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;
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??????
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.
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
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.
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.
It depends how you define “wrong,” Benson. No one’s saying anything illegal happened…