Letters to the Editor

Reduce rhetoric on Seward sites

To The Editor:

I am writing in response to Steve Herrick’s letter to the editor describing his reactions to the November Community Board 3 meeting and advocating for a Seward Park task force (“Create a Seward Park task force,” Dec. 10).

While letters to the editor may have mischaracterized the proposed development plan as calling for “public housing,” the meeting itself, however, was in fact racially charged. It was racially charged because one of the speakers called the opponents of low-income housing “racist Jews.” That blatantly anti-Semitic remark was not condemned. Further, when a group of individuals clambered up to the stage, unfurling a public housing banner, in an act clearly inappropriate at any community board meeting, but surely so in one so tense, there was no request made that they exit the stage. I have no doubt that if a group of co-operators from the Grand St. co-ops would’ve unfurled their own “Co-ops Are Good” banner, then there would’ve been an immediate request for them to leave the stage.

Regarding the substance of the issue, as to whether this site should be designated for any low-income units, keep in mind two facts:

• Community Board 3 has the second-highest number of subsidized/low-income residential units of any community board area in the city of New York. Where is the rationale in maintaining a balanced, integrated neighborhood by developing more low-income units?

• Of the approximately 2,000 residential units that were removed by the city of New York over four decades ago from the Seward Park Urban Renewal site, nearly 1,400 units have been replaced — all low-income units.

Yet, virtually no jobs or commercial establishments have been restored of the hundreds that were there 40 years ago. And in this jobless recovery, with New York City unemployment one-third higher than the national average, is there any development that is more desperately needed than substantial economic development? While it would require some creativity as to commercial development above the first two floors (which would presumably be retail) we should let the R.F.P. process proceed unfettered by ideological constraints.

Unfortunately, the community board has not only passed a resolution that pays lip service at best to commercial/economic development, but has in fact passed contradictory resolutions; one resolution calls for a majority of the square footage on the site to be built as low/moderate-income housing, and the other for the creation of a task force to deliberate on what should be built on the site. What purpose is there for a task force to convene, deliberate and discuss, when there has already been a predetermined outcome, namely a specific magnitude of low housing?

What is most important is that as this debate unfolds, we cease tarring opponents on either side with accusations of ill will, and racism, and recognize that there are quite legitimate public policy considerations, to favor — and yes, oppose — additional low-income units on the remaining portion of the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area.

Joel Kaplan

Kaplan is a member, Community Board 3

Blinded by the light from PEP’s

To The Editor:

Re “Trust assailed on finances, closed process” (news article, Dec. 24):

I was shocked to hear that the Hudson River Park Trust pays the city $1.5 million for its Park Enforcement Patrol officers, since the only time I needed help, PEP officers were nowhere to be found. Instead, they make their presence known in consistently unpleasant ways. For instance, they sit in their cars outside their office with the car running and the headlights on — anyone walking must walk straight into bright lights (unlike other parks, this one is straight and thin — no way to get away from glaring lights but to walk in the bicycle lane.) In the summer the PEP cars sit at the top of the park with lights glaring. Even when one is sitting on a bench facing the water, the lights are still oppressive — like being in a prison yard.

I was told it was O.K. to walk in the opposite direction when I asked that a PEP car turn its lights off or at least down. On a December evening, I saw an officer fast asleep with a book open on his lap, in his car with his lights on. My tapping on his window did not wake him.

I can’t be the only one who is bothered by having to walk into bright lights when out for a stroll in my neighborhood park. Isn’t it possible to soften the lights or tilt them down slightly so that they don’t glare directly into eyes? If the patrol cars want to be seen, isn’t there a less obtrusive way?

One day in August, five middle-aged women mistakenly attempted to have a quiet prayer circle on a blanket in the park. A PEP officer asked if “I was sure” when I told him that we were not drinking alcohol. (I am not used to being spoken to in that way — as if I were a wayward teenager.) The women in our group were appalled when less than five minuets later another PEP officer questioned us again, in the same hard, nasty manner. This park is not a place for prayer, since PEP officers obviously think this must be a ruse for breaking the law.

What is happening at the leadership level to have PEP officers dealing with the public time and again in such a horrible way? The Trust would do better to hire its own security and provide training so that they can effectively deal with the public in a courteous, professional manner. The park looks pretty but its experience is purposely intimidating and unpleasant at best, as it feels as if we are in police state.

Lynn Pacifico

Why doesn’t Codrescu vanish?