Does the LPC provide each *individual* owner with details about their property before they vote? i.e., what will be allowed and what will be forbidden? what renovations are required for “historic accuracy” and what renovations are required to fulfill “like-for-like”?

The concept in the abstract sounds really great to many owners — for folks that aren’t swayed by the style arguments, they are fed lots of information about huge improvements to property values… money talks. Are BOTH sides represented… in an official way? (Not just “opponents” standing up in meetings)

Is the vote truly well-informed? And is 51% really enough to *permanently* take away a huge chunk of liberty from the homeowners?

I was referring to the 51% vote of all homeowners in the affected area that Architerrorist referred to above. Not at the public meeting where many people don’t attend or can’t attend. Or does the LPC just have to get 51% of the folks that show up to a meeting?!

And I never said *renovations* were required. I said *what type* of renovations are required or forbidden — i.e., what’s on the new menu of reduced possibilities for your own private property.

Given the 1 or 2 family zoning restriction, the people building in the proposed LPC areas are *individuals,* not evil developers with no connection to the community. It strikes me that the existent community pressures (natural ones) have been quite effective. No external agency required to help them select their porch lights.

There is another major issue I see in addition to the loss of liberty issue (and, no I have no problem with most of the regulations imposed on private property in NYC – i understand issues of livability, sanitation, safety, etc. This most definitely includes zoning restrictions that vary from neighborhood to neighborhood as they do.)

It’s the simple issue that what is *old* came from folks being able to build what they wanted…

Is it personal taste – or the architectural character of a given historic neighborhood that landmarking protects? The latter, I argue. Why would it be unusual for a neighborhood with a specific architectural style to attract homeowners who value that aspect of the neighborhood and are determined to see it protected? If that means prospective homeowners who value the neighborhood/homes for other reasons are deterred, why should pro-landmarkers care? They shouldn’t and generally don’t. Single family homes WITHOUT rental units currently make up the vast majority of homes in the area, so it’s laughable to suggest that renters make any real dent in the economics needed to preserve the historic character of Victorian Flatbush. By the way, do people realize how many of these “apartments” in Victorian homes are actually dangerous and illegal. Not all, but many, and unfortunately, people tend to only reflect on this fact when a house is lost to an electrical fire, or worse, when someone’s life is lost in such a tragedy. But that’s yet another topic.

If a neighborhood majority (and yes, that means just 51%) support landmarking, and LPC agrees to award landmark designation, the historic character of the neighborhood is protected. In BSW, where I believe J says he/she lives, more than 51% of homeowners have signed a petition IN FAVOR of landmarking. That’s all it takes to make an official application to the LPC. Now it’s up to the LPC. End of story.