Letters to the editor

Volume One, Issue 17, January 19 - 25, 2007

Affordable housing a sham

To the Editor:
Re “Movin’ on Up? Not so likely if developers get their way” (news article, Jan. 12):
I hope developers get their way and the city lawmakers stop forcing ridiculous affordable housing plans on neighborhoods. Everyone knows these are not affordable housing but housing for the poor. A studio in a doorman building in Chelsea is around $2,600 a month. You can barely afford that making $100,000 a year. If they wanted affordable housing and wanted to bring back the middle class, they should target higher income brackets and even specific professionals like teachers and nurses.

The current programs have ridiculously low income restrictions, keeping people from trying to make more money and improve their life. Truthfully, who wants to spend all that money on a condo or luxury rental to live with people who cannot afford to live there? I lived in an 80/20 building, and my two neighbors were welfare crack-heads who caused so many problems that they had to move people on the floor. I do not care if people cannot afford to live in Manhattan.

I cannot afford Tribeca or a new 32-inch flat-screen TV. Should there be a program for me? There are other places to live. If Manhattan becomes that much more expensive, think of the increased development push and gentrification that would happen in other boroughs and the suburbs—you may even see increases in transportation options.

What these affordable housing programs and even current rent-control laws do is manipulate the supply-and-demand equation. This prevents more market housing from being available in Chelsea, thus limiting the supply and increasing prices for the rest of us. If our lawmakers took some urban-development courses and had M.B.A.s instead of law degrees, they would understand the best way to improve our neighborhoods.
Joseph Maio

Changes are coming fast

To The Editor:
Re “New push to create South Village historic area” (news article, Jan. 17) and “South Village district’s time has finally come” (editorial, Jan. 17):

I wanted to thank you for your extensive coverage and your editorial supporting the South Village Historic District. My family and I have lived on Downing St., which is in the proposed area, since 1993. Just in the last few years, we have begun to see dramatic change nearby. For example, we lost two theaters — Circle in the Square and the Sullivan Street Theater — which were converted to oversized, ugly condos. And already we can see empty lots about to turn into new buildings that presumably would be as out of place as the two examples I cited. The area encompassed by the proposed district to me is as much the real “Village” as is the current Greenwich Village Historic District and is equally worthy of preservation and historic designation.

Keep up the excellent reporting, and thank you for covering the Village.
David Chan

Pushing the envelope

To The Editor:
Re “New push to create South Village historic area” (news article, Jan. 17):

Many thanks for your coverage of the proposed South Village Historic District. As I wrote in a letter to Robert Tierney, chairperson of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, the Morton Street Block Association voted unanimously and enthusiastically to urge the L.P.C. to designate the entire South Village Study Area as a historic district. The unique block of our street that lies between Seventh Ave. S. and Bleecker St. is included in the study area, as are three public facilities dear to our hearts: the Hudson Park branch of the New York Public Library, the Tony Dapolito Recreation Center and City as School. Just take a look at those three, each one an important architectural work, and then think about the roles they played in the lives of the early 20th-century immigrant population of the South Village! (May I conclude, in all modesty, by noting that it was at my suggestion that those three precious, iconic structures were included in the proposed historic district.)
Albert S. Bennett
Bennett is president, Morton Street Block Association

Board driven by...drivers?

To The Editor:
Re “Time to back up: Fix Verrazano toll” (editorial, Jan. 12):

While Village activists and elected officials take great pleasure in blaming Staten Islanders for their traffic woes, if they are really looking for a villain they should grab a mirror. While three-quarters of Village residents don’t own cars, the quarter that do are the most powerful politically, dominating the community board and influencing timid elected officials.

Just do the math! Leaving Long Island — which of course includes Brooklyn and Queens — motorists can bypass Manhattan or drive through it. If they chose to bypass Manhattan they must pay tolls on the Triborough, Whitestone or Throgs Neck Bridges or the Verrazano Bridge. Otherwise, they can use the free East River bridges and plow right on through.

While the Verrazano Bridge has a one-way toll, making its impact more pronounced, it is the four, free East River bridges that draw the excessive traffic to our community. Until our civic leaders have the stomach to face this reality and demand East River bridge tolls, we can expect an endless game of blame the other guy.
George Haikalis
Haikalis is president, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc., and Village Crosstown Trolley Coalition