Letters to the editor

W.T.C. preservation

To The Editor:

Re “Don’t let preservation delay W.T.C. redevelopment” (Talking Point, April 9-15):

Unfortunately, David Stanke’s Talking Point misunderstands and misrepresents the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, the determination of no adverse impact, and the effect that the programmatic agreement will have on rebuilding the 16-acre World Trade Center site.

The surviving elements at the World Trade Center site that have been deemed eligible for the State and National Registers are poignant reminders of the events surrounding 9/11 and, as such, are obviously historic. The role of the State Historic Preservation Office in evaluating the impact of development on these elements is advisory, and the SHPO has a successful track record of balancing preservation and development.

Contrary to Stanke’s accusation that “it risks opening a Pandora’s box of complaints about every proposed piece of construction on the site,” having a programmatic agreement that lays out the procedures for rebuilding at the World Trade Center site will streamline the redevelopment process, and will ensure decisions are not made hastily due to the pressure of interest groups. It will take decision making out of the political and personal realms and allows for professional evaluation during rebuilding.

As preservationists, we have wide experience with programmatic agreements, know that they work, and believe that they are in the public’s best interest. We congratulate the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation for putting forth this agreement and look forward to the timely redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.

Ken Lustbader

Preservation consultant, Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund.

Memorial panel void

To The Editor:

Re “Panel named, agreement proposed for W.T.C. artifacts” (news article, April 9 –15):

As you report, the latest panel named by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., this one to review artifacts from the Sept. 11 attack for preservation at the future museum, includes civilian family members, Downtown residents, members of the draft committee for the “Memorial Mission Statement,” and about a dozen members of historical societies and museum boards. What it doesn’t include is any family member of any uniformed rescue worker who sacrificed his or her life that day to save the lives of others. That this is so should be no surprise; the entire memorial process has stopped at the door of these families, time and again. Judging from the L.M.D.C.’s repeated lack of regard for the memory of what they did there, it is evident that they have no appreciation for the sacrifice they made.

 That the panel should include three people who helped write the  “Memorial Mission Statement” and no rescue worker family members is an indication of this: the Mission Statement pointedly ruled out including “sacrifice” and “heroism.” Neither word is found in the statement, having been intentionally excluded. Yet, somehow, L.M.D.C. board chairman John Whitehead assures us that this panel will insure that the “stories of sacrifice and heroism” of Sept. 11 are told. Just without any family members of those who most exemplified that on the panel. They have been forgotten. Again.

Here is an irony: one member of the panel is Port Authority police officer David Lim, who survived and escaped the collapse of Tower One with Capt. Jay Jonas and Ladder Co. 6. Lim has told the story of how he saw, on the 27th floor, “a heavy man in a wheelchair.” Well, my brother, Capt. William F. Burke, Jr. of Eng. 21 was with that man; he was Ed Beyea, who was with his friend, Abe Zelmanowitz, who did not leave his side. It was Capt. Burke that informed Capt. Jonas of the collapse of Tower 2. He was, therefore, instrumental in the survival of Officer Lim. I recently had the opportunity to tell all this to Gov. Pataki; he replied, “That is a story that must be told.” Evidently, however, those on the L.M.D.C. do not feel as strongly about that as the governor; the least they could is ask a rescue worker family member for some direct input, for once. It’d be a start.

 Michael Burke

Bronx, New York

I.P.N. concern

To The Editor:

On Monday, March 8, a couple of hundred tenants voted to accept an agreement with management that will affect all for the full extent of their tenancy at Independence Plaza North (news article, March 12-18, “Tenants cheer rent agreement in Tribeca”). I asked that the question be presented to the full tenant body in a lobby vote, allowing tenants to review the document itself, and allowing the full tenant body to vote, and leave a permanent record of that vote, conferring on it a greater legitimacy. We are under the pressure of time, but there is nothing that the few days it would take to organize that this would endanger.

Among other things, there is nothing in this agreement to insure maintenance, which will lose government oversight when the development goes private, and we are already witnessing serious cutbacks in staffing. Where is the concern with this issue that allegedly propelled Mr. Fabricant into the spotlight in the first place?

Since this agreement overwhelmingly addresses concerns of over-income tenants, it is disturbing that this board consistently misstates the concerns of tenants eligible for sticky vouchers. Notable at this meeting was the glaring contradiction between Mr. Fabricant’s depiction of their plight as precarious and his own lawyer’s statement that once tenants receive the voucher, it will be good “in perpetuity,” which agrees with what Chris Ingram from HUD stated. I would hope Mr. Fabricant is not deliberately scaring these tenants, who have fewer options than their wealthier neighbors, just to raise funds.

Mr. Fabricant is technically correct that no tenants will be forced to move because they can’t afford the rent, but how many have moved because of fear? Each week sees several postings of apartment sales of moving tenants. And then there are those on fixed income, seniors and others, with nowhere to go, who just hunker down in fear each time a fund-raising drive is announced. Take heart, people: every rumor the Tenants Association has mongered to this date has been false.

Speaker Gifford Miller has a bill with 38 endorsers that since September he hasn’t been able to bring to the floor of the Council for a vote? Who’s kidding whom?

In conclusion, I can only regret the unnecessary haste with which this was approved. I hope we will not repent at leisure.

Harold Donohue

P.S.—Longtime tenants will observe with sorrow that former Councilman Ed Wallace has now defected to the other side. I guess he just followed the money.

Good work

To The Editor:

Your paper and its online version are terrific.  I have worked Downtown for 17 years; I live in Brooklyn.  We have a free neighborhood paper in Brooklyn too, which I read — but I must tell you that the contrast between it and yours is dramatic.  Any week that I forget to pick up Downtown Express or read your site (www.downtownexpress.com) is a lost opportunity to find out what is going on.  The quality of your journalism is extremely impressive, and I like your editorials. 

Hillary Weisman

What is good for Goosey