After sitting exposed to the elements for a better part of the summer (see post), the windows on Our Lady of Lourdes Church have been boarded up. Thankfully, after sending emails and placing phone calls to Councilman Curtis Haynes, he stepped up to the plate and reached out to the guardian of the building. Days later new plywood was up and the church is now secure for the fall and winter season. There is still a small upper window that needs to be boarded up, but it is so small that it should not present a big problem.
From Curtis:
"We sent an e-mail to Anthony Palumbo, Planning and Development Coordinator for Ellicott Development Corporation. A subsidiary of their corporation recently bought the property. They committed to properly securing the premises in addition to landscaping maintenance and the cleanup of any litter/debris on site in the coming weeks. They moved quickly."
View image
From Curtis:
"We sent an e-mail to Anthony Palumbo, Planning and Development Coordinator for Ellicott Development Corporation. A subsidiary of their corporation recently bought the property. They committed to properly securing the premises in addition to landscaping maintenance and the cleanup of any litter/debris on site in the coming weeks. They moved quickly."
That only took 6 weeks. How about the roof of the Greystone? There is zero excuse there. $10 million of his personal fortune on a spitting contest campaign backed solely by grave impropriety and $0 for the Greystone. Scumbag
The Graystone wont be saved so the roof is irrelevant.
It has been said many times before that the rooms are small and the interior walls are concrete which means that the floor plan is frozen.
The best possible end game for the graystone is to save the facade and demolish the rear of the building. It will be cheaper, provide interiors that command market rates and best of all the historic facade can be copied and the building expanded to the entire shovel ready site most of which I think is a parking lot...the building could even be made taller.
If a building cannot be saved...the very least every effort should be made to save the exterior facade. If we followed this philosophy we would have the vernor and schmidt and a number of other downtown buildings still part of the fabric of our city.
"How about the roof of the Greystone?"
Andrew, this says a hero of yours decided against buying the Greystone when he had the chance a few years ago.
http://www.buffalorising.com/2009/11/paladino-working-on-greystone-plan.html
"As the downtown housing market heated up in early 2006, Ellicott revived plans to convert the building into residences albeit with smaller units than earlier planned.
A few months later Rocco Termini and Signature Development announced their intentions to buy the property and take on the conversion project. Signature later decided against proceeding with the development and the building's future turned cloudy."
He could have bought it and fixed the roof, but decided not to.
According to you, does that make both Paladnio and Termini 'scumbags' ?
If not, what's the difference?
The list of people who don't want to pay for fixing the Greystone's roof is pretty long. Paladino, Termini, many 1000's of others ...
Does anybody want to buy it and fix its roof? Has anybody made a purchase offer to Paladino? It sounds like he was very willing to sell at the time WCP wrote about in the link above.
This Lourdes church was for sale at a low price in a public auction a few years ago. Why didn't any preservation advocate buy it then and make sure its windows are boarded up?
I agree with you that more preservationists need to put their money where their mouth is. But saying someone that buys a building and lets it rot is the same as someone who chooses not to buy it are different.
If owners purchase buildings with no plans they should mothball it, you don't have to replace the entire roof/windows to prevent further damage. Throw a tarp over the roof if you have to, or in this case board windows up. Compared to how much you save it's practically free.
JM, you're right about mothballing, but also there have been plenty of chances for anyone to buy the Lourdes and Greystone to mothball them - and they haven't either.
BRLifer, true, Paladino supports corporate welfare - for his residential projects and Canalside. That's one of the reasons I won't try to help his campaign at all. But I don't blame him for renting to state agencies because as long as he's the lowest bidder it should save public money rather than raise costs.
I don't know if the city or state would give $ to fix the Greystone's roof, but I wouldn't want them to when there's many better spending needs.
Coudn't Carl find a way to use taxpayer money to repair the roof? Lord knows he has managed to feed at the public trough on a regular basis.
Just being sarcastic but if these speculators/opportunists/profiteers choose to buy a property then they need to take responsibility and properly maintain them.
Whatever>"According to you, does that make both Paladnio and Termini 'scumbags' ?
If not, what's the difference?"
The most obvious difference is Paladino actually owns the property and is not willing to bring it up to code it which a lot different than a prospective buyer not wanting to. Are you trying to say that any potential tire kickers are equally responsible to make necessary repairs to properties they don't even own? I guess that means I can run my house into the ground and if the city or neighbors have a problem with it I can rightfully blame everybody in pointing distance for not maintaining my property for me.
Whatever>"This Lourdes church was for sale at a low price in a public auction a few years ago. Why didn't any preservation advocate buy it then and make sure its windows are boarded up?"
Well that is an elitist way of looking at the situation. To paraphrase, only those who can afford to buy and repair property have the right to criticize or comment on a neglected building. Many (cue violin) average working families may not be able to take on such a large project but, at the same time, want to see neighborhood properties not left to rot. Why shouldn't those of us without the money or expertise for such a project not demand that buildings are maintained in compliance to local codes?
I guess we could just keep our mouths shut and recognize the landlord's right to put the neighborhood and emergency response personnel at risk until the bulldozers arrive. But that would only feed the widely believed "Johny come lately" myth that preservationists are too reactive.
pit>"Are you trying to say that any potential tire kickers are equally responsible to make necessary repairs to properties they don't even own?"
Of course people who considered buying then decided not to aren't legally responsible in civil penalties from courts.
Still the choice of Termini and others to not buy and fix it (even though Paladino was willing to sell and Termini almost bought, reports WCP) does have the same physical result as owning it and not fixing it.
The opportunity for anyone else to take ownership of the Greystone was offered, and apparently nobody said yes.
pit>"To paraphrase, only those who can afford to buy and repair property have the right to criticize or comment"
Bad paraphrasing. Where did I ever say anyone doesn't have the right to criticize or comment? Paraphrasing is supposed to reword something and keep its meaning, not change the meaning to something different.
Whatever>"Still the choice of Termini and others to not buy and fix it (even though Paladino was willing to sell and Termini almost bought, reports WCP) does have the same physical result as owning it and not fixing it."
Maybe you're right. It is the fault of everybody who did not purchase the graystone that it has not been brought up to code. Not just Termini but everybody who had the opportunity to buy it didn't such as you, me, Tim Tielman, Sam Hoyt, Byron Brown, Chan Gailey, Glenn Beck, the Cookie Monster, Big Bird, etc. Everybody had the chance to buy it and fix it and they didn't which is exactly the same as willfully neglecting your property. Screw "personal responsibility", It is society's fault for the hole in the roof not Carl's.
best comment i've seen in ages, pitbulls. standing ovation from this little corner!
saying that you should not advocate for code enforcement, proper maintenance, and preservation unless you can personally rescue buildings is like saying that you should not advocate for education unless you can personally underwrite the tuition of needy kids (in addition to your own).
Thank you grad. That "if you can't buy the building, shut up" seems to be the prevailing preservation diss but it misses the point. I don't want to buy the building. I just want to see preservation of local assets for the community at large and future generations, take precedence over the narrow interests of the landlord when there is a conflict. Especially in the case of 118 which, like the rest of the cobblestone district, is supposedly protected by law from demolition. Is that too much to ask?
pit>"that "if you can't buy the building, shut up" seems to be the prevailing preservation diss"
pit, except I've never said anything like "shut up" on here to anybody about anything. You repeatedly pretending I said that is a lame strawman argument (even if grad94 liked it, who ironically has told people to shut up and go way on here).
Asking why Thing 1 doesn't happen (preservation advocates buying the Lourdes and mothballing it, and buying the Greystone and fixing its roof) isn't at all the same as telling anyone else to stop doing Thing 2 (writing on blogs). Those are two different things. I never criticized anyone for blogging or commenting about anything.
pit>"Not just Termini but everybody who had the opportunity to buy it didn't such as you, me, Tim Tielman, Sam Hoyt, Byron Brown, Chan Gailey, Glenn Beck, ..."
Perhaps nobody in your list is convinced it makes sense to spend $ on the Lourdes and Greystone. Evidently Termini reached that conclusion when he backed out of buying one (according to WCP) and when he didn't bid on the other when it was auctioned for a very cheap price.
The land they're on might have more practical future uses than the buildings do. If anyone seriously disagrees, they've had plenty of chances to buy the buildings - even if just to be sure they're better maintained - and they haven't.
Whatever>"strawman argument"
Just because you didn't utter the words "shut" and "up" doesn't mean I'm making a straw man argument. You are implying that the only way to preserve a building is to purchase it and restore it . That was in response to others wanting to preserve the building by holding its current owner accountable to the law. That seems to be the gist of your argument based on what you have posted here and in other discussions.
Whatever>" Asking why Thing 1 doesn't happen (preservation advocates buying the Lourdes and mothballing it, and buying the Greystone and fixing its roof) isn't at all the same as telling anyone else to stop doing Thing 2 (writing on blogs)."
Fair enough. Lets look at the point you have repeatedly made about the courts being "soft on crime". I'd like to point out that you have had every opportunity to go to law school, graduate, become an attorney, run for office, become a legislator, singlehandedly rewrite penal codes to include tougher penalties (with exemptions for corporate types who neglect properties they bought on speculation), become a judge, and impose your tough new laws firsthand.
I'm not saying you shouldn't complain about the way the criminal justice system works, I'm saying you had every opportunity to fix this difficult, complex problem all by yourself.
Whatever>"strawman argument"
Just because you didn't utter the words "shut" and "up" doesn't mean I'm making a straw man argument. You are implying that the only way to preserve a building is to purchase it and restore it . That was in response to others wanting to preserve the building by holding its current owner accountable to the law. That seems to be the gist of your argument based on what you have posted here and in other discussions.
Whatever>" Asking why Thing 1 doesn't happen (preservation advocates buying the Lourdes and mothballing it, and buying the Greystone and fixing its roof) isn't at all the same as telling anyone else to stop doing Thing 2 (writing on blogs)."
Fair enough. Lets look at the point you have repeatedly made about the courts being "soft on crime". I'd like to point out that you have had every opportunity to go to law school, graduate, become an attorney, run for office, become a legislator, singlehandedly rewrite penal codes to include tougher penalties (with exemptions for corporate types who neglect properties they bought on speculation), become a judge, and impose your tough new laws firsthand.
I'm not saying you shouldn't complain about the way the criminal justice system works, I'm saying you had every opportunity to fix this difficult, complex problem all by yourself.
Oops. Didn't mean to post that twice.