By Ayala Ben-Yehuda
A real estate advertisement that described a property for sale in Douglaston as “suitable for community facilities” has sparked outrage over what some see as an invitation for another public building to invade the neighborhood.
The advertisement, placed by Century 21 Laffey Associates, first appeared in The New York Times' and Newsday's classified sections on Dec. 21. Douglaston Civic Association President Eliott Socci said the ad was brought to his attention by a real estate broker who was a member of the civic.
“In light of the community opposition to community facilities, it is amazing that you would run an ad that invites a community facility into the area,” Socci wrote in a Jan. 3 letter to Arpi Canda, manager of Laffey's Little Neck office.
“We urge you to immediately cease and desist from the irresponsible practice of advertising for a community facility in this neighborhood,” the letter said.
The single-family home up for sale is located at 244-05 Alameda Ave. It is a renovated colonial with four bedrooms, 3.5 baths, a finished basement and a garage, according to the ad. The asking price is $1.125 million.
By the time Socci wrote his letter, the language about community facilities had been pulled from the advertisement, a move Canda said came in response to early complaints from people opposed to bringing more community facilities into the community.
Some anonymous letters sent to her office after the ad was published singled out Korean churches as undesirable.
“They're making derogatory racial comments,” said Canda of some letter writers who did not identify themselves. “They're tired of having Korean churches in this area.”
The property in question is currently occupied by the Sahng Wun Sa Zen Buddhist Center, a community facility that Socci said had not attracted car traffic the way most public buildings do.
Socci called the center's stewards “the best neighbors in the area” because they did not enlarge the building, displayed modest signage, and swept the sidewalks in front of the building.
“What we always fear is that someone else is going to come in, enlarge the building beyond acceptable local standards, and may end up causing a lot of traffic and congestion,” said Socci.
Canda said the temple's leader, Hyo Won Kyung, had requested that language about community facilities appear in the original ad. Hyo was out of the country and could not be reached for comment.
“We are not insensitive to community needs, but we service the homeowner,” said Canda.
Socci also objected to the asking price of $1.125 million, which he called “way out of line for a one-family home in this area. It's being priced to be sold as a community facility.”
Canda responded that the price was not out of range for houses in the neighborhood.
“There are properties listed in Little Neck for $2 million,” said Canda, who added that so far no one representing a community facility had responded to the ad and that the price may be reduced at the end of this month.
An anonymous letter to the Douglaston Civic Association dated Jan. 7 reads, “Ads that comply with the law must be respected. Your presumption that your association is the voice of the entire community is erroneous,” and was signed, “A Concerned 35 Year Resident of Douglaston.”
Traffic and parking problems associated with community facilities have raised the hackles of civic associations all across the borough.
Buildings such as churches, schools and medical offices are currently given wide latitude under city zoning regulations to move into residential neighborhoods.
“If one of these public facilities buys the house next door, I have no defense,” said Tyler Cassell, president of the North Flushing Civic Association and a spokesman on community facilities issues for the Queens Civic Congress, an umbrella group representing more than 100 civic associations in the county.
Cassell has helped get the word out to several member civics, which have been writing letters to elected officials and City Planning Chairwoman Amanda Burden requesting that zoning laws be more restrictive in terms of community facilities.
A response by City Planning, which is analyzing prospective changes to zoning laws, could come as early as next month.
Meanwhile, Community Board 7 in Flushing and Community Board 13 in Queens Village have passed resolutions advocating restrictions on community facilities. Community Board 11 in Bayside and Douglaston is working on the text for a similar resolution.
Reach reporter Ayala Ben-Yehuda by e-mail at Timesledger@aol.com, or call 229-0300, Ext. 146.
