Why isn't the old First National Bank Building being considered? It has stood empty ( and unattractive ) for years. Do not tear down the PUre Oil Building.

Mr, Stanton came to the City Council several years ago with a request to tear down the historic "Burton" house at the NE corner of Third and Fulton and replace it with a multi story retail/office building. He said the same thing then: that the old building was not worth repairing and could not be made commercially viable as it stood.

The City Council rejected his request to demolish that building, he sold the property, and the new owner rehabilitated the house (with the City's blessing). It is now an office in back and Fiora's Restaurant in the house itself. I guess it turned out to be viable after all.

The City should reject Mr. Stanton's proposal again. There are at least a dozen historic Pure Oil Stations across the Country, some on the National Historic Register, that have been preserved and now house viable businesses. They are treasured in their communities.

Geneva can and should do the same.

And yes. I would say that Mr. Shodeen is correct. We are unfriendly to development that will profit the developer at the expense of our history and who we are. And, banks do not generate sales taxes for the City.

The Pure Oil building is of great significance to the history of Geneva and the cultural value within its neighborhood. It represents the growth and importance of the automobile and gasoline within the 20's and 30's. It symbolizes the growth of an industry during a time period when the Great Depression took the economy in a downward spiral. Some of these cottage style gas stations are National Historic Properties. It is an integral part of the American culture and remains a perfect example that brings to life the materials and feelings of the "home-like" gas station the Pure Oil Company sought after. Michael Carl Witzel in his book, The American Gas Station, gives a beautiful description of the important role architect Carl Petersen took on to reform gas stations to a more pleasing, domestic design. He writes, "From the vantage point of the motorist wheeling past, the pleasant trappings of a roadside house conjured up welcome feelings of friendliness and offered the atmosphere that was greatly missed by the traveler when venturing forth on the open road... a safe, warm and happy place for many and a common association that would be exploited to maximize potential for hundreds of roadside motels and gasoline stations constructed in its image." Just as the Chrysler Building was a symbol for the importance of the automobile in New York City; the Pure Oil stations were the automobile's mark on suburban towns such as Geneva, Illinois.

Ms. Emma,

My father ran a gas station for 45 years, so gas stations have a fond place in my heart. However, you position brings up the fundamental question about the ability of government to secure an outcome versus the value of private property rights.

The basic question is whether or not government can dictate to a private property owner has to/gets to do with their own property. If I understand the arguments correctly, many citizens are exclaiming that due to their desire to maintain a building that has historic value to them, a private property owner has to forgo the financial benefits of property development. If no one showed up to protest and if there were no historic commission, the private property owner would be to enjoy the benefits of their own investment and dreams. However, due to the desires of a group of residents, promulgated by the City's approval power, the private property owner will not enjoy those benefts. So for the benefit of some, one will have to forgo the fruits of their labor. Is that fair? Does this constitute a "taking"? If the group, or the City believes there is a benefit to the whole, then shouldn't the group or the whole have to pay for that benefit? As it is, the enjoyment of that historic preservation is taken from the private property owner without compensation.

It strikes me as a group benefiting from the loss of the one. So much for individual freedom.

Doesn't Mr. Stanton own the empty lot on the corner of State and 4th St.? Why isn't that area being considered for the bank?

As stated in many threads before, Mr. Stanton knew the risks of buying property within the Historic Preservation District of Geneva. End of story.

The only thing "confiscated" was Mr. Stanton's ability to tear down a historically significant building, the significance of which he knew when purchasing said building.

Time to move on, nothing to see here.

A few points to consider: (1) whether the governmental action in question is "confiscatory" or not is yet to be decided; (2) if it is "confiscatory," then under the "takings clause" of the 5th amendment, it is prohibited unless the "confiscation" or "taking" is for a "public use" and the property owner receives "just compensation" (3) under the Kelo vs. City of New London case decided by the US Sup. Ct. in 2005, the "takings clause" actually allows the government to take property from private owners to promote a private commercial development scheme, so the power of eminent domain under the 5th amendment can now be used as a sword on behalf of private commercial developers (who get the benefit of property bought with public funds) as well as a shield for property owners who want to bar any such governmental "confiscation", and (4) whether or not any prior governmental actions were right or wrong, the owner in this case purchased knowing that it was in the Historic District, so caveat emptor.

Mr. Bruno,

No argument there about zoning ordinances. However, courts have ruled time and time again that there has to be a rational nexis between the requirements of a City and the burden that they put onto individual property owners.

The burden of government is to prove that a property proposal promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community. What is at discussion here is the viability of a "historic" gas station. Like I said before, I spent many a day in my father's gas station. While it might be heresy to say so, I don't see the historic value of this particular station. Historic significance is often times in the eye of the beholder. "Abraham Lincoln lived here" might be used as a valid reason for historic preservation. If someone said "Mike Bruno lived here" as a valid reason for historic preservation, you might see the value in that, but others may not (not being critical, just using you as a convenient example).

The cost and/or profit of a particular venture is not a valid pretext for zoning administration. Whether Mr. Stanton did or did not pay to much, or whether he will make too much or too little profit is not a valid discussion in terms of zoning. It doesn't fall within the "health, safety or welfare" provision.

Downtown Geneva has, for decades, thrived because of its recognition of and its care for the historic "old time American hometown" atmosphere. At one time State St. was lined with antique shops. Now it has a wide variety of other unique shops.

The Little Traveler is known literally throughout the world. The "adaptive use" as boutique stores in the old houses on Third St. draws people from all over the mid-west, and beyond.

Downtown Geneva's strength and attraction stem from its historic buildings and the uses to which they have been put. It is atmosphere, ambience. We see it every day and don't see its true beauty. But we have had so many friends visit for the first time and express being overwhelmed by the charm! Geneva is, so far, different.

But over the years we have lost many very important historical buildings; we simply cannot afford to lose more. Anyone who spends an hour online searching "Historic Pure Oil Gas Stations" will find more information than you can comprehend on the history of these iconic buildings, their place in American history, and the many towns that have saved and treasure their "Cottage Style" Pure Oil Stations.

Losing ours would be an unforgivable travesty.

In the end, not every building can be kept, but shops and buildings like this define the downtown Geneva that visitors and residents see and remember. Regardless of the number of people who stop to buy plants at the Pure Oil building, the sight of fresh flowers and greens all summer and mums and Christmas greenery during the fall is undoubtedly noticed - outwardly or subliminally - by most everyone who drives by on Rt 38.

While the city and historic commission may ultimately have minimal legal power to encourage or prevent specific uses or businesses, it should do what it can to develop and preserve the charm of downtown Geneva. As attractive as the new buildings that are coming up in downtown Geneva may be, it is critical that we don't lose too many buildings like the Pure Oil building.

So much of Geneva's identity is based around walking traffic. The current use or an adaptive reuse of the current building continues to encourage and support this type of pedestrian business. Replacement of this by a drive through takes away one more 'boutique' location and erodes just a bit more of the charm that draws visitors to our great city.

Sign the petition to save the Pure Oil Building!
http://www.change.org/petitions/to-the-mayor-and-the-city-council-of-geneva-illinois-save-the-historic-pure-oil-building#

My reason is a selfish one, I am the artist next door. When I turn my head from my easel, I look out a window at the beauty,
that is, The Pure Gardner.
A little bit of the foliage, the color, the faces, life, end up in my paintings.
Nobody is angry at the garden center.
Everyone there, is in the same creative process that I am in, when staring at a blank canvas.
I see a way of life, that is very special, and beautiful happening on our little corner in Geneva.
It would break my heart to see this disappear.
Len