Port should wake up
To The Editor: Thank you for recognizing that the Port Authority’s treatment of its nearest neighbors in the W.T.C. excavation process has been “unconscionable” (editorial, Jan. 11 – 17, “W.T.C. work plan needs a little more work”) P.A.’s representatives come to meetings and express their supposed concern for our comfort and well-being, yet for weeks now it has permitted us to sleep only in the four hours, from 1:30 to 5:30 a.m., when its 12 “hoe rams,” as these huge jack hammering machines are known, stop breaking bedrock. I feel a real kinship with the detainees at Guantanamo who are also deprived of sleep by a powerful organization that does not recognize itself as bound by the rules of normal civil society.
Any soundproofing windows P.A. offers us this late in the game are unlikely to get installed before this particularly gruesome stage of the process is complete. While I would gladly accept windows to protect against the predations that are certain to come in the next phases of reconstruction, they are simply inadequate to address the current relentless assault. If, as you say, a construction delay of a couple of months will in retrospect be a mere “blip,” and if the late penalties the P.A. pays to Silverstein now are in fact offset by bonuses that won’t be paid to the contractors, then there is no excuse for continuing to ram bedrock during sleeping hours. The only non-recoverable penalty here
is being paid by the nearby residents. I seem to recall Governor Spitzer coming into office wanting to bring all the state’s autonomous authorities under much closer supervision and control. Directing his appointees on the P.A. to voluntarily obey thecity’s normal rules about construction hours, which exist for very good reason, would be a worthy step in that direction. Downtowners facing at least six more years of intensive reconstruction need to get some rest.
Mark Scherzer
Different spin on copters
To The Editor: Re “Downtown groups look to chop down helicopters” (news article, Jan. 4 – 10):
It’s difficult to know where to begin when it comes to the numerous inaccuracies in Downtown Express’s article concerning the frivolous lawsuit brought against the Hudson River Park Trust, Air Pegasus and Liberty Helicopters, relating to the heliport that my family has had the privilege to operate for nearly three decades.
First, to repeat the claim that outgoing Friends of Hudson River Park Trust Chairman Al Butzel made about my purported financial relationship and friendship with James Ortenzio — who recently pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges — without even checking with me is simply irresponsible journalism.
For the record, neither Air Pegasus nor the Trenks ever paid James Ortenzio a dime to settle a dispute between Air Pegasus and Liberty Helicopters. The $80,000 (and it is reported to be substantially more) that passed hands was paid by Liberty Helicopters directly to Ortenzio. Ortenzio’s resolution of that suit was so skewed in Liberty’s favor that the New York State courts reversed his findings and removed him as arbitrator.
Second, Mr. Ortenzio and I hardly have a “close relationship,” as Mr. Butzel said and Downtown Express repeated. Quite the contrary, Ortenzio and I have never been friends. Again, a simple phone call could have cleared up this misinformation.
Last, though the Friends of Hudson River Park would like to engage in linguistic tap dancing about the Hudson River Park Act, the facts are clear: The heliport is mandated to remain at its current location until a suitable alternative is found and operational. The Trust and the city are vigorously pursuing alternative sights.
Indeed, my daughter Abigail and I met with Butzel and offered him a viable plan to relocate the heliport west of the bulkhead as the act mandates, and he refused to listen to it, because, as it is now clear, he was intent on pursuing the headline-grabbing lawsuit.
Why must the heliport remain open?
First, because emergency services personnel need a heliport for public safety; the security of the city demands it. In the days and months after Sept. 11, 2001, W. 30th St. was a major staging point for federal, state and city relief and security groups.
Also, news copters need a heliport from which to disseminate information to the public.
Last, the Hudson River Park itself needs a heliport for the $1 million a year that we provide that helps to maintain the park.
Alvin Trenk President, Air Pegasus Manhattan
Editor’s Note: Downtown Express correctly reported what was in Al Butzel’s affidavit in the lawsuit against Air Pegasus, but we erred in not asking Air Pegasus’s spokesperson to comment on some of the specifics of Butzel’s accusations. We asked the spokesperson to comment on the lawsuit in general.
To The Editor:
Re “Downtown groups look to chop down helicopters” (news article, Jan. 4 – 10):
Chelsea residents have been against a heliport on the West Side for decades. Many of us remember when helicopters landed on the roof of the Port
Authority building, occupying the one square block between Eighth and Ninth Aves. and 15th to 16th Sts.
Chelsea Waterside Park Association and I are co-plaintiffs in the Friends of Hudson River park complaint against the heliport operators and the Hudson River Park Trust. The present heliport, located within the Hudson River Park in its upland portion at 29th St., is an illegal use, and we are urging H.R.P.T. to cancel the heliport’s month-to-month lease. It is time. The excuse that this part of the park is not used is no longer true; H.R.P.T. has built a beautiful segment of park adjoining the heliport: a nature habitat, a boathouse and pier and the float bridge. The very popular Maritime barge is now located at the western end of the float bridge. When Chelsea Cove is completed, it too will be besieged with the noise of helicopters.
I am disappointed that my friend Al Butzel, who as chairperson of the Friends, spearheaded the litigation, engaged in conjecture that the board of the Trust had not removed the heliport because of a relationship between the Trust’s former chairperson, James Ortenzio, and the heliport operators. James Ortenzio was the most effective chairperson that the Trust ever had, and much of the park that we enjoy occurred under his leadership. I think the most logical reason for the Trust’s failure to end this noxious use, the heliport, was that it was a rent payer, and that rent went into the operating and maintenance budget of H.R.P.T.
So why did C.W.P.A. and I sign on to a complaint which has language we are now disowning? It was because when we agreed to become co-plaintiffs we were assured that there were no changes from an earlier version. It was a mistake, but in the context of being a co-plaintiff on other complaints, such as the successful Basketball City case, we had no reason not to trust Al Butzel. I believe this was an honest mistake on both of our parts. Now, let’s move on and get the park finished and, of course, let’s get the heliport the hell out of there.
Robert Trentlyon Vice president, Chelsea Waterside Park Association
Pier partnership
To The Editor: As a Downtown resident whose children play sports at Pier 40 and the athletic director of a school whose students utilize this wonderful athletic facility, I was heartened by the suggestion in your recent editorial that The People’s Pier and the Pier 40 Partnership join forces to offer the Hudson River Park Trust a development plan that is both financially viable and enthusiastically supported by neighborhood residents (editorial, Dec. 29 – Jan. 3, “Some wishes at the new year”). A union of The People’s Pier and The Pier 40 Partnership is a logical and exciting proposal.
Throughout this process, the community’s unwavering goal has been to provide the Trust with an alternative to Related’s development plan, an alternative that acknowledges Pier 40’s extraordinary value as a premier athletic facility not only for our community, but also for athletic leagues and clubs, public and independent schools, colleges and universities city-wide. The Pier 40 Partnership study confirms that the community can support the uses proposed by The People’s Pier, reassuring the Trust that it can live up to its revenue mandate while respecting the community’s need for safe, open public space.
The Partnership study and The People’s Pier are nearly identical in their uses and architectural elements. The only major difference seems to be how each plan combines its for-profit and non-profit elements. Even in this regard there seems to be enough common ground for compromise. Together these two groups can create an extremely strong plan with tremendous community support. How can the Trust ignore a plan that satisfies its revenue mandate and upholds the desires of the community at the same time?
A divided community only benefits Related. Dismissing the request for proposals and starting over creates tremendous uncertainty and will only further delay Pier 40’s development. A union of The People’s Pier and The Pier 40 Partnership is the best way for us to get a well-financed, low-impact development that will rehabilitate and protect Pier 40 for years to come. I urge these two civic-minded groups to join forces and bring a plan to the table that will benefit the community, the Trust, the park and the city.
Charles Sewell Athletic director, Rudolf Steiner School
Sustaining B.P.C.
To The Editor: Re “Gateway tenants look for neighborly help in landlord fight” (Jan. 11 – 17):
After 9/11, government leaders granted $1.6 billion in Liberty Bond loans to developers to build thousands of new upper income rental units in our neighborhood that offer no rent protection. This aid to developers ignored even the most conservative theories of free market economy, and sent a message to voters that our elected officials were damning many of the residents who came back to rebuild. The artificial inflow of assistance drove up rents throughout the neighborhood, creating what is now seen at least locally as a crisis of sustainability.
Our elected leaders must act now to protect and preserve their Downtown N.Y.C. constituency. In Battery Park City, where most all of the residential Liberty Bond money was granted, this involves not only those living in Gateway Plaza, but also 120 Liberty, 211 North End, 22 River Terrace, 50 Murray, Liberty Court, Liberty House, Liberty Terrace, Liberty View, Parc Place, River Rose, Riverwatch Place, The Solaire, South Cove Plaza, Tribeca Bridge Tower, Tribeca Green, Tribeca Park, Tribeca Pointe and the many other apartment houses where a new rash of economic evictions cry for immediate government legislation to bring about rent stabilization.
Tom Goodkind Gateway Plaza resident
Dog fright
To The Editor: Man and Beast become Brute and Beast when a lapdog is used as an attack dog. That is cruelty to animals. But the owner’s ordering the dog to use its defense — barking its lungs out at an adversary, a broken down old woman in her wheel chair — that’s cruelty to both animals and to women.
Many methods have been used to keep me quiet regarding my feelings on privatization, and this is the most cowardly and by far the silliest.
The A.S.P.C.A. should look into this.
But I will continue to fight to keep the middle class dwellers away from the hungry wolves who think they can turn brick and mortar into billions of dollars.
Geraldine Lipschutz Southbridge Towers resident
