Blueway plan unnecessary and harmful
The so-called Blueway is shaping up to be a monstrosity. Could it be our Westway East? We should seriously question subsidizing and spending $770,000,000 to finance environmentally damaging work in and along the East River. Are our political leaders really proposing the phony solution to shoreline protection with man-made wetlands that will be washed away in the first half-Sandy?
Does it make sense to further subsidize Con Ed to do the work it was supposed to have done in the first place? The East River is in line to become one massive tax-supported destruction of a critical habitat with extraordinary national significance!
Evidence some of the segmented developments now proposed: the Diamond Sugar development, the Gowanus Canal plan, the Newtown Creek highrises, the Long Island City riverfront plans, the 38th Street/Big Alice replacement projects, and the continued push for the Solar 2 building.
We should see these plans for what they are: disaster capitalism. The so-called Blueway is just a piling on, put together by a planner who seems to have gotten caught short when Sandy hit and rushed out a half-thought out proposal that makes little sense.
Many of those projects would violate Clean Water Act goals and New York-specific federal court decisions designed to protect natural aquatic habitats by placing non-essential fills and/or structures in public waterways, and/or by siting non-water-dependent real estate development in near-shore waters.
We should oppose additional spending for building on, along and out into the East River not only to prevent adverse habitat and fisheries impacts, but to preserve views of open water, prevent unnecessary storm and hurricane damage, avoid the high construction and maintenance costs for anything built in and along the river, and uphold Clean Water Act requirements which discourage building non-water-dependent projects in the water.
What makes sense is for our politicians to demand a comprehensive federal review of all these projects taken together, and what effect they will have on a river habitat that is fighting back from centuries of pollution.
And, by the way, what is the social effect on a still-traumatized community not used to ten feet of water flowing up against our apartment buildings?
Andrew Lawrence, PCV
More action needed on rowdiness issue
Re: “Rowdy tenants need to be reined in,” T&V letter, May 2
I can only assume that the anonymous letter writer is a carpenter because they hit the nail right on the head! I am embarrassed to say that I have planned to write such a letter on more than one occasion but something always came up and I put it off. So, thank you to Name Withheld for lighting a fire under me to add my support to your very on point letter. As a tenant in an Oval building not far from yours I have been subjected to the same disturbances you cited and share your disgust for the slow but sure destruction of the community.
Several weeks ago a group of union picketers stood outside the First Avenue rental office along with the large inflated rat. I could not help but notice that a ST/PCV security officer was posted inside the office, presumably to serve as a warning to the picketers in the event they considered doing anything more than just stand and leaflet on the sidewalk.
It would be nice if management and the security department would apply the same, proactive tactics when it comes to the very real and ongoing assault on the once enviable quality of life that used to be a given in the Stuy Town/Peter Cooper communities.
I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion that officers be posted at the entrances and that action be taken against those who disturb the peace – the loud screamers, singers, talkers, as well as the fool who comes out at 2 in the morning, lets her cat or dog loose and then yells for it to come back to her.
It used to be that after a certain hour you felt like you lived in a park that closed for the night. Now I feel like I’m living above a bar located next door to a kennel. It’s time for more considerate, rule abiding residents to demand that a new approach be adapted immediately.
Time for all of us to make more noise about the noise.
J.M. Polise, ST
Law re: gay participants is on side of BSA
Re: “Hoylman’s Boy Scouts bill,” T&V, May 2
This is in regard to State Sen. Brad Hoylman’s bill to strip the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) of its non-profit status for its ban on gay scout leaders. The reading public is entitled to know Sen. Hoylman’s view of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, founded in 1978 and whose logo, an uppercase M and lowercase b symbolizes a man and a boy.
Wikipedia says about NAMBLA that it “is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.”
I found an article on CBSNews.com on 2/11/2009 titled “Boy Scouts Forced to Reveal Scope of Abuse,” where attorneys for two former scouts found that the Scouts ejected a leader, on average, once every three days between 1971-1990 and from 1991-2005, the total was about 2,500 adult volunteers. The BSA has been forced to pay millions of dollars in settlements.
Also, does Sen. Hoylman forget that the United States Supreme Court sided with the BSA in 2000 and its decision has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts?
Name withheld, PCV