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]
Bxgrl;
You are also ducking the issue. See my post to Etson. You and everyone else are introducing a red herring. I have made no argument against the landmark law. I have made no statement about the effect of the landmark laws on property value. I am only discussing Mr. B.’s behaviour.
benson- I’m not sure why you’re so angry about this. Isn’t it true that all over the country communities enact property laws designed to preserve the quality of the property in a community and its beauty? They believe it preserves property values and their investment and I can’t see how this is any different. They make regulations regarding the height of the grass, what you can put on your lawn, when the house must be painted and how it is maintained. Granted some of them go too far, and some preservationists still wish we lived in the 19th century, but landmarking makes property more desireable overall, not less. If your contention is that landmarking devalues a property, please show us the numbers.
Long gone are the days any of us can do whatever we please, whenever we please. That’s closer to anarchy than democracy. Like it or not, we live in communities and we have to consider our common interests as well as our individual ones. This is the reality- and if you truly believe the individual property owners’ rights take precedence over all else, I don’t understand how you can so admire Robert Moses who certainly cared not a whit for individual property ownership in his pursuit of the common good- at least as he saw it.
There is no guarantee the owner of 189 would get a much higher price for his property without landmarking, much less any guarantee of an offer. In fact he had been pressuring the other homeowners to all sell their properties as tear-downs in hopes of maximizing his hoped for profit. Couldn’t you also argue that the other homeowners believe they are protecting their property values by going for landmark status? In which case the owner of 189 was harming them.
Etson;
You have missed my points. Note that I have not said one word about the merits of the landmarking case at hand, and the cause of the wealth destruction is arguable. I am not making statements about either point. I am not arguing against the landmark laws.
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.
I ask you: what did this owner do wrong, either legally or morally, to deserve this treatment by Mr. B? Mr. B. certainly believes there was wealth destruction from this landmarking decision. He stated it, not I. Not only does he state it, he DELIGHTS in it, and invites others to share in his schadenfreude. As I just said to Montrose, this is nothing more than kicking someone when they are down.
When someone starts acting like this, you have to question where their head is really at.
Going to a Preservation meeting, believe it or not. Will address this later, I promise.
Montrose;
You’re ducking the issue. Tell me honestly: what do you think of Mr. B’s public delight in the destruction of this person’s housing wealth, and his implication that they asked for a “special favor” from their representative. THAT is what I meant when I was talking about your situation.
It is contemptible what he did, and I believe that in your heart of hearts, you know it too. When a movement finds itself engaging in such behaviour, it is time to stop, take stock and refocus on its values.
I happen to think that dealing fairly with a person, and not kicking a person when he is down, is far more important in this world than some row of preserved homes.
Benson,
The wealth destruction that has taken place happened beacuse of the economy rather than anything to do with landmarking. It is only theoretical wealth anyway since nobody paid the original asking price. I do not know but would expect that properties in landmarked areas attract premium prices.
Either one believes in absolutes of architectural appearance and quality or one does not. I would venture that a majority of people does, although few could codify them precisely. The built environment affects the quality of life for many people, and is thus of legitimate concern for people other than each individual property owner.
As you know I am a conservative as well. In these cases I see the owner’s right to his property in itself as unaffected by the landmarking (it is the direct opposite of eminent domain, which disgusts me in many cases). He bought the house, he is free to live in the house. But I do not see why that should necessarily give him the right to demolish or modify the house in a way that affects other people’s liberties (or property values).
I see my view as the same as arguing that a homeowner should have a say in whether the house next door to them is converted into an SRO, or a homeless shelter, for example. It is someone else’s property but the modification could have potentially a direct bearing on the homeowner’s lifestyle and the value of their investment.
Benson, you misquote me. I said the situation next door to 189 was shady, that is, the construction site/tear down. I did NOT say that the people who own 189 were shady. BIIIGGG difference.
I happen to know a little more of the backstory here, and most of it was on Brownstoner anyway, in regards to the very shady way the developer/owner of 185 operated. I happen to think tearing a house down before anyone can stop him, ie Landmarks, and before he had approved plans, or had resolved his legal issues with those same people next door is more than shady, it should be illegal. I have nothing but contempt for the “oops, I tore it down already, gee, I guess you’ll have to let me do what I want” school of development does no one in the industry any favors, and certainly gives creedence to the idea that landmarking is the only way to stop this practice. A belated slap on the wrist from DOB sure doesn’t. If preservation and preservationists have to strong arm in this way, then so be it. We are only fighting with the weapons at hand.
And while we are at it, since my house is landmarked, there are restrictions on what I can do with it, and I have no problems with that, as the greater good is served by those restrictions. If that causes me greater expense, or other annoyances, I’ll just have to deal with it. Nobody gets what they want in this world, but I feel that the preservation of my and other historic neighborhoods is well worth it. As I said above, the owners of 189 are free to sell their house for a fair market price and move on, if they so choose. They are also free to sit there and hope someone will pay megabucks for a house in what is now a calendared historic district. Perhaps someone out there wants a nice brick house directly across from Prospect Park. You never know.
Preservation community = last line of defense for the protection of our architectural, historic and important buildings and neighborhoods.
“It’s a free world, and this homeowner was free to try to make his case to the other owners and the community; when that didn’t work, he went and asked for a special favor from an elected official that ran counter to the broader community’s best interest. Again, he was free to do that, but so are people free to find his actions selfish and philistine. This house has been in the same family decades, so no one’s going bankrupt because it can’t now be sold as a tear down. If it weren’t for landmarking, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Stuyvesant Heights could look like the worst parts of Bed Stuy”
Mr. B.;
I was on the road all day, and hence did not have time to respond to your comments back to me.
I stand by my statements that this article was mean-spirited, and it reflects poorly on your values. This owner did nothing wrong, and from what you have reported, was exercising his legal rights. What exactly do you mean by stating that he was seeking a “special favor” from his representative? I ask you again: what was he supposed to do? Roll up and do nothing about his own property while its value dropped significantly? Do you have any proof of your public allegation that he was seeking a special favor, or is your definition of a “special favor” merely that someone contacted their elected representative about a law that affects their very own property.
This article encapsulates exactly why I have come to despise the preservation community. You would be willing to smear somebody simply because they disagree with you on the best use of their own property. Moreover, you don’t even have the graciousness to be happy in victory, but rather, you post your schadenfreude over his defeat, and the loss of his property value.
By the way, I’d like to know who gave you the authority to speak for what’s best for the “broader community”?
Finally, you may wish to rethink your delight in writing the post. 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.
Montrose;
I’m sorry to say, but your post is nonsense, and on the same vein as Mr. B.’s. You also make unfounded allegations. What exactly was “shady” about what this owner did? I’d like to see how you would react if someone wanted to place a restriction on your property.
Preservation community = intellectual bankruptcy.
Not to belabor the point, but I am Jewish, blue eyed, with some blond and redheaded cousins. Obviously, I am not descended solely from people who lived in Israel/Palestine/Canaan etc. We all have more of a genetic mix in us than our appearances would suggest. Lord knows what went on with any of our ancestors, whether 5th century, 12th., in centuries B.C.(E.), etc. I believe Henry Louis Gates has written well on this topic after exploring his own genetics. And with that highly relevant aside (doesn’t this thread have something to do with landmarks and a councilman???), can we put this thread to bed?