belief that an attorney who is an expert in historic preservation will advise the City that Landmark designation, regardless of when pronounced, trumps demolition of a building with historic and architectural value.

At the present time, the City is relying on advice that, just because WCLS jumped in line first, its claim is superior to the Historic Preservation Commission's nomination. 'Tain't so.

There are seven members of the City Council. What Woodstock needs is seven independent members of the City Council! Men and women who will investigate, think through and make their own independent decisions on issues. All leaders; no followers.

Will this City Council have the courage to address the Landmark nomination without further malingering?

Woodstock Children's Home (Grace Hall)

The following letter was received from former resident Woodstock resident, Esther Hall Gordon. Ms. Gordon writes about the building that has been in our news recently and has generally been referred to as "Grace Hall."

Another reason to remember this building, located at 318 Christian Way, is its prominent use as the Woodstock Children's Home. Ms. Gordon may travel from her home in Battle Creek, Michigan, to be present at the October 6th meeting of the Woodstock City Council.

Watch for more information about Ms. Gordon's visit to Woodstock and address to the City Council. Her letter follows.

"Dear Mr. Gus Philpott:

"As a dependent and neglected minor from Chicago, my full legal guardianship was providentially relinquished by my birth parents and accepted by the late Reverend Robert Murfin, Director of the Evangelical Child Welfare Agency (ECWA), previously located at 127 North Dearborn Avenue in Chicago, and currently known as the Evangelical Child & Family Agency. Reverend Murfin then assigned my physical custody to the Woodstock Children's Home, where I found a refuge from my birth parents from 3/28/63 until high school graduation on 6/7/71. Moreover, I am keenly aware of the rich historical background of the place which became my "home" for eight years and three months, and consider myself most fortunate to have been privileged to live, for the greater part of my eight years of residency, in a suitable boarding school type of environment, where, for the most part, I received adequate care from both nonprofessional and professional staff, most of whom projected a genuine sense of concern as to my immediate well-being. Conversely, there were still many incidences of "preferential treatment" given out by both professional and nonprofessional staff alike, to a select few high school-aged residents, whose physical custody and care had also been entrusted to the Woodstock Children's Home, but whose names will not be divulged in this particular forum.

"Additionally, some of us, including myself, endured silently under ongoing emotional abuse, which consisted of demeaning, harsh, and punitive treatment at the hands of a few nonprofessional houseparents or relief workers. Also, we witnessed firsthand very specific incidences of blatant and willful improper care and treatment doled out to a few children's home residents, especially those whose behavior mirrored their underlying emotional pain and grief over the loss of their "homes," "families," and "parent(s)," despite a fairly minimal and, more frequently, an extremely inadequate physical, emotional, and spiritual environment, as provided by their families of origin. Like many others, I had to grow up very quickly, attend school regularly, participate in church activities faithfully, as well as perform my chores at the children's home, and hold down a job in the community, so that I could plan for my future. In short, I become a good parent to myself, which is not at all bad!

"I read, with consuming interest, your letter, of 3/9/09, as posted to the Woodstock Advocate, along with the published Woodstock City Council Meeting minutes, and various letters to the editors of the Northwest Herald and the Woodstock Independent relative to the above concern. I wish to thank you so much for your interest in the preservation of Harrison House, aka Grace Hall, and the most unfortunate, albeit exploitative, agenda which the Woodstock Christian Life Services organization has now set forth, apparently in full cooperation with the City of Woodstock, which, it would appear, is equally complicit in this, as yet, unrealized business venture. Unfortunately, your keen insight with regard to the "waiting games" being played out between WCLS and the City of Woodstock, primarily in connection with the exploitative agenda on behalf of Woodstock Christian Life Services is "right on." Thus, I would strongly emphasize garnering more expansive, state-wide support for this particular matter. If left to Woodstock's small town politics (or perhaps, by now, more aptly described as "pseudo city" politics), the building will fall without so much as a peep from anyone beyond the city limits. Thus, my purpose for writing to you, as well as other concerned Woodstock residents, and municipal government officials, is to raise awareness of the inevitable. To be sure, I will be contacting as many former residents of Harrison House as possible to appeal for their involvement and input.

"I have also read, with even greater interest, today's Woodstock Independent article, "Tensions Force Council to Examine HPC Role," in which reference is again made to the demolition of Harrison House, aka Grace Hall. Have all interested parties "tabled" their previous efforts or negotiations with the city council or WCLS? What is the current level of involvement on the part of the Illinois Historical Preservation Society, if any, or with those whose primary motivation is to preserve Harrison House, aka Grace Hall, not merely out of consideration for those of us who made our home there, but, also, in keeping with their consuming passion for historical preservation of worthwhile sites? In my opinion, the building's historical significance is fairly unknown to the general public. Therefore, many are either unaware of its impending disappearance from the landscape, due to intentional efforts by WCLS to evade questions from concerned parties, specifically as to their projected date of demolition, while they remove their belongings from the building, and hope everyone just forgets about Harrison House. Meanwhile, in the hope of silencing the "troublemakers," has the City of Woodstock also continued to "let the clock run down" on Harrison House's existence, with the hope that most local and distant folk are just plain apathetic about this wonderful old building? It would be good if Nancy L. Baker's excellent book "Images of America: Woodstock" could be promoted through local high school history classes, as Baker documents very well the historical legacy of the community of Woodstock, as well as provides an most informative look at the history of Todd School in chapter four.

"During recent follow-up telephone and email conversations with Ms. Cindy Smiley, who, incidentally, has been most supportive of my efforts to contact the City of Woodstock, WCLS, and former Woodstock Mayor Bill Anderson, who also happened to reside at Harrison House, aka Grace Hall, during the years I lived at the Main Building, it was conveyed that no further action had been taken by anyone from WCLS, as to submission of specific future building plans or demolition requests. With the obvious caveat that WCLS would eventually submit their expanded building plans, whereupon issuance of a demolition permit would be granted by the City of Woodstock, Ms. Smiley advised me to contact Woodstock Christian Life Services directly to inquire as to their current scheduled date of demolition. Yesterday morning, in response to my telephone query as to scheduled date of demolition, I received an, "I don't know" answer from a female worker with WCLS, which, of course, I don't buy for one minute.

"Also, Ms. Smiley recommended I contact local community residents and activists, Mr.and Mrs. Dan and Carol (Roskie) Lemanski, whose father Coach Anthony Roskie coached at the Todd School for Boys, and with whom I later became acquainted during his tenure as a Woodstock Community High School coach, which I did. Except for a most timely return phone call from Mrs Lemanski this afternoon, during which we discussed at great length the current status of the demolition of Harrison House, aka Grace Hall, in addition to the past impossible requests set forth by the City of Woodstock CounciI, e.g., "raise one million dollars in six months," I remain unenlightened as to the "hidden agenda" with regard to destruction of this historic landmark. Is one million dollars the current "fair market value" of Harrison House, aka Grace Hall? To be sure, there are some things on which we cannot place a price tag. This is definitely one of them.

"From my perspective, the financial exploitation of not only a unique local historical site most worthy of preservation, i.e., Harrison House, aka Grace Hall - the sole remaining building of the Todd School for boys,- needs to be kept at the forefront of Illinois' historical preservation groups by local community activists, such as yourself and the Lemanskis, as well as by those previous residents, such as myself, who actually lived in Harrison House, but who have since moved away from Woodstock and relocated to other states.

"How many of the locals from Springfield would have stood still for one minute at the suggestion of demolishing the site of Lincoln's birthplace and home, incidentally, both of which I have visited, to make way for more "financially profitable and lucrative exploits in real estate? None! From my perspective, Harrison House could be preserved solely on the basis of its noteworthy legacy as the Todd School for Boys, where many students, such as actor and playwright Orson Wells, lived, studied and received a quality education. Harrison House, aka Grace Hall, does not belong just to the Woodstock Christian Life Services enterprise, nor does it belong to the City of Woodstock, or to the state and local historical societies,- and, no - not even to those of us who lived out our minor years as residents of Harrison House, and attended and studied at Woodstock Community Schools, worshiped in Woodstock churches, and worked for Woodstock employers. Harrison House belongs to ALL of us.

"I would be more than happy to travel to Woodstock and meet with the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting, as well as Woodstock Christian Life Services representatives. However, I see the City Council's October 9th meeting has been cancelled with no rescheduled date. Please advise as to next meeting, as well as whether I need to contact city offices to be placed on the agenda of the next meeting, when this matter will again be discussed. Has anyone considered purchasing the existing property and renovating it into a bed and breakfast? Or, if not appropriate for commercial zoning, and residents oppose that idea, why not just maintain the site, as it is currently in good repair, based upon my observations during a "walk through" with staff last September 2006 during my Woodstock High School Reunion for the Class of 1971.

"I speak on behalf of the countless disadvantaged and indigent children and adolescents, who, through no fault of our own, lost our families of origin, and left whatever homes we might have known, no matter how inadequate, to become residents of the main building and Harrison House on the campus of the Woodstock Children's Home. Please help me preserve the memories of this building and do not allow its destruction. I am deeply disappointed to hear that this building will also soon be obliterated from the landscape. It was, for so many young people, including myself who, through no fault of our own, needed a haven from an unsuitable home environment.

"In September 2006, I returned to Woodstock during the weekend of my high school reunion (WHS Class of 1971), but instead of going to reunion events, chose to visit Harrison House, where I did a "walk through," and spoke with several workers. It is the only vestige left of my childhood "home," and a place where I actually stayed for eight consecutive years! Really, it is the only place to which I can still return and feel as though my childhood was not totally swept away by unfortunate circumstances, broken relationships, and demolished buildings.

"Hopefully, I'll be able to visit one more time, and take my own pictures before the demolition, so that I can show my adult sons and my grandchildren where I lived as a girl

"Sincerely,

"Esther Hall Gordon
207 Embury Drive.
Battle Creek, MI 49014
(269) 274-0793
hadassah61953@comcast.net

"cc: Terry Egan, Executive Director, Woodstock Christian Life Services; 350 Christian Life Way; Woodstock, IL 60098"

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!

Was the City Council right to vote?

Last night the Woodstock City Council voted 5-1 to approve a Special Use Permit for Woodstock Christian Life Services that includes the demolition of Grace Hall (subject to one condition that probably won't provide much of a hurdle for them).

Should the Council have voted on this matter last night?

There is a nomination for Landmark status of Grace Hall pending before the City Council. The Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously on November 10, 2008, to recommend Landmark status to the City Council. The City Council would not give immediate attention to the HPC recommendation. Instead, it waited until April 21, 2009, and then quickly tabled that nomination. To date, the Landmark nomination has not shown back up on an Agenda for a City Council meeting.

When the Council was about to vote No on the WCLS petition on April 21, the Mayor handed WCLS and Mark Gummerson an invitation to ask the Council to hold off on a vote until a later date.

Last night City Code Section 7.7.3.1 was read to the Council. "Any person ... may submit an application to the (Historic Preservation) commission requesting that a building ... within the city be designated as a landmark." That application was submitted in proper form to the Historic Preservation Commission.

Like it or not, property rights or not, this is the law in Woodstock.

Furthermore, "Upon nomination (emphasis added) or designation of landmark status, such building ...shall be afforded the protection of the historic preservation ordinance."

Some laws people like, some they don't. But this too is the law in Woodstock. Therefore, when the Historic Preservation Commission approved the motion to recommend landmark designation, Grace Hall moved under the protective umbrella of the historic preservation ordinance. In fact, it may have acquired that protection earlier, when it was nominated for landmark status.

The purpose of the protection is to buy breathing room. It is is demolished, it's too late to say, "OK, it's a landmark."

A Memo from the Deputy City Manager with the packet to the City Council informed them that "A simple majority of the Council is required to approve this motion (to approve the WCLS Special Use Permit, which includes the demolition of Grace Hall.)" The DCM's memo was silent about the pending landmark nomination.

The problem with the "simple majority" sentence is City Code Section 7.7.3.4 (F), which reads "To override a recommendation of the (Historic Preservation) Commission, a favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all elected members of the City Council is necessary."

This is called a "super-majority." A super-majority of seven is 5.25. Because 1/4 of a Council person cannot vote, you have to round that up to a full person, making six (6) the required number of votes needed for a super-majority of the Woodstock City Council.

Although that Section was also read to the Council, it proceeded with its vote and announced that the 5-1 vote carried the motion. One Council member was absent from the meeting, and RB Thompson voted against the Motion. As soon as one present member voted against it, it should have been declared defeated.

The City Attorney explained to me after the meeting that I had made an "interesting" legal argument. And he explained that allowing a minority to control a decision is just not the way a society functions. A majority rules.

He also explained that WCLS was first in line; it requested demolition of Grace Hall (as part of its overall Special Use Permit) before the Landmark nomination petition was filed with the Historic Preservation Commission.

While I didn't read every word in the City Code, I suspect it doesn't say that a property owner remains at the head of the line, if he jumps in the door with a request to tear down what could become a Landmark. It was the WCLS move to demolish Grace Hall that triggered the Landmark nomination, and I'll bet that is exactly what the City Council had in mind in the past when it created City Code Sec. 7.7.3.1.

My continuing question is the City Council (and the entire government in Woodstock) is - What about the City Code? Why do you feel that you can play "three blind mice" (okay, well, seven blind mice) with the City Code?

The City Code is the law in Woodstock. Or is it?

Grace Hall Demolition: 5-1

One should have been enough, but it wasn't. Enough to do what? Stop the City Council's decision to approve demolition of Grace Hall.

The saving grace here is that no demolition permit will be issued by the City until the first building permit is issued for the South Phase.

So what happened tonight?

WCLS made their case to the City Council for compliance with Conditions C and D in the October 2008 Ordinance.

Opponents of demolition stated their case. At times arguments were pretty forceful. There was some mudslinging. More about that tomorrow.

Statements were made that appeared misleading or incomplete, and some of them got challenged. Some questions got asked that never got answered. Sometimes I think those asking questions need to pay more attention to the words that are spoken in reply and, if the question isn't answered, then they need to stop the person who is speaking and ask for the answer to the question that was asked.

It seemed to me that people left the meeting mostly still respecting those who were on the opposite side. People disagreed tonight, but they weren't disagreeable. And that's the way it should be and it was.

More tomorrow on certain issues that were raised and how or whether they got resolved.

Bull Valley to annex Resurrection Retreat Center?

Once again - about the front page article in this week's The Woodstock Independent (July 15, 2009) - you have to read between the lines to get really steamed up.

Recall that about 18 months ago the Woodstock City Council agreed to lend its good name and credit backing to the Resurrection Retreat Center, so that the Center could get a lower interest rate on bonds or some kind of loan than it could get without Woodstock's participation. The Woodstock City Attorney said the City of Woodstock would not be on the hook, if the deal soured.

Remember the comments at the City Council meeting that justified this action? Visitors to the Retreat Center would be coming into Woodstock and spending their money. Sounded good at the time.

In the second paragraph of the front-page article appears the insightful information that the Center "...had operated as a center for high school students and other groups for several years. Because the center was used less and less for retreats in recent years, ..." Huh? Why didn't the City of Woodstock find this out before they put its good name on the line?

We all know what big spenders high school students at a retreat are. They stay on the property; they don't go into town and spend money. They don't visit the merchants on the Square with wads of loose cash or gather in the eateries or buy tickets at the Opera House.

Did anyone ask these questions then?

OK, you can't cry over spilled milk. But you can go forward with eyes wide open into future deals. And Grace Hall is one of them.

Now is the time to think of the questions they will wish two years from now that they had asked.

What are those questions?

Oh, I forgot about Bull Valley's being asked to annex the Center. Read the article. The people asking Bull Valley to annex the Center don't even live in Bull Valley!

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!

Grace Hall - July 21?

Nothing is certain until an Agenda for City Council meetings is published, and it's not even certain then, but rumor has it that the "Grace Hall" issue will spring to life again on Tuesday, July 21, 7:00PM, at the Woodstock City Council meeting in City Hall.

If you care about the future of Woodstock and the beauty of the City, be at this City Council meeting. Bring your family and your neighbors. Bring your kids, who will want a beautiful city for their residence and for their kids. Plan to speak up at the City Council meeting. Plan to say what you want to say, even if 25 people before you have said the same thing.

Do not accept any suggestion that, if someone else has already voiced your opinion, you do not need to do so. Yes, you DO need to do so.

"Grace Hall" won't be on the Agenda; it'll be called a Woodstock Christian Life Services matter.

There will probably be an overflow crowd that night. If past meetings are any indication, many, many employees of WCLS will attend to praise the work of WCLS and say again and again how proud they are to work there and what dedicated work they do. "Now please let Grace Hall be torn down."

Let's hope that, finally, many others in Woodstock will shake off the heat of the day and show up at City Hall to say that they do care and appreciate the work that WCLS does and that they do NOT want Grace Hall torn down.

If the demolition of Grace Hall is so important to the future of WCLS, what will happen when the next crisis arises? And there is nothing else left to tear down?

Grace Hall has historical and architectural value, which has been well-documented (and little publicized) by the Historic Preservation Commission, a public body of the City of Woodstock.

There is considerable information about this available to the public in the Woodstock City Code. Go to www.woodstockil.gov
On the left side, click on City Code
Click on Title 7
Click on Chapter 7
Read Section 7.7.3.1
Re-read Section 7.7.3.1 (it's short)

In about November 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission recommended Landmark status of Grace Hall to the Woodstock City Council. The Council chose never to consider the recommendation until May 2009, when it was time to consider (approve) the WCLS request to demolish it. And even then, the Council failed to consider the recommendation.

Mayor Sager moved to table the recommendation and proceed with consideration of the WCLS petition for a Special Use Permit (request to tear down Grace Hall). The other members of the Council could have let his Motion die for lack of a second or vote it down, but they approved the tabling of it.

When it was approaching time to vote on the WCLS petition, it was clear to all in the room that the majority of the Council intended to vote against the petition. In a surprise move, the Mayor handed a delay to the attorney for WCLS. Everyone knew they'd be back, and it appears that they will be back on July 21.

It is interesting that WCLS has not presented specific development plans (site plan, building drawings, environmental impact, etc.) to the Plan Commission or the City. It's like, "Let us tear it down. You'll like what we will build."

Before the City Council approves demolition of a historic structure, it ought to demand the same plans as it would of any other developer. In other words, "Let's see what you have up your sleeve. Show us your building plans. Show us your financial viability to stay in business if we approve what you want."

About Grace Hall and July 21

"The 21 July Woodstock City Council meeting is probably the crucial one at which the council members will vote for or against demolishing Grace Hall, where Welles lived, studied, and worked as a student at the Todd School for Boys that he always credited as the most important and lifelong influence on his creativity.Please let your views on the importance of preserving this Prairie School building as an historic site be known to the Major and City Council members before 21 July. In addition, send a copy of your letters to the local papers.

"Email addresses for the Mayor and Council members appear on the (City's website, www.woodstockil.gov, at the "City Council" link).

"Welles's 1966 film Chimes at Midnight, as well as previous stage adaptations of Shakespeare's English history cycle, has its origins in his attempts to produce such an adaptation at Todd School when he was a student. This is only one example of the importance of this school to the career of Orson Welles.Your letters have played a vital part in the campaign to preserve this building. Thank you.

"If you can attend the meeting, or urge others to do so, that would be splendid."

Kathleen Spaltro

(Note from Gus: when you email a Letter to the Editor, please include your name, address and telephone number. Most will contact you to verify that you submitted the letter.)

Serious cleaning out at Grace Hall

There is some serious cleaning out going on at Grace Hall. This dumpster is almost full, and it's only Monday after a holiday week-end.

I read in the past week that a number of employees are being moved out of Grace Hall.

If I didn't know better, I'd feel like they are getting ready for the wrecking ball. (And the City Council isn't planning to meet again until July 21.) Do they know something that the rest of the town doesn't know yet?

Demolish Grace Hall - do you care?

Do you prefer this? >>>>>

Rumor has it that Woodstock Christian Life Services will be back in front of the Woodstock City Council on Tuesday, July 21, 7:00PM to request (again) approval of their entire development plan, which includes demolition of the building popularly known as Grace Hall.

Council chambers will be packed with employees of WCLS, as it has been in the past.

Now is the time for Woodstock residents who oppose demolition of Grace Hall to put July 21 on their calendars and to plan to arrive early at City Council chambers, so that you get the seats inside the room. Fire Chief and City Council member Ralph Webster will be expected to enforce the seating capacity for the Council chambers this time. Supporters of Grace Hall will have to be inside the Council chambers, where Council members will see them. Being at a remote location with a video hook-up will not be good enough.

The matter would have been rejected by the City Council, if the Mayor hadn't handed a delay to WCLS on a silver platter the last time this came up. The majority of the Council had spoken out and the votes were there to reject the petition by WCLS. WCLS has a smart, crafty attorney. So what did the mayor say to him? "You have the right to ask us to table your request."

Frankly, I was shocked. Of course, Mark Gummerson knew he had that right. Was the mayor was just trying to avoid immediate legal action by WCLS? Who knows? But for the mayor to tell the petitioner that he had the right to ask for a postponement? That was way, way out of order, but not one Council member stood up to the mayor. They should have voted that night, and the vote would have been against demolition of Grace Hall.

Now the matter comes up again.

Quite a number of people have been working with the Historic Preservation agencies of the State to come up with a solution. They are doing all the work, when it is WCLS that should have been doing the work. But what WCLS wants is to tear down Grace Hall and put up four duplexes to lease to senior citizens who can afford to shell out the $200,000 for the buy-in and then a healthy monthly "rent" for the privilege of living there until they die or get too infirm to live on their own.

Is this how Woodstock wants to be remembered in history? "Home of the Duplex"??? >>>>>>

There is more than enough senior housing in Woodstock, existing and planned. There will be lots of competition from the country setting of Resurrection Center, which is being converted from a retreat to senior housing (unless Bull Valley can stick its nose into their business with a successful annexation effort).

Ladies, Gentlemen, Parents, Children, Teachers, Businessowners. There is just one place to be on Tuesday, July 21, starting at about 5:30PM. Arrive early with your Save Grace Hall banners, posters, noisemakers, balloons, sandwich-board signs, hats, flyers, armbands.

In the meantime, lobby your elected Woodstock City Council members and let them know how you feel. You can find their email addresses on the City's website.

Grace Hall - what's up?

With the clock ticking on Grace Hall, residents have to wonder what's going on with efforts to obtain Landmark status and halt demolition and what will happen on April 6. Not on April 21, the drop-dead date for City Council action on a demolition permit, but on April 6.

A very interesting thing happened back on October 7, 2007. The Woodstock City Council adopted Ordinance 08-O-62 that contains very explicit language setting forth conditions on private residents of Woodstock who had no knowledge of those conditions before the City Council imposed them.

The City Council really went easy on Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) and, at the same time, imposed conditions on Dan and Caryl Lemanski that were impossible to meet - then or ever, and certainly not within seven months.

What the City Council needs to explain to the public is exactly where did those conditions that showed up in this Ordinance come from? They certainly didn't come out of the marathon City Council meeting on October 7, 2008! I was there, from start to finish.

One condition (C) is that WCLS "shall consult with the Lemanskis ... to work out a compromise to demolition of Grace Hall."

OK, this one is not so hard to measure but, when you look at the wordsmithing, it really doesn't say anything at all. It doesn't say that they "shall compromise"; it says that they shall "consult" to compromise. There is no requirement to do other than "consult". There is no requirement to reach a compromise! Very careful lawyer wording. You just beat around the point, without every making the point.

The second condition (D)? WCLS "shall review and consider implementing alternative site plans and adaptive reuse alternatives which would preserve Grace Hall."

Just more of the same languaging that forces no conclusion. WCLS "shall review and consider..." OK, so they can sit there and go through motions, knowing all the time that their goal is, and remains, to demolish Grace Hall.

And now the kicker, the condition that kills the deal right from the start. E: "The Lemanskis shall produce a contract for the purchase of Grace Hall and its removal from its current location" and present said contract to the City by April 6, 2009. Closing must occur by May 21, 2009.

I filed a FOIA request with the City on November 12, 2008, asking for documentation that would explain where these conditions came from, since they were not discussed at the open City Council meeting.

The response from the City was written on November 17, 2008: "A review of the City's files reveals no documents responsive to this request."

Oh, really? So who directed the City Attorney to draft what would become Ordinance 08-O-62 with the impossible-to-meet conditions on the Lemanskis? These conditions guarantee the failure of the Lemanskis to perform.

Why would the City impose such a burden on two residents by name? What precedent is the City creating?

Somebody directed the City Attorney to draft the Ordinance as he did. Who did? The City Manager? The Mayor?

The City Council should repeal Ordinance 08-O-62 as unfair and unconscionable.

Furthermore, the City Council should provide an adequate explanation to the public as to why it has dragged its heels on considering the approval by the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission regarding Landmark status for Grace Hall.

According to Minutes of the October 7, 2008, City Council meeting, "Councilman Turner said he does not like the Historic Preservation Commission feeling as though they are unappreciated."

Wow! If he thinks they felt unappreciated up until that point, he ought to check with them now!

Grace Hall Update

At tonight's meeting of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission I vented about the delay in sending its recommendation to the the City Council for Landmark status for Grace Hall, an exquisite building on the property of Woodstock Christian Life Services. Go by 318 Christian Way, park and walk around the building. Go in and take a look.

After the Commission endured my ranting, Chairman Allen Stebbins politely explained that the Commission had forwarded its recommendation for Landmark status to the City Council within the 30-day period required by its charter.

And here, for the past four months, I had been under the impression that it was the HPC that was stone-walling the status. My sincere apologies to the Commission and to each of its members!

Now, members of the City Council and Mayor Sager, exactly why are you stalling on your consideration of Landmark status of Grace Hall? If you received the recommendation of the HPC, why did you not place this important item on the next following semi-monthly Agenda? Whose idea was it not to put it on the Agenda?

Are you afraid of a lawsuit by WCLS and Mark Gummerson, if you landmark that building? You should be.

Are you afraid of a lawsuit by the Petitioners for Landmark for status, Dan and Caryl Lemanski? Not so much, I'll bet.

You imposed an April 6 deadline on the Lemanskis, personally, to meet conditions that guarantee demolition of Grace Hall. How did Ordinance 08-O-62 come about? Who directed the City Attorney to draft it with conditions that were never discussed by the City Council?

I believe that Ordinance 08-O-62 should be rescinded and will so ask the City Council on March 17.

Tonight I referred to the "waiting game" that is being played out here. WCLS is merely watching time run down on the clock. They are hogging the ball, running circles around on the playing field, and on April 6 the buzzer will sound. Game over! And then on April 21 the City Council will bow to WCLS and issue a demolition permit for Grace Hall.

What will save it then? An injunction issued by a McHenry County judge to stop the wrecking ball from swinging its first blow.

Read Jan Barry's letter in the February 18 issue of The Woodstock Independent. She writes about Harrison Hall and the Woodstock Children's Home. She writes about the grand staircase and the glass-cased doorways.

If WCLS is permitted to demolish Grace Hall in order to build a couple of tiny duplexes that it can peddle for some big bucks, this City will long remember the seven on the City Council who allowed it to happen.

Todd School at the Library

Have you seen the display at the Woodstock Public Library about Todd School? It's on the upper level, past the reference desk, about as far as you can go away from the stairwell.

Check it out. Take your kids to the library and show them what a record looks like. A record? What's that? You know, that round, vinyl thing with the hole in the middle. The one that was played on a Victrola. Anyone remember that name? (Click on any image to enlarge it; then click on the Back button on your browser.)

Did you know that Todd School had its own fleet of airplanes for instruction and transportation? And that it operated its own airport on the school grounds? Anyone recognize the student at the controls?

Can't you just hear the pilots now? "Woodstock International Airport, this is Piper 2694F coming in for a landing." I think my first lesson was in a plane like that one - tandem seating, drop-down door. Noisy - and fun!

Pretty soon, there might not be anything left about Todd School except at the Library.

The City Council is much too likely to drip its ink on a demolition permit on April 21, just over a month from now.

Grace Hall is a building worth saving, but where is the effort here in town? There are a few people holding "nice" conversations, while Woodstock Christian Life Services just keeps on watching the sand run through the hourglass. WCLS could convert Grace Hall into beautiful contemporary residences, instead of reducing it to rubble and hauling the bricks off to the dump, but it is going to have to be persuaded to do so by the leaders in Woodstock.

Are there such leaders still here?

Grace Hall Update

An as-yet unnamed developer, who was taking a look at purchasing, moving and renovating Grace Hall, has apparently decided that he cannot make the deal work to his financial advantage.
How many of us could have told him that the cost of ground on which to place it and the exorbitant cost of moving a huge brick building would sink that project?

Architects from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency apparently talked with him about moving and preserving Grace Hall, but it all seems to be part of some secretive group that works without involving the general public, even though a City Commission is somewhat involved.

Check out this sentence: "Efforts are being made to place Grace Hall on Landmark Illinois' 2009 Ten Most Endangered Sites List in the hope someone or some organization may step forward to prevent its imminent demolition in April."

Haven't I been writing about the "imminent" demolition??? Nice, finally, to see someone else using that word! And the demolition is imminent, but it doesn't have to be.

People - more than three or four - are going to have to come out of the woodwork, put on their heated mittens, and get busy. Otherwise, the City Council is going to drop a demolition permit for the project on April 21, unless they surprise us with an end-run and try to do it sooner.

Then about the only thing that will stop the wrecking ball will be a circle of townspeople around Grace Hall or a few people chained to the building or who have taken up residency in the building. Well, you know what I mean. Gone to the "administration building" of Woodstock Christian Life Services legal business.

Caryl Roskie Lemanski (the daughter of Todd School Coach Tony Roskie, referenced in The Stranger), has applied for Grace Hall to be listed on Landmarks Illinois's Ten Most Endangered Sites list for 2009.

In the past, this listing has gotten widespread publicity across the state and nation within the preservation community and mainstream media. Your help is needed to support this application, because demonstrated public concern is crucial to the application.

See www.landmarks.org/ten_most.htm for the 2008 list. Send your thoughts to Landmarks Illinois by going through its website at www.landmarks.org/contact_us.htm

Don't just "think" about sending your message to Landmarks. Do it. Do it now.

Grace Hall Update

Tonight's Historic Preservation Commission meeting shed some new light on the Grace Hall adventure. Four members were present: Chairman Allen Stebbins and members Don Frick, Lucia Matlock and Erika Wilson.

The first 85 minutes of the meeting were devoted to a project planned for the southwest corner of Calhoun and Tryon. Plans are for a senior center, providing assisted living arrangement in about 56 units. More on that in a separate article to follow.

Where is the groundswell of public opinion for Grace Hall? Does a little cold weather keep everybody home? Only Landmark status petitioners Dan and Caryl Lemanski attended.

Allen Stebbins and the City's Nancy Baker provided update information on the involvement of historic preservation interests. In summary (it's getting late), there is a potential local developer who is exploring acquisition of the building and moving it.

The HPC will delay its request to the City Council for landmark status. The historic preservation agencies seem to be encouraging this.

I myself see danger in the delay.

I addressed the HPC and requested them to consider that the November HPC "Public Hearing" may not have been a Public Hearing, but instead a public meeting.

Chairman Stebbins recalled, as did other HPC members, that, when the November meeting was opened, former Chairman Tim Art said that all testimony would be sworn testimony.

But saying so doesn't make it so. The HPC had no legal representation that night. No one from the City Attorney's office attended, and I guess no one (except me (or is it, except I)) is interested in finding out why not. Without the City Attorney, or his representative, there to swear in those who are to speak, how can statements become sworn testimony.

They can't.

I also suggested that it was not a valid Public Hearing because there was no audio recording and there was no verbatim transcription of the supposed Public Hearing. And there certainly was no cross-examination. But why would there be? Without sworn testimony, there is no need to cross-examine anyone who spoke.

The attorney for WCLS is an excellent attorney. My guess is that he quickly realized that it was not a valid Public Hearing, so why ask questions? At the first Public Hearing, when the attorney for WCLS asked for a continuance, he said his reason was that he had not had time to prepare to cross-examine witnesses. As I said tonight, "Mark Gummerson is a great attorney, and he is ready to cross-examine when he wakes up in the morning."

Asking for a continuance (and having the City Attorney's designee show up with the okay in his pocket) was an excellent ploy by Mr. Gummerson. Oh, wait; the City Council does not like the word "ploy"; okay, it was an excellent tactic.

Will demolition take place in May? That's only four months away. Has the wrecking ball been scheduled? Someone knows...