From Brownstoner:It's been a rough few years for 70 Lefferts Place, or, more precisely, the developer who's owned it for the last four and a half years. To refresh, the house traded for $2,400,000 in May 2006 and soon thereafter plans were announced to tear down the Civil War-era gem. A last-minute effort to landmark the house ended up being successful, with the designation being finalized in December 2006. Within a month, the property was back on the market. It never sold, though, and in April 2009 a Lis Pendens (the first step in the foreclosure process) was filed, revealing that the owner was on the hook for a $2,010,000 loan. We hadn't heard much about the property since then until a few days ago when a neighbor brought this online listing for a hostel to our attention. According to the website, for $25 a night, you can have a spot in one of the many bunkbeds. The only problem is that this place doesn't have a C of O for a hotel or even a rooming house, as far as we can tell. We also bet that the lenders would be curious to know how much the owner is renting out the place to the hostel operators for.
8 comments:
" last-minute effort to landmark the house ended up being successful, with the designation being finalized in December 2006."
Huh?!?!
Why doesn't things like this happen in Queens and more importantly, why doesn't someone as QCC or the Queens Preservation Council this question?
Because one is nicey nice with the pols and the other has no idea what you are talking about.
Is it fair that after the developer purchased the lot with obvious intentions to develop the land, that there was a last minute effort to landmark the hous? Now causing the developer to lose money?
There needs to be a better way to landmark properties. Look at the RKO, same disaster, and what do we have now?
Seems a little unfair. I do not know of a solution at this point, so I throw it out there for discourse.
In staten island, the land mark preservation committee pulled the same stunt on a house in tottenville 5 years ago... A beautiful old house was for sale, a developer bought it with intentions of razing the house and building a few condos... Well the sale went thru and the house was then landmarked ... The new owner protested the new status but lost. In protest the new owner first painted the house all different neon colors and claims now he is broke. The once beautiful house has gone to shit... a typical greedy land developer and powerful city government clash...
No it's not fair that to landmark a house after someone has bought it. What a stupid thing to do!
Buyer beware...
No it's not fair that to landmark a house after someone has bought it. What a stupid thing to do!
Well we can always landmark it after they tear it down.
Or at least give a Queensmark before demolition.
It is an abosultely charming house. Landmark status was warranted. What a shame that it ends up this way.
Sad.
Post a Comment