Friday, September 12, 2014

Petition urges Mayor DeBlasio to say no to a dorm at the former P.S. 64



As we first reported back on Aug. 18, the city (partially) approved developer Gregg Singer's controversial dorm conversion of the former PS 64 and CHARAS/El Bohio community center on East Ninth Street.

There's now an effort underway led by the East Village Community Coalition to have the approval overturned by the Mayor.

Via their petition:

East Village community groups, elected officials, community board and residents are united in opposition to the proposed dormitory. We demand the building be returned to a true community use.

The DoB has approved the application despite non-compliance with dorm development regulations and the deed restriction limiting the use of the site. We call on the City to strictly enforce zoning and municipal rules for the future for this historic school building.

You can find a sample letter to send to the Mayor here.

Previously on EV Grieve:
Rebranded P.S. 64 up for grabs: Please welcome University House at Tompkins Square Park to the neighborhood

Deed for 'community facility use only' at the former P.S. 64 now on the market

Efforts continue to fight the dorm planned for the former PS 64 on East 9th Street

Testimony Of Councilmember Rosie Mendez regarding the former PS 64

[Updated] At the 'Save Our Community Center MARCH AND RALLY'

Landmarks Preservation Commission asks to see modified plans for former PS 64

The Landmarks Preservation Commission approves application for modifications at PS 64

City approves dorm conversion plans for the former PS 64 on East 9th Street (54 comments)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Totally. It should just stay empty, like it has for over 10 years. Way better that it's empty. Not in use. For anything. Even remotely useful.

Because anything new is bad.

Anonymous said...

The building has a restriction to meet "Community Use". If it does not meet that distinction , then the developer should be held accountable. The way the property was acquired, how it is being 'developed', and pretty much most of the circumstances around how it has been handled is so suspect. Its obvious the guy has tried every way to get around that community use 'snag'. Time to give it to someone new who would do something productive with it & live up to the terms.

I live on this block and I feel 500+ transient students will harm quality of life in the neighborhood and in the park. The bars might make a killing though. Ugh. Its not a fight against 'anything new' going into that building - its to hold greedy developers accountable to the law and to keep the area somewhat tolerable. Letting people break the restrictions & the law for profit with no concern for the surrounding community is *bad*. Its not just "new is bad" like you put it. Anything bad is bad. Period. It can sit empty a little longer.

Anonymous said...

Don't want to be a wet blanket but this building will never be returned to "the community". The costs to repair and maintain will be impossible and the community that once lived here is not the same to the community that lives here now which would have little to no interest in this place. I'm not saying Singer and dorms are ideal but at least this beautiful building will survive and return to life as a useful purpose.

Anonymous said...

Um, how 'bout convert it into affordable housing?

The city acts like it doesn't own buildings. It owns this building. Make it into affordable housing.

Anonymous said...

The city sold this building, this is purely a question of zoning.

Anonymous said...

hmm how about using it for a school
what a novel concept for a building that was used as a school

Anonymous said...

It would be plausible to restore it as a middle school renovation and restoration would cost but not as much as acquiring the land and bottom up constriction for a new school. Then the school could be leased at nominal cost to a non profit charter aiding DeBlazio goal of removing charter schools from public schools. Returning it to its original function could prove to be the way forward. Remaining a eyesore and rat's nest is not a solution

Anonymous said...

Can any of you read? This is NOT owned by the city. The developer bought it in 1998. The battle is over what constitutes community use. That is the only issue. Maybe if these folks had acquired some buildings when they were cheap they could use them any way they want. My guess is it stays empty. What community use applies in the ev of 2014 anyway?