
Thanks to Karen Gadbois for today’s photo of the site.
“At the now-condemned Trinity Church on the corner, 4-year-old Art Neville played his first note on an organ.” San Francisco Gate Article
People wonder why residents in New Orleans have become so cynical during the last few years despite the continual chant of the unique value of our brassy cultural background during the rebuilding. I haven’t been able to post lately, trying to balance law school, NCDC, and life. Often, I can’t help but get angry every time I leave the house, I see another f’d up empty lot. I am trying hard to focus on the future, rather than the confetti of void which dots the predial landscape.
From the start, we have seen so many projects touted as bright lights for a “new” New Orleans within the city since 2005 which have been laughably dismissed even while the ribbons were being cut at many-a-press conference. The huge Jazz Park/City Hall project was a joke from the beginning. With this always on my mind, I thought this was a good thing to revisit a small, and more viable project, which also remains stagnant, now. This in context of the new announcement of the LSU/VA project.
This historically significant church was in the process of being torn down just as Stacy Head was battling it out for her Council seat. It became a heated argument amongst readers back in 2006 when I was covering lesser-known candidates at the time. Despite the hopes and charges and responses against “selling-out to developers” lodged against Councilwoman Head, today, it remains an empty lot.
At the end of the day, the person who initiated the online argument apologized for his comments about Councilwoman Head. However, some answers are now worth pressing regarding this project. Councilwoman Head may be in a more prescient position to respond to concerned residents about why this project, which was very promising and had convincing building plans, and yet, nearly three years later, is stagnant.
This is Stacy’s response at a citizen running for Council, to the comments left on MB regarding her stance supporting the demolition of Trinity Church. She supported the redevelopment of the Trinity site. The church was taken down with meticulous care, I photographed almost compulsively, and daily. I was awaiting a happy end of the story. I am still waiting.
The project was promised to be rebuilt using the items salvaged which would actually have served as a good example for future reference, maybe justifying the demolition of historic structures. It would have continued its duty as a historical extension from the past with a new functional use, much needed housing, at the time. It could have been something the neighborhood would be proud to support. Unfortunately, we are entering the third year of waiting for the new development to be started. Housing is no longer an immediate need.
It’s interesting to read the comments from readers regarding the issue at that time. Comments at-large from the post regarding this issue on March 20, 2006.
This is why those of us who have watched the debacle of planning Post-K are extremely disgusted today. We put in extra effort at a time when we were already drained. When you dare to backtrack, to see what was promised, the emptiness of all our hard work drains you and you want to hide . . . I don’t know how the Council Reps keep on going, it’s hard enough for the average citizen. Perhaps, now Councilwoman Head has the resources to encourage the dialogue between the neighborhood and the developer that she did not have when the issue first reared its hostile head.
This is Stacy’s reply to the admittedly unfair statements that Peter Athos posted.
First, actions like Peter’s — maligning a candidate’s character — are what keep good and honest people out of politics. I am running because I love this city and I have invested my heart and finances in it. I have “sold out” to no one. Rumors aboud about city council candidates — in fact, someone posted that I have a “deal” with Canizaro — I have never met the man! So, please, if you love this city, don’t discourage people who want to help make it better.
Peter e-mailed me about the Valence condo project and below is my reply. Notably, despite my offer to meet with him to discuss the issues, he never responded. I did, as I said I would, contact the CPC and my contact agreed that it would be improper for a council candidate — who very well may be the arbiter of the dispute when on the council — to form a hard and fast opinion now.
Peter,
As soon as I learned about the proposed condo project I began gathering information. So far, I have spoken to Ken Swartz, the property owner who appears to be the most effected, and several other people who live in the surrounding blocks. I am also contacting the CPC to find out what waivers or variances the developer seeks. I believe it would be imprudent for me to take a position on the project before learning more about it.
Frankly, I think this is an example of why we need: 1) a master plan for the city; and 2) an engaged and responsive council member. As a neighbor of the area of the proposed project (I live on Soniat on the other side of St. Charles), I have watched the church deteriorate for many years, and have hoped that someone would take an interest in it. So, development of the property is a positive thing — but it must be appropriate for the neighborhood. A good council member should bring all interested parties to the table to make this a win win situation. My instinct is that the developer is requesting more height and density than he needs to make this profitable — much like other negotiations, he is asking for the moon in hopes of getting something less. So, the project could potentially go forward in a way that would be only positive — less density, different facade (I agree that it’s ugly), more use of the church, lower height.
Again, as merely a council candidate, I do not have the resources to encourage a dialogue between the developer and the neighborhood. Nevertheless, in hopes that after April 22 I will be the council member with the ability to move this problem to a good solution, I am working to be well-informed. To that end, I would appreciate any additional information you have. Further, I would love the opportunity to talk to you and other interested neighbors about this and other issues of concern. If you have some time over the next 2 weeks, let me know.
Stacy Head
In order to continue to brace the public confidence of residents, it is necessary to provide real outcomes for those who have had to live in amongst hollow promises for the past three years. We have not forgotten. Instead, we are stewing on these smaller unrequited sacrificies and getting angier and more suspicious as time flows on and the promises get bigger.
In the case of the LSU/VA project, so many will now have to give up the homes which they worked so hard to renovate post-K in a vaccuum and with a complete lack of communication from the controlling entities. You need only see this to take heart in the issue: What’s at Stake
As hard as it is, I find it’s necessary to glance back at the glossy lies laid before us over the last two years and ask why, in these best case scenarios, we have nothing to show for our sacrifice and compromise? Maybe Councilwoman Head, with her newfound recources, can help the residents on Valence St. to get this modestly sad project completed?