As of Thursday evening, it appears that every stained glass window has been removed from the church -- and that every other thing of value that could be stripped from the church has been carted away.While it is still possible that what remains of the church will somehow be spared or that economic circumstances will conspire to prevent complete demolition, our fight to preserve the Green Church -- as an intact historic building -- is over.
Although we didn't know it then, the fight for the Green Church was over on the last day of March, 2007 --before the Committee was organized -- when the trustees of the church quietly signed the $9.75 million contract of sale with Abe Betesh that they have since refused to re-negotiate. (Typical of the secrecy that has surrounded the sale of the church, the buyer's name was not disclosed until November, 2007, when papers were initially filed in Kings County Supreme Court seeking judicial approval of the sale.)
So why did the Committee fight to save the church, to the great consternation of some?
From where I stood, I would say that the Committee fought because its members, whatever their personal differences (and there were many), believed in good conscience that every possible avenue of recourse should be explored before the church was abandoned to what was seen, in the most reductive terms, as a bad decision by its not-for-profit corporate owner.
At least until Robert Tierney told Vincent Gentile in June, 2007 that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission would not calendar the request for evaluation the Committee had filed on behalf of the church, there was the possibility that the LPC might force the parties to re-negotiate the terms of the sale by landmarking the church.
And at least until January, 2008, when Massey-Knakal house lawyers Donovan and Gianuzzi got an ex parte order from Kings County Supreme Court Judge Larry Martin granting permission to sell the church, there was the possibility that the Committee, through its pro bono attorney, might be permitted to intervene in the proceedings and/or challenge the order on appeal.
But the time and place of the Supreme Court hearing were not disclosed. The Committee learned that the hearing had taken place only after Judge Martin's order was entered and the record became publicly available.
It seems that the UMC (along with handful of other "favored denominations") has received a dispensation from the state legislature allowing it to waive all notice -- even to the state attorney general -- when it liquidates its assets.
And at least until August, 2008, when Vincent Gentile told the Committee that his protracted efforts to broker an alternative sale to a buyer who would spare the church had, in so many words, failed, there was the possibility that the contract with Abe Betesh could still be re-structured and demolition avoided.
At the same time, there was the possibility that one or more of our local elected representatives would respond to the "anticipatory demolition" issue raised by the Committee.
Under the terms of the contract, the closing is conditioned upon the BRUMC anticipatorily demolishing the church -- with the buyer's money. The Green Church is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and therefore falls under the protection of the National Historic Preservation Act, which prohibits anticipatory demolition.
But there was no response from our elected representatives to this issue.
The church trustees (no doubt with the support of other stakeholders in the proceeds --the realtor, the realtor's attorneys, the lobbyists, and the architect who designed the new "condo church") have thwarted every effort by the Committee to avert demolition.
Based upon my reading of the extensive local media coverage of the controvery, including the numerous statements made by Reverend Robert Emerick on behalf of the congregation, I think that the church is seen by its owner as having no intrinsic value, as an "albatross", an obstacle to closing.
As a result of my experience as a Committee member, I think that whether historic preservation succeeds in any given New York City neighborhood depends upon the existence of a critical mass of knowledgeable, committed property owners who are sufficiently organized and can command sufficient resources to counter the development lobby, which, I have learned, is far superior to most community groups in its ability to pre-emptively sculpt public opinion, tame opposition arguments and anesthetize the local politicians.
It's no accident that historic preservation is seen almost exclusively as the preserve of New York's social and economic elite.
I can only hope that efforts like ours -- including our perceived failures -- will at least have provided property owners in Bay Ridge who want to do historic preservation with better information about this complex process and better access to the fundamentals. (Many of the links on this blog reflect my own learning curve.)
I will continue blogging about historic preservation -- and other issues that matter to me -- and to chronicle the destruction of the Green Church. I believe that it is important never to turn away from what we see, no matter how painful.
The effort to save the church -- short of our prayers -- having ended, I have removed the contact information for the Committee from this blog.
More on the salvage operation at the church from the Brooklyn Eagle:
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/35/31_35_bm_green_church.html
