Friday Links

Gorgeous? I think it's a catastrophe! This is exactly why people are fighting so hard for landmarking in Flatbush!

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 8:45 AM

The house is gorgeous and I believe the only change is the carport. The landscaping and gate are rather stiff, but that's all changeable. I've been in the house and the current owners did an amazing job of restoration.

On another note, bravo to Marty and Letitia. This plan is an outrage.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 9:04 AM

So Babs is advising a 67-year-old with low rent take out a 30-year mortgage for a property 3 1/2 times his current income? The Botox is obviously leaching into her brain.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 9:34 AM

That subway article is chilling... bedbugs on the wooden benches?! I may never sit down again.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 10:08 AM

Re: Homeownership Rates Slipping

Oh c'mon. 0.1% "slip" in the Northeast is hardly. We'll need a bigger change in YOY rates than that to draw such a conclusion. I expect we will but we're hardly there yet.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 10:27 AM

Dave, you are right, they did a great job on the roof, and the carport is original. The iron fence is new, previously there was a really hideous four foot cinderblock fence across the front of the property, so this is an improvement.

The house is listed with Corcoran, and they wanted a whopping 1.395M, or thereabouts. The interior renovation is high end and first rate, although kitchen and master bath are too modern for my taste, but all of the appliances and materials are equal to any posh Park Slope reno.

This is a wonderful house, but overpriced for the neighborhood.

Montrose Morris - having log in problems.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 10:31 AM

I beg to differ. There's no way this house would have had a roof like this. It would have been wood shingle. The eyebrow window looks ridiculous coming out of that mediterranean roof. Also, the original porch railings have also bit the dust, clearly. And those windows! Just look at them!

Why would anyone in their right mind buy a house like this in Crown Heights when they could have the real Victorian deal in Ditmas Park?

If I was gagging for a gorgeous stone house, I'd make a beeline for Crown Heights, but for this muddled mess? No thanks.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 10:37 AM

9:20 - how on earth is dumping more homeless into crown heights a "very sound" plan?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 10:39 AM

This is a very eclectic house, an amalgamation of Craftsman and Romanesque shapes and materials. It was built for a Brower daughter, of the Brower Park (across the street) Brower's. Mr. Brower was a wealthy man, and I suspect the architect was given the chance to go for it, stylistically. The interior is qite well laid out, with gorgeous woodwork, and the back yard, which is quite large, has a beautiful deck and garden.

The tile roof is new, but it replaces the original tile roof, which was disintigrating, and was patched with other materials, especially around the eyebrow window. These tiles are a bit more robust, but are in the spirit of the originals.

Tish, Marty and the people of Crown Heights/Bed Stuy are NEVER going to go along with the shelter plan. The "wind is blowing" in the direction of us standing up for fair representation in the allocation of social service sites. We gave already, thank you.

Montrose Morris

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 11:04 AM

I'd prefer that the homeless shelter not come to Brooklyn AT ALL. However, if it must come to Brooklyn, then Crown Heights is probably the best place for it.

I don't know Tish James, but as for Markowitz, he will definitely sell out if the price is right. If he sold out to Ratner, he'll sell out to anyone else so long as the price is right.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 11:52 AM

If you don't know Tish James, then you obviously don't know Crown Heights, as she represents part of the area. Therefore you certainly are in no position to judge whether or not Crown Heights is "the best place" for the shelter.

Montrose Morris

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 12:07 PM

I meant that I don't know her personally. Of course I know who she is. Duh.

Please, think first, then post.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Please take your own advice, 12:18.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 12:34 PM

Very few people know too many politicians personally, 12:18. Your statement show less thought than mine does. I still stand by mine - Crown Heights is not the best place for a super shelter. Every single neighborhood in Brooklyn is equally qualified to be "the best place". The intake facility for Manhattan's indigent men should be in Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 12:40 PM

I could swear that house was a HOTD once.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Actually, there are quite a few people who know at least one local politician personally. Once again, think first, then post.

Crown Heights is the best destination for the homeless shelter.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 1:05 PM

If not Crown Heights, then where, Montrose? Given the litany of shelter-related negatives you've given over the past few days, why would you wish this on another community?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 1:14 PM

I'd recommend anyone interested to check out this house - I toured it and it's really gorgeous inside and the back patio is first-rate. And this area of Crown Heights quiet and quite lovely (though lacking in amenities).

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 1:26 PM

How can you verify whether an apartment is rent stabilized and the maximum income for which an applicant can apply for it?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 1:56 PM

We already have a shelter in the Armory, 1:14, and we are not advocating that they shut it down. A large space like that is ideal for a shelter, and most people realize and accept that. HOWEVER, that shelter is poorly run, and has no programs or facilities to train, occupy the time of, or otherwise help those men move back into jobs and society. Many of them spend the entire day hanging out in front of, or around the shelter, until going in for the night. We, as a community, deal with that, and many local churches and community groups are often out front handing out food and clothing. We take care of our civic responsibilities, and more.

But to relocate the intake facility of MANHATTAN, to central Brooklyn is a whole different situation, and is in addition to the shelter, not instead of it. That is not acceptable. We have more social service facilities than almost any other area of Brooklyn, and enough is enough.

I'm not going to indulge some anonymous heckler by doing the city's due diligence in finding another spot. Suffice it to say, other more suitable places exist, and the city is well aware of where those places are.

I always think before I post, my mistake is in answering people who's agenda has nothing to do with thought at all. And most people in the street do NOT know politicians personally, unless they are involved in community affairs themselves, or live next door to one. If you want to play "do not - do so" all day, feel free, but I'm done.

I agree, 1:26.

Montrose Morris

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 1:58 PM

It seems to me that Crown Heights is a pretty good location for the shelter. I can't think of a better one.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 2:02 PM

How can you verify whether an apartment is rent stabilized and the maximum income for which an applicant can apply for it?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 2:28 PM

I can think of several locations...Borough Park, Williamsburg, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights (much closer to Manhattan), Carroll Gardens, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Canarasie, Marine Park or perhaps Windsor Terrace.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 2:34 PM

Except for Canarsie, those are pretty dumb suggestion because these nabes have too much to lose. Crown Heights doesn't stand to lose anything at all, and in fact it would probably benefit from a shelter that gets more of its homeless people off the street.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 2:49 PM

2:49, That is the most elitest comment (and unthough out once again) that I may have ever read on this site. "Too much too lose"? What makes you think that a neighborhood like Crown Heights that has made amazing strides in combating crime, that is on it's way to a decisive renaissance, that has superior architectural raw material, that is filled with working class upstanding people doesn't have as much to lose as other neighborhoods?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:16 PM

2:49, That is the most elitest comment (and unthought out once again) that I may have ever read on this site. "Too much too lose"? What makes you think that a neighborhood like Crown Heights that has made amazing strides in combating crime, that is on it's way to a decisive renaissance, that has superior architectural raw material, that is filled with working class upstanding people doesn't have as much to lose as other neighborhoods?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:17 PM

Give us a break 3:17. Either you have never been to Crown Heights or you live there and feel obliged to mount a propaganda campaign. We all know what CH is like.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:31 PM

I've (3:17) been to Crown Heights much as evident by my description of it. I live in Carroll Gardens. Why don't you answer my question?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:38 PM

If you look on the home page of The Crown Heights North Association http://www.crownheightsnorth.com/ --- (for those of you who have never stepped foot here) this is a beautiful community that will actually have a lot to lose. 2:49, I don't see how those other locations (in your racist little eyes) are dumb suggestions. Perhaps because those other locations have a greater population of non-blacks. Take the white sheet off of your head and admit it.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:47 PM

I think Crown Heights would be the perfect location for this new facility. Someone earlier noted that Crown Heights would actually stand to benefit from it...true dat.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 3:55 PM

What you think, 3:55 and your predecessor, is meaningless since, if you know anything at all about the neighborhood you would know that it already has a large shelter. It's the intake center we are talking about which would bring Manhattans homeless into the area in addition to Brooklyn's homeless. It's an elitist sham.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:04 PM

Yes, I know it has a large shelter. I also know that the shelter in question is inadequate to meet the need.

The new facility should definitely be located in Crown Heights.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:11 PM

Oy vey. This is hard. Read carefully:

"...As reported Thursday by Daily News columnist Errol Louis, city homeless officials want to shift the intake center from its valuable 30th St. property to the Bedford-Atlantic Armory, which has a less tony rep...."

There is not a new facility, it's an administrative move.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:17 PM

It will be new to Crown Heights, will it not?

Got that, Einstein?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:20 PM

I give up. Really someone else needs to take over.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:28 PM

i truly dont understand the crown heights bashing. this is a neighborhood trying to turn a corner. we are hard working individuals who made a conscious decision to raise our families here. why would we need a homeless shelter more than any other neighborhood?

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:44 PM

"Bashing" Crown Heights? I don't think that's a fair assessment of what has happened in this thread. Surely people can disagree about something without its constituting the "bashing" of a neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 4:57 PM

If you were to come to Crown Heights 4:11, you would see that there is NOT a need for additional homeless facilities in Crown Heights. In fact there are very few homeless on the streets of Crown Heights because those folks go to the shelter at night.

Where the IS a need for shelter is in Manhattan, which has the largest number of homeless people of all of the boroughs. Moving the intake facility to Crown Heights will do nothing to help a homeless person who is sleeping under the West Side Highway or the FDR.

I have seen a great deal of complaining on the web about folks panhandling in Park Slope over on 7th Avenue near the Citibank. The fact that Crown Heights is predominately a Black and Jewish community does not make it "perfect" for the homeless. As the chart posted yesterday shows, the Crown Heights community is carrying the burden for social services that should be evenly distributed throughout the borough.

CH residents pay taxes the same as folks in Bay Ridge, Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and Windsor Terrace. The burden for caring for the less fortunante should be evenly distributed as well.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 5:27 PM

That's funny. It seems to me that Crown Heights has a lot of homeless. In fact, my husband and I were talking about this last night, as we were unaware of what measures were/were not being taken to address it. I think having this shelter in Crown Heights would be a positive. I welcome it.

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 5:55 PM

5:55, that is the most obvious fake post I've seen in this thread's multitude of "caring and concerned" fake posts. Do you write those political ads on the radio that start out, "Gee, honey, I just read that our Congressman, Whatshisname, supports closing our hospitals and sending our grandparents into the streets! What can we do?"

Those are usually better than your drivel. Try again.

Montrose Morris

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 6:52 PM

It's easier to dream up half-baked conspiracy theories than to actually support one's position with ARGUMENTS, huh Montrose. That is so "you".

Posted by: guest at May 9, 2008 7:41 PM

I'm one of the few people actually presenting an argument, 7:41. Why don't you try reading them? But then, I guess someone saying "I think Crown Heights is a good place for a shelter." is construed in your book as a decent argument. Figures, since you wrote it, and all the rest of like pronouncements, as well.

I don't know why I bother.

Have a nice weekend.

MM

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 1:53 AM

You have zero interest in arguments, be it reading the arguments of others or presenting your own. You have an agenda to promote here, but lack the guts to be upfront about that fact.

I don't know why you bother either. It's only too easy to see through you.

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 6:13 AM

MM is interested in hearing the sound of her own voice. And that's all!

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 8:15 AM

Montrose is a c*m-belching gutter sl%t.

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 8:16 AM

F^cking c&nt

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 8:17 AM

Longtime reader, first time poster. Many readers who post comments on this blog are so hateful about Crown Heights. What's with the hostility: if you don't live there (full disclosure, I do), why do you even care so much? Many of the comments in this thread clearly have been posted by people who have never set foot in Crown Heights. It has its rough patches, but come springtime, there is nothing like strolling up Eastern Parkway under a canopy of leaves. For those posters who are fearful and ignorant about Crown Heights, take this challenge (you can get together and hold hands for moral support): walk down President Street between New York and Kingston Avenues, and then come back here and try to post about how crap Crown Heights is. I defy you to do it.

Anyway, I am with Montrose Morris on this one: the Armory over on Bedford and Atlantic is already pulling more than its fair share of weight with respect to New York City's homeless. It's bizarre, even in New York, that the City would spend so much for the renovation of the Children's Museum on Brooklyn Avenue (it's the Yellow Submarine at the end of Brower Park) and also propose to double or triple the size of the area's homeless population just a few blocks away.

--Ella Speed

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 4:04 PM

Go stuff a sock up your c-u-n-t, b-i-t-c-h.

Posted by: guest at May 10, 2008 5:15 PM

"I'm not going to indulge some anonymous heckler by doing the city's due diligence in finding another spot. Suffice it to say, other more suitable places exist, and the city is well aware of where those places are."

This is a classic Montrose Morris response. Whenever he/she is faced with a legitimate question, the result is bobbing, weaving, and dodging. MM reacted in a similar fashion to past questions about whether he/she rents his/her unit at the market rate (which is the case). Labeling anyone with a different view as a heckler or a troll is another common tactic.

Posted by: guest at May 11, 2008 3:20 PM

And what the hell does what I rent my apartment(s) for matter to anyone but me, my accountant, and my bank? I don't have to prove anything to anyone, least of all some anonymous jerk on the internet.

Yeah, duck and dodging here. Get a life.

MM

Posted by: guest at May 11, 2008 9:27 PM