Letters to the Editor

To The Editor:

Your May 14 article “Chinatown group brands East Side rezoning ‘racist’” 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.

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 City Planning representatives indicated that it was specially included. Many residents voiced grave dissatisfaction with this.

Finally, 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 them. 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

Disruptions didn’t help

To The Editor:

Re “Chinatown group brands East Side rezoning ‘racist’” (news article, May 14):

Two groups of people came to the Community Board 3 town hall meeting on rezoning: one to hear the detailed presentation of the plan by Arthur Huh of the Department of City Planning, the other to disrupt the meeting.

The second group succeeded, shouting down the board’s chairperson and the speakers, even after translation was provided. Those of us who wanted to become more informed regarding the details of the plan were out of luck.

I might also mention that a really excellent handout in English, Chinese and Spanish was provided. As a relatively new public member of the task force, I greatly admire the work that went into producing the handout, entitled “Quick Facts About Rezoning in Community Board 3.”

Rather than shouting the tired epithet of “racism,” those who wish to rezone Chinatown (and I do) should begin the hard work. They will surely have the full support of the task force.

I support approval of the Lower East Side rezoning plan by Community Board 3.

Linda C. Jones

Conflict charges absurd

To The Editor:

Re “Kramer’s ‘conflict’ exposed” (letter, by Jack Taylor, May 14):

The kids are victorious and Judge Solomon has ruled in their favor: Construction continues on the north end of Union Square! But the Union Square Community Coalition continues on its negative rampage. U.S.C.C. Secretary Jack Taylor’s letter accusing that I somehow hid my relationship with the Union Square Partnership borders on the libelous. Nothing could be further from the truth, in that I always strived to have and was proud of the good relationship I had with the Partnership. It was not a secret at all that I was on U.S.P.’s Residents Advisory Council and was in continual contact with the Partnership during the design phase of the north end of the park.

These U.S.C.C. board members think there’s something evil and nefarious about “business,” especially when it comes to the business improvement district arm of U.S.P. I totally disagree and think the BID and the Partnership have done a world of good for my neighborhood. We all knew the playgrounds were a mess and too small. U.S.P. put its money where its mouth was and hired planners to consult with the community and landscape architects to design a plan to improve the north end when no one else came forward. Without them, we’d still be waiting for the city to do that.

Then, in response to some people saying the BID was too business oriented, the Partnership created the Residents Advisory Council and asked me and several other neighborhood residents to join. I don’t see the conflict of interest in that at all. The residents see U.S.P. as a responsive agency that can either help us directly or advocate on our behalf, which is something that U.S.C.C. used to do. The Residents Advisory Council has walkabouts through the Union Square neighborhood and addresses issues that concern us, from homeless people congregating in certain areas, to making sure there’s adequate garbage collection. Is that so terrible that I would keep it a secret? Why?

Yes, of course, I will speak out in favor of some of the things the Partnership and I agree on, and anyone who knows me knows that I have worked hard to get this playground built and will fight any lawsuit that impedes it. And the current U.S.C.C. board has a lot of nerve taking credit for the increase in play space. It was already in the plan.

Jack Taylor and Geoffrey Croft are trying to drum up a false “conflict of interest” case because that’s the best they can do against me. If I wanted to throw mud, I could say a lot about Jack Taylor’s past behavior and very questionable judgement, but I’ll just say, he’s no gentleman.

I stand by my statement referring to the present U.S.C.C. as a one-issue organization, and its rebuttal in The Villager’s May 14 issue confirms exactly that. Here is the last, and perhaps most meaningful, paragraph of what was (inadvertantly?) left out from my original April 30 letter to the editor, which still holds true:

“I hate to think that U.S.C.C. turned into a group of curmudgeons and gadflies. Let them prove me wrong and, for a change, do something positive for the neighborhood like U.S.C.C. used to do: advocate for calming traffic, hold forums, support the arts in the park, provide seating (those French bistro chairs and round picnic tables are from the Fox/Kramer era) and most important, get that playground built as soon as possible. My son was a toddler when I started to petition for an improved and larger, unified playground. I became involved with U.S.C.C. for just that reason. My son is about to enter high school. Now that a shovel is finally in the ground, U.S.C.C. & Co. have halted it all. Exactly which children are they protesting on behalf of? My grandchildren?”

Thank goodness Judge Solomon has seen the wisdom in letting the work continue. What’s best for the interior of the pavilion building is still to be determined, but at least U.S.C.C. couldn’t delay the playground and north end work one more day. Yay!

Susan Kramer

Editor’s note: Any cuts made to Kramer’s previous lengthy letter (“U.S.C.C. unravels,” April 30) were for space limitations.

Fearsome five laws

To The Editor:

Councilmember Alan Gerson’s latest misstep into the issue of street vending reveals the extent to which he is out of touch with street artists, vendors, existing vending law and the First Amendment.

He recently submitted five restrictive new vending laws to the City Council. These include a vague new definition of First Amendment-protected art that will further confuse those doing vendor enforcement; an unfair requirement that vendors pass a written test; a new required distance from inanimate objects, like the hundreds of illegal street planters his Soho Alliance sponsors have installed on the streets; a restriction on displaying art against one’s own car, despite that being the mode of display that causes the very least sidewalk congestion; and a removal of the requirement that certain types of food vendors must attend a food-safety class and pass a written test on safe food-handling practices.

In other words, Councilmember Gerson wants to impose a requirement that vendors who sell socks or batteries must pass a test while eliminating the existing test requirement for many of the vendors who sell food and might potentially cause widespread illness by mishandling it.

None of his proposed bills addresses any legitimate problem with vending. None of these bills will in any way make the enforcement of vending laws any easier or clearer for the police or the vendors. The test requirement for general-merchandise vendors, most of whom are recent immigrants, is blatantly unfair if not racist. Gerson’s “redefinition” of art into two classes — art that has a primary utility versus art that has a secondary utility — makes no sense linguistically,

artistically, legally or culturally.

At some point, even the councilmember’s most avid supporters might ask what he has accomplished in seven years of diddling around on the vending issue at taxpayer expense. I urge the community and the City Council to completely reject these five proposed vending laws.

Robert Lederman

Lederman is president, A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists’ Response To Illegal State Tactics)

E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to news@thevillager.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to The Villager, Letters to the Editor, 145 Sixth Ave., ground floor, NY, NY 10013. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. The Villager reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel.