NEWS: "Tear It Down" Residents Rally for Downzoning
From the Queens Chronicle
Overdevelopment Fears In Springfield Gardens
by Karen Clements , Chronicle Correspondent
Chanting “tear it down” and braving frigid temperatures, residents rallied Saturday to protest the latest manifestation of overdevelopment in Springfield Gardens — a two family house at 137 47 Southgate St.
“McMansion expansion” was the term demonstrators used to describe the recent trend of demolishing single family homes and replacing them with multifamily dwellings. The resulting influx of residents puts a strain on existing infrastructure, as well as on schools, sanitation and parking.
The rally, organized by H.L. Gray, a civic leader who has lived next door to the property for 23 years, was called to bring attention to a process he said is “ravaging our communities.” In an interview prior to the rally, Gray said his objectives are to raze the structure, adopt a plan for downzoning the area and eliminate the practice of allowing architects to self certify their projects without a city review. “There is a process and we are going to follow the process in order to get this destruction to stop,” he said.
St. Albans Assemblyman William Scarborough was the only elected official at the rally, although an aide to Councilman James Sanders was present. Scarborough made a few remarks to the crowd, pledging his assistance in putting together a plan for rezoning and fast tracking the process. Touring the site, he made arrangements to meet with the rally organizers.
Scarborough said that the urgency of the issue was “felt by elected officials.” But he added that the solution was to change the current zoning, a process that “has to be generated from the community up.”
The house that was the focus of the rally rises well above the other comfortably sized homes on the street. Its Spanish style and flat facade contrast with the slanted roofs and porches of the older homes on the street. That contrast is underscored by one of its driveways, which does not actually extend all the way to the street, since it is blocked by a curb and tree — both of which are city property.
Although the home is designated as a two family structure, rally participants pointed to its three utility meters as proof that the structure is being primed for more. With its sale price upward of $750,000, residents are concerned the home is being readied for multiple renters, including those relying on housing subsidies. As Gray put it: “They are trying to create a project in the midst of a community.”
Demonstrators told of similar expansions nearby; a survey of the immediate area highlighted at least three new multiple dwelling structures. One example was cited by demonstrator Thelma Cabbagestalk, who has been fighting a similar development on her street, one block away. “Six two family houses mean an additional 18 families (assuming they will be three family dwellings) and no place to park now,” she said.
Shirley Jist, who lives across the street from the structure, calls it an “eyesore.” She vowed that “this is the last house” of its kind on her block.
Gray expressed particular concern about the builder of the property, H.O.D. Corporation of Jamaica, which he alleges uses substandard materials and is not in compliance with various stop work orders.
At the time of the rally, the latest stop work order had been rescinded by the Department of Buildings, and construction was in progress. The department is currently investigating that cancellation, which may have been implemented on an administrative technicality.
A representative from the H.O.D. Corporation, who would only identify herself as Maggie, said Sunday she doesn’t understand why residents are raising objections. “We (are) building nice houses,” she said. The neighborhood is going to look nice.”
She said that the construction company has continually been in compliance with the Department of Buildings and that inspectors continuously monitor the site. However, buildings officials have issued a 10 day letter of intent to revoke the work permits if specific concerns raised in an audit are not addressed.