On the waterfront: Money
To The Editor:
Re “Pier pressure: Will lawsuit, small boats sink dazzling ‘Diller Island’?” (news article, July 28):
I think this statement by Al Butzel sums up the underlying issue: “If someone offers you $100 million, it’s just going through the motions [to have competitive bidding].”
Should we allow lots of money to circumvent public processes that are intended to ensure transparency and democratic decision-making?
I’m deeply concerned that allowing money to influence public policy (whether through the electoral process or public infrastructure projects) has led our society to where we are — a true tale of two cities.
Shino Tanikawa
Mais, non! Florent is gone
To The Editor:
Re “Après Florent, le deluge” (Scoopy’s Notebook, Aug. 4):
I notified the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation about the demolition of 69 Gansevoort St. The notion that Andrew Berman or anyone else is “monitoring” the “restoration” of the facade, is laughable! I went into the work site, and there is nothing left of the former building that housed the beloved restaurant Florent.
I don’t understand why we fight for landmarking if the designation is not honored. Does the Landmarks Preservation Commission have no accountability to the community? I’ve lived here 43 years, and am watching the slow destruction of my neighborhood.
I still can’t believe we lost the battle of “Gansevoort Row.” Now we are embroiled in a battle over two locations on Jane St. — inside the Greenwich Village Historic District! I’m so angry, it’s hard to convey my thoughts. This destruction must stop!
David T. Berry
Her cherry amour
To The Editor:
Re “Coles demo kicks off N.Y.U. project, triggers community concerns” (news article, Aug. 4):
N.Y.U. now does own the land in front of the Coles Sports and Recreation Center. This strip of property was purchased from the city in a deal recorded in September 2015 (document No. 2015091601167002) for $6,388,000, including this and other parcels.
There are many trees on this site that will be “removed,” in addition to the stands of Kwanzan cherry trees. I am sure N.Y.U. will provide the required compensation per Parks Department rules. But I still mourn the loss of these mature, beautiful, oxygen-giving, life-affirming trees that were planted on what was city land.
Terri Cude
Mega-project, mega-anger
To The Editor:
Re “Coles demo kicks off N.Y.U. project, triggers community concerns” (news article, Aug. 4):
Chin and Quinn did us in, and so did all the other councilmembers who voted with them against us.
Now you want my vote for your re-election for higher office?
Please know that I and many others will not vote for those who set in motion the destruction of our neighborhood and impacted our lives forever.
Judith Chazen Walsh
Supersized opposition
To The Editor:
Re “Coles demo kicks off N.Y.U. project, triggers community concerns” (news article, Aug. 4):
Most of Councilmember Margaret Chin’s district is in Chinatown, where the N.Y.U. development was not an issue. This freed her to ignore the vast majority of her constituents in Greenwich Village, despite their numbers and intensity.
Anyone who calls that opposition “small” is either grossly misinformed or — more likely — churning out disinformation on behalf of N.Y.U. Every public hearing on the project was packed to overflowing; and N.Y.U.’s own faculty was also overwhelmingly opposed, with resolutions passed against the Sexton plan by 39 schools and departments, most of them unanimous or nearly so. These included the Stern Business School, which voted 52-3 against the plan, and the Economics Department, which was unanimously against the project.
While most of Greenwich Village, and N.Y.U.’s faculty, opposed (and still oppose) the Sexton plan, it has the strong support of N.Y.U.’s trustees — and, therefore, Mayor de Blasio’s administration (a body closely tied to N.Y.U.). What’s actually quite “small,” then, is not the opposition to this development, but the support for it.
Mark Crispin Miller
One view on Village View
To The Editor:
Re “Village View is looking at exit from affordable co-op housing program” (news article, Aug. 4):
Village View has fulfilled its Mitchell Lama obligations and the board of directors fiduciary duty is to its current not prospective shareholders. Mitchell Lama was designed as a way to stabilize marginal areas through the creation of middle-income housing. Its sunset provisions — the ability to opt out — were a necessary element in the plan. Developers would not have participated without the ability to withdraw at a later date. The program worked as designed.
The East Village is an economically viable and an attractive place to live, as evidenced by the high real estate prices it commands. Village View residents stuck it out when the neighborhood was dangerous and no one in their right mind wanted to live here. So spare me the hypocritical sophism by the jealous.
Affordable housing is City Hall’s responsibility not the residents of Village View.
Dan Sexton
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, 1 Metrotech North, 10th floor, Brooklyn, NY, NY 11201. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. The Villager reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel. Anonymous letters will not be published.
