Stay of Execution on MacDonough Street
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block: The Judge called in the lawyers and…
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block:
The Judge called in the lawyers and engineers leaving the public in the hall to wonder what was happening. After an hour the public was allowed in and told that the engineers would have until Wednesday Jan. 27th to present a plan to save the properties. Mrs. Prince, the owner of 331 MacDonough St., has retained a lawyer and engineer in the hopes of saving her property. The Judge has told the public that he is aware of their concerns but, the issue will be resolved by the engineers and our presence in court on the 27th will not be necessary.
Meanwhile, we also contact the Landmarks Preservation Commission to get a better sense of their position and ability to act as advocates for preservation in this case. Here’s the response we got:
Members of our staff have visited the site, and are communicating extensively with the Department of Buildings about these important buildings. Under the Landmarks Law, no Landmarks approval is needed for measures the Department of Buildings must take to address public safety issues. We are advocating for saving as much of the buildings as is safely possible, while deferring to the Department’s engineering knowledge and experience in public safety matters. Landmarks and Buildings have a long history of working together to save historic buildings, and this case is no exception.
We’re also curious to hear how active a role (if any) Councilman Al Vann, who owns a house on the historic block, has taken in the situation. Can anyone tell us?
MacDonough Street Update 1/25/10 [Brownstoner]
Wall Collapse, Vacate Order, Maybe Demo on MacDonough [Brownstoner]
had the community not banded together to support the homeowner, these houses would have been toast. The DOB showed up the next day with demo equipment. That allowed no time at all for the homeowner to respond, had not the community jumped in to help. This does not happen everytime the DOB condemns a property, so lets not get all bent out of shape that it happened here. And the community and homeowner acted responsibly, by bringing in experts. A good thing.
No one is saying the DOB is just a bunch of crooks, but only an ostrich sticks its head in the sand and ignores the DOB’s recent history. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge this. I think it’s great the community didn’t blindly accept the DOB’s decision and fought back, instead of getting pushed around.
Benson,
I think you could be a good candidate for Press Secretary. Do I really need to cut and paste quotes from your posts?
And I know you’ve seen the problems that wasder has had with the DOB, on a much smaller scale
benson, that’s just my point…the DOB posted a “Vacate” order and threw them out. The homeowners were not alloweed any say whatsoever and if they alone asked to present alternative engineering data, the DOB would have ignored them and torn the buildings down.
The DOB, in this case, is a megalomaniacal organization with no checks and balances.
“Because I said so” may be OK when you’re 4 years old but not in cases like this.
Benson,
The reason the community involvement was necessary was to give the homeowner time to prepare such a challenge.
It is possible that the houses would have been demolished already, based on some of the reported statements from DoB staff at the scene initially.
“From the tone of your original posts, why should the homeowner be at all allowed to question the authority and the decision of the DOB????????”
DIBS;
Truly, are you being serious today?
I would respect the homeowner in his or her challenge to the DOB because I would expect that they have some facts to challenge them with (an engineer’s report, the record of the DOB’s actions in the case, etc.).
That is a far cry from a “community” challenging the DOB by stating on a blog that a) well, ya know, the DOB is just a bunch of crooks, and since it suits us in this case, we’ll say it on the internet to challenge their decision here and b) some anonymous blogger “informing” everyone that he “knows” the DOB inspector and he “knows” that he is an ego-maniac who just likes to arrest people and c) cries to bring in the politicians from the get-go.
benson- LC Arnett said exactly what everyone else is saying- the homeowner should have the right to get another opinion before her house is knocked down. If it hadn’t been for the community or the pols, she would be looking at a gaping hole right now. Your whole position is a contradiction.
Expert Textpert,
There is more truth to your statement that you may think. Thanks for noticing.
I think pig three knows what he’s talking about. His house was made of brick and withstood the huffing and puffing from the wolf, while the other two were made of straw and sticks.