Evanston Aldermen Decide To Drop Harley Clarke Demolition Appeal

EVANSTON, IL — The City Council voted unanimously Monday against appealing a decision by the Evanston Historic Preservation Commission to block the demolition of the Harley Clarke mansion and coach house. The 9-0 vote effectively voided a memorandum of understanding between the city and representatives of the Evanston Lighthouse Dunes citizen group, according to city attorney Michelle Masoncup. Signed in August, that memorandum bound the city to seek the demolition of the city-owned local landmark, whose future has been the subject of more than seven years of debate and a recent advisory referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Mayor Steve Hagerty, who chaired a citizens committee on the future of the mansion prior to his election 18 months ago, said it would be unlikely to find anyone in the city who was not disappointed in some what when it comes to the issue.

"Everything that we have considered for Harley Clarke, that this City Council has considered, has been rejected," Hagerty said. The community has asked the Council to "try harder" to find a solution other than demolition. "We are all going to have to work effectively together, not vilify one another who has a different opinion than we do.

"We've come full circle on this. We've run the gamut on the ideas that were sort of presented here," despite some "process issues" along the way, the mayor said.

Ahead of the vote, more than 70 citizens signed up to speak about the future of the mansion. About a dozen residents spoke in favor of the demolition plan, describing it as the only fiscally responsible decision. Nearly all of the rest supported the preservation of the 90-year-old French Eclectic lakefront mansion at 2603 Sheridan Road.

The ratio of speakers at the packed Dec. 10 meeting roughly aligned with the results of last month's non-binding referendum, when Evanston voters were asked if the city should "protect from demolition and preserve the landmark Harley Clarke buildings and gardens next to Lighthouse Beach, for use and access as public property, consistent with the Evanston Lakefront Master Plan, at minimal or no cost to Evanston taxpayers." By a margin of about 80 percent to 20 percent – 27,476 votes for "yes" compared to 6,724 votes for "no", according to the Cook County Clerk's Office – Evanstonians supported the preservation of the building. Several supporters of demolition said the referendum's language was misleading for suggesting the structure could be preserved without taxpayers footing the bill.

The referendum was placed on the ballot by a group called Save Harley Clarke (who also created a nonprofit group called Friends of Harley Clarke) formed after the emergence of a group called Evanston Lighthouse Dunes in May. Aldermen approved the MOU with the group in July, effectively a contract with a nonprofit foundation and five residents on behalf of the group to pursue to the demolition of the structure in exchange for $400,000. The city has withheld information regarding when the money was transferred to the city and the amounts provided by individuals and nonprofits, citing the privacy of donors to the effort. The Illinois Attorney General's Office is continuing to review the city's handling of public records requests made by both residents and Evanston Patch under the Freedom of Information Act.

In October, the the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously rejected an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the city to seek permission to raze the structure, which was purchased by the city in 1965 and housed the Evanston Arts Center until 2015. Supporters of demolition argued leaving the building standing would be too costly and eliminating it would provide additional public parkland and showcase the more historic Grosse Point Lighthouse. Those seeking to preserve the building said an adaptive reuse that keep the mansion intact without costing taxpayers is possible.

Monday's vote means Evanston has accepted the commission's decision to withhold permission to demolish the mansion. The City Council could have voted to overrule that determination next month if the appeal had been approved.

Ald. Robin Rue Simmons, 5th Ward, said she believed voters who approved the referendum question were given misinformation. She saw "Save Harley Clarke" stickers placed on Democratic Party slate cards and personally witnessed campaigners for the referendum "misleading 5th Ward residents to think that this building had something to do with our families and our futures," Rue Simmons said. (In fact, voter cards produced by the Democratic Party of Evanston were printed with a spot for the stickers and accurately noted that the referendum had been endorsed by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and state representatives Laura Fine and Robyn Gabel.)

"I cannot ignore over 80 percent of the voters that took their time to vote. I can't decide who was misled and who was misinformed and that for me is very frustrating," Rue Simmons said. She said she had struggled with determining whether the building was an asset or a liability, but the debate over its future had brought out "ugliness" in the Evanston community. She said people had come to her house and put signs on her property in support of the referendum even after she had removed them.

"The threats of what I will not do, or what will happen to me, or the rest of my time in office if I do not support Harley Clarke is disgusting," Rue Simmons said. "But we do have a process and we are a democracy." She said she intended to ensure there was no additional cost to taxpayers, as specified in the referendum's approved language.

"We cannot afford any more tax increases. We just went through a budget process. We have tax increases now because we didn't want to say 'no' to anything. So I didn't approve that budget," Rue Simmons said. Despite initial assurances to the contrary, aldermen voted to restore proposed budget cuts and plug a deficit of more than $7 million, in party, by raising property taxes. "The city manager gave us the budget we asked for, because we wanted everything."

Ald. Judy Fiske, 1st Ward, said she said it would be irresponsible to give back the money from the Dunes group, as the agreement allows the city 24 months to seek permission to demolish the building.

"We can decide in January not to accept the appeal. At any point going in the future we can decide that. I think keeping all of our options open is important," Fiske said. In addition to demolition, options include re-zoning, commercial use and renovation for public use. Fiske said she supported a "double track" approach that would keep demolition on the table while reviewing other plans.

"Keep the money in our back pocket for two years while we look at all these plans, and then decide at that time – or before then – what it is we're going to do," Fiske suggested.

One option Fiske said she would not support is a plan floated by state Rep. Robyn Gabel, a Democrat representing Evanston, which would see the property transferred over to state ownership to eliminate any liability for Evanston taxpayers. Fiske said it was an asset was worth between $2.5 million and $3 million and should not be given to the state. Fiske has supported demolition in order to realize a 1960s-era vision that demolished several private lakefront mansions to expand parkland at the site, which she said had been contemplated by aldermen at the time of the city's purchase of the property.

Ald. Don Wilson, 4th Ward, said the city expects applicants to follow the rules, so aldermen should do the same when considering appeals of the city's administrative processes.

"An appeal is a process and it's generally address some kind of error or some kind of ambiguity in the way the law exists," Wilson said. "I could certainly pick at some of the findings – some people accuse me of being too good at picking at things – but at the end of the day I really don't think we have any sort of significant ambiguity or error here." He said he originally considered hearing out the appeal, but said the Council was limited to the record on appeal.

During the public comment portion, a letter from Anthony Borich of the Chicago-based law firm Jenner and Block was read into the record warning of a potential lawsuit if aldermen voted to appeal the commission's decision.

"Any decision by the Council may be appealed to the Cook County Circuit Court. There is no basis to overturn the Preservation Commission's decision and we believe that a court will revoke any decision by the Council to grant a certificate of appropriateness" needed for demolition, according to the letter.

"Having people threaten to litigate against us doesn't particularly sit so well with me, but at the same time that's the process. So if we make a decision one way, either side can appeal it to the court. So that's just how it works," Wilson said. "But I'm not comfortable that we would prevail if we proceeded with granting the appeal, and in fact I feel quite strongly to the contrary."

Ald. Eleanor Revelle, 7th Ward, said the city needed to take demolition off the table to allow another plan to emerge.

"I think as long as we keep the idea of demolition hanging over us, it's just so discouraging for people to really try to flesh out a proposal and certainly to really raise some serious funds for whatever that re-use might be," Revelle said. She pointed out there has been a wide range of potential costs to renovate the building, with numbers of the city's website starting at about $500,000.

As for concerns that raising private money for the preservation of the Harley Clarke mansion would lead to donor fatigue in Evanston, where there are several other ongoing capital campaigns with public-private fundraising partnerships, Revelle said she had witnessed the growth of the city's philanthropic capacity to match the growth in its nonprofit sector.

"Each person chooses which worthy causes to support," said Revelle, the former board chair of the Evanston Community Foundation. "I don't believe it's up to us to decide what the giving opportunities should be for our fellow residents, so I'm going to urge that we put to rest the question of demolition and deny the appeal for the decision."

Ald. Melissa Wynne, 3rd Ward, said there was nothing in the record allowing for the preservation commission's unanimous decision to be overturned. The commission consists of at least six experts in structural issues of historic buildings, all of whom emphasized the mansion is in "remarkably" good shape, she said.

"I agree that I think we need to dispose of the issue of demolition. As long as that is out there it acts as a suppressor of other good ideas," Wynne said. For the moment, the building can be mothballed without threat of demolition with available funding from the community.

"As I said a long time ago, citing Lincoln School, which was once, really, an architectural gem in our community, and very shortsightedly was knocked down, and once it's gone it's gone. And I really think that we are not at that point with Harley Clarke at all," Wynne said. She said the demolition debate had captured the public's attention and attracted new ideas for the site's future and it would be necessary to work cooperatively determined the best solution.

"If each of us decides it's got to be this or nothing else, we really won't make progress, and I think that's part of the reason why we are where we are," Wynne said. "I think now we have many more heads coming together with good ideas and realizing there's lots of potential here."

Ald. Cicely Fleming, 9th Ward, said the vote presented her with "two bad choices" between an uncertain future and an unpopular demolition plan. Fleming said she had concerns about both the sources of potential preservation funding, which she said may come with strings attached, or demolishing the building, which she said was mostly funded by a single person, referring to Chuck Lewis' Lewis Sebring-Family Foundation.

Fleming also said she was disappointed to receive only three emails about the murder of Tanuel Major, a 49-year-old homeless woman who was bludgeoned to death in the alcove of First United Methodist Church last month, while on a daily basis she had been hearing from residents about how she should vote on the Harley Clarke issue or how to interpret voter's decision in the advisory referendum on the subject.

"I will remind us all that voters also voted for Trump. And people now say, 'Oh my God, who are those Trump supporters?' 'Oh my God, he's horrible, what did the voters do?'" Fleming said, describing the collective anger about a building as shocking.

"I am one who wants to keep what we need and use what we have. I'm not one who would say I'm into privatization," Fleming said. "But I also hear every day from people in my ward who can't afford to live in this city, and I'm not blaming that on Harley Clarke, I'm saying we pay a lot of taxes, most of it does not go to the city of Evanston, but we've raised a lot of fees last year."

Fleming said the community needed to be realistic about its options. Expecting a nonprofit to be able to take over an old building it doesn't own and cover the cost of its repair is unlikely, she said.

"I don't live in hypotheticals, it's just not who I am by nature. I'm not trying to squelch anyone's dreams, but I am saying that for all the things that people voted for, wanted or had these grand visions of – somebody's got to pay for it," Fleming said. "I am not going to support anything that puts this on the burden of the taxpayers, because I hear every day about what our taxpayers cannot afford. And I mean people telling me they can't afford the new trash rates, and there's no way I am going to ask them to pay for a building they may or may not use."

Ald. Peter Braithwaite, 2nd Ward, said he had seen more "distasteful emotions" around the Harley Clarke building that he had "around someone actually losing their lives." He said the decision was clear on what aldermen needed to do.

"We're elected to make decisions, and I think tonight we should make that decision," Braithwaite said. "You just take a stand and vote."

Ald. Tom Suffredin, 6th Ward, did not comment before the vote, nor did Ald. Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, whose advocacy on behalf of the pro-demolition group had been the subject of an complaint with the Evanston Ethics Board, which found that she abused power in violation of the City Code and called for her to be recused from future votes on the matter. (In a Rules Committee meeting earlier this month, Rainey cast the tiebreaking vote to exonerate herself from any censure. Despite language in the Evanston City Code laying out potential penalties for ethics violations, the city's law department argued the only sanction allowed by City Council rules is a censure.)

Related:

• Evanston Sets Turnout Record While Approving Referendums
• Preservation Commission Rejects Harley Clarke Demolition Request
• Evanston Ethics Board Rules Alderman Abused Power, Violated Code
• State Partnership Could Spare Harley Clarke Mansion: State Reps
• Harley Clarke Mansion Demolition Donation Deal Signed
• Harley Clarke Referendum Cleared To Appear On November Ballot
• Aldermen Approve Amended Harley Clarke Demolition Agreement