Letters to the Editor
Adults are people too
To The Editor:
Maybe I’m wrong, but it appears that both Community Board 1 and the Battery Park City Authority, in trying to restrict usage of the Battery Park City baseball field to our current children’s operators primarily, and hiring a children’s exercise operator to run the community center, respectively, have ignored the majority of residents: adults.
The one area of adult exercise we had on that same playing field, the tennis courts, were removed after 9/11 after two decades of enjoyment. The B.P.C.A. and the community board did nothing then to keep this in place. But both groups have spent the past nine months fighting over who controls children’s sports.
Doesn’t this seem a bit odd?
Member of Community Board 1
Benefits or bribery?
To The Editor:
I was so excited when I read that Community Board 1 was “ready to give up its wheeling-dealing ways” in the Downtown Express (news article, March 19 – 25, “C.B. 1 ready to give up its wheeling-dealing ways”). I thought maybe they finally decided to change their committee structure to have real comprehensive proactive board-wide planning with follow up. Instead, the article was about how the board is shifting the focus to the citywide problem which is why we created the Planning and Infrastructure Committee. Here is the problem. All community boards, the City Planning Commission and City Council are supposed to recommend or approve land use decisions only on the merit of comprehensive planning. In theory, permits, variances and community benefit agreements should not be given out to the highest bidder or most lucrative gift. It begins to look more like bribery than planning.
C.B. 1’s unique geographic committee structure actually goes in the opposite direction, and reinforces NIMBY wheeling-dealing instead of planning. Zoning changes do not go to the board-wide Planning Committee (like the other 59 boards), but only go to the smaller geographical committee and then usually rubber stamped by the full board with minor debate. That was why I left the board in protest when I learned of the limited scope for the new Planning & Infrastructure Committee.
Board 1 is comprised of 50 hard working, intelligent, honest people, but their unique NIMBY structure that doesn’t allow interested and knowledgeable members to focus on topics such as transportation, social services, parks, licensing, land use, like we do for landmarks, schools, W.T.C. and quality of life. The board would be even more effective without breaking up the planning process in the second smallest community board in the city, into four smaller geographical committees.
Maybe our board should examine its problems with comprehensive planning and election/term limit issues in conjunction with their request to the Charter Commission?
American Institute of Certified Planners, founding chairperson of Community Board 1’s Planning and Infrastructure Committee of C.B. 1
To The Editor:
Re “Sidewalk swastika solution: Trying to pave over hate” (Downtown Notebook by Bonnie Rosenstock, Feb. 19 –25):
I read the original article and subsequent letters (March 5 –11 and March 12 –18) with interest and increasing disgust. Perhaps I am taking this rather personally as I know a young N.Y.U. student whose dorm is on Third Ave. between10th and 11th Sts.
I believe that Ms. Rosenstock’s response to Ms. Momber’s letter was polite, thoughtful and well written as opposed to a nasty and self-serving diatribe by Ms. Momber.
Marilyn R. Masaryk