From Queens Courier:
Many questions — no answers
I have written over 40 letters to my representatives and government officials, received five responses but no answers to my questions; what irreplaceable structure, timeless artifact, priceless home, ageless monument, cultural or historical imperative demands the expropriation of 1,300 homes in the name of “historic preservation”?
Why isn’t zoning sufficient to preserve the important elements of our community, the “sense of place,” the open space and building size?
Are the zoning laws ineffective due to lack of enforcement? Lack of oversight?
Why weren’t alternative zoning solutions examined and tried before expropriating property rights? It is intellectually dishonest to claim that “McMansions” are a result of the absence of landmark designation.
Instead of offering leadership and possible solutions, the few who responded asserted that it is constitutional for an unelected bureaucracy to expropriate my property and for me to be deprived of a vote on the matter. They assured me however, I still have the right to voice my opinion at a “public hearing.”
Landmark designation offers no benefits to the homeowner other than an inflated sense of self-net worth. Proponents claim property values will go up but the direct beneficiary of the higher tax rates on higher valuations is the city government; not to mention sweetheart deals with consultants, contractors, building supply providers, architects, urban planners, etc. The homeowner is left with higher tax bills, forms, fees, surcharges and higher prices for approved materials.
In addition, it is easier and more profitable to fine homeowners using the wrong color paint than to find and prosecute building code violators.
Ed Konecnik
Flushing
(A response from Councilman Avella from the Queens Ledger: Clarifying the Constitution)
Letter to the Times Ledger: Why landmarking threatens
The Queens Tribune on a controversial house in Douglaston Hill:
After Major Renovations: Home Still Deemed Historic Enough
A Times Ledger story about the Sunnyside saga:
Landmark battle intensifies
A pro-landmarking story from the Tribune:
Preserving For The Ages: Advocates Hope That History Isn’t Only Found In Scrapbooks
A pro-landmarking editorial from the Tribune:
Protect Our Past
And a pro-landmarking letter to the editor from the Brooklyn Star:
Rethinking McCarren Pool's Landmark Status
Whew! That's a lot of stories...
9 comments:
"Landmark designation offers no benefits to the homeowner other than an inflated sense of self-net worth. Proponents claim property values will go up but the direct beneficiary of the higher tax rates on higher valuations is the city government"
Why have people who live in landmarked communities not responded to this man?
Would such attitudes still persist, a generation after the NYC landmark’s law was passed, if the preservation community had a vigorous public education program?
Facts
1. The landmarks law has been around for decades.
2. Scores of communities have been landmarked.
3. Not a single community has ever elected to remove this designation.
5. The anti-landmarking faction has never met with people who actually live in landmarked communities.
Take a look at the communities landmarked: Brooklyn Heights, East Side, West Side, the Village, etc. etc. etc. Who lives in these communities? Would these people do something stupid? Are these communities not full of smart savvy people?
So why don't these fine examples of civic genius in Queens go to those landmarked communities, and although they have never lived under designation, explain their views on the topic and why they are smarter and have so more insight on these things than those poor benighted souls ‘suffering’ under designation?
Or perhaps they are just empty vessels full of nothing but making noise?
Perhaps they are paper tigers built up by the Queens clubhouse and newspapers whom are once again playing the people of Queens like a fine tuned fiddle?
The point is that people from Queens deserve equal protection under law.
If they cannot enjoy the benefits of landmarking because of spurious unfounded false objections, then the law should be removed from the books.
If there is no effort from the landmarking community to build a stong citywide base, then what we see here is the natural result, whether it is accidental or intentional.
The builder's lobby (using politicians and the press as a shield) will move into the void thus created.
I guess the question we must ask ourselves is why Queens must suffer from the actions (or studied lack thereof) of the Manhattan-centric preservation community.
Perhaps someone can help me with this.
If you hold an office, say landmarks commissioner, do you not have a responsibility to both uphold the law and to perform your responsibilities to the best of your ability?
If you see the public, as egged on by the newspapers and elected officials, that are misleading a community with statements that do not reflect the spirit of the agency you are sworn to serve, or correctly represent the law for which you are discharging the duties of your office, and if you remain mute and make no effort and correcting the public record, are you in violation of your term of office?
How surprising! A pro-landmarker that can not count. Facts listed are 1,2,3,and 5? Here are some facts- Property taxes will go up, home insurance will go up, cost of repairs will go up, amount of time to file for permit and get a response will go up, amount of time to do work while you wait for special order items to be made to comply with the historic theme of your home will increase, you get to apply for another loan to pay for the inflated work cost, you get to pay an architect to draw up plans to do the work, and yes, if you can find someone to buy your home with all these "incentives" you can charge more for your home. Whoop-de-do--- And yes, I have spoken to people that live within a landmarked area. They were once in favor of landmarking and now have changed their minds since they now need to consider how they are going to pay for their home to be repaired since they were not told "the facts" before they were landmarked. I am in favor of preserving my neighborhood, just not being burdened with added costs and red tape when there are other sound, workable solutions that can be instituted.
Ed Konecnik's tiresome, perhaps, pseudo intellectual and tedious letters have been appearing in the press for nearly a year now. He loves his soap box...apparently.
He keeps insisting (over and over ad nauseum) that the concensus of opinion in the Broadway Flushing area is against landmarking, in the sense that all of the residents weren't properly notified or gave their approval.
This is absolutely untrue. Every opportunity was taken for everyone to have input at many meetings for at least a year beforehand. The overwhelming majority of homeowners are in favor of a historic district.
Ed seems to have a cognitive recognition problem or else he thinks that his will should subvert the democratic process as in a dictatorship.
Wake up....we're not living in totalitarian country where the Communist government is hiding under our beds.
What a misguided pest! If Ed doesn't approve of our Democratic proceedure, perhaps, he should move!
"Property taxes will go up, home insurance will go up, cost of repairs will go up, amount of time to file for permit and get a response will go up, amount of time to do work while you wait for special order items to be made to comply with the historic theme of your home will increase ..."
Ok folks that live in landmarked districts, HDC, MAS, is this true?
Post a Comment