St. Vincent’s debate downer
To The Editor:
Re “Quinn on hot seat in debating Passannante-Derr and Kurland” (news article, Aug. 19):
The New York Times having abandoned reporting on Village issues, I deeply appreciate the work you do.
If I read their positions correctly, I am hugely disappointed that Kurland and Passannante-Derr have gone over to the “Dark Side” and have abandoned the O’Toole building and the quiet and light of the West Village to destruction by Rudin and St. Vincent’s Hospital. Ladies, there is still time to change your position and creatively find a solution to save the peace and quiet of the West Village by saving O’Toole!
In my frustration, I keep wondering if anyone has an incentive to come up with an alternative site for a new hospital. There must be someone who can benefit by finding and proposing a site that will be acceptable — someone who has property on the far West Side of Manhattan, with easy access from 14th St. and the West Side avenues.
How can everyone just lie down and give up like they are doing? Have some gumption, people!
Liz Ryan
N.Y.U. déjà vu all over again
To The Editor:
Regarding last week’s letters from Andrew Berman (“It’s the same old N.Y.U.”) and Simeon Bankoff (“Fooled by N.Y.U. again”) bemoaning New York University’s treachery when it comes to its “commitment to historic preservation,” the only thing that surprises me is that they were surprised to find N.Y.U. lied. I thought pretty much everyone who had dealings with the school knew it has a longstanding and seriously dysfunctional relationship with the truth.
As a member of Community Board 3’s Housing Committee in the 1990s, I witnessed firsthand N.Y.U.’s hostile takeover of the East Village, its consistent “what we want, we get” attitude. In 1995, in a forerunner of the incidents Berman and Bankoff detailed, N.Y.U. came to us asking for a major upzoning of 14th St. between Third and Fourth Aves., so it could build a dorm where Luchow’s had formerly stood and another on the site of the Palladium.
The university earnestly assured us that the concert hall would not be torn down, but rather would be incorporated into the new building. After N.Y.U. won approval and the zoning was changed, of course, it promptly demolished the Palladium, and when called to account at a full community board meeting, claimed it had never made such a promise to begin with. Board complaints that we had been lied to were summarily dismissed as not worthwhile for N.Y.U. to acknowledge, much less deal with.
For as long as I can remember, N.Y.U. has exhibited nothing but arrogance, dishonesty and utter disdain toward its neighbors and the neighborhoods it has chosen to destroy. If the university is that indifferent to the people who live around its ever-more-sprawling campus, there’s no way on earth it will ever care about mere buildings standing in the way of its continued expansion, to say nothing of the university’s bottom line. Preservationists, you have been warned.
Lisa Ramaci
Primo zip, but no P.O.?
To The Editor:
That’s a photo of me and my mail accompanying your article “Neighbors go postal over threatened station closings” (news article, Aug. 26).
Therefore, as the (very) unofficial “postal child” for the Save the West Village Post Office campaign, allow me to offer the following as a possible talking point for our side of the debate:
An article appeared on MSN’s home page this past Fri., Aug. 28, on the wealthiest zip codes in the United States, ranked by housing prices. Which zip code do you think ranked No. 3?
That’s right. You guessed it — 10014. Ah, what delectable irony: “U.S.P.S. Seeks Death Penalty for P.O. Servicing Nation’s Third-Wealthiest Zip.”
Glenn Bristow
Pols’ urge to bloviate
To The Editor:
Re “Let pilots keep on flying free in Hudson corridor” (talking point, by Ian Dutton, Aug. 26):
The folks who called for a ban on flights under 1,100 feet after the July 8 tragedy let their emotions shout down their good sense. Consistent with what Ian Dutton is saying, they very likely have no grasp of the quite effective procedures long in force for low-flying aircraft nor any personal flight experience forward of the passenger cabin.
But there is a detectable calculus in the discussion of emotionally fraught issues: As passion and the decibel level of debate rises, IQ falls. This is true even among people who are otherwise very bright and responsible day to day. That includes most of the politicians I’ve known, who laudably spend most days trying to make things better for people. But when some spectacular, though isolated, incident occurs, out come the heavy-handed, ill-considered proposals to “keep this from ever happening again.”
I believe politicians know when they are being evangels for unjustified and irresponsible solutions. But as laudable as their choice of career, an unsuppressable urge to grandstand and “bloviate” seems to go with the political vocation.
Fortunately, the business of making aviation recommendations and enforcing the rules comes under long-established and respected agencies, such as the N.T.S.B. and the F.A.A. When they eventually speak, it is after exacting professional investigations. Their pronouncements are authoritative. And, by then, the gusts of demagoguery have long since died down.
Jim Smith
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. The Villager does not publish anonymous letters.
