Maybe That's Why Saving St. Savior's in Maspeth Never Succeeded
According to the Daily News, Councilman Dennis Gallagher, has been working all along with foreign developers to develop the St. Saviour’s land for houses:
Councilman [Gallagher] has been quietly lobbying city planners and Borough President Helen Marshall on behalf of a foreign developer who wants to build houses on the grounds of the historic St. Savior’s Episcopal Church in Maspeth.
Gallagher’s efforts have infuriated residents and civic leaders who have fought for some two years to preserve the church and surrounding property as a park. Gallagher flatly denied engaging in hush-hush influence peddling in an interview with Queens News on Friday.
Well, I expect there are some that are licking their chops with this tidbit, reveling in the schadenfreude, but a lot are probably mostly disappointed in (and/or angry with) the Councilman, wondering if anything can change, and wondering what these “environmental concerns” are holding things up… I’d sure like to know.
Update: See the Juniper Park Patriots for an opposing viewpoint.
Related:
Dennis Gallagher has let down community, activists claim [NY Daily News via the Historic Districts Council Newsstand]
November 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
A letter to the Daily News:
Mr. Lauinger,
I found your article today to be incredibly biased. I am no fan of Dennis Gallagher,
but the St. Saviour’s issue is not as one-sided as you make it seem. The church
itself was gutted by a fire over thirty years ago and is now a shell of what it
originally had been. It also has not been used in years and did not have enough
attendance to sustain itself when it was open as a church. The property is in a
mostly industrial area, with some residential houses mixed in. The large majority
of its surroundings are factories, warehouses and a railroad. Another park is located
half a mile from this site, in the direction of the residential community.
Should the city spend millions to buy this property and make it a park? I don’t
know, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I do know that the members
of the Juniper Park Civic Association, including ones named in your article, have
conducted themselves in an unprofessional, immature and offensive manner with respect
to this matter. Instead of acting like adults to negotiate and advocate for their
position, they viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them. In one rally, they
embraced a person who held a large poster showing a noose strung around a tree,
stating that is was reserved for Mayor Bloomberg and other city officials with whom
they had been dealing. They maligned the Maspeth Federal Savings Bank and its CEO,
who is a long-time and respected resident of the community, for not doing what they
wanted with the mortgage that the bank held on the property. I wonder if these
people truly have the best interests of the community in mind, or if they are more
concerned with their own power and press exposure.
Many in the community are disgusted with the leadership of the Juniper Park Civic
Association and disagree with their opinions and attacks. I hope your future articles
on this matter are more balanced.
From,
A concerned resident.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Thank you for the opposing viewpoint, Middle Village Resident!
November 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Oh how funny and not surprising is it that the Juniper Park Patriots, AKA “we agree with Dennis Gallagher on every issue”, are defending the actions of this indicted rapist (and not surprising that MegC linked to them). The reason this is an 11th hour fight is because the developer approached the Koreans and bought the land from them while they were still worshipping there. The restrictive covenant was still being honored and the community had no reason to believe that the church was in danger of development. There never was a “for sale” sign at the site back in 2005 and the property was never listed by a realtor. The fact of the matter is that the Koreans sold Maspeth’s history to a foreign developer with the full knowledge that he planned to tear the buildings down and build on the sacred land. Now it is up to us to save it while our councilman and borough president push to have 70+ housing units built in a polluted area. As for Mr. Rudzewick and Maspeth Federal, he sold the mortgage to the developer. Also is a favorite of Henry Fabian, another developer of crappy housing. As for the Daily News, they already did 2 stories on the Nazli-noose controversy. That ran out of steam quickly. Even the Queens Ledger said it wasn’t used as a racist symbol. So much for that.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Yes, I linked to JPP - just as I linked to the more prominent Daily News article featuring the words of the main anti-Gallagher spokesperson, Christina Wilkinson, which has given lots of attention to that side. Both sides go at the topic so intensely, it’s hard to know who speaks the truth, actually. So, I chose to link to both sides. You’re free to discuss the issue with each other here, if you like.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Let’s clarify one other thing. The current owner of the property currently has the right, without any variance or approval, to level the entire property and put up an industrial building. City officials are working on a compromise that would give the developer a variance to build residential housing while at the same time the developer would agree to keep the church buildings and set aside a portion of the property for open space.
As for the offensive poster - do you really think a “lynching” scene is a mature, responsible way to express your argument? At best, it was insensitive and ignorant.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I don’t understand why you single me out, Meg. They wrote one line of what I said. There were quotes from several other activists. Maybe it’s because in the past you said something extremely stupid about me and I called you on it. Like that I expect to lose this fight. As if I would waste my time fighting something that I expect to lose because I have nothing better to do. The facts about Gallagher are easy to find. You just don’t care to open your eyes.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Oh and to clarify “resident’s” statement, the property owner is seeking a zoning change, not a variance. I suspect that if the property owner wanted to build a factory there, he would have already, so let’s cut the B.S. He’s keeping the church he intends to save in excellent condition, by the way (sarcasm).
November 14th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Christina, my “singling you out” is 100% benign. In the article they said you “led a campaign to save St. Savior’s”, and you’ve also appeared often in the local press regarding this issue. I always associate you with the campaign to save St. Saviour’s. I’m sorry if my mentioning you caused you any consternation. I hope this helps to clarify.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Way to go and attack MegC Christina. It seems to me like MegC is being pretty neutral here. These attacks of yours are really getting you far (sarcasm).
As for your statement on the zoning and factory building, you really don’t have a relevant point. Who said the developer wants to build a factory? I’m guessing they would rather build residential. The point is that if a variance or zoning change (and for the purposes of this discussion, the result would be the same) is not had, the next option could be to build a factory, whether by this developer or someone else who buys the property. They don’t need any zoning changes to do that.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:52 am
I have an issue with you calling me the “main anti-Gallagher spokesperson”. What you meant to say is that I “led a campaign to save St. Savior’s”. There’s a big difference in the wording there.
Resident: Explain why the church looks like a shambles if the developer is planning to save it.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Christina, again you are pushing a point that is either made up or irrelevant. I don’t know what is involved with the negotiations with the developer; but who said the developer is planning to “save” or refurbish the church building. Maybe the negotiation is just that the developer will leave the building, i.e. not take it down, and build around it. A developer is not going to spend money on a building when it is uncertain whether or not the building is going to come down.
You really need to be more sophisticated and savvy in these matters if you want to lead this type of public campaign, and you should stop the nasty tone and attacks on everyone that doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with you.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Very revealing statement!
A developer who is planning to “spare” a building should not be sending people into the property to rip pieces of it out and allow the property to be open to vandals and to rain. It’s in the possession of the developer and he has the obligation to maintain the building. Forthermore, a developer who is planning for some open space/parkland on site shouldn’t be tearing down every tree on the property.
If fixing up the church building is not part of the deal then what benefit does the community get out of it? What is the point of negotiating? Gallagher already said he couldn’t raise the money to buy it.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:10 am
You mean the building isn’t sealed and demolition by neglect comes into play? Well then it’s clear the developer is being deceitful and so is the councilman.