Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Soho street artists

To The Editor:
Re “Broad brush in Soho” (Letter by Lawrence White, July 28 – Aug. 3):

Larry White must think all street artists are illiterate. How else can you explain his blatant lies about supporting the imposition of an artist permit system in New York City?

When you get an attorney to write an official letter to the City Council asking for the same artist permit that is in effect in San Francisco to be put in place in New York City, and then file that letter with the City Council as a public document, you cannot then claim you do not support an artist permit. When the San Francisco artist permit rules you want imposed in New York City are more than 17 pages of mind-numbing regulations, you cannot claim all they require is for artists to show their driver’s license or tax I.D. When you spend years telling First Precinct Officer Rick Lee that the street artists and vendors in Soho are out of control, are violent and are engaging in many illegal practices, you cannot then criticize Officer Lee for repeating those same absurd lies.

Larry is also lying about not being a leader. He most definitely is the leader of a five-member group of street artists who are stooges of Councilmember Alan Gerson. That group is called SIACU or Soho International Artists Cooperative Union. Gerson has promised them a $3.5 million grant to buy a building in Soho; $3.5 million buys a lot of stooging.

Larry is a political appointee of Gerson — the “vendor vigilante” and Soho Alliance puppet — to be an “alternative” street artist advocate whose entire role is to provide Gerson with a cover story. That cover story is that street artists desperately want a permit system imposed on them. Larry is the point man for Gerson’s efforts to destroy street artists’ rights, and he is doing an excellent job of carrying out his assignment.

Robert Lederman

Rights only for the rich

To The Editor:
Re “Soho street brush with police” (news article, July 21 – 27):

Congratulations to the vendors who intend to challenge the infernal “20-feet-from-a-doorway” law. They should be encouraged to take their suit even further and challenge the entire underpinnings of the vendor laws.

Does a government have the right to favor one man’s business over another’s in a free-enterprise democracy?

Should business owners who pay rent to a landlord, or who own property have more rights than those who operate for free in a public space?

Everybody knows that government favoritism of the propertied and rich is what’s behind these persecutory laws, strongly weighted against the rights of the vendors who had no say in making them. Behind the sanctimonious mask of protecting public health and safety is merely an embarrassing example of the propertied giving the boot to the propertyless, the “haves” wanting to take even more for themselves from the “have-nots.”

Does a government have the right to favor some forms of expression and exclude others equally valid? Another form of elitism.

Are only the vendors illegal?

What about the police who have been accepting a sales tax I.D. as a vendor’s license? Are they not fostering the very congestion they decry and inviting an ever-increasing number of others to cut the throats of the American vets who were promised, after military service, they could make their living on the sidewalk with a vendor’s license? This betrayal is worse than illegal; it’s a crime.

While vets have to compete for jewelry sales with unlicensed vendors from countries far and wide who set up multiple tables, while forms of expression other than painting, sculpture and photography are discriminated against, the vending laws appear to be based on the golden rule: that is, those with the gold make the rules.

Best of luck to those who hope to overturn them.

Thelma Blitz

Arresting developments

To The Editor:
After mulling over the Downtown Express articles on the “Soho street artists brush with the police,” (July 21 – 27) and a woman being arrested for attempting to return a lost bag (news article, July 21 – 27, “Soho woman: I was arrested for trying to return lost bag”), I wondered what new equal opportunity for arrest the N.Y.P.D. would be offering us in August.

Eureka! The answer was in a New York Times article about parade rules to be launched in August, whereby two pedestrians constitute a menacing parade, and if they cross against the red light, they are criminals. Since many traffic lights are timed for the convenience of the automobile, it is often impossible for the elderly or the infirmed not to violate the law. We can anticipate an upsurge in crime next month.

The outlandish parade rule will become final after a public hearing scheduled for August 23rd (when many New Yorkers are away), so speak up now to members of the City Council, if you like to walk with another person in Fun City.

Shelly Estrin

To The Editor:
Re “Soho woman: I was arrested for trying to return lost bag” (news article, July 21 – 27):

As you commute to work or ride to one of New York’s finest destinations, beware of any stranded bags. But do not worry about contacting the police, however; chances are, they are already watching.

In addition to the constant bag searches hassling straphangers during rush hour, there is a new program run by the city threatening our civil liberties. The program called “Lucky Bag” is an attempt to crack down on petty criminals roaming the city streets and the subway stations. By placing valuables in a discarded bag and arresting whoever attempts to walk away with it, this crack-down, according to critics, borders on pure illegality and entrapment. And while the bag checks were described as necessary in order to prevent a serious attack on our subway systems, a valid argument to some, the Lucky Bag sting seems to be a waste of valuable time, resources and personnel.

While some arrests might actually catch habitual thieves, it is all but impossible to clearly substantiate each person’s intent. Recently, a woman, who was arrested for walking off with one of these “lucky” bags, defended herself by saying she was planning on returning it to its rightful owner. A good Samaritan or hardened criminal? There are definitely two sides to every story.

Even with successful operations leading to the arrests of everyday larcenists, it is unlikely it can keep these delinquents off the streets for good. But in a time where trust in law enforcement is crucial, it is devastating to see an operation aimed toward everyday commuters and riders. The Police Department now must decide what is more valuable. And New Yorkers must now return to being disinterested in the well-being of their fellow straphangers… if they want to avoid being arrested.

Craig Stalzer

Sex and the city

To The Editor:
On Mon. July 24, while walking my dogs, I stumbled across a used condom in full view around 4 p.m. on the esplanade behind Steamers Landing. I returned at 5 p.m. curious to see if it was still there and to take a photo.

While I’m not thrilled that Battery Park City is the new place for late night hook-ups, I am more concerned why the condom remained on the esplanade until after 5 p.m. on a weekday. The Battery Park City Authority meticulously sweeps up leaves and gum wrappers first thing every morning. Why was the condom left behind? Would they have failed to sweep up a large piece of broken glass? I think not. Yet both items pose risks for the many children who play on the esplanade.

Audrey Comisky