From the NY Times:The Monts, who bought the place fully equipped for $160,000 in 1983, are only the third family to occupy what is known as the Wyckoff-Bennett Homestead since it was built around 1766.
“It’s a living museum,” said Mrs. Mont, 69, a retired psychotherapist and teacher.
But a plan for the city to acquire the 4,000-square-foot home, which was designated as a landmark by the city in 1968 and put on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976, has broken down in acrimony.
The Monts say that starting a decade ago, city officials offered to buy the house and its contents for $2 million while letting them stay on rent-free as caretakers, but that the officials reneged on the deal last year. Franklin Vagnone, executive director of the Historic House Trust, which helps the parks department preserve historic houses located in city parks, called the place “a wonderful artifact” but said the city “was unfortunately not able to negotiate terms with the current owners.”
The Wyckoff-Bennett Homestead is one of at least a dozen old Dutch houses, wraiths from a long-bygone age in various states of repair and bastardization, that still grace the County of Kings. There are some others scattered throughout the city, down from more than 70 that were intact as recently as the 1950s.
A handful are privately owned, like an even older house in the Flatlands section of Brooklyn that the Monts rented before buying theirs. Others are maintained as museums, including the oldest dwelling in the city and its first designated landmark, the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff House on Clarendon Road in East Flatbush, dating from 1652. On Thursday, city officials opened bids for relocating an old Wyckoff barn from New Jersey onto the Clarendon Road farmhouse property, for the first barn-raising in Brooklyn in 150 years.
WHAT?!?!?!
You mean to tell me that we are importing landmarks across state lines while allowing ones that are already here deteriorate or be demolished?
17 comments:
Now, if they wanted to put up a 15 story building for transgenered Pacific Islanders, they would get Federal support in the millions.
What is the issue? These owners obviously want a bigger payday than $2M.
The issue is that you should read the entire article before commenting. The city is not offering them $2M.
I remember Cong. Joe Crowley and the Lent-Riker House. After getting the obligatory photo-op, had the government review it - then reject it. Seems like it lacked a parking lot as the major sticking point. Hmm...just like the Teddy Roosevelt House, right?
It wasn't even a serious effort - and of course after the cameras were put away and press went on to other 'news' he never bothered to follow up - or even return calls.
An empty acre and an 'underutitlized' one in Queens will condemn any building.
Look at the travesty of Bowne House and the on going soap opera farce of the Steinway Mansion.
Funny stuff about Lent-Riker-Smith.
'Honest Joe' Crawley understands it would make a grrreat location for a half-way house because the backyard faces Rikers.
Gotta tweed!!!
"The issue is that you should read the entire article before commenting. The city is not offering them $2M."
Why is the city obligated to buy it for any price?
Because it's our history and our heritage and deserves protection. They made an offer of $2M years ago, never followed up on it, and now that property values have skyrocketed, they made an insulting offer of much less money. They obviously only did this because they DON'T want to buy it but want to make it look like they do.
Answer this: Why is the city obligated to kick in money to move a barn from NJ to Brooklyn?
Answer this: Why is the city obligated to kick in money to move a barn from NJ to Brooklyn?
It's not and they shouldn't do that. I'd love to see any historic property maintained, but the current owners shouldn't be whining about having purchased property that has increased in value significantly, but there's little they can do with it because it's landmarked.
Where are they whining about anything? They want to sell it to the city so they will maintain it after the owners, who are getting on in years, can no longer do it. And there is plenty that can be done with a landmarked property - extensions, building elsewhere on the land. It's done all the time.
All remaining Dutch colonial houses should be landmarked. The first landmark in the city was such a house, chosen because of its history.
Now if they wanted to put up a 15 story building there would be a basket of goods and services and tax breaks offered by the city (and their councilman) that would easily be in excess of what they would settle for.
the "insulted" homeowners sound pretty greedy to me. $1.4M plus rent free living for the rest of their lives? I'd take it..
But its their right to say no, just don't ask me to feel sorry for them.
And if the house deteriorates, we have no one to blame but the Monts.
How is it "greed" to have rejected an offer of $1.4M, when 10 years ago they were offered $2M by the same potential buyer? You would have accepted that? Property values may have gone down over the past couple of years, but they are way up from what they were 10 years ago.
You folks aren't making any sense.
How is it "greed" to have rejected an offer of $1.4M, when 10 years ago they were offered $2M by the same potential buyer? You would have accepted that? Property values may have gone down over the past couple of years, but they are way up from what they were 10 years ago.
So why didn't they take the 2M 10 years ago? Story doesn't make sense.
Did you not read the part about the city reneging on the deal? I have to spoonfeed this to you?
I received this via e-mail:
"The W-B House was a project that I & other people spent a lot of time and effort trying to make happen. That the City is now turning around and screwing Annette and Stu after ten years of promises is incredibly painful. The house will be safe, it’s a landmark and they love it but this is such a fucking waste it’s painful to contemplate."
Now if it was Brooklyn Heights you might have the preservation community make it an issue, but it ain't and they won't.
Post a Comment