JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 14, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Park51 controversy is bound to blow up now that President Obama has weighed in. I've written a lot on the substance of it. The only new argument I've seen recently comes from Rick Hertzberg, who explains why the Auschwitz-Nun incident cited by the ADL and other opponents of Park51 doesn't hold water:
1. The convent at Auschwitz was to be a purely Catholic institution, with none of the interfaith aspects or broad community-serving purposes that mark the Park51 project.
2. In their fundraising appeal, the convent’s sponsors
described the convent as “a spiritual fortress and a guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers from our countries as well as proof of our desire to erase outrages so often done to the Vicar of Christ."
Whether or not “the strayed brothers” requiring “conversion” is a reference to Jews—it might refer to fallen-away Catholics—it’s hard to interpret the reference to “outrages” supposedly perpetrated against the “Vicar of Christ” as anything other than an allusion to the well-documented charges that Pope Pius XII was, shall we say, less than fully engaged in trying to prevent the Nazi slaughter of the Jews of Europe.
Plus, of course, the fact that the Auschwitz convent was proposed on location at Auschwitz, while Park51 is two blocks away. Also, credit to former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who is one of the very few Republicans taking a liberal and strategically shrewd position here:
"An enormously complex and emotional issue -- but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.”
As for the politics, it can't help Obama in the short run. This is a 70-30 issue and he's siding with the 30 -- and various right-wing loons have already been tying him to some imagined Islamic past for a couple years now.
On the other hand, I think this will pay long-term political dividends for Democrats. There's a classic pattern of Democrats cementing the allegience of minority groups by standing up for them when those groups sit outside the mainstream culture, and thus when there's a real political price to defending them. Fifty years from now, Muslims will be voting heavily Democratic because they'll remember that Obama defended their rights when it was unpopular to do so. Of course that won't help Obama, but it's impressive to see him stand on principle. Bush could have taken this position without suffering politically. Obama doesn't have that luxury.
50 comments
Well he's right on principle of course. I fear he, and by extension Democrats in general, are gonna take a political licking though. Of course, we're already in deep **** because of the economy. So, might as well defend American ideals. OK fire away.
- Sophia
August 14, 2010 at 3:41pm
This indeed does credit to Michael Gerson, but it won't be much recognized out here.
- liberal reformer
August 14, 2010 at 6:15pm
Obama has now backtracked, vitiating any moral force that might accompanied his previous stance. This reminds of commentators who fumed with indignation over the claim that victims' sensitivities ought to be a factor in the decision whether or not to build the mosque, decrying those who advanced those arguments as bigots, and then whooped it up with glee when they learned that Greg Gutfeld was proposing to open a gay bar next to the site in question. Indeed, going so far as to host a contest to come up with a name that would most effectively skewer traditional Muslim attitudes about sexuality and Islam's relationship to terrorism, in an outburst of racism cloaked in a discussion of rights. But I guess that was just Andrew Sullivan.
- roqabs
August 14, 2010 at 7:16pm
Disappointing. The President won't stand up to the Muslims. This victory Mosque at 100,000 square feet will tower over Manhattan and confirm to the Islamic world how weak the Americans are. The Muslims need to be treated the way they treat the rest of the wolrd. Perhaps a little outrage similar to the Muslim outbursts to Pope Benedict's speech? Perhaps a death threat similar to the Danish Cartoonists. Maybe an Intifada to protest the building of a wall. Read about Feisal Abdul Rauf. His father was in the Muslim Brotherhood and he is a bad actor talking out of both sides of his mouth. Another Yssir Arafat. It seems like the President is on the side of the Islamic Terrorists and against the Americans who don't want to live under Sharia Law.
- CRS9TNR
August 14, 2010 at 9:44pm
Nu. The mosque will "tower over Manhattan?" This would be some mosque! Feh.
- Sophia
August 14, 2010 at 10:45pm
"It seems like the President is on the side of the Islamic Terrorists and against the Americans who don't want to live under Sharia Law." I have never described a contribution, no matter how ugly or provocative, by anyone on TNR discussion boards as "moronic" but I am now breaking with that tradition. It's an embarrassment, worthy of a position on the worst anti-Obama hate site.
- ironyroad
August 14, 2010 at 11:18pm
CRS9TNR, so are you saying that Islam should be outlawed? Or shall we have special zones for Mosques, but let churches and synagogues go where they want? Look, Al Qaeda did this, not Islam. Al Qaeda is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. The KKK claims to speak for Christianity as well. And how does building a community center (the Mosque already is in operation) make us live under Shariah law. I do have to say kudos for the former Bushies who have come to the defense of the Mosque, the rest of the party has lost its f-ing mind. And yes, for the record I stated before I had hoped they had built the center elsewhere, but it is a free Goddamn country. Why the hell should they have to go according to what I want?
- blackton
August 14, 2010 at 11:20pm
Obama had to backtrack. He couldn't defend very well the right of Muslims to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero while dictating what Israelis could or could not build in Jerusalem.
- NR114746
August 15, 2010 at 1:13am
It is ridiculous statements like that of CRS9TNR that confirm how weak we are. We are so afraid.
- JEFF FREY
August 15, 2010 at 3:16am
"He couldn't defend very well the right of Muslims to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero while dictating what Israelis could or could not build in Jerusalem. Not at all. As far as I know, there are not currently any sovereignty disputes in NYC or vicinity that might be affected by the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero (itself a misappropriation of a name that is properly attached to much greater destruction and much larger loss of human life than 9/11).
- roidubouloi
August 15, 2010 at 3:47am
- I won't be around in fifty years to see if the right suffers from a range of positions that only exclude. And I shouldn't care that the current influence shrinks them with foolish positions from repealing amendments to defying cultural, scientific and economic realities. And as the two parties are aligned, Democrats should benefit even sooner than half a century. So what will the Other Party come to be? Will guys like Gerson, McKinnon and Frum get off the ship before the mutiny is complete or will they ride it till the end. We should get a glimpse of the new right soon and the sharpest elbows belong to the narrowest minds. The '12 primary may have eight or ten competing for the Nativism mantle and the current demographics could provide the winner of their round with a rude awakening. A little more certitude that they can take the country back might just have them driving their party over the cliff. It may not disintegrate in two years but this current strain of the GOP won't survive till 2062
- michaelg
August 15, 2010 at 9:28am
Having now read the lawsuit petition filed against the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, it would seem the 9-0 vote on August 3 was "arbitrary and capricious" in several ways. download from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/in-battle-over-mosque-a-def... Perhaps someone from the Federal Heritage Emergency National Task Force gave Obama a call on Saturday morning. HEMTF represents thirty Federal Agencies and national service organizations still actively engaged in 9/11 preservation of artifacts and human remains. The original protest was about a building that is one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. THIS 1853 building survived, and shows how far the damage extended beyond the WTC site even before the Twin Towers collapsed. If not for the still undefined prayer space as mosque, the developers would have faced the real fight: over the map of NYC history. "...Christopher Moore, a member of the [Landmarks Preservation] commission, said the vote was not a matter of religion, though he argued that the building could not be divorced from the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks. “It is not directly on ground zero, but it is a part of ground zero,” Mr. Moore said. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-cle... 45-47 Park Place landmark designation application started in 1989. It has a history that preceded 9/11, and is the only building with a long history that survived a direct hit. The history of NYC is also about rebuilding in a frenzy of booms and busts. It does not mean we have to erase the history of a site, 45-47 Park Place that is part of the birthplace of New York City, and almost four hundred years of NYC history. A building that is also one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. I still want to know how a building from 1853 was built so that a torpedo-sized chunk of airplane ONLY crashed through the roof and two floors, and not through to the basement. It must have amazing old growth chestnut crossbeams. It should be preserved into a "Layers of NYC History" museum. Are the historic preservation advocates now also muzzled by the charge of bigotry?
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 9:52am
Chait:"Fifty years from now, Muslims will be voting heavily Democratic because they'll remember that Obama defended their rights when it was unpopular to do so." Fifty years from now, the Fire, Police, and building trade unions, most Catholics, Arab Christians, Greek Orthodox (see St. Nicholas controversy), and history fanatics will still be voting for anyone BUT the Democrats if 45 Park Place gets torn down. Especially if the Democrats are still lecturing and not listening.
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 10:03am
Chait: "The only new argument I've seen recently" To see all of the arguments from every constituency requires an open mind, and intellectual curiosity. And to acknowledge what the Park51 developers say at their website, that the planning is still in Phase 1 - no one knows what the final plan will include.
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 10:12am
During the week, Gov. Paterson called the bluff of the developers, who claim the purpose of this project is healing and goodwill. He offered to find them another site on state land in downtown Manhattan if they would relocate. They refused. Thus it is clear that the project is a deliberate provocation, a spit in the face of non-Muslims. I'm not questioning their right to build; that is a red herring. But it sure guarantees division and strife. It is one thing for Chait and co. to roll over and play dhimmi. It is something else to stand up to the Islamic triumphalists.
- NR114746
August 15, 2010 at 11:44am
on the difficulty of interfaith dialogue WITHIN Islam: "Saudi Sitcom Row Tests Tolerance Toward Christians" By REUTERS Published: August 15, 2010 Filed at 10:18 a.m. ET "RIYADH (Reuters) - A popular Saudi holiday sitcom has drawn the ire of conservative clerics over an episode portraying Arab Christians in a positive light after the kingdom sought to sell itself as a leader of dialogue between faiths. "Tash Ma Tash," which has aired during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan for 17 years, is no stranger to controversy and its episodes have grown bolder over the years, tackling issues from morals police and polygamy to the heavy influence of religion on education in the deeply conservative society. U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is ruled by an absolute monarchy in coordination with clerics from the austere Wahhabi school of Islam, who oversee the judiciary and education and run a police service that enforces strict Islamic-behavior guidelines. A two-part "Uncle Boutros" episode of the sitcom showed the two main Saudi characters, both Muslims, being advised by their dying father to visit the brother of their deceased Lebanese mother, about whom they know next to nothing. After a tearful reunion, the pair discover their mother's relatives were Christians and Uncle Boutros was a priest. Despite their initial shock, the brothers slowly come to respect their uncle's Christianity, although they try to convert him to Islam and give him a Koran. The duo are pleased when their uncle hands them a box of jewelry that had belonged to their mother and which he had held for them for years. They also respect their uncle's charitable deeds toward a Lebanese Muslim neighbor. But some Saudi clerics were not impressed. "A Muslim is allowed to praise only the one true religion -- Islam," said Eissa al-Ghaith, a judge at the Justice Ministry, in remarks carried by al-Madina newspaper on Sunday. Independent Islamic scholar Abdulwahab al-Salhi said the "indecent lot of 'Tash Ma Tash' ... used drama to destroy Muslims' stable religious principles by portraying Christians as believers and not apostates." On the program's Internet forum, some participants were more sympathetic. "I don't see the harm in portraying a priest as being honest... You find many faiths in Arab countries. The Christian can be found next to the Muslim; the Shi'ite neighbors the Sunni," said one participant, writing under the name Khayal al-Omr, responding to an angry comment. "And what's wrong with the characters? You used to find them funny ... and now that it talked about religions they became stupid and revolting," she added. The rulers of the world's top oil exporting country have wrestled with whether to moderate Wahhabism since the September 11 attacks in 2001 on U.S. targets, carried out by mostly Saudi nationals, and the emergence of al Qaeda militancy against the Saudi government in 2003. " (Editing by REUTERS reporters Cynthia Johnston and Michael Roddy) http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/15/arts/entertainment-us-religion-saudi-christians.html?hp
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 12:06pm
Sophia, the 'Mosque' is planned at 11 stories. Most likley twice as high as any other religous building in Manhattan. Yes there will be larger commercial buildings, but it will be taller than any church. Irony, the President has consistently sided with the Islamic Community in almost every case. He wanted to prosecute CIA and Military personnel at Gitmo, instead of prosecuting the Islamic Prisoners who now have been held up a year and a half waiting on his decision on where to prosecute them. In Cairo he reinforced Arab Sterotypes that Israel only exists because of European Guilt over the Holocaust. He supports women being forced to wear Hijabs. Supposedly he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. Show me a few examples of where the President has stood up to the Arabs. Blackie, I have no problem with Islam. We have many Muslims in Detroit and they are good citizens and have built up good communities. My problem is with Ground Zero and the attack and letting the Muslims who consider the attack a success build in that area. Feisal Abdul Rauf said "but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." Rauf further stated that “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,” it could be said that “[i]n fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” So for someone who blames America for the 9/11 attacks I would not let them build a new Mosque in New York City. The building they bought was damaged in the attack, they got it for about 25% of what it was worth undamaged. Imagine this happening anywhere in the Muslim world. Jeff Fey - look up Islamic taqiyya and see why what the Islamic Believers tell us in English doesn't square with what they say in Arabic. Israel has been around for 60 years and it suffers attacks from the Muslims who refuse to recognize Israel. If Rauf is such a Moderate why doesn't he call on Arab Nations to stop supporting their attacks on Israel, in Arabic, instead of pushing theories that the Jews were behind 9/11. I am not afraid. I have my eyes open.
- CRS9TNR
August 15, 2010 at 12:48pm
CRS9TNR, eleven stories isn't "towering above Manhattan" and it hardly makes Americans look weak. On the contrary, this fuss, this fear makes us look weak. It makes us look like we doubt our own ideals, our Constitution, the strength of our ideals and our ability to assimilate people from all over the world, which up 'til now we've successfully accomplished. If it bugs you that 11 stories is higher than any church move to Orlando.
- Sophia
August 15, 2010 at 12:56pm
PS, Dubya's relationship with the Saudi royal family and various other powerful princes is much deeper than Obama's. GIVE US A BREAK.
- Sophia
August 15, 2010 at 12:58pm
- K2K wrote, "To see all of the arguments from every constituency requires an open mind, and intellectual curiosity." No, not every constituency. Elected officials take an oath to uphold The Constitution. A complaint, opinion or position from those opposed to Park51 is different from an official's position because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. K2K can have an open mind, be bigoted or be overtaken by legitimate emotions but the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting religious activities. K2K has the luxury to be curious and outraged but Justice Souter wrote in '94. "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.". The constituency of K2K can rely upon legal standing and appeal to the courts or keep on shouting because the same amendment protects "...freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Get your briefs in order and Good Luck!
- michaelg
August 15, 2010 at 4:24pm
michaelg: my comment was directed to Chait and all the other bloggers who are solely focussed on the Constitution. I expect NO intellectual curiosity from elected officials. The developers are using "prayer space maybe mosque for congregation to be determined" to have a free hand in building whatever they want. It is a con to paint any opponent as a bigot. NO ONE should be destroying a 9/11 survivor that happens to be a building that merited landmark status BEFORE 9/11. Bloomberg consistently abuses his power in development and landmarking disputes. If Mayor Mike likes the idea, he does whatever it takes to shove it through.
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 4:49pm
CRS9, your first sentence in that para is meaningless. Your second sentence is a lie (= the opposite of the truth). Your third and fourth sentences are distortions. Your fifth sentence is a speculation, and would be irrelevant if it were true. Your final sentence/question can be completely answered by the lead story in today's NYT, which reveals that this administration has very significantly ratcheted up the intelligence and special forces war against Al Qaeda and associated groups. Obama has in fact intensified the war against Islamic fundamentalist terror. Why don't you crawl back to your anti-Obama hate sites and stay there, where you'd obviously be happier!
- ironyroad
August 15, 2010 at 5:25pm
CRS9TNR: "the 'Mosque' is planned at 11 stories. Most likley twice as high as any other religous building in Manhattan." So, where is the "churches have to be higher than Mosques" rule? (And I suspect The Cathedral of St. John The Divine uptown has a far larger volume than the proposed center. This is really an issue, which buildings are larger?) "My problem is with Ground Zero and the attack and letting the Muslims who consider the attack a success build in that area." The proponents of the center do not consider the attacks a "success." They have specifically denounced violence. "Feisal Abdul Rauf said 'but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.'" I think our foreign policies have been counterproductive in many ways too. So you won't let me open a store in downtown Manhattan? "Imagine this happening anywhere in the Muslim world." So our standards should be those that hold in "the Muslim world," whatever that is (as if it were a monolithic entity to begin with)?
- dsimon
August 15, 2010 at 7:32pm
EDT:""He offered to find them another site on state land in downtown Manhattan if they would relocate. They refused. Thus it is clear that the project is a deliberate provocation, a spit in the face of non-Muslims. Say I run a New York Mets store. One day, a lunatic commits a terrible crime a few blocks away and says he did it in the name of the New York Mets. People are really upset. Someone offers me an alternative site for my store. Do you think my reluctance to move over an event I had no involvement with and no responsibility for constitutes a deliberate provocation?
- dsimon
August 15, 2010 at 7:35pm
I'm glad the president came down strongly on the side of principles even though he knows the political price will be steep. Such leadership requires brass cujones, and he's got it, apparently. Good for all of us. irony, that must be your first angry note ever. You sure have lots of patience.
- scrubby
August 15, 2010 at 8:34pm
Irony: your forbearance was admirable then; your mild outburst (and twice) is perfectly understandable now. The only thing I can say is that now you can understand why some of us occasionally fly off the handle :) .... Now I just employ avoidance - don't bother to read posters who get under my skin. It means distortions and lies go uncorrected, but there you have it ....
- icarusr
August 15, 2010 at 9:52pm
Yeah, well. It seems to me that even folks at the other end of the political spectrum like seattleng and rationale still debate within some kind of framework of fact, and the other thriving local economy of arguments on Israel/Palestine, that doesn't easily fit a left-right spectrum, still mostly has an anchor in reality, on various sides. Even Bulbman66 with his "liberals are treasonous traitors" was sometimes more the smell of cordite than a real bullet. He conceded once that he supported and (if I recall correctly) even respected the Obama plan of stepping-up of the drone attacks against AQ and the Taliban. The thing I responded too seemed just a mix of lies and bottomless ignorance, much more suited to an anti-Obama hate site than TNR, where even passionate opponents engage with some self-respect.
- ironyroad
August 15, 2010 at 10:39pm
K2K: "NO ONE should be destroying a 9/11 survivor that happens to be a building that merited landmark status BEFORE 9/11." It merited landmark status? I've seen buildings with far more architectural merit that didn't even get a hearing from the Landmarks Commission. And forgive my skepticism, but would the landmark consideration be so strong if someone were building an 11 story office building? If so, how far does the landmark inclusion zone go? Can we build nothing new or alter anything in lower Manhattan ever again? This isn't really about landmarks, is it?
- dsimon
August 15, 2010 at 10:39pm
http://www.nyclandmarks.org/landmarks/23-park-place-building (the LIQUIDATION sign was not part of the architectural merit when 23 Park Place was landmarked in 2007, but it still looks like a run-down walk-up in the photos) Much depends on who endorses the landmarking and whether the preservation elite who dine with Bloomberg will challenge an uncooperative owner. 6% of NYC landmarks are solely for temporal historic merit. Most of Tribeca is a landmarked Historic District, but not all of Park Place. dsimon: snark someone who will bite. My comments are for J-Ru in her blog battle with Chait.
- K2K
August 15, 2010 at 11:16pm
"The developers are using "prayer space maybe mosque for congregation to be determined" to have a free hand in building whatever they want." This is not true at all. Nothing exempts the project form the zoning and building codes that otherwise apply, including restrictions on the number of people who can be accommodated, multiple uses, whatever. You don't get out of the necessity of compliance just by building a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. However, the likelihood given the density of the surrounding area and the height of buildings there that this project cannot be done in compliance with code seems pretty low to me. Either way, this claim is just wrong. The ordinary rules apply and no others may be applied either because the builders are Moslems or because of the "idea" that the project represents, either in fact or as imputed to it by people who are offended.
- roidubouloi
August 15, 2010 at 11:20pm
"Islam in Two Americas" By Ross Douthat http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?hp K2K version: The developers are using "prayer space maybe mosque for congregation to be determined" to deflect ANY protest as "religious bigotry".
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 12:50am
K2K: "dsimon: snark someone who will bite." It wasn't snark. They're legitimate questions which I think deserve an answer. I think if an argument is made in public, then it should be defended and it doesn't matter where a legitimate critique comes from. I don't get the attitude of "even if you have a point, I don't have to answer it because I wasn't talking to you." Your link is to a different building, so it doesn't speak to this building's architectural merit. Maybe 45 Park Place isn't as distinguished. Maybe the city already has better examples of that style. According to The Village Voice, "its actual architect is unknown, and before the vote was taken, it kept being referred to as a good but not exceptional" example of its style by the commissioners.'" http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/downtown_mosque.php As for historical merit, I'm personally opposed to all landmarking on that basis because it's too much of a constraint on development. (And you claimed that the building deserved landmark status before 9/11 anyway.) So again: how many blocks around the World Trade Center site should now be landmarked due to historical merit? How many acres are we talking about (more than many city's entire downtowns, and in one of the most densely built areas in the nation)? And who should decide? Are we to freeze development in lower Manhattan because of the actions of a small portion of lunatics?
- dsimon
August 16, 2010 at 9:10am
dsimon: please read my full comment above 08/15/2010 - 9:52am EDT | K2K You can download or print a copy of the lawsuit petition filed against the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/in-battle-over-mosque-a-defender-of-architecture/ The 2007 landmarking of 23 Park Place is cited as one of reasons the LPC vote on 45 Park Place failed to respect LPC precedent. Both were initially proposed for landmarking in 1989. I posted a series of more extended comments on the historical significance aspect of this SPECIFIC building in the multi-layered debate at one of six other active TNR blogposts on this subject BEFORE I was able to access the entire legal petition, so, if you have genuine interest, you can also read my comments posted there - the URL is at the bottom: 08/13/2010 - 1:43am EDT | K2K; 08/13/2010 - 2:06am EDT | K2K; and especially 08/13/2010 - 10:28pm EDT | K2K; 08/14/2010 - 10:37am EDT | K2K; and, after much thought and research 08/14/2010 - 9:50pm EDT | K2K "Choosing 45 Park Place was deliberate. The NYT article from December 9, 2009 that quotes Imam Rauf (see 08/13/2010 - 1:43am EDT) is what started the protests from many, not all, 9/11 families and survivors, a local protest that then got politicized and partisanized. When I read how Mayor Bloomberg met "...Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who would run the center, led a prayer service at Gracie Mansion in 2009 and exchanged warm words with Mr. Bloomberg; his wife, Daisy Khan, had sat next to Mr. Bloomberg’s girlfriend, Diana L. Taylor, during a dinner that followed. ..." in the 08 12 2010 NYT, I started to think this is a social climbing Sufi couple - so very Manhattan - who, for whatever reasons, are putting their "vision" ahead of the interests of many, many NYC constituencies. From the start of my awareness of the details - an awareness triggered by the strange firestorm against Abe Foxman and the ADL - it sounded like other NYC mega-developments: the new Yankee Stadium, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, Bloomberg's West Side football stadium - where political connections and what Bloomberg wants over-ride the local community. When the Community Board 1 vote is cited in the media, it is always reported as 29-1. NOT 29-1 with TEN abstentions. All CB members are appointed volunteers, and the number of abstentions reminded me of how the Community Board who wanted to get involved in the new Yankee Stadium project got FIRED by Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, currently Obama's WH Director for Urban Policy. When he fired the CB members who wanted to be part of the dialog, that served as a warning to CBs across the city to 'DON'T Mess with Mike'. All of the commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission are Bloomberg appointments. LPC votes are often politicized. "...In mid-July, Mr. Bloomberg made a quiet trip to the site, a forlorn former clothing store two blocks from City Hall. He saw no features that he considered worthy of landmark designation. “It’s pretty hard to argue it should be preserved the way it is,” he said. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/nyregion/13bloomberg.html?_r=1&pagewan... (you can read the 667 comments attached to that article about Mayor Bloomberg's personalized view of the site - which is a lot of comments for a local news article) That really annoyed me - he is not an expert in architectural history. Did he put pressure on the LPC? I was thinking today of the history of 45-47 Park Place, and how nice if it could have been turned into a special museum that teaches the layers of New York City history in one spot. Old growth forest maybe 100 feet from the original shoreline in 1609, using the Manahatta Project imaging. Farmland during the New Amsterdam colony. Someone built a house there once the streets were laid out in the early 1700s. Why was the original name Robinson Street? What did Robinson do to lose his street name to Park Place? Was that when the town common was changed into a park with the building of a new city hall? Was that 18th century house onburned down in the Great Fire of 1835 that destroyed virtually every downtown building The current building was built in 1853 as the downtown docks expanded up the Hudson River to accomodate the age of steam and the cotton trade that was the wealth generator of that era. NYC tried to secede from the Union because of the importance of the cotton trade. "...45-47 Park Place was built for Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston, shipping-industry pioneers who “refused to navigate their ships under foreign flag” to evade the blockade of Southern ports during the Civil War. Its other tenants, the suit continues, included a fancy-foods importer, the eventual pharmaceutical giant Merck and a developer of innovative manufacturing methods for the ceramics industry. ...the building “stands as an iconic symbol to an uninterrupted linkage of the rise of American capitalism with our current quest to preserve our freedom and democracy.” The decline in NYC in the 1960s and 1970s that prompted the building of the WTC to revitalize the rapidly de-industrializing economy. The 1980s in-migration of artists seeking the loft spaces of the early 20th century neighbors in Tribeca while the 19th century buildings went into discount retail. And then "Sept. 11, 2001, when landing gear from a hijacked passenger jet crashed through its roof, of a Burlington Coat Factory store" http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/in-battle-over-mosque-a-def... But, I am one of those historic preservation nuts who thinks 45-47 Park Place would serve all New Yorkers and the millions of tourists better as a Layers-of-New York City- History museum. Just one of many constituencies that Mayor Bloomberg has gone out of his way to alienate since his election in 2001. At least Mayor Bloomberg has not started selling street re-naming rights to the highest bidders. So many neighborhood street names are about the history. The streets were laid out in Pelham Parkway after the chestnut blight killed the forest after 1905. The same chestnut blight that killed 50 million chestnut trees from Maine to Virginia by 1954 - THAT Ground Zero was the adjacent Bronx Zoo, developed on the former estate of Pierre Lorillard). The street names are mostly 18th and 19th century mayors of NYC. My current neighborhood was the site of the last part of the Battle for New York in 1776. Most of the streets were laid out in the early 19th century, branching out from Gun Hill Road, and are named after generals of the Revolutionary War. The history of NYC is also about rebuilding in a frenzy of booms and busts. It does not mean we have to erase the history of a site that is part of the birthplace of New York City, and almost four hundred years of NYC history. A building that is also one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. I still want to know how a building from 1853 was built so that a torpedo-sized chunk of airplane ONLY crashed through the roof and two floors, and not through to the basement. It must have amazing old growth chestnut crossbeams. Are the historic preservation advocates now muzzled by the charge of bigotry?" http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76990/american-values-ground-zero-mosque-constitution-law [postscript: The petioner, Timothy Brown, is a retired NYC fireman and 9/11 survivor. It is unfortunate that he could not gain the patronage of the elite preservationists of NYC, and even more unfortunate that he has to rely on rightwing advocates to help him in his longstanding quest to landmark buildings damaged on 9/11.] now exiting Chait's blog for a few days while I return to my other historical research. Too many ideologues here.
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 10:00am
Irony: I don't think it is ignorance but rather pure malice, and I suspect that you responded to that rather than the ignorance, or even the lies (you've been patient in exposing lies before). In eighteen years of teaching, I have shut down discussion exactly three times: once because of harassment and twice because the comments were so inappropriate that no further discussion was going to be fruitful. (Upper-year law students are really good at policing themselves, or each other.) I wonder, given your patience, about your record. :)
- icarusr
August 16, 2010 at 10:12am
dsimon: after the Community Board 1 vote of 29-1 with ten abstentions, I read CB1's planning documents posted at their website. 45 Park Place is where southern Tribeca meets Battery Park City to the west, the City Hall area to the east and the WTC site to the south. That specific neighborhood's most pressing needs were noted as food retail and homeless housing as well as affordable housing. The neighborhood in CB1 that needs a community center is the South Street Seaport area on the East River. I think the current office vacancy rate in Lower Manhattan is more than 20%.
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 10:20am
K2K, your extended response simply doesn't answer my questions. It doesn't say whether there are other, better examples of that architectural style elsewhere in the city. It doesn't resolve whether perhaps 23 Park Place was misdesignated, or may be a more significant building. The possibility of political pressure also doesn't resolve the question as to whether this particular building is or is not sufficiently architecturally distinguished; there can be political pressure over a building that didn't deserve landmark status anyway, so that argument doesn't go to the merits. Why won't you answer how much of lower Manhattan should now be protected from development because of "historical merit"? Who should decide? And would the concerns be the same if someone were building an office building? I'm not an "ideologue." I'm a pretty passionate advocate for preservation of truly architecturally important buildings. I just don't see the justification for landmarking in this case, and I wonder if its proponents have really examined the implications of doing so.
- dsimon
August 16, 2010 at 10:26am
Shucks, CRS9TNR, and here I thought you were being sarcastic with your first posting. Too bad -- it was such a great summation of the Stupidity (with a capital S) that is just about the sum total of opposition to Cordoba House. As for Gerson's view on the subject, I agree with him 100% and give him full credit for saying something coherent and intelligent on the matter. It's clear that, since February 2009, the Republicans have ceded all pretense of constructive or realistic solutions for domestic policy. With the idiotic, anti-Constititutional opposition to Cordoba House, they are now ceding responsibility for foreign policy as well. How in the world can Newt Gingrich (to take one egregious example, among many) think he can be President and maintain the semblance of civilized dealings with Muslim world given his position on Muslim religious freedom in America?? Make no mistake -- those who would shut down mosques in America are signing death warrants for American soldiers, diplomats, businessmen and travelers in the Arab and Muslim world and anywhere else on earth that Arabs and Muslims live. They need to hear this even if they can't or won't understand it. And the President (praised for his first comment and shameful for his backtracking) should repeat it.
- wildboy
August 16, 2010 at 10:26am
Newt Gingrisch is a weenie. Sarah Palin family values reality hour. As for 911, like I wrote other times, it was easily preventable
- NR027810
August 16, 2010 at 10:59am
dsimon to K2K: "Why won't you answer how much of lower Manhattan should now be protected from development because of "historical merit"? Who should decide? And would the concerns be the same if someone were building an office building?" The sole issue over Park51/Cordoba House is about 45 Park Place being severely damaged on 9/11. That is why Rauf wanted to buy it (NYT 12 09 2009), which is why the protests started. Based on what Timothy Brown has been doing to landmark other buildings damaged on 9/11, I assume he would try to protect it by landmarking no matter who wanted to tear it down, and some/many of the 9/11 families and survivors would join in the protest. But, the rightwing anti-Islamists would have no cause to make it a national hysteria if it were being torn down for housing or offices or retail. Lower Manhattan (everything south of Canal Street) is a big area with many individual landmarks and some neighborhoods are also landmarked (most of Tribeca is a designated and protected Historic District). That, and the architectural merits of any specific building, are outside the scope of this discussion. I am sure you can find a blog that is debating those issues. Today's WSJ reports Sam Zell will bid on nearby "133-135 Greenwich St. during a bankruptcy auction scheduled for Wednesday, people familiar with the matter said. The minimum bid starts at $14.5 million." BTW, the developers of 45 Park Place failed to disclose they do not yet own 49-51 Park Place. Con Ed is still working on the apprasial, estimated at $10-20million. The damaged 45-47 Park Place cost Rauf and El-Gamal less than $5million. If they manage to buy the Con Ed half of their site, they could still develop it while protecting the facades. El-Gamal's preliminary vision is for a glass facade with no setbacks, which would surely engender serious debate over context on an 18th century scale block as well as the facade design itself (Las Vegas comes to my mind), if people were not being labelled as bigots for ANY criticism. I see 45 Park Place as a 9/11 survivor. That tax lot has a direct history of almost 400 years. Most of New York City has less than 200 years of history. Blame the late Jacqueline Kennedy for starting the landmarking that disrupts rampant re-development.
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 12:03pm
- NR027810: "Newt Gingrisch is a weenie. Sarah Palin family values reality hour.". Good. It could be worse. It is a lesser evil to have them swimming in other idiot's money. We'd regret it if they gave up their easy money for lesser benefits of federal office. I hope they stay addicted to the higher pay of swindling suckers.
- michaelg
August 16, 2010 at 12:04pm
K2K wrote, "Blame the late Jacqueline Kennedy for starting the landmarking that disrupts rampant re-development." I sense the conspiracy circle is closing. You need to toss in Castro, The CIA and The Mob. A few more counterfactual conditionals and Islam will be off the hook. It could be a Communist plot and you know how weak Democrats are on Reds. Run with it.
- michaelg
August 16, 2010 at 12:29pm
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December, 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." I can't believe this is even being debated in the United States. Amazing how the same people who scream about the orginal intent of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, who are always yelling about liberty and freedom are basically the same people who are opposing the mosque. Are we that afraid, that cowed, that hostile to our fellow citizens that we will disregard the Constitution? Allowing the mosque and community center to be built would be a shining example to the world of our courage and our righteousness as a free people.
- dubyadoubte
August 16, 2010 at 12:51pm
K2K: "The sole issue over Park51/Cordoba House is about 45 Park Place being severely damaged on 9/11....I see 45 Park Place as a 9/11 survivor. That tax lot has a direct history of almost 400 years. Most of New York City has less than 200 years of history." The last two sentences seems to conflict with the first, and the first conflicts with other statements you've made. You've stated that architectural merits of 45 Park Place warranted landmarking prior to 9/11, and now say the "sole issue" is about how it's a "9/11 survivor." Then you say another factor is the 400 year history of the "tax lot." Which is it? The architecture? The long history? The 9/11 "surviorship"? Lots of buildings in the area with long "tax lot" histories "survived" 9/11. So again, should we stop all development downtown? What's the radius? Who decides? Still waiting for answers. I won't bother asking a fourth time.
- dsimon
August 16, 2010 at 12:57pm
08/16/2010 - 12:57pm EDT | dsimon "I won't bother asking a fourth time." ok. if you do not understand me, ok. exiting Chait-world
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 1:33pm
ick: "I wonder, given your patience, about your record." I closed down a contribution to a discussion that I was chairing once, a long time ago, because that participant started to explain his conspiracy theory, which I knew was not going to be short and succinct, or even relevant. I've deflected a couple of classroom discussions, mostly on the broad topic of race (in literature, or generally), into safer waters. But I've never faced the kind of classroom conflicts or complaints ("the professor is silencing me because I'm a conservative!") that make news. Lucky so far, I guess.
- ironyroad
August 16, 2010 at 3:40pm
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/08/nyregion/MOSQUE_SS_6.html "Parts of a landing gear from one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 broke through the roof and two floors. The Burlington Coat Factory had not yet opened, and employees were having breakfast in the basement. No one there was injured." Photo: Kukiko Mitani [I do not understand why the reporters and bloggers never mention this fact. THIS is why Rauf wanted the building, and why 9/11 firefighter and survivor Timothy Brown had taken up the stalled landmarking case from 1989. ] Seeing this photo, and the satellite photo taken on 9/23/2001 posted at wiki is what made me start seeing 45 Park Place as a 9/11 survivor. People should at least stop making fun of the distance.
- K2K
August 16, 2010 at 5:24pm
I find references to this building as a "survivor" and the notion that it is sacred because landing gear came through the roof completely absurd, on a par with medieval worship of the purported relics of saints.
- roidubouloi
August 16, 2010 at 8:06pm
You know what, if people are going to start posting completely identical comments on three different threads, I'm going to join in: "I find references to this building as a 'survivor' and the notion that it is sacred because landing gear came through the roof completely absurd, on a par with medieval worship of the purported relics of saints." If that's the case, roi, then why would a public body keep an actual copy of the Declaration of Independence? Why should one try to bring back the remains of soldiers who died in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why did the presence of the carbonized peas in the metal lunchbox of the schoolgirl who died in Hiroshima provoke such hostility from USAAF veterans toward the ill-fated "Enola Gay" exhibition at the Smithsonian back in the day? The "survivor" term is silly, I agree, as is the general tendency to declare everything "sacred," but I think one ignores at one's peril the sense that places and objects have meanings rooted in both public and private memory, and that these meanings are part of our political culture too. Retention of memory is simply a human facility, in all societies, and we don't all remember the same thing (hello fetishizers of the Confederacy!!). For me the landing gear is, for example, one of the actual proofs that refute the insane stories of the 9-11 conspiracy merchants, including those popular in the Muslim/Arab world. A very useful thing, in fact, able to support truth and veracity, and thus not at all like the bones of a medieval saint.
- ironyroad
August 16, 2010 at 10:33pm
K2K: "ok. if you do not understand me, ok." I'm not asking my questions again, only noting that they once again have gone unanswered.
- dsimon
August 16, 2010 at 11:54pm
"I've deflected a couple of classroom discussions, mostly on the broad topic of race (in literature, or generally), into safer waters." What are you going to teach in the Fall ironyroad? Or is it a secret?
- noga1
August 20, 2010 at 3:09pm