Letters to the Editor

Chinatown will pay

To The Editor:

When I read the title of Robert Weber’s article, “Making drivers pay will pay off in Chinatown” (Talking Point, Nov. 9 – 15), I thought it would address the existing problem of government sector parking permit abuse in Chinatown.  Instead, I found another attempt to push congestion taxing.  Robert Weber’s article should have been entitled, “Congestion taxing — making Chinatown pay again.”   

Weber and Asian Americans for Equality are really not looking out for Chinatown’s best interests here, as congestion taxing would affect small businesses in Chinatown directly — by hitting their wallets.  Many of Chinatown’s small businesses have vendors and warehouses in the outer boroughs.  Each of them would be paying over $5,000 a year per vehicle in congestion taxes.  In an area already debilitated by permit parking abuse, this would be another cash drain for mom-and-pop stores in Chinatown. 

AAFE has done nothing more than give lip service toward mitigating the horrendous parking problems in Chinatown that caused many longtime businesses to shut their doors forever.  Weber’s article glaringly omits the closing of Park Row, a major north-south artery, as being significantly detrimental to Chinatown.  AAFE, if it was really looking out for Chinatown, should have been screaming and knocking on the doors of the Department of Transportation, the N.Y.P.D. and the Mayor’s Office to alleviate/mitigate permit abuse, just as other neighborhoods in Downtown Manhattan are starting to demand.  Weber’s article also omits the fact that Chinatown is located in a Department of Transportation designated no-permit area.   

On Oct. 23, 2007, Community Board 3 passed a resolution requesting the D.O.T. post permanent “NO PERMIT PARKING” signs in Chinatown.  In July 2007, Community Board 1 also passed a resolution requesting the D.O.T designate a “NO PERMIT AREA” in their neighborhood.  Permanent signs will undoubtedly help to put some money back into Chinatown’s small businesses.

Let’s not charge people to drive from the outer boroughs into Chinatown, let’s just give them a place to park and do business. 

Geoff Lee

The next generations 

To The Editor: 

I came home from work happy tonight, and shared with my sixth-grade daughter who attends Battery Park City’s zoned sixth grade public school on 21st St. and First Ave. the great news.  The governor had announced, oddly without parents or children present, that our area will have its first public sixth-grade class for many local children, starting in 2010. 

It took my daughter a few seconds to realize that this school she had fought for, wearing buttons and attending rallies over the years, would not be ready soon enough for her to ever attend.  Then she smiled.

“I guess we helped make the neighborhood a bit better.”

To the hundreds of parents and children who campaigned for years for a local-zoned sixth-grade seat for our children: Congratulations on a job well done.

 Tom Goodkind

Southbridge battle 

To The Editor:

In response to the Walter Morton response (Letters, Nov. 9 – 15 ) to my Nov. 2 letter:

It’s a shame when Walter or anyone for that matter reads something that’s very clear then interprets it in an off-the-wall  manner and starts ranting. 

Walter, I also believe in a democracy, and if someone wants to stay Mitchell-Lama, I say more power to them. 

They have that right. It’s the American way. My exact statement was “Individual board members who still plan on fighting this for their own personal agendas should either resign or be expelled from the board.” If Walter took the time to read (understand) the letter he would have seen it did not attack residents voting against privatization. I would never put someone down for their opinions. This includes board members who really in their hearts believe in staying Mitchell-Lama. I guess Walter missed the words “for their own agenda.”

I suggest Walter read my letter again. Not how dare I, it’s how dare you, Walter.

Michael Wishner

To The Editor:

Why, Mr. Wishner, do you write such vitriolic letters (Letters, “Southbridge democracy,” Nov. 9 – 15)? Whether you are for or against privatization is not the issue. You mention the vote of 1,000 to 200. Many of us knew that only the “yes” votes counted, so we did not vote.