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
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.
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.”
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.
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)
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.
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.
Oh, Lord!
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.
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.