We are not against landmarking to preserve historical homes and buildings as long as buyers know this prior to purchase. Landmarking works best with willing partners. Had the owner bought this house knowing it was landmarked, we would have no sympathy.
From recent letters on the Baxter House, a few things need to be repeated and responded to. Being the namesake of the village, the board had the opportunity to buy it for our village hall, but the village residents soundly rejected the purchase. Landmarking occurred two years after the house was purchased. By doing this, the owner lost control of their home because any changes made must comply with Landmark committee rules. Without control they basically no longer own it. The village has already taken control. Isn’t this the same as taking it by eminent domain except without payment?
Why did the previous owner, who supported landmarking, object to it being done before he sold? Because with this encumbrance and its deteriorated state it never would have sold. That became obvious when the new owner listed the house and put a “For Sale” sign on the lawn. We didn’t see buyers lining up. Nor did we see all the preservationists across Long Island and all the residents of Port Washington that wanted this house saved, as we have been lead to believe from the letters we’ve read.
Did the person who owned the Baxter House in 1968 go to the village board and try to get it landmarked before he sold it? Landmarking while the property is still in good shape would have made the cost of preserving it less onerous.
A writer’s family who bought a derelict property and restored it—a wonderful thing. The one difference is they did it by choice. The Baxter House buyer had choice taken away.
We must also respond to the offensive comments made about the owner. You don’t know this person. And neither do we. There is no need for the venom and hateful comments. The owner is accused of extortion and recalcitrance. The writer’s solution is levying heavy fines, condemning, legal public-taking and subsequent sale in the private market with strict preservation conditions. Is this any less extortionate or recalcitrant?
It’s arrogant for anyone to think they have the right to tell someone how to spend their money. People can afford to be a passionate preservationist when someone else is paying for it.
The owner was accused of not doing the moral or ethical thing. By yielding to the previous owner’s objection and delaying landmarking until it was sold, the previous owner was able to stick this burden on an unsuspecting buyer. Was this moral or ethical?
The only thing left to say is, again, if you are so passionate about saving this property, buy it.
—Jim and Marilyn Sacrestano
