YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → MCB7 Preservation Committee | October 29, 2025

MCB7 Preservation Committee | October 29, 2025 — Transcript

by Manhattan Community Board 7 · 22,735 words · 3,457 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00So, you still need to use it like a
0:02normal microphone. We're all going to
0:03need to be quiet and respectful so that
0:05we can hear folks. Um, otherwise it's
0:09not going to work. But this is really
0:10important so that people on Zoom can
0:12hear uh what we are doing this evening.
0:15This is the community board 7
0:17preservation meeting. It's the second
0:18one we've had in October and we'll be
0:20discussing
0:22185 West 86th Street which is West Park
0:25Presbyterian Church. Um, may I have a
0:28motion? Uh, before we adopt the agenda,
0:29I just want to say on the agenda we have
0:31committee discussion. Uh, in that I'm
0:33including that if we have questions for
0:35the applicant, we will include that as
0:37well. Um, can I have a motion to adopt
0:40the agenda?
0:41>> So move.
0:42>> Excellent. Okay.
0:44>> 165.
0:45>> 165. My apologies. Uh the way that this
0:48is going to work this evening is we are
0:50going to ask panelists to come three at
0:53a time to this table uh to speak about
0:57uh this application. You're going to
0:59have two minutes to speak uh and then
1:02we're going to move on to the next
1:03person. I will also call the next three
1:06people to kind of stand on the side. Um
1:10currently we have uh 49 people signed
1:14up. So if we are expeditious, we will
1:17have enough time to finish ideally uh
1:20before we move to a committee
1:21discussion. I'm going to reserve
1:24approximately 45 minutes for a committee
1:26discussion. So we probably won't take
1:28any more testimony after 8:15 8:30. Um I
1:34also want to address there have been
1:35some questions about the posting of a
1:37draft resolution on the website. Uh I
1:40understand that a number of people here
1:42uh may not have been to a community
1:44board 7 meeting or a preservation
1:46meeting. It's pretty standard practice
1:48uh and in fact is about to be required
1:50by our bylaws to post a resolution ahead
1:54of time. That resolution can be modified
1:57by people this evening uh on the
1:59committee. It would not surprise me if
2:01it is modified by people on the
2:03committee this evening. So the
2:05characterization that we are ignoring
2:08your voice uh is false and I would love
2:11that before people make accusations like
2:14that they can reach out they can come to
2:16our meetings um etc. So with all of that
2:20said uh we are going to begin with the
2:22first three in-person testimony and that
2:26will be Reverend Derek McQueen Mitchell
2:30Garmuth and Debbie Hirschman. Each of
2:33you will have two minutes and I ask that
2:36you respect those two minutes um so that
2:38we can get to everyone who would like to
2:40speak this evening.
2:50>> Good evening and thank you co-chairs and
2:52members of community board 7 for the
2:54opportunity to speak. My name is
2:56Reverend Dr. Derek McQueen and I'm
2:58pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church
3:00in Harlem and I'm vice chair of the
3:02board of governance and procedure
3:04committee of the center at West Park.
3:06I'm here tonight to urge this board
3:08board to vote no on the Presbyterian of
3:10New York City's hardship application. A
3:12request for permission to demolish the
3:14landmark structure of the West
3:15Presbyterian Church. This is not a
3:17request to remove its landmark
3:19designation. It is an appeal to tear
3:21down a protected, beautiful, and still
3:23usable building on the grounds of
3:25alleged financial hardship. I speak as a
3:27pastor, a theologian, and a member of
3:29this very presetary.
3:31My words come from conscience and from
3:33faith. A faith that teaches that silence
3:36in the face of expediency is never the
3:38will of God. Sacred space is not meant
3:41for destruction or abandonment. It is
3:43meant for transformation in service to
3:45the people. West Park is not a relic of
3:48the past. It is a living sanctuary where
3:51prayer meets performance, where sacred
3:53song meets prophetic art, and where the
3:56human spirit is restored through beauty,
3:58courage, and community. It remains a
4:01place of hope and imagination alive with
4:03the same vitality that built it more
4:05than a century ago. To destroy such a
4:08place would be to sever a covenant
4:09between faith and neighborhood, between
4:11architecture and the human soul. West
4:13Park continues to be a home for artists,
4:15activists, and neighbors who find
4:16belonging and inspiration within its
4:18walls. Its value is not in its
4:20marketplace, but in its capacity to
4:22nurture what is best in us. West Park
4:25was built on a corner as a public
4:27invitation to all immigrants, workers,
4:30seekers, and families to enter freely
4:32and be welcomed. That same invitation
4:34must now extend to people of all
4:36expressions of love. For we are called
4:38to be a people of open arms and not
4:40closed doors. I speak these words humbly
4:43yet with conviction to my own presbyter
4:45and to this board. It is both my right
4:48and my sacred duty to voice conscience
4:50to power to say that preserving West
4:52Park is not only an act of faith, it is
4:54an act of justice. The Upper West Side
4:56has long been a place where neighbors
4:58matter, where multiffaith communities
5:00thrive, where people live not for
5:01fashion but for freedom. Thank you so
5:03much. Stand with the artists and save
5:06West Park.
5:08I
5:19Yeah. Okay. Hi. Um, I'm Mitch Shamroth.
5:22Uh, I've lived on the Upper West Side
5:24for over 30 years. I've been a member of
5:26the Center West Park since 2016 and
5:30became treasure in 23. Um, I've been
5:33supporting the preservation of this
5:35beautiful landmark since 2002 when they
5:38first sought to demolish it. Uh, three
5:41years ago when the presbyterary
5:42submitted virtually the same
5:44application, CB7 rejected the hardship
5:47application. So, what has happened since
5:50then? The center at West Park have spent
5:54over $1 million restoring the inside of
5:57the building and preparing for the
5:59restoration of the outside in order to
6:01take down the sidewalk shed. And we
6:03would love we would excuse me, we would
6:06have started already if the Presbyterian
6:09would have signed off on it. So what
6:11else has happened since CB7 rejected the
6:14hardship application? Don Freriedman
6:16issued his independent report that the
6:20building can be saved at a fraction of
6:22the cost. Two, use of the building as a
6:25community and spirit spiritual facility
6:28increased exponentially since 2022
6:31before the pres before the presbyter
6:34evicted the center and this was for
6:36thousands of people. The center also has
6:39offered to bear the responsibility for
6:42repair and restorations costs of the
6:44building and the center has also offered
6:46to pay the applicant rent in the amount
6:47of 360,000 per year plus cover
6:51maintenance and expenses for the
6:52building. So what does that mean?
6:55[clears throat] So we are willing we
6:57being the center west park 30,000 a
6:59month to improve the interior and pay
7:01for work at
7:04$30,000 a month. We will also improve
7:07the interior and pay for work on the
7:09outside to take down the sidewalk shed.
7:11Roger Leaf and others have thrown out
7:13the number of $9 million. So that means
7:16that if we got a 5-year lease, we'd be
7:18paying 30,000 a month plus $1.8 million
7:22to take down the sidewalk shed, which
7:24ends up being $2.15 million a year. This
7:29is not a hardship. Then thank you for
7:31your time.
7:38Thank you, commissioners.
7:42I have lived on the Upper West Side in
7:44the 70s and returned to the Upper West
7:46Side in the 1990s.
7:49I'm here today not because I'm the
7:52executive director of the center at West
7:54Park, which I only began in 2023 when
7:58someone gave me the privilege of walking
8:00into that space. I'm here today because
8:04my life has been devoted to building
8:06communities as is evidenced by the JCC.
8:11Founded in 1990,
8:13opened in 2001,
8:16a $95 million building. Then now the
8:21discussion is are there $9 million cuz
8:25that's Don Freeman's number
8:28in order to pay for total renovations
8:31not just the sidewalk shed as our 990
8:36shows
8:37there in 2024 there was a surplus
8:42of $1.2 million
8:45and currently there are millions of
8:47dollars
8:49available,
8:50which is how the rent proposal was made,
8:53how we brought $90,000
8:56of checks signed to this last meeting.
8:59People want to purport that the monies
9:02aren't there. That's false. People want
9:05to purport that the $9 million all has
9:08to be paid upfront. Anyone who's done
9:11construction, as I have, knows that it
9:15is a process. You do a cash flow
9:17statement. We've done those analyses.
9:20This building is safe as we have seen
9:23and proven and there are documents to
9:26show that as well as financially viable.
9:29We are being told the community will get
9:32a blackbox space. It will have
9:35146 seats in it. There are currently 650
9:41seats in West Park Presbyterian Church
9:44landmark building enabling 650 people to
9:48be there simultaneously and has been
9:51used seven days a week by over 20,000
9:54people and audiences alike. Thank you,
9:57commissioners.
9:59>> I apologize. I know I said I would say
10:03I'll
10:05like
10:56Um, once again, HTC has mobilized to
10:59oppose the application for the
11:01demolition of West Park Presbyterian
11:03Church. Our mission has remained
11:05unchanged. We wholeheartedly reject the
11:07church's application to remove the
11:09landmark status of the building on the
11:11grounds of hardship. The loss of this
11:13building would set a dangerous precedent
11:15that encourages demolition over
11:17rehabilitation for historic houses of
11:19worship. LPC's benchmark of hardship is
11:23purposefully high to ensure that all
11:24possible alternatives to demolition are
11:26considered. In their previous 2022 test
11:31statement, Manhattan Community Board's
11:33testimony rejected the applicant's
11:35request as they were unable to provide
11:38proof to warrant demolition. We remain
11:40unconvinced that the that the applicant
11:45Oh, we we remain unconvinced that the
11:50applicant can claim hardship based on
11:52its stated inability to meet the
11:54standards for tax exempt properties
11:57pursuing hardship. The applicant has
12:00presented multiple scenarios that do not
12:02meet the 6%. However, HTC casts doubts
12:05on these scenarios. Their discrepancy
12:09underlines the dubious nature of the
12:11applicant's claim bu to bring the
12:13building up to code. A full restoration
12:15is not warranted or even necessary.
12:18Other sources of income have also been
12:20adequately explored
12:22have not been adequately explored and
12:25have been outright rejected.
12:27The building continues to serve its
12:29charitable purpose and the tenants are
12:32being kicked out as we speak.
12:35Uh we don't believe that the building
12:37must be sacrificed for the good of
12:38everyone involved. We strongly support
12:40the need for more incentives and
12:42technical assistance for congregations.
12:45But there is a future for West Park that
12:47does not include demolition or removal.
12:54>> Hello. Can you hear me? Okay.
12:56Yeah. Uh my name is Cosmo Vinyl. I am an
13:01upper westider despite my accent. Um, I
13:04have been one for nearly 40 years now.
13:08Um, the late 80s I came here. I'm also
13:10the proud father of two fourth
13:13generation Upper Westsiders. One of
13:16whom's a public school teacher and the
13:18other works for the housing department
13:21developing properties for homeless
13:23people. Anyway, besides that, I am one
13:27of the artists that works in the church
13:30on the top floor. Last meeting there was
13:33a gentleman here who puts on some art
13:37shows on the ground floor, but I work
13:40with the people that work in the art
13:42studio on the top floor. We've worked
13:45there since um CO. There has never been
13:50a leak in our studio. Not one leak.
13:54We've been through snow, rain, high
13:56heat. There has never been a problem.
13:58The concept that the place is not safe
14:01is ridiculous. On the same floor, there
14:04is a bathroom and behind the bathroom is
14:07a large dance exercise studio. I've
14:10never heard or seen a leak in either of
14:13those and I'm always it's a we're all on
14:15the same floor. We are communicate and
14:18and and we see each other's spaces. So,
14:20I would just like to say that the
14:22building is safe and for the people that
14:24work on the top floor right under the
14:26roof, it looks good to me and it has
14:29never leaked. Thank you.
15:00Yes.
15:05somebody else. My name is Joan Firestone
15:08and I am a board member of the Center of
15:10West Park. I have spent 65 of my 95
15:15years on the Upper West Side in
15:17community development and arts
15:19education. I have never given up on the
15:22motivating promise of supporting its
15:24ethnic and religious diversity,
15:26promoting its public schools and
15:28playgrounds, and retaining its
15:30commitment to its engagement in the
15:32arts. As president of the parents
15:35association at PS 166, I led the effort
15:39to protect the school from demolition
15:42threatened because of its turn of the
15:44century beginnings in 1899
15:48when it was and continues to be a viable
15:52environment for the thousands of
15:54Westside resident families it serves. I
15:58was a member of planning board 7
16:00welcoming symphony space to join the
16:02community's commitment to education, the
16:05arts, social justice, and religious
16:08freedom. Since ongoing community support
16:12remains strong for the performing arts,
16:15music and arts education presented at
16:17the church by the center of West Park.
16:20As in the development of symphony space,
16:23professional artists have joined with a
16:25board at the center of West Park, not to
16:28parade their stardom, but to celebrate
16:30it in similar spaces that serve to
16:33launch their careers. We have shown how
16:36beloved this space is to people who
16:39flock to its engaging arts and education
16:42programming with the hope that it can
16:44continue its purpose [clears throat] for
16:46future generations. It is essential and
16:49morally right for the church at West
16:51Park to maintain its landmark status and
16:55I urge your support.
17:16Good evening neighbors. I am Chris
17:18Shelton. I am the pastor at the Broadway
17:21Presbyterian Church in Morningside
17:23Heights. 24 years ago, I was a seminary
17:26intern at West Park. And my first day
17:29was September 11, 2001.
17:32In that difficult year, I learned so
17:35much from this small, diverse, quirky,
17:39justice-seeking, peaceloving
17:41congregation.
17:43I believe deeply in historical
17:45preservation. As a pastor, I tell an
17:48ancient story week after week, trusting
17:51that the old has something to say to the
17:54new, including the fact that Jesus had
17:57the wisdom to stay out of real estate.
18:00I believe that there are important
18:02things about the West Park Church that
18:05need preservation, but its building is
18:07not one of them. Their history has long
18:11been one of breaking down walls, not
18:14being defined by them. They lived their
18:17history by welcoming the homeless,
18:19marching for peace, embracing the arts,
18:22standing with and for the LGBTQ plus
18:25community when other churches were
18:26afraid to, and so much more. And they
18:29did all this, scrappy as they are,
18:31because their mission is their history,
18:34their identity, and their legacy. and
18:37their mission is what needs to be
18:40preserved. The social justice fund
18:42created through this sale will enable
18:44that mission to flourish in
18:47congregations honestly like mine where
18:49we serve hundreds of neighbors each week
18:52through our shelter, our soup kitchen
18:54and social justice programs. I have many
18:58important memories in that building and
19:00I have huge respect for everyone who has
19:03put their hearts and minds into trying
19:05to preserve it. But it hasn't worked. We
19:08need to get real here. Indeed, I
19:11recently told a student that I had done
19:13my internship at West Park and they
19:15said, "Isn't that the church everyone is
19:17always fighting about? Is this building
19:20becoming a monument to division?"
19:23Friends, it is time to move on. Please
19:26support the West Park Church by enabling
19:28their true mission to become their focus
19:30and their future. Thank you.
19:39Uh hello everyone. [clears throat] My
19:41name my name is Jack Green. I am a
19:44lifelong Presbyterian who lives on the
19:46Upper West Side around the corner from
19:48the church. I speak in support of the
19:51hardship application.
19:53The essential question, as I understand
19:55it, is whether the building is suitable
19:57for use as a worship space by its
20:00congregation. Can the congregation, the
20:03owner of the building, support it
20:05anymore for its intended purpose? I
20:07think the answer is clear. They cannot.
20:10And they should not be forced to keep
20:12spending all of their money trying when
20:14this application will give them an
20:16opportunity at New Life and also benefit
20:19so many people in need on the Upper West
20:21Side and throughout New York City. West
20:24Park Presbyterian Church has been a
20:26force for good in the neighborhood for
20:27over 130 years. West Park is not a
20:31building. It is a congregation of
20:33faithful Presbyterians. The building
20:36they built in 1890 has worn out and is
20:38falling apart. It cannot be saved in the
20:41long term. The congregation can't
20:43support it and that is the essential
20:45question under the landmarks law.
20:47Opponents of the application are trying
20:49to confuse the issues. There is plenty
20:51of space for the arts on the Upper West
20:53Side. Everyone who lives there knows
20:55that there will also be additional space
20:58for arts in the contemplated mixeduse
21:00building to be built on the site. The
21:03landmarks law contains a provision
21:05allowing demolition to account for
21:06situations exactly like this one.
21:09Demolition is allowed when continuing to
21:12force the owner to maintain the building
21:14would work an unconstitutional taking.
21:17This is exactly that situation. Please
21:19grant the application so that a new
21:21building can rise, reinvigorating the
21:23corner of Amsterdam and 86th in the
21:25heart of the Upper West Side.
21:31>> Good evening. I'm Reverend Mary News,
21:34transitional prespter for the presbyter
21:37of New York City. I speak as a supporter
21:40for approval of the hardship
21:42application. Empowerment for those who
21:45are impoverished and living in difficult
21:47circumstances is what our ministry
21:50embraces at West Park Presbyterian
21:53Church and in the Presbyter.
21:56It is what we do. It is what we will
22:00address to a greater extent if the
22:02hardship application is approved. As a
22:05pastor by profession and church
22:08executive, new in this area for just
22:10about a three-year period, justice,
22:13empowerment, ministry, and mission are
22:16the fosai. It is what we do. With the
22:20approval, we will use the proceeds from
22:22the sale to build a new West Park
22:24Presbyterian Church for these very
22:27purposes. We will provide a social
22:29justice fund that will assist people and
22:32families in need. With the Justice Fund,
22:35we can give a hand up for those who are
22:38not financially privileged and who do
22:40not enjoy many of the basics that the
22:43rest of us take for granted. Food,
22:46shelter, clothing, enjoyments. The
22:48Presbyteria of New York City believes in
22:51ministry, mission, justice, and in
22:54serving God's creation with faithful
22:56commitment.
22:58Granting approval for the hardship
22:59application will provide numerous New
23:02Yorkers with the basic fundamentals of
23:04life. New York City has programs that
23:07have similar focus. We already possess a
23:11united spirit. We ask this approval for
23:14the hardship application to provide
23:16unencumbered worship space in a safe
23:19building, to provide safe meeting space
23:21for arts and educational programs, and
23:24to better the lives of many who do not
23:26have what all should enjoy. The
23:28lifeenriching programs mentioned will
23:31continue so that God's plan for creation
23:34continues. Please approve the hardship
23:37application for the enhancement of life
23:40for everyone. Thank you. God bless you
23:44all.
24:05Is there any water?
24:12>> Oh,
24:14>> hi everybody. I'm Vivian. I'm an
24:18ordinary human who used to be a
24:20registered nurse and I quit to pursue
24:22the arts. And the first building that I
24:24fell in love with was on Coney Island,
24:27the sideshow arena. It was great. I went
24:30to clown school there. And then when I
24:32left, I missed it a lot. And then I find
24:34out that it's under risk of siege. They
24:36want to bulldoze it, tear it down, and
24:38turn it into a casino, you know, for
24:40profit. Right. Fine. The the the Coney
24:43Islanders and all of the artists and the
24:45freak show people, they they won. So the
24:47casino people, they lost. So that's very
24:49good. But then Upper West Side, I I
24:52stumble upon this beautiful church
24:54building, right? Amazing events, amazing
24:58people. And again, another building
25:00stole my heart. Would you look at that?
25:02I get all cozy like in a cocoon and
25:04stuff. And then I find out that it's
25:06under risk of siege again. I feel like
25:08I'm in the Twilight Zone twice in a row.
25:11So, I'm really hoping that uh you know,
25:14some of the things I wrote down, it was
25:15a great speech, but I I feel like it's
25:18inorganic if I just read this whole
25:19thing to you. Um it's just uh history
25:24remembers art, not profit margins.
25:27Right. Right. Okay. And then uh profit
25:30margins never made anyone cry except
25:33maybe the artists. Haha. Funny, right?
25:37Good line. And then the other thing
25:39about the guy that said and not directly
25:41at him just like let's say
25:42hypothetically someone said something
25:44about how the building lost its original
25:46meaning. I don't know about you all but
25:49I can't think of anything more spiritual
25:51than than bringing a bunch of people
25:54into a container to express and create
25:58out of love and and light. It it's like
26:01what's more spiritual than that?
26:03Kneeling. I don't think so. I don't
26:05know. But that's just me. So, I am very
26:07clearly voting against granting this
26:09hardship application. I think it's
26:11really a shame that it's in question. It
26:13really is. Beautiful building, beautiful
26:16community, beautiful people. Just come
26:17on, please.
26:19>> That's all. Vivian, thank you.
26:24>> Thompson.
26:49Good evening, gentlemen
26:52and ladies.
26:56I have I have limited financial means
27:00and I'm a playright.
27:03What?
27:03>> Introduce yourself.
27:05>> Oh, my name is Anor Sulleman. I had a
27:08play at the West Park Theater Center uh
27:13April uh excuse me, February of 24.
27:18Um, I had was walking around the
27:20neighborhood up and down looking for a
27:22place to to for my play and I struck on
27:26the
27:28West Side Center and I was welcomed. I
27:33was encouraged and most places were
27:36asking anywhere from $3 to $5,000.
27:39I was given a space for $500 which I was
27:44able to afford because
27:48uh social security and Medicare actually
27:50supports me and it actually went very
27:52well and after the seats were sold u for
27:57four nights then at that point the
27:59center cashed the check that I had given
28:01earlier they didn't cash the check
28:03beforehand they cashed the check
28:04afterwards so I'm very grateful for this
28:07center the people that came were amazed
28:10about this the space that the theater
28:13that my my play was in then they some of
28:16them actually visited visited the
28:17theater and they were amazed at the
28:19architecture of the theater. Um, and
28:23because of the scaffolding, they didn't
28:24know there was such a beautiful space
28:26existed. So, for my anyway, from my
28:29selfish point of view, I ask you
28:33to maintain
28:35the uh the center and the building, the
28:38Presbyterian church. And of course, I
28:40have to thank you because it was not a
28:42landmark, I would not have had the
28:44chance to do my play here. So I'm asking
28:47you to continue it as a landmark for my
28:50sake and the sake of other artists.
28:52Thank you very much.
29:06Carl
29:12Gregory
29:34Carlo.
29:38Excellent. We'll hear from
30:33Greetings everyone and thank you to the
30:36commission for your faithful work and
30:38discernment.
30:40Um my name is Peter Cook. I'm the
30:43executive director of the New York State
30:45Council of Churches. We were founded in
30:481893
30:50and we partner with eight nine
30:52denominations including our friends at
30:56the Presbyterian with the Presbyterian
30:58Church.
31:00One of the things that we're most proud
31:02of is that we advise congregations all
31:05over the state on how best to use their
31:08property to serve their community and to
31:12offer the gospel.
31:15We help a congregation to balance a
31:18variety of considerations
31:21in including their landmark designation
31:25and zoning capacity to build
31:29uh and zoning, their capacity to build
31:32affordable housing to do justiceoriented
31:36ministry in their community and to
31:38preserve their financial health.
31:42We want every congregation to be wise
31:45stewards of what they have been given.
31:49The answer that makes sense is different
31:52for every property.
31:55It's not a onesizefitsall.
31:58In the case of West Park, we have walked
32:00with this congregation for many years in
32:03their struggle. We concur with the
32:06presbyter that the most faithful action
32:08would be to approve their hardship
32:11application
32:13so that this church and this presbyter
32:15can better serve the community with a
32:18viable space and also release funds to
32:21help the community, including helping
32:25congregations in this city repurpose
32:28their property,
32:31including the building of affordable
32:33housing.
32:34I ask that you weigh all the factors
32:37including the diverse financial claims
32:40that are being made here very carefully
32:44to arrive at the right decision and I
32:47pray for your faithful discernment.
32:50Thank you.
32:54>> Hello. Hello. My name is Clayton Young
32:58and I support the approval of West
33:00Park's hardship application.
33:03I've lived on the Upper West Side for 50
33:05years. I'm an elder of a Presbyterian
33:07church 10 blocks west uh north of West
33:10Park. I'm not an actor and I'm not a
33:14public speaker. But my passion for the
33:16social justice ministry at West Park and
33:19the New York Presbyter has given me a
33:22voice. I share with many of you a love
33:25of the Upper West Side, the rich
33:27culture, the restaurants, the parks, the
33:30liberal politics.
33:32But Westsiders are also among the
33:33wealthiest in the city.
33:36There is a whole substrata of neighbors
33:38that struggle just to survive. The poor,
33:41the unhoused, immigrants, people of
33:43color. They are voiceless, invisible,
33:47neglected, and underserved.
33:49In requesting the board to approve our
33:51hardship application, West Park and the
33:53Presbytery are simply asking the board
33:56to allow us to exercise our right to
33:58pursue our ministry, which is to provide
34:01the greatest good to those in the
34:03greatest need. The purpose of the social
34:06justice fund to be funded from the
34:08development of West Park is to serve our
34:10neediest neighbors.
34:13This is not a debate between the arts
34:14and the church. West Park and the
34:16Presbyterian are not anti-arts. West
34:19Park hosted the Center for the Arts for
34:21many years at well below market rates,
34:24helping it to grow and flourish at the
34:26expense of its own viability.
34:28There are other churches in the
34:30presbyter such as good sheeperd in
34:31Lincoln Square that provide a home for
34:33many performing arts organizations.
34:36We Presbyterians are people of good
34:38faith who act in good faith. And I was
34:40saddened and insulted by the accusation
34:43that we are a money grubbing well
34:45financed behemoth deliberately running
34:48the church into the ground for financial
34:50gain. West Park is in debt and even if
34:53the Presbyterian were to devote all its
34:55entire endowment to the restoration of
34:57West Park, it would not nearly be
34:59enough. Moreover, it would be at the
35:01expense of the 87 other Presbyterian
35:04churches we support in the five burrows.
35:07Thank you.
35:12Good evening. Good evening.
35:16My name is Reverend Eugene Palmore and I
35:18am the pastor at Church of the Master in
35:20the Village of Harlem and I am
35:23supporting the approval of the hardship
35:25application that is before this board. I
35:28understand the cultural,
35:30social, and even the emotional
35:33significance of preservations
35:36for institutions like West Park.
35:39But I am also
35:42keenly reminded of how the same hardship
35:44issues concerning properties throughout
35:46Harlem that have had the same
35:48sentimental value and cultural
35:50significance were ignored and properties
35:53were raised.
35:55As my brother
35:57in Christ. Reverend Chris Shelton just
35:59said Jesus wasn't in the real estate
36:01business. In fact, tearing down walls
36:04and systems that held that systems are
36:06more valuable than the needs of the
36:08people was central to his counter
36:10clockwise revolution. Against such
36:13systems, my church is a perfect example
36:16of how clinging to old wine skins and
36:18pouring new wine into them doesn't work.
36:22New wine skins doesn't mean that the
36:24work will not be done. That doesn't even
36:26mean that it won't be good work. It just
36:29means that it just gets a fresh start.
37:06>> [laughter]
37:08>> All right. Uh, good evening. I'm Simeon
37:11Bangoff. Um, I am a preservation
37:14consultant with the center at West Park
37:16pre uh prior to launching my own
37:18consultancy. I was the executive
37:20director for the historic districts
37:21council for 21 years. This is my third
37:24hardship. Um, I've got to say that this
37:28is as unpersuive an application as the
37:31stall case that it is based on. Um the
37:35numbers don't make sense, especially
37:38once you figure into it the notion that
37:41uh the offer that's on the table for
37:43renting the space as well as uh
37:46restoring the exterior.
37:49Um old new build new ideas need old
37:53buildings and this is a prime example of
37:56this. In places across the state and
38:00across the country that I've talked to,
38:02they're always like, "Oh, we've got an
38:03old building. Let's put a community
38:05theater in it." And I say, "No, don't do
38:06that. That's that's ridiculous. You can
38:08never raise money with the community
38:09theater." Here is actually an example
38:12where a notfor-profit community theater
38:15is actually raising the money needed.
38:17Um, it is a shining model of that of
38:20that and something that inspires
38:23could inspire things across the city and
38:25the country. Finally, uh, with regards
38:27to the proposed draft, I'm very I was
38:29very pleased to hear that it's only a
38:31proposed draft. I do recommend that the,
38:34uh, committee takes a close look at that
38:36because the draft, as it's currently
38:38written, really skips about three parts
38:42into the into the decision tree and
38:45starts addressing something that is
38:47going to happen, should it happen, three
38:49steps along the way. I think that that
38:51really is a an example of um kind of
38:53robbing yourself of an opportunity to
38:56engage with the process fully. Thank
38:58you.
39:02>> Hi, my name is Maline Pette. I'm the
39:04resident producer at the center at West
39:05Park and I'd like to speak to the strong
39:07demonstrated evidence that West Park
39:08Presbyterian Church is adequate,
39:10suitable, and appropriate for carrying
39:12out its current and historical
39:14charitable use. The evidence is clear.
39:16Since 2018, the center has welcomed over
39:1960,000 audience members, including more
39:21than 25,000 since 2024. It has hosted
39:24over 800 performances and events, 350 in
39:27the last year and a half, and thousands
39:29of hours of rehearsals for artists at
39:31all stages of career and classes for
39:33students of all ages. The wonderful
39:35congregation at Lighthouse Chapel
39:37utilizes almost the entire building for
39:39services and programs every Sunday. An
39:42average day might feature a film
39:43screening in the sanctuary, a subsidized
39:45rehearsal for $10 an hour in the chapel
39:47and downstairs dance studios, a meeting
39:49of our writing workshop or our puppetry
39:51residency in the second floor studio,
39:53dances on for children on the top floor,
39:55and Cosmo who we heard from painting in
39:58his studio. It's true that there are
40:00other art spaces on the upper west side.
40:01This is New York City. It is a home for
40:03the arts. But there is no other space on
40:05the Upper West Side with seven spaces
40:07with such unique wide variety of uses
40:09under one roof where market rate rentals
40:12are able to subsidize affordable space
40:14for artists at all stages of their
40:15careers. The center provided this for me
40:17before I worked here for my theater
40:19company Moxy Arts NY which was incubated
40:21at the center and has gone on to win
40:23awards for supporting women and
40:24non-binary artists in the arts. Finally,
40:28I'd like to speak to the idea this space
40:30is not safe. Because you know who has
40:31been producing arts programming at the
40:33center since we were evicted in July?
40:36It's West Park Presbyterian Church. Just
40:38this month in the sanctuary, they hosted
40:40their annual West Park International
40:42Music Festival on the 11th. You can go
40:45on the Facebook page for the West Park
40:47Open Mic that they run and you can see a
40:48Facebook live stream of their open mic
40:51from this last Friday. So, the idea that
40:53they're up here arguing that this space
40:55can't be used for its intended purpose
40:56when members of their congregation are
40:58using it for its intended purpose, uh,
41:01is hard for me to understand as a a
41:04person who works in the arts in New York
41:05City. So, I hope that you all will see
41:08the value of this space as a home for
41:10the artists that we want to be
41:11supporting the entertainment industry in
41:13New York City for years to come. Thank
41:15you so much.
41:19Um, hi. Uh, my name is Cat Belelfur and
41:22I've worked at the center at West Park
41:23for over two years. But tonight I speak
41:25to you not only as a dedicated employee,
41:27but as a university student and young
41:29artist navigating New York City. I
41:31recognize that I'm part of a younger
41:32generation than most attendees here
41:34tonight. And I want to argue that my
41:35generation and those after me need this
41:37community space more than anyone. I'm
41:39not an Upper Westsider like many
41:41attendees here tonight, but I choose to
41:43call this place my home regardless
41:44because I've felt the impact of this
41:45space and this community deeply. I've
41:48seen incredible performances and met
41:49talented people from all walks of life,
41:51whether they are established A-listers
41:53or upand cominging artists like myself.
41:55None of this would be possible without
41:56the opportunities that the center at
41:58West Park provides. Spaces like these
42:00are increasingly rare, buildings rich in
42:02both history and in arts, culture, and
42:04community. As a student of the
42:05performing arts, I know it can be next
42:07to impossible to get your foot in the
42:08door when it comes to showcasing your
42:10talents. But programs the center
42:12provides, namely the Evolution Festival,
42:14our subsidized rehearsal spaces, and
42:16affordable rental spaces for
42:18performances, give anyone with enough
42:20love and passion for what they do, a
42:22chance to play out for longer, larger
42:24audiences and start their journey as a
42:26performer. I've witnessed some of the
42:28best and most creative talents of our
42:29time through programs like this. Every
42:32day I walked through the 86th Street
42:34doors, viewed performances from the back
42:35of the sanctuary, and happily greeted
42:37eager patrons of our many programs. I
42:39was and still am reminded that this
42:41mission is bigger than myself. When we
42:43were forced to leave, I cried hopeless
42:44tears, thinking that our brave cause had
42:46failed. But I still have hope. Hope that
42:48with the help of this community, we will
42:50return to this essential space. And
42:52those hopeless tears will turn into ones
42:54of joy and promise. The center is not
42:56just a building. It is a home for so
42:58many people, myself and my community
43:00members included. By taking that away,
43:02you would be complicit in destroying
43:03that home for thousands of people who
43:05feel as strongly as I do. And the impact
43:07will be felt for many years to come. I
43:09implore the landmarks committee to think
43:10not solely about the present, but about
43:13the future. The future of artists and
43:14performers like me looking for a place
43:16to belong. Thank you.
43:42Hello. I'm
43:45>> just talking.
43:49>> Okay. Okay. All right. Good. Um, I'm
43:52Cecilia Blure, an upper westider, sixth
43:55generation, and a member of Second
43:57Presbyterian Church on West 96th Street.
44:00I speak in support of West Park's
44:02hardship application. I'd like to first
44:05address some of the recuperative
44:07accusations against West Park uh its
44:10congregation that I heard earlier this
44:12month and this evening that the
44:14congregation is trying to coldbloodedly
44:17deprive the community of a treasured
44:19building for the sake of profit.
44:22Whatever makes you think that the
44:25congregation isn't suffering this loss
44:27as well. A church building is a site of
44:30life's milestones. weddings, baptisms,
44:33funerals. It's where we go to make sense
44:36of the loss of love or of a job or to
44:40discern what we need to do in the next
44:43phase of our lives. We call a church a
44:46home and its congregation family.
44:49There is always great sadness for a
44:51congregation to give up a building. So,
44:55here's a verse from the prophet Isaiah.
44:58Forget the former things. Do not dwell
45:01on the past. See, I am doing a new
45:05thing. Now it springs up. Do you not
45:09perceive it? I quote this not just
45:12because it's appropriate to the moment,
45:15but also to remind everybody that we are
45:17talking about a church and its property.
45:21However much a church may enrich the
45:23neighborhood through the arts, the arts
45:25which infuse our very worship services
45:28are always subordinate to the church's
45:31higher purpose.
45:34No outside con uh organization is
45:37entitled to dictate the church's mission
45:40and to try to do so represents a
45:43Trumpian lack of boundaries.
45:46West Park has a long legacy of social
45:49witness that it wishes to continue. You
45:53have ample professional evidence on the
45:55perilous state of the property. Yeah.
45:59And the church's finances. We are all
46:01sad. We all mourn. But now, let's look
46:05forward to God's new thing. Thank you.
46:13I am the Reverend Robert Folultz
46:15Morrison. I'm the former executive of
46:17the Presbyterian of New York City whose
46:19office sits in the inner church center
46:22across from Riverside Church. I want to
46:25speak in support of the hardship cause
46:27of the West Park Church. The late
46:30Reverend Robert Basher, West Park's last
46:32pastor, and I knew each other over many
46:34decades. He and the congregation
46:37embraced a long social justice history
46:40to love God and to love their neighbors
46:43and to provide spiritual meaning and
46:45hope. Whether it was the houseless
46:47persons at the door
46:49home a person who wanted an open mic who
46:52was a poet or the creative experience of
46:55the arts. He led Bible studies and
46:58worship and took personal sacrifices
47:02to pursue his calling in Christ with
47:04this congregation on the Upper West
47:06Side. A previous vision to retain the
47:09sanctuary and provide housing was
47:12undercut by landmarking the building
47:14over the objections of the pastor and
47:16the congregation. People commend
47:19constitutional separation of church and
47:21state. But this workaround with
47:23preservation has resulted in 25 years of
47:26scaffolding surrounding the building due
47:29to the absent of adequate funding from
47:32the congregation, its programs, and the
47:35community to maintain a landmark
47:38building. It's time to let go of the
47:40building and follow the new vision ahead
47:43that Reverend Berser, the congregation,
47:46and the 89 churches in the presbyter
47:48have already approved. Before his death,
47:51I knew he bemoaned members of the
47:53community he well knew as his neighbors,
47:56denigrating congregation and presbyter.
47:59some accusations coming from people who
48:01did not live here nor understood the
48:04religious corporation law in the state
48:05of New York or Presbyterian polity. But
48:09what he and the congregation could see
48:11ahead was a continuation of extending
48:13its social justice mindedness for more
48:16than just the Upper West Side for the
48:18city of New York.
48:20Different people have different ideas
48:22about West Park. Mine is centered in the
48:25mission and the rights of a church in
48:27the community and its love for God and
48:29its neighbors, including those of you
48:32here who disagree with the request for
48:34hardship. Thank you.
48:44>> For individuals who are joining us on
48:46Zoom and want to testify, please use the
48:50link to sign up that was placed in the
48:52chat. Thank you.
48:55Okay.
49:02Followed by
49:09followed by Carla
49:14and Robert
49:24Hello, I'm Katherine Alenir. I wrote a
49:27fabulous letter to CB7. I had no idea
49:30that meant I was going to present it
49:32tonight, so I don't have the letter with
49:34me, but I researched this.
49:38Can you hear me now? All right. I'm
49:41Katherine Alt Keenir. I had no idea I
49:43was going to be speaking tonight. I
49:44wrote a letter. I don't have the letter
49:46with me, but I did a lot of research
49:48about this church. And
49:51you know, in Europe, they take such good
49:54care of old churches. Here in New York
49:57City, we tear them down. Why is that? We
50:01have a perfect example of Romanesque
50:03revival architecture that students
50:04should learn about in a book. They
50:06should not see it. I don't know how big
50:09this congregation is. I've heard it's 10
50:11people. Is that right?
50:15It's 10.
50:18>> I'm sorry. What' you say?
50:19>> This is not a question and answer.
50:21>> Okay. It's not a question and answer.
50:23I've heard that it's a congregation of
50:2410 people and there is macity at work
50:27here. What are they doing now? Where are
50:30they meeting now? What is the social
50:32justice they are doing now? They want to
50:34wreck the neighborhood by building this
50:37building which by the way will have no
50:39affordable housing in it which means it
50:43will be Pieta tears for Europeans. This
50:46is ridiculous. It's a beautiful church.
50:48There is no leaking the center which
50:52they evicted. So they're go hardship. So
50:55they evicted their tenants. So they now
50:57have no income from that. Had the
50:59resources to take down that hideous
51:03scaffolding sidewalk shed and they said
51:06no, they would not sign the papers to
51:08take down the scaffolding. I don't I'm
51:11sorry. Hardship is not a word that
51:14applies in this situation. We do not
51:16need another disgusting, drab glass and
51:21chrome building on the corner of 86 in
51:25Amsterdam where this beautiful church
51:27has stood for
51:29135 years.
51:32I'm passionate about this.
51:40Hello, my name is Lindy Ken. I'm a
51:42lifelong Upper Westider.
51:45I'm reminded of the Dylan Thomas poem,
51:49do not go gentle into that goodn night.
51:51Rage, rage against the dying of the
51:52light.
51:55I understand this is an extremely
51:58complex issue. I hope I'm on the correct
52:01side of it, but I oppose the hardship
52:06application
52:08because I have seen too much
52:11of the developers paradise
52:14on the island of Manhattan.
52:17I've not to go very far into Central
52:20Park and look south and I see those tall
52:23towers,
52:25some of which were just thrown up rather
52:29quickly
52:30and they're an iso they're eyes and
52:34they're not um they weren't safely built
52:38and
52:40I was taught in school
52:44ask who wrote the book and buy follow
52:47the money and I do not uh uh uh
52:53think that developers need more on this
52:57island. I think we need to preserve the
53:00beauty of what we have. Too many
53:02churches and synagogues have gone under
53:05the bulldozer.
53:07And when the Museum of Natural History
53:09wanted to build that connecting thing,
53:13I thought it was a good idea. And my
53:15husband said, "I oppose it." I asked
53:17why. And he said, "They're going to tear
53:19down mature trees." And I said, "Okay,
53:22but that's, you know, [clears throat]
53:24that's part of what uh happens when you
53:28need to build something new." And he
53:29said, "They can do better. They can make
53:32a plan that takes down fewer mature
53:35trees." We see what's happening now at
53:38the White House. Same kind of thing. You
53:41don't need to just Thank you. You don't
53:44need to wreck something in order to um
53:49have beauty.
53:51Just please think about a better way of
53:55preserving this. Thank you.
54:00>> Hi there. My name is Noah Lling. I'm a
54:02lifelong Upper Westider and married to a
54:04deacon of the Presbyterian Church.
54:07I speak with urgency and conviction to
54:09oppose the joint application filed by
54:10the West Park Administrative Commission
54:12and Alchemy Partners seeking delmarking
54:14and demolition of the West Park
54:16Presbyterian Church. Let's be clear,
54:18Alchemy Partner principles are not
54:20members of this community, not residents
54:22of New York City and not stewards of its
54:24history. They have no connection to the
54:26Upper West Side or its civic life.
54:31The claim that repair is impossible
54:33ignores both precedent and and
54:35potential. To grant this hardship claim
54:37would send a chilling message that any
54:39landmark can be destroyed if ownership
54:41neglects maintenance long enough, then
54:43pleads poverty. That's not preservation.
54:45That is advocation. The law does not
54:47require the city to reward deliberate
54:49deterioration with the demolition
54:51permit. Moreover, the partnership
54:53between the church and the alchemy
54:54partners raises troubling question. The
54:56devel The developers filings state
54:58plainly that the demolition is
54:59contingency on the sales contract. Their
55:02intent is not restoration but
55:03replacement. The new structure would
55:05include retail space and luxury
55:07residences with only a token 10,000 foot
55:09area offered back to the congregation.
55:12This is not adaptive reuse. It is
55:14commodification of sacred ground.
55:20Community board 7 and the landmarks
55:22preservation commission. I plead to you,
55:24you must affirm that history and
55:25architecture and community matter more
55:27than short-term profit. I urge you to
55:29reject the Dlandarking and hardship
55:31application in its entirety. Instead,
55:33convene the many organizations who stand
55:35ready to assist in finding a sustainable
55:36community-based future for West Park.
55:38Let us remember, once a landmark falls,
55:41it can never rise again. The West Park
55:43Church has stood through wars,
55:44depression, and pandemics. It deserves
55:46more than demolition. It deserves our
55:48stewardship. To preserve it is to
55:49preserve the soul of the Upper West
55:51Side. Thank you kindly for your time.
56:20Hi everyone, my name is Daria Karatus. I
56:23am a mechanical engineer and I work in
56:25the city. I frequent the church very
56:28frequently as I come to see basically
56:30every single show that they put on. The
56:32first time I ever had gone in there was
56:34to see a production of um Crime and
56:36Punishment. For those of you that may
56:38not be aware of it, it's a um it's a
56:41book written in the 1800s about a man
56:44who decides to take the fate of another
56:46person into his own hands because he
56:48does a costbenefit analysis and decides
56:51that he knows what's best and then he
56:53has to suffer through the consequences
56:56of his decision and basically uh write
56:59it out into salvation. Um, we kind of
57:01are falling into the same pitfall that
57:03Rascalikov fell into with um deciding to
57:08tear down a beautiful building that's
57:10been around for like someone else said
57:13130 years and um and replacing it with
57:17another set of luxury condos that will
57:19basically not accomplish the the the
57:22needed desire to bring affordable
57:25housing because it almost never does.
57:27And we basically remove uh by doing that
57:30we remove a beautiful historical part of
57:34the city that kind of meets that merges
57:36old and new. It roots us and anchors us
57:40from where we came from and guides us
57:42into where we want to go into the
57:44future. When we remove these historical
57:46landmarks, it it's always one at a time.
57:49we lose the battle on this one and then
57:51the next one it's going to be the next
57:53one that loses the battle and before we
57:55know it there's going to be no old
57:57buildings left and um I'm sure there are
58:00people that decided to remove uh Penn
58:04Station at the time we could have and
58:05there were people that wanted to remove
58:07Grand Central. What would New York City
58:09look like today without Grand Central?
58:11We need to make sure that we do our part
58:13and uh be the stewards that we need to
58:16be to keep this city vibrant and alive
58:19and just merging with old and new
58:22because just because it's old doesn't
58:23mean it doesn't deserve to exist
58:24anymore.
58:31>> Uh Chuck Grapper uh Upper Westider.
58:36>> Yeah. Can you hear me now? Okay.
58:39Chuck Grapper, Upper Westsider. There's
58:41a reason why the overwhelming majority
58:44of people here and at the last meeting
58:47are opposed to this application and do
58:51not believe in such a hardship. The
58:53reason is because there isn't one. Okay?
58:56You've heard testimony at the prior
58:58meeting, and expert testimony as to the
59:00cost of rehabbing the building. It's
59:04nowhere near what the applicant claims
59:05it to be.
59:07What is the benefit of granting this
59:09hardship application for a for-profit
59:12builder of a condominium?
59:15Period.
59:16This church must be preserved. My wife
59:20Kathern Groer couldn't be here tonight,
59:22but I just want to read a few things
59:23that she had said and submitted. As a
59:26resident of the Upper West Side, I
59:27strongly believe New York City must keep
59:29intact the center at West Park as well
59:31as its home at the West Park
59:33Presbyterian Church. As a playwright,
59:35all of my plays have had their stars in
59:37churches. Salame Jensen opened at the
59:39St. Peter's Church at City Corp. A
59:41recent play with Frank Wood and Kelly
59:42Karan was at the theater for St.
59:44Clemens. Personally, I find it quite
59:46spiritual and human knowing that part of
59:48the other interior spaces at at the
59:51church hold worship. I firmly believe
59:53that people that want to pray together,
59:55act together fosters creativity. The
59:57creative energy flourishes there. As an
1:00:00artist, poet, playwright, and lifelong
1:00:01believer in preserving architecturally
1:00:03significant structures, which this is,
1:00:06as well as maintaining natural resources
1:00:07against overdevelopment, I am imploring
1:00:09you to reject the application for
1:00:11hardship and recognize the need at hand
1:00:14and serve the community that you
1:00:16represent. Thank you very much.
1:00:21>> Uh, good evening, uh, members of the
1:00:23community board. My name is Robert
1:00:24Feinstein. I'm on the board of the
1:00:26center at West Park. I want to speak
1:00:27directly to you. Three years ago, you
1:00:30saw the same application and denied it.
1:00:33Uh nothing's changed except for the
1:00:35good. 60,000 people have attended
1:00:37hundreds of performances at the church.
1:00:39It is a vibrant community arts center.
1:00:42It has only gotten better over time. It
1:00:44survived an earthquake. It doesn't leak.
1:00:46This is about harm to the neighborhood.
1:00:49Your your mission as the community
1:00:51board, as I understand it, is to
1:00:53represent and advocate for the people of
1:00:54the Upper West Side. The landmark
1:00:56commission makes the ultimate
1:00:57determination. But your recommendation
1:00:59is important. This community, the Upper
1:01:02West Side, will be a net losser if you
1:01:04grant this application because, as
1:01:06noted, the developer is going to take uh
1:01:09is going to condominiumize a building,
1:01:11sell it in pieces, and walk off with a
1:01:14lot of money. The congregation is is
1:01:16virtually non-existent. The presbyter,
1:01:19the greater presbyter has taken over
1:01:21this process to get $30 million into
1:01:23their coffers. It's not coming back to
1:01:25the upper west side, okay? It's going to
1:01:28be used for a variety of purposes, but
1:01:30the social justice fund will trickle out
1:01:32a few dollars and maybe those few
1:01:34dollars will be in the upper west side,
1:01:35but maybe they won't. So, we will lose a
1:01:37landmark building. We will lose a
1:01:39community art center and the value is
1:01:42going to be taken out of the Upper West
1:01:43Side and go to the developer and to
1:01:46people in other burrows. You should
1:01:48protect the Upper West Side by denying
1:01:50the application on the merits and it's
1:01:52faulty on the merits. So you have the
1:01:53grounds to do that. Thank you for your
1:01:55time.
1:02:25Hello everyone. I'm David Majentel. I've
1:02:28been an a resident of the Upper West
1:02:30Side since 1984
1:02:32because of three golden words, rent
1:02:35controlled apartment. I've worked at
1:02:37Barney Greengrass, the sturgeon king for
1:02:3934 years. Some of you know me from that.
1:02:42If you don't know me from that, you'll
1:02:44know me from Potato LK. Who wants some?
1:02:48Fresh OJ just squeezed 12 minutes ago.
1:02:52So, I met Laura and I met uh Debbie at
1:02:55Barney Greengrass and I said, "I'm
1:02:56looking for a space to uh play raetball,
1:02:59pickle ball, whatever." They said, "You
1:03:00can play pickle ball at our space. You
1:03:02can play in the morning and I won't
1:03:04charge you $80 an hour, which is what
1:03:05they charge you every other place. I'll
1:03:07only charge you $20 an hour." I said,
1:03:09"Okay, good." I had a young man who I
1:03:13was a big brother with, and I decided to
1:03:15play pickle ball with him. Uh at first,
1:03:18it was very hard to get him up. I had to
1:03:20pull him out of bed, etc., etc. After a
1:03:22while, he started getting into it. After
1:03:24a while, I he was waiting for me at the
1:03:26space to play pickle ball at 5:30 in the
1:03:29morning, 6:00 in the morning. Um, after
1:03:32maybe another four or five months, maybe
1:03:34after 128 games, he actually beat me
1:03:37once. So, um, but this boy also now he's
1:03:42he's he wants to be a ranger in the
1:03:43army. He's in Fort Bragg in South
1:03:46Carolina. And I think a part of it, a
1:03:48little part of it, maybe just one pearl
1:03:50out of a whole necklace is my being able
1:03:53to use the space because of Lorna,
1:03:56because of Debbie letting me use it for
1:03:58a very reasonable rate. Now, there's
1:04:00also something that's being said about
1:04:02not safe. I don't know about the
1:04:04structure of the space. All I know is it
1:04:06seemed okay to me at 5:30 in the
1:04:08morning, but I do know it was very safe.
1:04:10They had somebody there. I could tell
1:04:12you two stories before I leave. I said
1:04:14to Debbie once uh the space was going to
1:04:17be gone, I said, 'Debi, well, why can't
1:04:19I still use? She said I said, ' Debbie,
1:04:21you just put a new air conditioner in
1:04:22there. I said, 'If you're going to be
1:04:24gone, you're going to be gone soon. Why
1:04:26did you have a new air conditioner? She
1:04:28said, it's because I want the kids to be
1:04:31have, you know, to not be hot in the
1:04:34summer. This was this past summer. I
1:04:35want the kids not to be hot. Okay. Uh
1:04:39and and I guess the last story I wanted
1:04:41to say, I'll forget about it right now.
1:04:43We'll maybe talk about that another
1:04:44time. And we're moving on.
1:04:50Let the choir say amen. [laughter]
1:04:55Good evening everyone. My name is Noel
1:04:58Ellison and I'm here to support the
1:05:00hardship application of West Park
1:05:02Presbyterian Church. As a person who
1:05:05grew up in the Upper West Side during
1:05:06the first 20 years of my life, I am well
1:05:09aware that West Park has been part of
1:05:12this neighborhood's history for over a
1:05:14century. For so many people, it is where
1:05:17they found comfort in hard times, where
1:05:20kids sang in choirs, where neighbors
1:05:22gathered for meals and community
1:05:24programs. It's always been more than
1:05:27just a building. It's been a place of
1:05:29care and connection. But the truth is,
1:05:33the building is in serious decline. The
1:05:36small congregation that remains simply
1:05:38doesn't have the resources needed to
1:05:40keep up with the enormous cost of
1:05:43maintaining a landmark structure. Every
1:05:46patch and repair feels like a feudal
1:05:49effort in a losing battle. The focus has
1:05:53shifted from serving people to just
1:05:55trying to hold the place together. That
1:05:58is not, and I repeat, that is not what a
1:06:01church is meant to be. The plan before
1:06:04us offers us a chance to change that. By
1:06:08lifting the landmark status, the church
1:06:10can move forward and funds from
1:06:13redevelopment will be overseen by a fund
1:06:16committee to support community service
1:06:18and social initiative ministries
1:06:20throughout the city. That means the
1:06:23spirit of West Park, its missions for
1:06:26compassion and service can live on, not
1:06:29just here, but across New York. This
1:06:32isn't about losing a landmark. It's
1:06:35about giving new life to the values that
1:06:38made West Park matter in the first
1:06:40place. Thank you.
1:06:44>> My name is Don France. I'm a member of
1:06:46the 50-year-old, 150y old congregation
1:06:49who owns the building. in question. I'm
1:06:51asking for the waiver. I'm also producer
1:06:54general manager for Broadway off
1:06:56Broadway international theater
1:06:58productions. The topic is economic
1:07:00viability of the building as a church
1:07:02and as a cultural center uh which is
1:07:05what the congregation created. I
1:07:07supervised the conversion of the
1:07:08building from a church only to
1:07:10performance and rehearsal spaces. I
1:07:13interviewed other established off
1:07:15Broadway theater owners and show
1:07:17producers, profit and nonprofit, for
1:07:19help. It looks glorious. I love the
1:07:22building, but a professional sees the
1:07:25faults and they see the dollars.
1:07:28West Park Presbyterian started the
1:07:30center for West Park because there were
1:07:33no other takers.
1:07:35The statements about the glorious
1:07:37Culture Center and $20 pickle ball and
1:07:39all the performances
1:07:41for seven plus years is an illusion.
1:07:44Sadly, it's a fantasy. It's an illusion
1:07:47that you all have been enjoying because
1:07:50less than two 20 $2,900 a month was paid
1:07:54on the books by center management to the
1:07:58church.
1:07:59So less than the church's insurance bill
1:08:03to keep the center operating and to give
1:08:05you that cheap space, free space, the
1:08:09church went broke. The management could
1:08:11not even open up a bank account for the
1:08:14zero dollars in the exterior renovation.
1:08:18Sadly, it's time for reality. So why did
1:08:22the professionals not want the building?
1:08:24Why did the church's nonprofit fail to
1:08:26make it a go? The model we hoped for was
1:08:29at St. Clemens, Actors Chapel, many
1:08:32other churches around the country, but
1:08:34they are all much, much smaller. The
1:08:37church aptly promotes cheap space for
1:08:39artists. It's not a gift. It's because
1:08:42it is cheap space. The potential renter
1:08:45has to worry about air conditioning. In
1:08:47the daylight, flood comes through the
1:08:49windows. I had a show there. I couldn't
1:08:50do a matinea. Fire and ambulance sirens
1:08:53are heard screaming up Amsterdam. I took
1:08:55in a director. Can we work here? BOOM.
1:08:56BOOM. BOOM. BUT NO, we can't. There's no
1:09:00sound barriers. There's bathroom stalls
1:09:03on the first and third floor, not the
1:09:04second one. The waiver from Actors
1:09:06Equity Association for professional
1:09:08actors will be challenged because
1:09:09there's not enough space or private
1:09:11bathrooms. The sanctuary acoustics are
1:09:13bad.
1:09:15>> Thank you.
1:09:42Oh, you go ahead. Do your speech first.
1:09:47>> Hello.
1:09:49I'm not used to microphones, so tell me
1:09:51if it sounds weird.
1:09:54>> Loud. Okay. Louder. Okay. Uh, my name is
1:09:58Lisa Harrison. I've lived on the Upper
1:10:00West Side for over 35 years and I've
1:10:04walked by West Park Presbyterian Church
1:10:07more times than I can count. And every
1:10:10time I walk by there, I feel compelled
1:10:13to just stop and reflect on how lucky we
1:10:17are to have this beautiful, unique
1:10:20building in our neighborhood, you know,
1:10:23just sitting there right on the corner.
1:10:26Um
1:10:28there are no there are so few modern
1:10:31examples of beautiful architecture. We
1:10:34see tall glass buildings springing up
1:10:36all over the city like giant needles.
1:10:40The building has clearly been neglected
1:10:44for many years and having it cleaned up
1:10:46and restored will take some time.
1:10:49The center at West Park
1:10:52plans to do just that. And frankly, that
1:10:55should be enough to keep the landmark
1:10:58status.
1:11:00But in addition, they will also use the
1:11:02building as a performance and community
1:11:04space, which would be a perfect fit for
1:11:07this neighborhood. Whereas the last
1:11:10thing we need is another tall building
1:11:12full of luxury condos.
1:11:16There is no hardship here.
1:11:20There is a buyer who will restore the
1:11:22building and create a welcoming,
1:11:23inclusive space that will benefit our
1:11:26community.
1:11:28There is no reason to remove the
1:11:30landmark.
1:11:32I urge community board 7 to reject the
1:11:36bogus hardship application and preserve
1:11:39this beautiful church which is so loved
1:11:41and appreciated and absolutely deserves
1:11:45to be a designated landmark. Thank you.
1:11:50Hello. The center at West Park is the
1:11:54lifeblood. Oh, I'm sorry.
1:11:56>> Okay. Um, my name is Valerie David.
1:11:59Thank you. The center at West Park is
1:12:02the lifeblood and pulse of the Upper
1:12:04West Side. The center at at West Park
1:12:06must not be demolished. What it has
1:12:09brought to our community, to myself, to
1:12:11all New Yorkers, and to visitors to our
1:12:14cities is beyond what I could ever fully
1:12:16express in words. It is a sanctuary for
1:12:19our community and everyone who walks
1:12:21through its doors. Giving a voice to the
1:12:23arts in music, film, theater education,
1:12:26and more with affordable rehearsal
1:12:28space, performance space, classes for
1:12:31artists and community members and
1:12:33educational programs. Since its
1:12:36inception, it's been a home to more
1:12:39light movement, God's God's love we
1:12:42deliver, and the Shakespeare center and
1:12:44many other historic organizations. I
1:12:46myself have been an actor there
1:12:48performing on the sanctuary stage. As an
1:12:51audience member, I've attended countless
1:12:53events including concerts, plays, films,
1:12:56puppetry shows, and storytelling events,
1:12:59and so many new works developed. And
1:13:01personally, what it means to me. I am a
1:13:0527-year cancer survivor and still a
1:13:09patient and lived through three
1:13:10diagnosises on the Upper West Side, and
1:13:13I live with cancer every day. The joy
1:13:16the center at West Park has brought me
1:13:19with its arts and culture programming
1:13:21and performing during the hardest times
1:13:23of my life. My hardship is priceless.
1:13:28Arts heal and center at West Park did
1:13:31that for me. It helped me heal. It truly
1:13:34helped me survive. It helps so many.
1:13:37Please keep this arts haven alive like
1:13:40it did for me. Let it survive for
1:13:42generations to come. If this landmark
1:13:45haven of arts and culture is destroyed,
1:13:47the landscape of the Upper West Side
1:13:50will be permanently altered and it will
1:13:52be the death to vital and muchneeded
1:13:54arts and culture and a safe space for
1:13:57all of us. I pray that you will find it
1:13:59in your hearts to preserve.
1:14:32Hi there. Uh, my name is Laura Shamroth.
1:14:35Um, I've lived on the Upper West Side
1:14:37for 25 years. I have four children. I
1:14:40just wanted to speak to the CB7 board.
1:14:44First of all, thank you for hearing um
1:14:47us speak today. I also just wanted to
1:14:49tell you that if you notice the people
1:14:51who are talking on behalf of the center
1:14:53at West Park, we're all part of the
1:14:56community. We're mothers. We're fathers.
1:14:59We're we're working at Barney
1:15:00Greengrass. We're local we're local
1:15:02vendors. And the people who are speaking
1:15:04on behalf of the presbyter, they're
1:15:06pastors. They don't live in the
1:15:09neighborhood. The majority of people
1:15:11here are the neighborhood. So I I really
1:15:14I plead with you to listen to us because
1:15:16this this is our community. And also I
1:15:19would also ask you to please have you
1:15:21visited the center? Have you visited the
1:15:23church? Have you gone inside? Have all
1:15:26of you gone inside?
1:15:28Have all of you gone inside and seen
1:15:30inside?
1:15:31>> Okay. Sorry. And if you have, I I I find
1:15:34it hard to believe that you would see
1:15:37see the church and then think to
1:15:39yourself, I feel comfortable in being
1:15:43part of the demolition and and like your
1:15:45legacy
1:15:47of knocking down a landmark building for
1:15:50your children, for your children's
1:15:51children. How how I just find that hard
1:15:54to believe that you'd be comfortable
1:15:56with that. There's not many things in
1:15:58your lifetime that you could actually
1:16:00have an effect on. You could actually do
1:16:02something in your lifetime to save a
1:16:05building. That's more than anyone else
1:16:07can do in their lifetime. I would love
1:16:08to be in your position to say that I
1:16:10saved a landmark building as opposed to
1:16:13building a high-rise. You guys are lucky
1:16:15that you have this choice. So, think
1:16:18about it when you make this decision.
1:16:20Would you rather build a high-rise or
1:16:22would you rather save a landmark
1:16:24building that's 135 years old? That's
1:16:26something I would I would tell my kids
1:16:28about. Thank you.
1:16:36Hello. Can you hear me? Hi. Yes. Thank
1:16:40you. My name is Anuanet Kiglio. I live
1:16:44in the Upper West Side for the past 40
1:16:46years. And I really want to say first of
1:16:48all, I'm shocked that here at a
1:16:51community meeting, a community board, we
1:16:54have been preached at by Ezekiel, the
1:16:58prophet for profit ministers who are
1:17:01using a public meeting to indoctrinate
1:17:04us with their religion and then their
1:17:06artificial plea that they have a social
1:17:09justice plan. Where is their social
1:17:12justice in embracing the community that
1:17:14is asking them to cooperate? They have
1:17:18not said that they will cooperate. They
1:17:20could be given a space in the in the
1:17:23sanctuary to continue the church, the
1:17:26legacy of the church and its original
1:17:28landmark building, but they want to tear
1:17:30it down and take the money away from the
1:17:33community and build another rectangle
1:17:35that is a crown jewel building. I've
1:17:37raised three sons in this community.
1:17:40They've gone to public school and when
1:17:42they would walk home from school, they
1:17:43would look at that building and say,
1:17:45"This is my neighborhood. There's that
1:17:47redstone building." Should they ever
1:17:49have gotten lost when they were little,
1:17:51that was their landmark building. That
1:17:53was their north star. So, everybody here
1:17:56has the opportunity to work together for
1:17:58the Presbyterian Church to stop crying
1:18:01poor. They ran the church into the
1:18:04ground operating tax-free. And now their
1:18:07biggest claim is, well, we let it go. We
1:18:10wouldn't pitch in and pay for it. We've
1:18:11got 10 people who now we have the right
1:18:14to make the judgment against the entire
1:18:16community rather than working with the
1:18:19community. Thank you. I appreciate your
1:18:21time.
1:18:31>> Good evening. Uh, my name is Petra
1:18:34Shoulder. Can you all hear me without
1:18:37the mic?
1:18:38>> No.
1:18:40>> Okay. All right. Hi, my name is Petra
1:18:44Shoulder. Better.
1:18:46>> Hi, thank you for allowing me to speak.
1:18:49Um, I think we have two issues. I think
1:18:52this church situation, it's an endemic
1:18:55situation. Churches have been taken over
1:18:58by builders all over the city, including
1:19:01the Elizabeth Street Park that they won.
1:19:05Okay. Um builders have gone rampant to
1:19:08build condos for rich people. This is
1:19:11one of many many um you uh ladies and
1:19:16gentlemen of the commission. It's called
1:19:19the landmarks preservation
1:19:22commission. Therefore in your name is
1:19:25preservation.
1:19:27Therefore you have a mission to preserve
1:19:30to preserve. Okay. So number one I am
1:19:34begging you try to preserve this
1:19:37beautiful church. All right. It's been
1:19:40mismanaged obviously. Obviously. Okay.
1:19:44But it has wonderful programs for the
1:19:47community. For the community. And that's
1:19:50what you need to please keep in mind the
1:19:53wonderful programs that it has had. It
1:19:56has some funds, okay, which have been
1:19:59mismanaged, okay? Now they're getting
1:20:02their act together, right? All right.
1:20:05So, please try to keep it in mind
1:20:07because the community does not need
1:20:09another condo for rich people. For rich
1:20:13people. It won't help the people who
1:20:16need apartments. It won't help anybody
1:20:18to have more rich people in this
1:20:21neighborhood. All right. So that is my
1:20:24plea. That is all I can ask of you to
1:20:27please consider your basic mission of
1:20:29preservation of these beautiful old
1:20:32buildings. All right. Thank you so much.
1:20:35God bless you all.
1:20:44Hi, my name is Sari Roboth and I have
1:20:48been looking at the church out my window
1:20:52for the 35 plus years that I've lived
1:20:55across the street. Um, I moved in in
1:20:591990. The church was already suffering
1:21:03from not having been reinvested in and
1:21:07taken care of at the time. And it was
1:21:09only a few years after that that the
1:21:11scaffolding went up. So
1:21:16I want to talk about a couple of things
1:21:18briefly. One is all the church
1:21:20architecture
1:21:22all over Europe that this church brings
1:21:25to this country
1:21:28as a romanesque revival church built by
1:21:32a student of one of the u most prominent
1:21:35Boston architects who built churches in
1:21:39Boston. But this is built of a redstone
1:21:42instead which is a challenge. It makes
1:21:45it even more beautiful. There's a reason
1:21:47why the European churches were built in
1:21:51Gothic and Romanesque architectures.
1:21:53It's because they are spiritually,
1:21:56religiously inspiring.
1:21:59And this church, I look up and I am
1:22:03looking at the heavens and smiling and
1:22:07there's something very human scale about
1:22:09it. Despite its height, it feels like
1:22:12it's built for people. That is point
1:22:15one. Point two is I'm not quite sure
1:22:21what this argument is about. Um the
1:22:25original estimates and even the most
1:22:27recent estimates that the church's
1:22:30engineers who are all focused on new
1:22:33buildings have provided
1:22:37um are contrary to what the landmarks
1:22:40commission's engineer who's one of the
1:22:43top old building engineers in the
1:22:46country estimated.
1:22:48Okay. So it's going to cost2 to3 million
1:22:51not 50. And the church is ready. I mean,
1:22:55I I I'm I'm sorry.
1:22:59Well, some people went on. Let me just
1:23:01finish. I did not know that was the
1:23:03limit.
1:23:05I will sum up. If if there's the there
1:23:08is the likelihood of an exchange, if the
1:23:12church wants to sell, there's money
1:23:15being raised for
1:23:18tens of millions of dollars, maybe not
1:23:2033. And the church can stay and take the
1:23:24money and use it however they want. They
1:23:27don't get highest and best use. I'm
1:23:30done. They have no right to highest and
1:23:32best use. Just good use.
1:23:40>> Okay.
1:23:44>> That's okay. I think the microphone
1:23:47microphone.
1:23:50>> Okay.
1:23:51Hi, I'm Katarina. I am also I've had the
1:23:56privilege of working and volunteering at
1:23:58the arts or the center at West Park for
1:24:01the last
1:24:02seven to eight months. First, I would
1:24:04like to say to all the people that um
1:24:07are for the are for tearing it down. I
1:24:12would love I would implore you to
1:24:14actually talk to people to me to Debbie
1:24:17to anybody who actually works or spends
1:24:21a lot of time at the center at West
1:24:23Park. I have been there at 6:00 a.m. I
1:24:26have toured with the engineers and the
1:24:28architects. It might have a few
1:24:30wrinkles, some stretch marks. You know,
1:24:33it is old, but it is not falling down
1:24:36and it is not beyond repair. So, I just
1:24:39wanted to say that. but then also a
1:24:41little bit of my story and I'll talk
1:24:42fast. So two years ago I moved to New
1:24:45York from Minnesota with a dream. I
1:24:47wanted to make it in the fashion
1:24:48industry and to learn about myself in
1:24:50ways I never could back home. I wanted
1:24:53to try something different to grow and
1:24:55to step outside my comfort zone. I moved
1:24:57here without knowing anyone and as other
1:25:00transplants will understand it can feel
1:25:02pretty lonely sometimes. This past
1:25:05March, I was scrolling through
1:25:06Eventbrite for something to do on a
1:25:08Sunday afternoon when I came across an
1:25:11event about JFK Jr. about John F.
1:25:14Kennedy Jr. His former chief of staff
1:25:17and her co-writer were giving a talk
1:25:19just a few blocks from where I live at
1:25:22the West Park Presbyterian Church. I've
1:25:25always been fascinated by the Kennedys,
1:25:27so I thought, why not? for just $5,
1:25:31which was whatever I could pay, I ended
1:25:33up with a front row seat, a free book,
1:25:35and the chance to hear people who
1:25:37actually knew him to share their
1:25:39stories. So, in a city where so much
1:25:42feels out of reach, that evening
1:25:45reminded me that community, learning,
1:25:47and connection can still be accessible.
1:25:49Listening to other people's stories,
1:25:51expanding your perspective, and
1:25:53continuing to learn is vital to who we
1:25:56are and who we become. That's what drew
1:26:00me to the center at West Park, the
1:26:02organization that brings life, art, and
1:26:04opportunity to this historic space.
1:26:07Since then, it's become Okay. Um Okay.
1:26:11Just wanted to say New York is a place
1:26:14to be different. So, why would we want
1:26:15the neighborhood to look like a suburb?
1:26:25Good evening. My name is Deborah Kasakov
1:26:29and I am a member of the Upper West Side
1:26:31community and I've heard several people
1:26:34speak tonight about the good works that
1:26:37the Presbyter has been doing and I
1:26:40support those works. However, I don't
1:26:43think you need to tear down a landmark
1:26:45building which was landmarked because
1:26:47[clears throat] it was deemed to have
1:26:49architectural significance in order to
1:26:51accomplish those good works. I think
1:26:53they're not mutually exclusive things
1:26:56and I think this community can have
1:26:57both. Thank you.
1:27:06>> Hello, my name is Julia Harrington Ready
1:27:08and I've lived on the Upper West Side
1:27:10for about 25 years. Um, I'd just like to
1:27:14say to [clears throat] our friends um,
1:27:17uh, in the presetary,
1:27:19it's a very difficult and sad situation
1:27:22to be in, to have many historic
1:27:24buildings to look after, to have a
1:27:26social justice mission and not have
1:27:28enough money uh, to carry out everything
1:27:31that you would like to, but please come
1:27:34back to the table and talk. I really
1:27:36believe that the Center for West Park um
1:27:39has created such a powerful sense of
1:27:42community um and has so many people who
1:27:45are so dedicated. It may not be $33
1:27:48million tomorrow like a rich developer
1:27:50could give you. But I think the money
1:27:52will be there to maintain the building,
1:27:54to restore the building, and to pay a
1:27:56generous rent. So please don't look at
1:27:59it as a hardship. look at it as a
1:28:01continuation of your social justice
1:28:02mission and come to the table and talk
1:28:05about money and see what we can come up
1:28:08with. Thank you very much.
1:28:17Thank you everyone. We're going to move
1:28:18to testimony on Zoom now. We're not
1:28:21going to be able to see them, but I
1:28:23promise they're there and we will get to
1:28:25hear what they have to say. We're going
1:28:27to begin with Marsha Flowers.
1:28:30who will be followed by Nathaniel
1:28:32Christian.
1:29:19You need to unmute, [clears throat]
1:29:28>> Marca. You're muted,
1:29:37>> person. I'll figure this out. Okay, I'm
1:29:39unmuted. Very good. I'm Marcia Flowers
1:29:42and I have been a member uh and a
1:29:46officer of West Park Presbyterian Church
1:29:49for over 30 years. I lived and continue
1:29:53to live through the time of trying to
1:29:57preserve this building
1:30:00and it has taken everything that we have
1:30:04had. It has worn us out as a
1:30:07congregation. I've heard tonight that
1:30:09being a a congregation of 10 people
1:30:14I'm sorry it does and and uh some issues
1:30:18about throwing our our uh religious
1:30:21feelings out.
1:30:25It has Oh yeah. Um well our our faith
1:30:30and this building is a house our faith
1:30:36and we have done that to the best of our
1:30:40abilities and as we our obligations
1:30:44this this building is not the church. It
1:30:48houses a worship.
1:30:51It is not what makes us a worshshiping
1:30:54community. Uh, I urge the
1:30:59committee to grant the hardship
1:31:02application. I'm sure that there's much
1:31:04more negotiation that will need to go
1:31:06on, but we've got to start someplace.
1:31:09This building should never have been
1:31:11landmarked. Uh, it was done over our
1:31:14objections with the full knowledge that
1:31:16we did not have the money to maintain
1:31:20the building. So I urge the commission
1:31:24to please honor the application for
1:31:28hardship.
1:31:31>> You next we'll hear from Nathan
1:31:35Nathaniel Christian.
1:31:38>> Thank you. Uh good good evening. My name
1:31:40is Nathaniel Christian. I'm the
1:31:41moderator elect of the Presbyterian of
1:31:43New York City and I'm a longtime member
1:31:46of Eastchester Presbyterian Church
1:31:49in the Bronx. My small church's
1:31:52community would be a direct beneficiary
1:31:54of the social justice fund that will be
1:31:57set up if West by West Park if the
1:32:00hardship application is in fact
1:32:02approved.
1:32:04For many years, we've been active in the
1:32:06community feeding the food insecure,
1:32:09providing daycare and supplementary
1:32:11education for children of poor families.
1:32:13But we lost 25% of our active members
1:32:16during uh during the pandemic. And
1:32:19because of it dwindling resources, we
1:32:20have had to cut back on our service to
1:32:22our community. It is service to the poor
1:32:25that East Chester and other Presbyterian
1:32:27churches throughout the city will be
1:32:29supported by the the social justice
1:32:31fund. And while I am loathed to make
1:32:34political statements as I believe that
1:32:36politics corrupts everything it touches,
1:32:38I must say that it's a shame that West
1:32:40Park's desire to exercise its rights of
1:32:42self-determination has been so terribly
1:32:44politicized. And in this month of
1:32:47October, when many have recognized
1:32:48Indigenous People's Day and the right of
1:32:51a community to its own history, I'm
1:32:53saddened by the efforts of outsiders to
1:32:55appropriate the history of this
1:32:57wonderful church that has been done um
1:33:00here on the Upper West Side. These
1:33:02outsiders have sought to appropriate
1:33:04West Park's history through celebrity,
1:33:06fancy slogans, and a campaign to smear
1:33:08the intentions of West Park's
1:33:10congregation and the presbyter. And even
1:33:12even in a democracy, as we have all seen
1:33:15in this environment, there's a tyranny
1:33:16of the majority of which we have to
1:33:18guard ourselves against. enclosing West
1:33:21Park is asking for the right to continue
1:33:22to serve the Upper West Side and the
1:33:24city as a whole in the way it deems best
1:33:28and that it should continue to help
1:33:30support the arts in a more sustainable
1:33:32structure and bring help the tens tens
1:33:36of millions of dollars of aid to the
1:33:37poorest of New Yorkers through the
1:33:38efforts of churches such as East Chester
1:33:40Presbyterian Church and other sibling
1:33:42churches in our city. Thank you.
1:33:45>> Uh next we're going to hear from Susan.
1:33:48Uh, but if your name is Judy Samuels,
1:33:51uh, please raise your hand in the Zoom
1:33:53so we can find you. Uh, next is Susan
1:33:56Sullivan.
1:33:58>> Hi, I'm Susan. I've lived in the
1:33:59neighborhood for 30 years. Um, and since
1:34:022002, I've worked to save help save West
1:34:05Park. It's undeniable that it is due to
1:34:08the intentional neglect of the presbyter
1:34:11and its current refusal to permit the
1:34:13center at West Park to make the required
1:34:15roof and facade repairs that we are all
1:34:17here tonight. Clearly, the presbyter has
1:34:20failed to be a good neighbor to the
1:34:21Upper West Side community. There's been
1:34:23so much disinformation.
1:34:26I would like to quickly address
1:34:28everything in so I'll do it quickly. A
1:34:30contract is a contract. The Presbyterian
1:34:32signed a contract for the center at West
1:34:34Park to rent that space, the church
1:34:37space in 2018, which at that time was
1:34:40probably over market given the fact that
1:34:42without Gail Brewer's help, we would not
1:34:44have a boiler to provide heat. There are
1:34:47two claims by the presbyter which
1:34:49require everyone in good faith to rebut.
1:34:51First is that the building is not in
1:34:53safe condition. The building is 135
1:34:56years old and of course it needs
1:34:58repairs, but it is disingenuous to say
1:35:00that it must be demolished. As Mitch
1:35:03stated earlier, Central West Park has
1:35:05the money to make the necessary repairs
1:35:07and at the last CB7 meeting, we came to
1:35:10the meeting with checks in hand. If we
1:35:12accept the premise that every historic
1:35:14building that needs work should be
1:35:15demolished,
1:35:17that makes the landmark preservation law
1:35:19a joke, completely defunct. Since 2020,
1:35:23Central West Park has invested 500K in
1:35:26repairs. We've invested $70,000 in
1:35:29equipment upgrades. We've paid over
1:35:31$300,000 in architect fees, 20K per
1:35:35month while CWP was in residence to keep
1:35:38the building going. Second, the premise
1:35:40that the building is no longer being
1:35:42used for its original intent is patently
1:35:44untrue. As Maline stated earlier,
1:35:47Lighthouse Chapel worships at West Park
1:35:49every weekend. I've attended a service
1:35:51there myself. The center of West Park
1:35:54has infused life into this historic
1:35:56building by honoring the church's
1:35:58original 1880 mandate to serve its
1:36:01community. Thank you so much for the
1:36:03time to speak to you and
1:36:09hear from Michelle Cave and Jason Zakai.
1:36:14Uh Jason, I think you should be able to
1:36:16unmute yourself and begin.
1:36:18>> Good evening. My name is Jason Zakai.
1:36:20I'm a land use attorney from the law
1:36:22firm Hill PC and I represent the center
1:36:24at West Park. I rise in opposition to
1:36:27the hardship application and there are
1:36:29many reasons to oppose the application
1:36:31and we have addressed them in written
1:36:33submissions to the board. Since I'm
1:36:35limited to only two minutes tonight, I
1:36:36will focus my remarks on the standard
1:36:39for the reasonable return analysis.
1:36:41Specifically, the applicant's
1:36:44calculation is based upon the wrong
1:36:46equation and is not supported by the
1:36:48landmarks law. The cost of renovation
1:36:50are not part of this analysis. Under
1:36:53section 25-309 of the landmarks law, the
1:36:57applicant must demonstrate that the
1:36:58landmark building is incapable of
1:37:00generating a reasonable return. Under
1:37:0325-302 of the law, reasonable return is
1:37:07defined as the net annual return of 6%
1:37:09of the valuation of the improvement
1:37:12parcel. Net annual return is the revenue
1:37:15minus operating expenses excluding
1:37:18mortgage interest and amortization with
1:37:20an allowance of 2% depreciation for the
1:37:23building's assessed value. Importantly,
1:37:26valuation is defined in section 25-302
1:37:29of the landmarks law as simply the
1:37:32current assessed valuation established
1:37:34by the city. Thus, the proper formula
1:37:37for determining reasonable return is the
1:37:40numerator is a revenue minus expenses
1:37:44over a denominator of the current city
1:37:46appraised value of the land and
1:37:48building. That's it. The applicant has
1:37:52been using an incorrect formula and has
1:37:54been arguing that the valuation should
1:37:56be based on both the city appraised
1:37:58value and the cost of the restoration of
1:38:00the building. This is wrong and it's not
1:38:03what the landmarks law says. The cost of
1:38:05renovation is not a factor in the
1:38:07valuation analysis. Under the formula
1:38:10used by the applicant, there would be a
1:38:12dollar for-doll increase in the value
1:38:13based on upon how much it costs to
1:38:16repair the building. that would make it
1:38:17virtually impossible to reach a 6%
1:38:20threshold for a reasonable return.
1:38:24>> Sorry to uh Next, we will be hearing
1:38:27from Russ Jennings or Laura Jervis.
1:38:41And I'll remind folks on Zoom that if
1:38:43you would like to speak, please use the
1:38:44link to sign up. Um
1:38:50Russ, please begin.
1:38:52>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um my name is
1:38:56Russ Jennings. I am the president of the
1:38:58congregation at West Park Presbyterian
1:39:01Church and have many for many years been
1:39:04on the the session which is our our
1:39:08congregational uh kind of governance
1:39:10body and and so I've been around when
1:39:14we're talking about how to how are we
1:39:16going to pay for this, how are we going
1:39:17to pay for that, all the all the
1:39:19discussions you have when you have a
1:39:20small church. We you know I on the other
1:39:25hand I'm very grateful to the landmark
1:39:28commission and to uh to this body for
1:39:31for protect for feeling that their their
1:39:34their purpose is to support the the the
1:39:40um memory of and the importance of art
1:39:44from previous ages. You know the
1:39:46architects that built this church did a
1:39:49beautiful job with it. It's a gorgeous
1:39:50building. I do understand that. A
1:39:54church, however, has also a fundamental
1:39:57reason for being here. And that is we
1:40:00are supposed to love our neighbors as
1:40:01ourselves and even go as far as to love
1:40:04our enemies. And at some point when
1:40:08you're shrinking to the size that we
1:40:10have shrunk to which is actually more
1:40:11like five than 10
1:40:14uh we we meet on Zoom
1:40:17uh every week for for Bible study and on
1:40:21on Monday and for church on Sunday and
1:40:24we are still maintaining our community
1:40:26such that it is but we do not have the
1:40:29capability
1:40:31to re refurbish this church and It's
1:40:36really not our mission statement anyway.
1:40:39If we can pass that off and get the
1:40:42extract some resources from the church
1:40:44that can do better good than we're
1:40:46remotely capable of doing, that's what
1:40:48we want to do and we really would pre we
1:40:51really appreciate your attention to
1:40:53this. We hope that you will see the
1:40:54value of our community.
1:40:58>> Okay, next we have Nidia Leaf.
1:41:04If we have Laura Jervis, we can go to
1:41:06Laura Jervis.
1:41:08>> Yes, [clears throat]
1:41:09thank you. My name is Laura Jervis. I
1:41:12have lived and worked in the Upper West
1:41:14Side for exactly 50 years. I am speaking
1:41:19in favor of West Park's hardship
1:41:22application.
1:41:23[clears throat] My long story with the
1:41:25church credits me as one of the most
1:41:28reliable voices to speak on the true
1:41:31timeline of events. My association with
1:41:34this church began in 1975
1:41:38when I was a parish associate and
1:41:40continued until 1993.
1:41:43I was present in the church house when
1:41:46the ceiling on the second story
1:41:48collapsed.
1:41:50Only for the grace of God was no one
1:41:52injured. This was the beginning of the
1:41:56many attempts to shore up the massive
1:41:59unforgiving building.
1:42:02In the meantime, the church's endowment
1:42:04was being drained monthly, forcing the
1:42:08congregation to sell the two manes for
1:42:10clergy and reduce staff. All of these
1:42:14measures were to no avail. The church
1:42:18continued to be a hazard to the
1:42:20congregation and the community.
1:42:23Enter landmarks. In 2010 2010, the
1:42:28congregation of West Park vigorously
1:42:30opposed landmarking the church. It was
1:42:34landmarked anyway.
1:42:36During the landmark hearings, elected
1:42:38officials and some neighbors gave wild
1:42:41commitments to assist the church
1:42:44financially. It turns out these were
1:42:47empty promises. No help was forthcoming.
1:42:51The congregation has continued over
1:42:53these many years to save the building
1:42:56amidst dwindling numbers and resources
1:43:00and now with no permanent pastor for
1:43:03eight years.
1:43:05The building meets none of modern safety
1:43:08standards. The exterior.
1:43:14>> Uh we're going to go to Nidia Leaf next.
1:43:18>> Hello. Can you hear me?
1:43:24C
1:43:24>> can you hear me?
1:43:26>> Yes, please begin.
1:43:28>> All right. My name is Nidia Leaf. I've
1:43:31lived most of my life on the Upper West
1:43:34Side, at least 77 years, except for a
1:43:37few years when I lived in California,
1:43:40where I was the education director for a
1:43:42food co-op promoting organic food. In
1:43:47those days, which was the late 70s,
1:43:50early 80s, it was laughed at. I think
1:43:54organic foods have triumphed in today's
1:43:57world. I'm speaking to to urge you to
1:44:02think about other aspects that haven't
1:44:04been raised. Tonight, when I came back
1:44:07from California, I could look up and see
1:44:10stars
1:44:11only in Central Park, and I haven't even
1:44:14seen those lately. I have not seen any
1:44:18butterflies in any of the tree pits
1:44:21where flowers are planted. We're losing
1:44:24something and tearing down an amazing
1:44:27church where I saw a production of Lissa
1:44:31Strada during the Afghan war that was a
1:44:35combination of professional actors and
1:44:38women from a shelter.
1:44:41It was better than anything that
1:44:43Uripides could have imagined. I've seen
1:44:47other productions here that are
1:44:49thrilling. And I worked in the Broadway
1:44:52theater in the early 1950s, straight out
1:44:56of college. I have very strong feelings
1:45:00about the community. I know that you do,
1:45:03too, or you wouldn't be serving on this
1:45:05board. It's not a hard decision though
1:45:09to listen to the community as you are
1:45:11doing now. Thank you.
1:45:15>> Thank you, Nidia. Uh, next we're going
1:45:17to hear from Nina Musinski.
1:45:21Nina, you're unmuted. You should be able
1:45:22to speak. You have
1:45:24>> All right. Thank you very much.
1:45:25[clears throat] Uh, I'm Nina Musinski.
1:45:27Um, I I've lived in the neighborhood for
1:45:30um 28 [clears throat] years. I strongly
1:45:33oppose the hardship application seeking
1:45:36to demolish the the West Park
1:45:38Presbyterian Church. Um I was a member
1:45:40of the small group with Susan Sullivan
1:45:43and Mitch Shamroth uh and Gail Brewer
1:45:46that managed to get the church landmark
1:45:48I see over their dead bodies. I'm sorry
1:45:50about that. But during the past few
1:45:52years, I've been so happy to see life
1:45:54returning to the church in the form of a
1:45:56thriving and ever growing arts
1:45:58community. The center west park brought
1:46:00art, music, live theater, and joy to the
1:46:03formerly deserted church, not to mention
1:46:05to our neighborhood. I attended several
1:46:08performances there, and I can tell you
1:46:10that the reputation for great acoustics
1:46:13in the sanctuary is totally deserved.
1:46:16It's remarkable. This church, as you all
1:46:19know, is one of the only remaining
1:46:20Romanesque revival landmarks in New York
1:46:23City. You've heard that tonight. Our
1:46:25community loves it. I think you've
1:46:27you've heard that. We've proven our
1:46:28commitment to it by supporting the
1:46:30center for West Park. Uh the
1:46:33Presbyterian on the other hand has done
1:46:35all that it can to destroy it. And
1:46:37frankly, I find the bad faith of the
1:46:40Presbyterian in evicting the tenants who
1:46:42have already raised funds to restore the
1:46:45building and we're continuing to do so.
1:46:48And to turn around then and say that
1:46:51that that they have that to claim
1:46:53hardship, it's stupifying to me. I find
1:46:56that that's a deliberate neglect. I'm
1:46:58sorry. It it's time to relieve the
1:47:01church of the church. The capital that
1:47:04you you say the church is not the
1:47:06church. Well, give it to the community
1:47:08then or sell it rather by selling it to
1:47:11the city and to our community. We'll get
1:47:13there and by restoring and protecting
1:47:15this landmark for future New Yorkers.
1:47:18We're surrounded by a growing number of
1:47:20luxury highrises. Let's keep one
1:47:22venerable old building. Thank
1:47:25you, Nina. Uh, we're gonna hear from
1:47:27Katherine Chang.
1:47:31>> Hello.
1:47:32>> Yes, you have two minutes. Please
1:47:34introduce yourself and begin.
1:47:36>> Oh, hi. Um, my name is Katherine Chong
1:47:39and I've lived on the Upper West Side
1:47:41for over 50 years. Um, but it's actually
1:47:44my daughter Melody, who's eight, who
1:47:47would like to say something?
1:47:50>> I'm I'm Melody and I'm eight. I really
1:47:54love seeing this beautiful church as I
1:47:57walk from school. It reminds me of God
1:48:01and it's really such a beautiful place.
1:48:05>> And um I would just like to second that
1:48:07emotion. Um our arguments are purely
1:48:10emotional. But what is Landmark's
1:48:13preservation if not um a romantic and
1:48:17emotional effort to hold the forces of
1:48:21instrumentalization
1:48:23and um capitalism and um you know what
1:48:28is most efficient in the short term at
1:48:32bay in order to preserve something for
1:48:34future generations.
1:48:36And I would like to say that my
1:48:38commitment to the center has been deep
1:48:41and vast, but I've only ever seen one
1:48:43performance there and it was a bread and
1:48:45puppet the theatrical performance, but
1:48:47it was so memorable. And even though
1:48:51we're not regular um members, um we do
1:48:55feel like if they came with the
1:48:56bulldozers, we'd we'd want to sit down
1:48:59in front of them in order to save this
1:49:01structure. So um we do feel like the
1:49:04structure is much larger than the issue
1:49:08of you know the presbyter's hardship or
1:49:11even you know just the community members
1:49:14that have been affected um over these
1:49:16past decades that it somehow belongs to
1:49:19history and belongs to future
1:49:21generations and please please preserve
1:49:23it for us. Thank you.
1:49:26>> Thank you. Uh that is everyone on Zoom.
1:49:30Uh and we have been uh joined in person
1:49:33with the most esteemed guest uh council
1:49:37member Brewer. Uh we will we will of
1:49:39course give you the pleasure to speak on
1:49:41this item again if you would like.
1:49:46She can get applause. No one else but
1:49:48Gail gets applause.
1:49:51>> This mic doesn't really work in the room
1:49:52but it's necessary for all. Thank you
1:49:55very much. I think Adam's letting me
1:49:56because I know him since he's born. So,
1:49:58um, I am Gail Brewer, city council
1:50:00member, and I know this is a, uh, topic
1:50:03that is obviously very dear to my heart,
1:50:05but I want to make something clear in
1:50:08terms of the funding. I believe, and I
1:50:11think I should owe an apology, Lord
1:50:13Jarvis mentioned correctly that when we
1:50:16landmarked it, we did promise to raise
1:50:17the funding to be able to renovate. That
1:50:20didn't happen. But in the more recent
1:50:23years with the center and the board and
1:50:27the celebrities and the community that
1:50:30is now possible. It was not possible
1:50:32before. And I think people are worried
1:50:35about where will the funding come to
1:50:37renovate this building. 8 million to
1:50:40purchase, 30 million to purchase.
1:50:42Whatever the number is, we can do it.
1:50:45It's not something that I say idally as
1:50:47we did before and I apologize for that.
1:50:50But I want people to understand that
1:50:52it's not possible right now legally as I
1:50:55understand it to say that this
1:50:57foundation and this person is going to
1:50:59give us money because that would be uh
1:51:02not legally possible when we have and I
1:51:05hope I must admit I hope the hardship is
1:51:07not granted by the landmarks
1:51:08preservation commission because I don't
1:51:10think the building is not falling down.
1:51:13The building does have activity. The
1:51:15building does have worshippers and we
1:51:17can certainly have Presbyterian
1:51:19worshippers. All of that is possible. I
1:51:22feel so strongly, of course, as I think
1:51:24some members of the board do, that this
1:51:25is a beautiful building and it would be
1:51:27a shame to tear down and it would be a
1:51:30shame not to have the cultural
1:51:32activities and the religious activities,
1:51:34both of which are possible. That
1:51:36sanctuary, as you have heard, you can
1:51:38hear a pin drop because the acoustics
1:51:42are so phenomenal. and any new black box
1:51:44or any new theater would never have that
1:51:47kind of opportunity for productions. So
1:51:50I'm almost begging people to say we will
1:51:54make this happen. It is not an idol
1:51:56opportunity in terms of the funding. I
1:51:57want the Presbyteria to have money. They
1:51:59are an institution that deserves to have
1:52:02money for this building and we are
1:52:05committed to doing that. But we can't do
1:52:07it if we do not have the opportunity to
1:52:09rent it or purchase it. And that would
1:52:11only happen if the hardship is not
1:52:13granted. So I thank you very much for
1:52:15everybody who's made this possible. And
1:52:17thank you Adam so much and thank you M
1:52:20for being chairman of this committee.
1:52:26>> Thank you.
1:52:33>> They didn't sign up. So unfortunately
1:52:36I I don't see their name. Sorry.
1:52:40Okay. Um,
1:52:43thank you.
1:52:46We will begin our committee discussion
1:52:50then. Um, we have some folks who are
1:52:54non-committee members who are joining us
1:52:56on Zoom as well. Um, I will do my best
1:52:59to notice you when you raise your hand.
1:53:02Um, or justiculate wildly or unmute
1:53:05yourself and interrupt. Um
1:53:09I want to start by saying that it is
1:53:12interesting to be uh here again looking
1:53:16at the same thing that uh the committee
1:53:18I was not on the committee a couple
1:53:20years ago. Since then the applicant has
1:53:24gone through a number of discussions uh
1:53:29with landmarks. Uh a number of outside
1:53:31experts have been hired by landmarks.
1:53:35So, I think that the information we have
1:53:37today is very different from the
1:53:39information that the committee had a
1:53:41couple years ago, and that allows us to
1:53:43potentially make a more informed
1:53:48uh decision on this matter. The way that
1:53:51I would like to structure the committee
1:53:53discussion is if we could begin first by
1:53:56discussing there's a draft resolution.
1:53:59If we could just ask if there are any
1:54:01issues in the upfront of the resolution
1:54:05before the therefore clause. I would
1:54:08love to just discuss that quickly. Make
1:54:11any friendly changes that we need to
1:54:12make before we get into the substance of
1:54:17the therefore clause. So, is there
1:54:19anyone on the committee who has edits or
1:54:21anything that needs to get made to the
1:54:23upfront?
1:54:26Yes, Clari. Oh, we'll begin with you, M.
1:54:29>> Uh, number three in in the four criteria
1:54:33that the hardship has to meet is the
1:54:36building is no longer adequate, suitable
1:54:38or appropriate for carrying out the
1:54:40current or historical character
1:54:42charitable use. Does that mean only as a
1:54:44church or the use as a theater and arts
1:54:48center and community center as well?
1:54:51Uh match is asking in the hardships
1:54:54provision of the administrative code it
1:54:57asks about the adequate suitable or
1:55:00appropriate nature. Uh it refers to the
1:55:04current or historic charitable use. Uh
1:55:06in this case the applicant coming
1:55:08forward is the West Park uh Presbyterian
1:55:12Church. They they have used it both as a
1:55:14church and as a other event space. So I
1:55:17think in in that manner it would be both
1:55:20of these things but obviously you know
1:55:23it it needs to encompass both. Um Clari,
1:55:28>> sorry we're going to have to keep asking
1:55:29the mic like this.
1:55:30>> Yeah, actually I thank you for that
1:55:32answer. Um Adam, I I believe that's
1:55:35correct. Um, I the I was actually
1:55:40thinking more of the prior material
1:55:43which I think could be
1:55:46written a little more cleanly, but I
1:55:48don't think it's worth uh spending time
1:55:49here to talk about it. If if it's just
1:55:52minor corrections or improvements, we
1:55:54could do it another time or not do it at
1:55:56all.
1:56:00>> Okay. Uh, it Clari was saying that this
1:56:03is not the time to discuss those things.
1:56:05So perhaps we Okay. Um, excellent. Okay.
1:56:10Um, we can do this two ways. We can talk
1:56:13through the different findings of the
1:56:15hardship. Uh, or we can go down in a
1:56:18line and say what people think. Does
1:56:21anyone have a strong preference one way
1:56:24or another? I'd be happy to start with
1:56:26everyone kind of saying speaking their
1:56:28piece and then maybe we move on from
1:56:29there. Okay. Uh, Jen, why don't we start
1:56:32with you at the end?
1:56:39Hi, good evening. I'm Jennifer Molsby.
1:56:41I'm a new member to the committee. I was
1:56:43not here three years ago and I've
1:56:44started um in May. Um I've lived on the
1:56:48Upper West Side for almost 25 years. Um
1:56:52it is very clear how important the the
1:56:56community center is to the community.
1:56:59Um, and I have no specific um, further
1:57:04questions about the the four tests. Um,
1:57:09and I'm looking forward to to our our
1:57:12further discussion.
1:57:17>> Hi, my name is Eric Schmidt. Uh, I'm
1:57:19also a new member to the committee. Um,
1:57:22yeah, I'm one of the I forget who said
1:57:24it here tonight, but somebody said this
1:57:26is a this is a difficult issue and I
1:57:30hope I'm on the right I hope I do the
1:57:32right thing on it. So that's that's
1:57:33where I'm at.
1:57:36>> Okay, I'll be a little more lengthy. Um,
1:57:39my name is Claren Newel. I've been on
1:57:42the committee for a long time. I've been
1:57:43on the board for 30 years or so. It's my
1:57:45last term now because of term limits.
1:57:48And um I've been involved with this
1:57:50issue uh for a long time. Um I was not
1:57:53at the meeting uh earlier this month
1:57:56because I couldn't attend. Um but I did
1:57:59read um or yeah read as a fair statement
1:58:03the 200 pages of testimony that we had
1:58:06received and were distributed to
1:58:07committee members prior to tonight and
1:58:11uh some of which was repeated in um oral
1:58:14testimony tonight. Um we are, as one of
1:58:18our uh speakers tonight said, we
1:58:20represent the community that we um our
1:58:25our community within our geographical
1:58:28limits and um we must take very
1:58:32seriously and have our decisions
1:58:34informed by the uh opinions of people in
1:58:38our community. But that's not to say
1:58:40that they are dispositive.
1:58:42And many of the comments that we
1:58:44received, although they were largely
1:58:47other than those for the most part,
1:58:50other than those from people associated
1:58:53with the presbyter, those community
1:58:55comments were very largely in favor of
1:58:58um not granting this, not supporting
1:59:01this application. On the other hand,
1:59:04many of those community comments were
1:59:06not addressed to the matters that are
1:59:08very specific to this application, which
1:59:11is the four findings that are a
1:59:13predicate to um the first step towards
1:59:17demolition. Um
1:59:20there are three uh unfortunately unique
1:59:24circumstances
1:59:27that we are constrained by and need to
1:59:29work around here. One is just physically
1:59:32the soft sandstone materials of this
1:59:35building that make it particularly um
1:59:38amendable to um to to to
1:59:43um to loss of fabric um over the years.
1:59:48The second is the anomalous somewhat
1:59:50anomalous situation that the
1:59:53congregation owns the building but the
1:59:55presbyter which is a much larger and not
1:59:58locally based organization within our
2:00:00district um is the real party and
2:00:04interest here and uh would benefit from
2:00:07whatever money came in if the building
2:00:10were destroyed and replaced. And um the
2:00:13third thing is that we have a set of
2:00:16criteria
2:00:17um that were written 50 years ago or so
2:00:21uh for what is the predicate for
2:00:23demolition for un for de landmarking and
2:00:26permitting demolition that really are
2:00:29addressed to not um not for profofit
2:00:32buildings but to commercial buildings
2:00:33and for rental buildings at that. So, we
2:00:35have to adapt to these standards um that
2:00:39just don't really they're not a fit for
2:00:42the situation that we have. But we're
2:00:44stuck with all of that. So, we have to
2:00:46work with that. Um Adam said in the
2:00:50beginning of the meeting that although
2:00:52this was a proposed resolution
2:00:55um that he expected there might be some
2:00:57amendments to it. And I
2:01:02I want to propose to that we consider
2:01:07um not endorsing findings number two
2:01:11which is the property is incapable of
2:01:14earning a reasonable return and that we
2:01:16not endorse finding number three that
2:01:18the building is no longer adequate
2:01:20suitable or appropriate for carrying out
2:01:22the current or historic charitable use
2:01:24which as Adam I think has correctly
2:01:26answered Mag's question um is not just
2:01:30the religious use but the other social
2:01:32and cultural uses to which it has been
2:01:34put for a considerable amount of time.
2:01:38Um, I was chair or co-chair of the
2:01:41equivalent of this committee on CB7 at
2:01:43the time when the original landmark
2:01:46application came up in we maybe it was
2:01:482009 because the landmarking was in 2010
2:01:51but in that period and even in that
2:01:53period the scaffolding was there. Um, it
2:01:57was questionable as to whether the funds
2:01:59would ever be raised to restore this
2:02:01building both the exterior or the
2:02:02interior and make it ADA ADA compliant.
2:02:05But I think our feeling then and I
2:02:07supported landmarking then and that is
2:02:09what happened. I was on this committee
2:02:11in 2022 I believe when the first um
2:02:16application for de landmarking came up
2:02:19um that was later withdrawn. It was not
2:02:21an easy question then because it was now
2:02:2415 20 12 years later rather and
2:02:28none of the rest limited limited work
2:02:31had been done let's put it that way and
2:02:33now we're three years later and not a
2:02:34very different situation physically.
2:02:37Nevertheless,
2:02:39um so that kind of argues in favor of uh
2:02:43of the application. Nevertheless,
2:02:46um the financial issues, the competing
2:02:51projections, the competing arguments, um
2:02:54and then adding to that, uh Mr. Hiller's
2:02:57associate in two minutes tonight gave
2:02:59the briefest argument that was a a precy
2:03:03of a letter that we received from the
2:03:05Hiller firm that represents the center
2:03:07um this afternoon at five o'clock that
2:03:10is dense with both legal argument and
2:03:12factual argument. I my own history is
2:03:16that I'm a lawyer who um had a relative
2:03:19I'm retired now but had a relatively
2:03:21sophisticated business related practice
2:03:24and I still feel that I am not
2:03:27comfortable
2:03:29personally or having my committee
2:03:31members maybe some are more comfortable
2:03:32than I am reaching the conclusion
2:03:36with the degree of certainty that I feel
2:03:39we would want to have that criterion
2:03:43number two has been met. There are just
2:03:46too many competing arguments, too many
2:03:48facts and figures, and I would like to
2:03:53have our committee consider not reaching
2:03:56that conclusion. I think there's a good
2:03:59I'll I'll be finished shortly, Adam, but
2:04:01I think there's a similarly good
2:04:03argument for not reaching the conclusion
2:04:05of the third criterion which is the
2:04:08building is no longer adequate, suitable
2:04:09or appropriate for carrying out the
2:04:11current or historical charitable use.
2:04:14Well, the congregation, the very small
2:04:16congregation has chosen not to worship
2:04:18there, but a different congregation has
2:04:20been worshiping there and a tremendous
2:04:23number of cultural activities have been
2:04:27taking place there successfully without
2:04:29the building actually falling in. Um, so
2:04:34I'm comfortable and would like the
2:04:36committee to consider not making the
2:04:39third finding. to me. Um, if we make all
2:04:43four findings affirmatively,
2:04:46notwithstanding the fact that we then
2:04:47say, gee, pretty please. It would at the
2:04:49end resolution. It' be wonderful if
2:04:52somebody could save this building anyway
2:04:54within the very limited ability of of
2:04:57how that could happen once these
2:04:59findings have been made. Really an up a
2:05:01more uphill battle. I think we can
2:05:04support what I believe is everybody's
2:05:07wish in a perfect world to save this
2:05:10building and we can support that better
2:05:15without undermining
2:05:18that
2:05:19I believe universal wish by um making
2:05:24findings that I think I'm not
2:05:26comfortable making and I don't think the
2:05:28board should be comfortable making.
2:05:31Okay.
2:05:32>> [clears throat]
2:05:35>> Uh well uh Clary has uh stated a few
2:05:39things that I was going to uh say myself
2:05:42so I won't won't repeat them. Um I would
2:05:46start out by saying there are some
2:05:48things there are a few things that we
2:05:51are not charged with doing. Um, we're
2:05:56not charged with deciding whether or not
2:05:59uh the arts center is a laudable
2:06:03um institution and is an asset to the
2:06:07community. Um
2:06:11the um as as far as the four what what
2:06:16we are charged with is determining
2:06:19whether or not the four criteria have
2:06:23been met. We are not charged with
2:06:25determining whether the church is a
2:06:28building worthy of landmarking.
2:06:31Um we are um that that ship has sailed.
2:06:37that determination has been made.
2:06:40Whether we might have agreed with it uh
2:06:4315 years ago uh is not the issue. We
2:06:47start with the premise that a landmark
2:06:50building should be worthy of
2:06:53preservation if possible.
2:06:56But
2:06:59we we are we have to be guided by the
2:07:03four criteria in the law. I'm a lawyer
2:07:07like like Clary. I'm also retired like
2:07:10Clary. And uh I practiced in the
2:07:13commercial field, represented
2:07:15developers,
2:07:17uh engaged in real estate transactions,
2:07:21etc.
2:07:23and I tend to focus on what our precise
2:07:28obligation is as a community board and
2:07:32as an advisory board to the landmarks
2:07:35commission. uh if if we um make findings
2:07:41that are not supported by the facts,
2:07:43that are not credible, then we won't
2:07:46have the influence that we have when the
2:07:49landmarks commission makes its final
2:07:52determination. We don't have the power
2:07:55to approve or disapprove this
2:07:59application. Our only power is the
2:08:02influence that that we produce by acting
2:08:07rationally and according to the
2:08:09applicable law. So I agree with Carrie
2:08:14that we have to with Clary that we have
2:08:16to focus
2:08:18on the four criteria but I don't agree
2:08:22that we can't make a decision. I I think
2:08:26that the evidence that we have, the
2:08:30preponderance of the evidence that we
2:08:33have, if not beyond any doubt, is that
2:08:37the that the criteria number two that
2:08:42the existing property is incapable of
2:08:45producing a reasonable return has been
2:08:48met.
2:08:50uh despite the fact that there's a
2:08:52disparity between some of the analyses,
2:08:56I think the I think the overwhelming
2:08:59evidence is that there's an enormous
2:09:03expense in the offing to to renovate
2:09:08this building, repair this building, and
2:09:11make it feasible as as an institution
2:09:15that can produce a return. And I agree
2:09:18with Clary uh which I I was on the uh
2:09:22committee and on the board the last time
2:09:24that this issue was before the board and
2:09:28[snorts] I felt strongly at that time
2:09:31and expressed my belief that this
2:09:35statute was not designed for this
2:09:38situation. But this is what we have
2:09:41before us. And this is the guide that
2:09:44the landmarks commission uh will use.
2:09:48And I I just want to take two minutes so
2:09:51that makes sure two more minutes to make
2:09:55sure that everybody understands what the
2:09:57process is. Landmarks commission
2:10:00initially has two options. They can
2:10:05disapprove the application and the
2:10:07process closes or they can issue a
2:10:11preliminary determination which triggers
2:10:16another process. That process according
2:10:19to the statute
2:10:21triggers 180 days. Some people have
2:10:25suggested this process which is that the
2:10:28landmarks commission would then be
2:10:31charged to go out with the help of
2:10:34anyone they choose, persons,
2:10:37organizations,
2:10:39government
2:10:40uh organizations, elected officials,
2:10:43whomever, and see if they can find an
2:10:46alternative purchaser
2:10:49for what the statute says to for an
2:10:54identical set of conditions with the
2:10:57church which includes the financial
2:10:59conditions but a purchaser who cannot
2:11:04demolish the building and cannot apply
2:11:08for a hardship application. So the
2:11:12process wouldn't be over by an approval.
2:11:16It's only preliminary and there is that
2:11:21time for
2:11:24people to raise money for public
2:11:27officials to attempt to raise money uh
2:11:31not directly because they can't do it
2:11:33that way but there is that period of
2:11:36time and then there's a third step if
2:11:39the commission doesn't find
2:11:42an alternative purchaser under those
2:11:45terms and conditions. They they may not
2:11:50they're not forced to, but they may then
2:11:52notify the mayor and request that the
2:11:58city provide and I I give you the exact
2:12:04a a particular protective interest
2:12:09to try and salvage th this building.
2:12:13Now, I can tell you that that that
2:12:16protective interest is nowhere defined
2:12:20in in the law or or precedent, but could
2:12:24include things like a city purchase, uh
2:12:27things like a long-term lease and so
2:12:30forth and so on. So, it th this is not a
2:12:34finite press process that's going to end
2:12:37with the uh with the landmarks
2:12:40commission. Personally, I think the
2:12:42burden has been met on these four four
2:12:46criteria and I think it obligates us
2:12:50under the law to report to the
2:12:52commission that they should issue this
2:12:55preliminary determination and start that
2:12:59secondary process.
2:13:06>> Thank you. I'll try to be brief given
2:13:08our time period. In the application,
2:13:12they discuss a number of different
2:13:14scenarios and under all of these
2:13:16scenarios, it is clear that there's an
2:13:18inability to earn a reasonable return. I
2:13:22think however that the scenario that's
2:13:25most important is the one that was
2:13:27discussed in detail three years ago
2:13:30before Lamar's preservation commission
2:13:32which is that if you take the estimate
2:13:36from the engineer that LPC hired and you
2:13:41take the rents that could be reached for
2:13:44the building from the analysis that LPC
2:13:48called for the reasonable return is
2:13:50still not met. So you can argue all you
2:13:53want about the potential of the inflated
2:13:57costs in the analyses that the applicant
2:14:00has done. You can argue that had the
2:14:03cantalvered building been modeled as
2:14:05condos instead of rentals, you know, the
2:14:08amount would have been a little bit
2:14:09higher. But the fact that LPC itself in
2:14:13the analyses that they
2:14:15hired folks to do and looked at and that
2:14:19those analyses from the people that LPC
2:14:21hired still could not meet this
2:14:23reasonable return with this much lower
2:14:26amount of money to spend on the
2:14:27building. That to me is why three years
2:14:31later we as CB7 can come to a different
2:14:34determination and be more certain in our
2:14:35determination than we did three years
2:14:37ago.
2:14:41I'm torn. Absolutely torn about this.
2:14:45The fact that nothing's been done in all
2:14:47these years since
2:14:49this was last brought to us in 2022.
2:14:53I don't know how it's going to change
2:14:55now because as Adam said, the m the uh
2:14:59financial part is not there. The
2:15:01reasonable return, the reasonable
2:15:03return, the building. My only question
2:15:06is finding number three, whether it's
2:15:09adequate, suitable, and appropriate for
2:15:11carrying out current or historic
2:15:13charitable uses. Now, I don't know if
2:15:15that includes the theater that was there
2:15:17and all the art centers and things and
2:15:19that were given to people at reasonable
2:15:21rates. I guess you couldn't consider
2:15:22that charitable and that seemed to have
2:15:25worked. As far as supporting,
2:15:29I support this in the fact that this
2:15:32hardship is there for constitutional
2:15:35purposes to say that people are not
2:15:38taking private property and for that I I
2:15:42respect this law and I have a hard time
2:15:45trying to get around it. Although I
2:15:47would love to see the city in any way it
2:15:49can through the department of cultural
2:15:50affairs through a very creative
2:15:53architect to find a way to keep this
2:15:56property
2:15:58not totally as is but at least part of
2:16:00it standing.
2:16:07My name is Kay Karpin and I um I was
2:16:10here three years ago, chaired the
2:16:11committee when we went through the
2:16:13original determination on this uh
2:16:17um I chaired the committee three years
2:16:18ago when we went through the original
2:16:20determination on uh and and ruling on
2:16:24this hardship application. Um I've also
2:16:27been in and out of the building for the
2:16:29last 40 years, including up in the
2:16:31rafters, including down in the bowels.
2:16:33Um, I've worshiped with West Park
2:16:35Presbyterian Church. I have been to a
2:16:37number of uh events of the center at
2:16:39West Park as well. I have a great
2:16:42affection both for the church community
2:16:44and for the community that's formed
2:16:46around the center at West Park. Um, one
2:16:50of the things that makes all this very
2:16:52difficult. Um, three years ago we
2:16:55decided, as I said, not to uh to deny
2:16:57the hardship. Um, I've been listening
2:16:59hard for things that are are different.
2:17:02Um, and I haven't heard a a lot that
2:17:05convinces me personally. Um, I am very
2:17:09familiar with the hardship proceeding. I
2:17:11went through it myself with the church I
2:17:13was pastoring
2:17:15uh back in the 1980s. I was only three
2:17:18years old at the time. the um I think
2:17:22that
2:17:24as uh Jay and Clary and others have
2:17:26pointed out, we we do need to focus on
2:17:28the four
2:17:31uh criteria
2:17:32that are there in the hardship uh um law
2:17:36and the code. And I don't have any
2:17:38problem with one and four, but I can't
2:17:41support after hearing uh all of this
2:17:43testimony. I I can't support numbers two
2:17:48or three. I just uh I I am completely
2:17:52unconvinced
2:17:53um uh on those two points. So, um I look
2:17:57forward to further conversation, but
2:17:59that's where I am right now.
2:18:02I I wanna I want to give a chance if
2:18:05non-committee members want to speak but
2:18:08please keep it very brief and just
2:18:10non-com members of community board 7 who
2:18:13are not a member of the preservation
2:18:15committee. Uh but Doug if you could just
2:18:16keep it very brief. I'm I'm conscious of
2:18:19the time. I understand that I am the
2:18:21outbound vice chair of committee board 7
2:18:23for the next 48 hours and I am the
2:18:26longest serving member on the executive
2:18:28committee and I'm going to take
2:18:30executive privilege to speak. I'm not
2:18:31going to speak long but I'm not going to
2:18:34uh unnaturally abbreviate.
2:18:38So I by profession I'm a commercial real
2:18:40estate broker. I work in the real estate
2:18:42industry. I have nothing against profit.
2:18:45I have nothing against making money
2:18:47building condominiums, but I can there's
2:18:50a few things primapacia that are
2:18:52bothering me. We've heard that this
2:18:54building is falling down, but the
2:18:56department of buildings
2:18:58allows occupancy. Why? The insurance
2:19:03companies, as we all know, are very,
2:19:05very prone to risk. Yet, the building is
2:19:08fully insured. Why?
2:19:11With all respect to the church, and I
2:19:13have great respect for the church as
2:19:15well as I do for developers, etc. You've
2:19:18hired a white glove law firm, which is
2:19:20wonderful. They're experts, but you're
2:19:22crying a hardship.
2:19:24You are I've heard earlier this evening
2:19:27that someone said that the church is
2:19:29very sad about this. And I can give you
2:19:3133 million reasons why I don't believe
2:19:33you.
2:19:35Okay. So, I'm not what we need to make.
2:19:39All four criteria have to be met and I
2:19:41don't personally believe that it has
2:19:43been met. Um again it is the the
2:19:45preservation commission. The church by
2:19:48definition is a not forprofit.
2:19:50Surely there must be some middle ground
2:19:52between
2:19:54hardship and windfall.
2:19:57You know that this building I mean the
2:20:00church wants to sell the there's no
2:20:01there's nothing against the church
2:20:02selling the building. They can sell the
2:20:04building to anybody pretty much right.
2:20:06But if you sell it to a not for-p
2:20:07profofit, then it opens up the
2:20:10floodgates for city and state funding. I
2:20:13am on the advisory for the metro
2:20:15theater, which is exactly what's
2:20:17happening over there. Right. There's
2:20:19money that has been given by Governor
2:20:20Hokll. There's given money by given by
2:20:22Shao and the city council. I am not
2:20:25prepared to vote. I will not I will be
2:20:28voting as a non-committee member, but
2:20:29this will go to full board. I am not
2:20:31prepared to vote for the wrecking ball
2:20:34and I'm not prepared to vote for what I
2:20:36call a permanent solution to a temporary
2:20:39problem. Thank you.
2:20:48>> Yeah, I I Alex Bell, I thought the
2:20:51testimony was was very compelling, but
2:20:53like um Jay and Adam, I'm focused on the
2:20:56four items. uh particularly uh I I think
2:21:01I agree with all four although my
2:21:03biggest question is number three but the
2:21:06way I read it is in terms of adequate or
2:21:10suitable use it's not that like the
2:21:11physical building has collapsed uh and
2:21:14so it's is it suitable not you know
2:21:17tomorrow but as a long-term in this use
2:21:20and I think that the applicant has made
2:21:22it very clear why with the list of do
2:21:25violations and etc it's not suitable for
2:21:27for the long term. So, I agree with Adam
2:21:30and uh Jay that I think that all four
2:21:33items have been met.
2:21:39>> All right. Uh I'll just remind everyone
2:21:42um that as Jay outlined, this is by no
2:21:45means the end of the building. Um I
2:21:49would like to focus our conversation on
2:21:52item I think everyone agrees with
2:21:54everything except we have some
2:21:56discussion about two and three. Um so
2:21:59what I think conscious of the time we
2:22:01have about 15 20 minutes or so uh I
2:22:05would suggest that if there are new
2:22:06points that you would like to talk about
2:22:09with regards to point two uh I will give
2:22:12you that opportunity now but if you've
2:22:14already outlined your concerns with
2:22:15point 2 um we can probably move on. So
2:22:18anything new to add about point two?
2:22:22Adam, I I think this does uh perhaps I
2:22:26hope relate to point two. Um the um
2:22:31there's been discussion over the months
2:22:33of both the feasibility of cantalie, a
2:22:37new building and maintaining a structure
2:22:39in some fashion and of air rights being
2:22:42sold. Uh I don't find either of those uh
2:22:46um arguments or possibilities to be
2:22:49particularly uh helpful here. So I would
2:22:53discard those. But on the other hand,
2:22:55and I think this also goes to point to
2:22:58um the notion that the uh presbyter, not
2:23:02the congregation, but the presbyter
2:23:04would get $30 million or so out of this
2:23:06in to further its religious and social
2:23:10mission in whatever way it does in
2:23:12whatever parts of New York City or
2:23:14elsewhere also should be, I think,
2:23:16considered not relevant to the decision
2:23:20on the the finances and what is good and
2:23:23what's bad about it. Um I I just wanted
2:23:25to say something else and I don't know
2:23:26if it meets your number two criteria,
2:23:28but I've always been troubled by the
2:23:30notion of hey, you're going to get a
2:23:3210,000 square foot
2:23:35space. Uh and that's a really a great
2:23:38benefit of of this starting over and
2:23:41tearing down the building and making a
2:23:42new one. 10,000 square feet in the
2:23:45basement, probably gross square feet,
2:23:47not count, I don't know for sure, but
2:23:48probably not counting always in closets
2:23:50and things like that. and in the
2:23:52basement I I do not regard as any kind
2:23:55of um benefit to the community. Uh that
2:23:59has any real significance. I sorry if
2:24:02that doesn't quite meet your your number
2:24:04two criteria. Um, I want to say one more
2:24:06thing though if I could about um about
2:24:10the the possible future if the um LPC
2:24:14[snorts]
2:24:15should on our recommendation or
2:24:17otherwise grant the hardship and set in
2:24:20motion whatever might be the following
2:24:22procedures. Um Jay mentioned and thank
2:24:25you Jay for doing the research on what
2:24:27could happen next that the last resort
2:24:29would be the mayor. we will have a new
2:24:31mayor by the time anything happens on
2:24:34this application. Um, a variety of of
2:24:38preservation groups had a forum uh
2:24:41during the time of the Democratic mayor
2:24:43may mayoral uh primary um in which the
2:24:47candidates uh were invited to come and
2:24:50talk about their views on preservation.
2:24:52To my recolle and I attend I watched
2:24:54that it was on Zoom. to my recollection,
2:24:56none of the three candidates who are
2:24:58currently before us um appeared. I don't
2:25:02uh and spoke at that. I don't know if we
2:25:04have any if anybody knows what any of
2:25:05their views are on preservation. Um, but
2:25:08I would regard um all of the potential
2:25:11things that might follow um a
2:25:14determination by LPC that the hardship
2:25:17uh criteria have been met as a lot less
2:25:21likely to save the building. Um then
2:25:25what we could do to um reject findings
2:25:29two and and I'll include three in this.
2:25:32It's probably all
2:25:34>> Yeah, please. Um this is not again sorry
2:25:38>> if it's not related to two we'll come
2:25:39back to it and unfortunately a lot of
2:25:41what you said is not related to
2:25:43>> it's it's commentary on a couple of
2:25:45things that were said so
2:25:46>> okay keep keep it quick
2:25:48>> okay uh a couple of things that my very
2:25:52good friend Doug uh mentioned number one
2:25:55again we're confined in in our valuation
2:25:59by the four criteria safety is not one
2:26:03of them in occupancy is not one of them.
2:26:08Insurability
2:26:09is not one of them.
2:26:13And and so all of those things may be
2:26:16interesting, but to quote Clary, that's
2:26:20another one that's group of factors that
2:26:24are irrelevant.
2:26:31>> Yeah. Anything else on 2J?
2:26:34Uh oh. Okay.
2:26:39>> Can you pass this to Jen?
2:26:43>> Um just very quickly when I reviewed the
2:26:47hundreds of pages the the economic
2:26:49modeling I believe it that you cannot
2:26:53make a reasonable return with what was
2:26:55presented. And so I agree and I'm
2:26:57curious as to what could happen in the
2:27:00180 days if as written. um was allowed
2:27:04and how additional fundraising or
2:27:06capacity building could change that
2:27:08particular determination. And that is a
2:27:10an open thought of mine because that 188
2:27:13days is a is an important time. If
2:27:15something could change, it's unclear
2:27:17that that could happen.
2:27:22No, because we gota we gota keep moving
2:27:25comment.
2:27:28>> I think that a lot of the um testimony
2:27:31that we've heard from the senator at
2:27:33West Park and other related comments and
2:27:36things like that are directly related to
2:27:39this question of reasonable return. I
2:27:42think that um obviously landmark law as
2:27:45we know was not written with nonprofits
2:27:47in mind, was not written with religious
2:27:49facilities and institutions in mind and
2:27:52so the uh the criterion that are uh in
2:27:55the law for reasonable return are a
2:27:57little bit odd when uh when we're trying
2:28:00to work on it. Um but uh certainly there
2:28:03uh there's there are financial resources
2:28:06that are available available to the
2:28:09church. um through uh the renting of it
2:28:13to uh this or other arts programs. So I
2:28:15I just for that reason I think there's
2:28:18more to be said on number two.
2:28:22>> Okay. Given where we are and given what
2:28:24the time is uh I don't think anyone uh's
2:28:27view on this item is going to change. Uh
2:28:30my suggestion is we take a informal vote
2:28:34of the committee on item two. Um let's
2:28:37see where it is. I think that'll be
2:28:39indicative of a vote on the broader
2:28:42resolution uh and can move us towards
2:28:44something that the uh committee can vote
2:28:47on in the next um 15 to 20 minutes. Um
2:28:52>> Clari Clar, we uh we do have a time
2:28:54limit and we do need to we need to be
2:28:57out of the room
2:28:59in approximately 22 minutes. So, we're a
2:29:03little we're I I I totally agree with
2:29:05you. Um, so with that said, I'm going to
2:29:08ask uh as the resolution is drafted, it
2:29:11says that the existing property is
2:29:13incapable of earning a reasonable
2:29:15return. And I would love to just get a
2:29:17show of hands of folks on the committee
2:29:19who feel good about that finding um and
2:29:23including it in the resolution.
2:29:26>> We'll move to three after um who agree
2:29:28that the property is incapable of
2:29:31earning a reasonable rate of return. So
2:29:36okay. So it looks like there is a slim
2:29:39but possible majority on the existing
2:29:43property is incapable of earning a
2:29:45reasonable rate of return. Okay. Then I
2:29:47want to move on on to item three about
2:29:50the whether or not the building is
2:29:52adequate, suitable or appropriate. I'd
2:29:55like to remind people that it is not
2:29:57just the physical plant but also the
2:30:00ability to uh exist as an I don't this
2:30:05is a wrong phrase to use but as an
2:30:06ongoing concern and that uh you need to
2:30:10account into this the degree to which
2:30:12the maintenance of the building uh may
2:30:15or may not make it adequate, suitable or
2:30:18appropriate for the current owner um to
2:30:21continue its current or historic
2:30:23charitable
2:30:29Sorry. So, so we're we're I'm not I
2:30:31don't want to vote on three. Excuse me.
2:30:33Excuse me, please. Please,
2:30:36>> please.
2:30:38So that is how I understand it is that
2:30:43it is not a situation where if someone
2:30:46had a building that was perfectly fine
2:30:48today but required a tremendous amount
2:30:50of ongoing maintenance, you know, let's
2:30:52say something required had
2:30:54astronomically high maintenance costs
2:30:56for some reason. Uh that would have to
2:30:58be something that's accounted for in
2:31:00this discussion is how I read it. open
2:31:03to other interpretations, but ba Debbie
2:31:08Debbie, if you're gonna if you're gonna
2:31:10speak out of turn, and at this point
2:31:13it's just a discussion for the
2:31:14committee, I'm going to have to ask you
2:31:16to leave the room. I I really don't want
2:31:18to have to do that, but we're just
2:31:19focused on having a discussion among
2:31:21community board members.
2:31:28Okay, we're gonna carry on. Um, on item
2:31:33three, uh, is there anyone here who
2:31:35would like to speak on
2:31:38>> Ma'am, I'm gonna have to say the exact
2:31:40same thing I said to Debbie. We're
2:31:41trying to have a discussion here. We
2:31:42have very limited time left. Um,
2:31:46>> okay.
2:31:49>> Uh, is there anyone who would like to
2:31:50speak on item three?
2:31:54Well, twice uh the legal team and and
2:31:58engineering team have taken us through
2:32:00that building. It didn't look pretty
2:32:02inadequate to me. It looked like lots of
2:32:04good lots of good stuff was going on
2:32:06there. It wasn't it it has to be made
2:32:09more accessible for sure, but I wouldn't
2:32:12say that the building is inadequate for
2:32:14all the purposes. I think the sanctuary
2:32:16is so beautiful and a wonderful place
2:32:18for theater and concerts and so I
2:32:21wouldn't say inadequate. No,
2:32:24>> I agree with Match that the building uh
2:32:27is certainly adequate, suitable, and
2:32:29appropriate for carrying out the current
2:32:30and historic charitable uses.
2:32:35>> Yes, I I mean I think I initiated the
2:32:38discussion on three, so it'll be no
2:32:40surprise that I agree with M and and uh
2:32:43Kay on this. And I'm not sure that your
2:32:46exesus on the meaning of this atom was
2:32:49correct. It may be right. It might be
2:32:50wrong. But I think all we can really
2:32:53look at is the wording of the statute, I
2:32:57guess it is. And um I'm not comfortable
2:33:00with adding our personal gloss on uh
2:33:03which may some of us may not be
2:33:06comfortable with. So I'm I will not vote
2:33:09in favor of I will vote. So I would not
2:33:12vote in favor of finding number three.
2:33:15No surprise there, Jay. Yeah, I I I I I
2:33:19I'm reading number three a little
2:33:22differently. Number three says that it
2:33:25if the building is no longer adequate,
2:33:27suitable, or appropriate for carrying
2:33:29out the current or historic charitable
2:33:33use. The center is not a charitable use.
2:33:38Dance lessons are so are not charitable
2:33:42uses. They're commercial uses. the
2:33:48>> they are they're commercial uses. They
2:33:51are not charitable uses.
2:33:59>> Thank you. I'm going to ask the audience
2:34:01again to please try to remain respectful
2:34:03as the committee works this out. Is
2:34:04there anyone else? Jen,
2:34:10>> um I I disagree with that. I believe
2:34:13that that nonprofits carry if you're a
2:34:16public charity, a 501c3 designated
2:34:19public charity, you can you by by
2:34:22definition um you you are carrying out a
2:34:25a charitable act. Um and I'm I was
2:34:29struck by some of the testimony that
2:34:31talked about the church using it u the
2:34:33space most recently to host their own
2:34:36events um which was news to me and that
2:34:39has has changed my perspective. While I
2:34:42do believe um the activities are worthy,
2:34:45they're important, and they're
2:34:47community- based activities, it's
2:34:48unclear whether they are church-based
2:34:50activities and and what what the real
2:34:54approach is. So,
2:35:00okay. Um from hearing what I've heard,
2:35:04uh I do not think we were going to have
2:35:06a majority on item three. So, I'm going
2:35:10to set that aside. Uh I want to ask is
2:35:12there anyone who would like to speak on
2:35:14the second part of the therefore clause
2:35:18which says that should LPC
2:35:21uh issue a preliminary determination of
2:35:23insufficient return that we would like
2:35:26everyone to work together to find a way
2:35:29to save the building within the statute.
2:35:31Is there anyone who would like to speak
2:35:34against that or is everyone comfortable
2:35:35with how that is drafted?
2:35:37>> I think it's mandatory. I I I as I I
2:35:41there are circumstances where I could
2:35:42imagine that um uh again that the
2:35:46hardship determination is not just for
2:35:47demolition. There are circumstances
2:35:49where something is determined to be
2:35:51inappropriate for the building but short
2:35:53of demolition. And I can imagine
2:35:54circumstances where a community would be
2:35:57happy to have that change made uh and
2:36:00not have LPC uh work to find an
2:36:02alternative buyer. Okay. Based on what
2:36:05I'm hearing here, I think we need to
2:36:07modify the resolution and say that uh we
2:36:12do not find that the building is no
2:36:15longer adequate, suitable or appropriate
2:36:17for carrying out the current or historic
2:36:19charitable use and that therefore the
2:36:21Lamar Preservation Commission per
2:36:23statute should not issue a uh
2:36:27preliminary determination of
2:36:29insufficient return. Would that change?
2:36:32Uh, anyone want to speak on that on that
2:36:35change?
2:36:40>> I'm I thought I understood this, Adam,
2:36:43until your last phrase. I think when you
2:36:46said should not issue a determination of
2:36:48insufficient return, that's only number
2:36:51two. But they should not grant the
2:36:54application is really I think what we
2:36:56mean because we have not found the four
2:36:59factor all four factors to have been
2:37:01that therefore the application should
2:37:04LPC should not grant the application
2:37:09>> I think that's really where we are
2:37:10>> well
2:37:19>> well I think that's where we
2:37:26Not granting a preliminary determination
2:37:28of insufficient return is granting is
2:37:30not granting a hardship. Okay. Jay, is
2:37:32there anything you want to say on this
2:37:34before we vote?
2:37:35>> Is there anything non-committee members
2:37:37want to speak on before we vote?
2:37:40>> Doug, you're going to have to come use
2:37:41the microphone.
2:37:45It's only a point of fact. I just want
2:37:47to say how rare this is.
2:37:51In 60 years, if this was granted, this
2:37:56would be the 14th time in the city of
2:37:58New York since the Landmark Preservation
2:38:01Commission was created. 14th. 60 years.
2:38:05Think about how many landmarks there
2:38:07are. Think about how many years that is.
2:38:10That is very weighing heavily on my
2:38:12conscience. Thank you. It's a point of
2:38:13fact.
2:38:14>> Okay. So the resolution will say in
2:38:18essence that we find that number one has
2:38:21been met that is that the owner has
2:38:23agreed to sell or lease the property
2:38:25contingent on a notice to proceed. Two
2:38:28that the existing property is incapable
2:38:30of earning a reasonable return under the
2:38:32scenarios the applicant presented. It
2:38:34will say that we did not find number
2:38:36three that the building is no longer
2:38:38adequate, suitable or appropriate. And
2:38:41it will say that we did find number four
2:38:42that the purchaser seeks to immediately
2:38:44demolish the building and to build a new
2:38:46building on the site with reasonable
2:38:47promptness. And thus the landmarks
2:38:49preservation commission per statute
2:38:51should not grant a hardship to the owner
2:38:55of this building. But if the Landmarks
2:38:58Preservation Commission should to should
2:39:00decide to uh issue a preliminary
2:39:03determination of insufficient return,
2:39:05then we call upon community members,
2:39:07organizations, elected officials,
2:39:09government agencies, etc. to seek an
2:39:11alternative an alternative purchaser of
2:39:13an identical interest. And uh should an
2:39:16alternative purchaser not be found, the
2:39:18city the city should consider in
2:39:20consultation with community board 7 and
2:39:22the broader community the possibility of
2:39:24the city taking a specific appropriate
2:39:27protective interest in the building. Um
2:39:30can I get a uh motion to vote?
2:39:39>> Okay, great. Clari Clari is moving.
2:39:42Okay. Um
2:39:44com committee members um
2:39:47committee members in favor please raise
2:39:50your hand. I have three five. Okay.
2:39:54Opposed.
2:39:59Uh abstensions
2:40:02and cause would be zero. Okay.
2:40:05Non-committee members. Uh, Sema, uh, I'm
2:40:08going to need you to, uh, go on video so
2:40:11I can see how you vote. Um, uh,
2:40:14non-committee members in favor.
2:40:19Okay. One opposed. Sorry, Sema. Did you
2:40:23vote in Sorry. Okay, that's two in favor
2:40:26with SEMA.
2:40:27>> Thank you, Sema. Uh, okay. Two in favor,
2:40:30opposed.
2:40:32change my votes
2:40:34>> abstensions
2:40:38and then cause would be zero. Okay. So
2:40:40the vote is going to yeah the vote
2:40:43passes with uh committee members 52 0
2:40:47and non-committee members it passes 21 1
2:40:510. Um for the broader community um this
2:40:54will be voted um at the full board
2:40:56meeting next week. uh there is not going
2:40:59to be time as we've made time at the
2:41:02previous meeting and this meeting for as
2:41:04much public testimony. So I would really
2:41:06encourage folks to use the existing uh
2:41:09sheet uh Google form where you can
2:41:12submit testimony. We received over 200
2:41:14pages of testimony so far and I would
2:41:16like to thank the community. Uh all of
2:41:18the testimony has been distinct and
2:41:20unique perspectives that we really
2:41:22value. Uh I work as a government
2:41:23official and read a lot of testimony and
2:41:25it's often form testimony. There was not
2:41:27a single sentence that was repeated. So
2:41:29thank you. Um but I would encourage you
2:41:31to submit that testimony by midnight on
2:41:34Sunday so that it can be compiled and
2:41:36distributed to the board ahead of the
2:41:39vote next week. Um can I get a
2:41:42>> And the meeting next week is next
2:41:45Wednesday at
2:41:47>> 6:30
2:41:48>> 6:30 at where is it?
2:41:50>> Where is it? where
2:41:52>> epuin. Um, can I get a motion to
2:41:56adjurnn?
2:41:57>> Yes.
2:41:57>> Okay, so moved. And folks in the
2:41:59audience, we need to be out of this room
2:42:01in the next 9 minutes.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of MCB7 Preservation Committee | October 29, 2025 by Manhattan Community Board 7, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 22,735 words across 3,457 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.