Can’t sleep on Christopher St.
To The Editor:
Re: “Village is becoming less tolerant” (letter, by Melissa Sklarz, July 23):
I write from a condominium that faces Christopher St., between West St. and Washington St., about 100 yards from the vaunted new Pier 45. Over the 20 years I have had the apartment, the far west end of Christopher St. has evolved from the gay Wild West (exotic and pioneering) to what it is now (straight — and a weekend living nightmare for local residents). Over the past two summers the area has become uninhabitable on Friday and Saturday nights, owing to a new open-air “after hours” club from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. now established on the street here, with seeming police acquiescence. I know people who have recently moved out of The Archive because, they said, the police have let the west end of Christopher St. become such a high-decibel drug and party zoo. Guess the local precinct didn’t get the memo about “Operation Silent Night.”
Oh, and perhaps we should move past the politically correct diversion about needy transgender and gay youth from New Jersey and discuss what’s really going on down here. The boisterous weekend loitering from 1 to 5 a.m. along the section of Christopher St. leading to the park has nothing to do with social freedom or unconventional sexuality. Nobody in the Village cares a fig about that: we’re not less tolerant; we just haven’t lately grown deaf.
The truth that dare not speak its name is that this section of the Village has newly become the after-hours ’hood for bridge/tunnel minority youth, who have discovered they can come in by the hundreds and hundreds on the PATH and the subways and raise hell to all hours with complete impunity. Others drive here and park their cars and open their doors to share their taste in hip-hop at concert volume at 4 a.m., with a view to impressing the attendant ladies. (Cops? No problem. This is the Village. You’ll never see them. Hey, cool.) I know whereof I write since I’m in the midst of this all night long (sleep having become literally impossible on weekends).
I would have no issue with this social entrepreneurism save it is mere feet away from my bedroom window.
Once I called the local precinct at 3:30 Saturday morning and held the phone out the window. Instead of responding, they suggested I come in Monday morning and write up a complaint. Over the last two nightmare summers, I have seen New York’s Finest appear exactly once, that at 4:30 a.m. strolling four abreast down Christopher St. I yelled out the bedroom window: Where were you three hours ago? They have not been seen since.
I have lived in the West Village for over three decades, during which time I have published 10 books. I feel I have paid my dues (including some awesome real estate taxes) and own a piece of the place (including — I speciously assumed — police concern). I have never seen such a complete, utter breakdown of public order (caused entirely by nonresidents) accompanied by such Zen-like police indifference. All it would take to restore urban civility to the new Hudson River Park entrance would be one N.Y.P.D. uniform or squad car stationed near Pier 45 Friday and Saturday early mornings.
Please give me my sleep (and my Village) back.
Thomas Hoover
Lederman on permits ruling
To The Editor:
Re: “Artists and city view permits ruling differently” (news article, July 23):
Thanks for covering our most recent legal victory. However, there are a few things that need to be clarified about the quotes in the article. The city lawyer who claimed the ruling was of limited scope and had no bearing on the constitutional issues was misinforming you. On the same day she gave that interview, this same city lawyer filed yet another appeal of the ruling, specifically challenging the upholding of the injunction against the Parks Department’s plan for permits for artists on constitutional grounds. If the city really thought the ruling had no constitutional significance, they would not be appealing exactly that part of it. Their legal brief states on page two: “The City defendants seek reversal of the District Court’s permanent injunction…based on federal constitutional grounds. This court affirmed the District court’s ruling, noting that, ‘resolution of the state law issues is driven by our prior interpretation of federal constitutional law,’ and concluding that the District Court properly applied Bery.”
The Second Circuit’s 1996 decision in Bery/Lederman et al v City of NY was that street artists are fully protected by the First Amendment, that the licensing scheme was far more restrictive than needed, that it violated our right to free speech and that the city had unfairly applied it based on 14th Amendment equal protection, i.e., that it was applied to artists but not to written-matter vendors. The recent ruling in Lederman et al v Giuliani/Bach et al v City of NY means there can be no Intro # 160 — that’s exactly why they are again appealing it.
In a related matter, as far as Larry White’s quote about hoping the police would now increase enforcement against what he calls, “illegal vendors,” the problem since day one on this issue is that the city is far more interested in harassing legal vendors than in bothering illegal ones. Nothing in that regard will change now. That’s because the city has an agenda — the Street Furniture Initiative — which requires elimination of First Amendment-protected vendors, disabled veterans and licensed vendors in order to make way for thousands of sidewalk advertising kiosks, which are slated to be set up in the exact locations, 20 ft. from a door 10 ft. from a corner, that are legal spots the legal vendors now use. The communities that think this proposal — which would have been passed into law this past Wednesday if not for Councilmember Davis’ tragic death preventing the vote — will just be bringing a few pay toilets to our streets are in for a very rude awakening. It means the vendors will be replaced by thousands of digital sidewalk billboards obstructing access to cars, buildings, display windows and stores 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This pay-toilet scam is a Trojan horse-like subterfuge intended to justify the wholesale takeover of all public space in New York City by corporate interests, namely the far right-wing media company, Clear Channel Communications.
Robert Lederman
Lederman is president of A.R.T.I.S.T
(Artists’ Response To Illegal State Tactics)
Stop illegal, not legal, vendors
To The Editor:
I am a licensed general merchandise vendor who has worked in Soho for nearly 20 years. Many of us legal vendors are presently being forced into undesirable side-street locations in Soho because of the influx of legions of unlicensed vendors who have totally overwhelmed the area. This proliferation has angered the inhabitants who have moved to enact strict laws restricting desirable streets to all vending. This is a devastating blow to the well-being of all legal vendors, but does not seem to faze the illegal vendors one bit. They just come out, and take the spots we once used, and make the money we used to make. To our frustration, there appears to be no real enforcement effort to stop them.
For example, each weekend in the restricted areas of Prince St. you can observe display racks of clothing, multiple oversized tables of jewelry, multiple commercial items, bootleg counterfeit artwork, tapes, hats, bags and more. On one Saturday we counted over 65 unlicensed illegal vendors on Prince St. alone. Some of these entrepreneurs arrive in Soho on Friday night, chain their display rack or tables to a tree. Then a person sits in a truck, or car nearby, and literally guards the sidewalk space from anyone who would dare to trespass on what they claim to be their turf. In the morning, other employees arrive to take care of the day’s business. When they retire for the evening, the guard arrives again to watch all night till the start of the next day’s business.
You should also be aware that there has been violence associated with the illegal vending phenomenon, and it has us very much on edge. We wonder if there will be any relief. It is hard to understand why people who sell illegal goods without a license seemingly have the advantage over those of us who follow the rules.
With this in mind, we plead that the Department of Consumer Affairs create a more focused style of enforcement concerning illegal vending so that we legal vendors may finally find some protection from this horrible predicament. The irony is that so many people in the community confuse our hard-working legal group of vendors with those who are causing the problem. This again only serves the purposes of the illegal vendor. It would be infinitely more productive for us to work together. We legal vendors have daily information that comes right from the streets. This fresh information could be coordinated with the Department of Consumer Affairs’ efforts. A more fully informed, and effective enforcement approach can only be a good thing for everyone. After all, in America we are guaranteed “equal protection under the law.” It is only fair that we legal vendors have a share in that guarantee.
Thuy Phung
Community-use facilities reform
To The Editor:
Re “Council considers changes to Queens facilities zoning” (news article, July 23):
While I appreciate The Villager covering the City Council zoning subcommittee meeting on July 21 on community facility reform, a critical issue to the East and West Village and many other New York City neighborhoods, I wish to correct the reference to me. While I identified myself as a member of the Citywide Coalition for Community Facility Reform and wholeheartedly support the Coalition to Save the East Village, I was not speaking on behalf of any group. Tony Avella and others on the Council’s zoning subcommittee claimed the changes proposed, which primarily only affect low-density residential zoning districts, were a first step. Given the number of years (or decades!) that community facility reform has been overdue — to co-opt your editorial reference to the mayor and governor on the 315 affordable units Downtown in the same Villager issue — Tony Avella and the zoning subcommittee “took a good first step this week” on community facility reform, “assuming that it was a first and not a last step.” If anyone would like additional information on either organization and community facility bonus issues they should check out www.petitiononline.com/CFReform/petition.html and EastVillage Coalition.com respectively.
Lisamarie Dixon
What happened to ‘Poe House?’
To The Editor:
The facade of the “Poe House” was supposed to have been recreated to look as it may have looked when it was erected in 1836. This has not been done.
Understandably, the original bricks of the facade may not have been reusable.
The original Greek Revival front would have had a stoop with steps. This could have been recreated with wheelchair access behind or under these steps.
The real kick in the teeth was that N.Y.U. did not restore the Greek Revival doorway as was restored on the Judson Church House. This should probably be a simple, “cosmetic” procedure.
John Heliker
Heliker is a member of the former Save Poe House, Save Judson House Coalition
