Lefferts Place Threatened by Healthcare Developer
A company wanting to build an out-of-context low-income independent living facility for seniors on a lot at 86 Lefferts Place that runs through the block to Atlantic Avenue has residents up in arms. The company, CNR Healthcare, is trying to get the block rezoned from R6B to R7A to enable them to build the center…
A company wanting to build an out-of-context low-income independent living facility for seniors on a lot at 86 Lefferts Place that runs through the block to Atlantic Avenue has residents up in arms. The company, CNR Healthcare, is trying to get the block rezoned from R6B to R7A to enable them to build the center under Section 202 of HUD only a couple of years after the entire area was downzoned to prevent something like this happening. The juxtaposition would be particularly jarring given that the new six-story building would be plunked down between the landmarked yellow house at 70 Lefferts place and the old green house at 96 Lefferts Place. Ouch! According to residents who’ve tried to work towards some kind of compromise, the company has shown no interest in working with the community to create a more palatable alternative, opting instead to push for a rezoning. The whole thing sounds pretty darn shady to us and we hope that there will be some politicians who stand up and oppose it. In the meantime, you can express your opposition to this spot-rezoning proposal by signing this petition. GMAP P*Shark
“Really, Mr. What? You think Lefferts between Grand and Classon is a “dump”?”
No I’m sorry it’s a F**ing Dump!
“So I would think, along the lines of Jane Jacobs, that the best neighborhood is a “mixed” neighborhood, in every sense. ”
Jane Jacobs never lived in the Ghetto! GTFOOH with that crap!
“That means some old folks around might be a good thing. But I also think that the folks who want to keep this building from being too tall, too large and too–yes–UGLY have a point.”
Well then the ClusterF*** on Washington Between Dekalb and Myrtle is “OUT OF CONTEXT” ! Where was your ass on that one?!
That lot had a huge Victorian on it, Beautiful house! It was turned into a funeral home then abandon! It’s a dump and this place will be a improvement..
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
“These are in fact, laws, which we all have to abide by …”
Let me see if I get this, you had the zoning changed in 2007, they want to change it again in 2009.
By your own logic, wasn’t the pre-2007 zoning also “the law” which “we all have to abide by?”
So basically what I’m getting is that when you want to change the rules to suit you, it’s OK to change them, but if you don’t like a change that somebody else is proposing, then whatever happens to be the rule at the time is “the law” which is immutable?
I have no dog in this fight, but I want you to see that your argument sucks.
I do think that if rezoning to avoid large development was a decision that was made regardless of the purpose of said development, we ought to consider this spot-re-rezoning without regard to the merits of low income elderly housing.
Low income elderly housing is as politically volatile an issue as banning smoking in day care facilities for toddlers, which is to say, of course it’s a good idea. Whether it’s a good idea for this block of Lefferts Place needs to be discussed as a matter of landmarks and historical context, which was the reasoning behind the original rezoning.
It’s one thing to be flexible but it’s another thing to be completely hypocritical (I am looking in your direction, Johnny Dew-Dew).
This block of Lefferts Place is not a dump, though it’s not as beautiful as the one between Grand and St James. Also, the Lefferts Hotel no longer leaves a mint on your pillow as a welcoming gesture.
I have to agree with dylanfan. Although my feeling is that the objections are less about what the facility is than what it will look like. I live around the corner from such a facility. I understand that a rather magnificent house was torn down many years ago to build it but the facility is very well kept and of great benefit to the people who live there. Yes its out of context, but it’s more important to help people than to worry about aesthetics. Hopefully the zoning will not be changed or if it is, it will only be allowed if the developer follows certain design requirements to make it more palatable to the neighborhood.
Fundamentally
New York needs housing. This developer is willing to put up low-income senior housing for 100-200 people on a VACANT lot.
It is immoral to use aesthetic considerations to block a needed public accommodation.
If you want a community garden, buy the land yourself.
I know that block, it’s adorable, even in its crumbling state. One of those places in Brooklyn where you can see what it must have been like in the 1820’s or so, when it really was farmland and single-family houses. New York is sad that way sometimes, because the land is worth so much more than the houses or the space that places like this can’t exist — or continue to exist — without landmarking to preserve them. (And even then they’re too expensive to actually renovate and live in.)
It’d be nice, although unrealistic I guess, if the vacant lot was turned into a community garden and the houses were single-family. Why couldn’t the senior center be put on one of the vacant lots on Fulton instead?
Really, Mr. What? You think Lefferts between Grand and Classon is a “dump”? I love Lefferts Place. I do hear you about the green house and the yellow house, though. These are treasures as far as I am concerned, I don’t care who lives in the neighborhood. But sometimes Landmarks makes things so difficult for people, treasures turn into trash, which is a loss for all of us.
Along with other biases you have detected on this site, I sense a bit of age bias here from time to time as well. I have to smile just thinking about the outraged denials that comment will provoke, but sorry people, it’s embedded in your prose.
So I would think, along the lines of Jane Jacobs, that the best neighborhood is a “mixed” neighborhood, in every sense. That means some old folks around might be a good thing. But I also think that the folks who want to keep this building from being too tall, too large and too–yes–UGLY have a point. No reason why the place can’t be built for the intended purpose and look like it “belongs” too. Lots of other cities do it the world over.
I don’t even have to defend the NIMBY assault here as obviously it has nothing to do with the zoning laws. These are in fact, laws, which we all have to abide by, unless of course your head honcho makes over $800,000 a year. Like the head of CNR does. I’m sure he will get a big raise if these deal goes through.
All the negative responses have zero credence so far. Which is disappointing in a way.
i think i might be agreeing with the what on this one. this is some serious NIMBY asshattage to the max.
*rob*