Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Michael S. Hiller, Founding and Managing Principal of Hiller, PC on NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission
1:51:51
ยท
3 min
Michael S. Hiller, an attorney with 30 years of experience in preservation law, testified about the declining commitment of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to preservation and designation of historic assets. He expressed concern over the LPC's tendency to side with developers in disputes and urged the City Council to investigate and reform the commission and the landmarks law.
- Hiller noted a 700% increase in his preservation work over the last 15 years, attributing it to decreased regulatory enforcement and landmark designation by the LPC.
- He cited the West Park Presbyterian Church case as an example of the LPC's failure to enforce violations against property owners refusing to make necessary repairs.
- Hiller called for the City Council to exercise its oversight functions and undertake a meaningful investigation of the commission, especially as the Landmarks Law approaches its 60th anniversary.
Michael S. Hiller
1:51:51
Good afternoon.
1:51:53
My name is Michael Hiller, I am, and for the approximately thirty years, have been an attorney representing preservation environmental organizations, neighborhoods, and individuals throughout the city.
1:52:02
I've had the honor of receiving both the Landmarks Line and the Grassroots Preservation Awards from the Historic District Council, and I was one of three finalists as attorney of the year for the state of New York in 2021.
1:52:13
Over the last fifteen years, my preservation work has increased exponentially by approximately 700%.
1:52:20
The budget report you have in front of you provides an indication as to why regulatory enforcement and landmark designation have both declined substantially.
1:52:29
And although not quantified in the report, the commission's overarching dedication to designation and preservation of historic assets has been significantly compromised.
1:52:39
When I first began practicing preservation law, there was very little for me to do insofar as the Commission at the time maintained a robust commitment to preservation.
1:52:48
We were allies in our collaborative desire to preserve and protect the existing landmark properties and to grant designations with respect to others.
1:52:56
Over the years, however, the commission's commitment to preservation has been replaced with a focus on managing disputes between preservationists on the one hand and developers on the other, and time and again, the Commission has decided with the developers.
1:53:10
As a consequence, demand for our services has increased and our relationship with the Commission with which we were once substantially aligned has become unfortunately adversarial.
1:53:19
I'm able to point to just one publicly contested project proposed by developers in the past fifteen years that the commission outright rejected, and that was proposal to reconfigure the Hopper Gibbons House, which is an underground railroad site.
1:53:33
During preliminary hearings, the commission actually indicated willingness to grant the application.
1:53:37
However, it was not until after the commission received objections from members of the congressional black caucus that the commission changed its position and denied the application.
1:53:47
Other than that one application to reconfigure an underground railroad site, I'm unaware of a single publicly contested application on a significant development project that the commission has rejected.
1:53:58
My experience
Kevin Riley
1:53:59
Thank you.
Gale Brewer
1:53:59
Your time expired.
Michael S. Hiller
1:54:02
Say again?
1:54:03
I've only
Gale Brewer
1:54:03
Your time expired.
Michael S. Hiller
1:54:04
I thought I got three minutes.
Rafael Salamanca
1:54:08
No.
1:54:08
It's two minutes, but if you can please wrap it up.
Michael S. Hiller
1:54:12
I'm sorry.
1:54:12
I thought I had three minutes.
1:54:13
Okay.
1:54:13
I I I just wanna make reference to the one episode that chair Carroll and and council member Brewer just discussed, which involves the West Park Presbyterian Church.
1:54:24
Council member Brewer discussed that the circumstances pretty clearly.
1:54:27
What was not did not come out of that conversation is that the tenant of the building has raised $8,000,000 to make the repairs, has hired the professionals to draw plans, arranged for those plans to be approved by the commission, and then hired contractors to do the work.
1:54:42
And yet, at the moment, the commission is not issuing a violation to the owner who is refusing to allow the the the free repairs to proceed.
1:54:52
Chair Carroll did explain why an owner must sign an application.
1:54:56
What she did not explain is why the commission is refusing to allow, refusing to issue a violation to the owner who is refusing to repair a an important landmark of the city.
1:55:07
I would respectfully urge the council to exercise its oversight functions and to undertake a meaningful investigation of the commission and to reform it and the landmarks law as appropriate.
1:55:16
The The Landmarks Law is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary next month, and it seems to me that absent substantial review and oversight by the council, the historic assets of the city will remain at risk.
1:55:25
Thank you very much.
Rafael Salamanca
1:55:26
Thank you.