Progress for 70 Lefferts Place Preservationists
Big news on 70 Lefferts Place front: According to Council Member Letitia James, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has decided to “calendar” the property on this coming Tuesday for a public hearing. This is meaningful because once something’s on the calendar, no demolition permits may be issued. Stay tuned for details on the meeting. Movement to…
Big news on 70 Lefferts Place front: According to Council Member Letitia James, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has decided to “calendar” the property on this coming Tuesday for a public hearing. This is meaningful because once something’s on the calendar, no demolition permits may be issued. Stay tuned for details on the meeting.
Movement to Preserve Lefferts Place Gem [Brownstoner] GMAP
Anon. 10:06: It works like this: If work permits are filed, the LPC can’t touch the property. On the other hand, in the absence of permits filed, once the LPC has put the property on its calendar for a public hearing, no permits can be issued until the LPC makes their decision, and then only if they decide against landmarking. In this case, the developer hadn’t yet filed permits, so the LPC is free to proceed.
understood, but I agree with the poster that this is a sort of eminent domain, if the LPC blocks this development.
The property is being ‘seized’ for ‘public good’, that is, the benefit of prosperity via preservation.
I agree with the arguments regarding the need for historical preservation. But I think scruples is a more important value.
The point is that the LPC dropped the ball on this one.
I understand that the good folks of Clinton Hills had filed an application to get this building landmarked. However, the plain truth is that this developer, if he has already succeeded in filing a permit, has beat LPC to the punch.
The LPC didn’t have its act together. It should have an early warning system where, as soon as a historic house goes on the market, it gets top priority and gets pushed at the top of the list.
This way they could beat developers to the punch by getting the landmark status imprinted on the deed to the property.
The truth is that the LPC dropped the ball on this one and, for whatever reason, they didn’t get to reviewing the property on time.
It’s a little late and I would call it after-the-fact. They should do the gentlemanly thing and concede the loss.
The great thing is that maybe this will piss-off and galvanize the preservationists. Their anger is misplaced. They really ought to be angry at the LPC and not at the developer. Unless, they have some personal gripe against the developer (maybe his race).
the obsession about this house is grass-roots, originating with the residents of the block. ‘didn’t do enough soon enough to preserve the building,’ you say? maybe that’s because they were spending the were fighting a decade-long war to clean-up the hot-sheets motel on the corner.
I might have missed it, but I can only remember two mansions on that entire stretch of lefferts place (the current one included).
isn’t the entire wallabout pre-civil war; many of those buildings are much older that this building. wallabout hasn’t received designation yet.
aren’t there scores of other pre-civil war gems in other nabes that are currently under the radar but equally worthy of focus (e.g., lefferts garden, midwood, bayridge, dyker heights, sheepshead bay etc.)
what are the preservationists doing about those?
i’ll give up arguing after this but it just seems a bit short-sighted to me to focus so much attention on this particular house.
Why does landmarking usually focus on an entire swath of properties instead of properly identifying the historic gems spread through-out the county and ensuring that they never get demolished. Otherwise, the preservationist efforts will always be behind the 8-ball.
The provenance has been published here before. Pre-civil war building, circa 1853 (or 1854 – I’d have to check). The block and rest of the street is full of building on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Clinton Hill South Historic District. Really should push to landmark (NYC Landmarks) Lefferts place and the rest of the CHSouth Historic District to prevent these issues in the future.
good point anon 3:17 PM. garnering community support is very important first step in the development process that this developer missed. the bigger developers are aware of this.
my problem with the current rush to landmark the building is that the area wasn’t landmarked when the property was purchased. I don’t know if the developer filed the permits yet. or if he has approval to begin construction. If he does I would think that getting the LPC involved at this stage would be akin to taking away his fully vested rights as a property owner (ala eminent domain).
This just seems a bit like nimbyism gone wild.
There are a lot of great looking historic mansions in the wallabout area. they’re all over crown heights, prospect heights, bushwick, east new york, cypress hills and bed-sty.
What’s so special about this house. Does it have any interesting provenance that would make it stand out as a more important historical asset than the rest of other un-landmarked assets within the county?
Anon 12:49 and others with similar position: remember that the process of landmarking, unlike eminent domain, allows for the owner to make as much of a case to the commission as the preservationists, and takes his interests into account. Also, he still owns the property and can use or profit by it as he wishes, within the restrictions of the landmark status. If I was looking at buying a house at twice the market rate with the intention of tearing it down, I’d want to find out the attitude of the neighborhood to what I was doing. Other developers have done this, and either decided against the purchase, or gained the support of the community. In the case of #70 Lefferts, no one knew the developers intentions until after he’d closed on the property, so the risk was his own choice.
I’m confused about the difference between “after-the-fact” landmarking and the implied “before-the-fact” landmarking. In one case value is taken away from the buyer (overpaid for a property), and in the other equity or development rights is taken away from the current owner or seller. Isn’t landmarking, by it’s very nature, taking some rights of the owner?
I’m supportive of landmarking – I just think there’s a false distinction being made on this board.
back to discussing this house in general.
I agree with crouchback that it’s horrible that the LPC is attempting to do an after-the-fact landmarking. Maybe it’s a stretch but I see a lot of similarity between eminent domain (vis a vis Ratner) and the potential landmarking of this building. In both scenarios you have a gov’t body or an oversight committee that is pretty much taking away someone’s property from them. In this particular case, the LPC is attempting to restrict the use of the property (as in seizing some of the inherent rights of the property owner). Just a thought.