Letters to the editor, Apr. 12

Guterman plan offers tenants more control

The TA/Brookfield partnership compromises future resident control over the complex and exposes us to inevitable and costly litigation. It is bizarre to give Brookfield a permanent legal-financial stake in the management of our community post conversion.

And it appears to be founded on the pie in the sky assumption Brookfield’s priorities will always be in tune with our own. In reality conflict with this high-powered real estate company would be inevitable. With millions of dollars at stake and a team of attorneys on the payroll 24/7 Brookfield is armed and ready to instigate costly litigation over rental or other policies that constrict their profits. And they could win too, forcing us all to live with the results. While non-eviction conversions are common in NYC, I doubt you find another one that included such an odd and risky invitation from a Tenants Association.

Yet again, the Guterman-Westwood plan is more sensible and typical of non-eviction conversions. They’d implement their plan within two years and depart, leaving the residents totally in control of the complex. We could keep Rose or hire another management co. to operate the complex in accordance with rules set forth by residents with no interference from a third party like Brookfield. Again, that is how these conversions typically conclude. So the obvious question is – What has Brookfield offered the TA that is so valuable they’re willing to compromise resident control of the community and expose us to the risks of future legal conflicts with yet another powerful real estate firm?

Name withheld, ST

Tenants will vote with their wallets

In response to Jim Altman’s letter (“Three points on 3 recent letters,” T&V, Apr. 5), I agree with him that we would have overpaid if the TA’s bid had been accepted five years ago instead of Tishman’s. That was then and this is now.  The TA learned from that mistake and surrounded itself with advisors and financial partners this time around.  Ultimately, as I think about this, no one needs to trust our Tenants Association. When a plan is presented to us, we will vote with our pocketbooks by buying our apartments or not. If there aren’t enough people who opt to buy theirs, the plan will fail and that will be that.

As for Mr. Guterman, it’s clear the TA will not change its mind about the type of conversion to pursue. Without a structure to rally tenants under his plan, it has little chance of succeeding. Further, if such a structure were to be created by a group of tenants and they presented a competing bid to CW Capital, I believe that would insure that both plans would fail. That’s why I call on my neighbors to remain united.

Alain Montour, PCV

Contraception does not lead to abortions

Re: Letter, “Contraception harmful on many levels,” T&V, Mar. 29

I have been obliged to read Mr. Murray’s letter three times to fully understand his analysis. It is simply too outrageous to believe.

First of all, where does he get his information concerning adultery and divorce? Contraception is also to blame for people having more sex, and in spite of our century’s belief that human sexuality is a joy in itself, not just, a means of procreation, he clearly considers it a negative thing which should be limited to that function.

The idea that contraception leads to MORE abortions is obviously absurd and his concern for the fish (those evil women’s urine!) is patently nonsensical. His last objection, that contraception reduces the pool of young people who are destined to support us old folks in our dotage is beneath contempt.

My obvious conclusion is that this man hates sex and cannot abide women!

H. Zwerling, ST

Church should have other priorities

Re: Letter, “Abstinence… makes the heart go fonder,” T&V, Apr. 5

To Mr. Bennett: Pretty sermon, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the church should not be exempt from the law nor above the law.
I wish Mr. Dolan would get as bent out of shape at the systemic, institutionalized pedophilia and the covering up of this most grievous sin that has been so much a part of the fabric of his church as he does about his insurers (self-funded or not) providing prescription birth control to the female employees of his church when they request it.

Unfortunately, he threw a hissy fit when the statute of limitations of the victims of his “holy” bretheren was recently extended because it would cost the church money!

I wonder where I read or heard this: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea?”

There’s sure gonna be a lot of cardinals, priests and popes littering the ocean bed with millstones anchoring them down.

Frances Clarke, ST

2 thoughts on “Letters to the editor, Apr. 12

  1. I see the situation in the same way. Have questioned the TA’s modus operandi many times at my site: http://www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/ Have also noted the TA’s tight control over communication & unwillingness to address the tough questions. Even the small house meetings are an example of tight control. If any tough questions were asked for which there were no good answers, how many people would know? 10-15, that’s all. And of course, we’re all still waiting to hear details from Brookfield.

  2. Puzzled by Mr. Montour’s letter. No sponsor needs any ‘structure’ in this situation. CW just has to be satisfied that the sponsor’s bid is sufficient and will get the necessary buyers. That’s what counts. Not the TA or anything else.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.