Letters to the editor, June 29

Cartoon by Jim Meadows

Not everyone should have a shot

I read your editorial of Thursday, June 15, 2017.  Given its headline, “Outdated rule makes running for office even more difficult,” I thought I’d be reading about the State Supreme Court Nominating Convention, which one former district leader described as byzantine.

Instead, I read about a so-called “archaic” rule that candidates “are at risk of being booted off the ballot” for duplicate signatures. Well, after slipping through a gauntlet of Vanessa T. Aronson’s petitioners to enter the Stuyvesant Town gates at 18th Street and First Avenue, I ran into my upstairs neighbor who offered me a big handshake. We started talking and soon he was yelling at the petitioners.

I said, “Dude, what’s up? They’re entitled to try to get signatures.”

He wanted no part of it and I had to hold him back from going after the two of them.

I said, “What did they say? Did they demean you, or your family?”

I would have gone over to the petitioners and tried to mop it up had he given me some grist. Instead, he then turned on me while the petitioners yelled, “Go Democrats!”

I’m a former member of virtually all East Side clubs and have been threatened to get slapped while petitioning. But, I also have explained to people that Civil Court candidates are not on the NY County bench to decide abortion cases but, rather, to decide how much, say, Verizon has wronged them.

District Leader Keith Powers, however, states revealingly in your editorial that “everyone should have a shot (at running for public office).” He is categorically and without qualification wrong. Our open council seat, given the number of Democratic candidates that have little or no political currency in our district, has created a situation where the least qualified people; those on their smart phones; those that wear their pants at half-mast; those that are taking breaks; those that don’t know how to say, “Are you a registered Democrat?” in Stuyvesant Town, Tudor City or the Upper East Side, seek to get candidates on the ballot.

In point of fact, I have not recognized one person holding a petition for any candidate. And no neighbor I have spoken to has said that they have had someone that they know from the neighborhood knock on their door to sign their candidate’s petition as I once did.

Further confusing the election process, our Democratic district leaders should be leading, not bickering. They, and their Assembly members should be deciding on one candidate from the 74th Assembly District and one from the 73rd. Not some crazy bush league sucker stuff where everyone can run.

If you’ve served a decade on the State Committee, as a district leader or club president, then you will be chosen in due course for stick-to-itiveness. Hon. Powers, instead advocates chaos. Imagine, if you will, instead of having people bombard you with green petitions while you’re on your way to the supermarket during June, people instead bombarding you with campaign materials during June, July, August and early September because “everyone should have a shot”?

Ms. Aronson and Mr. Powers need seasoning. And Town & Village needs to do some homework.

Billy Sternberg, ST

Stuy Town no longer fit for a dog

When I first got my dog six years ago as a puppy, she was free to walk on the grass, smell the plants and flowers, and roam freely. Over time, Stuyvesant began closing areas and posting “no dog” signs. Management even banned dogs from being by the flagpole, while teenagers congregate there to hang out and drink. Finally, there was one large dog friendly area left past the flagpole. But it didn’t take management long to start decreasing its size by putting up cheap wire gates. When there were just two strips of land left, overnight the entire area was closed off! I wandered around asking security where the new dog area was and was told to call management.

There are no dog areas left. Stuyvesant designates tiny recessed areas as dog areas which are only big enough for one dog to stand on. They have removed the doggie pick up bags and many garbage cans as well! Now that the land is green and full of plants and trees, all the dogs can do is press their noses up against wire fences, trying so hard to get a whiff of nature. It is very depressing to walk my dog and see all the fenced in land which could easily be transformed into a dog friendly area, equipped with bags and garbage cans.

Peter Cooper has two lovely dog friendly areas and it is much smaller. Stuyvesant has a vast expanse of land which could easily be made into at least four dog areas! What is the point of fencing in the entire project – no one can enjoy it. Yet humans are given freedom to sit on the lawn and picnic there on dirty towels. Many do not even live here.

As a pet parent, it is comparable to closing all the playgrounds for children. Dogs are our children, a gift from God. When the temperature soars, they need to walk on grass, not concrete. They are entitled to enjoy nature with their owners.

Advising tenants to take their dogs to nearby dog runs is not the answer as they are filthy, dangerous and close early.

The “Dog Days” are idiotic because dogs do not want to run around in a playground with a concrete floor. I don’t know how Stuyvesant Town has managed to find every possible tiny spot of land and close it off, but it has been done and is truly inhumane.

Don’t dare call this a dog friendly place to live! Dog owners who share my views should stage a peaceful protest against these deplorable changes in dog friendly areas and make our voices known to management.

Bobbie Martowicz, ST

Well done, Tenants Association

The following is an open letter to the Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association in response to “TA asks Blackstone to keep Associated in ST,” T&V, June 8.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for expressing in great detail the need to keep Associated Supermarket. We don’t need Trader Joe’s or Target. Let them stay where they are. Hopefully Stuyvesant management will so their best to keep Associated and their employees here.

Thank you for your help.

Pat, ST

4 thoughts on “Letters to the editor, June 29

  1. Boo hoo, Ms. Martowicz. ALL of STPCV is now actually an 80-acre Dog Toilet. If you don’t like it here anymore, you can always move. Blackstone will be happy to see you (and anybody/everybody else, for that matter) leave, so they can more quickly fulfill their Master Plan, which is worthy of the late Albert Speer.
    FYI, my family were original ST tenants (1947). Was forced to leave myself in 1985, because of the already-deteriorating conditions under the “New” Met Life. From everything I have read, heard, and personally seen, things have gotten ten times worse since then, in every respect.

  2. Really Pat???

    You think the TA had anything to do with this? Blackstone was ready to kick Associated out of that space, but they got stuck in a bind when Morton Williams backed out of the deal for the space. Blackstone is still actively searching for a tenant that will pay the astronomical rent they are looking for, and once they find them you can bet Associated will be gone.

    Regardless, I honestly can’t see Associated surviving once Trader Joe’s opens up, and I’ve been shopping in Associated since it opened and will continue to until they shut their doors.

  3. To Bobbie: About Stuytown not being ‘dog friendly’. I know that some people see dogs as their ‘children’, but most folks do not. Stuytown was never meant for dogs, that was just a marketing ploy by the owners. It was built for people [and human children]. This is a crowded city, and it’s difficult to share with four-legged denizens, and especially difficult when the rest of us have to deal with the mess. The majority (of non-dog-owning) owners should have a larger say – dogs do not have any ‘inalienable rights’ here. Why not move to the country if you want your pet to run free (since it’s illegal in NYC)?

    • Where are you getting your information? Stuyvesant Town was in fact designed for families of returning GI’s and their dogs and cats. It was only due to regulations imposed by Robert Moses in 1952 and 1953 that tenants were told they could not own pets.

Leave a Reply

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