Letters to The Editor, Week of June 14, 2018

You guys get it on L.P.C.

To The Editor:

Re “A landmark moment” (editorial, June 7):

Thank you to The Villager for giving voice to people who really understand how the Landmarks Preservation Commission operates and how it should operate if the Landmarks Law is to have real meaning for our city and our sense of place, neighborhood to neighborhood. Particularly in these times of rapid demolition , development and construction of luxury towers throughout the city, for the faux cause of “affordability” (while actually displacing New Yorkers), the L.P.C. needs the right leadership.

We need someone who cares about the oldest house in a historic district and shows leadership in not allowing it to be gutted, someone who aims to encourage a developer to use original materials in construction, and someone who generally steers development toward preserving rather than gutting and glassing over — even when there are powerful real-estate forces pressing L.P.C. for green lights.

We need an L.P.C. that is not controlled by more backroom deals, lobbyists, paid historic experts for the applicant, and other influence that nonprofit preservation groups, the community and neighbors cannot possibly overtake. The Landmarks Preservation Commission should be chaired by a person recommended by expert preservation groups. That recommendation would consider whether the person is likely to be a good leader of a city agency, how he or she treats people and whether that person will lead with an aim toward fair outcomes. Please, City Council, do the right thing.

Alison Greenberg

 

Days gone by’s quieter high

To The Editor:

Re “L.E.S. bars and a little trip down memory lane” (talking point, by Clayton Patterson, June 7):

Clayton got this right, and I add…things were much quieter when the main products in the area to get high on were coke and dope.

John Penley

 

Promulgation vs. preservation

To The Editor:

Re “Elizabeth St. Garden groups unite to sue city” (news article, June 7):

Affordable senior housing is laudable and necessary, but respect for process, long-term policy and objectives, and the need for open space is, too. Though it may be politically expedient to ram through a housing project without community knowledge or consideration for a citywide P.R. opportunity out of concern that community input or opposition may interfere, that approach deprives not only the community but the promulgators of the project of the opportunity to consider legitimate countervailing objectives, suggestions or alternatives that laws, regulations and land-use procedures are designed to provide.

Elizabeth St. Garden is a unique oasis of green and tranquility, punctuated with delightful sculptures and artifacts, that provides a free, egalitarian place of recreation and repose for a neighborhood that is otherwise devoid of such spaces. It undoubtedly serves many more people than the proposed housing project, for which better alternate sites are available. Furthermore, the housing project — apart from being poorly configured to maximize damage to the garden — is way out of scale for, inconsistent with and destructive of the Little Italy Historic District.

Elliott Meisel

 

Hunger-strike hallucinating?

To The Editor:

Re “Tenants claim win on right of return at Bowery building” (news article, June 7):

Since the protesters admit that de Blasio never met their demands, and since the landlord states their demands were not met, how can they claim a “win”? It’s more like a “defeat.”

Susan Caraeff

 

E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to [email protected] 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. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *