Carroll Gardens Historic District May Grow
The Landmarks Preservation Commission released the boundaries of the expanded Historic District it is pushing for in Carroll Gardens and, not surprisingly, not everyone was pleased. The city would like to expand the pitifully small area that was protected back in 1973 (shown above) to include all the blocks bounded by Court Street, Henry Street,…
The Landmarks Preservation Commission released the boundaries of the expanded Historic District it is pushing for in Carroll Gardens and, not surprisingly, not everyone was pleased. The city would like to expand the pitifully small area that was protected back in 1973 (shown above) to include all the blocks bounded by Court Street, Henry Street, Huntington Street and First Place. Sounds like a nice idea to us but there are bound to be some whiners, right? Right. “Landmarking will force the old-timers out,” said John Esposito, co-founder of Citizens Against Landmarks. “All the new people who have $100,000 income a year think this is a great idea.” (This choice of this number seems reminiscent of Dr. Evil’s famous “one million dollars” line in Austin Powers; after all, it’s not like $100,000 a year goes too far in the Carroll Gardens housing market these days!) The plan for expanding the historic district is supported by the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association and the Brooklyn Preservation Council, and seems to be in keeping with the spirit of last year’s rezoning which made it harder to put up new out-of-context buildings in the low-rise community. No-brainer!
City Wants Second Carroll Gardens Historic District [NY Post]
936.. That’s exactly what babs and MM did at about 10 am.
ditto — with the proliferation of “creative professionals” it had better be mac compatible!
“Who said anything about bank bailouts? I’m talking about how your average person making over $250K a year often winds up paying less in taxes than those of us in the-under-six figure bracket…”
Thanks Babs. That old chesnut. Up there with Israel is responsible for 9/11 and the government’s DNA-from-licking-postage-stamps database.
“Welfare for Windows program”
Is it mac compatible also?
quote:
Maybe if there were something like maintenance subsidies for low-income residents
oh PLEASE no more damn entitlements for people. seriously? subsidies so you can afford to buy high end windows that the LPC approves of? you know, those only certain kind allowed windows that’s filling up the pockets of someone with kickbacks and stuff? the whole system is so shady, the last thing we need is a Welfare for Windows program.
*rob*
babs – fair enough. I thought you were saying something different. Absolutely agree. The effective tax rates are ridiculous…
quote:
“I thought, why can’t there be a night when gays don’t have to travel into the city or stay at home?†Mr. Siegel said.
oh good f’ing lord. so apparently gay people aren’t allowed in any establishments that aren’t officially gay?! what a toolbag.
*rob*
Or how all the renters are paying for the owners’ mortgage interest deduction. I get it, and still think it’s not fair.
Just another tax break for the wealthy. And yes, I realize not all homeowners are “wealthy” but you see my point.
Just to add a little info to my question of Public Benefit vs. Socialized Cost.
The LPC spends about $4 million of CITY money each year on, primarily, staffing. There are also indirect costs to the city — LPC approval adds another layer to almost all other building related approval processes (increasing the costs in those city agencies). These spending levels will only increase as landmarked areas increase, requests for landmarking increases, and, of course, cost of living increases for the employees.
I’m not concluding whether this regulatory agency is “worth” the money or “not worth the money” — I’m just asking the question. Is the PUBLIC BENEFIT appropriate for the socialized cost of this program?
(FYI — This budget is the equivalent to about 50 school teachers.)
Or, perhaps, is this not a clear public benefit like a education, fire, police, parks, etc? Are the de facto beneficiaries not bearing the appropriate level of the costs?