What Was Eugene's LPC Vote Worth? $409,000
Remember the flap earlier this week about how Council Member Mathieu Eugene was opposing the creation of the Ocean on the Park Historic District because he wanted to hook up the owner of one of the twelve houses who was hoping to cash out to a developer? As we all know, Eugene cracked under a…
Remember the flap earlier this week about how Council Member Mathieu Eugene was opposing the creation of the Ocean on the Park Historic District because he wanted to hook up the owner of one of the twelve houses who was hoping to cash out to a developer? As we all know, Eugene cracked under a wave of public protest and decided to support the landmarking effort. And what about the poor owner whose backroom politicking ultimately failed? Well, with hopes of a tear-down dashed, he just slashed the asking price of his house at 189 Ocean Avenue by 26 percent from $1,599,000 to $1,190,000. Anyone care to cop to a little schadenfreude?
189 Ocean Avenue [Sotheby’s] GMAP
Ocean on the Park: Crisis Narrowly Averted [Brownstoner]
Councilman Threatens Ocean on the Park Historic District [Brownstoner]
benson,
I like you a great deal and enjoy sparring with you but I think we are at a dead end on this. I know you were being facetious in the last sentence but you did write- in all seriousness “Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction” and I can’t see how you meant anything else. It was a comment you repeated several times and there’s no getting around it.
And in all honesty, I fail to see how calling the preservation movement intellectual bankruptcy is not ungracious, or mean-spirited either. By defending the property owner who tried to pull strings to get what he wanted, you forget there were a number of others who went about the process in an open and aboveboard manner. They were acting also to protect their properties so why should this one person get so much of your sympathy?
The developer of 185 obviously did not have the money to go forward. I’m with Mr. B on this one- he was a jerk to tear down a perfectly good and lovely building on spec. There is now a hole in the ground because the developer was irresponsible- and not only financially irresponsible. In creating that hole he caused damages to the neighboring property- 189 so I can excuse Jon for a little “glee” at that developer.
I can’t blame Jon for calling out greed- especially when it involves the destruction of sound, well constructed older buildings that contribute to the desirability, value and beauty of a neighborhood. They contribute to the livability of a community while overreaching and greedy developers care not a whit for those things.
I don’t remember the entire story about the church but I think you’re wrong on this too. Don’t forget, a blog is not journalism- it represents a point of view and a general slant on the subject matter. However it transpired, the pastor created a mess in a ruch to make money. I know churches are struggling, but this is what happens when you get too caught up in the dollar signs.
A beautiful house of worship was destroyed (and think how painful that must have been for its parishioners)and because the developer did not secure financing, there is a hole in the ground and the promised new church is not built. When does the pastor take responsibility for a horrendous decision? Did the pastor call up every one in his church to apologize? Why put the onus on Jon for being angry and upset that this happened?
Your football analogy works both ways. When was the last time you heard of a developer apologizing to a community for the hole in the ground or the erection of a POS on the foundation of a magnificent old mansion? I’ll tell you how often- Never, ever.
Finally, benson- if Jon were as ungracious or as mean-spirited as you think, why does he continue to allow you, and the What and a host of others to still post, despite being insulted and trashed by you? There are plenty of blogs that would block you in a second. No one expects you to kiss his butt, but geez benson- you’ve been really trashing him and that’s not right.
Hello ladies;
First I’d like to clear up one bit of confusion, and then move into the meat of the matter.
Bxgrl: I once again say that I made no statement about preservation and wealth destruction. I think you have mis-read this statement of mine:
“In my mind, it demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the preservation movement. Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction. Boy, I can’t wait to hve my property landmarked, so that Brownstoner can rub it in my nose and broadcast the destruction in my wealth”
I am being facetious in that last sentence. I am saying I am “looking forward” to being in the same situation like the owner that Mr. B. singled out.
If you want to know my opinion on the matter, I would say that in most cases, landmarking does increase wealth. The landmark preservation statutes are the law, and I accept them.
Now, let’s get back to the meat of the matter. I stand by by my statements that Mr. B. is an ungracious, mean-spirited person, and that the preservation movement has reached the point of intellectual bankruptcy.
Montrose, I would LOVE to see Mr. B. make some controversial intellectual stands for discussion. I also don’t begrudge anyone a “victory lap”. This post was neither. It was a mean-spirited kick in the ribs of a adversary when he was down, celebrating, yes celbrating his loss in the value of his property, and inviting others to join him.
I’m telling you, this behaviour wouldn’t be accepted in MANY circles. Have you ever watched the Super Bowl? What is the first thing that happens when the game is over? The winning coach runs over to the losing coach, and shakes his hand, in the middle of the field. Now THAT is the sign of a gentleman. Sure, they have their celebration afterwards, but they are savoring their effort and victory, not putting down the losing team.
Moreover, this is not the first time that Mr. B. has engaged in such behaviour. It wasn’t an isolated incident. Remember his glee when the developer of 185 went belly-up? Also contemptible, in my book. Why would anyone clebrate another person’s misfortune? That developer followed the law, and put up his own money.
Which brings me to my statement about the intellectual bankruptcy of the preservation movement. Montrose, you were exactly right earlier in this thread when you said that when a person’s response is “FU”, it is a sign that they have run out of ideas. Well, that is how I read Mr. B’s “FU” to the owner. I simply cannot get my head around the idea of a person’s first actions after a hard-fought victory is to publicly delight in the personal mis-fortunes of his adversary. It shows that something is screwed up in his thinking.
How does this indict the whole movement? Simple: this site is widely followed by 100’s, if not 1000’s of folks from the preservation community, and very few, if any, call him on this type of behaviour. My blood boiled the minute I read his post, yet it doesn’t seem to faze his followers.
There have been other incidents where no one spoke up. I ask you to recall another incident in which someone on this site publicly accused a specific pastor of a church of the crime of fraud because the congregation had decided to sell their old church building to a developer. Someone accused publicly a specific pastor of a serious crime without a shred of evidence, and no one raised an eyebrow, until I blew my top when I saw it. Not only did no one not call the person on it, they sympathized with her distress about the church building being torn down (even though she wasn’t a congregant).
These are all signs of a movement that is running out of intellectual gas, and is becoming increasingly shrill and thuggish. So, while I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the ideas that have emanated from this movement, I now call it as I see it:
Preservation movement = intellectual bankruptcy.
I’ll tell you one other thing these experiences tell me: I really should get out of NY. Even though I was born here, it’s no longer my town. “Back in the days”, a guy like Mr. B. would be persona non grata in Brooklyn, for behaving in such a non-sportsmanlike manner.
All you have to do is look around and see that Landmarked neighborhoods are worth more.
Wow, what a story. I’m so glad the Preservationists prevailed.
The price of this house did not decline because of Landmarking. It declined because prices are going down everywhere. Please!
Jon is blessedly levelheaded in the face of a completely insane thread, possibly the most insane thread I have read on this site yet.
What, are you confusing the ancient Jews with the ancient Egyptians?
benson- you very specifically did write at 5:52 pm:”In my mind, it demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the preservation movement. Only a true believer would broadcast the fact that the passage of his desired law results in the delightful fact of wealth destruction. Boy, I can’t wait to hve my property landmarked, so that Brownstoner can rub it in my nose and broadcast the destruction in my wealth.”
So yes, you did say landmark preservation results in the destruction of wealth. And in that same post you said preservation movement = intellectual bankruptcy. Twice in fact.
I understand you’re point about property, and your frustration about landmarking but the pluses far outweigh the minuses to many of us and as Bob pointed out landmarking actually raises the value of a property. But please don’t deny saying something when all you have to do is scroll up and read it.
Brenda- there is a group of very beautiful small apartment buildings on my block which are being renovated. I was coming home the other night and found a halfmoon shaped stained glass window in the garbage. One pane is cracked and one side had been painted but otherwise it’s perfect- and now mine. For the last few years I have seen – and rescued- some wonderful detail that has been ripped out of these buildings-it breaks my heart because most of it seems salveagable or in near perfect condition. At least before it was ripped out. People just don’t seem to care. I’m sure the owner must have ripped out some amazing detail- I’ve been in one of the houses along that row, although it was one of Axel Hedman houses, not the brick.
Benson, I have to say that it is rather ponderous to place the failings and imperfections of the preservation movement squarely on Mr. B’s shoulders. I quote you – “My point is only about Mr. B.’s behaviour in this matter, and I believe it is typical of the devolution in the thoughts and minds of the preservation community.” Come on, he only made what may be a rather opinionated snark towards the Councilman and the owners of 189, but I hardly see that as any more than his opinion. There is an insinuation that money may have been involved, and that is not alleged anywhere by anyone else, and is unproven, and the worst sin committed here. OK, we told him.
However, it has been Mr. B’s style for quite some time, to throw out controversial remarks and see what sticks, and what causes intelligent conversation and discussion about issues that really affect us. Sometimes, I agree with you and the What, (Faint) he phrases things in incendiary ways, that bring out the worst in other people, and piss lots of people off. If I’m pissed, I’ll tell him. You’re telling him now, the What would have problems with a daily weather report, but he is also free to tell him off daily, as he does. That’s what makes this blog interesting. If we only had complements and cheerleading, Jon would be looking for a job, and this blog would only be read by his neighbors, friends and relatives.
I hardly see any of this as an indictment of the preservation movement. Like any group of human beings, preservation has its extremists, its zealots and its jerks. They are not the vast majority of everyday people who simply want to make sure the history, architecture, and best of our past is around for the future. Since money, and those with more of it, and more power than the rest of us, tend to dictate what is saved and what is not, I am glad that preservation laws, and groups that advocate preservation get to win one every once in a while.
I’m not going to censure Jon for not being perfect, or even evenhanded about this. Who is always Simon Pure around here? We are all complex and full of strongly held opinions and convictions that don’t always jibe with everyone else’s strongly held opinions and convictions. We may vehemently disagree on this, but I do not see any reason to condemn the preservation movement, or preservationists for a victory dance every now and then. The landmarking of this row, including the two brick houses, is a hard won, long fought victory for the majority of that small community.
Sorry Benson–no coffee yet. Glad YOU DON’T believe that landmarking contributes to the destruction of wealth. I doubt that Mr. B believes that either, so his placing so much importance on the fantasy price reduction of #189 was a mistake IMO.
So Benson, you didn’t bring up the spurious issue of “wealth destruction” allegedly caused by landmarking?
Schadenfreude? Bring it on! I’m delighted this guy won’t be hitting the jackpot by assassinating a lovely historic home across from the park, and I’m delighted his little end-run to the clueless Councilman blew up in both their faces. Ya-tee-tah-tah-tah! (That is a Dom Deluise version of “nyah-nyah,” from the movie “The Twelve Chairs.”
Meanwhile…amid all these lunatic digressions…did any of youse check out the listing for the house and see the interior shots?? Dear God! I seriously wonder whether this guy perhaps gutted his interiors in expectation of imminent demolition and then hastily rebuilt and staged them for resale using crap from Home Depot. The interior is a series of white sheetrock boxes with a few cheesy new oddments of furniture (and one bizarro chandelier). Very strange indeed. And the listing doesn’t bother to mention that the house is in a calendared landmark district; it’s muted to the point of embarrassment, although it mentions “parking for 3 cars” as a big plus. Oh, well–at least it’s a clean slate. And not a finger building.