Monday, June 8, 2009

Landmarking, pro and con

The NY Post published pro and con op-eds regarding landmarking this weekend.

Is anyone surprised that the pro landmarking position was written by the president of a Manhattan-based preservation group and the con position was taken by a Queens lawyer?


Anonymous said...

Take off your blinders Peg...Greater New York is composed of FIVE boroughs not one!

If she's worried about Manhattan getting butt f----d by developers, imagine what's going on in the forgotten borough of Queens?

We've heard from the blow-hard president of one Manhattan-centic
preservation organization.

Now let's hear from the president (or executive director) of the other!

Don't even bother asking the opinion of Queens preservation organizations.

They're Dr. Jeff 'n Jack!

Missing Foundation said...

You got that right Anon.

Peg is reading from a script written back in the 60s and is totally out of touch with the reality of today.

The truth is the landmarks law neither protects communities, nor is it strong. It is denied ot 90% of the city, mostly minority and immigrant, and is unfairly applied.

It is a subsidy paid by poorer communities to keep the wealthy enclaves protected while most of the city - their neighborhoods - is trashed.

Anonymous said...

Funny they did not contact the Queens Preservation Alliance or the Four Boros, or Queens Civic Congress.

Toothless all.

Anonymous said...

"No one regrets saving a historic building and, despite the strides we have made in this city, there are many more buildings and neighborhoods to save."

How is this anti-Queens?

Sounds like the only pro-development quotes in the article are from the Real Estate Board of NY and Ira Greenberg, a lawyer from Sunnysdie Gardens.