More meeting coverage from a Brownstoner reader, this one about a hearing on the threatened future of PS 133. We wrote a post last month that summarizes the issue and there's a petition here. You can also check out the State's opinion that PS 133 is a building of historical significance in this PDF.
Yesterday morning the City Council's Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses heard testimony on the SCA’s proposed plan to demolish PS 133 and the community garden and replace it with a large building that will take up the top of the block between Butler and Baltic Streets. The SCA made a brief presentation that stressed the deterioration of the existing building (admitting that it had received little funding for upkeep) and stating that it would take approximately $15 million dollars to “simply address the deterioration of critical building components”. (This was the first time this figure, or any mention of existing building conditions had been raised by the SCA). The SCA called the Snyder school (the first one he built in Brooklyn) “quaint” and “lovely” but deteriorated.
SCA representatives continued their practice of misinformation – saying that they didn’t know if local residents had received requested source documents that describe contamination in the soil and ground water on the school site (the truth is that two weeks ago the SCA told residents that they will have to file for the documents under the Freedom of Information Law – despite the fact that they were cited in a public document); saying that the program for the school will be decided in the future (the truth is that the SCA has maintained in public presentations that the school serve two distinct school districts – 13 and 15 – and have even designed separate entrances for children from each district); saying that they had been in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office on options for preserving the school (the truth is that SHPO has told plan opponents that they have been waiting, since December, for the SCA to provide a cost benefit analysis of new construction versus renovation); and maintaining that they have been consulting with local community representatives about the school design (the truth is that they have conducted two hearings at which residents were limited to 3 minute comments.)
