BREAKING: 227 Duffield Saved From Eminent Domain Death

I'm shocked!

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:02 PM

WHAT A SILLY WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS. TOURS? WHO'S GOING TO GO? HOW MANY PEOPLE VISIT OTHER HISTORIC HOMES WHEN THEY ARE OPEN LIKE THE GOWANUS HOMESTEAD? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, EGO, EGO, EGO.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:02 PM

Surprised and disappointed. Downtown Brooklyn can do without this ugly little brick building.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:05 PM

history.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:20 PM

I think the anti-AY camp can take note here. This bunch did an admirable job of waging a community fight and scored a victory. It pays to be polite and willing to negotiate.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:20 PM

So what does that mean for the area? Wasn't that where a park was supposed to go too?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:26 PM

Awful little building. They should have demolished.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:29 PM

Tax dollars go towards tours?
Talk about "you people" never being happy.

Finally something with a little justice.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:31 PM

It pays to be polite and willing to negotiate.

yes sir....I'll be sure to raise my little daughters this way.

Weird.

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, EGO, EGO, EGO.

more weird
Awful little building. They should have demolished.

weirder

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:38 PM

how are tax dollars being used for the tour of the home????? the owner is offering tours upon request, where does tax dollars enter this scene?

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:40 PM

That building is not worth impeding the development of the Downtown area. Anyone could rebuild that structure. Its time and usefulness has expired. Shame on the NIMBYs and local politicians and bureaucrats for being spineless and not taking a real introspective look at the greater good for all Brooklynites as well as the residents and commercial business owners in the Downtown area. A bunch of cowards.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:47 PM

Shocking. I'm interested in hearing the details of this settlement. I can't imagine the city would agree to abandon a critical component of the downtown redevelopment plan over this crappy house. I hope they know what they are doing, because it could certainly set a bad precedent. I live right up the block from this house at University Towers at Willoughby and Flatbush. When I first heard a few years back that there was an "underground rail road house" that provided tours right around the way on Duffield, my wife and I were excited to check it out. When we got there we looked at each other like, "this is it?". I honestly thought I was the victim of a scam. I think for most of the people that ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD (as opposed to these damn NIMBY interlopers) when I say, we are very much looking foward to, and would much rather have the park.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:49 PM

Saving one possibly historic house and forcing someone to very slightly alter their plans is hardly NIMNYism or stupid.

I agree with Brooklynlove. A Tenement Museum or Merchant's House like museum is a great idea.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 1:56 PM

Xris - UNDERGROUND PARKING, NOT a parking lot. Think Post Office Square in Boston. You twit.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:07 PM

1:55: A park, with underground parking below it. No comparison to Ikea.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:07 PM

I now have zero patience with NIMBYISM. They are the very definition of a devils advocate. If it was up to them, a run down crack-house should be saved and the swatters should be able to stay in order to preserve the old NY feel.

I want to give them the "old NY" treatment as well for doing this to Brooklyn. May-as-well save the pothole in the street that hasn't been repaired since 1982.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:09 PM

This is really too bad. There is no confirmation that these houses had anything to do with the underground railroad. We were supposed to have a beautiful park built here (yes on top of a parking garage) and now we'll be stuck with an unattractive, decrepit brick building that just takes up space. I certainly understand a homeowner being upset about losing their house to eminent domain, but please don't turn this into a "we're saving a piece of history" here.

Who knows what the revised plans will be, but it seems that it could more than slightly alter them. I was very much looking forward to this park as part of the larger gentrification and development of this area. I truly hope the architects and engineers will be able to effectively work around this issue and the need to develop new plans doesn't significantly set the the timetable back

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:14 PM

The owner of that property isn't very smart. He will not get very much for that property once the architects designed around his property. He should stop being so selfish and stop lying and stop being so greedy and sell the property to the city.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:23 PM

Has Joy Chatel any experience curating? If not, then 2:23 makes an excellent point. Unless Ms. Chatel can secure some serious $$$, then this building will remain decrepit, her museum will never be more than a fleeting idea, and she will get peanuts if she tries to sell it post-development.

But, hey, at least a tiny band of extremists will be happy.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:49 PM

"he won't get much for his property now, he shouldn't be greedy." Huh?

first, the owner of the property is a she. as for her smarts, well, she just beat the city, that should tell you something about the smarts.

put aside the buildigns history, or you idiots who have never been to the home or in it but call a "piece of crap." It is Joy Chatel's home. She lives there with her grankids. She has her business in the building.

Yet you idiots suggest that its a "piece of crap" and should be demolished? Why? It seems to me that the city just showed it's cards-the city can do rezonings and development w/o stealing people's homes, without taking a granmother's home, without demolishing history and most of all, without abusing the US Constitution.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:49 PM

The developer will probably shift things about a bit to "accomodate" the owner of the building. I'm willing to bet they put the entrance ramp to the garage right next to this house as a giant F.U. to the hold-out. and they will probably make sure a basketball court or playground is in the park right up against the property line.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:57 PM

Joy Chatel does not own this building. The building is owned by her mother and an outside investor who was apparently brought in to avoid foreclosure.

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=13110

Quote from above link:

"Chatel doesn’t own the home she’s been living in for over a decade, which would make it difficult for her to fight an eminent domain ruling. She signed the deed over to her mother in 2004, and her mother, Arnelda Monroe, gave outside investor Errol Bartholomew 50 percent ownership of the property the following year to stave off foreclosure proceedings, according to city records and a source close to the issue."

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:58 PM

So if the house remains, I guess either they build the park around it or goodbye park - hello more high rises.

Makes me think twice before moving to the area. The park was a big plus.

And I can totally understand someone wanting to keep their house, but something tells me that if the city offered enough money - he or she would be happy to sell it.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 2:59 PM

This will be a real boon for the area. Its going to bring tons of tourism...not.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 3:46 PM

It would be great if the settlement required the dumpy commercial looking addition on the front to be removed and the building completely refurbished, at least from the outside, to its 19th century specifications, rather than the eyesore dump it is now.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:10 PM

What this is about, folks, is Bloomberg's national standing, and a possible run. He wised up and figured out that taking a possible UGRR site down is a loser, politically. He'll use this to counterbalance the AY fiasco and Willett's point, perhaps.

I'm a little sad about the park, too. That area could use some green.

By the way, what's a NIMBY interloper? Isn't that by definition an impossibility? Just askin'.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 4:40 PM

I'm thinking the owner and investor have beaten the city, good for them. They can continue to own this little place. Lots of little houses remain in Manhattan among the skyscrapers and no one is worse for it. On the other hand they would have been rewarded handsomely for "selling out". As it is they are not being "exploited". Joan Robinson said "Exploitation is a terrible thing, the only thing worse is not being exploited."

After AY drives RE values skyward they could sell it to the highest bidder which may or may not be more than they could get right now, I don't feel sorry for them and I don't envy them, it is their place.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 7:17 PM

One way of looking at this a positive is that maybe this is a sign that the city is serious about expediting the development process. Instead of slugging it out in court for another year, they could settle...take three to six months to adjust their plans and get moving. I live in the area and its hard to imagine how they will build the park around the Duffield street houses...but hopefully they will figure out a way...I was really really looking forward to that park.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 7:45 PM

Hey you guys, take a deep breath. Our United States and New York Governments do not really care a great deal about history or patrimony or historical landmarks. This is really the exceptiont to the rule.
Your tax dollars go mostly to building giant rockets and bomber planes and other macho warrior stuff.
The money to build one bomber would probably restore every public school in Brooklyn. So do not think that your precious tax dollar goes to preserve monuments or reminders of our shared history. It mostly goes to other more combatitve things. This modest little house (did you think the underground railroad operated from Grand Cenral terminal?) is a very important link to our forebears in Brooklyn, which was an adamantly abolitionist city. And get this, Duffield Street was like ground zero for abolitionist families for some reason. Of ocurse the famous preacher Henry Ward Beecher, whose sister Harriet wrote "uncle Tom's cabin" railed against slavery in Brooklyn Heights' Plymouth Church. This is a mojor, major aspect of our history, One has to be a Neanderthal not to apprehend that.
This little building is important for that reason not because of rentable square feet or FAR. This is all about being an evolved human being.

Posted by: guest at November 30, 2007 10:01 PM

Just go to Curbed.com and you will find that 227 Duffield Street is in the stages of being foreclosed. This Underground Railroad claim is a joke.

Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 3:45 PM