The Times didn’t get it
To The Editor:
“Pier55 is sunk” (Scoopy’s Notebook, Sept. 14):
This is an important story that The New York Times did not understand. That “the community” wanted it is the biggest lie. No one who actually lives near Pier55 was in favor of a project that would have jutted into the Hudson River and exposed us to thousands, possibly millions, of new tourists for an amphitheater blasting live music into the night. De Blasio’s support for the project was awful.
Susan Brownmiller
Good riddance, Diller Island!
To The Editor:
“Pier55 is sunk” (Scoopy’s Notebook, Sept. 14):
Many of us in the West Village neighborhood are saying “yay” to the loss of this Pier55.We also say “yay” to the wisdom of the environmental laws that stopped this “creation” of a theater in the water. Also the planning for this thing took place very much in secret, not as a public process. Madelyn Wils comment that this Diller Island was a project “the community so resoundingly wanted” is wrong and laughable.
Elaine Young
Public funding for parks
To The Editor:
“Pier55 is sunk” (Scoopy’s Notebook, Sept. 14):
Despite the bleating and sorrow emanating from some elected officials and The New York Times, the West Village has dodged a real bullet with the cancellation of the private island at the end of W. 14th St.
The New York Times bleats that the “park’s future is uncertain.” There may be no gifts given to parks in the future, the paper opines. Let’s take a look at the Hudson River Park and the Hudson River Park Trust.
It was established as a park, yes, but its financing was made contingent on commercial development in and around the park! Naturally, this leads to all sorts of mischief as real estate developers and property promoters try to cut off a piece of the West Side waterfront to make a large profit. This includes Mr. Diller and his associates. The money he gave is not a gift. It is payment for his setting up his private island with his own music center. Please.
The answer to this is clear. All parks should receive regular and proper annual appropriations from the city and state to continue in operation and maintain the property. This should be the case here.
Both politicians and the media should stop the narrative that a huge prize was lost. It was simply a bump in the road to the privatization of the West Side, as we see in Pier 57.
George Bush did this kind of thing a lot. The idea that public parks should be centers of commerce and privatization makes this city truly unusual in this country and, even more, the whole world.
Let’s provide regular appropriations to the Hudson River Park and the other parks from either the city or state budgets. Le’s stop the drama. And let’s get the advertising and media companies out of the parks.
John Wetherhold
Chin vs. ‘Soho Rich Moms’
To The Editor:
Re “Rivera romps; Chin up by 200 votes; Marte not conceding; Grand St. district leader upset” (news article, Sept. 14):
I supported Margaret Chin because she did not back down when the Rich Moms of Soho squatted on public land designated by the city to be the site of senior housing on Elizabeth St. I believe The RMoS got away with their illegal occupation of public land because of their class and skin privilege. I am certain if the black, brown and yellow public-housing moms who also lived nearby had squatted on public land, they would have been removed and arrested.
Reality check: Chin, the chairperson of the City Council’s Committee on Aging, had extracted a designation for low-cost senior housing on this public land, some have said, as one part of her deal to support the New York University expansion plan, which then-City Council Speaker Christine Quinn had strongly twisted her arm to support.
Chin’s district concerns are not just for the Tribeca and Soho wealthy but also for the first- and second-generation immigrants that populate most of her district, as well as the elderly.
Jim Fouratt
We need a recount
To The Editor:
Re “Rivera romps; Chin up by 200 votes; Marte not conceding; Grand St. district leader upset” (news article, Sept. 14):
There should be a recount of the vote between Mrs. Chin and Christopher Marte. It was too close for there not to be some errors. Congratulations to Mr. Marte for running such an enthusiastic, issues-oriented campaign. We were mightily impressed by the huge number of dedicated volunteers who helped in his campaign.
Sylvia Rackow
Sal is part of answer
To The Editor:
Re “Sal Albanese for mayor on Sept. 12” (editorial, Sept. 9, thevillager.com):
Thank you, The Villager, for endorsing Sal. He is an honest man who is capable and qualified to be the city’s mayor. His campaign is realistic. For those who complain about politicians being dishonest, uncaring or for sale to special interests, it’s people like Sal that we elect.
John F. Manning
Unimpressive, Bill
To The Editor:
Mayor Bill de Blasio shouldn’t be proud of his 2017 Democratic Party primary win. Out of 3,100,000 eligible Democratic primary day voters, only 316,361 (10.6 percent) voted for de Blasio. The other 90 percent gave 66,636 votes for Sal Albanese, 20,445 for Michael Tolkin, 13,537 for Robert Gangi and 10,538 for Richard Bashner, and there were 2,727,483 who voted for “None of the Above” by staying home — yes, 2,793,639.
In reality, when you add up the combined votes of de Blasio’s four opponents with those who stayed home by voting for “None of the Above,” less than 10 percent of registered Democrats supported de Blasio.
Larry Penner
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 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.
