St. Charles homeowner's rights are important
Perhaps you've heard about Annshirley Bowie, a St. Charles homeowner and recent widow struggling to stay alive financially against a historical landmarking of her property against her wishes.
As her concerned son, I'd like to paint a textured picture of what the fight over 405 South Seventh Street truly means. Although my mom's recent struggle with cancer has been intense, I fear these matters have further strained her health and future -- evidenced by an emergency hospital stay this past week due to stress.
Since January, my mom and late stepdad Tom have had their property on the market with the only offer on the decaying home by a developer. Although the Bowie family's owned the house for three generations, Tom and Ann supported the developer's desire to clear the wearisome structure and give the lot fresh life through 2-3 new houses that would bring more families to the neighborhood. As homeowners, they'd assumed their basic rights to make this decision.
Merely a few days after Tom unexpectedly died, though, family dentist and neighbor Dr. Steven Smunt served notice via letter to my grieving mom that he'd nominated her house to become a landmark. This would diminish her ability to sell as she sees fit, thereby preventing her only real possibility of selling to the developer and obtaining the finances to move on with her life.
While I don't know Smunt or how he normally uses his position as chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, I have concerns with the objectivity of this alleged goal and the uncaring actions taking place.
The HPC constantly refers to the Bowie Home as the "Miller" home, yet refer to the neighboring Mosier home they recently approved as the "Mosier" home. According to family knowledge, St. Charles residents have never referred to the Bowie home in the manner HPC proposes during all three generations that have lived there. Why this inconsistent spin-doctoring?
The landmarking effort reaches beyond the house as the HPC has sought the legally separated empty lot next to it that my mom's also trying to sell. I'm curious what sort of historical structure was ever erected on this empty property and why it's being pursued.
Kim Malay, HPC coordinator, told the Daily Herald that Tom was warming up to the idea of landmarking. My family knows he never wanted this but merely wondered if someone from the HPC might buy the house. For the record, the HPC has yet to produce legal documentation of their allegation. Why is that?
In a December 2004 newspaper story, former HPC Chairman David English stated, "… most people in the historic preservation area come with well-thought out plans. They want to be in a historic area. They want to preserve their homes." If current HPC members maintain this view, are they aware the Bowie home is outside the historical district and yet faces this imposition?
As unfortunate events recently revealed, structures don't last -- mere bad weather can ruin a house. True history should be and is always organic, evidenced when cultures empower their storytellers. That is a foundation worth building on -- one that moth and rust cannot destroy.
I'd argue (and hope you would to the city council) that preserving a person has greater historical value than lumber … or the picket fences of a few neighbors.
Tony Myles
Tony Myles, a former Chicago suburban resident, is a pastor and writer from Medinah, Ohio