Individuals have asked if the Patriots support or oppose saving St. Saviour’s and we would like to take this opportunity to answer. We believe that St. Saviour’s should be saved and preserved. Anytime, the community has the opportunity to preserve some of its rich history and provide green space for residents it should be taken. We also believe, however, that reasonable development can benefit the economic and social growth of a neighborhood. There should be a healthy balance between preservation and development to ensure that all needs of the community are met.Unfortunately, the reality is that some plots of land cannot be saved for various reasons and the community is at the mercy of the developer. Certain groups, however, want to place the blame solely on elected officials but we feel that the responsibility is shared by many different agencies, administrations, and individuals. Let’s not forget the complicity of the Landmarks Commission, City planning, Board of Standards and Appeals and the Mayor’s office.
More importantly, nothing ever gets accomplished when there is nothing but finger pointing, grandstanding and character assassinations. The Patriots think we should start having intelligent, responsible and respectful conversations between residents and those who make the decisions regarding preservation and development. Let us start identifying locations in our area that we need to preserve or possibly use for public green space before they are put up for sale, sold, bought and torn down. It is time to start being proactive instead of reactive in a negative manner.
We support:
Saving St. Saviour’s
Reasonable development
More parks and green space
Preserving our history
We hope that this answer your questions.
18 comments:
Can someone please set forth a reasonable plan to preserve this building? Why did the building fall into disrepair? Why was it sold twice in recent years? If there was dwindling attendance and community participation in the church, who would support it once it is rebuilt? It looks like a refurbishing would be very expensive. Who would pay for it? Who would pay for the ongoing maintenance?
a maspeth mom says
if you dont support finger pointing, grandstanding, and negativity on the whole- then why not remove the blog comments that fall into that category. I am sure people will still be interested in what you have to say.
The St Saviour's site has proven to be one of those community white elephants. I agree with anonymous that it would probably be costly to repair and not very marketable as a landmark site. In addition, the property is in a bad location to be park becuase of the industrial traffic, the diner and if you ever drove there at night it is very desolate. I'm sure that a compromise could be worked out to satisfy the needs of the community
I agree with Patrick. Why does it seem when the community is trying to save a peice of property it is always too late. Is there a way we can get a group of historians/experts and identify these areas of significance before anything is done with the property?
I believe the church would be restored and used as a community center or museum. I think I heard that there is a proposal to save the church and some land while allowing for some residential use. I think this would be a great compromise. Does anyone know how true that is?
"More importantly, nothing ever gets accomplished when there is nothing but finger pointing, grandstanding and character assassinations. The Patriots think we should start having intelligent, responsible and respectful conversations between residents and those who make the decisions regarding preservation and development."
First off, I appreciate you addressing this issue since I posted one of the comments asking where you stood. Does this mean that the Patriots are going to begin to take the high road and not stoop to the character attacks that have been characterizing all the debates regarding issues in Middle Village, Maspeth and surrounding areas?
It would be nice to see some positive and constructive comments on the issues effecting the area.
I have been supporting the JPCA, but it was the recent NY Post article where Bob Holden was quoted as saying he saw Gallagher receive a lap dance from a stripper in Councilman Ognibene's office prior to 2001. Yet he went on to support Gallagher's run for Councilman and also made him JPCA Man of the Year in 2005. Complete hypocrisy.
I tried to make this point in the comments on the "other" blog, but the moderator did not allow the post to be made.
The character battle reminds me of a movie where two rivals are fighting at the edge of a cliff and both go over. No one wins and they bring each other down.
This is what our political environment has become. Now who suffers? - the community as a whole. We deserve better than this. We should all try to be better than this, but perhaps it is just our nature. Who knows?
"People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. " - Pres. Andrew Shepherd from The American President
Why didn't Councilman Gallagher try to save the entire property when he had the chance to? Why was he so willing to compromise immediately? Could it have something to do with the fact that his buddies from Parkside represent the developer?
With regards to the saving of St. Saviours why hasn't more blame been put on Juniper Civic Associations 2 time Man of the Year Mayor Michael Bloomberg?
It was Bloomberg’s Landmarks Commission that said no to Landmarking.
It was Bloomberg’s Parks Department that refused to purchase the site.
It was Bloomberg’s City Planning Commission that privately negotiated with the developer for a zoning change prior to his purchasing the site.
Could it be that JPCA is just using this issue as a political sword against Gallagher because Gallagher refused to endorse Holden for City Council?
I think everyone can see Holden has reveled in Gallagher's misfortune proving he is a hateful angry man with an agenda against Dennis.
Time will tell if Gallagher's case resembles the Duke University Lacrosse case where people rush to judgment with the help of instead of overzealous prosecutors a mean spirited vindictive civic megalomaniac like Bob Holden.
Until then maybe JPCA should look at the Mayor and place some blame on his shoulders after all instead of wanting to add another tax with congestive pricing he could have easily purchased this site and helped the community.
Nice homes on that site would improve the value of homes in the area
That site has been an eyesore for years where has the civic been?
Why do 5 people from Middle Village believe they know what’s best for this site. I live near St. Saviours, the last thing I want is a Park for drug dealers and prostitution. Go back to Middle Village and let us Maspeth residents decide our own fate.
A nice gated high end development could add to the value of my home. So long as it is not overdeveloped let them build.
I heard a large Storage facility will be built if homes are not. I would rather have homes than a commercial use.
Does anyone realize Bob Holden was formerly paid for work done in his illegal basement by owners of the Parkside Group?
Does that compromise Bob?
NO.
It makes him a Liar when he says he has no business in his basement and he doesn’t profit by using his student's or civic equipment.
I try Posting on the Crap and they never let it be shown I know for a fact that site is just a JPCA front to attack elected officials and to promote Holden for Council and Avella for Mayor.
In life when you show no charity and only try to pull people down the tide usually turns and you feel some of the pain you have inflicted therefore Bob Holden beware of your vindictiveness it will be the end of you.
Good Luck as the Attorney General and DOI review you
To the Poster who says Councilman Gallagher never tried to save this site, do not believe the JPCA
Gallagher tried to get the site Landmarked
Gallagher tried to get the Mayor through 2030 to fund the purchase of the whole site and a part of the site
Gallagher refuses to discuss a zoning change unless the church is saved
Don't listen to the Crap search for the truth
Beware of the alternative a massive commericial use
Glad I found this site. Actually some reasonable people out there. Here are a few points I'd like to make.
Gallagher is the one and only reason that church is still standing. The developer could have torn down the church for well over a year, yet they have been working with the Councilman to arrive at a reasonable solution for everybody.
At what point did Gallagher have to "save the entire site?" This was a private piece of property, bought by a private company. I don't see the district handing out millions to buy property around town; do you?
The last few comments are on the money. A nice development will increase surrounding home values and hugely benefit this less than attractive part of town. The as of right uses for this piece are manufacturing and industrial. Is this what is preferred?
Let's face it, much of the "save the church" argument is an anti-development stance dressed in historians clothes. What will the "save the church" people say when the church is saved but development continues. I think we'll see their true colors then.
Post a Comment