How is ‘special event’ in ST/PCV defined?
To the Editor:
It is unfortunate that Council Member Garodnick has gone along with CW and Rose in sidestepping the zoning rules (and apparently ignoring the “clearly incidental” and “customarily found” requirements found in the Zoning Resolution definition of Accessory Use) to allow the return of the greenmarket to the Oval under the pretense that its availability will be limited to “residents and their guests only,” and the return of food trucks at “special events.”
Notably, “special events” are not defined so, presumably, anything that CW and Rose declare to be a special event, perhaps even the greenmarket, will qualify. By agreeing to this pretense, the Council Member has ignored the primary complaint about the greenmarket – its location on the Oval – and opened the door to CW and Rose further exploit the Oval as a commercial and event space, without limit, merely by claiming the activities are limited to “residents and their guests only.”
According to the Council Member, management has agreed to add language to its perimeter sidewalk signs and on any of their materials referencing the market that the market is for “residents and their guests only” and are in the process of correcting any outstanding public references to the market being open to the public. While GrowNYC has removed the reference to the market being open to the public, it contains a map of the market’s location and a link to management’s website for more information and, as of April 29, one week before the market’s opening, neither that site nor management’s own site has added the language for “residents and their guests only” or any other language that would indicate that it is not open to he public.
During his tenure, Council Member Garodnick has, generally, represented the ST/PCV community well and has done many good things on behalf of it. His acquiescence in CW and Rose’s charade to continue the presence of the greenmarket on the Oval is not one of them and will only embolden the property’s current mercenary management to create more Oval annoyances, of course — wink, nod – for “residents and their guests only.”
James J. Roth, PCV
Letter writer’s theory is for the birds
Re: the letter “Enough complaining about ST/PCV,” T&V, Apr. 26
As per NYC law, “It is not illegal to feed pigeons, but you may receive a violation for failing to clean up unsanitary conditions that result from this activity.” Regarding the regulations for this community, nothing seems to be mentioned on the PCVSTLIVING web page.
I would also like to address this urban myth perpetuated by Al Salame that post-renovation, rent-stabilized tenants (yes, we are all currently rent-stabilized tenants) subsidize pre apartment renovation rent stabilized tenants. And your economic study and numbers to back this is? Is your premise based upon the predatory Tishman Speyer/Blackrock purchase price of 5.4 billion that they overpaid for this place, went into forfeiture and then left the bondholders holding the bag?
Your theory is about as correct as your statement about “the birds, the pigeons, and the new tenants, a new generation of people that loves and cares about animals.” What? I have never seen anyone age 18-40 feed a squirrel or a pigeon here. It’s mostly your so-called “grumpy” people, who do so.
Edmund Dunn, ST
As rents rise, middle class decreases in size
The cover story of last Sunday’s Real Estate section in The New York Times reported that, “The average rent in Manhattan is now $3,418 a month and climbing.” This amount is a record and surpasses the pre-economic down turn.
This startling statistic correlates with what is happening in our nation: the diminishment of the middle class… As the super rich increase their wealth, the middle class is being squeezed into nonexistence.
As a rising tide raises all ships, this will have significant impact on our metropolitan area and the entire country.
So, the most important implication is that we can only have viable democracy if there is a large middle class. Check out many nations in South America – past and present.
David Chowes, PCV
Harsh tone to contraception debate letters
I have read with great interest the recent exchange of letters regarding the issue of contraception. However, there is one element of the whole debate that I have found rather disturbing.
In his several anti-contraception letters, Mr. Murray has stated his position in a calm, clear, and respectful manner, offering his position for the consideration of the reader.
In sharp contrast, the numerous pro-contraceptive letters from various readers (including former Assemblyman Sanders) seem by comparison harsh, emotional (bordering on hysterical), and containing a substantial dose of old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry. One writer, H. Zwerling, responded with a letter filled with shrill, ad hominem attacks on Mr. Murray, without presenting any substantive arguments against what he actually said in his letter.
This is what confuses me. I always thought that liberals (and I would assume that all the pro-contraceptive writers would self-identify as “liberals”) believed in open-mindedness and the free exchange of ideas.
If that is the case, why don’t they simply present their pro-contraceptive views calmly and respectfully, and allow their arguments to stand on their own merit, rather than engage in personal attacks, polemics, and religious bigotry?
Richard M. Sawicki,