Letters to the Editor, Sept. 11

Owning won’t end problems with students

To the Editor:

I fully support Larry Edwards’ demand for a conversion “that is affordable to all the tenants who live here today and to those who have been living here for 30 to 40 years or more.” (Town &  Village, Sept. 4).

However, assuming that owning an apartment will prevent transient college students from noisy partying at all hours is unrealistic in today’s real estate market. The neighboring universities will merely buy up blocks of apartment condos or co-ops as investments and turn them into student dorms with the same “howling in the courtyards,” and “waking up their neighbors at 3 or 4 in the morning.”

As for affordability, only stronger rent stabilization laws can keep apartments within the middle class, not “ownership.” Today’s “market rate” for two-bedroom Manhattan co-ops ranges from $750,000 to over a million. Families earning under $300,000 a year will be shut out.

This has nothing to do with building owners, the Tenants Association, or elected officials – all  are powerless against the so-called “free market.”

And for wealthier people who can afford to “own,” they might still find themselves living next door to howling students. They might as well join the party.

Elliot Markson, ST

Not everyone minds presence of students

Re: Letter, “Time to own is now (before students take over)”, T&V, Sept. 4

To the Editor,

To the young people I say welcome. Hope you enjoy it here. I love it here and am happy to see your bright happy faces. Many of you are friendly and some are not. The same as in the world at large. I was young once too and am grateful to still be here.

Good luck to you. I hope you have bright futures whatever you do.

Anita Isaac, ST

In TA’s conversion plan, renters would stay

To the Editor:

The writer who, in last week’s T&V, suggested condo or co-op conversion as the means for getting rid of noisy dorm-style neighbors overlooks one snag in his solution.

Since, as he says, he is looking forward to the day when he owns his apartment and  “everyone is a proud owner,” his conversion plan apparently also involves getting rid of pesky long-time residents who either can’t afford or don’t want to own.

The plan advocated by the ST-PCV Tenants Association, in partnership with Brookfield Asset Management, calls for conversion paired with the right to continue renting for those for whom ownership is not a realistic choice.

Soni Holman Fink, PCV

T&V cartoon insulting to cops

What does that offensive cartoon (T&V, Sept. 4) have to do with living in Stuyvesant Town? We all live in Stuyvesant Town because it is safe.

I remember when Stuy Town residents were afraid to walk along 14th street. We now have the best police department in the country. The NYPD exhibits tremendous restraint and has made this city a safe place to live. Yes, there was a recent high profile incident in Staten Island, but to characterize an entire profession because of an accidental tragedy is offensive, short sighted and bowing to the self-serving yammering of politicians who are only interested in self aggrandizement. Shame on you.

You owe an apology to the NYPD and to all police officers everywhere, especially those who live in Stuy Town. They coached our kids in little league, and have helped to make this a wonderful community. I am ashamed of you.

Rob Messner, ST

Editor’s note: The author of this letter is correct in that the cartoon didn’t have anything to do with the cops around here since as Mr. Messner noted there have been no major incidents involving the 13th Precinct or cops who are ST/PCV residents. The cartoons tend to be about citywide or in some cases even international issues.

However, T&V respects constructive comments from readers on the content in this newspaper.

Another quick-thinking friend

Re: “Reaction to spider bite sends Stuy Town man to the hospital,” T&V, Aug. 28

I loved your article on the roommate who saved his friend’s life! I should publicly thank my son’s friend Guillian Gioiello who got my son Danny to Beth Israel Hospital a few months ago after he got hit on the head. Guillian called ambulance and stayed with him for hours.

My appreciation goes beyond words. Amazing friend. Smart guy. Thank you, Guillian!

Liz Taub, ST

I had no problems with Patients First

Re: “Patients First has closed,” T&V, Aug. 28

I will miss Patients First. I went there for 20 years and never had a problem with Dr. Marin. It was great having a walk-in office right here.

Thank you.

Joan Carmody, PCV

7 thoughts on “Letters to the Editor, Sept. 11


    As far as negative feelings towards NYU students, having many in my building, and I have never found cause to dislike any of them. So, please, don’t make comments which are negative strerotypes about them or any group. They are individuals.

    Then, there is the comment by the pesky (I assume “luxury” tenant) who refers to.the pesky long time residents who either don’t want a conversion or are too poor. You may not realize the PCV/ST was built in 1949 by the Met Life Mutual Insurance Co., in the main, for returning W. W. I I veterans with a partial tax abatement from New York City.

    When these “pesky” people were approved for an apartment, they not only has to meet income requirements, a person was sent to their old apartment for vetting as to their cleanliness and character. Now, as MetLife has gone to being a for-profit corporation, it seems that all they are interested in is the prospective renter’s money. A veteran from W. W. I I and his wife live in my building and he’s not pesky.

    Methinks that what really bothers you is you think that only people like you should be in this “country club.” Not riff raff
    like firefighters, police, teachers, and…

    It was the conversion of Met Life which led to the present situation. Ergo, this led to the new tenants — some of whom wants the ones who have lived here before about 15 years ago and don’t or can’t afford a co-op to leave. But, who are the interlopers. I don’t think it’s what are called the “pesky” ones.

    One more comment: I found that you had the courage to sign your name remarkable.

  2. Mr. Chowes: Who, exactly, are you addressing your comment to? If it’s the lady who wrote this week, then I think her mention of “pesky residents” was rhetorical and she was referring to a letter printed in last week’s T&V by a gentleman. Ms. Fink was by no means stating it was her view that the longtime tenants who would not be able to buy (or who wouldn’t want to buy) are pesky. Which one of those posters are you criticizing?

    • Frances,

      I would point out that the use of “gentleman” is singular, yet the writer uses the term: “getting rif of peskt long time residents…” is plural. If the writer is referring to a sole person I would suggest a clarification of the remark.

    • Frances, The letter by the woman in this week’s edition of T&V. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Her comment, unless I don’t understand it, is a metaphor for our greedy, materilaistic and status conscious age. But, please enlighten me if I misunderstood her comment.

  3. I believe Ms. Fink was referring to Larry Edwards’s letter of Sept. 4. She referred to his wanting to get rid of all the pesky students, etc., and she reminded him that his plan would involve getting rid of the “pesky” long time tenants too, if it were to come to fruition. She, herself, was not calling the longtime tenants (who would not buy) “pesky,” but she was making the point that they would be an obstacle to Mr. Edwards’s grand plan. I believe she used the word “pesky” rhetorically.

  4. Frances, The actual line in Ms. Fink’s letter-to-the-editor was, “….also getting rid of pesky long time residents who either can’t afford or don’t want to own.” I was responding specifically to that.

    At any rate, we have spent part of a Saturday attempting to parse and infer what Ms. Fink actually meant. At least, I found this to be interesting.

    Enjoy the remaider of the weekend.

Leave a Reply

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