Scoopy’s notebook

Lawsuit cliffhanger: Arthur Schwartz called on deadline night, leaving a tantalizing phone message: “There’s been a settlement in my lawsuit.” He didn’t say which, but we’re guessing it was the Pier 40 lawsuit that he filed to force the Hudson River Park Trust to promptly redevelop the 15-acre pier at the end of W. Houston St., despite local youth leagues’ desire for interim fields. But we couldn’t get in touch with him by press time to get more details. To be continued….

Lopez ’n’ the Jets: While virtually all local West Side politicians oppose the plan for a West Side Jets and Olympic stadium, East Side Councilmember Margarita Lopez is not ruling it out yet. Lopez says she was en route earlier this month to a big City Hall press conference against President Bush’s anti-gay marriage amendment, when she was waylaid by an anti-Jets stadium press conference and was asked for a few words of support; but her statements only enraged the opponents. She claims her words were “misconstrued.” “We need to take a look at all possible proposals,” Lopez told The Villager. “I know one thing, we cannot keep doing nothing there. I only know the Jets have put forward a proposal and there is a proposal to expand the Javits Convention Center — which I think must be expanded.” Lopez said the projects will both generate a huge amount of jobs. On the other hand, she said fear of increased traffic shouldn’t be used against the stadium proposal. “If that’s the excuse not to let development happen, that’s a poor excuse,” she said. “Whatever is there, traffic will come.” Yet, critics note Lopez’s name was on a press release for a pro-stadium group.

Never mind: A few weeks ago, some local Village parents were reportedly thinking of joining a citywide boycott of the upcoming third-grade tests in April, by holding their children out of school on the test dates. Village schools generally test well and the students are said to have been acing the Princeton Review practice tests the city has contracted for. But local parents wanted to show solidarity with those students in other schools who would be left back if they scored in the lowest, or level one, category. But the boycott didn’t pan out — the parents learned their kids would just have to take the test when they came in the next day.

Board break: Carol Reichman said she will not be reapplying for her spot on Community Board 2, up for renewal this April. “It’s been a long ride — over 20 years — and it’s time to take some time off,” she said in an e-mail to friends and acquaintances. “I know I will be seeing you frequently — in our other lives — as just plain community folks.” Reichman is assistant director of government and community relations at New York University. She was a member of Village Independent Democrats and a founding member of the breakaway faction, Village Reform Democratic Club, which left V.I.D. when the club backed Mario Cuomo over Ed Koch for governor in the 1980s. Her three children went to Village public schools and she is a past P.T.A. president and vice president. “I will always be concerned and interested in my community — after all I’ve lived here for 41 years,” she said.

Stonewall not for all: Some Greenwich Villagers are speaking out against ads in the window of the Stonewall Inn on Christopher St., feeling they are offensive. An anonymous e-mail sent around to Board 2 members and forwarded to The Villager, pleaded, “Help stop this degradation of the neighborhood” and noted the ads were at 6-year-olds’ eye level. Scoopy went to have a look and asked the passing public for their opinion. There were indeed flyers advertising a night with deejays and an amateur strip competition, along with miscellaneous flyers selling erotic videos — there was no noticeable explicit language, though there were pictures of partially nude male models. Peter Hannert, 34, a Village resident for 15 years, said he was not offended by any of the material shown in shop windows along Christopher St. as a whole. “It’s not embarrassing, nudity is not offensive,” he said. Hannert, pushing his 7-month-old child in a stroller, said he would not be worried about his child seeing such material, noting, “It’s something they need to learn.” However, one disgruntled Grove St. resident said she found the material “vulgar” and avoids the street.