Bill O'Reilly tears down classic cottage to make way for a mansion

[NJCher]

There are pics of this charming bungalow at the link.

“At this point, it was so unique, I can’t even remember the last time something like it was torn down,” says Theresa Eurell, a life-long resident and broker at Town & Country Real Estate who had the listing on the 1.5-acre property.

The former Abbey bungalow in Montauk on the oceanfront property purchased by Bill O'Reilly for $8.5 million. The property on Old Montauk Highway is located on a bluff overlooking the Atlantic Ocean and bordered by acres of natural preserve. The 1940s classic shingled cottage (pictured) has been torn down to make way for a custom home.

The bell has been tolling for the Montauk of old for some time, but bulldozing Bill drove the final nail into this cedar-shingled coffin after buying the diminutive, two-bedroom, 600-square-foot shack for $7.6 million.
He already has begun pouring foundations for a new home, being built by the notorious McMansion developer the Farrell Building Co.


Read more


Cher

[kelly1mm]

1. Well on the bright side, at least some construction workers/building supply

places may get some work ........

[grasswire]

2. barbarian

why didn't he have it moved elsewhere?

[Demo_Chris]

3. Hate to say it, but it's not that interesting or even old...

Yes, I know, it's Bill O'Reilly, so I am supposed to froth at the mouth over everything he does and says. Whatever.

[Victor_c3]

6. Yeah, I'm probably going to get flamed for agreeing with you on this

The real offensive part to me would be if he builds some atrocity of a generic McMansion on the site rather than building something that is well thought out by an architect and blends in well with the character of the local houses and setting.

[Niceguy1]

7. yeah, it doesn't look all that special

No loss there

[NJCher]

15. beauty is in the eye of the beholder

But you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

Some of us see beauty in simplicity.


Cher

[NJCher]

16. no one is suggesting that you need to foam at the mouth

dysfunctional communication.


Cher

[MADem]

4. No class and his taste is in his ass.

I hope he goes broke and someone buys his McMansion and turns it into a homeless shelter!

[INdemo]

5. Wonder if he used a union contractor?

[TeamPooka]

8. That little cottage isn't big enough to house Bill's ego. nt

[newfie11]

9. In Europe people are still living in 400 yr old home

But this side of the ocean it's all about the new.
We owned a hand hewn square log home built in 1890 on 22 acres with large pond and 17 springs in the SD Black Hills ( surrounded by forest service). It had been a stage stop for Cheyenne/Deadwood stage. 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, in perfect shape.

We were moving out of state and had to sell it. People loved the land but omg they were terrified to buy a home built in 1890 cause it's so old

We finally did sell it to a man that had lived there before.

[NJCher]

10. excellent point

Or why couldn't O'Reilly have kept the bungalow and built his mansh in another spot on the property?

Of course, I live in a house built in 1875, so I'm biased.


Cher

[newfie11]

12. You understand!

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. Well that wasn't very hard to find.

The internet is a wonderful thing.

Here's the property;


http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/654-Old-Montauk-Hwy-Montauk-NY-11954/2114303309_zpid/

Google maps;

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=654+Old+Montauk+Hwy,+Montauk,+NY+11954&ll=41.025647,-71.965548&spn=0.001805,0.004128&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=654+Old+Montauk+Hwy,+Montauk,+Suffolk,+New+York+11954&gl=us&t=h&z=19

It's not as if there aren't already McMansions around it. This isn't a neighborhood of quaint little seaside cottages.

It's a long ass way from Manhattan, though. Weekend place, eh?

[NJCher]

14. so we should sanction this because

there are other McMansions? We should have neighborhoods of all McMansions?


Cher

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. Not by any means. But this is already a neighborhood of Mansions, "Mc" or otherwise.

But, regardless of how one feels about Mr. O'Reilly, he isn't doing ANYTHING wrong here.

Not to mention that it isn't up to anyone on Du to "sanction" what a private person does with his own money within the law.

Sure, O'Reilly is a dipshit gasbag.

Sure, it sucks that he is destroying a quaint little WWII era house on the beach.

But he isn't the first. And he won't be the last.

Look at the Google maps link I posted. Move up and down the beach. There are only 4 other houses on that stretch of beach and it seems to me the house in question is now the unusual one. The next nearest private residences on the beach side of the road are a mile to the West. The closet structure to the East of him on the same side of the road is a motel, about 8/10ths of a mile up.

The point I am making is that this is not a lovely little cottage in the middle of a row of other lovely little cottages.

And he bought that land. He is free to do with it as he sees fit within the law. That includes zoning restrictions.

[NJCher]

19. the point is not about freedom

No one is debating that. It's a matter of the usual republican pattern of doing what's in their narcissistic game plan. It's all about them-them-them. There is no respect for anything other than their gratification.

For example, in my town, which is on a mountain and has a fabulous view of the NYC skyline, a resident cut down 40 trees that hindered his view of the skyline. This was back in the mid-nineties, I believe.

Then they passed an ordinance against such tree-cutting in this town and which held up for over a decade. Then another real estate developer staged a long court battle to get the tree ordinance struck down. It had to be revised.

So the point is that the landowner here was not doing anything against the law when he mowed down 40 trees for his own viewing pleasure. But what was he doing for the northeastern canopy? What about the carbon monoxide that those trees dealt with?

Not every single issue in life can be legislated, nor should it be and that is why your point about it fails on relevance.

Most assuredly, Bill O'Reilly did not think twice about what he was going to do with that property, nor did any of the other people who failed to respect the structures that were there before them.

There's a reason, you know, that many towns do not just let a McDonalds come in and build anywhere and how they would like to build.


Cher

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. From the article you linked to in your OP;

O’Reilly actually tried to work with the local historical society to salvage the house, according to Eurell (Fox News did not return requests for comment). But doing so would have required plowing through much of the property, a sacrifice the cable news kingpin was unwilling to make.

So YOUR point that "Most assuredly, Bill O'Reilly did not think twice about what he was going to do with that property" "fails on relevance" as well.

Look, it's a shame that this lovely little structure has been torn down, but it's gone now and the new construction is underway.

Again, according to the article that YOU linked;

Eurell said that based on the size of the foundation she’s seen, O’Reilly appears to be building a modest home — at least by Hamptons standards.

So maybe it won't be a McMansion at all.

And if in your town, which is on a mountain with a nice view of Manhattan, there lived a man who cut down trees to see Manhattan, then apparently the fact that it was on a hill didn't mean the view was "nice" for everybody. Right?

Do you have a nice view of the city from your house? Has it always been that way? Are there any zoning restrictions that keep someone from putting up a large structure or planting large trees between your house and the city, so as to block your view?

If not, I'd get on that, if I were you.

[greytdemocrat]

13. Big deal

So what? He paid for it. It's really no ones business.

[NJCher]

20. see my post 19

Cher

[Berlum]

18. How special to be a Fatcat Chickenhawk 1% Republicon Propaganda Pimp