The Abbott Manor Nursing Home.
Plainfielders have reason to rejoice in today's NY Times article on the Abbott Manor case, but the 'Eek!' factor is just too high.
The nation's paper-of-record, The New York Times, recounts the ruling in favor of the Van Wyck Brooks residents and against CPR Holdings, owners of the Abbott Manor Nursing Home whose expansion plans were soundly thrashed by Superior Court Judge Walter R. Barisonek last month.
The 'gray lady' deigned to write about the case, the plaintiffs, the district, and the case's importance in today's Real Estate section (see the story here).
All that being said, the New York Times' coverage of the matter is a classic case of a 'good news / bad news' story.
The good news is that the article throws a spotlight on an important issue in both historic preservation and zoning law, pointing out that the Plainfield ruling breaks important ground. This, of course, was taken up by Plainfield Today back in July (see here and here).
The bad news is the 'Eek!' factor is unacceptably high, especially for The New York Times.
For instance, the following --
- In the first place, there may not have been any case at all if Grace Episcopal Church, whose rectory abuts the Abbott Manor property, had not stepped up to the plate in the very beginning and funded the original round of opposition to CPR's plans with $4,000 that could easily have been spent on repairs of the church building instead. Though the Rector, Wardens and Vestry (the legal name of the corporation) certainly played a heroic role, the parish also had once played the fool. Years before, the Rector, Wardens and Vestry had declined to purchase the small vacant lot between it and the Abbott Manor property -- which had been offered for $10,000.
- Try as I might, I cannot come up with the number of districts the Times cites -- "one of 10 designated historic districts in this town" -- in its lede. Perhaps you can do better. The Historic Preservation Commission's list and maps are here.
- Bernice Paglia will no doubt be startled to learn that Dottie Gutenkauf has not only been publishing a blog by the same name as hers (The Plaintalker), but that Dottie has been doing so since 2002!
- The media always seem to want to portray gays as somehow non-native to the city. The story at hand is no exception. While it is certainly true that a lot of gay people have moved here over the years (myself included, ex-Brooklyn, 1983), it is even more true that there have always been gay people in this community and that they have made many contributions -- long before we nouveaux discovered the 'Victorian diamonds in the rough'.
- While it is true that back in 1984 the local gay organization, RSVP, started an annual tour and picnic that grew into a regular July event, no such gay-specific tour has been held for several years, since the demise of RSVP in its second incarnation back in 2001.
- As to whether Hispanics now outnumber Blacks in Plainfield --
African-Americans once made up a majority of the population, though they have now been surpassed in number by Hispanic residents...
as writer Antoinette Martin asserts; this is just plain wrong as a simple check of the Census would show. Doesn't the Times still do fact checking?
- Lastly, the idea that “Judge Barisonek’s careful and detailed analysis will surely give [the Abbott Manor owners] pause” curiously echoes the exact phrase in my blog post of July 31st. But, hey, it might just be a phrase that was, so to speak, in the air.
Shouldn't The New York Times be held to at least as high a standard?
More info --
- New York Times: "Altercation Over an Addition" -- archived here.
- Plainfield Today --
- July 31: "Plainfield case breaks ground in historic preservation law"
- July 27: "Historic District KOs city, developer in court"
- Historic Preservation Commission: "HPC Website" | "Historic District Maps"
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Posts
2 comments:
Dan, as soon as I looked at today's Times I sent the following note to Bernice Paglia:
"Toni Martin is a good reporter, but even the best of reporters sometimes get a few facts wrong. I would never, ever claim credit for your good work with the Plaintalker!!
"Toni made some other mistakes, too--the folks weren't moved out until after the 2005 decision (so she has the sequence wrong), and they were moved to Berkeley Heights, not Scotch Plains. And she didn't list Rowand as a plaintiff, but did list Gerry, who wasn't one.
"(I did send her a lot of factual information after talking with her, but I guess a seven-year ordeal was a lot to absorb in a couple of conversations and a whole bunch of things to read.)
"If you start getting queries about the Abbott Manor case, I'd appreciate your passing them along. I will of course provide the appropriate disclaimer!
"And as George Bernard Shaw said, 'The only bad publicity is an obituary notice'."
Dan, I copied you on my note to Bernice. I didn't go into the article's mistakes relating to the city--just those dealing specifically with the case. I have no idea where Ms. Martin got the demographics, but it wasn't from me--and I too am surprised that no "fact-checking" was done. (By the way, I've never claimed our house was or is "in pristine condition"--would that it were!)
One correction to a significant error in your story: the District came together in 2000 and decided to do whatever was necessary to fight the proposed expansion. What Grace Church spent their money on in the initial case (2000-2002) was a planner who testified against the proposal--he was retained without prior input from the Historic District. A lot of other people--mostly from VWB but from other parts of the city as well--also testified against the expansion. While we all appreciate the church's assistance, I assure you that we would have made our case anyway in 2002, and we would have appealed the Zoning Board's 2005 decision in any case. I am sure that the good people of Grace Church would not want to claim sole credit for the Zoning Board's 2002 denial of the nursing home's expansion--the church certainly did not "fund" the "original round of opposition." (Fact-checking is a good thing--I wish more people would do it. And I really wish the Church had purchased that lot when it had the chance to do so!)
The really sad thing about the reopening of the case, and all the following years of struggle, is that it would not have happened had the city administration not caved in when faced with a Federal lawsuit in 2003. And the Zoning Board was, as Judge Barisonek stated, intimidated when they made their July 2005 decison by the prospect of another such Federal suit--so we in the district, and our friends and allies, were made to bear the burden and the cost of filing the suit in Superior Court in December 2005 and pursuing it. And of course if the Judge's decision is appealed, we'll have to deal with that, too.
Tax-deductible contributions to the Van Wyck Brooks Historic District legal defense fund are still being cheerfully accepted--people can contact me directly (DGutenkauf@aol.com) for information on how to do it.
The Times article is full of errors. The Abbott siaters started the nursing home in the 40s or 50s, I forget which. It was the first non-denominational type institution in the city area. Is the building(s) being used at present?
Post a Comment