As you might imagine, WE are pleased with the decision of the council. Individual property rights are a fundamental principle of democracy. If the council didn't understand that, a federal court would have explained it to all of you who don't. Democracy, still the best deal out there, especially for the "little guy". But lets stop it poster Martha with the boo hooing. You or others who wanted to sell the $2500 shares still have time to put up or shut up before that hulking wreck comes down. So get at it. Buy the house and preserve it as a wonderful landmark already that all of you shareholders can be proud of. You will have earned it for it is YOUR property and we will never tell you what to do with it.

I don't know when the last time you drove around Hinsdale or Elmhurst was, anonymous 11:20pm, but there are just as many, if not more, tear downs in those towns. If there is a historic district in either town, I have not run across it, not that I have looked for it. The older houses preserved there are by the owner's choice, not the towns.

While we are all in the mood to preserve property rights let's keep this quest moving along and work to get the City Council to throw out the entire historical district.

Let's face some hard facts. The boundaries of the historic district really were made on a very arbitrary basis and never did follow any real architectural, historical, or even logically defended criteria, with the exception of just being old. Why should property owners within the historic district be restricted from doing anything they want with their property the same as property owners who live outside the historic district? Let's not forget that there is no shortage of really crappy houses within the historic district. Yes there are a handful of charming older houses, a couple that might even be classified as architecturally significant, but the rest if the truth be known have hugely inflated property values that are not justified by their true worth... only the fact of where the property lies.

If there was anything of historic value in Naperville it would have to have included churches, schools, shopping district, city hall, fire dept, police dept., etc. Another hard fact is that our city council over the last three decades has systematically allowed just about every historical detail of old Naperville get torn down or the use changed so significantly that little of the original character or flavor remains. If the old high school on Washington wasn't worth saving or the old city hall, or the old fire station, or the quaint downtown then what in the world is the purpose of having any historic district at all.

Naperville is a community and that includes much more than just a few square blocks of old houses. We stood back and did nothing while the city council allowed the developers and business interest free rein to rape and pillage everything and anything that used to be worth saving within the historical business district. I say the heck with historical districts altogether. Let the developers and the free market determine the best and highest uses for all of the residential property in Naperville.

If and when I feel like driving around ogling a bunch of nicely preserved old houses I can always drive to Hinsdale, Elmhurst, Evanston, or nearly any place on the north shore. Fact is these communities have always known how to make big, old, and expensive look much better than anything we have ever had in Naperville anyway.

The home was purchased and is sitting on 2 lots. It is not in a designated historic district. The structure is in need of complete restoration = big $$$$$$$$$$$$44. The council did the right thing by protecting the property owners rights. Seems rather cut and dry. Two large Mcmansions will probably go in with property tax revenue in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. Seems like a "win - win". The city gets the much needed added revenue,the school district makes out, the builder and all the trades people keep working.

What do eminent domain and mineral rights have to do with the Cobb's house, Glock 22 wanna be? If either were applied to the Cobb's property, they would be compensated for their lost property rights. If the Cobb's property had been designated as a historic property, they would receive no compensation for something done to their property at the behest of others.

I can't run for mayor or council,G22wb, not because of skeletons in my closet, but because of my inability to put up with the various forms of nimby nonsense that consume elected official's time.

Response to Ken, I wish you were right, but there are many cities that have forced historic district status on their residents. Here are a couple of examples:

Resistance to historic district designations and expansions is fairly widespread. In New York City, in 2006, residents resisted the designation of historic district for Fieldston, a Bronx neighborhood...In April 2007 residents and politicians in Rochester, New Hampshire resisted an historic district boundary increase. The local newspaper called the increase "overreaching" and noted regulations on paint color and interior renovations as reasons for its opposition to the proposal.

From here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_district_(United_States)

I don't know if any city could get 100% agreement from all put into a new historic district, but it may have happened in Naperville, in which case I have no objection.

JO, you don't have to be sorry. I may have no pulse in your mind, but the council made the right decision in my mind.

Just my thoughts. The previous owners should have maintained the home. The Cobbs were sneaky how they purchased the home. Public relations nightmare for the Cobb family business. The home needs to be rehabbed now or torn down. It is a huge eyesore. Very sad to see this beautiful gone! Naperville, maintain your beautiful homes!!!

Ken, You didn't check for it did you? so sorry, snif, snif...

I don't like people telling other people what to do with their own property either but I do think the historic district is good even though it and every other historic district in America was created without the permmission of every home owner there at the time. Thats just how redistricting happens.

To: By Just watching

Great post! I will happily donate money to your purchase! I can see it now - all of sudden the Cobb's rethink demolishing said property, instead they do the right thing - rehab and sell for a ginormous profit.

Ken - since you are such a know-it-all, why the heck don't you run for Mayor or park district president or the city council? Too many skeletons in your closet? Come on! You'd be great at grinding everyones nose in the rights of Americans...you have heard of eminent domain, correct?

Question Ken, do you own the mineral rights under your home? Might want to check that title, how sad for you if they found say, natural gas or something else under your house and you didn't own the mineral rights!! Boy, that's when you really wish that the government would say, "Aww Ken, we know that you own the house and land so we'll just leave well enough alone", BUT in reality they say to you, "Ken, you only own the surface so we are going to need you to leave so we can raze your house and dig for that proverbial gold." Sort of the same thing as someone telling you what to do with YOUR property, eh? In reality, not many of us actually OWN our property in the actual sense of the word.

TO: By Preserve American Freedom--Stop Socialism on September 17, 2008 10:35 AM

Obviously you don't know how to count. Grant Wherli's vote wouldn't have mattered either way.

Have you been living under a rock my friend? America is swiftly turning into a Socialist state. I'm going to personally call George Dubbya (I have his number) and ask if the government will buy the Hammerschmidt mansion. That is, if there is enough money left after the lastest bailout.

Make sure you vote for McBush and Quaylin on November 4th!! Go REPOOPLICANS!

The Cobb's may have won this battle, but the Court of Public Opinion will NEVER forget the despicable behavior that Bernie Sr., Chris and Susan Cobb have inflicted on this town. How they sleep at night is truly beyond me. How they think they'll ever be seen in Naperville as anything besides a pariah is again, beyond me. If they want to win the battle in the Court of Public Opinion they should gift the house to an historic organization.

JO, I have nothing against the Naper settlement. I have taken my kids there many times. I have almost nothing against the historic district. My only quibble with the historic district would be if people were forced into it against their will. The Cobb's house was not in the historic district, or the Naper settlement. The Cobb's bought a house in severe disrepair, and people like you wanted to force them to rehab it. If you want to purchase dilapidated property and fix it up for its supposed historic value, more power to you. If you want to force others into rehabbing and maintaining those properties, you are in the wrong.

Awesome! Another old building gone. Now let's work on Naper settlement. A bunch of old buildings Ken. Let's push to tear those down and put an athletic field there. If we work long and hard we can make Naperville into a whole new city. One with brand new 4 story mansions everywhere you look. Check for a pulse Ken, there's more to life than just following the law to a T.

A humble opinion: If the Cobbs would have just spent a few minutes doing the right thing instead of spending so many hours and dollars trying to convince people they are doing the right thing, maybe this never would have happened?

Sadly, the Council made the right decision. The home isn't in the historic district, the Cobbs do own the property, and there was nothing in the contract regarding maintaining the property. There really was no other decision to make.

And as several Council members mentioned, they could not take into account the deceitful, underhanded and sleazy way that the Cobbs purchased the property. That's a matter for another body. I hope the Realtor group takes a look at the Cobbs' slimy business practices and takes some action. Shameful.

Socialist International Song

For anyone that still needs a copy of the Socialist International Song for their I-Phone G3, Escalade ESV, Suburban LTZ or BMW X6 stereo system, it can be downloaded for free in 40 different languages with different musical interpretations from folk to chorus.

We should all load this into our MP3 players and loop the song for continuous play so that we can be ready for the march. Alternatively, lift the song off the soundtrack for Dr. Zhivago in Russian and hum along. Hopefully the Cossacks will still be on summer vacation on the day we march.

I prefer the classic French version, since they wrote it, but my French is weak so I'll stick to the English version. We should probably standardize on the Sheffield Socialist Choir rendition produced by our comrades in England.

Free download site
www.hymn.ru/internationale/index-en.html

Anyone wishing to acquire the answers to today's problems can acquire them at this site:

www.socialistinternational.org/

FORWARD COMRADES

If no one really owns their own property after they pay for it, who does?
The collective?

Why bother (working) paying for anything if everyone is going to own it?
Each produces according to his own abilities?

How do we determine who gets to use a property?
"Each according to his needs!"

Who needs the mansion?
Those who don't own it.

What do they need it for?
To look at it.

Beauty has no utility and was rejected by comrades Marx, Engels and Lenin. Box like utilitarian architecture embodied this concept with the Bauhaus School.

Those that want to waste collective resources harbor bourgeois recidivist ideas like beauty; they need to be sent away to re-education camps where the fresh air and hard work will help them come to their senses. Northern Minnesota or Idaho should fit the need.

The working classes of Naperville should march the Naperville government buildings while singing the International, after dinner and martinis at Hugo’s or Jimmy’s, and run up the hammer and cycle flag. Is the Dupage River deep enough to bring a cabin cruiser from a lake front marina up the river to City Hall? The running dogs of Capitalism will flee before us! We can advance in waves with those coming behind picking up the tumblers and martini glasses from those that have fallen before us.

Oops got carried away with the spirit of collectivism. Maybe Cobb actually owns the Mansion since he paid for it.

At least the Federal government is nationalizing the banking system and debt instruments to bail out the big investors while allowing failed management teams to keep billions in bonus they earned by sinking the county into 5 Trillion in liabilities on mortgages alone not to mention the derivatives which apparently no one understands including their creators.

I guess when you threaten to sue the City if you lose and have the cash to back it up, you end up getting your way. The next time I need to replace a window on my historic house, I'll buy the cheapest ugly vinyl one I can find and threaten to sue them for violating my property rights if they don't let me use it. He-he...

Zoning and landmarking do not always happen with everybody's approval and consent. Sometimes the City has to balance the property owner's desires with other interests like historic preservation and the public's interest. I didn't see much balancing here. Just a rubber stamp for property rights. Hmmm, why not buy rubber stamps to serve on the Council instead of those elected officials who act the same way? Same result and much more efficient with major cost savings. And the rubber stamps wouldn't file lawsuits against the City. Seems like a no brainer. :-)

Great points, Just Watching. Also, can we try and make something good come out of this? How about the Sun doing a series of articles about real estate ethical practices to educate people about the disclosure rules that apply when realtors are involved in buying property? Did anyone ever file an ethics complaint about how the home was purchased? If not, then that should be the end of it. If so, then what ever happened? If this home is torn down and then the realtor board later finds that the purchase was unethical, that will be a shame.

I would have voted in favor of landmark status. Property owners should not automatically win every contest at City Council no matter what the facts are. If this realtor had done the right thing and approached his elderly neighbor and gotten her to agree to sell him the historic home, then I probably would have voted no. But having his fiance or wife buy it without disclosing her relationship to him or her broker was just really bad judgment and should not be rewarded.

This was a good effort to try and save this landmark mansion. City Council just does not want to rock the boat on property rights, but this City risks losing whatever is left of its unique historic character in the downtown area if City Council continues to rubber stamp every historic tear down.

I agree with you, Ken 100%.

Let us get on the right track, Ken!

I would like to open a new chapter with you and see where it takes me!

We have a lot of work cut out for us and we don't need to be arguing with each other.

Anonymous once said if you can't complement one, don't say anything.

I agree!

Therefore I am complementing you!

I do trully agree fully with both of your abover mentioned thoughts!

Council got it wrong, but I am surprised the petition made it this far and that the vote was this close. The City Council rarely ever votes against property owners. I guess in Naperville, property owners can do whatever they want with their property no matter how they went about geting their names on the title.

Last night the City Council decided that individual property owner rights trump the public good when they denied landmark status for the Hammerschmidt home on Chicago Avenue. They did not have to vote that way; nothing in the ordinance says the owner has to agree. However, now that we know a property owner's desires are more important than the law in Naperville, I plan to buy the corner lot from the Cobbs and build a 24-hour gas station there. I think I'll add a currency exchange. Sure, it may not be zoned for business, but I don't think five of our councilmen will care about that.
And you've probably noticed that it's hard to buy gas or get your check cashed in the middle of town if you don't have a bank account. So this will address a need, and I'm sure the Cobbs will not oppose it since they are all for individual property rights. That may leave a few do-gooder residents complaining that we are destroying one of the last of our most stately landmarks, an elegant, graceful structure that is an integral part of our gateway street into downtown and part of our community heritage. Not to mention that our children will grow up without any understanding of their community history. To you pinkos, I say, why don't you just do what your Naperville neighbors do when they want their kids to see some historic buildings. Take them to Europe.
Oh, was I being sarcastic? Sorry.

THE RIGHT DECISION!!!!!!!!

This is America. A country with a constitution that protects property rights.

Kudo's to the FIVE AMERICANS on the City Council. The other three need a one way ticket to a country that practices socialism.

Where was Grant Wehrli? At the celebration party for the Park District bailing out his cousin's bad business investment?

Yes, the council got it right. Obviously, they gave more credit to property rights than all the people who wanted to spend someone else's money on what they wanted. I wish that the Park District board had the same willpower.

Hopefully, the next move will be to raze the eyesore.