Letters to the editor, Sept. 18

Cartoon by Jim Meadows

Cartoon by Jim Meadows

Does noisy work have to be done at 7 a.m.?

To the Editor:

The other day around 9:30 a.m. I passed a group of PCV/ST workers sitting on a bench taking a coffee break. Their leaf blowers were resting quietly on the ground along with a large pile of leaves. It was quiet, but it was very noisy earlier when these leaf blowers were operating their loud machines, probably around 7 a.m.

I say 7 because on another occasion at 7, I called Public Safety to complain about these early morning noises which make it impossible for many residents like me to get adequate sleep. Public Safety identified that morning’s noise as a street sweeper and referred me to Resident Services. The woman at Resident Services told me that this noise was necessary because management “has to maintain the property.”

When I informed her of NYC’s law prohibiting loud machine noises before 8 a.m., she referred me to the property manager. But when I called the property manager, she wasn’t answering her phone so I left a message to call me back regarding the noisy machines. She still hasn’t returned my call and I’m betting she never will. After all, what could she say?

On pcvstliving.com, management states, “We are dedicated to providing the most comfortable and convenient experience for our residents.” Also, management’s “noise policy” urges residents to “Be mindful and considerate of neighbors during traditionally quiet hours (late night and early morning).”

Furthermore, “it is expected that you will do everything possible to diminish the transmission of sound and noise.”

Huh? Is this the same management that doesn’t return residents’ calls about excessive noise? The same management that has street sweepers, lawn mowers, leaf blowers and other loud machines destroying the peace and quiet of those “traditionally quiet hours (late night and early morning)?” The same management that expects residents to “do everything possible to diminish the transmission of sound and noise”?

Noise is definitely a quality of life issue and both management and residents should be expected “to do everything possible” to maintain at least a reasonable, if not high, quality of life for humans on the property, not just the physical property itself.

After all, what’s more important, humans or property maintenance? So would it be possible for our dedicated, mindful and considerate management to schedule the operation of all those loud noisy machines at the same time when the PCVST workers were having their coffee break at 9:30 a.m.? It’s very simple really. All the quiet work and coffee breaks could be scheduled in the early morning while the loud and noisy work would be performed after 9:30.

It would be nice to be awakened in “those traditionally quiet hours” of early morning with the comfortable experience of bird song instead of Armageddon.

John Cappelletti, ST

Conversion would lead to student exodus

Letter, “In TA conversion plan, renters would stay,” T&V, Sept. 11

To the Editor:

Soni Fink apparently misunderstands the importance of completing a conversion of the property as soon as possible, and the means by which a conversion can serve to end dormitory living here in STPCV. NYU undergraduates living three to an apartment reside here in STPCV out of convenience.  As soon as they can, they make their exit to more stylish accommodations or, upon graduation, to apartment houses where they can enjoy some privacy.

If we as New Homeowners are able to take control of our destiny and acquire STPCV, to be managed as condos, then we can eliminate the dormitory-style living in this important way: we can end management’s block-marketing agreement with New York University. This marketing relationship artificially crams students into STPCV apartments, overloading water and electrical utilities. Once we end that marketing relationship, the massive dormitory lifestyle that has come to prevail would end.

The Tenants Association should focus on gaining a seat at the table, so that we can take control of our destiny here in this great bastion of affordable middle class housing. We must all stand together for affordability. Belittling letter-writers to this newspaper is counterproductive.

Name withheld, ST

Whatever happened to conversion plan?

Letter, “In TA conversion plan, renters would stay,” T&V, Sept. 11

Last week, longtime STPCV TA director Soni Holman Fink said that “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……” But what plan? It seems clear that the concept of a tenant-led condo conversion has been dropped from the TA’s vocabulary like a hot brick.

The TA’s website states:

“We welcome scenarios which create long-term affordability on the property, either through a model of home ownership and/or permanent rent protections.” Does the TA seriously contemplate “permanent rent protections?” (Rent laws are controlled by the state legislature.)

It seems the TA has thrown the tenants’ dream of home ownership under the bus in an effort to execute on the Mayor’s agenda of converting our community into a city-controlled affordable housing complex.

Regrettably, after three years of press conferences, rallies, building captains, zone leaders and house meetings, the entire condo conversion idea has apparently been tossed aside.

Maybe now is a great time to have another special meeting at Baruch College to explain exactly what is happening with “the plan”?  The electeds could also update the community on their efforts to secure rent protection laws in perpetuity.

Name withheld, ST

Leave a Reply

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