Letters to the Editor, Aug. 8

Good fences make good neighbors’ debate. This week’s letters are all in response to letters recently published in T&V that were critical of the recent installation of fences around green areas being landscaped in Stuyvesant Town.

There are other areas to walk besides lawn

Re: Three letters in the July 25th issue

As a resident of both Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper who, along with many friends, have brought up children here that were not allowed on the grass, I found the three letters to the editor in your July 25th issue to be ridiculously comical. First, let me reassure these folks and based on personal experience, that their children and the residents will probably survive quite well not being able to run through the grass, which is watered and fertilized each day by the many dogs in the area. Nor will they feel as if they are “living in cages, etc.” Wow, talk about an extreme comment.

I do wholeheartedly agree with M. Deren, that going through the many transitions here in PCVST are somewhat difficult, but I would like her to rethink her criticism and consider that in this case, perhaps management’s reasons for such action regarding the fences are quite valid.  Also, enforcing the rug rule is nothing new. It has always been part of the lease since the complex was built. The problem is that a lot of people just don’t read the fine print in the document.

My own personal transition has been to witness the decline of the property and quality of life from what it was, to what it has become. If people had respected our park-like grounds, it would not have evolved into a sandy, unkempt and overgrown property that was starting to look like a neglected and unattractive neighborhood.Personally, I am very pleased that management has taken action to restore our grounds to reflect what it has always been – a unique and beautiful oasis in the center of a thriving, busy and noisy city.

As for the black fences, I can reassure “name withheld” that there will be people who agree with him/her and won’t take the fences as a way of protecting our environment. Those folks can join the group of sunbathers in front of 510 East 23rd who actually climb over the fences in total disregard of what they are they for… some people just don’t believe that rules and social manners are important… at least as it pertains to them.

Perhaps going forward, our residents should pick their battles with management on more important issues such as questioning the safety of the buildings and basements, which were impacted by floodwaters in Hurricane Sandy and the insanity of increasing the people population within each building without providing the necessary amenities and services to keep it clean, safe and functional.

M. Full, PCV

Make the fences permanent

Re: Letters, “Feeling separated from the parks” and “A fence runs through it,” T&V, July 25

I heartily approve of the new black fences in Stuyvesant Town to keep people and dogs from trampling over the grounds and the many new plants that have been installed and to avoid burnt patches on the grass from the dogs.

Fences are needed on the grounds at the corner of 18th Street and Avenue C near the guard house where dogs are able to relieve themselves.

We have a lovely Oval in Stuyvesant Town open to one and all at all times.

Just walk over and enjoy it. You can sunbathe and walk barefoot too because the black fence keeps the grass free from dogs and clean.

Name withheld, ST

Neighbors need to help maintain grounds

Re: Letters, “Feeling separated from the parks” and “A fence runs through it,” T&V, July 25

I have never been so happy to see the installation of fences around the Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper property. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see the improvement in the lawns, plantings, trees and shrubs as a result of these fences. The property is returning to its glory days when residents respected the property instead of destroying it. Many “entitled” residents are complaining that they can no longer have picnics on the lawns and their children are forced to play on concrete. Grow up! You live in the city. We still live in a beautiful community where you can picnic in the Oval and your children can play in anyone of the playgrounds that are throughout the development. If you want sprawling lawns for your children, move to suburbia.

I have lived here for 32 years.  I raised a son who will be starting his junior year in college. He loved growing up here and always played and hung out with his friends in many of the playgrounds. His friends and he respected the property. There was never a need for them to play on the lawns because other options were available to them.

I applaud management that they have finally addressed this problem. It is pointless to spend money to improve the grounds and have it  destroyed by people walking their dogs on it and people cutting through it because they are too lazy to walk on the paths.

It is time for people to take pride in where they live and respect their community.

Marie S., PCV

Fences harmful to older dogs (and owners)

Fencing has now been installed by my building and in the immediate area. By immediate area I mean within several acres of my building. I am a dog owner and my dog is not able to hold her business until we cross several lanes of traffic then make our way to a local park blocks away.

For non dog owners let me put it this way; how would your quality of life be if each time you had to go to the bathroom, you were forced to leave your apartment, safely cross several lanes of traffic, and then find an open bathroom in a local park or business even at night?

Management changed the dog policy to allow dogs, and now has effectively unofficially reversed that policy under the guise of improving the green spaces. Some dogs can make it to a local park, which is great. But many cannot. This includes older dogs with health issues, puppies, and owners with health issues of their own who cannot walk blocks outside of an already large 80-acre property. What is the plan for the dogs? Where is the care and concern for residents and our pets?

Carrie Wales, ST

9 thoughts on “Letters to the Editor, Aug. 8

  1. The fences are a mistake for many reasons and really serve little purpose. First, they don’t stop the leaves or trash from blowing on or into the protected areas. In fact leaves are a good source of mulch.

    Second, the fences certainly don’t stop the oversized vehicles from creating ruts an ruin along perimeter landscaped areas. Grass areas have not being ruined by overrun population when open to the public.

    Third, In fact they pose a significant safety hazard if a child or senior fell because of sharp exposed stanchions without top fittings, or sharp fence connection points.

    Forth, these fences also create another public safety issue because of what I call “Cattle Chute” pathways that are created. Walking along an area with fences on both edges,leaves residents with little options to move in a threatening situation or a fast moving vehicle, bike, scooter, or even an inattentive runner especially at night.

    Fifth, these fences are just plain unsightly also unsightly because they create a harsh edge treatment to an otherwise natural landscape view. Even in the most well funded public park and spaces where these fences are used they are much much shorter and only in short time durations.

    Although I fear for mentioning, more shrubs were killed by removal & trees chopped down and grass ruined by errant SUV’s than pets. Yes, pet owners need to and are generally responsible now, and yes non residents should by reminded as they enter our community (Pssst, Hey Security its no secret when and where they enter). But lets face it, we do have an inordinate amount of pigeons & squirrels (and their “do”) and we have coexisted w/o any world ending disease.

    Sixth, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason where and how these fences are placed. In some areas the amount of fencing is more than the it protects – just plain silly and stupid. Further, the “temporary” fence around the oval is particularly offensive and a poor choice because its not intended for that use. Its bent, much too high, poorly installed, and looks cheap. If the purpose was to insure residents use the paths and not create another dirt path across the oval (we all remember them) then appropriate place landscape would obviate the “shortcut”.

    Further, on many hot nights in the past residents would often sit outside on the oval grass quietly later than “Security Police” currently permit. In fact, it is the only place one can see stars on occasion not obliterated by blindingly high security lighting. Yes the big dipper exists. Although one wouldn’t notice it with light poles shining on brick facia 4 stories up.

    I live and used the area and failed to see why “Security changed the rules to close at dusk”. If a few noisy miscreants create a problem then perhaps one of the 3 occupant security vehicles could stop on their incessant circle around the same course and ask them to quiet down or leave. Why punish everyone.

    The big issue here is that we have this magnificent landscape area that people are attracted too and want It is what current landscape planning designers are creating all over the city and country – that is a more and more user friendly, natural environment.

    Most want more interactive natural type settings and less view only gardens . Plainly, they want less long list security measures (I’m surprised management didn’t go along with Security’s request for cameras in the oval) and more I feel safe because others are here enjoying and watching out for each other.

    People want more vegetation, shrubs, and trees that draw birds near not more fences to keep everyone out (except for our squirrel friends). People want to be able to get up close to hear and smell sounds of nature and birds and even identify them, and not be restricted to cattle chutes. And in a real sense to literally touch the earth more often.

    Even in our most treasured Arboretums and nature conservatories that draw thousands of people – this is how our renewed relationship with natural environs is encouraged and established.

    We don’t need or live in a landscaped showcase to sell more leases, ours is an environment meant to be enjoyed the way outdoor flora and fauna environments are supposed to be enjoyed (including the overrun squirrels). It’s not meant to be designed to move residents around in a cattle chute.

    No one is suggesting permitting anyone to poke around someone’s window looking for a Lark, or removing perimeter property fences but our community has existed existed for many decades without these ludicrous fences thank you very much and we still can and should.

    William Oddo
    Quiet Oval

  2. Get rid of the dogs, get rid of the narcissists who don’t care about their neighbors, get rid of the party hearty kids disrupting life for everyone…..THEN, you can THINK about taking down the fences. Sheesh.

    • Amen to that. And dog owners should think about whether their dog can conform to the common situation here, not the other way around.

      • Puhleeze! The dogs and dog owners are not the problem! An inept and incompetent “management” that has its priorities upside-down and a constant influx and turnover of residents who are transient in nature and couldn’t care less about the place are the problem. I am not a dog owner, by the way, but I have no problems with the dogs whatsoever. What I do have a problem with is the amount of trash, litter, cigaret butts, beer bottles and cans, coffee cups, etc., that “decorate” the grounds. They are to be found in the fenced off areas and they don’t get there by themselves. Also, a lot of the poo and pee is not from the four-legged dogs. I have seen with my naked eyes people using the property to relieve themselves! Many of these kids just can’t hold their liquor and can’t contain it until they get home, so they puke it up or squirt it out wherever their bodies dictate. It could be the grounds outside, the lobbies, elevators or hallways. The property has been turned into a badly run, unsupervised dorm and we are living with the consequences.

      • Puhleeze, Anonymous 11:50 a.m. If you don’t think dogs are part of the problem, you aren’t living adjacent to dogs that bark for hours at a time or on a floor used as a dog run or near a lawn where outsiders and tenants let their dogs urinate and defecate in an area where children play. You’re unfortunately right about the human bad behavior.

  3. Mr. Oddo seems to have forgotten about the chains which were in place for decades before the fences. I’d say go back to the chains but the current crop of dog owners barely respect the fences, chains would be laughable. The fences are necessary until dogs are outlawed again.

  4. I spoke to the gardening contractor months ago. He told me the fences are there TEMPORARILY to allow the new plants to establish themselves. We were standing at an area with ground cover when he told me this. He said the fences were to be up for two years. Of course CWCapital could easily explain this, but they’re too busy organizing their pathetic bread and circuses, and not doing anything they should be.

    • Oh No! Don’t tell me CW is going to be here another two years! I thought they were an interim landlord readying the dump, err, I mean property, for sale.

    • Just wanted to add: These fences are intended to be temporary–for example, Madison Square Park uses them when they’re restoring a lawn area and need to keep people off. The problem we have is twofold: (1) TS and CW have been incapable of planting an attractive and climate-appropriate garden, and (2) many tenants are incapable of respecting what we do have.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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