The Campaign for Greater Buffalo History Architecture and Culture has sent a letter, quoted in full below, to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown urging that he direct Commissioner of Permit and Inspection Services James Comerford to rescind his issuance of a demolition permit, effective Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, to the owners of the former North park Baptist Church (later Temple Emanu-El) at Colvin and Tacoma avenues in North Buffalo.
Hon. Byron Brown
City Hall
Buffalo, NY 14202
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL
Re: Former North Park Baptist Church-Temple Emanu-El, 375 Colvin Avenue.
Dear Mayor Brown,
At its meeting yesterday, the Buffalo Preservation Board found that the threatened former North Park Baptist Church at 375 Colvin Avenue qualified for designation as a city landmark. Only one of nine criteria need be met for designation; the board found that this building met five of the criteria. The board voted unanimously to designate the building as a landmark and scheduled a public hearing for January 10. The building is best known as the former Temple Emanu-El, the seat of the most significant rabbi within Conservative Judaism in the United States, Isaac Klein, from 1953 to 1968. The former Baptist congregation overextended itself on the grand building, and sold it in 1934 to congregation Emanu-El, led by Rabbi Joseph Gitin (upon his death in 2010 at age 104, Rabbi Gitin was believed to have been oldest Reform rabbi in the world).
Commissioner Jim Comerford has indicated he is "releasing" the historic building for demolition and issuing a demolition permit effective Monday, December 31 on a non-emergency basis. Such action would be taken with full knowledge and directly contrary to the Preservation Board.
This is an iconic building in North Buffalo, the demolition of which, the Preservation Board was informed, is opposed by many in the community. Councilmember Michael LoCurto informed the board that he is opposed to demolition and supports the formal designation of the building as a landmark. In addition, The Campaign for Greater Buffalo opposes the demolition and supports the desgnation of the site as a landmark.
That this should be happening during the holidays and after the owners cancelled an inspection of the building by the Preservation Board just hours before it was to take place (and, it seems, after Commissioner Comerford made the decision to issue the demolition permit), is of utmost concern. As indicated by the non-emergency status of the demolition permit, no health or safety reason exists for the building to be torn down.
You have in the past intervened to forestall demolitions of significant buildings and we must urge you once again to take immediate action and direct that this demolition permit be rescinded or delayed at least until the full Common Council has acted on the nomination.
Sincerely
[signed]
Tim Tielman
Executive Director
Photo by Steel
Sure Tim...as long as you and the campaign have the proven necessary funds, and provide a plan with a time table, to develop the corner into a publicly acceptable use.
Unless you/Campaign are prepared to accept responsiblity, both legal and financial, and develop this corner..STOP infringing on other property owners rights!
Demo contractors (with the help of ignorance like yours) have been squandering this city for decades. Enough is enough.
JD> "Unless you/Campaign are prepared to accept responsiblity, both legal and financial, and develop this corner..STOP infringing on other property owners rights!"
Thankfully, those of us who want to see this place saved have policy tools to do so instead of abiding by arbitrary criteria and some empty, ideology-based view of "property rights."
People have the right to seek Landmark designation, which I believe is already happening. Those who disagree are free to attend the public hearings and express their opinion.
"on other property owners rights!"
That retroactivity is the main thing I disagree with in Buffalo's law about landmarking & preservation districts.
If someone buys a property which is already subject to those, that seems to me less unfair that they have reduced rights because they knew (or should've known) of the implications of the designation before buying.
However, for owners like Savarino for the Freight House which the Common Council landmarked after he bought it, and possibly the owner of this church if the CC landmarks it now, it does seem those owners' rights are much more unreasonably harmed when the landmark designation is added.
How's this for a compromise?
The city's law could be changed to say for a current owner of something for which landmark (or pres district) designation is added, the owner is automatically granted a purchase offer from the City govt of say something around 3x the average of recent 3 years property value assessments?
The owner would have 60 days to decide whether to accept that amount and transfer the property's ownership to the City who can then try to sell it to someone like they did with Fairfield Library, or the owner can keep the property and accept the full consequences of landmarking (including greatly higher difficulty of demo permission, and other things).
A 60 day limit for deciding would prevent much more demo-by-neglect from happening, while the automatic purchase offer from the City balances out the impact of the property owner no longer having the same amount of property rights as when the property was first acquired.