The historic St. Saviour's Episcopal Church is up for grabs - for a cool $10 million.
St. Saviour Church for sale at $10M
A Richmond Hill broker has been hawking the Maspeth property on Craigslist and other Web sites for more than two weeks, the Daily News has learned.
The online listing informs deep-pocketed prospective buyers they "can build up to 85,000 [square feet] of residential" on the "vacant land."
"Right now we're entertaining all offers," said Nir Zeer, owner of Danrich Family Homes, which also runs a real estate brokerage.
...the developer said the compromise did not get the blessing of the City Planning Department - a charge Planning officials have disputed.
The owner said the aborted deal "puts the church in jeopardy."
"When my upside is taken off the table, then so is the upside of my concession," he added.
This raises some questions.
1) The property has been up for grabs for $10 million for more than a year and a half now. So why do the owners constantly give the runaround to interested potential buyers when they ask to meet with them to negotiate a price? Could it be that the property really isn't for sale?
2) If it's zoned for manufacturing, how can the developer advertise it as "residential"? Isn't this against the law?
3) Why did the owner agree not to do any demolition or excavation on the property until environmental and archaeological studies were completed to the satisfaction of DEP and LPC and then proceed with this demolition anyway? Why did the city allow this when they were the ones who informed the owners about the issues?
4) "Well, the original plan was to fix the exterior of the church and donate it to a not for profit. City Planning then demanded to know to whom it was going and wanted to see a budget to ensure that they could fix the building and run programs out of it. As this was causing additional delays we figured City Planning couldn't argue with us if we said we'd fix it and keep it for ourselves. Even after that they wanted additional assurances about the use of the building. So that's how we came to that decision. So now it's not just that the building is preserved at my expense, but now I'm supposed to just hand it over. Take and take and take.... Hmmmm. I wonder why the application was pulled." - why was this comment left on the previous St. Saviour's post by someone with inside info, but the application-pulling story told to the Daily News blamed a dispute over density? (City planning's version of events more closely matches the QC comment.)
5) Why is this developer leaving dumpsters full of waste all around the neighborhood and getting nothing more than warning phone calls from DOT? Why are no elected officials doing anything about this?
6) What the hell is really going on here? Anyone?