Nonprofit Fighting Proposed Bill
A bill recently introduced in the City Council would lead to sweeping changes in the city’s landmarking process, but preservationists claim the change would put economic interests ahead of anything else.
The bill, Intro. 846, would add language to the city’s landmarks laws that would instruct the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to prepare a report prior to a public hearing on a property that would analyze “the impact of [landmark] designation on the development, growth, improvement, renewal or economic development of the area involved, including both public and private development, and on the public health, safety and general welfare” of the area.
It further instructs the agency to “specifically consider the relationship between the development potential of all properties affected by the proposed designation, both public and private, and the existing development on such properties at the time of designation.”
The bill is co-sponsored by City Council members Leroy Comrie, Peter Koo, Ruben Wills and Dan Halloran, among others. It is also being championed by a group calling themselves the Responsible Landmarks Coalition, which consist of the Real Estate Board of New York, the Rent Stabilization Association, the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce and several other groups as well as several construction unions.
“Common sense amendments to the Landmarks Law will ensure that our glorious history is preserved but that New York will never become a city preserved in amber whose best days are behind it,” says a statement on the coalition’s website. “New York City became a world capital as the result of innovation and vibrant growth. Preservation must accommodate and encourage these characteristics in order for New York City to thrive in the 21st century.”
In a June 14 email, the Historic District Council claimed that the bill would “cripple the landmark designation process and damage the regulation of existing protected landmarks.”
A post on the group’s blog analyzed the bill and claimed that it would elevate “a narrow definition of economic worth over the benefits of landmark designation as set out in the Landmarks Law.”
