What Was Eugene's LPC Vote Worth? $409,000

It seems to me that he would have learned a lesson from the empty lot next door- he wasn't going to make piles of money. In fact, his beautiful house is probably worth more standing then beig sold to a developer. It's kinda fun to see a greedy jerk who tried to ruin things for his neighbors get his comeuppance. And good to see Eugene exposed. Wonder how much money he stood to make if landmarking fell through?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 9:40 AM

What- I know one of the homeowners - that group has several long time Black homeowners who wanted this. The guy who wants to scotch the landmarking is white- why would Eugene, let alone any politician- support one particular person over a group of others?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 9:59 AM

benson- if you knew the whole story you wouldn't be saying that. If anyone was lacking in "generous" spirit it was the homeowner who wanted everyone to sell their houses to developers so he could get the big bucks. If I remember right, this particular group was built by Montrose Morris and fis part of a group of beautiful blocks lining the Park.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 10:05 AM

what- you're the one who always screams about gentrifyiers taking over the neighborhoods. Here is yet another prime example of people keeping their neighborhood the way they want it. I'm surprised you aren't cheering for them. Instead you're advocating special favors for one person who cares nothing about the neighborhood or his neighbors. But what can I expect from a rabid antisemite? I guess I shoould be flattered that you seem to think only us Jews are smart enough to be lawyers - call when you need us. We'll give you a discount.

benson- that homeowner was totally unrealistic- in fact the nightmare scenario already did happen. His house is next to an empty lot. The original building was torn down by a developer and now still sits empty. The protesting homeowner believes his house's value has gone down because of that so he believes that the only way to get big money is for the entire row to sell out to developers. This isn't about freedom or democracy or property rights- its about greed. And landmarking improves RE values- fedders buildings don't. The other homeowners are protecting their own interests- as is their right.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 11:20 AM

I certainly questioned why Eugene would support the interests of one owner over a group of others. I still question it- how did his position jibe with his constituency?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 11:24 AM

etson- you are a teacher? :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 11:38 AM

Ah...I wondered. Not too many people would have caught that one.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 11:48 AM

Thanks brooklynista- I was sure I didnt have all the facts exactly so thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 12:00 PM

I could have sworn that our good friend MM said these were his- but hey, brains cells die every day so a little sympathy for my plight may be in order, bob :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 1:04 PM

What- it would be so helpful if you could keep your positions and your logic- er...logical.

You wrote "Wait so you saying it's not OK here but we can tear-down the rest of the city if it makes OUR neighborhood more expensive and attractive, right?? Ok I'm done..."

and I was pointing out that this was not gentrifyiers trying to preserve the value of their buildings and forcing out long time residents, but long time residents taking matters into their own hands. Talk about shifting goalposts.

As for calling you out on your anti-semitic remarks- Aren't you the one who wrote : "Oh it get better Benson! If this guy get a hold of this post maybe he will call up one of his "Lawyer Buds" from the Synagogue to send Brownstoner a "Phone Book". I hope Brownie will post that! Maybe I will cop to some schadenfreude!"

It's not the first time you've tried that crap so please don't throw up your hands and go "who, moi?" And please don't play word games- we all know what you meant (aren't you the master of pointing out "code" words in other people's posts?)- you weren't talking about Canaanites or when you used the word "synagogue." You should also brush up on your Jewish history- the first Jews were Semites (hence the word antisemite, since you seem not to know), not Black. I'm sure you'd love to rewrite the history of the world to suit yourself but that would be the shortest, least correct book in the history of, well, history.

Finally- "But hold on.. Most people that practice Judaism is not Semite. If walk into a arab store and look at them they are Semite." Did you read this before you hit the submit button? Arabs and Jews are Semites- Arabs practice Islam, not Judaism. You did know that, right? But gee- thanks for the history lesson- a History of the Jews by Brownstoner's favorite clown.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 1:53 PM

Trust me, bob, she's old enough :-0 (G-d, I hope she's not reading this thread!

Not to worry, slopefarm. He and propjoe are made for each other. In fact, they probably are each other.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:02 PM

changing goalposts, what. That's what you're doing.

Ok Ok- I don't like fighting with you. I'd like to call a truce. What say you ?(besides, you're more the avenging Hero type, not me :-)

Truce, What? I can behave.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:11 PM

What- right. The day I accept you as the authority on the history of the Jews will be the day. We were talking Semitic. Once again you're rewriting. As for the thought turning my stomach- hardly. That's your neurosis, not mine. I just like accuracy in my historical sources and I see little of that in your commentary.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:16 PM

I can see the truce thing ain't gonna work

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:17 PM

I didn't attack you, What- I attacked what you said. And if you reemember in the beginning I tried speaking to you about Eugene. You're the one going off on people and making dumbass remarks. You start things all the time- don't play the injured innocent here. You try to be the most provocative person on brownstoner- you certainly go after Jon all the time, and without reason. So don't claim you don't start anything. You damn well do and you damn well know it.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:30 PM

six years- you're absolutely right- I'm guilty of oversimplifying to make a point to the What.

"Oh now everyone is PC but when Brownstoner post crap on Covert Race/Class warfare I don't hear a f***** peep out of no one!!!!!"

I guess you've never bothered to read what either MM or myself have ever posted then because we have commented many many times but you're too involved in establishing your brand of ABM to bother to pay attention to what anyone else says. In fact MM has been accused for bringing racism where supposedly none exists- so stop the whining and carrying on about how no one cares but you. (off meds again?)

You bet Jon can defend himself- but as I've told you many times before. If you don't want a reaction, send him a private email. But the lie is- you do want a reaction -you love getting a reaction. Otherwise you wouldn't be doing it publically, would you?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 2:51 PM

bye, What. Hope you can find the door because we know which ass your head is up (it isn't Jon's, mine or MM's).

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 3:03 PM

Indeed they were- but if I'm not mistaken, there probably isn't a human on the planet who hasn't descended from ancestors on the African Continent. My own ancestry is Middle Eastern Semitic, Russian and Cossack. I also made the mistake of generalizing about Arabs and Islam (replying to this sentence:"But hold on.. Most people that practice Judaism is not Semite. If walk into a arab store and look at them they are Semite.") and which was a totally nonsensical sentence.-But in making a point- I let expediency take precedence. I do know better.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 3:43 PM

benson- I'm not sure why you're so angry about this. Isn't it true that all over the country communities enact property laws designed to preserve the quality of the property in a community and its beauty? They believe it preserves property values and their investment and I can't see how this is any different. They make regulations regarding the height of the grass, what you can put on your lawn, when the house must be painted and how it is maintained. Granted some of them go too far, and some preservationists still wish we lived in the 19th century, but landmarking makes property more desireable overall, not less. If your contention is that landmarking devalues a property, please show us the numbers.

Long gone are the days any of us can do whatever we please, whenever we please. That's closer to anarchy than democracy. Like it or not, we live in communities and we have to consider our common interests as well as our individual ones. This is the reality- and if you truly believe the individual property owners' rights take precedence over all else, I don't understand how you can so admire Robert Moses who certainly cared not a whit for individual property ownership in his pursuit of the common good- at least as he saw it.

There is no guarantee the owner of 189 would get a much higher price for his property without landmarking, much less any guarantee of an offer. In fact he had been pressuring the other homeowners to all sell their properties as tear-downs in hopes of maximizing his hoped for profit. Couldn't you also argue that the other homeowners believe they are protecting their property values by going for landmark status? In which case the owner of 189 was harming them.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 7:02 PM

benson- I think you are reading far too much into what Jon said. There is no reason to think he delights in anyone's misfortune or that there has been any destruction of wealth in the first place. At most Jon was flippant but he's hardly the archfiend you're making him out to be. As MM pointed out, we'll all here because Jon lets us be- you don't have to agree with him, but neither do you have to demonize him while making use of his blog.

His comment was more to the fact that the owner dropped his price immediately and he was basically specualting whether or not it was because Eugene dropped his support.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 7:11 PM

benson- you claim to despise the preservation movement. And really- what red herring? You automatically assume landmarking would lower the property value, and despite the lowered price of 189 that has to do with the market, not landmarking. YOu stated that the homeowner's wealth was destroyed. In todays market I doubt he could have sold it in any case, as aptly illustrated but the vacant lot next to him (please read bob marvin's post, and brooklynista's).

Sure, Jon may have come off a bit smug and flippant, but you're going after him like he blew up the BQE. Your attacks are personal- his article wasn't.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 7:23 PM

benson- I will proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with you as the the big machinery rolls over us while we protest AY :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 7:25 PM

I certainly agree with that- finding the right balance is the hardest part. I'll also say that I truly believe that preservation is more than just pleasant aesthetics though- maybe it is to me as an artist but I do see many financial, psychological, and community benefits to it.

Have a great weekend, benson. I look forward to engaging with you next week :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 7:38 PM

benson- you very specifically did write at 5:52 pm:"In my mind, it demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the preservation movement. Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction. Boy, I can't wait to hve my property landmarked, so that Brownstoner can rub it in my nose and broadcast the destruction in my wealth."

So yes, you did say landmark preservation results in the destruction of wealth. And in that same post you said preservation movement = intellectual bankruptcy. Twice in fact.

I understand you're point about property, and your frustration about landmarking but the pluses far outweigh the minuses to many of us and as Bob pointed out landmarking actually raises the value of a property. But please don't deny saying something when all you have to do is scroll up and read it.

Brenda- there is a group of very beautiful small apartment buildings on my block which are being renovated. I was coming home the other night and found a halfmoon shaped stained glass window in the garbage. One pane is cracked and one side had been painted but otherwise it's perfect- and now mine. For the last few years I have seen - and rescued- some wonderful detail that has been ripped out of these buildings-it breaks my heart because most of it seems salveagable or in near perfect condition. At least before it was ripped out. People just don't seem to care. I'm sure the owner must have ripped out some amazing detail- I've been in one of the houses along that row, although it was one of Axel Hedman houses, not the brick.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 18, 2009 10:30 AM

benson,

I like you a great deal and enjoy sparring with you but I think we are at a dead end on this. I know you were being facetious in the last sentence but you did write- in all seriousness "Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction" and I can't see how you meant anything else. It was a comment you repeated several times and there's no getting around it.

And in all honesty, I fail to see how calling the preservation movement intellectual bankruptcy is not ungracious, or mean-spirited either. By defending the property owner who tried to pull strings to get what he wanted, you forget there were a number of others who went about the process in an open and aboveboard manner. They were acting also to protect their properties so why should this one person get so much of your sympathy?

The developer of 185 obviously did not have the money to go forward. I'm with Mr. B on this one- he was a jerk to tear down a perfectly good and lovely building on spec. There is now a hole in the ground because the developer was irresponsible- and not only financially irresponsible. In creating that hole he caused damages to the neighboring property- 189 so I can excuse Jon for a little "glee" at that developer.

I can't blame Jon for calling out greed- especially when it involves the destruction of sound, well constructed older buildings that contribute to the desirability, value and beauty of a neighborhood. They contribute to the livability of a community while overreaching and greedy developers care not a whit for those things.

I don't remember the entire story about the church but I think you're wrong on this too. Don't forget, a blog is not journalism- it represents a point of view and a general slant on the subject matter. However it transpired, the pastor created a mess in a ruch to make money. I know churches are struggling, but this is what happens when you get too caught up in the dollar signs.

A beautiful house of worship was destroyed (and think how painful that must have been for its parishioners)and because the developer did not secure financing, there is a hole in the ground and the promised new church is not built. When does the pastor take responsibility for a horrendous decision? Did the pastor call up every one in his church to apologize? Why put the onus on Jon for being angry and upset that this happened?

Your football analogy works both ways. When was the last time you heard of a developer apologizing to a community for the hole in the ground or the erection of a POS on the foundation of a magnificent old mansion? I'll tell you how often- Never, ever.

Finally, benson- if Jon were as ungracious or as mean-spirited as you think, why does he continue to allow you, and the What and a host of others to still post, despite being insulted and trashed by you? There are plenty of blogs that would block you in a second. No one expects you to kiss his butt, but geez benson- you've been really trashing him and that's not right.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 19, 2009 9:02 AM

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.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 12:52 PM