A Staten Island judge on Thursday ordered the owners of one of the city's oldest houses to fix it immediately or run the risk of having to pay fines of more than $8.5 million — 20 times the property's fair market value.
In a colorfully written, 22-page decision, Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Philip Straniere said the owners knew in 2009 when they bought the historic Manee-Seguine Homestead that the house and surrounding acres were landmarked and they would be responsible for maintaining the building.
Instead, he said, they adopted a policy of “demolition by neglect” and ignored prior court orders to make repairs and post bonds that could be used to fund fixes.
Straniere added that the owners never filed a hardship application with the city to get out of the landmark designation for the house, which was built starting in 1690 and designated a landmark in 1984.
Under the designation, the owners were allowed to build residential units on the two-acre, ocean-view parcel as compensation for maintaining the historic home — one of the six oldest houses in the city. But they did not do that, either.
"(The owners) do not have to take any steps to develop the property; that is their choice. But they are required by the statute to maintain it. They have not done so," the judge wrote.
He said the city's request for an injunction to block the owners permanently from “continuing their policy of ‘demolition by neglect’... is granted.”
9 comments:
Too bad this would never happen in Queens! How often have new buyers deceived the city by violating permits or torching historical homes. It seems they always get what they want. Who are they paying off?
Big yup!
How come the LPC does not take similar action with the RKO Keith's Flushing theater?
Answer....because NOBODY IN POLITICS wants to offend the Chinese.
These are the money laundering mainlanders who support political campaigns.
Hmmm....gives a whole new meaning to Chinese laundry, doesn't it?
Nota bene, Loria and Lucchese, Steinway Mansion owners.
1. the mainstream preservation community (read in the other 4 boroughs) will not get involved in Queens because our councilmen will not vote funding their programs and organizations. it ends up biting them in the ass in the long run because sooner or later the gabage that happens here will happen there.
2. the leadership of Queens preservation is totally out to lunch - cut off from the real world - basically parrot what the politicians tell them. anyone that stands up for their community will not reecive media support and wil be squashed like a mole that sticks its head up out of a borrow.
3. the electorate in Queens is very naive believing anything they are told, or worse, 'hope' and 'wish' that 'someone' does something to remedy the problem instead of putting on their big-boy pants and taking the bull by the horns themselves.
Let this be a lesson to everyone who wants to landmark a site that they don't own or isn't owned by the government. This costs money! It restricts your options.
Someone email that guy from Neir's Tavern. It will end up costing him much more in the long run.
The unintended consequences of Government intervention...
Let this be a lesson to everyone who wants to landmark a site that they don't own or isn't owned by the government. This costs money! It restricts your options.
Someone email that guy from Neir's Tavern. It will end up costing him much more in the long run.
EVER HEAR OF GRANTS?
NOT ONE COMMUNITY HAS EVERY ASKED TO BE DELISTED. LANDMARKING IS MOST COMMON IN AREAS THAT HAVE THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE. TROLLS LIKE YOU KEEP QUEENS IN THE DARK AGES.
'LANDMARKING IS MOST COMMON IN AREAS THAT HAVE THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE.'
All that means is 'the most educated' people know how to game the system my lower case deficient friend.
Landmarking should be most common in the areas where there are historic buildings that should be preserved. The fact that it is used at times for nonsense just brings down all of the times when it could be used for real preservation.
Trying to landmark something just before or after it has sold is unreasonable. If it should be preserved buy it and then try to get it landmarked. To put on someone else the onerous regulations with upkeep of a historic building after they but it without any warning is unfair.
For the record the people in this story knew it was landmarked before they bought and they would be responsible for upkeep in a period appropriate manner.
I have heard of grants, as I have heard of Kickstarter, GoFundMe and multiple other donation based sites. I would ask what their success rate was. Not good.
If they want it landmarked, then make the city buy it
Post a Comment