Doings at the Dilapidated 7th Ave & 2nd St Building?
Last time we checked in on 187 7th Avenue, the Park Slope building on the corner of 2nd Street that’s been in decline for many years, the DOB was trying to get its owner to show up for a hearing regarding some of its code violations. According to DOB records, other violations have been served…
Last time we checked in on 187 7th Avenue, the Park Slope building on the corner of 2nd Street that’s been in decline for many years, the DOB was trying to get its owner to show up for a hearing regarding some of its code violations. According to DOB records, other violations have been served since then, and it doesn’t appear that 187’s owner has done anything about them. Anyhow, a sign that’s been taped up on the side of the building caught the eye of a Brooklynian poster a few days ago. The sign cryptically advertises a number to call “for info,” which the Brooklnian poster did, but no information was forthcoming. We did the same, and the woman who answered the phone asked whether we were “interested in apartments or office space” and said the property’s “project manager” would call us back, which he did not. The woman also said that she worked for a real estate firm called “Hello.” Anyone know what gives?
Falling Down Building on 2nd St and 7th Ave [Brooklynian]
Slope Ruin Gets Served [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB
Yes, you should indeed read the other thread about the nutjobs who own this place,including this comment posted on THAT thread as well. Look familiar…?
http://bstoner.wpengine.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/04/closing_bell_sl.php
***
The family cares about Park Slope.
They are not greedy or any of the cruel adjectives that many of you posted.
The family has always been kind to everyone and is one of the oldest families in Park Slope.
The law suit with the tenant who prevented them from renovating the building is over.
The city erected the scaffolding after a Noreaster storm hit Park Slope. The City’s contractor is responsible for the maintenance of it. No one has been hurt.
Soon everything will be okay. The goal is to turn the building into an Arts center for all mediums.
Thank you for your concern
Posted by: guest at May 15, 2008 7:33 PM
I used to frequent the Landmark in the early 90s. The old broad was a superb**** who knew asbolutely nothing about operating a business. Still, we had some good times there, especially one New Years Eve.
I agree fully with frsq. One day this POS is going to collapse and all of the morons who could have helped prevent it will be the first in line to shriek and froth.
This family cares about Park Slope.
They are not greedy or any of the cruel adjectives that many of you posted.
From the old Brownstoner thread…
The family has always been kind to everyone and is one of the oldest families in Park Slope.
The law suit with the tenant who prevented them from renovating the building is over.
The city erected the scaffolding after a Noreaster storm hit Park Slope. The City’s contractor is responsible for the maintenance of it. No one has been hurt.
Soon everything will be okay. The goal is to turn the building into an Arts center for all mediums.
Thank you for your concern
“My query to you was in part about whether having the City seize and take ownership of dilapidated and dangerous buildings really a policy we want?”
The City already has this power and actually I believe that partially because this building is in an affluent area (and therefore valuable even in its present state) it is being ignored.
If this building were in a “poorer” part of the city, the hazzard might very well have received more press attention, the owners would be labled slumlords (rightfully in this case) and the City likely would have either implemented repairs and/or seized control.
Forceable repairs/seizing of hazardous buildings is a regular occurrence all over this city.
Please do not mistake my outrage. Obviously this is DOB’s fault in the second place (the 1st perpetrator is the owners, who should either have remediated the situation and/or sold the property).
I acknowledge it is only after the ladlords and the DOB (Bloomberg Admin) that our local representatives have blame. HOWEVER, they are OUR local representatives, meaning that while the DOB is primarily responsible – it is a big city and sometimes things get overlooked – it is out local reps (who have been informed and also live nearby) who are supposed to be our “squeaky wheel” to get these things addressed. And it is the total silence from all our local representatives regarding this building especially that has me up in arms.
f,
I have no quarrel with you over the awful state of the building. I thought you were a bit quick to focus this as a failure on the part of local legislatures, including one not yet sworn in.
As I see it, a council member has two roles here. One is that of a neighborhood advocate within government, pushing, prodding, trying to get folks with responsibility in the exec branch to do what they are supposed to do on behalf of the community. I don’t know whether BdB tried and failed or didn’t try at all to get some action on this property. Brad Lander, with an n, takes office in January, but is accessible now to constituents. Have you reached out to him about this?
The other role is to pass laws. My question on that front is what law do you want to see passed? To what extent is this building such a failure because of limits on the City’s executive branch authority to take action or a failrue to use authority that already exists? And can those limits be expanded by the Council or is State legislation required? My query to you was in part about whether having the City seize and take ownership of dilapidated and dangerous buildings really a policy we want? Or is this an exceptional case because it is right in the middle of bustling affluence and lots of kids?
I just thought that turning this into a story of legislative branch failure seemed odd.
slopefarm – the legislative branch cant do anything specifically except pass laws (and then generally they need the Mayor) – BUT in reality our local council person is sort of an ombudsman for local issues. Unfortunately “our” representatives are too busy trying to get their name in the paper and running for higher office to be concerned with what can only be called a DEATH waiting to happen.
Lets be clear – this building is totally abandoned, the building envelope is open to the elements in many places, and the public is only “protected” by sheds that themselves are old, do not appear sturdy and in any case cannot possibly hold in the event of a collapse. I personally can see broken windows on the higher floors that in a storm will definitely become deadly projectiles.
It is not hyperbole to think that should this situation not be rectified that in the near future this building will suffer a total or partial collapse and considering the foot traffic on 7th Ave and the nearby school, a catastrophe with MULTIPLE deaths and or injuries is quite likely.
11217–
You’re info may be more current than mine on 3rd St. But I do remember learning a while back that it is a crazy-high tax lien.
the lawsuit which was referred to in the 2008 thread is different than the one i know. this one, a friend and his partner signed a 100 year lease, $100,000 down, $20,000 per month. one partner got his $50,000 back, the other did not. i don’t know what has happened since then, but i think the 6-7 year lease they talk about in the 2008 thread happened after my friend’s ordeal. which would explain how he got his $50,000 back- from this new lease.
What about this part:
“The law suit with the tenant who prevented them from renovating the building is over”
A comment made both on May 15, 2008 and today.