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 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).
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.
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?
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.
We’ve thought about it, believe us!
I’m with Benson, if the founders were worried about the future of the building, they could have put a restriction in the deed.
“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.
The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said.
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.