Why is this building so important?

1. It has unique architecture.

2. It has a special place in the hearts of tens of thousands of Sunset Parkers.

3. It can inspire future generations by allowing them to "see" and "touch" the past.

4. A "people" who forget their past have no foundation upon which to build their future.

5. It instills in us a respect for the past.

6. It is the place where a woman broke the gender barrier in NYPD - 1st female employee.

​

We thought this building was protected as a NYC landmark.

1. The community worked hard through a long and thorough process to have this building become a New York City landmark.

​

What happened?

1. The group that landmarked the building - the Sunset Park School of Music - could not raise the money needed to renovate the building.  As a landmark, all repairs to the exterior have to meet very strict and very expensive guidelines.  They could not raise money, beyond enough to fix the roof and the adjacent stable/garage.  They gave the building back to the City.

 

2. The City sold the building a few times but at no time did any buyer actually take possession and begin repairs.  Finally, a local not-for-profit - the Brooklyn Chinese American Association (BCAA) - purchased the building.

 

3. In 2014, numerous complaints from Sunset Parker members led to us contacting the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).  In a little more than a year we obtained the following information and the following happened:

 

a. The owner could not allow the building to deteriorate to the point of collapse - that would amount to "demolition by neglect" - they would not be allowed to profit from such an action.

 

b. We pushed LPC to force an inspection, to make certain the building was stable.

 

c. We pushed LPC to force BCAA to either begin repairs (to prevent deterioration) or sell the property.  LPC then began the legal process of a court action.

 

d. BCAA sold the building to a private developer for $6,000,000.

 

e. We were suspicious because we knew the building could not be torn down since it was a landmark.  We assumed that the new owner planned on a gut renovation of the interior, possible construction behind and above the structure and the "sale" of air rights.  But we still did not believe this would justify the six million dollar price (especially considering costs of renovation of a landmarked building.)

​

When is a landmark not a landmark?

We were shocked when we found out on June 16th, 2016: 

​

1. On Monday 6/13/16 the Community Board held a Public Hearing (their words not mine) with very little public notice if any. They may have not even notified their entire board according to a one board member who was not notified.

 

2. Present at this rather small meeting were parents of children in District 15.  District 15 is not co-terminus with CB7 and at the meeting parents from as far away as Carroll Gardens voiced the position that the landmark, iconic Sunset Park "old 68th Precinct" - the Castle - be torn down to provide seats for students.

 

3. The Community Board also quietly scheduled a Land-Use & Landmarks Committee meeting to follow the "hearing" at which time they then voted to allow the NYC School Construction Authority to demolish our landmarked building if necessary to build a new school at the site.

​

4. The process was to now go to the full board to get their endorsement of the committee decision - which happens almost all the time.  The full-board is made up of volunteers who meet approximately 10 times a year and they trust that the small committee does due diligence on each issue and endorses their vote.

​

5. On Sunset Parker we spread the word.  We put together a logical opposing argument and an action plan.

​

The Position of the Community:

1. We do not approve of the loss of our landmarked old 68th Precinct.
 

2. We support a school being put at the site without destroying or altering the landmarked outer walls.
 

3. We suggest you "annex" the school to the school across the street to use their office space and lunch room.
 

4. Recent inspections by the LPC indicated that the landmarked walls were stable.  If it was structurally unsound LPC would have charged BCAA  with "demolition by neglect".
 

5. The purchase of this building by SCA is suspect in that it seems to be bailing out the private developer after he found out he could not make a profit on it.  Over the last 20 years, the community repeatedly asked the Dept of Education to consider putting a school in the landmarked structure (with no thought of demolition) and each time we were turned down.  Why is it now acceptable?
 

6. This building means a great deal to preserving the history of not just our community but the City - the woman who broke the NYPD gender line served in this building - the first female member of our police force after a long battle to make females part of the all male police force.
 

7. What is the good of being a landmark if YOU can demolish it?
 

8. Extra space may be available by preserving the front wall of the old stable and building up behind it - this would not change the landmark in any meaningful manner.
 

9. We do NOT relieve you from your responsibility to find seats for our children and insist you do not alter landmarks to make it happen.

​

Our action plan:

1. Ask everyone to send letters of testimony to the SCA.

​

2. Ask our elected officials to send letters of support (all but Carlos Menchaca did).

​

3. Ask citywide groups involved with historic preservation to step up and send letters of support.

​

4. Submit as many alternative sites as possible.

​

5. Continue to research the issue and discover new facts.

​

The Great Silence

1. On July 15th, 2016 the period to submit testimony ended and we heard nothing -  in fact to this very moment we have heard nothing.

​

We Will Not Go Gently into that Good Night

1.  Every several weeks we took additional steps to show SCA that we will not be quiet and wait for execution.   We repeated letter writing campaigns, we distributed a petition, we wrote to elected officials asking them to seek information.  I continued filing FOIL requests for data.

​

2. I continued "conversations" with the SCA and LPC letting them know that we would not accept the loss of our landmark - that we would pursue legal remedies and requests for investigations of the sale.

​

We Struck Pay Dirt

1. Finally, the wall of silence broke and I received an email asking for a "good" phone number.  This came during our renewed mass emailing on 3/28/17.

​

2. I messaged some of the key Sunset Parkers involved in this issue and asked for guidance on what to ask and strategy.

​

3. The call from SCA was received 3/29/17 here are my notes from the conversation:

​

A. I will leave the name of the staffer at SCA out to avoid personal embarrassment.  I will use "he". 

It was very difficult to get a word in.  Not that he wouldn't listen, he just had so much to say and I believe it was a well-rehearsed dialogue.  But at one point we were disconnected and it took me at least 3 minutes to renew the connection and he was still talking unaware I was gone.  He then went back and began again - and the part I had already heard was repeated identically.  Well, prepared.

​

B. Why has there been silence for 8 months.  A new site has been identifed, researched, hearing held, decision made and SCA is moving on the purchase, and yet the old 68 has no movement.

I was told "I hear your frustration".  NYSHPO is taking longer than we thought (I will share more about this later - but this was the key slip I was hoping for - info that we could use).

​

He went on "I know you are passionate and well-informed".

​

He said "We have used a drone to inspect the roof and areas we cannot reach.  We hired a "boom" lift to inspect the upper portion of the walls and make sure they were stable (that was a second slip - they are conceding that the building is stable and not in danger of collapse).

​

They inspected the mortar, the bricks, absorption, etc.

​

They will hold a big session for the public in a couple of months after SHPO signs off, to announce to the public and get feedback (third big slip - SHPO is a weak spot for us to reach out to).

​

C. When SCA announced its intentions we were told that there were no other sites in Sunset, this was the only site, yet they rejected it a dozen times when owned by BCAA.  You distributed a chart showing about 20 or 30 sites that you rejected - there was nothing else.  You wanted to respond to our need for 3,000 seats with just 300 and take our most cherished landmark.  But now you have other sites.  This was very insensitive to the community and has fostered mistrust.

​

The SCA understands the need for more seats.  We went back to the 68 because of the great need.

You have valid criticism.

​

I asked about particular sites.

Like St. Agatha - they have begun to look into it and would love to use the site but not sure.

​

36th & 5th the northwest corner.   This was the only time he was flustered and blurted out "Who told you that?" and then admitted taking core samples (thank you to the Sunset Parker that fed me that info).

​

D. Will you give us a commitment to not demolish or alter our landmarked building?

 

What I can tell you is that you will be very happy.  But no one gets 100% of what they want (that statement worried me since it leaves the door open for some demolition).

​

E. Discussion of west of 3rd Ave

 

The problem is the CEC - SCA sees them as the voice of the community with concerns about air quality and industry.  I countered with the beautiful pockets of residential housing and he seemed to be in agreement and I think we need to change the attitude of others about this.

​

F. Use it as an annex to P.S. 516?

​

Of course we would like to, but that is a DOE decision after construction (that is dumb, but we went back and forth with this)

​

I had an opportunity to raise each question that I had prepared, but some yielded no meaningful into so I did not include them here.  Several questions I skipped because he had made an earlier reference that rendered that question moot.

​

There was more in this long call, but it isn't relevant.

​