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.

Loathsomeness is a subjective matter, and in our neighborhoods, which reflect decades of renovations in all manner of styles with all types of materials, it would be easy for any of us to cite plenty of surrounding examples of, say, bricked-in front porches, or aluminum siding. Since these elements are clearly part of our neighborhood’s context, on what basis would LPC prohibit me from renovating in a similar style, other than a purely subjective aesthetic one?

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…

LPC held meetings in our community to inform homeowners about what it means to be landmarked. Homeowners were also directed to the LPC website for a great deal of specific information. Renovations are not “required.” When a homeowner wants to renovate, they apply to LPC who responds on a case-by-case basis. And as I said, if homeowners objected to the designation, they could write to LPC or come to the public hearing.

You have a perfectly rational arguement against landmarking – some homeowners share it. But in our experience, most do not.

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?

But “their will” isn’t being imposed on anyone. NYC has a law on the books designed to protect structures deemed to be of historic value by LPC. LPC makes the call, not the neighbors, and sets the standards based on the law. The fact was that majority of the community of homeowners asked the government to consider our neighborhood for a historic district. They did, and determined the neighborhood was historically significant. LPC could have said no.

Actually, across the country, historic preservation is becoming very popular, with many cities and towns enacting their own laws to protect historic structures. There was an article in yesterday’s NYTimes about such an effort on Long Island.

At our LPC public hearing, 58 homeowners testified – 56 were enthusiastically in support, 2 were against. This after hundreds of postcards were sent into LPC asking for our neighborhood to be landmarked. And now there is a similar grass roots effort to landmark BSW and the rest of Victorian Flatbush. So who are the people who “dislike (hate) landmarking and preservationists?” I know there are some, but from my experience, there are far fewer of them than landmark supporters.