Diligent would be the last word I would use to describe this project. Hello!! That is the point of the article, it's been sitting for 2 years. You are right on one point: You, I and others don't have 5 Mil committed to this project, but then again NEITHER DOES HE. Goodrich has not secured financing therefore, no one has committed 5 mil. Looks like the only people who have committed financially to the project are the ones that have done work and not been paid and filed liens on the property.

My God, people! Get a life! The man is dilligently restoring historic property in the middle of a pre-depression... It's not the way I would do it, then again, I AND YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE 5 MILLION DOLLARS COMMITED TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS EITHER. I've read this thread and the article, and his comments. You people and the reporter need to back off.

I have lived in this neighborhood for several years now and can hardly stand to drive by this block. It gives me an unsettling feeling each time I pass. Goodrich has created a stigma or black cloud over this area, which causes me to to take a different route to get home. This historical landmark, the neighborhood, and the lives of the people he financially preys upon are the unfortunate victims. When will this villain be stopped.

While Goodrich's financial and legal fate is yet to be determined, once the property is so damaged under his "care" that it cannot be properly restored, an historic treasure that is integral to Janesville's heritage and with a value beyond money will be gone forever.

Anyone hear if Mr. Goodbar has miraculously come up with the financing yet?

Here is an interesting google search.
Type in "Bradley J Goodrich Fraud" and see what comes up. FIRST ITEM ON SEARCH! Imagine that.

mt1236: Yes. Please tell Gazette reporters directly to delve beyond. . . there IS more to the story.

Your right Nemo, The Gazette needs to keep digging.

Isn't it customary to secure financing or have the money prior to starting a project like this. The article states that the Architect has a lien on the property and repossessed the plans. Therefor the architect was never paid for the work he did. Perhaps Goodrich should not put the cart before the horse. Get the money then start the work. The bank crisis and GM situation didn't start 2 years ago. There is more to this than meats the eye.

How about " we reap what we sow "

For all that we struggle
For all we pretend
It dont come down to nothing
Except love in the end
And ours is a road
That is strewn with goodbyes
But as it unfolds
As it all unwinds
Remember your soul is the one thing
You cant compromise

There is much more to this story and it's protagonist...

Gazette - please keep digging.

easy answer. Tallman house comes out of tax payers money. Forcing the Lovejoy House comes out of 1 person's or business's money. Much easier to say someone else should do something when it won't cost you a thing. Totally another thing when it means you have to write the check.

I am a little curious..... What is the difference between this house and the Tallman house...? Why is it that people want the city to give up on the Tallman house, but stand up for the preservation of the Lovejoy house? Isn't the Tallman house a little bit more historic than this Lovejoy house?

Amelia, another person who just registered to defend them.
Quaint.

I see now your post says the 27th.

browntown96: Just scroll down to time and date in this comment list

Proartist....I am not finding anything from Sangus today on this subject....can you tell me where to find it?

See:
sangus
Apr 27, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.

I think everyone needs to back of MissG and Brad Goodrich. The article obviously wasn't accurate with its reporting. You can't form an educated opinion with out all of the facts.

Unknown: Do the exterior changes that have been done endanger/remove the Lovejoy Manor from the National Historic Register or can the damage be rectified?

I drove by the Lovejoy place this afternoon. I am not sure what some of those commenting mean as far as "destroying" this house. I'm taking this guy on his word that the detailed woodwork will be going back up on the house. I grew up in the historical area near Beloit College and love old houses. And, proartist, I can't imagine anyone wanting to preserve a ranch home. You can't even breathe in one of those.

ladulce, I agree completely.

Thank you, Scott, for stating it how it is. It is NOT Marcia who is the bad person, it is the person who the story was written about.

It seems that there is some questionable behaviour on the part of this 'owner.'

Miss G, I would suggest you keep your fingers quiet several comments back. Let things speak for themselves. The more you try to defend Brad, the more guilty he appears to be.

I am offended that such an individual would act in such a manner as to not complete the appropriate process for a historical site that they own! These sites are a beauty that may never be replicated. To go against the guidelines and rules of owning a historical site is obsurd!

I do have to say, thanks for pointing out CCAP. That was an interesting read.
I am sure there are two sides to ever story. So there, what, we have 20 other sides to hear?

Miss G- I must say that you sound less like someone that knows ANYTHING about history or our community and MORE like a high school girl with a crush every time you post. Your defense is the adult equivalent of, "but, he's so dreamy........" At some point, you need to realize, most of us are not attacking him as a person, merely his decisions as it pertains to this piece of history. He could be Ghandi for all I care, if he is destroying one of the most beautiful houses there are, no amount of "dreaminess" makes it ok, or, is related to the subject.

Point of information: The Janesville Historic Commission has no authority nor influence to make any rulings on anything INSIDE an historic building in an over-lay district. They deal solely with the exterior in approving applications and, no, color of paint is not on the list either. However, the Commission can provide resources for information to those who do want to make sure interiors are restored just as sensitively as exteriors.

MissG - Regarding your post of today at 11:04. Those "wood things" I think you're referring to (in the picture) were architectural details of those types of homes from that era. Actually they were all single windows installed separately.

This is why it's so funny when people are "restoring/remodeling" a historic home, they don't know what those "things" are, and they don't do any research. That's when the home ends up looking like a p.o.s.

If they don't want to contend with the lack of efficient windows, walls, heating system, and the overall historic details of an old home, don't buy one.

Nice to see MissG is earning her keep on-line today.
Bummer that MY job doesn't pay for me to blog. But then again, I don't work for a religious organization that gets all the tax breaks.

I don't know Mr. Goodrich on a personal level but,I have had the opportunity to tour the old Lovejoy place. Glancing at the outside, I understand how people are fast to be critics, the inside however is another story. The inside has had a beautiful makeover and restoration! I trust that Mr. Goodrich has the same intentions for the outside. I'm sure with the good weather we will soon see production.

We all know it is expensive to keep a house up, even more expensive if it's historic. When the city gives interest free loans for upkeep and maintaince and the homeowner takes the money then they should be held accountable. Until then the city should get out and build a tunnel, make sure sidewalks are shoveled and clear.

sprngstn1:

Brad is NOT my husband. I am his assistant.

And, as far as the details of these cases, you still have no clue what actually happened.

It's isn't any sort of defense. You just, well, don't know the details, and what each of these occurances entailed.

I would like to clue you in, however, it is not my place. If Brad wishes to disclose the details in each of these cases, that shall be his choice.

But, I rest again on my point, you don't know what happened in each instance. And, often times, it's less complicated to simply say "ok" and end it. So, as far as 'judge rulings' and so forth, it's irrelevant; there is more than meets the eye in EVERY situation.

I will stand firm on the fact that Bradley Goodrich is a very good person. His heart is always in a good place. And, he not wish, or have any intention, to harm anyone.

Too many of these situations, including the Lovejoy Manor one we are all on these boards for, are ONE sided. Not to mention, inaccurately reported.

The old saying IS true: there are two sides to every story.

Miss G, if each of the plantiffs from the different cases from the CCAP site were contacted and asked about the background and details that you eluded to, would they defend your husband and say it was a misunderstanding? I think not.

Did the different judges in all of those cases also not take those same relevant details that you're talking about into account when they ruled for the plantiffs against Brad?

I can sort of understand why you're wanting to do damage control and defend him but sometimes issues aren't more complicated than they seem.

ihavealife: I believe he explained it in his response, better than I can.

Ihavealife:

You have to realize, there is more to Brad than completing this project.

Rippedofbybradg:

: )

Your "facts" are based soley on your emotions. Which actually makes what you said, not a fact, but an opinion. : )

A terrible one at that. To say such horrible things about him, makes you NO better than you CLAIM he is.

Brad has NOT, and will NOT, rip anyone off. He is a VERY good man. He has helped MANY people, and he will continue to help many people. You know nothing about Brads personal life. You should consider NOT assuming so many things in the future.

End of story.

I'm sorry, they really fubared this landmark building. The first step was replacing the double-hung windows with huge sheets of--what? Plexiglass? The article didn't even mention this fact. It's a hollowed-out shell. All that money wasted. It's not how much you spend, it's what you do with it.

There are two more parking lots at the top of the hill. Already, without knocking anything down.

Nit picky. That's all this debate is turning into.

I do, however, wonder what all of these anti-restoring folks would be saying, had Brad left the building to rot. It's a catch 22. People will always find something to complain about. It's human nature. He's 'damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.' You know? Why didn't you fix it? Why'd you let it fall apart? Why aren't you doing something?

It's really never ending.

The city should leave this guy alone as he could have let this property go the way of the wrecking ball.

MissG: I guess it all depends on how much any particular person values history, obeying city ordinances in a designated Historic Overlay District, the community at large, and their role within that neighborhood and community.

Proartist:

"by the personality who once lived there and it WILL be historic someday in the future as an example of it's style of architecture only IF it can survive"

Wouldn't all the houses in Janesville, then, be subject to the Historic compliance because at some point, the personality that lives In each house NOW, will be cause for historical preservation of the houses in the future?

In which case, we should be coming down on everyone who wishes to alter their house in anyway in this city. SOMEDAY, the architecture of all of the houses in Janesville will be historic...if they survive what people are doing to them.

I think that it's getting a little ridiculous, and people are grasping at straws. The manor certainly reflects an architecture that we no longer see being built, but to agrue that knocking down the ranch style house because 'someday' it's style will be considered historical, is a HUGE reach. Now, you are just looking for something to argue about.

if the government wants it preserved, let them get donations to have it done and buy the place. a citizen should be able to do what he wants with his property. that is the problem, government interference in private individuals rights and business.

hannah: The "ranch home" has historic significance to Janesville by the personality who once lived there and it WILL be historic someday in the future as an example of it's style of architecture only IF it can survive.

Yes, on the Monterrey. When??!!

Hannah: The blue is actually masking tape. The kind you run along the borders and ceilings in your house to protect before you paint. It's just a protection on the windows. It won't be there forever!

Hannah, I only assuming, but I think that 'blue' is just blue masking tape around the area being finished.

springstn1:

Before you jump to conclusions, it might benefit you to know the entire situation behind what you see on CCAP.

Who says "behooves" anymore?

Hannah:

I agree with you. I have seen some of the houses in this neighboorhood, that in the owners attempts to "preserve" the history in them, have rotted. They are falling apart, paint has chipped and there is only rotting wood left behind. Some are very nice, and others are not.

Again, I will mention, that if people had seen this building prior to Brad fixing it up, they would have been appalled. Nobody came down on the YWCA for the destruction, the TRUE destruction, they were doing to the building. The graffiti, covering up the wood floors, painting of the original woodwork. In fact, they ripped up the wood work in one of the rooms; it used to have wood flooring with games 'built' in. Why is Brad restoring it so bad>

As far as the windows, I am not sure exactly why he put up the wood pieces. I never thought to ask, and my assumption has always been for added strength. I cannot count how many times a storm, becase of the size of the glass pane and the fact that there is no support, has blown a window out, or shattered it. And, I would assume, because of our gas and electric bill. The old windows were terrible for keeping in, or out, the cold or hot air. They were old and leaky.

Before anyone wants to praise Brad for doing the right thing or being a good guy, check out his CCAP. That information is not open to interpretation or opinion. He stiffed people out of money that he owed. It looks to me like his sense of right and wrong as well following the rules is questionable.

hannah: A six-month waiting period gives the property owner time to work WITH the Historic Commission, to get advise how to do the work in a better (more historically appropriate materials and methods) and often less expensive way; to hear recommendations; learn and research more so that, in the end, perhaps the Historic Commission can approve their application. This procedure is mutually beneficial for all concerned. Even so, I agree - there do need to be greater deterrents for those who might refuse to consider the gravity of what "remodeling" can do to an historic property as well as the detrimental consequences to the community itself.

proartist:

I think it's moot that there is an "over abundance" of group living facilities in the historic area. What's wrong with opening up another facility to help people> Heaven forbid we help as many people as possible. Maybe, opening this assisted living center, will force a poorly managed group home to close it's doors, as the residents are given better oppurtunities.

I also assure you that I will not resort to name calling. : )

My point is, Brad is trying to do some good. Why can't we just let him> You may be very surprised at the ending result if you just gave it a chance. But, no one wants to do that.

When people run out of things to complain or talk about, it seems that they take ant hills and turn them into mountains. That is what this situation has escalated too.

ladulce: You forgot to remind MissG and Brad's supporters that the Courthouse Hill Historic District already has an over abundance of group living facilities in historic properties (some very well managed and wonderful neighbors but others unsupervised, unlicensed and ill-managed), as well as an already existing abundance of congested streets due to the same. Some of those grand old homes have, too, had their historic value greatly diminished or destroyed by negligent "remodeling" methods. To call the neighborhood "selfish" as it absorbs the type of group homes no other neighborhood in the city would ever tolerate certainly does not demonstrate any Christian behavior as is proclaimed. "NIMBY" name calling is sure to follow soon. Rather than placing blame on the government procedures, the press, and everyone in between, I suggest it's time to look within...

ladulce:

I apologize. I am not trying to make anyone sound terrible. But, the fact of the matter is, all he wants to do is open up this assisted living center to help people. To run the Foundation, and help as many people as he can.

I know that the parking situation is unfavorable. However, I know Brad, and I'm certain that he will come up with a plan that will make everyone happy and take care of that situation.

Sangus:

CORRECTION, Ms. Neleson gave Brad ONE day to respond. She came in, asked to speak with Brad; I informed her of his estimated arrival back to the office from his business trip. She indicated at that time, that she was writing the article the NEXT DAY. So, ONE day later.

And, I have witnessed first hand the ACTUAL concerns of the neighbors, and those involved in the delay of this project. I assure you, one of their main concern is what they have to look at while the construction is being completed.

Brad is making every attempt to preserve what he can of the original beauty in the building. And, he is doing a wonderful job. If people were able to see what this bulding looked like after the YWCA occupied it, they'd shake Brad's hand for investing what he has into preserving the manor. But, let's be practical. When restoring a building as old as this one, with as much damage as was done when he purchased it, it's difficult to maintain EVERYTHING in it's original work. He's doing what he can, and when it's finished, it will be beautiful.

As far as permits and such, the rules keep changing. As he goes. He's following the rules to the best of his ability. He's getting the go head, then he's getting a stop work order. Then a go ahead, then a stop work order.

He is doing what he can. As I have said before. His heart is in the right place. He is trying to do good. He is trying to help people. And, each time he tries to do something, someone puts another obstacle in his way.

Sarahb1: What other business of Brad's could they possibly stick their nose in for, yet another, article about him?

I suppose, they could discuss what he had for lunch, and how they don't agree with it.

MissG- It is not a matter of the fact that we are so "selfish" to not want a senior center here. IT IS the fact that we purchased these homes partially because of the fact that they are zoned historic- which means that there can't be businesses opened in the area, nor can one of the homes that has never been a duplex be converted into one. IF that place were to open as a community center (and, by the way there is no parking anywhere near), the narrow streets here would be beyond congested, and, we would have tons of people coming into our quiet neighborhood. Not to mention the fact that most of the homes up here are upward of 250K, many with elaborate landscaping and outside features. If there were this huge influx in people our quiet neighborhood would be no more, and, where you are purposing it be put, there is NO parking. You know how packed the courthouse parking is on the street, now you want to open a building that houses how many people- right next door to the courthouse in our "historically protected" residential area? Um, no thank you. This isn't your home. WOuld you want this facility (with no parking lot) in your front yard? And, if you don't live in this area, you were not assured when buying your home that there would not be any businesses around you. Don't try and make it sound like it is because we are all so evil. Be realistic. Think about things. We all have responsibilities and expectations. Thank you for telling us of Brad's good deeds. I remember when he bought the home, he offered office space to some non-profits free of charge. I thought that was very generous of him and was very excited to see him "re do" this beautiful building.

Miss G.,

Marcia Nelesen gave Brad Goodrich five days to respond. You and he knew that a story was being written, and he had ample time to respond. I find it hard to believe that you could not reach him by phone and that he could not respond by phone if he truly wanted to provide his side by the time the story ran.

Beyond that, your concerns should be with the city and the advocates for historic preservation, not Ms. Nelesen. The facts are that Mr. Goodrich did not get the required permit, the city ordered him to stop work and people interested in historic preservation have serious concerns about his approach.

Scott W. Angus
Editor

Thanks MissG for clarifying that for everyone. Tell Brad I said Hi. :)

I think that Marcia Nelesen is a horrible reporter. This article is written in terrible taste, and she hardly did her job getting both sides; not to mention the most important factor-the TRUTH. On the 21st of April Marcia came to the Lovejoy building and spoke with ME about contacting Brad Goodrich for his "side" on this situation. At this time, I informed Marcia that Brad was out of town for the week on business, unavailable for contact. PRIOR to this particular contact, NO previous contact to get a hold of Brad was attempted. ALL of our business phone numbers are currently in service, and good working order. I am unsure what number she attempted to call; clearly it was not one of our business phones.

Furthermore, what Mr. Goodrich has done to this building is beautiful. The inside of the Lovejoy Manor is gorgeous. He has covered up the graffiti and re-done the entirety of the manor; preserving as much of its original beauty as possible. He pulled up all of the carpet that was laid over the beautiful original wood flooring, and has had it restored. Every person who has walked through this building has left with nothing but praise for what he has done. AND, if given the chance to actually FINISH the OUTSIDE of the building, it will look beautiful as well. But, it's difficult to "clean up the building" to please the residents in this neighborhood, when you are constently being ordered to stop your work. So, my advice to the residents who are sick of looking at the mess-QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, and let him finish.

Let's not mention the fact that Brad Goodrich is trying to open up a senior assisted living facility, or that he runs a non-profit church planting foundation out of the manor. I can see how focusing on the appearance of a building overruns the good that is trying to prevail amongst all this nonsense.

Because, honestly, admist the rising unemployment, the plummeting economy, the rate of foreclosures rising, the poverty, and the destruction of our planet....THIS is what makes the front page of the newspaper as 'breaking news.'

Give...me...a...break.

Brad Goodrich is a wonderful man, doing wonderful things. His heart is always in the right place. And, if you must busy yourself trying to bring him down, I feel nothing but pity; as your lives must be THAT miserable to care so deeply about what a man does with HIS building. Instead of allowing him to carry out his good deeds, people are so focused on little negative aspects.

Did you know, that the residents in this neighborhood are so selfish, that they would rather look out their windows and see an abandoned building, rather than the senior assisted living center Brad wishes to complete and open>

As for those who keep whining about tax exempt. Yes, The Ekklasia Foundation, Inc. IS tax exempt. HOWEVER, we still pay property taxes, we still pay all of our utilities, etc. We are tax exempt only when purchasing things for the Foundation and it's needs.

As some had warned prior to the sale of the Lovejoy property to Goodrich, anyone who looks a little deeper will find there's far more to the story than just historic preservation and "church-building" investment companies. There's a track record and I hope the Gazette continues to delve further. Thanks to the city for doing what they are able and to Marcia Nelesen for breaking the story.

If the city wants tp preserve these homes then the city should buy them. Or the so called Historical Commission themselves.. I mean I am not getting some of this article, with the get permission thing- then go ahead and do what you want 6 months later..?..500.00 a day fine?? BIGGER LOL..Our toughest criminals don`t even get fines like that. This is 2009, keep a couple buildings and let the Hoitey Toitey Society argue over that. I say if he buys it- he can do whatever he likes.

I can testify to the fact that his business line and phones work well since my company provides the support and equipment. When I read the article I was worried that something had gone wrong so I called the number - and sure enough I got through to his system just like I always do. Not sure what number the Gazette was calling?

Bill Sodemann

Uh oh, I see there is another story about Mr. Goodrich coming out in Monday's edition of the Gazette. I feel sorry for this guy; somebody has really got his number. Hang in there, Mr. Goodrich.

This article is a waste of space. Must be a REALLY slow news day if this is the best they/she could come up with.

I agree with SuperDave. I've personally seen the progress on this property inside and outside. Brad has stuck a lot of money into this property and has done some very nice work to it. Stop all the nitpicking and let the man finish the job. Everyone is making Brad sound like this horrible person and that is far from the case. He does genuinely care about his property.

For everyone complaining about the look you should have seen what the building looked like after the building sat empty and the YWCA left it. They carpeted over the original inlaid floors and did horrible things to the woodwork all to save a buck back in the day. I am sure that it has taken a lot of money to restore the inside and the outside will be taken care of as well. Brad, i hope you have some pics to show and post of what the building looked like when you purchased it. Maybe that was the true tragedy and everyone is jumping in a little late.

I take Mr. Goodrich at his word. He is putting a lot of thought and care, and a LOT of money (!) into this house. I would hate to be in his shoes and have to deal with all the micro-management, fine print, and nitpicking. Sir, I salute you for what you are doing to this building. Everyone who is criticising and/or second-guessing your plans should BUTT OUT. Having read all of these comments, I really don't understand the negative tone this article has taken on, what exactly is the problem??? Here you have a person who genuinely cares about his property, is taking steps to improve it on a grand scale, and attempting to preserve its historical appearance, and people have nothing better to do than object to the manner in which he does it? It's his property folks, if you don't like that fact, then buy it yourself and then you can be the subject of a Gazette article.

Note: there is no direct relationship between the Rock County Historical Society (society of people interested in history) and the Janesville Historic Commission (official body charged with protecting the historic assets of Janesville). The society is a group of enthusiasts. The commission is an appointed body created by city ordinance, and has authority to act delegated to it by federal law through the city council. That said, its powers are extremely limited.

God forbid someone try to make a building more efficient. I lived in a P.O.S. (historic) house in college and we paid over a thousand dollars a month in heat. Why, because the place had zero insulation and crappy windows. If this guy wants to "update" his property, let him. Like he said, people can buy these houses and turn them into housing for low income and do whatever they want to them but when someone with money buys them they can't make them affordable.

The fact that religious organizations need to fleece taxpayers by way of tax exemption and RLUIPA is proof that religion has failed people and that religion is man-made. These organizations can not sustain themselves as result of the largess of willing people.

This is a continuation, albeit in milder form, of religion's insensitive assault on people for the benefit of a clergy-class.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for anyone. If there are any questions, the city, state and National Preservation Trust have a wealth of FREE information for the asking so there's no excuse for irresponsible and irrevocable alterations in restoration.
http://www.preservationnation.org/resour... This all still all goes back to the fact religious institutions may choose to, but do not have to, abide by the same law as all secular business and individuals. As he proceeds, Goodrich should consult his own conscience as a citizen of a city that can proudly claim 20% of the Wisconsin's buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and he should be very, very careful his "restoration" doesn't cause the Lovejoy property to be removed from that same list.

When you bought the historic home, you signed paperwork acknowledging that you were aware of the "Historic Society" and that you need to ask approval before changing the exterior of your home. I know this because I bought a historical home and argued with them that I didn't know about this, but, looking through mortgage papers, yes- I signed it. Didn't read it or notice it was there but it was. Now, Yes, their rules are sometimes ridiculous. They threatened me for restoring a fence that had been torn down and empty posts standing in the backyard (which is exceptionally stupid since it doesn't affect the house at all). But, your building was an incredible property. I really hope that you do what you can, and, that you have kept that original woodwork to put back on. There is no modern-day equivalent for the original, and, why would you replace it if it wasn't broken? Part of the beauty of these houses is that it is the ORIGINAL wood, not a similar wood, or wood in the same are, but, the original hand-detailed, wood. I realize that this is just a business building for you, but, for those of us that LOVE these houses and are your neighbors, it is a piece of history. I wish you luck, and, I hope that you are going to restore it instead of "update" it. God bless

Kinda sounds like the "hysterical society" jumped the gun on this one.

Bradley, thanks for doing what you do !

Is anyone else sick of Jackie Wood sticking her nose in everyone else's business, telling them how they should spend their money and what they should spend their money on! To Mrs Wood, either fork out your own money to buy these properties and restore them or keep your comments to yourself!

You go Bradley!!!! Are you know it all nosey people happy now? I wonder what you would have to say if it was your property!!!???

Keep doing what you are doing Bradley. At least someone is doing something nice in this city. You seem to know the facts and it isn't even worth wasting time with "gazette junkies" and shotty journalists followers. Keep up the good work.

If historical properties are important to a City or community then we should provide direction and resources to these. No one ever says by the way do you know.... before you buy? Since currently you can get a permit and do what you want 6 months latter anyway it has little effect. The only resources (grants other) available I know of is "block" for low income housing. OOPS there it is you want discrimination or better yet all out stupidity. That means a property owner in that area can get funds to restore a property if he or she is going to make it into affordable housing for low income. If I turned it into rental units for low income I qualify for restoration money! DO you really think that making apartments is historical?

Sorry I meant Shake Shingle (wood) instead of shack

Well, I am now thoroughly confused. Wonder who is all hot to cause trouble for this guy and his building? I can't imagine that this has been a hot topic in Gazette editorial meetings without some outsider's influence.

By the way the idea behind the legal as you say "discrimination" set of laws was to ensure religious freedoms. So that government could not make excessive rules that would eliminate or prohibit religious freedoms (good for everyone). In my case I intend to make the property look historical within the limits of practicality, and code and I contend I am not breaking any rule. The only and I stress only potential issue pointed out that may conflict is texture added to the wood pieces themselves the rest suffices original or period appearences. Yes no kidding TEXTURE! For example the roof is not shack nor are the roofs on the houses in the historic area yet that was in keeping the historic. So with in reason we commit resources to better the property. By the way I am intending to commit over 5 million in rehab. This should make this entire area nicer and beautified including wrought iron fencing and fountains. The Plans are submitted and approved by the City. Again communication?

Just drove by the place. I think he is doing a great job. Let's be happy that someone is trying to make something look good again.

I think you missed my point. I did not beleive I was operating without proper permits , the City was appraised and is appraised of what we are doing, you dont need a permit for the outside work, I put my windows in before there was any ordinance in fact it is why they made one, if they would have asked they would have found i was making them look like double hung. Rules? they keep changing them!! My point is the facts here are completley non sense and the building for all intense puposes will look historical after its DONE. IT AINT DONE yet and that is why the decorations and color are not on (Too COLD!). As for not complying I was not even aware of the legal items mentioned but thanks for the info

Thanks, Brad. Now the readers also know why the property at 220 St. Lawrence Ave. can manage to be beyond the scope of the law. "A blatantly discriminatory class of "special rights" for religious groups and believers is created, allowing for a DUAL SYSTEM OF LAWS and regulations. Ordinances that apply to everyone and every group would not necessarily apply to religious groups. This places government in the unconstitutional position of favoring religion over irreligion." http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs...

CONTINUED LOVEJOY STORY
As for the Foundation? This is a non profit religious in nature organization (TAX EXEMPT) started by a group of christian businessmen under the vission of Dr. Tom Nebel, who is currently serving in the Baptist General Conference for International Church Planting. The effort is to promote "new" church development focusing on efforts to assist churches and birth churches to strategically reach otherwise lost age groups. Young adults from 20 - 35 and elderly with a new initiative of assisted living to the elderly in the community by utilizing churches to meet this increasing need in our communities. My role is to provide management to designated assets for growth and distribution of the plants. Having been reared Lutheran (St. Johns in Jvl) and served as pastor in multiple denominational settings I now serve churches across denominations and non denominations. I have taken the role. The building serves as our home office and domiciles the traditional management operations of assets used for these efforts. We have planted over 50 churches in Wisconsin alone many who are in nearby communities. AND NOW YOU KNOW.

CONTINUED LOVEJOY STORY
hundreds of rolls of wall paper and over 75 new light fixtures of "historical" appearence all of which add to the intended purposes of keeping as much of the history as practical. Which begs the question, why everyone including the City was not "outraged" when the previous owners did not put any funding into the property. As well al this could be avoided with communication. I realize that it wont have some of the original items like double hung windows and wood roofing materials but certian concessions needed to be made for funding and efficiencies. As for permits I was operating under the assumption the plans and discussions for all the property improvements had been discussed with all the parties including those from the historical society in which conscessions where made on my part to accomplish a blend of historical to the non historical components already existing. Let me also indicate I told teh City of the applications and that the need for the insulating factor and did not continue work after without approval. Let me also state the window alterations, that also made the papers some time ago. If someone would have simply asked about the end appearance they would have discovered that the windows were always going to have the appearance of the residential (double hung). Instead an article suggesting they are too commercial. It is sometimes embarrassing to see what we print as "news worthy" and frankly poorly reported journalism.

IF YOU ONLY KNEW! Article corrections: As for my business phone being "out of service", my business phone was how my office was contacted to comment on the project? It works just fine. I can only assume my "home line" was meant since I and my family use strictly cellular for home purposes. This last week I was speaking at Cameron University in Oklahoma for Campus Crusade, a Christian organization. But this to was also no surprise to the Gazette since that is what was learned from my assistant when the call was made. It saddens me we jump to such extremes as a community, especially as we search for signs of encouragement within these turbulent economic difficulties. We need more or at least better communication! As for the building, I fully intend to put back many of the details that were on the building including the ones pointed out in the article. They are not built over. The Lovejoy Manor, as we affectionatly referred to it, has a many wonderful strengths but energy efficiency is not one of them. Since the building has plumbing in outside walls and the over all absence of insulation an application of styrofoam and crushed stone was used as a base before the scales and other decoration pieces are to be added back. This would keep pipes from freezing each winter as well add R value for heating. It seems to have worked through the winter and now the finish applications can be done. The blue spray as seen in the pictures provided in the article is a newer product and serve as a primer coat protecting the wood from further decay and assist with adhersion for the finish coats (colors). The only difference to the historical surfaces will be texture, which is not noticable unless up close and is apart of the process to eliminate unsightly areas of decay and prohibit further decay. Keep in mind this is a commercial property not a residence and is attached to rather large commercial building(s) being reconstructed as soon as lending procedures are complete and the weather turns warm again. Sorry for the work delay, I did not intend for the current banking crisis nor the loss of GM to hamper this process. However, I am confident it will get under way yet this spring and the outside will be as attractive as all the renovations to the inside. CONTINUED

In order to keep these beautiful homes and have a historic district then there are guidelines that need to be followed. One being if remodeling then do so with the intent of keeping everything as natural as possible, thus there are things that can and cant be done and chain of command on doing them and it looks like Mr. goodrich dont want to be told what to do or how to do it. I say follow the rules you knew them before starting this project or sell the property to someone who will enough said!

It makes no difference what the Lovejoy Manor is zoned! Given there is a property owner with religious tax-free status - Ekklasia Foundation associated with the Great Lakes Church Planting (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2zNO...) - the language of RLUIPA requires, "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution..." Thus, if the owner decides historic over-lay regulations and requirements are "a substantial burden" (i.e. if historically correct restoration is considered more/too expensive), and should local authorities attempt to enforce historic zoning and building code ordinances, as the situation now stands, Goodrich could threaten to sue under RLUIPA. Almost always, just the threat of such a suit causes local governments to back down and makes historic overlays, zoning, building codes, housing regulations, and more moot. The fact that historic properties cost more to maintain is no surprise to anyone. Nor was this info hidden when the current owner took possession. If the costs are too much to bear, sell it to someone who truly cares; who can maintain and sustain it with the dignity it deserves.

As someone who used to work in that building. Let me tell you that the heating bills were ridiculous in the winter. That is the reason for the "ugly" windows. If the people that want to keep historical significance want the house to stay the same then take up a collection to help with costs. There is more money available if you remodel your house or business to use less resources and be more "green." Maybe this building will become the centerpiece for those who want to preserve history vs. those that want to preserve the future.
.
Just a thought. just to let you know the heating bills got as high as $2500 for one cold month in the winter.

First of all, the Lovejoy Manor is zoned B commercial. It's not a house or a home.

Secondly, the Manor is not just located in a "Janesville" Historic District and therefore subject to the scrutiny of our local historical committee- It is listed and tagged (Waymark Code: WM2CKA) on the U.S. Register of Historic Places, and has been, LONG before it was purchased by Goodrich. He knew that before he bought it and what the restrictions would/should be regarding the maintenance of that property.
Allen P Lovejoy was a very unique and determined man that touched the founding growth of Janesville in many ways. Read about who built the house and you will understand why it should be preserved intact: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancest...

I guess he was naughty. Quite frankly, I like the bottom picture better.

Historical preservation is a dilemma not only complicated in owner rights but with the owner's use intentions and associations. It was exactly this issue that was at the heart of the Boerne v. Flores decision based upon RFRA - a pre-RLUIPA act that was subsequently found unconstitutional. Any time a religious entity owns an historic building, as with this historic mansion, they will be permitted to do ANYTHING they wish - even including demolishing it entirely regardless of local and preservation laws. Those who want to own historic buildings, whether for residency, religious, or business purposes, are making a civic as well as their personal commitment. They have an inherent responsibility to their neighbors and the community not to ruin irreplaceable, revered buildings or change their character. Some understand this. Others do not. Just as previous generations had treated these buildings with great respect and care, our real values today will be reflected in the legacy that someday remains not only from the actions of individual property owners but also by the response of the community at large to protect our heritage.

I agree but the thing is he didn't pull the permits needed to do the work and the other problem is he was suppose to get the work approved by the historical committee.

Here's the one thing I don't get. It's his house right?

And he can't remodel his house the way he wants to?

So you can buy an old house, but you can't remodel it to a newer look without the gazette printing a pointless article?
Ok. Got it.

Not allowed to fix it up because even though he owns it. Makes sense to me.

How dare he remodel his house!!!!!

SuperDave: Why go to the trouble of getting building permits or making a presentation of your plans before the Historic Commission if you have to wait 6 months afterwards when you know with RLUIPA you can do whatever you want immediately regardless of the laws all others have to abide by? Many residents of Courthouse Hill and other over-lay districts have asked for stricter and more enforceable historic preservation ordinances but little is done as the issue only gets publicity when an individual property is endangered every few years. I surmise JanesvilleLifer is encouraging all to investigate the business and religious endeavors of the current owner to let others connect-the-dots. It's a quite interesting history in itself.

ljs64: Thanks. It always helpful, when referring to a previous post, to state that, e.g.
blublls: You said "abc". I think you meant to say "xyz".
I still don't understand the post by JanesvilleLifer!
proartist: Thanks for the links.

This is architectural rape. Goodrich should be ashamed to walk outside his door.
.
I have seem claims asserted regarding RLUIPA, but I haven't seen a lot of case law yet. It's still too new to know how much law is trumped, and how easily. The points in the article are salient, though. Under federal historic preservation law, there needs to be a specific local ordinance designating and protecting landmarks. The Lovejoy Manor is in an historic district, but that offers no legal protection by itself, as Congress intended: property owners have the right to alter their properties. Congress also provided tax incentives for them to do so within historic guidelines, but that is obviously of no value to a tax-exempt organization. There are loans and grants available, but this money is quite limited by comparison to simply getting approval for a tax credit.
.
This was one of the more spectacular architectural gems of the old, swank Courthouse Hill, and its loss is a terrible blow.
.
As there is no proposal to use taxpayer money here, I don't know why people are bringing up the city's financial concerns. Life (and law) doesn't just stop because of a recession.

ihavealife stated: "I did a google.Is he also tax except"

I merely made the point that it is TAX EXEMPT.

Clear that up SuperDave??

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20...

You know... I think Lincoln may have walked by this house..

proartist - he can do what he wants to the property after 6 months regardless of RLUIPA. This has absolutely nothing to do with RLUIPA - but thanks for using this story to bash something you disagree with.

SuperDave: RLUIPA essentially allows any person/group who is, or claims to be, a religious operation to evade and trump all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations. If you Google RLUIPA, you will see the chaos and destruction it has caused nationwide, as well as many instances in Janesville already. Also check out some history: Bradley J. Goodrich at http://www.wdfi.org/newsroom/admin_order...

I must be losing my mind. None of the last three posts made any sense to me....
People, what are you trying to say?!?

Incredibly sad story and slap-in-the-fact to history but Goodrich, who claims his operations are religious can - and will - get by doing whatever he wants regardless of any laws, ordinances or outcry. Research the Religious Land Use and Insitutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Historic properties and quiet, residential neighborhoods have been destroyed across the nation thanks to this vaguely and inappropriately applied federal act. It has and continues to have an on-going adverse impact in Janesville since it's inception. RLUIPA's broad application has destabilized the power relationship in local governments and because so few people even know it exists, it will continue to pose a danger to municipalities everywhere.

tax EXEMPT

Loopholes abound! Guaranteed success if you dig deeper. Esquire Management/Argurion Group Inc/OakHill Christian/Divinity Group/Strategic Asset Allocation Fund/Ekklasia

If the owner is not keeping the property "historically friendly", that is unfortunate. But unless he has agreed to some type of restriction and/or has received compensation, then ultimately the owner has every right do do with his property as he sees fit. Those that don't like it can attempt to buy it. Property rights are one of the most basic rights we still have in this country, although we continually have to fight our government to keep them.

glock21 - I have friends that work for the city, and they get paid also. Even ones in the code department. You again missed the simple point.

Link to "State of Wisconsin Collection" Contains more information and two Bud Gruver photos from the early Eighties...
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FE...

It is the former YWCA, the same one with all the graffiti on the third floor walls stemming back decades, childhood sketching from some of the prominent adults in this city.
Mrs. Lovejoy is rolling in her grave!
How long has the temporary fencing been around three-quarters of that block now?
Take a walk around S. Parker Drive and Van Buren Street, it still looks like a bomb has gone off around the brick three story structure that has been sitting idle for over a year.
Realize while you stroll that this is one block from Main Street, and one block from the Courthouse. Beautification of Historic Downtown INDEED!

Wait'll B'moon gets wind of this. Though she will be confused because it's the city administration that wants to maintain the historic appearance of the home. She's always claiming the exact opposite. Maybe she can contact the owner and read him the Riot Act! Then he can tell her where to get off!

I have friends that are cops and firefighters, they get paid for both, so I guess you are wrong localboy.

I love historical homes, but it looks like he's doing a good job fixing it up. Regardless, he should comply with the las & ordinances & if he didn't like the historical details to begin with he shouldn't have bought the home. Yes, my main thought is at least he's fixing it up but there's no excuse to do things without the proper permits.

brust1 - Police and Fire are not going to supply jobs or feed people. Should we get rid of them also? Let us get rid of all rules that don't supply jobs or feed people. Don't worry about chaos, as long as everybody is working and fed.

why not let wood or Cantrel pay for the work. this city needs to worry about more important things than this. some old building is not going to supply jobs or feed people. time janesville faced reality and grew up.

Is this guy related to K. Andreah Briarmoon? Rules must only apply to other citizens...

We could hope the City of Janesville may make an offer to purchase the home. Neglect it for two or three years and then raise taxes to pay for the refurbishing of the home.

Can you say Tallman House??