In a pivotal Highland Park City Council meeting on September 8, 2025, discussions centered around the contentious issue of involuntary landmarking, particularly concerning the property at 175 Prospect. Local zoning attorney David Meek, representing the property owner, argued against the 2018 policy that requires homeowner consent for involuntary landmarking, stating it limits property rights and should only apply to a select few cases. He emphasized that education, rather than landmarking, is a more effective tool for historic preservation.

Meek highlighted that the involuntary landmarking process has only been invoked once, suggesting it is not a practical solution for saving homes. He urged the council to consider the broader implications of the ordinance, noting that it creates tension within existing codes and may not be appropriate for every case.

Another zoning attorney, Cal Bernstein, echoed these sentiments, pointing out that the ordinance in question has not seen any applications for a non-contiguous historic district in over 20 years. He stressed that the current application to demolish 175 Prospect has been pending for seven months, and the urgency to resolve this matter is heightened by a pending property sale.

Bernstein criticized the historical preservation commission's member who opposed the ordinance, arguing that the council should not rush to judgment without fully understanding the situation. He called for the council to allow the pending application to proceed, asserting that denying it would violate the vested rights of the property owner.

The council is now faced with the decision of whether to amend the ordinance or send it back to the historical preservation commission for further review, a move that could significantly impact the future of the property at 175 Prospect and set a precedent for similar cases in Highland Park.