We help seniors avoid abusive grifters
To the Editor of Town & Village,
Sadly, the terrible roommate experience encountered by Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village resident “Neal,” described in your March 31, 2016, article “When your roommate’s an abusive grifter” is all too common in NYC. Thankfully, it need not be.
New York Foundation for Senior Citizens’ Home Sharing Program, the only service of its type in New York City, provides free comprehensive screening and matching services for individuals seeking shared living arrangements that can help potential roommates avoid the type of dreadful experience encountered by “Neal.”
The program’s team of experienced professional licensed social workers link potential “hosts” who have extra private spaces in their homes to share with compatible “guests” seeking suitable housing. At least one of the share-mates in each match must be age 60 or older. For more information on how New York Foundation for Senior Citizens’ Home Sharing Program can help promote companionship and enhance financial wellbeing by matching you or someone you know with a professionally screened and compatible roommate, call (212) 962-7559 or visit nyfsc.org today.
President, New York Foundation for Senior Citizens
T&V column unfairly bashes Trump
To the Editor,
Writers of opinion columns ensnare readers by asserting a hypothesis that achieves the writer’s objective. In his April 14 column, Steven Sanders uses the hypothesis that character is the most important factor in evaluating a presidential candidate. He then uses his hypothesis to criticize Donald Trump by interpreting some things Trump has said.
Sanders didn’t take the next step and apply his hypothesis to the democratic front-runner: Hillary Clinton. Her character falls far short of qualifying to be president. And the things that disqualify her are major things she has done, not just interpretations of things she has said.
She lied to the public about the Benghazi terrorist attack, while telling the truth to her daughter. She mishandled classified material by using a private server for secretary of state communications in violation of the government’s requirements for that office. In response to Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary maligned Lewinsky. A poll last month showed that 57 percent of eligible voters think Hillary is “not honest and trustworthy.”
Let’s try a different hypothesis. The office of President of the United States is the largest management and leadership job in our country.
The most important factor in evaluating a presidential candidate is the candidate’s proven ability to successfully manage and lead a large organization. Donald Trump has built a large, exceptionally successful business. This shows he is an outstanding manager and leader. In building this business, he has surrounded himself with expert associates in areas where he does not have detailed knowledge. He will do the same as President of the United States.
Floyd Smith, PCV
Hamilton’s legacy now involves Trump
Now when “Hamilton” is mentioned we think of the award winning Broadway show that is the most difficult ticket to buy because it is so critically claimed and popular. Or we can see a picture of him on U.S. paper currency.
But how many know that he began the first continually published daily newspaper which still exists? The New York Post was founded by Hamilton in 1801. Of course, it has gone through many iterations during the past over two centuries.
When I was younger, it was the most liberal major paper and the publisher was Dorothy Schiff. As she got older, it was time to sell it and Rupert Murdoch bought it and being Murdoch, he made it a Fleet Street right wing vehicle. The sports section was and is always good – but Mr. Murdoch made it far more sensational than it was when Ms. Schiff was the publisher.
Unlike The New York Times and The Washington Post, it does not separate its news reporting from its ultra right wing editorial and opinion agenda. Last week, it reached its zenith by endorsing “the Donald.” Yes, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has almost destroyed the G.O.P. and far worse, our election process and our always fragile democratic republic. I don’t buy the paper and if I see it on a bus – I don’t pick it up because I suspect it may be filled with germs.
David Chowes, PCV
Dog rules seem arbitrary
To the Editor,
The new management company is turning out to have a totalitarian streak.
Within only 20 days, tenants were served with “House Rules” that purport to add excessive and illegal provisions to the leases which we all signed. This maneuver seeks to trick tenants into waiving the terms of their lease, to incorporate these additional terms. If the additional terms of a lease merely repeat law that is in effect in New York City, then fine. The problem is that these “House Rules” go far beyond New York City law.
Take, for example, the right of all tenants to have a dog as a pet. New York City has the “90 day rule” with regard to pets. A tenant is permitted to keep a dog of any size if the tenant owns the pet for at least 90 days in the apartment.
The landlord is deemed to have “waived” any objections or other terms that might be written down in the apartment least. (See: NYC Admin. Code § 27-2009.1(b); and, Westchester County Laws, Chapter 694).
On the other hand, the purported House Rules say “all dogs shall be registered with the landlord,” and provides other punitive provisions relating to dog ownership that conflicts with New York City law.
For example, under New York City law, dogs may be active and make noises (after all, they are dogs), until 10 p.m. The ST/PCV House Rules say, “Tenants with pets who incessantly make noise are subject to the disciplinary terms found under Section 2 (Quiet Enjoyment).” This is total nonsense.
In fact, Section 2 is full of garbled legalese intended to intimidate dog owners. There are no “disciplinary items” in that section.
The intention of the House Rules are to treat tenants like they are children. An owner has no legal right to change the terms of a lease unilaterally, and these House Rules should be ignored and set aside. They have no legal effect, and on behalf of all tenants (whether they own dogs or not), we respectfully say “no thank you.”
Name withheld, ST