Elgin's rehab goals not fiscally sound

After reading about Elgin's upcoming plans to spend $600,000 in federal grant money to rehab deteriorating, foreclosed properties, I question the reasonableness of the decision. It would make more sense for the city to focus on investment returns for such projects by first taking a hard look at the overall condition of a neighborhood before hoping that a handful of rehabbed homes will favorably impact property values.

My family and I recently moved from Elgin after living in a 100-year-old frame home in a declining neighborhood for 20 years. We put considerable muscle and money into maintenance. Exterior painting last cost us $7,000; replacing the gambrel roof shortly before listing the home cost $12,000. We learned over the years that, short of gutting and rebuilding such a house, you're still spending hundreds or thousands of dollars trying to stave off future structural problems.

Besides that, if you wish to keep the house "historically accurate" cosmetically, such as in replacement of woodwork, you're talking custom materials, which are even more expensive than average. Needless to say, the sale of our home resulted in quite a financial loss, and we believe it wasn't solely due to the economic downturn.

The owners of an old home may do a good job of maintaining it, but if the majority of their neighbors don't have the interest or resources to follow suit, then the dream of stable property values becomes just that.

Elgin has many charming old homes, including some nice brick bungalows, many of which may have stronger "bones" and would be cheaper to rehab. Although this most likely will not increase property values in the area either, working on these still allows the city of Elgin to do their "historic pride" thing without rattling the taxpayers. After all, federal grant money still comes out of our pockets.

Susan Menzimer

Huntley