Thursday, November 29, 2007

BREAKING NEWS: St. Saviour's plan withdrawn

Maspeth Development, LLC, has withdrawn their application for a zoning change for the St. Saviour's property. This was revealed at a city council zoning subcommittee hearing today. What this means for the sacred site is unclear. But it appears the 70+ housing units that Councilman Dennis Gallagher had lobbied for will not be built. Stay tuned.

32 comments:

Taxpayer said...

What a pity for the indicted (10 counts) rapist of a grandma 10 years his senior.

Who will pay his ambulance bill now?

Who will buy his drinks?

Who will he lapdance for now? Bubba?

We just spoke to another of his gropees the other day. What a freak Gallagher is!

Anonymous said...

Um, plans are withdrawn and reintroduced all the time. What makes you think the owners won't develop the site?

Maspeth residents will be thrilled when this vacant lot is finally developed, and the Queens Crap NIMBYs can move on to try and preserve another vacant lot.

Anonymous said...

If those oxygen-giving trees in a very industrial area of Maspeth were ripped down for no reason, I hope Pinky has a tree fall on him.

georgetheatheist said...

Crapper - on the ball! Hahahaha, Schenkler, Schneps, Barsamian, Blank, Weidler, Sanchez.

Hahahaha! Queens Crap blogsite rules!!! Hahahaha!

Anonymous said...

The lot is not vacant, it has 2 church buildings on it.

Anonymous said...

75-21 59th street? That's not even close to St. Saviour's.

Anonymous said...

it also had 185 trees on it until Pinky and Parkside decided the developer should cut them down.

Anonymous said...

maspeth should go all out now to try to make this withdrawal permanent. Now would seem like the ideal time.

Gallagher propositioned me said...

Geez, what will Councilman Dennis Pee Gallagher do with the $1 million he got to save the church?

How about a lifetime supply of whores for the uno ballo pink piece of shit?

Anonymous said...

Please ignore the Curbed troll. (Anonymous #1)

Anonymous said...

Hoorah !!!

Maybe the sustained pressure from "Queens Crap"
had an effect !

And....just maybe Maspeth Development
wants to bail out before more
chicanery is unearthed by the authorities
and some new indictments start flying
all over the place.....
naming them in collusion...perhaps!

There's still hope.
St. Saviour's is still standing!

Anonymous said...

Wadda ya gonna do now "Parkside" ?

Would somebody please hand Evan Stavisky
a medicated ass wipe.
His cheeks must be burning!

Anonymous said...

Um, plans are withdrawn and reintroduced all the time. What makes you think the owners won't develop the site?
---------------

Sounds like a city employee whose pay comes from our taxes, to me.

Jennifa? Mighty John Young?

Anonymous said...

naw, its a community board member trying to build their resume for a reappointment.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest the troll is someone from the city-wide preservation movement who is hoping this will just go away so they can focus their attention on the 'important' stuff, like getting an efficient LPC that can ok all those yuppie rear decks and roof extentions to accomodate growing families!

Anonymous said...

You guys are all wet.

This is obviously a reporter from a Queens newspaper getting ready to writing a 'fair and unbalanced' report about preservation in our fair borough.

Anonymous said...

How about Blondie from Berkley on OuterB? Every preservation group in the city has come out in favor of saving this architectural gem, and she snidely writes about it getting 'flattened.'

Nice move toots!

Christina Wilkinson said...

Ah, enough of that one. "I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

Anonymous said...

How is this a good thing if it means that now the church comes down and a big recycling plant goes up on the whole site?

Anonymous said...

Maybe because that's what the property is zoned for and what the people around there would prefer to Gallagher's plan to add 70 more families to an already crowded neighborhood and strained infrastructure.

Anonymous said...

Huh? I thought the plan was for a noxious factory at the site. Isn't that what Pinky was threatening if the developer didn't get his zoning change? Wow, he lied about that, too?

Anonymous said...

You must be kidding. All along, all we have heard is how important that church building is, how it is part of our history and heritage, etc., etc. Do you expect anyone to believe that residents of the community would prefer a recycling plant or an industrial building over keeping the church and having houses?

Christina Wilkinson said...

If you had bothered to actually speak with the people who live there, Dennis, you would know their feelings on this issue and know this is what they said they'd prefer to a cheap housing development across the street from them. They voiced this opinion at the first community board land use committee meeting last year, and earlier this year at a meeting we held with the residents at the Clinton Diner.

Anonymous said...

I guess Gallagher is as shitty a lobbyist as he is a councilman.

Anonymous said...

OK kiddies, multple choice time!!

Who said this:

You must be kidding. All along, all we have heard is how important that church building is, how it is part of our history and heritage, etc., etc. Do you expect anyone to believe that residents of the community would prefer a recycling plant or an industrial building over keeping the church and having houses?

Chose one:

1. A community board member

2. A city planning rep

3. A rep from the mayor's office

4. A blogger from OuterB

5. A lurker from Curbed

6. A clubhouse lobbyist

7. A public servent.

8. A rep from the Four Boroughs

9. A newspaper reporter from the Times.

Anonymous said...

Multiple choice sounds like fun!

Hmm... I choose #7, a public servant aka Pinky.

Anonymous said...

So all this talk about the church's importance was nonsense. Stopping some houses getting built is more important to them than the sanctity and heritage of the church building . . .

Christina Wilkinson said...

They are BOTH important. We've accomplished one, now let's come together and accomplish the other. Remember, the Elmhurst Gas Tank site looked like more of a done deal than St. Saviour's, and that was also "as-of-right"!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the rationale of preferring to turn this piece of land into a toxic industrial wasteland as opposed to some houses.

Which would you prefer across the street?

Anonymous said...

According to another website, the site will either be turned into a recycling center or a storage facility. Neither of these are polluting.

Anonymous said...

The owner of the Gas Tank site was a public utility. That makes a big difference. The variance being withdrawn is the death knell of the church building and will lead to an industrial building on the property. That result may be fine, but I question if that is what the nearby residents really would have preferred.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the rationale of preferring to turn this piece of land into a toxic industrial wasteland as opposed to some houses.

Which would you prefer across the street?
---------------
Hey dimbulb. How about something novel for Queens? How about something the people want?