Brouhaha in Carroll Gardens Over School Expansion Plan
The Hannah Senesh School’s desire to build a two-story addition to its facility on what is now a city-owned courtyard has provoked a firestorm of criticism from some Carroll Gardens residents, a population that hasn’t been known to shy away from not-in-my-front-yard battles. At issue in the neighborhood’s latest development skirmish is a Local Law…
The Hannah Senesh School’s desire to build a two-story addition to its facility on what is now a city-owned courtyard has provoked a firestorm of criticism from some Carroll Gardens residents, a population that hasn’t been known to shy away from not-in-my-front-yard battles. At issue in the neighborhood’s latest development skirmish is a Local Law amendment outgoing Councilman Bill de Blasio plans to introduce that would permit the school to sidestep the mandated setback at its 1st Place and Smith Street property for a build-out. Although a rep for the Councilman says this would be a one-time exception to the rules and regs, outraged community members think it could set a precedent for building over the area’s front yards. And the language from the opposition has gotten fiery! Some quotes, c/o the Eagle: We have worked so hard to save our courtyards, only to be sold out by our councilman; “Can you believe that here is the city’s new public advocate [de Blasio] selling off the neighborhood that he still represents — courtyards that have been protected by law since 1845!”; and “Imagine if more owners of corner properties should claim the right to build on their corner garden?” De Blasio is expected to ask the Council to approve the amendment on Wednesday.
Historic Gardens Threatened by Precedent-Setting Proposal [Brooklyn Eagle]
‘Carroll’ Crusade [NY Post]
Councilman Angering Many in Carroll Gardens [PMFA]
Duped in Carroll Gardens [CG CORD]
I don’t see any ‘lot owned by city’. Seems to me they want right to build out to sidewalk that includes land technically owned by city. The rest of the owners on the street can not do that. Again….to me it is same as if any of the homeowners paved over the front of their house, parked on it…then said gee this is ugly, let me build on it.
What other corner of street in Carroll Gardens with the wide front gardens are built to sidewalk line?
If cracked parking lot looks crummy, it is the fault of the school to maintain. They are the ones with use of it.
Bxgirl,
The lot is owned by the City. If you consider one dollar just compensation then yes the City is being justly compensated.
The Brownstoner archive has some old postings from 2006 about this site — check them out to see pictures of the absolutely dreary unused Board of Education building that existed here before Hannah Senesh purchased it from the city. The new building is immeasurably nicer than the nearly windowless pile of bricks it replaced, and any expansion will undoubtedly look nicer than the cracked parking pavement alongside. And for all the posters seeing the nefarious hand of special privilege for powerful minorities trying to extract public property for their religious use, the school apparently currently leases the parking lot from the city and is seeking to purchase it for future expansion. These articles indicate that we are now hearing about this great brouhaha because the school has proactively solicited input from the community in a bid to be inclusive.
The most practical way for them…free parking. I think what they mean it is city property is same as sidewalk in front of anyone’s house is city property…you just have to maintain it. As everyone’s front yards in these Carroll Garden blocks – they aren’t allowed to pave over, create parking space and then decide they are going to build out to sidewalk line.
And I read that ‘lawyer’ for the school is an ex-city council member.
Yes- but I don’t see anything about that. How does one find out?
Obviously the city should get fair compensation for its land.
“They could have it looking nice if they cared about community/being a good neighbor.”
I don’t know Pete- that’s a little over the top. I imagine they used it in the most practical way. I don’t think the argument is about how pretty it is, in any case. For that matter if the community had cared so much all these years they could have demanded the city “pretty” up the space too. The key words are “city-owned” and my question still is, what compensation does the city (i.e., us taxpayers) get?
absolutely Montessori would create same uproar.
And if isn’t pretty now and used as a parking lot – that is because how school treats it. They could have it looking nice if they cared about community/being a good neighbor.
” it’s not a religious school. It is a private independent school that happens to be Jewish”–uh, what did you major in in college….Public Relations(aka double-talk spin)?
FWIW, it’s not a religious school. It is a private independent school that happens to be Jewish, but is more like Poly or Friends or Montessori than a yeshiva. If a Montessori school were being given the same exception, would there be such an uproar?