Now we know what Mayor Bloomberg and Diana Taylor have in common -- they were both party animals. In a speech yesterday at Dartmouth, Taylor's alma mater, Bloomberg said, "I remember having nothing but fun in college." The Post's Jennifer Fermino reports Bloomberg also said Taylor told him she skied constantly while attending the New Hampshire university, but he thinks she "drank a lot [and] probably smoked a lot." Bloomberg, who went to John Hopkins, confessed to a dismal academic record: "If you think I don't have 'Animal House' on my iPad, you are wrong," he said.
[T]he two sides are really at odds, which is so strange because ultimately they want the same thing — to preserve the church they love.
The meeting ended with both sides agreeing to go to a mediator to try to work it out.
Apparently there is a group that helps with financing and all the red tape that the church is worried about. But the anger seemed to go beyond that. What I got from the speeches was that the church members feel like they felt like they are being invaded by strangers who want to proclaim landmark status on the building without engaging the occupants of the building. Like their opinion on the matter was an afterthought.
However, if this fight has been going on since before the rezoning (which is why they say they can't add an addition even if they want to), then the 8-story addition was probably a real threat, and the landmark status was meant to stop them, so engaging them wouldn't have made much sense then, as it was a strategy to stop them from proceeding with their plan.
I wonder if it is possible to could get landmark status in spite of what the church members want. It seems to me that if the EVCC et al are worried that the church, or their future congregants will try to change the building in any way (8 story addition not withstanding) then they are exactly who landmark status is meant to protect the building from.
