Affordable Housing on the Way

The Corporation for Affordable Homes in McHenry County (CAHMCO) has announced that it was awarded a $2,500,000 grant for permanent supportive housing in McHenry County. Congratulations!

CAHMCO applied for the grant on May 4 for funding by the State Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Last night at a meeting of the Transitional Youth Work Group (TYWG), which meets at the McHenry County Mental Health Board, Executive Director of CAHMCO Mary Lu Seidel explained the grant.

This grant will be of special interest to certain at-risk young adults, because they may be able to qualify for independent housing which they can actually afford.

"Supportive housing" is for 1) those who, but for housing, cannot access and make effective use of treatment and supportive services in the community and for 2) those who, but for supportive services (for example, mental health services), cannot access and maintain stable housing in the community.

A candidate, or applicant, must be in some type of program that provides case management, and the referral to CAHMCO is made by the Case Manager.

The $2.5 million is to develop and manage up to 24 housing units. These may include efficiency apartments and apartments of one or more bedrooms. These will not be "group homes". CAHMCO will buy, rehab (or build) housing on lots or properties which have been foreclosed. Real estate taxes will likely be waived on these properties, which is a big step toward making them affordable.

Rents will be affordable to people earning approximately 30% of the area median income. No monthly rent subsidies are planned. This is permanent housing (not transitional housing), but it is for transitional-age residents.

An example of rent is: for a studio apartment for one person earning $15,840/year ($7.75/hour x 51 weeks/year), the monthly rent would be $396, including utilities.

Now, that's affordable!

For more information, go to www.cahmco.org or call 815.206.5805

Cell Phone Radiation

Where does your cell phone rank on the list of health-hazardous phones?

Check out this report of the Environmental Working Group at http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation No danger, you say? Then be sure to read this!

You can look up your phone by manufacturer and model number. There is a ton of good information there, including hints for reducing radiation effects on your body.

Be sure to read the warning about cell phone usage by kids.

And if you think that using a Bluetooth and just keeping the phone in the belt holster is the way to go, keep reading in the research section of that report.

Farmers Market Chef Demo

This Saturday, September 26, there will be a chef's demonstration at the Farmers' Market on the Woodstock Square.

The chef will be from Pirro's, and there will be cooking demos at 9:30AM, 10:30AM and at 11:30AM. And you know what demos must mean: chef's samples!!! The demos will be inside the Square, so make your purchases from the farmers' stands along the streets and also inside the Square, and then be sure to drop by the demos.

Entertainment this Saturday will be Compass, a group of five men from Lake County. They have been at the Farmers' Market before, and Keith says that everyone loved them. Compass will be playing from 9 to 12.

Keith also says that apples, pumpkins and squash are in. There will be lots of baked goods and lots of plants.

There will be eggs on Tuesday, and the entertainment on Tuesday will be Mark Hobbs and friends.

Super-majority: is it 5 or is it 6?

Under the Woodstock City Code, when the City Council wants to do what it wants to do, in spite of a recommendation from a department, board or commission of the City, then it needs a "super-majority" of votes to over-ride that recommendation.

That issue was a big deal with the City Council when it was turning a blind eye to the Historic Preservation Commission over Grace Hall.

And it came up at the September 15th City Council meeting, when the City Council over-rode the recommendation of the Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA's recommendation was to deny Cunat's request for variance for under-sized apartments at Autumnwood.

Okay, so what is a "super-majority"? According to the City Code, if the City Council wants to over-ride a recommendation of a department, board or commission, a simple majority is not enough. A "super-majority" is required, and a super-majority is three-quarters (75%) of the City Council, who must vote in favor of the motion.

It's three-quarters (75%) of the seven members of the City Council; i.e., of the entire Council. Whether they are present or not. The Code does not say "of the members of the City Council who are present at the time of the vote."

Grab your 5th Grader and ask what the answer is to "How much is 3/4 of 7?" OK, let's see... Hmmmm.... 0.75 x 7 = Where are the fresh batteries for the calculator?

Got it! 5.25. 3/4 of 7 is 5.25 Oh-oh. Which Councilperson is going to get cut into fourths? No one?

This means that, rounded off, a super-majority of seven must be six (not five). You can't cut up one councilperson into fourths, and not one of them is going to allow you to ignore his (or her) one-fourth (1/4) vote. So a super-majority is six (6). Not five. Six.

And that's exactly what Deputy City Manager Derik Morefield told the City Manager (and City Council) last October about the number of votes by the City Council that would be needed to over-ride a recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission for Landmark Designation for Grace Hall, should the HPC so recommend.

Unfortunately, by April Derik had a change of heart (or was there some other type of influence?), and then he opined that only five votes would be needed to over-ride the HPC. Derik, you were right the first time.

However, last week five heads on the City Council nodded to John Cunat and out he walked with his variance. A super-majority was needed, but the vote was 5-2. Two council members voted "Nay." So there was no super-majority, and the motion should have failed.

Why didn't it fail?

Autumnwood gets variance

Be sure to read the Page 7 article in The Woodstock Independent (TWI) this week (September 23, 2009) about the variance handed out by the Woodstock City Council for Cunat's Autumnwood Apartments.

TWI reports that, when Cunat bought the property, the seller's prior illegal conversion of six tiny spaces (were they utility closets or ???) into "efficiency" apartments escaped their attention. Now, just how does something like that happen?

Cunat ought to have known of the legal size requirements of living units; it's not like they are inexperienced in the apartment-rental game. They must have done measurements and unit counts as part of their due diligence. According to the article, Councilman Dick Ahrens said, "There's certainly a difference between a 351-square-foot apartment and a 500-square-foot apartment."

Councilwoman Julie Dillon said something about 19'x19' room and a $650 rental rate in the same sentence. Is Cunat renting the 361 sq. ft. "efficiency" apartments for $650??? No wonder they wanted the variance!

According, again, to the paper Councilman Mike Turner asked Police Chief Lowen about the "experience of the Woodstock Police Department" with the apartment complex. The answer, according to the paper, was that the apartment complex "management has a strong working relationship with the department" and "they work hand-in-hand with the permanent beat officers to address any issues that come up."

Mike, that's not an answer! Did you ask a follow-up question to get the answer to your first question? The answer should have been, "In the past 90-180-365 days we have had "x" number of calls to that apartment complex, and the calls have included (the types of calls)."

I have my own opinion about whether a $650 monthly rent ($7,800/year!) for a 361 sq. ft. efficiency apartment is an "affordable option" during times of economic hardship.

Is there an occupancy limit for an efficiency apartment? Is it ever checked?

Woodstock Advocate passes 100,000 mark

Sometime, probably earlier today, the counter on this site passed 100,000 views. Thanks - many thanks - to all the readers of The Woodstock Advocate.

The counter has been on this site only since January 3, 2009, although the first article was published on April 15, 2007.

Initially, I didn't place on counter on this site. I was writing it because I wanted to write it, not because somebody might read it. One of the things I wanted to do on a second blog (www.WoodstockCrimeLog.info) publish the crime reports from the Woodstock Police Department.

I decided to install a counter, after I received a letter on behalf of the City on January 7, 2009, denying the Crime Reports to me. The City claimed that my site had only 2,000 "hits" in a year. They were looking for a way to deny providing Crime Reports of the Woodstock Police Department to me. The City also claimed that a blog (an online journal) is not "media", because the word "blog" is not used in the statute (although "electronic format" is there). What is a blog, if it's not "electronic format"?

50 ILCS 205/3 (c) reads, "For the purposes of this Section the term "news media" means personnel of a newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format..."

So perhaps The Woodstock Advocate really does qualify as "news media" to receive Crime Reports from the Woodstock Police Department?

First, I had to find out where that "2,000" had come from, since I didn't know of a counter on this site. After searching around, I did find one that recorded the number of views of my profile (not of articles).

The 100,000 views have occurred since January 3. That's less than nine months. The counter records "views", not "unique" visitors. So every time you click on this site, the counter increases. And every time I click (for example, to post an article), it counts.

How many articles or stories have there been so far?

There were 282 in 2007;
There were 827 in 2008; and
There have been 841 in 2009 (to date).

Thanks to readers for your story suggestions and especially for your comments. (click)

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?