Sacred & commercial
To The Editor: Re “Welcome omission of ‘sacred ground’ talk” (Talking Point, May 9 – 15) and “Holy Land response” (Letters, May 16 – 22):
There is no irreconcilable conflict between recognizing “ground zero” as sacred ground and rebuilding. We can preserve and faithfully convey, as is our duty to do so, what happened here Sept. 11, 2001 and rebuild the site so it is functional and attractive. It has been only a failure of vision and leadership that has created that “conflict.”
I look to the Genbaku “Peace” Dome in Hiroshima as a model. There the authentic artifact with an attractive park built around it that respects the significance of the place accomplishes the task of preserving the past and reminding the present without intruding upon the progressive world surrounding it. In fact, by that, its preservation gains more meaning.
Now why could not the same thing be accomplished at the W.T.C. site? All that is needed is a little humility, a little wisdom and some political leadership, all of which has been lacking.
Very simply, return a recognizable segment of the façade and the Koenig Sphere to where they stood Sept. 11 — there’s your “Peace” Dome — let people confront it in a non-intrusive way and make of it what they will. Build the 9/11 museum in an attractive, humble building on the site. Not under it, not “subgrade” or any other pleasant way of saying bury it. Which is neither functional nor attractive. Let it hold the other authentic artifacts.
Then around that a pleasant, understated park may be built. For whatever uses parks are used for. And once that is done and by that I mean, planned, then we can rebuild office towers or whatever else. It’d be nice if we skipped, say, strip joints or the “Museum of Sex” or the pseudo-artsy-intellectual equivalent or some institution that imposes somebody’s political or moral viewpoints upon the site, like we are getting now.
That, however, would be the strength of restoring the authentic artifacts in an appropriate setting. Do that and everything else follows reasonably and easily. Because we have not is why we have the tragic farce and money pit that ground zero has become.
Michael Burke
Taxing issue
To The Editor: Re “Constitution isn’t kitsch” (Letter by Robert Lederman, May 16 – 22):
Mr. Lederman correctly points out the legal analysis regarding whether “art” is protected under the First Amendment. What he doesn’t discuss however is the fact that vendors that sells things on the city’s streets, whether they are protected or not, need to report the income and pay the appropriate sales and other taxes to the city and state. Mr. Lederman, as a taxpaying citizen of New York City, I request that you produce your tax records and the records of the other artists that sell art along West Broadway to Downtown Express so that they can verify whether you and your friends are in compliance with the law.
Tim Clark
Zoning article
To The Editor: Your article “Chinatown group blasts city’s East Side plans” (news article, May 16 – 22) exhibits several misleading aspects and improper omissions. I was present at the event in question. As an observer with no previous involvement with this issue, I read the article without bias and found some problems with your reporting.
In paragraph 4, the writer states that the protesters left the meeting “several minutes” after translators began. The reality is that the protesters stayed for at least 20 minutes of translation. “Several” is too vague and suggests a shorter time, as though the protesters were frivolous in their demand.
Your reporter fails to mention that the translators were not professionals, and had a great deal of difficulty translating the complicated text. My perception was that the protesters finally left out of frustration that the essential points of the proposal were not being communicated clearly.
Your reporter also failed to note a theme that was emphasized by numerous people who spoke, namely the city’s insistence on including a provision that would allow conversion of ground floor units from residential into commercial space, even if said space had not seen commercial use for decades or even a century. As I understood, the normal regulations imposed by the proposed zoning would protect against this sort of conversion, but the Dept. of City Planning representatives indicated that it was specially included. Many residents voiced grave dissatisfaction with this.
Lastly, your reporter failed to describe anything about Mr. McWater’s behavior in response to the protesters. McWater was shouting through the microphone at the protesters and almost immediately threatened to have the police eject the protesters. In my opinion, he was aggressive and unnecessarily confrontational, and failed to engage the protesters’ concerns constructively. Yes, their behavior was disruptive, but their concerns were dismissed out of hand.
I am sorry to say that in reading your piece I detect a strong bias in favor of the zoning plan, and an unbalanced sympathy for Mr. McWater.
Noel Bush
