Cook County Public Guardian vs. Preservationists

The Chicago Tribune has recently been covering an interesting, guardianship-related story (see here and here - registration required). It centers on 91-year-old Carolyn Howlett, who is a resident of suburban Riverside (close to my home of Oak Park). Riverside is best known as a planned community designed by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead, but it also has a couple of houses designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The most famous of these houses is probably the Avery Coonley estate, pictured here. Mrs. Howlett and her late husband bought a carriage house on the estate back in the 1950's, and she continues to reside there. However, Mrs. Howlett now has Alzheimer's disease, and the Cook County Public Guardian's office is acting as her guardian. (The Public Guardian steps in when a Cook County resident is disabled, has an estate of at least $25,000, and has no one else willing or able to act as guardian -- see this site for more information.)

A dispute has now arisen between the Public Guardian and preservation groups, and centers on the (deteriorating) roof of Mrs. Howlett's residence. The Public Guardian wants to fix the roof so that Mrs. Howlett can continue to live there, but because funds are limited, their solution is to install an asphalt replacement roof (cost: $14,000). The preservationists -- including a University of Chicago professor who lives on the estate -- say that a historically-appropriate roof should instead be installed, at a cost of $250,000.

The solution seems quite clear to me: if the preservationists want a historically-appropriate roof on the carriage house, they should pay for it; if they aren't willing to do so, then the Public Guardian should be allowed to proceed in a way that best serves the ward (i.e. fixes the roof and allows Mrs. Howlett to stay in her home while spending the smallest amount of money possible for repairs). Is this really something that requires a debate?