Riverside Info » About Riverside

Neighbors decry library's wish to buy homes (Landmark)

(6 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by ChrisHajer
  • Latest reply from MikeTomecek
  1. ChrisHajer
    Member

    From http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=2212&TM=66409.52

    Neighbors decry library's wish to buy homes
    Claim library's interest lowers their property values
    Brookfield residents who received letters from the Brookfield Public Library Board expressing interest in buying their properties to make way for a future library expansion protested the suggestion at the board's Jan. 17 meeting, saying the letters had the same effect as a threat of eminent domain.

    The board sent out letters to eight properties owners on Lincoln Avenue and Grand Boulevard last month asking if there was any interest in selling their property to the library or giving the library the right of first refusal, in which the library would purchase the right to match any future offer made on the owner's property before it is sold.

    According to board member Jonathan Platt, the chairman of the board's Building and Grounds Committee, the purpose of the letter was to gather information for a study of the library that the board will begin in March. The study, led by a professional library space planner hired by the board, is meant to consider all possible options for remodeling of the building, which may include expansion.

    Platt explained expansion would be desirable because of the library's limited space. If the building were simply remodeled, fitting the library's materials and activities into the building's current 1,300 square feet would still be a challenge, he said.

    "No matter how you cut it, 1,300 square feet is still 1,300 square feet," he said. "We would still not have room for the computer programs, the special activities for children or the community meeting area that we would like and that we feel the community deserves."

    Platt, along with the rest of the board, did stress, however, that any expansion would be dependent on neighboring property owners' willingness to sell to the library, and that the board had no intention of forcing any residents from their homes. If the board cannot acquire enough property to make future expansion feasible, that option won't be considered in the study.

    "What we're doing here is testing the market," Platt said. "We can't make any plans until we know who's interested. We sent out the letters to see what area we could possibly expand into. If people aren't interested, that pretty much answers that."

    That clarification of the board's intentions pacified some residents, but others argued that even if the board does not plan to exercise it to take their properties, merely sending the letters raised the specter of eminent domain. By publicly expressing an interest in their properties, they said, the board automatically lowered their property values.

    "My house right now is unsellable," one resident said. "You've got a black cloud hanging over us. If people were interested in buying my house, once they find out that a government institution is interested in the property, my property value goes down."

    Residents also questioned the involvement of library board President Margaret Blasage, noting that she lives in one of the eight properties in question, and also sits on the Brookfield Zoning Board of Appeals.

    Blasage dismissed the suspicions, however, noting that she recused herself from the vote approving the letters at the board's Nov. 27 meeting. She also said that she had no intention of selling her home to the library.

    That put her with the majority of the 14 residents who attended last week's meeting, all but one of whom flatly rejected the board's proposal. That lone resident, Diane Denneny, was one of two property owners whom Library Director Kimberly Litland said expressed interest in eventually selling their property to the library.

    "I'm certainly not moving tomorrow, but I have been thinking about making a move eventually," said Denneny, who lives next to the library on Lincoln Avenue. "When this came in the mail, it seemed like a good possibility."

    Litland said she's only had cursory talks with both Denneny and the second property owner about selling their properties, and that even if the library were able to acquire those two properties, that would not necessarily result in a library expansion.

    Litland said the board would have a clearer idea of what a future remodeling project might entail after the building study, which she estimated could take up to a year to complete.

    "We have some ideas of what to expect from the study, but as to the actual contents of a plan, we have a lot of work to do," she said.

    © Copyright 2006, Riverside Brookfield Landmark

    Posted Wednesday Jan 24, 2007 17:31 #
  2. Catherine
    Member

    I suppose these homeowners are crazy too, full of "scare tactics, fearmongering, and uncivil and unproductive dialogue." How can they be so selfish? After all, the majority need more DVDs for the greater good! And their homes are likely a burden to the tax base of the rest of the town.

    Posted Thursday Jan 25, 2007 21:01 #
  3. MikeT
    Member

    the brookfield person said--
    ... others argued that even if the board does not plan to exercise it to take their properties, merely sending the letters raised the specter of eminent domain. By publicly expressing an interest in their properties, they said, the board automatically lowered their property values.

    "My house right now is unsellable," one resident said. "You've got a black cloud hanging over us. If people were interested in buying my house, once they find out that a government institution is interested in the property, my property value goes down."

    SOUND FAMILIAR?

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=106&page=2&replies=49
    (Posted: 2007-01-24 14:53:43
    Posted: 2007-01-25 03:53:31)

    Towns are eating their own people to grow!

    Town officials are reading Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal', but do not know that IT. IS. A. JOKE!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

    I bet you all thought I was just full of words.

    "Methinks that man doth protest too much"

    The difference between someone reading the Halloween Landmark in 2007 from a computer in their cozy home outside the proposed tif district and demolition list, and me reading it on Halloween, is...large and SCARY!
    .
    CONTEMPLATE THIS.

    .
    .
    miket
    I wonder why we in Riverside are doing this kind of thing?
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=131&replies=1#post-1834

    Posted Thursday Jan 25, 2007 22:35 #
  4. MikeSedivy
    Member

    How does increased demand for a home make the value go down?

    Posted Friday Jan 26, 2007 10:37 #
  5. MikeSedivy
    Member

    Sorry - I re-read my last post and didn't want to seem flippant. Law of Supply and Demand would indicate that more interested buyers would raise the value of a home. I think Eminent Domain issues have been tightened up considerably at the State Level as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. Maybe I'm naive, but I think the above could be an opportunity to sell at an above-market rate (especially in this market) if someone did want to sell.

    Posted Friday Jan 26, 2007 14:32 #
  6. MikeT
    Member

    The increased demand in this case is an 8000 lb gorilla, an odd player called 'THE STATE', which has the capability to exercise eminent domain. While THE STATE has the ability to exercise this anywhere, once it has made explicit pronouncements of interest, that will negatively affect the property's attractiveness.

    Stigmatization in real estate is about negative *intangible* factors, usually like a gross criminal act such as a murder that occurred at the house. The house itself is the same as w/o the stigmatizing factor present- same tangible structure - but with the factor present it is as if it were falling apart as far as the price it would fetch.

    So, when other buyers know that THE STATE wants that property, they will stay away from that property totally ('next house, Dear, I don't want to get settled then the city takes it'). Or, if they still want it enough, they would extend a real low offer, thus decreasing the property's value.

    If the other buyer is not THE STATE, even a developer, sending those love notes in the mailbox, you are right, MikeS, the property would increase in value.

    miket

    Posted Friday Jan 26, 2007 18:24 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.