« State Approves Tax Credits for Preservation Ebay Salvage Watch: Victorian Marble Fireplace »
June 27, 2006
BSA Makes a Mockery of Itself in Two Rulings
The Park Slope Courier calls bullsh!t on the BSA's recent gift to developers in the South Slope who've done nothing but flout the law and give the finger to the community. While finding that neither 400 15th Street (top) nor 639 6th Avenue (bottom) had its foundation substantially complete--the condition for being vested under the old zoning laws--the Board only confirmed the public perception that it is in developers' pockets by allowing the projects to go forward under claims of hardship. Basically, the developers got a free pass because the Board was worried that they wouldn't make enough money if they had to play by the rules. Grassroots community groups weren't the only ones who opposed the variances. "Clearly the foundations were not advanced in both cases, and we felt they should not have been vested," said John Keefe, a representative from Assemblymember James Brennan’s office, who testified against the developers’ requests.
Park Slope Zone Busting! [Park Slope Courier]
Brooklyn Olympic Sport: Beat the Downzone [Curbed]
Comments
To have seen the BSA turn down the main vesting applications for "foundations substantially complete" then vote in favor of the hardship appeal was sickening...
At the end of the day, for these two properties, it did not matter that the development sites had no "substantially complete" foundation, that they damaged adjacent properties, that they used unlawful/unsafe building practices, that they had numerous violations and SWOs, that they were not "good neighbors" to the community and finally, if built "as of right under R6 zoning," they would not fit contextually into our community.
That did not matter...
What mattered was the "hardship the developer accrued" due to:
• the rezoning
• SWO's, DOB and ECB violations
• fees accrued while fixing damaged adjacent properties
• fees accrued while fighting neighbors in court
• legal fees for the BZY/A appeal to the BSA
• over paying for the property
• making bad business decisions
So due to the money that may have been "lost" or profits that may be "lower" than projected, the BSA felt these developers should be rewarded for their bad judgment, and worst of all, bad behavior.
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at June 27, 2006 10:37 AM
This is total bulls%&t. Does anybody know how high they will now be allowed to build? I am particularly concerned with the 400 15th st as is is literrally in imby.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 11:26 AM
400 15th St.
Building Dimension:
No. Stories: 5
Street Frontage: 75
Height: 54
Dwelling Units: 18
Wish more folks from the immediate nabe had been their at the hearings. Community support "may" have made more of a difference...perhaps not. We'll never know...
Though now they have the opportunity to go back and potentially exploit any additional FAR they might have (i.e. bigger building)...you know, because of the hardship.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=2&allisn=0001021718&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at June 27, 2006 11:31 AM
I am so happy the right decision was made. I want to own in the neighborhood and there is currently very little condo supply available.
NIMBY's, please stop trying to destroy Brooklyn! Go back to the burbs if you want no apartment buildings in your neighborhood!
Posted by: Crawford at June 27, 2006 11:32 AM
Crawford -- I feel your pain but think your comments are misdirected. Please walk the neighborhood and see what some of the newer buildings are doing (some illegally) to the lifestyle, feel and infrastructure of this community.
I'm all for the rights of property owners to build what they think the market values -- if it's done properly. I do have a problem though with the way some developers are approaching this -- and any quick jaunt through the neighborhood will bear this out.
Above and beyond all of this, the BSA's members made absolute fools of themselves. I'm truly embarrassed for them.
Posted by: mimimi at June 27, 2006 11:44 AM
intelligent, well organized community opposition, well attended meetings, manifestly ill behaved developers and, still, a decision in favor of the malfactors. this is very depressing.
this kind of development will slowly, but inexorably, destroy our neighborhoods. why bother living in brooklyn if it looks, smells and tastes like nowheresville?
Posted by: david at June 27, 2006 12:08 PM
David,
Why will 5-floor apartment buildings make Brooklyn look like nowheresville? Wouldn't nowheresville be typified by suburban-style living? Single family homes, auto dependency and environmental ruin are the hallmarks of suburban lifestyles. Stop trying to import these values into Brooklyn.
There is nothing inappropriate about 5-floor buildings in Brooklyn, of all places. This is not Paramus.
Posted by: Crawford at June 27, 2006 12:28 PM
It's not about 5 story apartment buildings, it is about out of context "luxury" condos that sell for multi-million dollars that change the character of a neighborhood far quicker than a more natural evolution. It's about tearing down smaller and affordable multi-family housing and replacing it with housing that is no longer affordable for those who were/are displaced. It is about a change that makes it difficult for those of us who have called this neighborhood home for many years to remain here due to increasing prices on not only the homes/rentals, but the services offered in the area.
Posted by: Tracy at June 27, 2006 12:39 PM
Crawford,
It's not the size (though it is the bulk, under our new zoning, which would be shorter and less floor area), it's the behavior...the developer flagrantly disobeyed the law, ruined one building to the right (still in court), 5 back yards and undermined another building to the left. Worked against stop work orders, nights & weekends...broke the law, plain & simple.
Bad conduct does not deserve a pay-out, regardless of the proposed hardship to the BSA. if it was "in your backyard" (rather your back yard had slid into the work site) you would take a different tone. Or move to Paramus, I guess.
They still could have provided needed decent housing/condos at a contextual level under the new zoning and still made a heck of a profit.
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at June 27, 2006 12:42 PM
a community's residents deserve to have the zoning laws enforced. zoning can be attractive to a neighborhood's residents. watching someone violate the law then get a free pass is frustrating and just should not occur. if I break a window on your house, should the cops not care because it's already done? no, I should be in jail for the night. why is this any different?
Posted by: anon at June 27, 2006 1:20 PM
Good. Let BSA approve these projects. Unlike the NIMBYs I do not what to look at this big holes/unfinished projects for the next couple years or more. It looks like blight to me. Prospective buyers looking for homes in greenwood heights/south slope would also consider the surrounding blight when making offers. But if the NIMBYs have their way we will have a bunch of unfinished projects all around the neighborhood. Ok I accept we have lost some FAR (“Value”) with the rezoning. But now they want the neighborhood already struggling with a reputation of vinyl/aluminum sided and frame structures to be marked by unfinished constructions. The school system though improving is not a seller. Everyone with kids knows where the good schools are. I do not know who is more dangerous to our already declining property values “the NIMBYS” or the market.
Posted by: Jake at June 27, 2006 2:05 PM
You whiners are all a bunch of hypocrites. You are the very same people that displaced the blue collar working class imigrants that made park slope their home up until about 25 years ago. Apartment buildings were converted to coops and condos, apartments were cut in half, residents were harrassed out of their rent controlled/stabalized units, the rest cashed out because you came then with "YOUR" money. Those left behind in unregulated apartments found themseleves with "Brand New Leases" they no longer could afford. Whether it was you then who had to pay your brand new mortgage or some developer who just wanted to empty the building for conversion, it had the same effect. It became unaffordable, people moved out, the services catered to the new slope. Now you have your little slice of Idaho just like they did and calling everyone else greedy because people with more money are jacking everything up another level and you are now the residents being pushed. Who cares. Deal with it. Your attitude is like "as long as it doesn't happen to me" wrapped up in the pretense of caring for the community. You didn't care then, but all of a sudden you care now. How convenient.
Posted by: Joe Joe at June 27, 2006 2:07 PM
Damn! Joe Joe sure did hit the nail on the head. Well done!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 2:26 PM
My concern, frankly, isn't with the previous generations of tenants who moved out. That's the way life and the market works. My concern is that property owners who skirted legal requirements are now being rewarded (by the BSA) handsomely for their efforts.
I can accept the outcome - but clearly the process was a sham. Awarding a hardship variance to a builder in part due to legal costs associated with fighting city enforcement and neighborhood efforts to ensure safe and fair building conditions? Come on. It's a horrible pattern for the BSA to perpetuate.
I'm surprised that local elected officials -- who have been so active in monitoring this siutation -- have been relatively quiet on the outcome.
Posted by: mimimi at June 27, 2006 2:45 PM
Crawford,
You keep talking about 4 and 5 story buildings - Have you seen the 11 story piece of shit, going up on 16th street.
Everything about this Development was done illegally from the start. Instead of enforcing the laws that were already on the books and stopping this abomination, the DOB rewarded the Developer by vesting that crap even though they were still pouring (Illegally) the foundation on Christmas Eve. Now he is already boasting that he can sell the best view in the area and that no one will ever be able to block the view.
The same scum bag is also trying to build another piece of shit rite down the block from that one. He has been caught breaking a variety of laws and even lied in official documents when questioned about the illegal work. He has gone so far as to tell the BSA that neither they nor the DOB have the right to stop him from breaking the law because they (The Developers) have been breaking the law for over 30 years without any significant ramifications.
Because the precedent has been set that Developers have been allowed to break the law it can not be changed now.
If you really believe that there is nothing wrong with this crap then I dare you to buy one of those Luxury Condoms.
Believe me when I tell you that you will regret it for the rest of your life.
Posted by: Wake Up at June 27, 2006 2:49 PM
To Wake Up,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and agree with your assessment of that property. However, the threatening tone you use to close your message is asinine. It has no place on this board or in any sort of civilized discourse.
Posted by: mimimi at June 27, 2006 3:23 PM
New versus old is actually a new, rich phenom in the slope as far as I can see. Everybody in the south slope hated the bad construction going on at the Ansonia. How hideous are the giant out of character addition to the top story. But the attitude then used to be whatever. Now that parking is scarce and coffee expensive it's the newer residents who want to keep their shangri-la a secret. The funny thing is that these same people feel they are the ones who built up their nabe and wouldn't dream of going elsewhere although they think other property owners' properties should be of no value to them.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 6:01 PM
Oh, these nouveau slopies dream of going elsewhere--Have you heard of Maplewood?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2006 1:05 AM
TO ALL: with the exception of a few of us (though I am going on 3 years), the MAJORITY of those fighting these developments have lived in the nabe for 10+ years, if not their whole lives. So please back off with the Paramus and Maplewood B.S. and all the "nouveau slopies" garbage.
These are folks concerned about THEIR community, whether old timers or new to the 'hood.
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at June 28, 2006 10:27 AM
Anon 6:01pm
"The funny thing is that these same people feel they are the ones who built up their nabe”
You hit on the nose.
I have been in Brooklyn 40 years. PS was crime ridden. New comers came, change the nabe. The old timers that stuck it out are reaping the benefits (Higher property values, good schools, amenities galore). Similar situation started to occur in greenwood heights/South Slope, but self proclaimed neighborhood companions shut it down hopefully just slowed it down. Result old timers will not be able to get the best possible buy out for their property. Since there no new residents expecting/forcing higher standards current schools will remain with the same status quo. No new residents translate into no increase business/demand aka no new amenities. They have done our nabe in. Other nabes will benefit from our ignorance for the truth. We will not have higher home values, no better schools, no great restaurants and shops at walking distance. But we have parking what a great trade off.
Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2006 11:11 AM
To Jake:
Your assessment of the situation in South Slope/Greenwood, I think, is way off the mark. Neighbors are fighting to protect the value of their properties by making it more difficult to build the kind of out of context blight that has sprung up all over.
Park Slope benefited from having a historic district at its core. And few blocks were chopped up as many in the South Slope have been.
Bringing in luxury housing to this part of the hood, imho, would bring up property values, bring in amenities and, I suspect, lead to an improvement in the local schools (which are pretty strong as it is.) As a homeowner in the area, it is clear to me that putting up an 11 story building and/or other cheaply constructed/cheap looking apartments next to 2 and 3 story houses does nothing but depress values, neighborhood character and prospects for growth.
What we are seeing isn't smart development, it is opportunistic -- and not very intelligently opportunistic at that.
Posted by: sslope at June 28, 2006 1:08 PM
Not understanding something, Jake. I respect your history in the Boro and your insight on PS proper...but in our area in the past 3 years, real estate prices are up (my house has doubled in value), new restaurants have opened and amenities are trickling in. While some more of the good will be on its way, close to 300 luxury condos have/will be on the market this year. Taxes will go up, schools will become even more crowded, infrastructure will be overly taxed...and yes, we'll lose some parking (big deal). Seems the good doesn't always outweigh the bad. Especially when it comes at the price of property owners with damaged homes, workers injured or killed, developers breaking the law, renters displaced and only high priced condos glutting the market. What am I missing here?
Posted by: on the DL at June 28, 2006 1:18 PM
mimimi,
Sorry if you took my last statement as a threat. It was not meant in any way to be. It was a statement of fact. The Developer (Mr. Isaac Katan) has a history of bad developments and laws suits up the wazoo. Also I have been told from people with first hand knowledge that the job at 162 16th is truly a disaster waiting to happen. So pleased do not take my words as a threat, just as a statement of fact and a word of warning to anyone who is foolish enough to buy anything from Isaac Katan.
Posted by: Wake Up at June 28, 2006 1:58 PM
Was Park Slope in a rough way 25 years ago? Yeah, but nearly all of Brooklyn was, at least Brownstone Brooklyn. The whole city was less populated, more dangerous and depressed. Park Slope has turned around as the city turned around--yuppies have been moving in for 30-40 years, but the real change came as the city improved. The neighborhood did not need new, out of proportion, ugly and cheap-looking, overpriced condos to bring in amenities. I think these out of context buildings are really going to hurt the blocks and neighborhoods that have them as the market slows down. People will be choosier and they won't choose crap.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2006 7:20 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.