Hammer Time

Councilor Heagerty stated that it didn’t
meet the criteria (set forth in a city zoning ordinance, which I
suggest that Councilor Heagerty read) just because being that “it’s old
and it’s statuesque isn’t enough.” Councilor Heagerty, I’m afraid that
those aren’t criteria in the ordinance. By his statements, Councilor
Heagerty has effectively asserted that he is more of an authority on
what meets criteria for designation than the following entities:
Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board (composed of, among others,
architects, landscape architects, and a historic preservation planner);
Crawford & Stearns (a historic architectural firm and planner); the
New York State Historic Preservation Office (which found that the
property meets criteria to make it eligible for listing on the State
and National Registers of Historic Places); and many other architects
and professionals with backgrounds in architecture and historic
preservation. Along with these, he has questioned the Syracuse Planning
Commission’s decision as well as the majority of the Common Council. 

Secondly, Councilor Heagerty states,
“Actually the Palace {the Eastwood movie theater operated by Heagerty
and built in the 1920s by his family} is not a historic landmark.” This
comment clearly demonstrates Councilor Heagerty’s lack of knowledge
with respect to what makes a building historic. Although the Palace is
not presently designated locally, or at the state or federal level, it
certainly meets criteria to be designated. I guess Councilor Heagerty’s
renovation of the “non-historic” Palace has made him an expert at what
makes a building worthy (or not) of designation. 

Sadly, Councilor Heagerty shows his true
naiveté by not being convinced that Ronald McDonald will ultimately
demolish the house, Just wait and see! Finally, I have one question for
Councilor Heagerty: What if they wanted to demolish it to build a
McDonald’s restaurant at the location of the Palace? Would your vote
have been the same? I doubt it.

—Ruth McKenna