 |
|
| No Mosques At Ground Zero |
 |
BARBARA A. PAOLUCCI
July,15,2010
Mr. Robert B. Tierney, Chairman
Landmarks Preservation Commission
Municipal Building
One Centre Street, 9th floor
NY, NY 10007
Red: Project #LP2434, 45 – 47 Park Place landmarking
Dear Mr. Tierney:
I am writing to have this statement submitted in addition to the testimony I gave at the hearing on July 13th. Having three minutes to speak, while accommodating to others who wish to testify, does not allow for all of the information one possesses to get into the record. I appreciate having the opportunity to add this statement.
I was surprised to learn that the LPC has not had a request to create a 9/11 historic district as this is the worst attack on America’s soil in the history of our nation.
As I testified to at the hearing, I am requesting the entire 9/11 area be designated a historic district and war memorial. This district would include the building in question – 45 – 47 Park Place. My Expedited Request form for same is enclosed in this mailing and I ask that your staff provide me with instructions as to what else would need to be done to have this request move forward as quickly as possible. As you saw at the hearing, 90% of those in attendance are for landmarking the building and the creation of the historic district.
9/11 was the darkest day in our nation’s history and needs to be memorialized by having a historic district created especially for this purpose.
I also request that the vote on the landmark status of this building be halted until such time as the 9/11 Historic District is established as this building is an integral part of that event’s history.
You heard several people as well as myself testify to the fact that the building was hit on 9/11 by the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes flown into the WTC towers. This cast iron building survived it and as a result is part of 9/11’s history, a war memorial that should be turned into a museum. If this building were nothing more than a non-descript, culturally irrelevant structure, it would warrant landmark preservation status for this reason alone. The building has its own attributes warranting landmark preservation status which is evidenced by Community Board 1’s (CB1 hereafter) consistently stating they believe the building worthy of landmarking.
It appears that between Burlington’s objections (which should have been ignored) and now, Mayor Bloomberg’s insistence (which must be ignored), to deny landmark status to this building are in full force over and above the objections of the majority of New Yorkers, and in fact, the majority of Americans. That the current owners complain that the LPC has done nothing with the project for all these years is irrelevant and as meaningless as the statement that they didn’t know it was up for landmarking during the five years it took them to buy the building. Seems to me they had more than enough time and more than enough experience as major real estate owners in the area to know enough to contact the Commission and they knew when they bought the building that it has the landing gear in it - a fact that may have made it all the more attractive to them.
The LPC landmarked many buildings based on the sole criteria of events that took place at these buildings such as:
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory building – because of the fire that took so many workers’ lives as the owners locked people inside it; and the workplace rules that came about because this tragedy.
The Margaret Sanger Clinic because of the strides in birth control Ms. Sanger achieved.
The Stonewall building because the events at this building became the spark that ignited the gay rights movement.
And perhaps most noteworthy of mention is the building that Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground bombed, landmarked simply because he bombed it. As testified to at the hearing, of the approximate 22,000 buildings landmarked by this Commission, fully 6% of them were granted landmark protection based on historical events alone.
I would also like to recommend that the Commission grant landmark status to all cast iron buildings – this is a worthy project that should be undertaken quickly. There are a precious few of them and all are worthy of preservation and full enforcement of the rules that govern them so that owners take proper care of these treasures. They, along with this building, are the architectural character, history and cultural value of the blocks they reside on.
I would like to remind the Commission that it granted landmark preservation status to 311 Broadway; a building that is virtually identical to 45 – 47 Park Place and ask, if one, why not the other?
Also, I would ask the Commission to think back to events of approximately 10 years or so ago where the Commission was a major factor in assisting an owner to create a faux cast iron building. While that building has little cast iron in it, if any, it does have the appearance of a cast iron building and was so celebrated upon its completion both in the press and by the LPC. Since the Commission cared so dearly as to participate in this project, why not save a real cast iron building too.
This building is one of a very few remaining Italianate Palazzo style buildings – unfortunately, if its not protected now, it will be lost forever and that must not happen. This building has a death sentence hanging over it. It is not a building that will languish as is if denied landmark protection. It will be torn down.
It was interesting to hear the testimony of Peter Davies who found the historical records showing that up to 1850 Columbia College owned the property and the information he provided on the foundation underneath. I’m sure you will give this your consideration too. His testimony adds to the historical significance of the building dating back 160 years.
The LPC has stated that the building has historical, architectural and cultural significance; when this is added to the fact that the building is an integral part of the 9/11 attack it makes it impossible for the building to be denied landmark preservation status.
The owners complained that they didn’t know when they bought it that this was on the list of projects for landmark status at LPC. At the same time they stated that they own several buildings in historic districts and/or buildings that are landmarked. These are experienced, large real estate owners who if telling the truth, were lax in their own due diligence efforts prior to purchasing. The LPC can not take this testimony into consideration the building’s status must be determined based on the building alone and not future use. I am sure the building could be sold to others with landmark preservation status if they would agree to sell.
One has to question the statement by one of CB1’s members who stated that he was approached and recused himself from voting because as he stated, while he had no ‘immediate’ financial benefits; he thought it appropriate to recuse himself given the potential conflicts of interest – which clearly implies that he will have future financial interests. At least he was honest enough to recuse himself and state why. This fact does however leave one to wonder who else on the Board was approached? What was announced as a NO vote that would be had after the committee voted yes, turned out to be a YES vote! More than a little suspicious, especially when one considers the consistent recommendations over the past 20 years by CB1 recommending landmark status protection be granted.
One also has to be suspicious of the sudden rush to vote on this building’s status after oh so many years of languishing in the background at LPC. Why now? Who is pushing this and what’s in it for them? These are questions that need to be answered if the LPC is to maintain the integrity it needs to function and maintain the public’s trust. That the LPC is rushing this through gives credence to the belief that they are ‘in the bag’ for the mosque to be built per Mayor Bloomberg’s desires. Could it be that this is why the Mayor wanted a third term, directly against the public’s two votes for term limits? Could the Mayor and/or his real estate pals have contracts in place for the construction of the mosque? Why is the State Department pushing for the mosque to be built and sending Imam Rauf on a tour of Muslim countries to make nice at taxpayer expense? All of these things suggest a less than honest process and it’s up to the LPC to insure the process is clean, transparent and open to scrutiny at every stage. Far too often the buildings that should have landmark protection have been torn down. This one has special significance to the nation as well as New Yorkers. Why the rush?
A member of CB1’s Landmark Committee testified that the Committee is holding public hearings on 7/27 and asked that this hearing be held open at least until 7/28 because the LPC may not vote prior to receiving the Committee’s recommendation/vote. I would ask that this hearing be left open too and for the very same reasons and add that this hearing should be kept open until there is a decision on the creation of the 9/11 Historic District I am proposing (& others who testified agreed should be created) which would include this building. Anything less would risk the building and not be in the best interest of New Yorkers..
While you stated that future use can not be considered by the LPC, because the owners opened up the door, and did so deliberately, charges of racism, bigotry and religious discrimination can not be ignored. I won’t dwell on this but would like to say this much –
It’s not non Muslims who are intolerant, its Muslims who insult those who died that day, those who died from the illnesses they incurred as first responders and will die early in their lives, their family members who lost their loved ones in the most horrible ways possible including but not limited to the children who lost their mothers and fathers simply because they went to work that day, all New Yorkers and all Americans by insisting on having a mosque at the 9/11 site.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (center) poses in a photo with attendees at a 2006 Muslim Leaders of conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. On the far left is Sultan Muhammad, communications coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Chicago.
Several people testified to the great importance of symbolism in Muslim culture. It’s not a secret. When they conquer they build on top of a building that has significance for the conquest they made. The Imam who will be in charge of this mosque should it be built, has strong terrorists ties and no allegiance to America or Americans. They want this mosque as a symbol of conquest and named it as such. Cordoba is mourned throughout the Muslim world as the loss of Spain and their conquest over Christianity. This mosque being so named is symbolic of the re-taking of what was lost over 700 years ago. How or why should we forget what the radical Muslims did 9 years ago when they haven’t forgotten their losses of over 700 years ago? This building is part of the mourning that New Yorkers and all Americans still need to do. We have been forever changed by 9/11 and the insensitivity to Americans, New Yorkers in particular, to have the unmitigated gall to want to build a mosque at that site, so very close to WTC is intolerable.
The name calling by Muslims was and is unacceptable. No one is preventing this mosque from being built elsewhere; in fact there is a mega mosque uptown and no shortages of mosques in America. As you stated when you opened the hearing, future use of the building is not something the Commission can consider – I respectfully request all testimony in favor of the creation of the mosque be removed from the record and the Commission’s consideration.
In addition, I ask that the hearing remain open while CB1’s Landmark Committee holds its hearing and through to the final outcome of the creation of the 9/11 historic district – there is no reason to rush this to a vote.
Last, I request that this statement be made part of the record.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
Yours,
Barbara Paolucci
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
