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…
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
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.
“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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.