« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

June 16, 2009

City Council OK's School for 'Green Church' Site

After the pastor of the Bay Ridge United Methodist Church shockingly sold out last year, developer Abe Betesh tore down the treasured building to make way for a 70-unit condo development. Then the market collapsed and all of a sudden the philistine became open to doing a deal with the School Construction Authority initially proposed by one of the demolition's biggest opponents, Council Member Vincent Gentile. Last week, reports the Brooklyn Paper, the City Council signed off on a plan to build a 680-seat elementary school where the church used to stand. "[Bay Ridge] is home to dedicated teachers and inspiring students," Gentile said in a statement. "And now we’re a step closer to getting them the space and resources they deserve!" Happy ending? A school's certainly better than condos, but the tear-down is still unforgiveable.
‘Green Church’ School Approved [Brooklyn Paper]
Green Church Goes Educational [Brownstoner]
Green Church Can't Go Co-op...Yet [Brownstoner]
The Green Church Bites the Dust [Brownstoner]
On to the Afterlife for Green Church [Brownstoner]
Photo by Ben Muessig for Brooklyn Paper

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10200

Comments

which developers get 'rescued' from investment where paid too much? - Lets check if Gentile gets campaign contirbutions from this guy - or someone who makes these decisions for school construction authority.

Posted by: Petebklyn at June 16, 2009 9:25 AM

I hope this brings back BRG.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 16, 2009 9:26 AM

Yeah, whatever happened to her? I wish I knew what she looked like then I could stop her in the street and find out whats up.

BTW, this story still pains me. Land still wound up in the city's hands sans building. Well at least my kids will have more options for schools in the nabe.

Posted by: italiana71 at June 16, 2009 9:35 AM

it's bad karma to tear down an old church. Nothing good ever comes from it.

Posted by: sam at June 16, 2009 9:55 AM

For what it's worth, I was under the impression that Gentile worked like crazy to protect the church. He just won an award this year from the Historic Districts Council for his preservation work. But, unfortunately, he and the church's supporters couldn't save it. After that, you have to move on to make sure it doesn't happen again, and I guess he feels this is the best option for the site.

There really needs to be a law that prevents the destruction of buildings, especially when that tear down is heavily contested, until the developer can prove he/she has the funding to proceed. How many more Ward's Bakery's, historic churches, and other buildings that are now unused holes in the ground do we have to have? That way, if the economy turns, if the project is delayed, at least the building is still there, and alternatives can possibly be devised. There is too much of a rush to destroy, mostly done to prevent opponents of a project and preservationists from stopping them permanently, a monumental raised middle finger to those who have legitimate concerns and issues. I know that won't be a popular idea to the uber capitalists here, but it's still what I think.

I hope BRG comes back, too.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 10:03 AM

The shrillness of this post speaks volumes. Yes, this is definitely an issue that can be painted in black and white tones. Yes, the pastor "shockingly sold out", the developer is a "philistine" and certainly schools are better than condos.

Please.

Just curious about one thing. Last time I checked the small congregation of this church was fully in sync with the pastor about this situation. They are a faith community, not a society dedicated to the preservation of eye candy for folks who have no interest in joining their worship service nor offered one thin dime of financial support.

One can often sense the intellectual bankruptcy of a movement by the shrillness of its rhetoric.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 10:03 AM

If the congregation had shrunken so much, then they should have merged with another congregation and found a way to preserve the church; the church was not theirs, they were merely the caretakers for future generations...we doubt if you asked the founders of the church how they felt that they would have been in favor of tearing it down.

Posted by: brownstoner at June 16, 2009 10:06 AM

One more thing.

I wonder how it can be said that the pastor "shockingly" sold out when the congregation had let it be known for quite some time that it wanted to sell this church. Well, I guess we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good narrative where the only guys (supposedly) wearing the white hats is the preservation crowd.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 10:07 AM

The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn't said.

Posted by: Expert Textpert at June 16, 2009 10:14 AM

"If the congregation had shrunken so much, then they should have merged with another congregation and found a way to preserve the church; the church was not theirs, they were merely the caretakers for future generations...we doubt if you asked the founders of the church how they felt that they would have been in favor of tearing it down."

Are you for real?? Yes, the founders of this church surely would have wanted their patrimony to be used for the eye candy enjoyment of non-worshipers. Any other possible use for this patrimony: salaries for the religious personnel and church staff, social services, or continuation of the parochial school CLEARLY takes a back seat to the preservation of eye candy.

Moreover, I'm sure the founders would have taken well to a statement from a non-worshiper about what the congregation "should" do.

Mr. B.,I think you "should" move to Europe. They've got lots of beautiful, empty churches there that are subsidized by the state. Ah, nirvana.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 10:16 AM

I'm with Benson, if the founders were worried about the future of the building, they could have put a restriction in the deed.

Posted by: jessibaby at June 16, 2009 10:22 AM

We've thought about it, believe us!

Posted by: brownstoner at June 16, 2009 10:22 AM

I am totally with Benson on this one (and with PutnamDenizen's comments in the earlier thread).

The Church community's priority should be worship and service, not preserving old buildings that have become impractical.
It annoys me how people who have likely never contributed anything to the Church still seem to regard it as theirs, and assume that its preservation should have been financed by other private citizens' money.

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 10:29 AM

Benson,

"Shrillness", if you want to call it that, was entirely appropriate IMO, but I think that the pastor deserved the label "philistine" far more than the developer. Have you been so brainwashed by having superstitious nonsense drilled into you that you can't conceive of wrongdoing by a member of the clergy?

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 16, 2009 10:40 AM

Bob;

Thanks for making this issue personal. Yet more evidence of the shrillness and intellectual bankruptcy of a movement. However, since you asked, let me respond to your question: yes, I can certainly conceive of wrongdoing by a member of the clergy, and know of actual cases. However, I make my judgments based upon FACTS, and neither you nor Mr. B. (and others) have offered A SCINTILLA of evidence that wrongdoing was involved here. Nor has anyone offered any evidence that the pastor was acting against the wishes of the congregation.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 10:48 AM

Benson is right again - there is no evidence of anything wrong or improper.

This situation is the equivalent of a company in financial trouble selling a good looking but underutilized warehouse to a developer. Of course they have to do it, if it's the only way they stay in business.

I am pretty sure Methodist congragations have to stand on their own financially (i.e. Churches not financially controlled by dioceses as in the RC Church).

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 11:02 AM

It depends how you define "wrong," Benson. No one's saying anything illegal happened...

Posted by: brownstoner at June 16, 2009 11:03 AM

Benson, as a preservationist who is also a card carrying believer, I have to take exception to your comments. First of all, Brownstoner is allowed to state his opinion of the affair as he sees it. You can certainly disagree, but to lump him, the preservation movement, and therefore me, into the category of the intellectually bankrupt is a low, and undeserved blow.

I agree that a church's mission is to the betterment of the human condition, and not slave to bricks and mortar, but a church is also a steward to more than that, especially when it is housed in an historic building. These buildings are treasures because they represent the best of the God given talents of man, used for His glory. As such, a congregation blessed with such a treasure is called to do its best to protect and preserve. If it's only souls we care about, then tear down St. Peter's in Rome, it's on valuable land, and must be expensive to keep up. Thank the Lord they don't have to heat it. The money would help millions. Of course that is ridiculous and absurd, because St. Peter's is an artistic, historic and architectural wonder of the world.

Well, in its way, so was this church, using unique materials, it's history in the community, its beauty. Maybe, considering the times, the needs of it congregants, it was impossible to save, I'm not going to judge, and it's gone. I just would like the tone of the discussion to keep the high ground. Preservationists, like any church congregation, are both nice and nasty, dogmatic and accommodating. We believe passionately in preserving that which is the best of the architectural record of man, for the future to be able to appreciate. There is nothing shrill or morally bankrupt about that.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 11:10 AM

Benson is dead on the money. A church IS its people, its community. If the congregants were uninterested in saving the physical structure, they were under no obligation whatsoever tomerge with another congregation or do anything in particular to ensure the building's survival. The very idea is ludicrous. Furthermore anyone who WAS interested in saving the building probably could have ensured the building's survival very easily - by purchasing it.

Another example of Mr. Brownstoner's "Preservationist Mafia" outlook.

Posted by: East New York at June 16, 2009 11:15 AM

Churches and their congregations are members of the community. They enjoy the benefits and rights, while enjoying special privileges,not just in regards to taxes. When I lived on Schermerhorn St., the church up the block was allowed to play their bellringing tape as loudly and as often as they wanted, because, as we were told, they're a church. It's their right, no matter how it disturbed the rest of us. They could close off the street for their little street fair and even though it was confined to the parking lot and sidewalk, they had the right to tell me my sister could not drive up to my building so we could load her car for an art show we were doing. They were allowed to do pretty much anything they wanted because they are a church. They get special dispensations and privileges which come from the community. And let's not forget that churches and religioius institutions also beneift from federal money as well. The Pastor spoke about his "mission." i have yet to find anything in all I've read that lays out just what this church has done or is doing as part of the community.

So where is the responsibility they should have to the community? This building was on the National Register, it was unique. The pastor made it clear he would accept nothing but a teardown. He promised his congregation a smaller, more modern church. He refused to consider any of Gentile's plans- and the result was he now has no church. I'm glad Gentile was able to negotiate a new school since there's nothing else going on, on the site.

benson- you always are the first to go foaming off at the mouth with this shrill intellectual bankruptcy thing- how shrill is that? There's no question the congregation was behind their pastor but isn't is shameful he has long lobbied to tear down the church instead of doing, what most congregation do? Take pride in a unique, historic building and use some creativity and work with the community at large to come up with a less painful and more intelligent solution? He made no attempt to do so and the teardown was a slap in the face to the community. Not to mention, the country which put it on the National register- the same government that allows it to not have to pay taxes as a religious institution.

The pastor took advantage- his congregation took advantage of their position and what they are guilty of is arrogance, insensitivity, greed and disrespect.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 16, 2009 11:24 AM

"I'm not going to judge, and it's gone. I just would like the tone of the discussion to keep the high ground. "

Montrose;

I think you should address your post to Mr. B, not me. HE is the one passing judgment on people here, not me. HE is the one who calls folks "philistines" simply because they made a complicated decision with which he did not agree. If I remember correctly, the congregation of this church is on the order of 60 people,as the demographics of Bay Ridge have changed from the days in which this church was built. I'm sure this pastor doesn't have an easy time of it making do with meager resources, but you have Mr.B. ready to paint this in stark, moralistic tones.

If you want me to believe that there is more depth to the preservationist movement, I'm open to considering it. I'll believe it when I see members of that movement call Mr. B. on such tactics. ENY coined the perfect term for the outlook he presents in this post: "Preservationist Mafia".

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 11:31 AM

Churches do not get Federal money, unless they are running a social program (and thus saving money for the state in most cases). Then it is very difficult to get unless the Church sets up a separate ring fenced corporation. If you know of any other sources for Federal money, let me know!
As for their tax exemption, it's exactly the same as many other non-profits (501c3), and they do pay social security and medicare taxes for their employees.

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 11:38 AM

I know that etson- yet while they get money for those programs, they also- at least did under Bush- get exemptions on things like who they hire. And with their ownership of land and property, they often have valuable assets that other non-profits don't. And as I pointed out, they do get some other special privileges.

The pastor used his claim of preferring to put money into their mission- I can't find anything that says exactly what it is they do in the community. Or for the community. Instead, when the people ( and it seems there were a great many in the area) interested in saving the building spoke up, they were told to mind their own business. So I fail to see how the church is fulfilling its mission, or even how they defined it. A church can't claim to be part of the community - or provide value to it- while telling that community to go f*ck itself.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 16, 2009 11:59 AM

The pastor of the green church was a shockingly mercenary person. He was obsessed with money. Obsessed with the proceeds of selling the real estate and how much money that would produce, and the money that could be saved by not having to fix the church, and the money money money that could be made by partnering up with a developer and exploiting every dollar from the site in order to make more money, more money, more money.
Some man of God.
Now they have a big empty lot that will remain empty for a long time and a business partner that is bust. So much for all the visions of wealth and dreams of money.

Posted by: sam at June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

Montrose;

Get back to me about what I should think about the preservationist movement after you read Bob Marvin's, Bxgrl's and Sam's posts above. What was that about setting a high tone??????

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 12:51 PM

Sam,
But the money would be the Church's and not the Pastor's. Making money for the Church is a good and right thing for a pastor to do.

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 12:55 PM

benson- I think i was far more polite in my response than you were in your arguments and complaints. You accuse pro-preservation people of intellectual bankruptcy and being shrill (while being more than shrill yourself) then you whine about the level of discourse. Please.

Etson- yes that's true, but the pastor has great disgression in how that's done. If a church were a money making business, I would give you an unqualified yes. But there was a lot more involved and from everything I've read, the pastor refused to even consider other offers. So if making money is the good and right thing to do, do results factor into that ? Because it seems they do not have a church now, and the resulting bad feeling in the community that they've engendered is hardly part of a church's mission.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 16, 2009 1:04 PM

Oh, Lord!

Posted by: Expert Textpert at June 16, 2009 1:10 PM

LOL Benson. My response had little to do with preservation, but a great deal to do with your knee-jerk defense of this philistine and mercenary pastor who ended up screwing both the community and his congregation.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 16, 2009 1:10 PM

Benson, you insist of judging the entire preservationist movement by the opinions of a few people, and lately, those few people have been whittled down to consist solely of the opinion of Brownstoner. I don't understand what your beef with him is, but he hardly constitutes a "mafia". I happen to agree with him usually, although my personal style may be to stop short of words like "philistine", but that's neither here nor there. You are welcome to disagree, as is anyone else, and healthy discussion is fine, but you seem bound and determined to nail him to the floor with some accusation of intellectual bankruptcy.

It is not bankrupt to have a strongly held difference of opinion. The preservationist movement, like any movement, has its weekend warriors, its middle of the roaders, and its foaming zealots. The zealots do not define the movement, any more than Mel Gibson is the face of mainstream Catholicism. And Jon is not a zealot, he just happens to have a large outlet for personal expression. If he didn't have this blog, which was begun as a celebration and exploration of historic homes and neighborhoods, his opinion may never have gotten farther than his dinner table. I'm not going to call him out, or repudiate him, like Obama was supposed to refudiate Rev. Wright every time the man's name came up, or every black politician is expected to, at some point in their career, go to the mike and repudiate Farrakhan or Al Sharpton. Why? He is entitled to his opinion. You disagree with it. Fine.

If it weren't for preservationists, we wouldn't have Grand Central Station, Greenwich Village, and most historic brownstone and residential neighborhoods all over the city. Any developer with money and clout would be able to tear down anything they chose to, and change the face of this city, and the world. The Forum would have been long gone in Rome, the entire East End of London paved over,and the Precidio, the Alamo, and on and on, gone. Preservation is an important part of civilization. However, it is not as important as feeding people, keeping them clean and healthy, and giving them hope. Most preservationists understand that keeping the buildings while destroying people is not sane, or right. Most preservationists are not intellectually bankrupt, and I, frankly, am insulted by the insinuation that I am.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 1:23 PM

Bxgrl,
I agree that he should have listened to any other offers. I can see where you are coming from with your point about the community, and it does sound like he should have communicated more and been open to alternatives.
That said, being popular in the community is not really what the Church is there for. It is the mission of the Church to worship and glorify Christ, to explain the gospel to anyone, to reach out to people in distress, and to be a sanctuary for anyone that needs it. The Church does not have to try to be popular by kowtowing to those who have no interest in its mission but only care about its building.
If anything in this process was done in a dishonest manner then it is not excused at all by it being a Church. But the mission of the Church is to be right, not to be nice or well liked.

(I am the Treasurer of my Church in case you hadn't guessed! Although as an Episcopal Church, if we were to sell our building, the proceeds could well go to the diocese rather then our parish)

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 1:26 PM

Benson, having not read your additional comment until after I posted mine, I also don't see the need to repudiate the opinions of my fellow Brownstoners, in either their opinions of religion, or of preservation, or anything else. I am not better or more worthy of casting aspersions on other people.

I disagree with the more negative reactions to Christianity, or religion in general, but am more afraid of people who can't take a little criticism of their beliefs. In that direction sit the fundamentalist nutballs, the intolerant witch burners, the abortionist killers, the people with rocks and stones, and all those who think their God is not big enough, not strong enough, not God enough to take care of Himself. I'd rather be about the business of showing the other side - that my belief system is strong enough, and wide enough to accept that there are many ways of being on the side of right, and having differences of opinion are not a threat to my core beliefs. That goes for religion as well as preservation.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 1:40 PM

What a fascinating issue, I only half-read these stories up until now. I was reading about the stoning of Stephen in Acts and how he was executed for daring to accuse the elders of being unpious. The commentary described a form of unpiety of "anyone who so venerates the Temple that it ceases to become a transforming locus for the population but rather a public display of man's accomplishments in glorying God."

Posted by: infinitejester at June 16, 2009 1:46 PM

Montrose;

You are so way off on this issue, I don't even know where to begin. Let me try:

-first of all, I made no remarks about any individual. I said that the preservationist MOVEMENT is intellectually bankrupt, and I stand by my statement. I'll elaborate below.

-I never asked one person to serve as a "watchdog" for Mr. B.'s comments. My observation, however, is that NOT ONE of his followers ever calls him on behaviour that is, once again, aptly decribed as "preservationist mafia". When ANY movement becomes simply an amen choir, that's when you know you're in trouble. You and others certainly have the time to call me out when you think I'm out of line, but somehow never see fit to do so for Mr. B.

-I acknowledge the past accomplishments of the preservationist movement, and once considered myself to be a part of it. However, simply resting on past laurels is surely another troublesome sign for any movement.

-I maintain that the preservationist community has become a shrill and intellectually bankrupt movement, and one need look no further than Mr. B's writings and that of many of his posters. Opposition is always painted in childish, simplistic, moralistic tones: "greedy" developers, "philistines" like the developers of Fedder housing and this pastor. Also telling is the fact that the opposition is never interviewed on this site, just painted in moralistic caricatures. Also note the lack of SELF-reflection in this article and the other posts. No one asks: what could WE as a movement have done to affect a different outcome? No, it's alot easier, and just plain lazy, to sit behind the keyboard and paint the other side as Darth Vader. It's ALL their fault.

There is a lack of maturity demonstrated in these posts.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 1:52 PM

Thanks for that perspective, etson. I understand your position as well and I don't disagree with it essentially. But the church resides within its community- that particular church used to be quite activist on issues. One of its members was actually a co-founder of the NAACP. Churches were the centers of their communities and I can't see how you can fulfill your mission of reaching out to those in distress and offer sanctuary to a community you've upset and offended. It isn't that the church should worry about being popular, you're right. That isn;t its mission. But by turning its back on the concerns of the community it resides it, it effectively shut down its ability to communicate and reach out. ANd now, without a building, it cannot offer sanctuary, it can't run a soup kitchen, it can't provide space for church programs or events.

Church architecture is uniquely tied into the church teachings.From the orientation of the axis to the stained glass windows to the symbolism of the altars- the architecture of churches is uniquely tied into the teachings and its mission to bring the word of Christ to the community. Once a congregation and its leaders no longer recongnizes that, a church is no longer a sacred place- and that makes a mission that much harder to teach. And when they demolished the church they also had to move the bodies (the second time in 100 years I think). If disinterring the bodies to place them somewhere else that is not on sacred ground, or by their church, didn't the congregation disrespect its own history?

You may not think "outsiders" have a right to say something- I think they do. And I think this congregation shortchanged them as well as its own mission.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 16, 2009 1:55 PM

Benson, are you reading the same things I am? Because we are talking past each other like 2 trains zooming by at high speed. As in:

1. Jon Butler is not the preservation movement, and I'm sure he would be the first to say that he is also not the spokesman of that movement, but only a concerned citizen expressing his opinion. As such, he doesn't need an amen corner, but if I think he's right on a certain issue, then we are in agreement. That is not the same as being his "yes" woman. I also never used the word "watchdog".

2. Because he is not the spokesperson for the preservation movement, his opinions and comments do not tar the entire, vast movement with the brush of intellectual bankruptcy. So far, you are basing your indictment of the entire movement solely on those opinions, which is like, to go back to religion, blaming all Catholics for the actions and opinions of Mel Gibson, or an entire race or society for the actions of one of its members. Not accurate, totally unfair.

Of course preservation has a past. All organizations call upon their past accomplishments to aid and draw attention to their concerns for the present and future. Show me one organization that doesn't. That is not resting on your laurels, it's collateral, and presenting one's bona fides.

And again, you may have issues with Mr. B's writing, that is your right. But again, that has nothing to do with damning an entire movement as shrill or intellectually bankrupt. What does that even mean, anyway? And in this case, what could preservationists have done? The pastor wasn't entertaining any other offers. Being disappointed and even angry about it is human, nothing more.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 2:35 PM

Such nonesense posts from Etson and Benson. Practically every church in Brooklyn and in Manhattan could make a case for being in financial trouble and needing to cash in on its real estate holdings. Fortunately most churchmen and women see beyond the money issue and work hard to maintain their church and their church buildings. Pastors can be as greedy and money-grubbing as anyone in any walk of life. Some of them live pretty well. I will not cede an inch to this venal pastor who convinced his flock that God wanted them to tear down the church and even the community house, which was a part of a row of houses, in order to get the maximum return for their investment in destruction.
Etson is playing the role of the semi-barbarian and "defender" of private property. Baloney! the church never paid a cent in taxes and as such owes the city and the society of which it is a part more respect than merely thumnbing its nose and saying "the church is the people" and selling off their parcel to the highest bidder, which was a dispicable act. How many local Hispanic Christian congregations would have happily shared the church and the costs with them if they had been invited? When we start equating historic churches with real estate profits that will be the end of a very important cornerstone of our civilization.

Posted by: sam at June 16, 2009 5:08 PM

This post comes too late probably but...

On one of the protest days I marched along side two congregation members who did not want to see this church torn down. So this was not a unanimous vote with the small congregation. One was openley upset that the place he came to worship for 35 years was being torn down.

The pastor wanted money and he was spiteful. The city was willing to give him exactly what Betesh was going to give him but he went with Betesh. Why? Spite.

Posted by: italiana71 at June 16, 2009 5:12 PM

Sam's recent post just proves all of my points above. No further comment is necessary about it.

Italiana;

Where exactly did anyone say that the congregation was unanimous on this matter?

Amazing how everyone can call the pastor all sorts of names and ascribe all sorts of motivations to him, yet no one suggests that he be provided a forum for a response.

Yeah, keep on adding to the list of people who should be called barbarians, philistines, greedy, etc. That's the way to build support for a movement.

S-H-R-I-L-L.

I-N-T-E-L-L-E-C-T-U-A-L B-A-N-K-R-U-P-T-C-Y.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 7:28 PM

Benson,

K-E-E-P R-E-P-E-A-T-I-N-G Y-0-U-R B-S L-O-U-D-l-Y A-N-D S-H-R-I-L-L-Y E-N-0-U-G-H A-N-D [I guess] Y-O-U T-H-I-N-K W-E-R-'E D-U-M-B E-N-O-U-G-H T-O B-E-L-I-E-V-E I-T

In your dreams!

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 16, 2009 8:02 PM

benson, stop being such a ridiculous asshole, you know you are losing this argument.
You are defending the right of a greedy pastor to demolish a beloved historic church?
Why not join the friends of animal abuse while you're at it?

Posted by: sam at June 16, 2009 8:11 PM

"Have you been so brainwashed by having superstitious nonsense drilled into you that you can't conceive of wrongdoing by a member of the clergy?"

"A church can't claim to be part of the community - or provide value to it- while telling that community to go f*ck itself. "

"Etson is playing the role of the semi-barbarian and "defender" of private property. "

"The pastor wanted money and he was spiteful"

"benson, stop being such a ridiculous asshole"

Mr. B. and Montrose;

How's that search for a higher tone going? Send out negativity, and it comes around. As I half-jokingly said in today's Coney Island thread, you may want to take some tips from Miss Cyclone as to how to make a case.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 8:45 PM

Benson, Sam's post proves nothing other than his opinion of this situation. It is not sacrilege to point out that the pastor may not have thought the situation through in terms of how it would affect either his immediate parish, or the community at large. The clergy are not exempt from less than perfect human behavior.Sam brings up a good point - would it have been possible to share the space with another congregation, or other organizations, and be more economically viable. Was it necessary to sell the parish house? It is not out of line to ask that, as it would not be out of line to ask that of a secular organization that sold its headquarters.

It is also a little unrealistic to demand that the topic only be brought up if the pastor is here to defend himself. This isn't a court of law, it's a daily blog, and if it is to be timely, there isn't going to be time to find, convince, and interview every opposing point of view. This isn't the public television Newshour. It would be great for Jon to find small developers and find out what goes into their decision making, but it's not like he has staff to run around and find and interview these people. You expect him to be the Washington Post, when he is only a neighborhood newsletter. A blog, by definition, is the blog owner's point of view on whatever he/she is blogging about. It doesn't have to be fair, or non-judgemental.

The only shrill voice I'm hearing, my friend, is yours.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 16, 2009 9:02 PM

Montrose;

Please don't call me friend. I've had it with this type of nonsense.

So, is that all Sam was doing, and I am the only shrill one, eh? Calling a pastor venal and greedy, and not even bothering to make a case for it is Ok in your book then? Calling Etson a semi-barbarian is also OK I suppose? Bob Marvin telling me that I'm just some brain-washed simpleton isn't shrill in your book ? Well, I've been educated.

As for Mr. B., you defend all of his actions.

I've had it. Good luck shouting "amen" to each other.

Posted by: benson at June 16, 2009 9:42 PM

Sam and others,
1) It is true the Church could have rented out space to other congregations etc. But these arrangements are not easy to come by and would not bring in enough revenue to make a major difference to the Church's finances. An additional congregation would be @ $2000/ month based on our experience.
2) The argument that because they are tax-exempt Churches owe something to 'the community' is inconsistent how other non-taxpaying groups are treated generally. For example, individuals who do not pay income or property taxes (because of low income, or not owning property) are not regarded as 'owing' anything more or denied rights because of this fact. Why should that not be the case with non-profits also?

Yours Barbarically,
etson

Posted by: etson at June 16, 2009 9:46 PM

Benson,

I never called you a simpleton--you write far too well for such a label to be appropriate. I'll stand by everything I DID write and I am appalled by your sanctimonious [and, I suspect, disingenuous] outrage over anyone's questioning a clergyman's motives.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at June 17, 2009 8:51 AM

Bob;

I suppose that we can get into an argument about whether you were calling a rose by another name. In my book, this statement - " Have you been so brainwashed by having superstitious nonsense drilled into you that you can't conceive of wrongdoing by a member of the clergy? " made me into an unquestioning simpleton.

Where exactly did I say that this pastor was beyond examination? What I did say is that before judgemental words like "venal", "greedy" and "philistine" are used, the facts of the situation ought to be examined, and the man (and congregation) should be able to explain their side of the story. When I was a kid, this type of thing was called "simple decency". Montrose makes the assertion that Mr. B doesn't have the staff for this type of thing. Really? All it would have taken is an e-mail or phone call to the pastor asking them to write up something explaining their side.

I've just had it with this site.

Posted by: benson at June 17, 2009 9:22 AM

Benson, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I still consider you a friend. I just don't understand why you insist on journalistic standards from a non-journalistic entity.

For the record, I never called Etson anything. I happen to agree with his statements about the mission of the Church, and like any good neo-Episcopalian, can flip through the Book of Common Prayer with the best of them. That doesn't have anything to do with ragging on the pastor of this church, which I have not done. It is not my place or responsibility to be the den mother here. I am not Mother Montrose, no matter how people joke about it. I'm sorry if that disappoints you, and lessens me in your estimation.

Jon has raked a lot of developers, homeowners, institutions, politicians, real estate brokers, and countless others, over the coals in the last few years. Some deservedly so, some not. There have been very few demands from anyone insisting on fairness and getting the rakees to defend themselves. This is a blog, not 60 Minutes, not the Washington Post. As popular as this blog is, it is appeals to a very small demographic and is not a household name, and I would bet the pastor of the Bay Ridge Church never even heard of it, neither have countless other targets of Brownstoner's ire. Why should they bother to respond? And tangentally, why should Jon have to feel as if he can't spend his time running all of his business ventures the way he chooses to? Maybe running a Flea empire puts food on the table, chasing down developers or even pastors does not, and so therefore cannot be a large part of the business day, not even a phone call or an email.

I think you are doubly offended because the target is a clergyman, and as such, is not usually subject to adverse scrutiny about his motives or the workings of his church. I agree he is deserving of decency and respect, but not blind faith that he couldn't possibly be wrong. I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this, so it's probably better to leave it, hopefully, without rancor.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 17, 2009 10:30 AM

Montrose;

Are you kidding me, or what?

On one hand, you tell me that it is not your place to call out folks for hitting below the belt with personal attacks, smears and just overall rancor. In the meantime,you single ME out for labelling a MOVEMENT "intellectually bankrupt".

Double standard much there, Montrose?

I do not expect journalistic standards. I do expect "simple decency", however. If you are going to publicly accuse someone of something, some simple fact-checking and fair play might be in order, or so my values tell me so.

You also know damn well that I have been on Mr. B.'s case about this on other issues too. Who has been consistently telling him that he ought to invite a Fedder developer on this blog to explain their side of the story? This has nothing to do with the fact that this time his target is a clergyman. It has to do with his preservationist mafioso mentality, as ENY put it so well.

I swear to you, you will not see me on this site for a long, long time. It's become a piece of garbage. He rags on some right-wing talk show loon for his stupid take on Williamsburg, when he does exactly the same thing.

Posted by: benson at June 17, 2009 10:56 AM

Benson, forget it. I'm done.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 17, 2009 11:06 AM

Honestly benson- take a deep breath and stop. Everytime someone tries to talk reasonably to you you go off, you put words in their mouth, you rant about Jon- you need to stop already.

1. Churches hold unique positions in their community, and part of that is trust. they get special tax breaks and leeway in order to conduct their business. Those special privileges constitute, in my opinion, a responsiblility to that community, not just to their parishioners. After all, despite not paying property taxes, churches still make use of streets, infrastructure, police and fire services, etc.

2. The pastor is guilty of high-handedness and arrogance. Hardly great attributes in a clergyman. He is guilty of undercutting his own mission because he did not care if he alienated his community and he destroyed an irreplaceable landmark despite the efforts of the community to come up with alternatives. If you feel the congregation was not supported by the community, perhaps you should be asking, why not?

3. This is a blog- not a newspaper. There is a difference and you need to understand ,instead of constantly attacking Jon and whining about his lack of critical analysis. You seem to think Jon owes you something- get over it.

4. You want to talk about higher ground? Who starts off the conversation by calling preservationists intellectually bankrupt? And you then expect everyone else to be more polite than you are? Good luck with that.

5. You've been going after MM quite a bit lately- from ranting on actual posts to accusing her of things that are so outlandish and ridiculous I have to wonder at your critical analysis abilities, not jon's. And when she offers the hand of friendship you slap it down because she doesn't agree with you. People can argue without being enemies.It's part of what makes posting here fun, actually.

I like you a great deal benson. I think you have a good heart and you stick up for what you believe. I hope you don't stop posting here and that you come tonight to rope. I've heard you look quite dapper in your borsalino.

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

Benson I applaud you! Finally someone else calls Jon out on his Bullshit!

Thanks Benson!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at June 18, 2009 2:06 AM

« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

June 16, 2009

City Council OK's School for 'Green Church' Site

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions