Clifford Litwiller owns a sandblasting and painting business a few miles outside of Hopedale in Tazewell County. He says he has always been intrigued by water towers, and has always been particularly impressed by the old structure that rises above the village of McLean. He notes it was built during the Great Depression when tools were more primitive.
Some may see the rusty old tower as an eyesore, but not Litwiller.
"Not to me, I love them old water towers, [it's] like a bridge, too. It doesn't bother me to look at it. It might some people,” he said.
Ever since the village of McLean erected a new tower and decommissioned the old water tower back in 2017, Litwiller expected it would eventually get hauled away and scrapped.
"I just want to save it. I don't want it to end up in a scrap yard and chop it up and send it to China and they make something out of it and send it back,” Litwiller said.
So, Litwiller asked the village in 2018 if he could take the tower to preserve it in some form. The village decided then to let the tower stand.
Litwiller is not the only one with an interest in the tower. The community group called CORE of McLean wants to save the tower and restore it at its current location.
CORE has asked the village to turn the tower over its group of volunteers, who want to paint a mural on it and use it as a tourism piece — at no cost to the village.
The village board voted 4-2 earlier this month to have Litwiller remove the tower, at a cost of close to $34,000.
One village board member asked the board to reconsider. That prompted a raucous public meeting where debate continued for 2 ½ hours. CORE collected signatures of more than 120 residents — more than the number who voted in the last election in McLean — asking the board to let it take over the tower.
Village board member John Wille urged his colleagues to rescind the vote.
“If CORE wants to take this over, why get rid of it? There’s been no validated reason given to me why we should keep it,” Wille said.
Dwight Cannon, president of the Route 66 Association of Illinois, told the village board the tower is likely eligible to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
He told the board relics like the old tower can draw people to McLean, especially as the historic highway that runs through the village approaches its bicentennial in a few years.
“People want to see the historic things, buildings, water towers. We have people that come from overseas, way overseas. They are interested in seeing the old stuff,” Cannon told the board.
Tom Ludlam runs the McLean Depot, the former train station the village converted into a model train shop over a decade ago. Ludlam recalled how the depot was in such poor condition when he took it over.
“Nobody wanted it and as a result, a lot of people were upset (the village) spent money to buy it,” said Ludlam, adding since 2016, tourists from 48 states and 36 countries have signed his guest book at the train shop.
Skeptics were unfazed.
Village board member Pam Page was unconvinced the water tower will bring additional traffic — and dollars — to McLean.
“Other than the fact traffic already goes through, and [Interstate] 55 and [Illinois Route] 136 is at a crossroads, how much more revenue — this is rhetorical — is the water tower going to bring?” Page asked.
Those who favored removing the tower see it as an eyesore and a financial and legal liability for the village, and that those set on preserving it are stuck in the past.
Former village board member Charles Denham told the board it doesn't make sense for the village to maintain two water towers.
“Everything else around us that was here before is gone. We have an opportunity to expand. We’re the landmark, not that tower. We the people,” Denham said.
CORE said it was willing to assume any legal liability for the tower and that it had more than 100 grant opportunities that could cover some or all of the cost of preserving it.
CORE also maintained the tower is not a liability because it's structurally sound, partly because it no longer holds water. An engineer told CORE after a visual inspection, the tower should conservatively last another 50 years.
Clifford Litwiller said he did a close examination of the tower, and he has no concerns about its durability, other than some rust.
But the vote the second time around did not change. Four board members voted to have Litwiller remove the tower, two voted to keep it so the village could work with CORE on a preservation plan.
Village board member Colton Gordon said the board already decided the issue two weeks ago. And the longer the village waits, he said the more it would have to pay to have it removed. He feels the village got a good deal from Litwiller.
“It had already been decided. If somebody wants to bring it up, that’s perfectly fine. I’m here to listen to you, but my opinion on it ain’t changing,” Gordon said.
Now it's up to Litwiller to submit a formal contract and decide what exactly he wants to do with the nearly 90-year-old tower. He said he's not sure.
"I just know I don't want to see it in the scrap yard. [I've] got a few ideas, but haven't totally made a decision on that yet, but I would like to put it back up — possibly not the full height, but I do want to put it back up,” Litwiller said.
Litwiller said he's not sure where he would move the tower, adding it would not likely be turned into a tourist attraction.
He also said he wasn't aware of CORE's efforts to save the tower until after he made his pitch to the village earlier this month. Litwiller said he appreciates the group's intentions.
"I 100% admire anybody that wants to protect, restore, keep something like that. Some people are into old cars, old tractors, old trucks, I admire anybody [who saves these types of things] because we just throw everything away nowadays,” he said.
In fact, Litwiller said he would be willing to step away from the project, but indicated village board members have told him the tower will not survive if he doesn't move it.
"I just want no hard feelings with this, and I want everybody to know that I am willing to stay out of this and not move forward. But if I do step back, it's still going to get scrapped," he said.
Litwiller and CORE of McLean both seem interested in preserving the water tower, just in different ways. The two parties have not talked to each other.
Jeff Hake, vice president of CORE of McLean, said he appreciates Litwiller's desire to preserve the tower, but it won't be the same if it finds a new home.
“If it gets moved to some place that’s not McLean — it says McLean right on it and it’s part of McLean’s history specifically, it being somewhere else on private farmland doesn’t really allow it to be appreciated for what it is as a part of McLean’s history,” Hake said.
Hake also contends moving the tower may be a bigger and more expensive undertaking than the village and Litwiller believe, suggesting that's another reason to keep the tower where it is.
CORE of McLean still plans to file for an historical designation for the tower site.
Litwiller said he plans to start moving the tower next summer.
