Community can’t be pigeonholed
Re: Letter, “Enough complaining about ST/PCV,” T&V, Apr. 26
While I agree that the nasty complaining on this page has often been excessive, one letter writer last week chose to see the nasty and raise it, by stereotyping all who complain, and by incorrectly claiming that market rate rents subsidize stabilized rents.
Increasing the number of market rate rents was a relatively recent move intended to “subsidize” the coffers of Tishman Speyer, and now those rents partially subsidize things like constant horticultural work and Oval Amenities.
Having lived here for ten years here (not long by Stuy Town standards), I have things in common with both the older and newer generation of residents, and I know not to pretend that either generation all thinks the same way. I have learned more than once here that it’s best to reach out to others to try to work out the problems that our close quarters can cause.
It works well that Al Salame’s letter was printed so close to the anniversary of Rodney King’s famous quote!
Al Salame should consider that angry or lamenting letters printed on this page are from real individuals, and should also realize that those letters are rarely as angry as Salame’s own.
David Dartley, ST
How about Oval Peace?
Re: Letter, “How is ‘special event’ in ST/PCV defined?”, T&V, May 3)
Great letter, Mr. Roth. I’ve always thought that the Oval (as it used to be) was one of the main selling points of Stuyvesant Town because it was such a peaceful and pleasant “oasis.” It was always nice to step out of the noise and bustle of the city and enjoy the beautiful trees and greenery of Stuyvesant Oval.
I think commercializing it and adding “events” is a bit of a misstep because it isn’t as if we don’t have plenty of entertainment, food, bustle and commerce in the surrounding City and even in the immediate neighborhoods. The contrast between the Oval and the “outside world” was, in my opinion, the thing that made it so unique. Why spoil a good thing? To me, putting “events” and commerce in the Oval makes as much sense as the management of Lincoln Center thinking they could enhance the enjoyment of the ballet by putting up a jumbo screen showing NASCAR racing on the same stage as Swan Lake! That’s just me, though.
Frances Clarke, ST
Talk about being run into the ground.
When I moved into PCV/ST in May of 1989, the grounds were beautiful to behold. Landscaping, tending to the grass, flowers, bushes and trees was meticulously done on a regular basis.
These days, I’m sorry to observe, no one seems to care much about the garden areas; and worse, a few dog owners, in spite of signs asking them to keep off the grass, walk right pass the sign, and let their dogs relieve themselves where people will later sit to picnic or sunbathe. The lawn opposite 390 1st Ave., which I walk by everyday, is surrounded by low-lying bushes many of which are dying due to constant dog urination.
Other people, too lazy to walk around the lawn, just trample over it. Still others, rather than use designated playgrounds, play sports on the grass, turning a once beautiful lawn into an raggedy eyesore.
Perhaps PCV/ST management should consider returning the little chain-link fences that used to surround the grass, flower and bush areas. In fact, maybe the fences don’t need to be so little.
Name withheld, PCV
No bigotry in debate over contraception…
Re: Letter, “Harsh tone to contraception debate letters,” T&V, May 3
To the Editor:
In response to Mr. Sawicki’s letter and comments, let me assure him that the tens of millions of Catholics and non-Catholics who support insurance coverage for contraceptives are neither “hysterical” nor “bigoted.”
The policy (exempting churches), of requiring other employers to include this basic coverage in their health benefits for their employees who wish to prevent unplanned pregnancies is sensible and responsible.
It is a far better option than abortion. Persons who wish to abstain may certainly do so. But women and men who want to avail themselves of this common health care ought not be excluded because their employer may be connected to, or funded by, a religious organization.
His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan has indicated his intention to litigate this matter to the Supreme Court.
That of course is his right to exercise as an American citizen. However other citizens also have a right to be speak out and criticize a position that would impose religious standards on public health policy.
No rudeness either
To the Editor:
Mr. Sawicki’s criticism of pro-contraception letters as not being as polite as he might wish is truly pathetic in consideration of the vital importance of this issue to women.
Interestingly, no women seem to be openly in the pro-contraception camp, with one exception… myself.
My letter on this topic responded to every point in Mr. M’s letter with all the seriousness due to such absurd positions. Divorce, adultery, abortion, population decline and dead fish were duly commented upon.
Where he got his information is a mystery to me. Nowhere do I see any anti-Catholic rhetoric either.
So sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
H. Zwerling, ST
Tone in letters noted
Thank you for printing Mr. Sawicki’s letter as I too have noticed distinct difference in tone of previous letters.
The pro-Catholic church people are not knuckle-draggers; we are just opposed to the Obama administration’s requiring the Catholic Church to subsidize something it believes is immoral. What is so hard to understand?
Thank you again.
Joan Carmody, PCV