Opinionsforfree-- Your comment is part of the reason that I take issue when decisions like this one are made. It is quite clear that you are less concerned with your neighbors than you are with how the area should look. With total disregard for the decency of others, you spew disrespectful comments as if your opinions are the only ones that matter. Sure, you may not want to see an architectural aspect of a house change. But what gives YOU the right to make that decision. Without one bit of effort in maintaining that home, not to mention financial stake, you feel that it is your duty to dictate what should or shouldn't be done to it.
Many of the homes in the courthouse hill district have great character to them. Many of these homes, I feel, should remain intact the way they were the day construction finished. Yet, I also realize that it should not be my place to tell the owner they must maintain their home the way I think is best. I can only hope that they may share that same belief.
Previously, this was the role of the Historic Commission. The were granted the authority to act in an advisory capacity. Yet, ultimately, the control was left to the home owner. Now, the homeowner has no authority over many of the decisions regarding changes to the exterior of their home. They are at the mercy of the Historic Commission. Ultimately, any disagreements will have to be settled in court at the expense of the homeowner and the taxpayers.
My main issue is not with whether or not these homes should remain historically intact. My issue is with how some people in this city feel this is best accomplished. So many of the remarks I have read that are in opposition to my belief that granting the historical commission more authority reflect the belief that myself and others are out to destroy this neighborhood. To the contrary, I believe that this neighborhood has actually had part of its history ripped away from it. Its citizens no longer possess their freedom to make decisions for themselves.

MacDaddy: 1) The Historic Commission does not, in any way, deal with interior changes nor exterior paint (i.e. colors). It absolutely IS possible to be able to put in more energy efficient improvements and still be in compliance. Those who want to make improvements/changes are often pleasantly surprised to find LESS expensive, but still historically sensitive, options when working with the Historic Commission and other city offices! The new ordinance is exactly what is needed to curb your so-called "slummy apartments" and absentee landlords...although if a property is owned by a church, there is nothing anyone will be able to do given they can evade these same laws and ordinances under RLUIPA.

just don't complain all you that love this, when homes sit empty for a long time and the value drops on your homes because people don't want to be forced to spend more on keeping up on their homes and not be able to put in more energy efficient improvements.

Eventually these homes will deterioriate to a point where they will have to be torn down just like the historic Monterey Hotel, Case Feed Building and many others.

And is what was done to the Lovejoy Building worse than what YWCA did to the interior? or neighboring homes that have turned them into slummy apartments??? just curious.

germancaveguy Your a tool along with the rest who dont understand why this was put into place. I really don't want to see the guy across the street tear down his porch and build a treated lumber deck. I would expect him to repair his deck to preserve the historic architecture. I also notice there are not allot of houses for sale in the historic distric... mmmmm I wonder why. maybe its cause we enjoy taking care of our homes and take pride in our neighborhood. Each house on the hill has its own identity which if your a owner of one it kind makes you part of a unspoken club. The rules are to keep people out that want to come in and rip apart history

Mikef- they already had these restrictions and would have to wait 6 months to wreak the home in hopes they would change their mind.

I do think the NO window air conditioning unit one is stupid.
Is that the same?

germancaveguy, your suspicions notwithstanding, the actual statistical experience of other historic districts has been the exact opposite -- if there is an effect either way, it generally leans in favor of higher property values.
.
The ordinance, by the way, does not give individuals the power to decide what they like or don't like. The historic commission is bound by standards set for historic preservation by the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior (the agency overseeing the National Register of Historic Places). These are uniform national standards that many property owners find reasonable and easy to comply with. In rare cases they may require a more expensive approach, but for the most part owners who care about their properties are happy to receive guidance in how to appropriately care for it to preserve it for the long term.

frogger- "So if you don't agree with this you will know NOT to buy in Court House Hill."

There lies the problem. This ordinance, in an attempt to protect the neighborhood, will actually keep people from moving there. Well, unless a person shares the same smug attitude for houses as those that are in charge of 'protecting' it. My complaint is not so much with the ideal, but with the manner in which it is being forced upon those that either own, or would like to own, a home in this part of town. Unlike the many ordinances that require approval to protect the occupants, this one is solely for the purpose of protecting the aesthetics of the houses in the neighborhood. All the while, any cost associated with this ordinance falls entirely on the homeowner.

I, along with many other people in this city, would like to see the many areas of Janesville that hold the most history flourish. Yet, with an ordinance like this, that becomes less likely. Instead, it will keep those who would like to own one of these homes away. It is simply for the fact that, unless they are faithful that the committee will be cooperative, they will have little choice in how they are allowed to maintain their home.

So, while there is now more that can be done by the neighborhood to 'protect' these cherished homes, who will be there to keep them alive? Instead of having individuals with a desire to occupy wonderful homes, only those who share the same view as the committee will move to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, people with the amount of capital required to restore many of these homes generally don't want to be told how they must spend their money. Especially when everything just boils down to what someone, with only an observational interest, thinks looks best.

OK, So I will not buy a house in the district because of these restrictions, fine. But what about those who already own the house? This restriction should have been grandfathered in.

Germancaveguy- So if you don't agree with this you will know NOT to buy in Court House Hill.
Just rememember all those other permits you will need to abide by as well!
I know NEVER to buy in Greenbelt. I may want a shed or a boat to sit outside. I do think that is sillier than this but that is the law and I know NOT to buy there.

Also, not ALL districts have to follow this law. Some are historic and you just need to follow the permits.

I am not sure how many problems have really been caused by this except for LoveJoy Mansion.
I did defend him until he NEVER "finished" his work and ripped off the cool porch.

This ordinance is abominable. While I can sympathize with the sentiment that an older home holds a great deal of history, that shouldn't give me or anyone else the right to to dictate how that home should be preserved. Yet, there are now individuals that will have that power.

It is ironic how government is being used to protect the 'integrity' of a home, at the expense of those who will live there. However, the true nature of this ordinance is to allow others, who merely have an interest in the nostalgia of the home, the ability to say 'NO' to any modifications they don't approve of. And while this ordinance gives peace of mind to those who don't want to see things change, it also lays a great burden on those that would like to contribute to the community. The worst part about this is simply the fact that the impact on the homeowner far outweighs that which would happen if modifications were made.

Many of these homes have great character to them which can be preserved. However, just because a home is old, doesn't mean that it needs to stay as close to original as possible. Many of the original homeowners made modifications to these homes while still living in them. Yet, many people are saying that no further changes should be made. For what, the sake of preserving history? Or is it simply a case of 'I like this how it is, don't change it'? We all have a right to our own opinions of what looks good and what doesn't. We should not however feel entitled to tell others what they need to believe looks best, while hiding behind the notion that we are preserving 'history'.

I agree , well stated proartist.

I live in a Historic Home and feel special about keeping it grand. I have some pictures of people who lived there long ago. It is very cool.

opinionsforfree- I get the WOW factor and it make you feel so proud!!

Ranch homes rarely turn me on. I am sorta short and feel so cramped in them.

ladulce and opinions- would love a tour!!

I agree with ladulce as an owner of one of these homes. people alwasy say "wow" when ever they walk into my house. I have never heard anyone say that walking into a cookie cutter house.
sannio you sound like a lazy person who wouldn't do well with a house like ours on the hill. they do require work but most take pride

As an owner of a historic home on Courthouse Hill, I agree strongly with proartist and this decision. The vast majority of us are dedicated to preserving the "feel" of our neighborhoods and the beauty of our homes. We have seen far too many times someone move into a beautiful home, and, the majority of what made that home beautiful end up in a dumpster (Lovejoy Mansion). We are set apart for a reason, and those of us that love this area embrace this change. May it save other homes and keep those that would destroy them out.

"Results suggest that historic preservation generally has a positive impact on property values and that historic designation is associated with average property value increases ranging between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of the total property value."
http://geography.rutgers.edu/people/facu...
.
Additionally, at least one report has shown that historic districts did not have as extreme a drop in property values compared with new development following the housing crash.
.
Although Janesville's downtown is not as charming as it once was, we still have a high number of historic districts and individual designations for a city of our size and this should be exploited for tourism. It's a major omission.

In my mind, properties in the historic overlay districts have just lost most, if not all of their value. I would NEVER buy a house there. This is a dark day in Janesville. I'm also remembering exactly who voted for this so I can avoid voting for them next time.

Sorry--didn't take full advantage of the proofreading option. Scratch "is" from the quotation.

Wait a minute--Steeber's "is a strong advocate for property owner rights"? I could be mistaken, but I thought he was the one arguing a while back for mandatory inspections (with resulting legal actions) before you could sell your home. No?

I second that statement,BostonBill

Very well put proartist.

Thank you, Council members Steeber, Voskuil, Perrotto and Rashkin. We applaud your foresight to help preserve, restore, and maintain the invaluable assets of our community where too many historic properties have already been lost forever. Historic property owners aren't just simple home owners. They are caretakers holding a public trust for those who came before and for those in the future who will someday also appreciate out city's history. The more historic preservations ordinances can be strengthened, the richer Janesville's heritage becomes.