Jersey City Council tables St. John's Church landmark vote

by The Jersey Journal
Tuesday October 07, 2008, 7:41 PM

The Jersey City City Council voted unanimously tonight to table an ordinance to designate St. John's Episcopal Church on Summit Avenue a local landmark.

Council members didn't say during the meeting why they took this action.

But at Tuesday's council caucus, an attorney representing the Episcopal Diocese said church officials were looking into entering into a joint housing venture with its local affordable housing organization and would seek to preserve elements of the 118-year-old Bergen Hill structure.

Before this, church officials had said they only wanted to demolish the vacant structure and sell the property to the highest bidder.

Preservationists have been steadfast in their opposition to demolishing the church and believed they were on the brink of getting the city to come down squarely on their side - until tonight's vote.

Quote:
I'm fine with this but I wish the dead would kick in a few bucks toward my taxes.

Old buildings are not ours. They belong partly to those who built them, and partly to the generations of mankind who are to follow us. The dead still have their rights to them?that which they labored for we have no right to obliterate. What we ourselves have built, we are at liberty to throw down. But what other men gave their strength and wealth and life to accomplish, their right over it does not pass away with their death. -John Ruskin.

Quote:

Again, it's about $$$. NYC's Landmark's Preservation Commission is funded to the tune of $4.5 million a year (actually according to the FY '09 budget, it's been slightly reduced to around $4.35 million). I couldn't even FIND any listing for the Historic Preservation Commission on Jersey City's FY '08 budget document, but I doubt it's anywhere even close to $4.5 million. On top of that, NYC preservation efforts often attract wealthy and corporate patrons - remember when Jacqueline Onassis spearheaded the restoration of Grand Central Station? Perhaps the mayor and city council ought to require the big developers kick in some funding for historic preservation whenever they want to build some enormous block of condos, rather than contributions to their reelection campaigns. Dare to dream!

Some sites and structures that are handed down to us from prior generations rise to the level of overwhelming architectural and social significance. Examples in Jersey City include the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the Brennan Courthouse, and Saint John?s Church. Our generation is entrusted with the care and maintenance of these sites during our lifetimes so that we can hand them over in good condition to the next generation.

Inexplicably, the Diocese has knowingly, willingly, and even actively caused Saint Johns to undermined from without and within by the elements and a salvage company.

To give some perspective, Jersey City is a 15 square mile city compared to Manhattan which is 22. Jersey City has fewer than 40 registered historic sites and districts compared to Manhattan which has more than 500. Is Manhattan?s history that much more significant than Jersey City?s?

the JCLC identified St. John's as one of Jersey City's Most Endangered Historic Sites close to 8 years ago! Since then the church has been left to rot and historic elements have been removed.

Not only should this significant historic resource be preserved and landmarked, but we need to have a city-wide plan to identify and where appropriate preserve our historic jewels.

The public is doing our part, it is time we demand our elected officials to support our efforts.

Mr. Parkhurst,

If what you say is true, then I applaud your efforts. The church is a beautiful old building that should be preserved, but at the same time, I also believe that preservation shouldn't cause undue hardship on owners. I'm not familiar with this particular case, and I wasn't trying to present my guesses as fact. But I do know of cases elsewhere in which the congregation literally had to choose between helping the needy or repairing a crumbling old wall. Needless to say, people won out over the wall. And that's the way it should be.

I'm not anti-preservation, but my own views are shaped by my own (frustrating) experiences and that of my neighbors. I do know that downtown, where I live, there are older couples of limited means who bought their homes 30+ years ago, before the neighborhood was ever zoned a historic district - a designation they themselves never sought. These are hardworking people who took a chance on this community back when nobody else would. Imagine their surprise when, in trying to repair brickwork and repaint, etc. they get fined by the city for not complying with HPC standards. When they do try to comply they're handed a long list of what they CAN'T do, and what they CAN do is often the most expensive option and beyond their limited budgets. Is it any wonder that many homeowners let their homes deteriorate? Nowhere was there any financial assistance for them. I was especially heartbroken to lose a retired couple as neighbors. They decided they couldn't afford the type of renovation on their brownstone required by the HPC, and they didn't want the place to fall to pieces - so they sold the place. They made a handsome profit, but still they were sorry to leave the neighborhood. And I was sorry that I no longer had neighbors who entertained me with stories about the old days in JC and swapped gardening tips over the backyard fence. How is historic preservation served when old timers are forced out by the HPC's stringent requirements? I really believe my neighborhood lost a bit of its soul when they moved. I am lucky to have a decent paying job, but even I find myself financially stretched by something as simple as replacing windows. Not only does the HPC require ludicrously expensive windows, but they're not even Energy Star rated. In this day and age of soaring energy costs and everyone trying to reduce their carbon footprints, I think it's just insane that the powers-that-be are inflexible on that score.

This is why it gets my hackles up when people shout "preservation," but no one really mentions the cost involved or how to pay for it. I and many of my neighbors want to do what's right for our "historic" buildings, but by the same token, there needs to be some recognition of the fact that we're not wealthy (if we were, we'd be in Manhattan, not JC) and some middle-ground needs to be found between what's best for the building and what's within the means of owners.

Quote:

This post is inaccurate in several regards. It misapprehends the laws governing landmark status. It completely misstates the history of the building. And it is wholly ignorant of the incredible efforts of the "preservation community" to work with the Diocese. A lie by lie refutation is not possible, but some of the more egregious errors are addressed below.

1) Landmarking a building does not prevent its demolition. It simply requires review by the appropriate body, the Historic Preservation Commission. If, in fact, the Diocese could prove that the building was unsalvageable, they could submit that evidence to HPC. They in fact tried to do that when HPC recommended landmarking, and when the Planning Board reviewed HPC's application. No one believed them, for good reason.

2) For over two years, the Conservancy has offered to work with the Diocese on a preservation plan. We have offered volunteer labor to fix the most immediate problem, the collapsed side roof, which would prevent further damage. We are also willing to sit down with the appropriate professionals to develop a preservation plan. The Conservancy did not seek landmark status until February 2007, after the Diocese refused to respond to our multiple inquiries. Afterwards, the Diocese would claim they wanted to meet with the Conservancy, but would delay doing anything except when the landmarking process went forward.

3) The Diocese did, in fact, wilfully let the building deteriorate, and in some cases actively aided and abetted such deterioration. Without getting into the long history, the church was shut down not because of a declining membership, but because of an internal political dispute between a former bishop and the congregation. The Diocese took the church from the congregation for nothing. It then let it rot. It allowed thieves to steal the gutters (and refused to ask the police to intervene even when neighbors identified the criminals). It did not do basic upkeep of the premises. It most recently allowed a salvage crew strip the interior.

4) The Diocese has gone from 8 parishes in Jersey City to 3. As part of this, the Diocese purportedly developed a "Jersey City Strategy" which pledged that the assets they received from disposing of other properties would be reinvested in the remaining congregations. So if the Diocese doesn't have money from its disposal of other church properties in Jersey City, it is due to its own financial mismanagement. There is one nearby congregation, Incarnation, that has repeatedly pleaded to be allowed to use the church as a replacement for their tiny storefront on a side street. The Diocese has refused. In fact, at the most recent meeting of the Trustees of the Diocese's property, the Trustees admitted that they have refused to communicate with Incarnation or any other local groups about a use for the church.

5) Grants and other sources of revenue are, in fact, available for preservation. For starters, the Conservancy has offered to address the issue of the leaking roof. Once that is done, a preservation plan can be developed. No one is saying the building has to be restored tile by tile, artifact by artifact. Nor are we saying that the building has to be restored overnight. It took over a decade of callous neglect and misfeasance by the Diocese for the building to get in the shape it is in, so we don't mind taking the time to get it right. Suffice it to say that we at the Conservancy are well aware of what needs to be done, how it gets done, how it gets funded, and the obstacles that preservation faces. That doesn't let the Diocese off the hook, particularly since they have rebuffed every effort to work with the local community who has offered their assistance.

Joshua Parkhurst
President
Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy

An archival view of the seminal 1870 edifice...

From Help Save St. John's Episcopal Church

While it's unfortunate that the building has deteriorated and is slated for demolition, I have to ask this question: is there also a provision to provide funding for the building's preservation to go alongside landmark status? Otherwise landmarking the building would be pointless if there isn't the financial wherewithal to properly preserve it. To all those people crying for preservation: are you prepared to pony up some money to help restore and maintain this building? HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS NOT CHEAP. Add to that some very unreasonable and arbitrary conditions set by the city's Hysterical Preservation Gestapo - which really do put a heavy financial burden on building owners - and it's a wonder more buildings aren't in even worse shape in JC.

My guess is that the Episcopal Diocese didn't willfully let the building deteriorate, and demolition may be the only financially feasible option for them. Like many churches around this country, they're probably cash strapped and are just scraping by. Given declining membership and dwindling contributions at a lot of churches - not to mention even tougher economic times ahead - the dilemma is an obvious one for church officials: save a building or help people in need. I love how the "preservation community" kicks up a fuss and screams for landmarking everytime an old building is about to be pulled down - but not once have I ever heard someone in the "preservation community" come up with any grants or even good ideas on how to pay for preservation (and don't bother with the BS about tax breaks for preservation - the tax breaks don't even come close to paying for restoration and maintenance of an old building). They seem to think that $$$ just comes out of nowhere.

Please consider sending an email or calling Councilwoman Viola Richardson. If you live outside of Councilwoman Richardson's area, call your own council representative or Mariano Vega, the council president. This is such an important building for all of Jersey City, not just Bergen Hill. It is one of the most magnificent churches in Jersey City and it is mind-boggling to think that the Episcopal Diocese is doing its best to demolish the building as quickly as possible and to also stop the landmarking tomorrow. This is our heritage and our patrimony. We cannot allow the City Council to deny the landmarking tomorrow! Please do whatever you can to help save this stunning piece of our history!

LAST CHANCE TO SAVE HISTORIC CHURCH ON TUESDAY NIGHT - FATE OF BUILDING UP TO CITY COUNCIL - EPISCOPAL DIOCESE STILL SEEKING DEMOLITION We cannot stress enough how vitally important tomorrow's City Council vote is for St. John's Episcopal Church, one of our great architectural monuments. We are certain that YOUR INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT, whether in person or via email or phone call, will help to convince Council members to vote in the positive. The Episcopal Diocese, the entity that has allowed the building to deteriorate over the last decade, is still moving forward with demolition plans despite strong opposition from the preservation community. We're fighting for this special building until the very last moment! Won't you join us as we get ready to stand in front of the Council? ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING--let's be clear. While the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Board have both this year issued unanimous recommendations for landmarking, the real legislative protections come from the City Council. And so you see how important Tuesday night is for the church. We need your help and ask for it with a sense of urgency and utmost gratitude. WHAT: Landmark Designation Vote for St. John's WHERE: Jersey City Municipal Council Meeting, Frank R. Conwell Middle School (M.S. # 4), 107 Bright Street, Downtown Jersey City (enter at the intersection of Bright and Varick) WHEN: Tuesday, October 7, 2008. Starts at 6:00 p.m. Note: St. John's is not expected to be heard early in the meeting, so arriving after 6:00 p.m. is perfectly fine! If you cannot make the meeting, we ask that you send an email or call the City Council directly. (See City Council contact information below.) We ask that you send a message of support (via phone or email or fax, if preferred) to the City Council: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/citycouncil.aspx?id=46 If you would like to reach out only to Council President Mariano Vega and Ward F Councilwoman Viola Richardson (St. John's stands in her district), we are providing their contact info here: HONORABLE MARIANO VEGA, COUNCIL PRESIDENT - Phone: (201) 547-5268; Fax: (201) 547-4678; Email: mariano@jcnj.org; Hilario Nu?ez, Council Aide: Phone (201) 547-5458 HONORABLE VIOLA RICHARDSON, WARD F COUNCILWOMAN - Phone: (201) 547-5338; Fax: (201) 547- 4678; Email: RichardsonV@jcnj.org ; Lorenzo Richardson, Council Aide: Phone (201) 547-5361 TO GET INVOLVED OR FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy at jclandmarks@gmail.com and/or 201-420-1885. THANK YOU FOR HELPING US TO PRESERVE JERSEY CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE!

From Help Save St. John's Episcopal Church