Biersdorf & Associates

Dateline : Thursday, November 01, 2007

By Jeffrey Harmatz

http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=6784
Is New York City deliberately trying to ignore history in an attempt to develop a block in Downtown Brooklyn? That was the question asked by homeowners and local historians at the second public hearing about the development planned for Duffield Street and Ashland Place held at City Tech on Monday morning.
Controversy has surrounded the plans for the past year because of the city’s use of eminent domain to acquire the property and the possible historical significance of the homes that are scheduled to be demolished.
“This is a land grab,” said Lew Greenstein, owner of property on Duffield Street and president of the Block 146 Block Association, at a rally before the hearing. “They’re using eminent domain to take the land for nothing and give it to greedy developers.”
The hearing was held to discuss the fate of several properties in the Downtown Brooklyn area that are being acquired through the use of eminent domain. Called the Brooklyn Center Urban Renewal Area, it encompasses a block of homes between Duffield and Gold streets and two blocks along Fulton Street and Ashland Place. The development calls for the construction of a park, an art center, and an underground parking lot, but many homeowners are fighting the development on a number of grounds.
Monday’s hearing, held by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, was the second public hearing on the matter. The second hearing was deemed necessary after the city withdrew its first eminent domain papers and resubmitted them. A part of the public process, several homeowners used the open forum as a means of expressing not only their opposition to the development plan and support for historical recognition of the neighborhood, but called into question the legitimacy of the city’s handling of the matter.
Activists consider the fact that several of the buildings along Duffield Street may have been used as safe houses in the Underground Railroad as one of the best arguments for halting the immediate demolition of the houses. Although an independent contractor hired by the city found that evidence the houses were used to hide runaway slaves was not abundant, advocates say there is more than enough to merit further study of the homes and the tunnels below them.
“How can you find evidence of secret society?” asked Councilwoman Letitia James. “What we have seen is secondary evidence that proves these homes were part of the Underground Railroad. There is also an oral history that says these houses were used to transport slaves. Developing on this site would be foolish.”
“When New York City decided to develop this area of Duffield Street, they commissioned a study which was just a put-up job,” said Bob Furman of the Four Borough Neighborhood Preservation Alliance.
Furman claimed that the consultants the city hired to determine the historical significance of the site were purposefully neglectful and reluctant to look at all of the evidence.
The historical report was also criticized by several members of City Council, including Charles Barron, John Liu, and Leroy Comrie, as well as several historians.
“You do have an Underground Railroad site here,” said archeologist Cheryl LaRoche. “This is a phenomenal site.”
Opponents of the development have also called into question the fundamental intent of the urban renewal, saying that the neighborhood does not need government interference.
“This is not a ‘down area’ in need of renewal,” said Greenstein. “We’ve got a lot of brand new growth.”
Referring to a new hotel that is being built in the neighborhood, he asked “Do they build new hotels in blighted areas?”
“Think about yourself,” pleaded Dave Wallace, another property owner. “If you owned a house and renovated it and made it your own, and then the city says they will take it away, how would you feel. They haven’t offered anybody a fair market price for their homes. This isn’t a rich or poor problem. Anybody can be affected by this.”
“This is just another example of black people being stomped out of their neighborhoods for businesses to come in and take over,” said neighbor Daniel McCalla at the hearing.
Though many spoke against the development at the hearing, a general feeling of hopelessness was present. Many speakers referred to the hearing as irrelevant, saying that the decision to redevelop has already been made.
“I recognize that this hearing is procedural and will have little impact on the decision,” said James. “We are pursuing our own litigation which I expect will outlast this administration. Hopefully the next administration will be more open to the history of the neighborhood.

Photo Caption Homeowner Lew Greenstein criticizes the way that the city has handled the urban renewal project.