Slope Church Garden Goes Condo

It wasn't just the mature trees inside the church's garden that were trimmed, but apparently some healthy mature trees that line both 8th Ave and 10th Street (hope this doesn't set the tone for the rest of this development). Most of us are sad to see the garden go, in spite of the fact the church didn't share it with their neighbors (none of who are counted among the church's 50 or so congregants - all of whom are newly released prisoners...talk about a unique marketing angle). Would have been great if the City had stepped-up and purchased the space for a community garden.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:06 AM

Yeah would have be great... a great waste of taxdollars - the corner is 1 Block from PROSPECT PARK!

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:41 AM

greed is the new religion.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 11:51 AM

Why not knock down the church too? People need housing, not fairy tales about some omnipotent Sky Daddy.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:18 PM

Let's just hope the "church" pays its fair share of taxes on the sale, afterall, the sale of land doesn't exactly fall into a non-profit activity.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:39 PM

I agree with 11:41. The City should ban any green space within a reasonable distance of any park. Hell, we need less green spaces not more!!! In fact, let's encourage our City officials to auction off any parks or play grounds deemed too close to a park, the land can then be developed and give a much needed boost to our poor, overly taxed developers. School yards too,auction those bad boys off. And hell, the parks are too big anyway, why not whittle them down to a more reasonable size.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:46 PM

12:46 - nice straw-man argument!

That the city needs more parks and open space is not the debate (it does) but it also needs more housing and buying private property (at market prices) on a major avenue - 1 block from one of the largest urban parks in the country to make a "community garden" would be an asinine use of taxpayer dollars.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 12:59 PM

Did you mean affordable housing?

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:13 PM

According to the Parks Dept. Prospect Park isn't in NYC's top ten in terms of acreage. Nor does the Trust for Public Land list Prospect in it's list of the 100 largest urban parks. To suggest that the public purchase of land for conservation is an assinine use of tax dollars is a stretch.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:33 PM

Man, that prisoner comment was a low blow. As for the land, it's being returned to the tax rolls.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:35 PM

Last I heard, private property was just that and they can plant and cut down any trees they want regardless of condition. I wasn't aware any apporval is necessary let alone yours. If one of the tree's were to fall on your car or your house, you would be the first one to sue for someone not maintaining them. Build condos to the sky and give the church all the breaks. You want trees, move to New Jersey. Further would be better.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:52 PM

1:33--

No, what's asinine is using public money to conserve tremendously expensive land so that a neighborhood of $2M brownstones can be protected from change.

I would much rather the government spent money building parks and playgrounds in underserved poor neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 1:58 PM

Bunch of Atheists get religion when the church properties are up for sale to developers and the rose gardens get paved. As for questionable non profit activity, don't cherrypick which activity you wish to question.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:05 PM

Maybe you treehuggers should pool your money together and buy this parcel back and donate it to the greater good you so fondly speak of. I can't believe that someone actually complained that the church didn't share with everyone in the neighborhood. That is usually reserved for the congregation that makes up the church. Did you attend services and donate to the general fund? I would like to see what happens when it is your money that we are talking about. If you own a house and have a yard, I suggest you open it up to eveyone in the neighborhood so that everyone who rents can have a yard too. Then at least you wouldn't be talking out of your arse.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:31 PM

After I bought my townhouse, I sent a letter to City Hall suggesting that New York City's population be capped, by law, at exactly what it was the second I signed the closing papers.

If only they had listened to me, this city would still be perfect!

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:43 PM

This situation has already been much discussed in local newspapers. The reality is that the church serves a completely underprivileged, despised, impoverished community -- namely, ex-offenders -- and to continue with that mission they must raise money. In a perfect world, affluent PS neighbors could have chosen to help fund their work without the necessity of selling the lot. But they didn't, so the church had to sell. And -- if we are to believe all the pro-development/pro-density pundits on this site -- the new units going up will increase the overall housing supply, thus easing pressure at all levels of the market. Isn't that how it's meant to work? Jeez, where are the Ann Rand disciples when you need 'em?

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:49 PM

Wah, Wah, Wah, my property value is going up so high I can't take it anymore. I may actually have to sell it and retire early to some poor soul who will work the rest of his/her life to pay off their mortgage. 2:43 is correct except maybe some of these people are still renting and may want to wait until they got theirs before they get religion.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 2:51 PM

2:49 The affluent park slopers did not help the church in their mission (Jeez it's organized religion, right up there with Bush, Chaney, and Osama) but want to impose thier own sense or rightousness on the action that was taken. If the new owner was the Land for Public Trust turning it into a community garden (and let's be real, they are not all that communal unless you think alike) they would be applauding now. The fact that is turned out to be a developer instead seems to give people some feeling of moral superiority that allows the bloviation of palaver. Don't hold your breath for the Ayn Rand followers, because the pretense here is we are "The Collective We".

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:09 PM

So many opionions, so little sense. Sounds like the developers and their cronies have yet again tainted an honest debate.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:10 PM

As for the wealthy Park Slopers I can't speak to what they have done for the church, but this Park Sloper (who's hardly wealthy and doesn't own a $2M home) having lived in the neighborhood since the church took up its mission to serve the ex-convicts (and for long before that), can attest to the utter and complete lack of any outreach to the community. Had they asked for help they would have gotten it I suspect, just the way all other not-fors ask and receive. Of course those here who say that Slopians would not have offered any assistance are merely reflecting their own lack of charitable giving onto others.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 3:19 PM

I get it, you imply your opinion is honest and everyone elses' is tainted. So there we are. That is what I was waiting for not hoping for. I got news for you and the next one, I am not a developer nor a cronie of one, just someoone who was actually born on 7Th and 6th a long time ago. I am OK with the church doing with what is within it's right to do, even if I actually liked the garden space. Why? Because it didn't belong to me! People should have a right to build on a property they own even if you would prefer to see grass and trees. Buy the damn place and plant some grass and new trees and open it up to the public. Better yet, charge a fee.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 4:13 PM

Yeah 4:13 one more thing, if you think that the people of Park Slope would have donated to any church's cause. Nice thinking, but unrealistic. If that were true, the churches and religous schools of Park Slope would still be open and viable. The majority of the new community doesn't go to church. They are all closing. It doesn't matter what denomination. They are all Druid's, I'll swear to that on a bible. oops.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 4:27 PM

Who cares if the people of PS are rich or poor, or if the Church serves ex-cons or little old ladies. The lot is on a main thoroughfare, 1 block from Prospect Park. A community garden or public park are not needed here and public $ shouldn't be wasted on such things.

Please get a real issue, this is only about sentimentality nothing else.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:19 PM

While the church was within it's right to sell the property,this grasping bunch also sold it's AIR RIGHTS thereby inflicting a denser building development onto this tiny site. Can you say greedy. Who gets an accounting of how this 3.6Million plus dollars are spent????????????????

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 9:03 PM

Let me see if I got this right. First we have a problem becuase a private property transaction resulting in a new owner cutting down trees on said property. Now we we have an issue with how much profit was made and should control how it is spent. There is an island 90 miles south of Florida you may want to go live on. Warm and sunny, no private property allowed, all work towards the greater good, no one makes any profit, none of these issues exist. Get a life! Your an asshole.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 9:57 PM

In re: comment by 9:57: No you did not "got this right" and also, there is no need to resort to adolescent language and comments. If you are responding, at least in part, to my comments at 9:03, you should see that they contain an acknowledgement that the church had a right to sell it's property. However,since they are a tax exempt entity and needed the permission of a State Court, their congregation and the Presbetery in order to sell, they are also answerable to those same entities. There is also a line between gain and greed.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 10:39 PM

My complaint wasn't about the developer cutting down trees on their property, but the pruning, and potentially damaging, of those tree on the public sidewalks which border the lot. Parks Dept permission is needed to do this, it wasn't obtained.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 3:08 PM

all of the above is pretty boring. what's done is done. i'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.

what do we know about the developer? anyone seen the plans?

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 9:05 PM