What Was Eugene's LPC Vote Worth? $409,000
Remember the flap earlier this week about how Council Member Mathieu Eugene was opposing the creation of the Ocean on the Park Historic District because he wanted to hook up the owner of one of the twelve houses who was hoping to cash out to a developer? As we all know, Eugene cracked under a…
Remember the flap earlier this week about how Council Member Mathieu Eugene was opposing the creation of the Ocean on the Park Historic District because he wanted to hook up the owner of one of the twelve houses who was hoping to cash out to a developer? As we all know, Eugene cracked under a wave of public protest and decided to support the landmarking effort. And what about the poor owner whose backroom politicking ultimately failed? Well, with hopes of a tear-down dashed, he just slashed the asking price of his house at 189 Ocean Avenue by 26 percent from $1,599,000 to $1,190,000. Anyone care to cop to a little schadenfreude?
189 Ocean Avenue [Sotheby’s] GMAP
Ocean on the Park: Crisis Narrowly Averted [Brownstoner]
Councilman Threatens Ocean on the Park Historic District [Brownstoner]
Any one of those limestones in front of the park that DOES have tenants (189 does not, as their sale ad clearly states) could very easily raise their rents based on their new landmark status. Crown Heights North doesn’t have the same rents that Park Slope has because of crime and proximity to the Park, come on. These homes on Ocean Avenue are across the street from the park with views of it, and once they are landmarked their value will increase. That seems like a reason to eventually raise rents, right?
It’s really funny to me that you are commenting on 211’s unattractive signage for a DAYCARE. Your comment on how it doesn’t add to the streetscape or property values was truly illuminating. 211 runs a community business and now they are villains?
Why should anyone be forced to do something to their property that they do not want? As someone pointed out above, there are TWO other homes in addition to 189 within the group that oppose landmark. Perhaps this is a bit of a DUH but if 189 doesn’t want to be landmarked, why don’t the other homeowners just submit a proposal WITHOUT 189?
Oh please. Now not sharing details is elitist? Perhaps it’s just not telling tales out of school, or repeating stories that one does not feel is their right to tell. And how could anyone claim that the homeowners want the space in front of the park for themselves. Last I heard, the space, which is not accessible from across the street, so it’s hardly a private beach, belongs to all of us. Who’s talking elitism, here. To call 211 the only responsible homeowner because they operate a day care center from their property is also ignorant. I fail to see how their large and unattractive signage adds to the streetscape or enhances the property values. Besides which, how do you know, bklynite00, who else operates a home business there? You obviously have no clue.
Littlebrooklyn, your comments are also uninformed and specious, at best. You obviously know little about landmarking, especially as regards property values. Landmarked properties do hold and gain value in the LONG run, but landmarked status does not mean a raising of rent. By that criteria, Crown Heights North should command the same rents as Park Slope, as we’re landmarked, too. That is an obvious red herring, and we have heard from at least one of the homeowners. She has no tenants, FYI, so there goes that argument.
Brownstoner, as a preservationist, should print statements from preservation causes. First of all, it’s his blog, his opinion, his cause. Secondly, these organizations are not in the business of spreading lies or misinformation just to prop up supposed property values of a very, very small minority of New York City property owners. That is patently ridiculous, paranoid and ignorant. People critique interior, exteriors, front yards, back yards and everything else other people have on this blog. Brenda is entitled to her opinion, as well. The owners posted it on a public real estate site, so it’s as fair game as any other real estate listing, which are commented upon far more harshly than she ever did.
I would welcome a true discussion about landmarking. This has turned into a sniping session, pro and con the people in 189 and the rest of Ocean on the Park houses’ homeowners, and has gotten personal, not objective. Why even continue?
Oh and Brenda from Flatbush: Is it really necessary to critique the inside of the home? Does 189’s furniture or light fixtures really affect this discussion? That’s like someone critiquing you for your Dom Deluise reference, which would be VERY easy to do. Get real.
How is it that a blog that celebrates and promotes high cost and newly developed apartments, co-ops, and brownstones can get away with picking on ONE homeowner for wanting to sell? And subtly accusing them of underhanded deals and bribes to boot! VERY professional Brownstoner, very professional.
And how does anyone know that 189 tried to pressure the other homeowners to sell to developers? Brownstoner shouldn’t just post e-mails from landmark and preservationist groups as the truth. 189, from what I can see, is not a special house and it’s not a limestone. There are tons of homes like it around Brooklyn.
Why hasn’t anyone talked about the homeowners who ARE pushing for landmarking – am I the only one who can very easily see that these people only want to raise the value of their own homes? Living in a landmarked building is a great reason to raise the rent for their tenants, no?
Not sharing information makes you an elitist.
And I never said they were rich, I said elitist ( really don’t think they are rich from the condition of the homes.) The motion ocean homeowners want the space in front of the park entirely for themselves. Even the very thought of one home having the potential to be something greater than it’s current state has sent them into a tail spin of lies and unfounded accusations. I think the only homeowner who has showed real concern for the community is 211, as they provide a badly needed service for the working parents in the area.
bklynite00- you obviously don’t know the whole backstory and I’m not at liberty to tell you. But I can tell you that the homeowners in this row are hardly elitist or rich. Landmarking the row doesn’t give the other homeowners access to 189’s space. I have no idea where you got that idea but its erroneous. And finally- landmarking is good for the neighborhood- that’s a given, researchable fact.
Just for the record, 189 never solicited any of their neighbors to sell their property to a developer. Do you have evidence of this? At the public hearing 189 was not against land marking, they asked for special consideration because they share a driveway/easement with 185 developers. No one has touched on this. Does anyone know anything about easement law?
Also- stating that land marking all of the 12 homes is for the community is not the truth.
That block is more than 90% hard working renters, not homeowners. If the movement were truly for the community, everyone would write letters to the councilmember asking him to purchase the property and make a community center/school or something where the community could have access to the space instead of handful of elitist homeowners.
Bxgrl;
You’re right: there is no point in continuing to argue the point. Let’s just say that the values of the preservation community are not mine, and leave it at that.
I do find it annoying that you continue to insist that I made a statement about preservation and wealth destruction, when I did no such thing.
In this statement – “Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction” – I was referring to Mr. B and his actions. He is the “true believer” to which I refer.
“celbrating[sic] his loss in the value of his property”
Rather celebrating his IMAGINED loss in the value of his property.