A biker’s response
To The Editor:
RE “Pay to Pedal” (Letter to The Editor, Aug. 8 – 14):
Uh! That was scary! There was so much anger in that letter. It came short of asking for a ban on bicycles and bicyclists altogether. Let’s not panic and answer point by point:
• Bicyclists should be put in the same category as everyone else who “has wheels.”
R: Big difference, bicycles don’t pollute everybody’s air, they don’t occupy the same space cars do, don’t cause deadly accidents and don’t require the expensive infrastructure cars do.
• Riders should be ticketed when disobeying the law “since they neither abide nor obey the laws.”
R: Please talk for yourself. As far as ticketing the few who disobey the laws, fine, as long as the cars who disobey the law by blocking the bike paths are ticketed too.
• Riders should obey traffic law.
R: Agree
• Stay of the sidewalks.
R: Not until there are specific fully protected bike paths everywhere. After all, we pay our taxes like everybody else and have the right to occupy the public space. Many bicyclists have been fatally or seriously injured when riding on the streets. No one has ever been fatally or seriously injured by a bike on the sidewalk. The fact is, we are much closer to a pedestrian in size and vulnerability. I will add, as bicyclists we should always yield to pedestrians.
• The city should have metered parking for bikes.
R: The city should have free parking facilities for bikes at every street corner. In some cities, the contribution of bicyclists to a cleaner air for everyone and public health is actually rewarded by the city providing free bicycles for people’s use. (Google bicycles in Paris).
Now, if we take this further, maybe bicyclists should start lobbying for a city pollution tax on anyone who uses any kind of private or public vehicle. Maybe we should also ask for our fair share of the city streets, which given the growing number of bikers, means that until sufficient mileage of bike paths are made, large avenues, going north/south and east/west should be reserved for exclusive bike use every day of the week.
Claudia Dekker
PEP talk
To The Editor:
I’m hoping that if there is any belt tightening at the Hudson River Park to be done during this economic downturn it might include whittling down the number of Parks Enforcement Patrol officers patrolling the Hudson River Park. In 2007 the PEP officer budget for the H.R.P. was beefed up quite a bit. They are a ubiquitous watchful presence along the river in the Village. Honestly, it’s rather pleasant to bike Uptown and escape the relentless ticket writing and petty harassment (Upper West Siders, you don’t know how good you have it!).
Last night, a beautiful Saturday evening, I strolled up the river after going to a movie with my son. About a dozen of these PEPs were directing traffic for the party/gambling boat docked at Pier 40 when it came back to port. I was very annoyed that my tax dollars are paying for traffic control for a private enterprise. The boat should provide their own parking staff.
Here’s the best part — just yards away from where the multiple PEPs were directing me to get out of the way of the exiting gamblers where scores of youth partaking in an open air drug bazaar. As the drug deals were going down the PEPs, all of them as far as the eye could see, were busy directing traffic. Not one PEP officer was to be seen anywhere near the hundreds of partying kids. If something happened to any of those kids I think the park would be liable as no one was monitoring the standing Saturday night party at Christopher St.
I might not be so annoyed with the PEPs when visiting the park if I thought they were actually keeping the park safe. That is not the case.
Beth Conard
Conner’s corner
To the Editor:
Re “Connor complaints” (letters, Aug. 8 – 14):
Our experience with State Senator Martin Connor contrasts Robert Caballero’s.
In Friends of City Hall Park’s recent victory regaining public access to the northern section of City Hall, Marty Connor was our champion. Senator Connor was an eloquent, experienced, strong, passionate spokesperson for our campaign. His dedication to our issue also demonstrated to all of us Marty’s deeply felt commitment to the quality of life of residents in his district, as a resident himself. In addition, his dedicated and knowledgeable staff continues to provide many well-appreciated services to our community volunteer effort.
These are personal testimonies for keeping this effective politician who clearly enjoys the job, to keep Senator Connor in Albany working for our neighborhood.
Skip Blumberg
Community builder
To The Editor:
RE “Builder gives a lot, but some neighbors still sore” (news article, Aug. 8 – 14):
It seems to me that Peter Moore is actually one of the more responsible developers in town. He’s not planning anything outrageously tall or bulky for his small South Village site, and to complain about “more baby strollers, more dogs…taxis, limos,” seems downright silly, as well as curmudgeonly.
And Moore is absolutely right about rezoning the U.P.S. parking lot at Spring and West, together with the adjacent St. John’s Center, so that the street grid is restored, and the handsome newly opened section of the Hudson River park is more available to the local community. And, too, there’s Pier 40 behind those lots, which as he says, “seems to have some traction.” Indeed it does, and, like Moore, I feel that the city ought to be thinking about that parcel of three as a unit, rather than simply turning the U.P.S. lot into a Sanitation garage.
Alice K. Turner
Shameful zoning inequity
To The Editor:
Re “Time for rational rezoning is now” (editorial, Aug. 8-14):
Thank you for your editorial supporting a long-overdue rezoning of parts of Hudson Square that desperately need it. It is truly a shame that more than two years after the first firestorm of opposition to plans for the Trump Soho condo-hotel — which the editorial correctly identifies as a “Trojan horse…unfettered by an essentially unenforceable restrictive declaration” — there has been absolutely no movement on community calls for a rezoning of this area to prevent similarly out-of-scale development, in spite of promises at that time that such a rezoning would be considered.
By contrast, the recent rezoning of the area to the north of the Trump project was driven by a single developer, not the community. And while the developer agreed to some last-minute concessions for his particular development, these are not written into the rezoning and do not apply to any of the other sites covered by the rezoning. Thus, whatever one thinks of the agreements the developer made — inclusion of some affordable housing, open space and a small amount of commercial space to maintain the neighborhood’s balance of uses — these are one-shot deals that do not apply to any of the other sites covered by the rezoning, and are not part of a comprehensive plan for the neighborhood’s development.
While a zoning change has been granted to accommodate one developer, zoning just to the south that allows 42-story towers like the Trump Soho condo-hotel remains untouched. It is time for our city officials to finally address this long-ignored problem.
Andrew Berman
Executive director, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation
Seward and Silver
To The Editor:
RE “Who are these guys challenging Shelly?” (news article, Aug. 8 – 14):
Assemblymember Sheldon Silver represented a good portion of the Lower East Side at one point until the New York State Legislature redrew or gerrymandered the New York State Assembly and State Senate District Lines. Many of the New York City Housing Authority developments like Bernard Baruch, Lillian Wald and Jacob Riis Houses just to name a few, were removed from what is now the 74th Assembly District. Mitchell-Lama (state-sponsored housing) such as Masaryk Towers and Village View Houses remained within Silver’s district.
The political leadership that opposed Silver in 1980 and 1990 resided within the northern end of the Lower East Side, which I believe would explain why the Lower East Side is now divided into two Assembly districts.
Being the incumbent with the authority to determine the lines every ten years only assists in your reelection.
In your article only one candidate, Mr. Luke Henry, touched upon the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area , which was not carved out of Silver’s District..
Silver has been the Assemblymember for approximately 40 years and as I have read over time, his position calls for commercial development along the remaining parcels of land on the U.R.A. Opponents argue that this site is the only remaining undeveloped city owned site that could be used for affordable housing and commercial development.
The one individual that has the authority to transform this site into something other than a parking lot is the one who represents it, Sheldon Silver. In all fairness to the Assemblymember, he inherited this issue the day that he was elected, but he has played a major role in its non-development.
The latest idea for its development comes from Mr. Luke Henry who is proposing creating affordable state sponsored housing with green roofs.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development declared this Site Urban Renewal in 1958. Every once in a while, when there is an election, the issue flares up again and then simmers. The real moral to this story — protecting your base is dividing your opposition.
Roberto Caballero
Letters policy
Downtown Express welcomes letters to The Editor. They must include the writer’s first and last name, a phone number for confirmation purposes only, and any affiliation that relates directly to the letter’s subject matter. Letters should be less than 300 words. Downtown Express reserves the right to edit letters for space, clarity, civility or libel reasons. Letters should be e-mailed to news@DowntownExpress.com or can be mailed to 145 Sixth Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10013
