This letter is not an indictment of any of the owners of the properties mentioned in this letter, or of the Landmarks Commission. Rather, this is an observation by the signers of this letter. It is meant to provoke some thought and discussion, as the people involved might not realize how this whole situation appears to those looking in from the outside. There seem to be some undercurrents at play here, as well as some egos that should perhaps be checked at the door.
We cannot help but wonder what Mr. Conley’s motivations are in regards to his rather outspoken remarks in regard to the 1st Presbyterian Church of Sainte Genevieve and the O’Neille house. Demolished, the empty lot would not accommodate the members of the church. Currently, there are about 65 members of Presbyterian church, with about 50 in regular attendance of Sunday services. A brief look at Google maps would tell anyone with spatial abilities that no more than 12 parking spaces could be obtained from demolishing the O’Neille house. To insist that this is the church’s intent is rather disingenuous, to say the least.
It also has not escaped our attention that perhaps Mr. Conley is angling to take the O’Neille house off the church’s hands and restore it himself, at a profit, now that his restoration of the Valle house is nearing completion. Upon rereading the Herald article concerning the Landmarks Commission, we are struck by Mr. Conley’s astoundingly condescending remarks about certain board members.
“We just need to clean house and get a new board,” Conley said, saying the old horses couldn’t be taught new tricks. “We need new people.” (http://stegenherald.com/articles/2012/01/31/news/doc4f284803e5593391400027.txt)
If Mr. Conley’s accusations were leveled at an individual owner of any of the properties listed, there would be a cry of outrage from some of the people of Sainte Genevieve. One can only wonder that Mr. Conley has chosen the O’Neille house to avoid unpleasantness? Perhaps it should be mentioned that the church is comprised of citizens of Sainte Genevieve, it is not some faceless entity. One also has to wonder why Mr. Conley did not choose to save the O’Neille house when he sat on the Landmarks Commission previously.
However, it’s troubling to watch the “new-improved” Landmarks Commission harass and threaten the privacy of the Presbyterian Church. What is the jurisdiction of Landmarks regarding the interior of any historic building? It’s alarming to hear comments from Commissioners who say “we need access to the building’s interior so the fines can begin.” Clearly this is a witch hunt since it’s been stated there are no code violations on the outside. Are private citizens supposed to feel comfortable with the thought of Big Government-like techniques to oversee historic properties? Regardless of Mr. Luttrell’s comments about this not being “private citizens” because it’s a church, it seems more egregious that they are targeting a religious affiliation. Would this happen if the Ste. Genevieve Catholic church was the owner? Maybe it is time for a change of some of the members of the Commission.
(See: http://youtu.be/nYF1J7_7jsM?t=1h7m49s)
While we are here, we must also mention that it appears no real thought or research is going into the attacking of the Presbyterian Church. If there were, one would find that the O’Neille house is not only younger than Mr. Conley and Mr. Luttrell continue to state, it is also not quite the “very significant” building to our history as Mr. Luttrell stated repeatedly during various Commission meetings. On the contrary, it seems no one really knows anything about this building. It is not the building it once was, having changed hands and already undergone several disasters and “restorations,” anyone who takes a look at the old newspaper articles on microfilm in the library can see that the building has also changed architectural styles at least twice. For the church to restore this building as it should be, a lot of research is going to need to be done to find out what it initially looked like. These things will take time and no amount of insisting that things be done “right now” is going to expedite that process.
As Lorraine Stange has said in the wonderful book “Sainte Genevieve, A Leisurely Stroll Through History,” by Bill and Patti Naeger and Mark L. Evans: “People always tell me Ste. Genevieve could be another Williamsburg (VA). I always say ‘Why would we want to be? What we have here is real.’” Which leads us, the writers of this letter to ask, why are these other buildings listed below not even being looked at by Mr. Conley? Some of these buildings have not been occupied since the Flood of ’73, surely this is demolition by neglect? If it is not, we would certainly like to know exactly what the definition of neglect is. Each one of them is a gem, and to lose any of them would lessen the charm, history and beauty of the fabric of Sainte Genevieve. The Commission can handle only “one house at a time”? No, they must all be treated the same. Every house in the historic district is of the same importance, none more valuable than another. Thankfully, at least some of the members of the Commission seem to understand this fact, as well as the fact that the O’Neille house is still private property.
36 Washington Street, literally held up by trees.
Jean Bte Birke House, 1795; Ziegler Street
39 North Main
Both of these are on North Third
Fifth Street and Washington Street, has been in deplorable condition for years.
Second Street, just a shell of brick
220 Merchant Street
245 Merchant Street
807, 885, and 435 Market
42 South Main
74 Seraphin
306 St. Mary Road
Bequette-Ribault House, St. Mary Road
Unnamed
Each of us that has had a hand in writing this letter love Sainte Genevieve, it is a wonderfully unique place to have grown up, raise a family, have a business, and to come back to visit.
Gretchen Wolf-Yahnig; Silver Springs, FL
Valerie Holifield; Ste. Genevieve, MO
Post Script
We were ready to send this letter off when another letter to the Editor in STL Today caught our attention: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor-june/article_c063718f-a0dc-50d0-9ab5-2de96f455fe4.html
Mr. Conley kindly confirmed our suspicions as to his intentions towards the O’Neille house, and we would like to thank him for that. It seems that Mr. Conley has it all worked out, the Presbyterian Church donates the house, the Colonial Dames foot the bill, and Mr. Conley gets to ride in and save the day.
Never mind the fact that the Presbyterian Church needs the extra space that O’Neille house would have provided for offices, etc., and has been the one footing the bill thus far. That’s just not that important in the grand scheme of things, is it? It’s just too bad that Mr. Conley could not have chosen one of the buildings listed above to save.
Links:
Landmarks Commission Meeting, June 18, 2012 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYF1J7_7jsM
Landmarks Commission Meeting, May 21, 2012 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBF6QpAb-00
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor-june/article_c063718f-a0dc-50d0-9ab5-2de96f455fe4.html
Hi
This is an interesting letter in regard to the old houses in Ste. Genevieve. When I was in Ste. Genevieve Two years ago. I was amazed that there were so many historic homes and business that were in such bad repair and in need of rescuing. You know er don’t need to be like Williamsburg. Tourisim is big business and if these places could be restored and rented to people for crafts and things for people to buy. I would be to the benifet of the community. I live in Liberty, Missouri just north of Kansas City but have a great family history in Ste. Genevieve County. A lot of my ancestors settled there. Is there no Historical Society there to look into this. I was amazed how rude some of the people were that were in charge of the buildings that you could go through when we were there to see the old part of town.
I know renovation costs money but the city fathers should be interested in the revenue that would come in from the tourest trade, I would be interested to know what happeneds. Keep me posted
Audrey Steffee
Thank you Gretchen for saying what so many of us believe! We citizens of Ste. Genevieve care about the O’Neille House and the others pictured above! We wish to see these buildings restored to their origins both inside and out. SAVING our town’s true history, which all of these buildings represent, should be the PRIORITY here! Let’s not confuse profit for any individual and/or any other sort of ill-intended ‘angle’ with what is really valuable, including those which remain private property in Ste. Genevieve. What a shame!
What a treasure Ste Genevieve is. We always enjoy our trips there. I am discovering much of my family history there and one of the houses, the Jean Birk house, is part of my history. It seems to be in very bad repair. Is this house privately owned or does an organization own the house.
Rita, are you referring to the vertical log house on Ziegler street? If so, this house has recently been sold to a preservationist who intends to restore the house to its original creole state.
Gretchen,
You are my hero!
It should also be noted that Tim Conely tried to sell the Landmarks Commission on moving the Beauchamp House because according to him it was in danger of flooding when in reality he wanted it moved to the Lions Park so he could sell the land to the school for a profit.
He also led people to believe that he donated part of his land to the Lions Club when in reality he sold it to them, And then held a house tour where all the proceeds went to the Lions Club when in reality it was to pay him for the land.
Sam, I have been meaning to reply to your comment, but just have not had the time.
Thank you for the info about Conley, as I believe everyone should know just what he is up to.
I would also like to just say thank you to you personally, as I admire you and your work in Sainte Genevieve greatly!
Gretchen,
I would like to give an update on the some of the buildings which you identified in your editorial above. The city has been working behind the scenes with property owners to bring their buildings into compliance with the minimum property code and the city’s historic preservation ordinance. This can be a slow process – especially when so many property owners have been financially effected by the poor economy and when so many of these property owners live out of town. In some of these cases, the owners have died and the properties have been held up in probate. In the majority of these cases, the owners have a sincere desire to rehabilitate the property but lack the money or the manpower or simply don’t know how to go about it. This is when the city can be of assistance to property owners by connecting them with the right resources, providing technical assistance and helping them establish a plan of action. I hope that the community has noticed the many maintenance and repair projects that have been taking place this summer: The failing stone foundation walls on Jefferson Street are being – or have been – beautifully repaired; the Florentine Schirman building, the Dufour House, the Linn House, the Anton Klemmer House, the Joseph Seraphin house, and several more are being – or have been- repaired and the city is actively working to bring several other historically significant properties into compliance. As I said, this is a slow process and a process that is performed behind the scenes and not on the front page of the paper (preferably!). The city staff prefers to work in a spirit of cooperation with property owners in order to achieve the positive outcome that we desire. This positive outcome is, of course, to save these historic buildings from neglect and from their eventual destruction, thereby maintaining the historic fabric of Ste. Genevieve. BS
Brenda, the whole point of this letter was not the other houses. The point is that the Commission was on a blitzkrieg against the Presbyterian church with no real cause or reason other than being egged on by a third party and treating them quite unfairly. No one was working with the church “in a spirit of cooperation.” That was the point.
I would like to address Ms Schloss’ remarks regarding some of the properties becoming dilapidated due to being in probate.
According to MO law, probate runs no more than 18 months, and then the estate is closed.
Some of the properties listed in our letter have been neglected for DECADES, so the premise that said properties arrived at their current sad state during probate is rather nonsensical, to say the least.
I would also like to add that I am not trying to lambast anyone on the front page of the paper, but when attention needs to be drawn to unfairness regarding Landmarks Commission practices, I have no compunction in drawing attention to that unfairness.
Perhaps the folks that are loathe to have attention called to them would be better off serving Sainte Genevieve in another capacity.