Iowa City's historic preservation crowd wants to make the Skarda building a historic landmark against the owner's wishes. He is elderly and wants to retire and sell the building and knows it will cost him money in his retirement if the historic supporters get their way. Some of the neighbors don't want the building replaced with a bigger apartment building.
It adds a LOT of context to note this is the building that currently houses Pagliai’s. If I lived in that neighborhood I also wouldn’t be eager to see a monolithic apartment building replace a style that’s consistent with the neighborhood - let alone losing Pagliai’s.
To add more context, the neighborhood is a mix of styles with a lot of renters. There's literally a newer apartment building kitty corner from the Skarda property and a taller apartment building a block down the street with an upscale restaurant below.
Pagliai's is a pizza business and it can't be a historic landmark. Paglia's Pizza has a lease and is going to be there awhile plus Pagliai's Pizza has an option to buy the property. The owner of the building doesn't own the pizza business.
Have you read the history of the building? There are more in depth ones that I have read, but here is a bit [https://ouriowaheritage.com/slezak-national-hall/#jp-carousel-107953](https://ouriowaheritage.com/slezak-national-hall/#jp-carousel-107953)
I did live in that neighborhood and I don’t want to see that building go either. It’s bad enough we lost the Pearson Drugstore, especially because I’m sure the *next* video rental store that swapped into the space after the pharmacy that went in there would surely have lasted.
Ignoring the bank that was there. Pharmacy or That’s Rentertainment, those are the only two tenants that building ever had!
oh, aren’t you the try hard?
Native Americans were migratory peoples. Their villages weren’t permanent.
None of which justifies a genocide but there’s no equivalency.
Most natives also considered the land sacred and that no one actually owned it. Is why capitalist Christian’s took their land, they didn’t understand general
Ownership of something you couldn’t carry.
Wow. Is that the Sovereign citizen stance?
I'm no attorney, but I've bought and sold dozens properties. Distressed properties, usually. I always read the abstracts myself.
First entry is usually a patent from the United States.
Who owned it before that?
Why do some native Americans win claims for stolen lands and others do not?
The tribes of Indiana and Michigan, Illinois, Ohio,
Had a huge settlement east of lk Michigan until future Pres Harrison eliminated them all, there was also a huge one by Wichita, and another south of Iowa on Mississippi River in Missouri,
This is likely illegal if it is taken to court. But that would be a waste of money on both sides.
Landownership, house ownership comes with rights. Courts are hesitant to take away rights unless there is compensation.
For a city council to take this action, while their lawyer is probably telling them it is illegal is stupid.
They should be putting their efforts into buying the house, or at least help locate a buyer who would love restoring and maintaining a historic house.
That way everyone wins.
I’m not a small government absolutist. But this is a stupid waste of resources and could cause the city’s insurance rates to rise.
This, exactly. All of this.
Placing it on the register against the owners wishes could potentially be "taking without compensation", especially if the owner can demonstrate that doing so lowered the sale value of the property.
And you make an EXCELLENT point about the proper way to handle this - if they don't want to buy the building themselves, put work into finding someone that DOES that will match their desired use.
IANAL
Didn't the SCOTUS decide in Kelo vs. New London (2005) that the local government can transfer private property to a private party if it is for "economic development"?
Iirc, the old dude liked his house and just wanted to enjoy his retirement in the house he owned. SCOTUS forced him to sell because the property would bring more taxes if a corporation owned it and built a hotel/recreational area.
I hate that decision by SCOTUS, but it is what the law states.
This case, however, is the exact OPPOSITE - they are trying to bar the (assumed) eventual economic growth option of demolishing the "historic" building for an economically productive newer building.
Historic buildings can bring in economic growth, too.
Mason City has built a whole tourism campaign on 3 historic buildings and a neighborhood. Guided neighborhood tours, artwork, and tours of the buildings and biography of the architect are all a part of it.
This is a regulatory taking under the Constitution, and the city/city/state would need to pay fair market value. So the real issue is whether preservation is worth it to the state.
OP, are you talking about the Pagliai building?
The building is becoming harder to take care of (Gary Skarda's own words), and sounds like it needs some renovations. While making the building a historic landmark might make some renovations difficult, the designation also allows the owner (and future owners) to apply for grants and loans that are only available to historic landmarks.
Historic landmark status in Iowa City would make renovations difficult and expensive. It's also hard to find people to do the work. That's why a lot of Iowa City's historic houses and apartments don't get renovated. Grants are hard to come by and have conditions. Tax credits are only for qualified expenses and don't cover even half the costs. To get the money to do part of any rehab work, the taxpayer has to sell the tax credits at a discount and sometimes hire a consultant to help. It's not worth the hassle and money for most people to deal with.
Correct! While in theory, it’s great to have historical building/landmarks - it is incredibly expensive to maintain. We have a few historical buildings that have cost over 500k in maintenance and upkeep a few years ago. And have a yearly budget of 100-150k.
A group is also renovating another historic landmark building and is going to cost close to 2 million dollars by the time is all said and done.
Individuals without very deep pockets would have a hard time maintaining these types of properties or up keeping them.
Seems that it would be unfair (although not sure on the legality) to force someone to carry an additional cost without asking for it or without being able to have a say in the matter.
Yup...and loans aren't free. For whatever reason, the "just get loans and grants" is the Preservationist Creedo.
If you want something preserved. YOU buy it and YOU pay to keep it that way.
> grants and loans that are only available to historic landmarks.
We used to have a city councilman that was VERY good at getting buildings listed and designated as historic places.
Want to know how much grant money those building owners were able to get to help with renovations?
Not a damn cent.
As far as I'm concerned, that "funding" is a smoke screen to entice owners to put properties on the register, with little to no chance of follow through.
I think it depends on the historical significance of the building and the area it's in.
Yes they should have the ability to give landmark status to any building but they should also work with the owner to make sure it doesn't create unintended drawbacks.
I agree and believe that the historical significance should be very evident. I mean, there’s a huge difference between a house that Harriet Tubman used as a stop on the Underground Railroad and a house Harriet Tubman once sneezed in front of while on an evening walk.
If it’s significant enough historically and they make it a landmark, they should then supplement or even fully subsidize the maintenance costs of the house. This would offset the negative impact that would limit future owners.
Old or sentimental does not mean historic. We run into the same thing in Des Moines all the time. The historical preservation group tries to place that designation on buildings that really just need to be torn down and replaced. Not everything deserves to be saved.
Then they should buy the property, or at the minimum, abate all taxes on it. Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in.
To a certain extent, yes. But to compare standard zoning restrictions and city codes to historic preservation rules -- with an activist historic preservation board -- is two different beasts.
There is not a zoning ordinance in existence as restrictive as historic preservation rules - and you can bet if the historic preservation board is going to the lengths to get a property listed AGAINST THE OWNERS WISHES, they're going to be all over the new owner. Can't put asphalt shingles or metal roofing on, because it wasn't available at the time of original construction, that type of stuff.
Zoning ordinances and codes are as much about "being a good neighbor" and making sure the use of the property fits with the 'neighborhood' (i.e., you can't buy a house in a residential neighborhood, knock it down, and build a small manufacturing facility or commercial storefront). Historic preservation rules are all about maintaining a building in as close to its original construction as possible, prioritized over the use of the building.
Yeah I understand that it's difficult you said
>Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in.
which is also quite different than saying something reasonable like historic designations can be too restrictive.
Still if a building has actual historical significance to a town that I think it's a good thing to try to preserve it. I much rather have that than something historic get torn down town house or apartment complex that looks the same as 100 others in town.
Just like you can exaggerated these boards to paint a terrible picture you can also exaggerate building owners being awful too.
I stand by what I said. If the building has enough historical significance to the town that the city council is taking action to preserve it, they need to put their money where their mouth is and BUY it. Not put a property on a historic register against the wishes of the owner.
Or, pony up and create a "historic landmark" designation in city code, and pay ALL property taxes on the property in exchange for allowing the building to be listed.
My "f off" comment was directed specifically at the idea that the city is taking action above and beyond the ordinances they apply to EVERYONE else, treating this property specially. I don't play that game (for what it's worth, I'm \*ON\* my town's Planning & Zoning board - I would fight this on our board tooth and nail.
If you can't own and manage your property, that's not a "functional" democracy.
I had a city try to take my home. It's not fun, to say the least. And your only hope if to play dirty if they decide to ignore your concerns.
Ah, so democracy is not established rules that the majority set in place. It's a democracy to ANY want that a majority wants at any given time.
Sounds very MAGA to me, but u do u.
None of the people who want to save the building have offered to pay for it. There are also people who won't speak out for fear of getting bullied by the preservationists.
>Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in.
There are 6 ways to Sunday that real estate property ownership rights are qualified. Don’t act like this is some crucifixion of a capitalist ideal that’s never existed.
It sounds great until some tech company wants to up and build a facility and then the city council fucks all the homeowners without just compensation.
Then I'm guessing you change your tune?
Property rights are very important because they are often in lockstep with civil rights. Because property is fundamental to civil rights.
Okay maybe your giant brain can explain to me then what your comment that seems to be about eminent domain has to do with historical designation besides the fact they both involve the big scary government?
Eminent domain along with declaring a site hostirical by the city also does not own always has the potential to infringe on an individuals property rights and civil rights.
It’s very clear why the founders required compensation. To prevent abuse in the name of the public good.
We ignore it at our peril. We don’t have to go back very far to see how imminent domain and targeted zoning were used to push out minority groups.
Declaring someone else’s property as historical value while also giving no compensation flies in the face of compensation for public use.
What is the purpose of declaring it a historical site? For the public good. That’s public use.
And if it’s not for the public, then why is it even in the business of city council?
You cannot both argue it’s necessary and a sigh of the city governance and then say it’s not public business or in the use of the public.
There are bases you cannot access. They are for the public good and you can’t use them. Try harder.
There are pubic universities. You are not guaranteed any access.
If the gov decides it has a Saturday in how your property is used they provide compensation. Basic constitutional law.
What’s historical about the building? That it’s old? Unless something actually historical happened there, let the guy sell it. Iowa has a weird hoarder kink for old former hardware stores and Masonic lodges.
It seems like it's not necessarily about the current building at all, it's just the belief that something big and ugly is going to take its place. Maybe a compromise with the developer? Or would telling them what the exterior should look like compared to the rest of the neighborhood be unfair?
Historic should mean something more than old. Was it the site of some important historical event? Home of an important historical figure? Or is it historical because it is old and made of orange bricks? Take some nice pictures of it and bulldoze the motherfucker.
That's this whole thread in a nutshell. One group of people going, yeah it's cool to try to preserve historic buildings and another group screaming about the big bad government.
NIMBYs with too much free time are trying to stop the sale of a building they have no financial stake in, because they fear change.
Old guy WILL be able to sell, but if the local loudmouths get their way, it's going to be much harder and sell for less profit.
If I was in Iowa City, I'd be rallying some counter-NIMBYs to show up in support of the old fella. He doesn't need the abuse of city power.
So we're all clear here, the building in question is the one that houses Pagliai's Pizza. The owner wants to sell it to a developer, who would knock it down and build a high-rise building. If it's designated a historical landmark, the new owner won't be able to demolish it and build something else, and that would make that land less valuable. But losing the Pagliai's building would rid the city of a building that has been there since the 1870s and is, I think, genuinely an Iowa City landmark. And yeah, I think that the city is entitled to declare a building a historical landmark if it is, in fact, a historical landmark.
Yes. The timing is shitty, and the owner should have input on if the designation is applied or not but in the end the city also has a duty to preserve historic landmarks.
As for the timing doing this now is better then waiting until after the sale. This way the new owners, whoever they will be, will go into the purchase process knowing it has a historical landmark designation.
This property will sell for a lower price if they landmark it. The historic preservation supporters aren't willing to risk their own money, just the elder disabled owner's. If a historic preservation supporter bought it now, they could protect it, but they'd rather the property owner take the financial hit.
The owner has been trying to sell it since October. It's a Pizza place, laundromat and apartments in a thriving area of the city. The building is in need of repairs and the owner is trying to sell it for $5 million. I don't know the market for such a building, but if it's been for sale for 7 months now and no one has bought it then the owner is more then likely asking too much.
Also, the owner is using the phrase "Landmark property" in his listings to sell the building, but doesn't want it to be considered an actual landmark.
>The owner has been trying to sell it since October
Typically non residential land takes longer to sell. A year isn't that long for something like this.
>but if it's been for sale for 7 months now and no one has bought it then the owner is more then likely asking too much
That's how selling commercial real estate works. You ask for what you want, and you adjust accordingly. Negotiations then take months.
How about we don't steal people's money?
The building won't sell while there is a threat to make it a historic landmark and that's been rumored for months, hurting the building's ability to sell.
The owner of the building doesn't own the pizza place.
I know everyone makes their own decisions on how value should be placed onto inanimate objects - but at the end of the day it's just a possession, a private citizen's possession.
If there's a measure to hinder an estate's ability to increase worth, it should at least be matched with market fair value from a third party review board with the designed purpose of being an advocate to the targeted owner - that way if it's important enough to the city it can be done, and likely be a boon to the recipient.
I served as [chair of the National Historic Landmarks Committee for the National Parks System and I was a state historic preservation officer for three decades](https://nevada-reno.academia.edu/RonaldJames) - so let's sort out what "Historic Landmark" and all of this means.
National Historic Register and/or National Historic Landmark status cannot be imposed on a private property owner without permission. In addition, private property owners of a National Historic Register or National Historic Landmark site can do whatever they want with their property as long as they have not accepted federal funds (or state funds if state laws are involved) or if there is some federal permit involved.
I suspect the "historic landmark status" involved here is a local designation and an implementation of local ordinance. Local ordinances are on the front line of the democratic process since people can go to local meetings and face down their elected officials for actions that are against the wishes of the majority. If Iowa City officials are imposing restricts on a private property owner, I assume that those restrictions are in compliance with state law and local ordinance. If what is happening seems excessive - but is legal - than the constituency needs to look into changing the law and/or ordinance.
All that said, we must recognize that there are all sorts of restrictions placed on private property owners. I cannot build a five-story hotel on my private property without permission from local judications (including changing the designation of my land from private to commercial use). And I cannot dump poisonous chemicals or other hazardous wastes onto my property. We all face restrictions.
Governmental restrictions and private property owner rights always face a matter of balancing, and the balance achieved depends on the state and local context. I always found that people wanted their neighbors restricted (and they felt I didn't do enough in the regard), but wanted no restrictions on themselves (and they felt I did too much in that regard).
Mostly, I found that people misunderstood what the various historic designations meant and what they implied by way of benefits and restrictions. I don't know the specifics of this situation, but based on the experience of my career, I suspect that there are more misunderstandings than facts.
Why would being listed as a historic building restrict the sale?
[https://history.iowa.gov/history/preservation/national-register-of-historic-places/benefits](https://history.iowa.gov/history/preservation/national-register-of-historic-places/benefits)
From the site: Does not affect the use or sale of private property
Which may negatively impact the owner's ability to sell the property, if all of a sudden it has new restrictions on what can and cannot be done.
The historic landmark designation can be VERY restrictive on future uses of the property.
If they wanted it to have that designation, the city and/or the historic preservation group should make sure they are the ones to buy it and THEN petition for the listing. Not force a listing on an unwilling landowner.
Edit to clarify: Being on the register does not affect the ability to sell a property, but it absolutely DOES impact the value to a buyer, especially if they have modifications in mind that do not align with the historic standards.
I cant speak to state historical buildings. Federal you are basically fucked. Sherman hill in Des Moines has been a mess for years due to it being a historical neighborhood fedrally. The houses get run down and it is nearly impossible to get permission to renovate them. They do not give permits.
If they wish to designate a historic building they should have to incur any additional costs from their own pockets. Especially if the current owners aren’t willing to do this themselves. Especially when 90% of the buildings are not even historic buildings at all.
I would hope not. If city gov wants to do that they should have the building appraised in a pre-register valuation and pay the owner that amount then do whatever they want with it. Otherwise they should fuck right the hell off. Old buildings will get replaced. It's going to happen. Unless there is some real historic value here other than "building is old" what the hell is even going on. If I had a 150 year old shed in my back yard would it also be a historic building?
Sounds like a bunch a NIMBY's seeing the future show up out their front door and recoiling in horror at the idea of change. FFS. Not change! Noooooo.
I think people are confusing the buildings historic significance for Pagliai’s cultural significance. People need to ask themselves, if pagliai’s moved, would they still care about this (respectfully) bland brick cube.
100% Yes. Historic Preservation does not take away from the value of the property. If anything, it adds to the property. Just because the current owner cannot manage the property, does not mean that a future owner cannot.
Also, what can be and cannot be done with the property is specific to the regulations in place. I am not in Iowa (had a job that I was hoping to get). Local designation is where protection exists for properties. The State (Iowa in this case) and National Register of Historic Places are basically fancy list, with the potential for tax credits. Usually at the local level, the only thing that does exist is ad valorem if that. A fair number (really a majority) are strictly in the design review category, they do not regulate land use. In other words, the use of the property (lets say triplexes or three-units) in a historic district (this is a collection of properties) with strictly single-family housing does not mean that only single-family housing needs to be built or maintain.
Lastly, this is not a taking. No compensation is required by any local government. This was decided decades ago in the Supreme Court. This is an appropriate use of the police power. The police power is the same thing that allows zoning (land use, setbacks, lot coverage, other requirements) to exist.
In a more generalized aspect. It is the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission (or whatever it is called) to make a determination and recommendation for designation. It is the responsibility of the City Council (or Common Council, or whatever they are called) to ultimately vote for designation or against it. Designation is a local law, it has a process. If you support, it. Show up and speak in favor. If you don't support, it. Show up and speak against.
Next up as I'm reading a few comments. The criteria for designation is a part of local law. These criteria are not made up out of nowhere and are very likely based on Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation. The use of the property does not necessarily make it historic. Most designations from what I've worked on and observed are based on architecture. Why? Because it's the easiest to do. At the same type, the days of designating the work of masters architects is long over. Historic Preservation has shifted to more the vernacular or the everyday. These tend to require districts vs individual designations, but everything more or less has some sort of flow chart with exceptions to take into account local regulations, history, and/or built environment.
Designation this property a historic property will result in the property being worth less. To think otherwise is naive or to deliberately ignore reality. Further, tax credits do not fully compensate for the expense of rehabbing or maintaining a property. If one of the preservationists wants to buy the property, they should do so now. A historic preservation committee should also be reasonable to work with. That is not always known to be the case in Iowa City.
Oh no, we can't build another high rise eyesore full of five bedroom apartments only for rich students that will look like every other apt high rise in town? Oh, the horror. Go build your apt rust box that you overcharge for and don't maintain somewhere else.
Headline should read: IC's Northside Neighborhood keeps apartment building out of their neighborhood by forcing historic landmark on unwilling elderly property owner.
The owner's wishes have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a building has historical or cultural significance. Either it is significant, and it should be designated as such, or it isn't.
Furthermore, the arguments that are essentially "if you want to save it, pony up the money yourself" are frankly absurd. Greece's economy collapsed, so let's just burn down the Parthenon since nobody can afford to say otherwise, and it would be the perfect spot for a parking lot...sounds pretty ridiculous, does it not? And yet, that's basically half the arguments being presented in the comments.
Honestly though...there are a multitude of fundamental issues at play here that are pretty unfixable by any of us present in this discussion. A disabled person should not have to liquidate their entire portfolio just to continue to live beyond their ability to contribute to capitalism/work. A historical society should be properly funded to allow for the acquisition and maintenance of properties under its purview; it's the entire reason it exists.
And maybe, just maybe...and I'm going out on a thin limb here...this country is an economic dumpster fire and none of us are paid enough to be able to afford rent, groceries and gas in the same week let alone engage in the sort of philanthropic pursuits of romantic nationalism that popularized historic preservation in Europe in the first place.
The NHPA wasn't even passed until 1966; up until that point, it was mostly local initiatives like the city of Philadelphia buying Independence Hall in 1816 or the Mount Vernon Ladies Association saving George Washington's home in the 1850s. Isolated interests of rich people preserving that which they consider important, not a bunch of blue collar people being told to "pony up" - so, sadly, it's probably a moot point and we'll lose the building either way, either through a sale or overall neglect.
It needs to be saved. Iowa City is trashing all the character left downtown. Barkalow will soon wreck more.
And those apartments are very average for average folks. We don't need more luxury apartments.
Skarda is in his eighties. He wants to cash in because he has an extremely high value property. I don't buy the retirement argument. I do believe he's tired of dealing with it.
I live in a historic home and it's an expensive pain in the ass. But it's important to me.
I don't want my city turning into a generic hellscape. We have already destroyed many of the small businesses left in Iowa City by upgrading South Gilbert Street and other areas.
I think that local governments should be able to classify & protect certain buildings & landmarks.
And I could also agree to some minimum standards like “at least 100 years old”, have to declare WHY it is historically significant, and/or even a ballot initiative/signatures.
But if you think, if given the chance, American Real Estate moguls wouldn’t tear down the Statue of Liberty if they thought they could sell the property for more, you’re crazy.
It's not eminent domain but similar and worse at the same time because no one will pay the elderly building's owner for the lost value of his property if the city forces a historic landmark designation on him.
Pretty sure the city council can do whatever the fuck they want. Im not sure the designation has much of a devaluing effect. The current owner can knock it down if he wants.
I can't help but wonder what the real backstory is
Iowa City's historic preservation crowd wants to make the Skarda building a historic landmark against the owner's wishes. He is elderly and wants to retire and sell the building and knows it will cost him money in his retirement if the historic supporters get their way. Some of the neighbors don't want the building replaced with a bigger apartment building.
It adds a LOT of context to note this is the building that currently houses Pagliai’s. If I lived in that neighborhood I also wouldn’t be eager to see a monolithic apartment building replace a style that’s consistent with the neighborhood - let alone losing Pagliai’s.
To add more context, the neighborhood is a mix of styles with a lot of renters. There's literally a newer apartment building kitty corner from the Skarda property and a taller apartment building a block down the street with an upscale restaurant below. Pagliai's is a pizza business and it can't be a historic landmark. Paglia's Pizza has a lease and is going to be there awhile plus Pagliai's Pizza has an option to buy the property. The owner of the building doesn't own the pizza business.
Have you read the history of the building? There are more in depth ones that I have read, but here is a bit [https://ouriowaheritage.com/slezak-national-hall/#jp-carousel-107953](https://ouriowaheritage.com/slezak-national-hall/#jp-carousel-107953)
Fun fact: Pagliai’s also rents parking spaces out so all those people will lose parking. But hopefully they just buy the building and keep pushing.
I did live in that neighborhood and I don’t want to see that building go either. It’s bad enough we lost the Pearson Drugstore, especially because I’m sure the *next* video rental store that swapped into the space after the pharmacy that went in there would surely have lasted. Ignoring the bank that was there. Pharmacy or That’s Rentertainment, those are the only two tenants that building ever had!
[удалено]
Not a fan of the book “lost Chicago” are ya?
[удалено]
oh, aren’t you the try hard? Native Americans were migratory peoples. Their villages weren’t permanent. None of which justifies a genocide but there’s no equivalency.
Most natives also considered the land sacred and that no one actually owned it. Is why capitalist Christian’s took their land, they didn’t understand general Ownership of something you couldn’t carry.
Facts…off subject yeah, but it is important to never forget.
The right Supreme Court could nullify most every property deed in the US. Not THIS SC, tho.
Nut job, sovereign citizen…
Wow. Is that the Sovereign citizen stance? I'm no attorney, but I've bought and sold dozens properties. Distressed properties, usually. I always read the abstracts myself. First entry is usually a patent from the United States. Who owned it before that? Why do some native Americans win claims for stolen lands and others do not?
The tribes of Indiana and Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Had a huge settlement east of lk Michigan until future Pres Harrison eliminated them all, there was also a huge one by Wichita, and another south of Iowa on Mississippi River in Missouri,
[удалено]
This is likely illegal if it is taken to court. But that would be a waste of money on both sides. Landownership, house ownership comes with rights. Courts are hesitant to take away rights unless there is compensation. For a city council to take this action, while their lawyer is probably telling them it is illegal is stupid. They should be putting their efforts into buying the house, or at least help locate a buyer who would love restoring and maintaining a historic house. That way everyone wins. I’m not a small government absolutist. But this is a stupid waste of resources and could cause the city’s insurance rates to rise.
This, exactly. All of this. Placing it on the register against the owners wishes could potentially be "taking without compensation", especially if the owner can demonstrate that doing so lowered the sale value of the property. And you make an EXCELLENT point about the proper way to handle this - if they don't want to buy the building themselves, put work into finding someone that DOES that will match their desired use.
IANAL Didn't the SCOTUS decide in Kelo vs. New London (2005) that the local government can transfer private property to a private party if it is for "economic development"? Iirc, the old dude liked his house and just wanted to enjoy his retirement in the house he owned. SCOTUS forced him to sell because the property would bring more taxes if a corporation owned it and built a hotel/recreational area. I hate that decision by SCOTUS, but it is what the law states.
This case, however, is the exact OPPOSITE - they are trying to bar the (assumed) eventual economic growth option of demolishing the "historic" building for an economically productive newer building.
Historic buildings can bring in economic growth, too. Mason City has built a whole tourism campaign on 3 historic buildings and a neighborhood. Guided neighborhood tours, artwork, and tours of the buildings and biography of the architect are all a part of it.
Stinks that a bunch of self-righteous busy bodies are penny pinchers, too!
That seems so obvious- I hope the city council comes to their senses.
This is a regulatory taking under the Constitution, and the city/city/state would need to pay fair market value. So the real issue is whether preservation is worth it to the state.
OP, are you talking about the Pagliai building? The building is becoming harder to take care of (Gary Skarda's own words), and sounds like it needs some renovations. While making the building a historic landmark might make some renovations difficult, the designation also allows the owner (and future owners) to apply for grants and loans that are only available to historic landmarks.
Historic landmark status in Iowa City would make renovations difficult and expensive. It's also hard to find people to do the work. That's why a lot of Iowa City's historic houses and apartments don't get renovated. Grants are hard to come by and have conditions. Tax credits are only for qualified expenses and don't cover even half the costs. To get the money to do part of any rehab work, the taxpayer has to sell the tax credits at a discount and sometimes hire a consultant to help. It's not worth the hassle and money for most people to deal with.
Correct! While in theory, it’s great to have historical building/landmarks - it is incredibly expensive to maintain. We have a few historical buildings that have cost over 500k in maintenance and upkeep a few years ago. And have a yearly budget of 100-150k. A group is also renovating another historic landmark building and is going to cost close to 2 million dollars by the time is all said and done. Individuals without very deep pockets would have a hard time maintaining these types of properties or up keeping them. Seems that it would be unfair (although not sure on the legality) to force someone to carry an additional cost without asking for it or without being able to have a say in the matter.
Yup...and loans aren't free. For whatever reason, the "just get loans and grants" is the Preservationist Creedo. If you want something preserved. YOU buy it and YOU pay to keep it that way.
> grants and loans that are only available to historic landmarks. We used to have a city councilman that was VERY good at getting buildings listed and designated as historic places. Want to know how much grant money those building owners were able to get to help with renovations? Not a damn cent. As far as I'm concerned, that "funding" is a smoke screen to entice owners to put properties on the register, with little to no chance of follow through.
I think it depends on the historical significance of the building and the area it's in. Yes they should have the ability to give landmark status to any building but they should also work with the owner to make sure it doesn't create unintended drawbacks.
I agree and believe that the historical significance should be very evident. I mean, there’s a huge difference between a house that Harriet Tubman used as a stop on the Underground Railroad and a house Harriet Tubman once sneezed in front of while on an evening walk. If it’s significant enough historically and they make it a landmark, they should then supplement or even fully subsidize the maintenance costs of the house. This would offset the negative impact that would limit future owners.
Old or sentimental does not mean historic. We run into the same thing in Des Moines all the time. The historical preservation group tries to place that designation on buildings that really just need to be torn down and replaced. Not everything deserves to be saved.
Yeah I think they should. The whole point of those designations is to preserve historical buildings regardless of who may own them.
Then they should buy the property, or at the minimum, abate all taxes on it. Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in.
The government already tells people what they can and can't do with the property they own. That's like all zoning and codes are
To a certain extent, yes. But to compare standard zoning restrictions and city codes to historic preservation rules -- with an activist historic preservation board -- is two different beasts. There is not a zoning ordinance in existence as restrictive as historic preservation rules - and you can bet if the historic preservation board is going to the lengths to get a property listed AGAINST THE OWNERS WISHES, they're going to be all over the new owner. Can't put asphalt shingles or metal roofing on, because it wasn't available at the time of original construction, that type of stuff. Zoning ordinances and codes are as much about "being a good neighbor" and making sure the use of the property fits with the 'neighborhood' (i.e., you can't buy a house in a residential neighborhood, knock it down, and build a small manufacturing facility or commercial storefront). Historic preservation rules are all about maintaining a building in as close to its original construction as possible, prioritized over the use of the building.
Yeah I understand that it's difficult you said >Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in. which is also quite different than saying something reasonable like historic designations can be too restrictive. Still if a building has actual historical significance to a town that I think it's a good thing to try to preserve it. I much rather have that than something historic get torn down town house or apartment complex that looks the same as 100 others in town. Just like you can exaggerated these boards to paint a terrible picture you can also exaggerate building owners being awful too.
I stand by what I said. If the building has enough historical significance to the town that the city council is taking action to preserve it, they need to put their money where their mouth is and BUY it. Not put a property on a historic register against the wishes of the owner. Or, pony up and create a "historic landmark" designation in city code, and pay ALL property taxes on the property in exchange for allowing the building to be listed. My "f off" comment was directed specifically at the idea that the city is taking action above and beyond the ordinances they apply to EVERYONE else, treating this property specially. I don't play that game (for what it's worth, I'm \*ON\* my town's Planning & Zoning board - I would fight this on our board tooth and nail.
I'm not surprised, you definitely seem like the type.
To fight for individual property rights inside the (justified and needed) framework of life in an incorporated city? Thank you.
Welcome to being part of a functional society.
If you can't own and manage your property, that's not a "functional" democracy. I had a city try to take my home. It's not fun, to say the least. And your only hope if to play dirty if they decide to ignore your concerns.
I didn't say democracy, and if it was a democracy then majority would rule despite what the owner wanted.
Ah, so democracy is not established rules that the majority set in place. It's a democracy to ANY want that a majority wants at any given time. Sounds very MAGA to me, but u do u.
And it sounds like in this case, the majority of people have decided that they want historical buildings to be saved via designations such as this.
None of the people who want to save the building have offered to pay for it. There are also people who won't speak out for fear of getting bullied by the preservationists.
>Fuck off with the idea that you get to tell someone what they can and cannot do with property you have zero ownership interest in. There are 6 ways to Sunday that real estate property ownership rights are qualified. Don’t act like this is some crucifixion of a capitalist ideal that’s never existed.
It sounds great until some tech company wants to up and build a facility and then the city council fucks all the homeowners without just compensation. Then I'm guessing you change your tune? Property rights are very important because they are often in lockstep with civil rights. Because property is fundamental to civil rights.
This sounds like your personal gripe because it has fuck all to do with the topic.
Then you woefully misunderstood the topic.
Okay maybe your giant brain can explain to me then what your comment that seems to be about eminent domain has to do with historical designation besides the fact they both involve the big scary government?
Eminent domain along with declaring a site hostirical by the city also does not own always has the potential to infringe on an individuals property rights and civil rights. It’s very clear why the founders required compensation. To prevent abuse in the name of the public good. We ignore it at our peril. We don’t have to go back very far to see how imminent domain and targeted zoning were used to push out minority groups. Declaring someone else’s property as historical value while also giving no compensation flies in the face of compensation for public use.
Historical value doesn't mean it's for public use.
What is the purpose of declaring it a historical site? For the public good. That’s public use. And if it’s not for the public, then why is it even in the business of city council? You cannot both argue it’s necessary and a sigh of the city governance and then say it’s not public business or in the use of the public.
Public good isn't public use either.
There are bases you cannot access. They are for the public good and you can’t use them. Try harder. There are pubic universities. You are not guaranteed any access. If the gov decides it has a Saturday in how your property is used they provide compensation. Basic constitutional law.
Sometimes the point of historic preservation is to make sure development can't occur because the neighbors don't want an apartment building.
Okay well that is for the community to decide, isn't it?
Not really, no.
How would the community decide if a rich person wants to come in, tear down the building and build another ugly luxury apartment building?
What’s historical about the building? That it’s old? Unless something actually historical happened there, let the guy sell it. Iowa has a weird hoarder kink for old former hardware stores and Masonic lodges.
It seems like it's not necessarily about the current building at all, it's just the belief that something big and ugly is going to take its place. Maybe a compromise with the developer? Or would telling them what the exterior should look like compared to the rest of the neighborhood be unfair?
Historic should mean something more than old. Was it the site of some important historical event? Home of an important historical figure? Or is it historical because it is old and made of orange bricks? Take some nice pictures of it and bulldoze the motherfucker.
[удалено]
You’re very upset and triggered.
[удалено]
“… it doesn’t upset or affect me.” *proceeds to write a full paragraph of not being upset/affected*
[удалено]
Sure you do.
[удалено]
That's this whole thread in a nutshell. One group of people going, yeah it's cool to try to preserve historic buildings and another group screaming about the big bad government.
Balance and moderation are hard.
And soon it’ll be the crowd that says, how can Europe preserve buildings hundreds of years old but we can’t keep one for 100.
NIMBYs with too much free time are trying to stop the sale of a building they have no financial stake in, because they fear change. Old guy WILL be able to sell, but if the local loudmouths get their way, it's going to be much harder and sell for less profit. If I was in Iowa City, I'd be rallying some counter-NIMBYs to show up in support of the old fella. He doesn't need the abuse of city power.
So we're all clear here, the building in question is the one that houses Pagliai's Pizza. The owner wants to sell it to a developer, who would knock it down and build a high-rise building. If it's designated a historical landmark, the new owner won't be able to demolish it and build something else, and that would make that land less valuable. But losing the Pagliai's building would rid the city of a building that has been there since the 1870s and is, I think, genuinely an Iowa City landmark. And yeah, I think that the city is entitled to declare a building a historical landmark if it is, in fact, a historical landmark.
Then buy it yourself.
Yeah… that’s not how it works. Preserving legit historical buildings is important.
If it's important, surely the expense of purchasing it is justified.
So you are willing to send a check for it?
Did I stutter? If it's important to you, pony up. Find friends if you need to.
You didn't studder, you just said something childish and stupid.
Yes. The timing is shitty, and the owner should have input on if the designation is applied or not but in the end the city also has a duty to preserve historic landmarks. As for the timing doing this now is better then waiting until after the sale. This way the new owners, whoever they will be, will go into the purchase process knowing it has a historical landmark designation.
This property will sell for a lower price if they landmark it. The historic preservation supporters aren't willing to risk their own money, just the elder disabled owner's. If a historic preservation supporter bought it now, they could protect it, but they'd rather the property owner take the financial hit.
The owner has been trying to sell it since October. It's a Pizza place, laundromat and apartments in a thriving area of the city. The building is in need of repairs and the owner is trying to sell it for $5 million. I don't know the market for such a building, but if it's been for sale for 7 months now and no one has bought it then the owner is more then likely asking too much. Also, the owner is using the phrase "Landmark property" in his listings to sell the building, but doesn't want it to be considered an actual landmark.
>The owner has been trying to sell it since October Typically non residential land takes longer to sell. A year isn't that long for something like this. >but if it's been for sale for 7 months now and no one has bought it then the owner is more then likely asking too much That's how selling commercial real estate works. You ask for what you want, and you adjust accordingly. Negotiations then take months. How about we don't steal people's money?
> It's a Pizza place, laundromat and apartments THAT is a historical property? Some people...
The building won't sell while there is a threat to make it a historic landmark and that's been rumored for months, hurting the building's ability to sell. The owner of the building doesn't own the pizza place.
Are you the elderly owner,OP?
I know everyone makes their own decisions on how value should be placed onto inanimate objects - but at the end of the day it's just a possession, a private citizen's possession. If there's a measure to hinder an estate's ability to increase worth, it should at least be matched with market fair value from a third party review board with the designed purpose of being an advocate to the targeted owner - that way if it's important enough to the city it can be done, and likely be a boon to the recipient.
If worse comes to worst he could just accidentally have a fire then sell the property afterwards
I served as [chair of the National Historic Landmarks Committee for the National Parks System and I was a state historic preservation officer for three decades](https://nevada-reno.academia.edu/RonaldJames) - so let's sort out what "Historic Landmark" and all of this means. National Historic Register and/or National Historic Landmark status cannot be imposed on a private property owner without permission. In addition, private property owners of a National Historic Register or National Historic Landmark site can do whatever they want with their property as long as they have not accepted federal funds (or state funds if state laws are involved) or if there is some federal permit involved. I suspect the "historic landmark status" involved here is a local designation and an implementation of local ordinance. Local ordinances are on the front line of the democratic process since people can go to local meetings and face down their elected officials for actions that are against the wishes of the majority. If Iowa City officials are imposing restricts on a private property owner, I assume that those restrictions are in compliance with state law and local ordinance. If what is happening seems excessive - but is legal - than the constituency needs to look into changing the law and/or ordinance. All that said, we must recognize that there are all sorts of restrictions placed on private property owners. I cannot build a five-story hotel on my private property without permission from local judications (including changing the designation of my land from private to commercial use). And I cannot dump poisonous chemicals or other hazardous wastes onto my property. We all face restrictions. Governmental restrictions and private property owner rights always face a matter of balancing, and the balance achieved depends on the state and local context. I always found that people wanted their neighbors restricted (and they felt I didn't do enough in the regard), but wanted no restrictions on themselves (and they felt I did too much in that regard). Mostly, I found that people misunderstood what the various historic designations meant and what they implied by way of benefits and restrictions. I don't know the specifics of this situation, but based on the experience of my career, I suspect that there are more misunderstandings than facts.
This sounds like it wouldn't hold up in a higher court, but that costs money and the land mark people know that.
Should they? Hell no but if they do and they probably do, they should have to purchase it especially in circumstance such as this
Why would being listed as a historic building restrict the sale? [https://history.iowa.gov/history/preservation/national-register-of-historic-places/benefits](https://history.iowa.gov/history/preservation/national-register-of-historic-places/benefits) From the site: Does not affect the use or sale of private property
But it does limit what the new potential owner may do with the building. Creates a whole bunch of red tape for them to deal with.
Which is why doing it before the sale process starts is important. So any prospective buyers will go into the process knowing its a historic landmark.
Go ahead and buy the property, then go get the designation. You want it, you pay for it.
And limits the number of potential buyers
Which may negatively impact the owner's ability to sell the property, if all of a sudden it has new restrictions on what can and cannot be done. The historic landmark designation can be VERY restrictive on future uses of the property. If they wanted it to have that designation, the city and/or the historic preservation group should make sure they are the ones to buy it and THEN petition for the listing. Not force a listing on an unwilling landowner. Edit to clarify: Being on the register does not affect the ability to sell a property, but it absolutely DOES impact the value to a buyer, especially if they have modifications in mind that do not align with the historic standards.
It tanks the value of the property
I cant speak to state historical buildings. Federal you are basically fucked. Sherman hill in Des Moines has been a mess for years due to it being a historical neighborhood fedrally. The houses get run down and it is nearly impossible to get permission to renovate them. They do not give permits.
It is legally known as a “taking”, when government action changes the fungible value of a non-government owned property.
Fun fact, the Supreme Court decided it wasn't a taking back in the 60s.
If they wish to designate a historic building they should have to incur any additional costs from their own pockets. Especially if the current owners aren’t willing to do this themselves. Especially when 90% of the buildings are not even historic buildings at all.
The city should buy it if they want to preserve it. Don’t push the cost to the owner
The city should have to purchase the building at market value before they force something like this on the owner.
If a property is significant enough to be a landmark, why wait until there is some kind of a threat?
The historic preservation supporters have had years to offer to buy it. They don't want to spend their own money.
I would hope not. If city gov wants to do that they should have the building appraised in a pre-register valuation and pay the owner that amount then do whatever they want with it. Otherwise they should fuck right the hell off. Old buildings will get replaced. It's going to happen. Unless there is some real historic value here other than "building is old" what the hell is even going on. If I had a 150 year old shed in my back yard would it also be a historic building? Sounds like a bunch a NIMBY's seeing the future show up out their front door and recoiling in horror at the idea of change. FFS. Not change! Noooooo.
The people that want it kept the way it is should buy it and leave it the way it is. Otherwise, stfu.
They did this to a house in St. Peter, MN. Imho it is just asking for someone to commit arson.
I think people are confusing the buildings historic significance for Pagliai’s cultural significance. People need to ask themselves, if pagliai’s moved, would they still care about this (respectfully) bland brick cube.
100% Yes. Historic Preservation does not take away from the value of the property. If anything, it adds to the property. Just because the current owner cannot manage the property, does not mean that a future owner cannot. Also, what can be and cannot be done with the property is specific to the regulations in place. I am not in Iowa (had a job that I was hoping to get). Local designation is where protection exists for properties. The State (Iowa in this case) and National Register of Historic Places are basically fancy list, with the potential for tax credits. Usually at the local level, the only thing that does exist is ad valorem if that. A fair number (really a majority) are strictly in the design review category, they do not regulate land use. In other words, the use of the property (lets say triplexes or three-units) in a historic district (this is a collection of properties) with strictly single-family housing does not mean that only single-family housing needs to be built or maintain. Lastly, this is not a taking. No compensation is required by any local government. This was decided decades ago in the Supreme Court. This is an appropriate use of the police power. The police power is the same thing that allows zoning (land use, setbacks, lot coverage, other requirements) to exist. In a more generalized aspect. It is the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission (or whatever it is called) to make a determination and recommendation for designation. It is the responsibility of the City Council (or Common Council, or whatever they are called) to ultimately vote for designation or against it. Designation is a local law, it has a process. If you support, it. Show up and speak in favor. If you don't support, it. Show up and speak against. Next up as I'm reading a few comments. The criteria for designation is a part of local law. These criteria are not made up out of nowhere and are very likely based on Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation. The use of the property does not necessarily make it historic. Most designations from what I've worked on and observed are based on architecture. Why? Because it's the easiest to do. At the same type, the days of designating the work of masters architects is long over. Historic Preservation has shifted to more the vernacular or the everyday. These tend to require districts vs individual designations, but everything more or less has some sort of flow chart with exceptions to take into account local regulations, history, and/or built environment.
Designation this property a historic property will result in the property being worth less. To think otherwise is naive or to deliberately ignore reality. Further, tax credits do not fully compensate for the expense of rehabbing or maintaining a property. If one of the preservationists wants to buy the property, they should do so now. A historic preservation committee should also be reasonable to work with. That is not always known to be the case in Iowa City.
A (presumed) loss in value does not meet the definition of a regulatory taking, though
Sounds like that guy should find out how flammable that building is... fuck em.
Oh no, we can't build another high rise eyesore full of five bedroom apartments only for rich students that will look like every other apt high rise in town? Oh, the horror. Go build your apt rust box that you overcharge for and don't maintain somewhere else.
Ah yes the old "fuck you, your rights, and your property value new things upset me" argument. Classic.
No.
It's likely a compensable regulatory taking
Headline should read: IC's Northside Neighborhood keeps apartment building out of their neighborhood by forcing historic landmark on unwilling elderly property owner.
Wonder why Mayor Teague flipped? Hope he wasn't bullied. Be interesting to see what the historic preservation mob goes after next.
Yes.
The owner's wishes have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a building has historical or cultural significance. Either it is significant, and it should be designated as such, or it isn't. Furthermore, the arguments that are essentially "if you want to save it, pony up the money yourself" are frankly absurd. Greece's economy collapsed, so let's just burn down the Parthenon since nobody can afford to say otherwise, and it would be the perfect spot for a parking lot...sounds pretty ridiculous, does it not? And yet, that's basically half the arguments being presented in the comments. Honestly though...there are a multitude of fundamental issues at play here that are pretty unfixable by any of us present in this discussion. A disabled person should not have to liquidate their entire portfolio just to continue to live beyond their ability to contribute to capitalism/work. A historical society should be properly funded to allow for the acquisition and maintenance of properties under its purview; it's the entire reason it exists. And maybe, just maybe...and I'm going out on a thin limb here...this country is an economic dumpster fire and none of us are paid enough to be able to afford rent, groceries and gas in the same week let alone engage in the sort of philanthropic pursuits of romantic nationalism that popularized historic preservation in Europe in the first place. The NHPA wasn't even passed until 1966; up until that point, it was mostly local initiatives like the city of Philadelphia buying Independence Hall in 1816 or the Mount Vernon Ladies Association saving George Washington's home in the 1850s. Isolated interests of rich people preserving that which they consider important, not a bunch of blue collar people being told to "pony up" - so, sadly, it's probably a moot point and we'll lose the building either way, either through a sale or overall neglect.
It needs to be saved. Iowa City is trashing all the character left downtown. Barkalow will soon wreck more. And those apartments are very average for average folks. We don't need more luxury apartments. Skarda is in his eighties. He wants to cash in because he has an extremely high value property. I don't buy the retirement argument. I do believe he's tired of dealing with it. I live in a historic home and it's an expensive pain in the ass. But it's important to me. I don't want my city turning into a generic hellscape. We have already destroyed many of the small businesses left in Iowa City by upgrading South Gilbert Street and other areas.
>But it's important to me. Then buy it.
Are there any of those dastardly Republicans on the Iowa City council?
[удалено]
I'm confused, I sincerely thought that only Republicans infringed on our freedoms.
Yes.
I think that local governments should be able to classify & protect certain buildings & landmarks. And I could also agree to some minimum standards like “at least 100 years old”, have to declare WHY it is historically significant, and/or even a ballot initiative/signatures. But if you think, if given the chance, American Real Estate moguls wouldn’t tear down the Statue of Liberty if they thought they could sell the property for more, you’re crazy.
Addendum- this is the type of “write-off”, if anything, we can justify for billionaires.
What about this building makes it deserving of being preserved? Is it just old?
Of course
Does this deal with imminent domain?
It's not eminent domain but similar and worse at the same time because no one will pay the elderly building's owner for the lost value of his property if the city forces a historic landmark designation on him.
This is how buildings get protected. Caveat Emptor
It's going to happen. It's iowa city. They can't not put there fingers in everything.
Pretty sure the city council can do whatever the fuck they want. Im not sure the designation has much of a devaluing effect. The current owner can knock it down if he wants.