Letters to the Editor

To The Editor:
Re “Union Square north-end renovation halted by lawsuit” (news article, April 25):

The naysayers who’ve filed suit against the reconstruction of the north end of Union Square now have their day in court. Hopefully, the kids will win this round by having the judge invalidate the stop-work order.

I was co-chairperson of Union Square Community Coalition along with Gail Fox for many years before these naysayers took over and made U.S.C.C. into an organization whose sole purpose was to be against something: a cafe in the park. Gail and I spent years building U.S.C.C. back up to be a well-respected group of neighborhood advocates, only to see our positive contributions to the community all but wiped out by this negative force. Where were these supposed child advocates when it was time to hold U.S.C.C.’s annual children’s carnival, an event that occurred annually for at least 20 years until they took over? And what about planting days or doing fundraising to help pay for a playground associate, shade umbrellas and picnic tables for the playground?

As far as I’m concerned, these people have done zero for the neighborhood since they joined U.S.C.C. I’ve always been puzzled that since they’re so up in arms about a commercial establishment on park property, they don’t they rise up against the vendors who’ve completely taken over the square’s south end. Is that not commercialization? Ironic that the vendors complained that they were displaced from their prime spots due to the construction. Aren’t some of these people selling mass-produced items, whose connection with First Amendment rights are tentative at best, using park property to make a buck themselves? At least the cafe will return money to the city and to our park.

In a perfect world, the city coffers would pay for all of the park’s upkeep and amenities. But in the real world, there are many public/private partnerships which now, more than ever, are increasingly necessary. Think of Central Park or Madison Square Park without their public/private partnerships. So U.S.C.C. is now standing by its unshakable principle: no privatization of public space. Meanwhile, the proposed beautiful new playground remains unbuilt. Is that benefiting the children they care so much about?

Take a closer look at U.S.C.C.’s board. I don’t believe one of them has school-age children. These people have sat in meetings saying how we don’t need a new restroom facility and certainly not a dedicated family one. I’d like to know how many times in the last 10 years these people have taken a small child into the pavilion bathroom, stepping over drug addicts washing in the sink. If they really spoke to parents, as I have, they would know that a dedicated family restroom is not only convenient, but since it’s adjacent to an extremely busy transportation hub, a big safety issue.

Now ask where Geoffrey Croft fits in. He doesn’t even live anywhere near the Union Square area, but on the Upper East Side. He comes down here to rabble-rouse with the U.S.C.C. naysayers. I would like to know how many people in the Union Square area are represented by his “group.” I don’t know where he gets the idea that the pavilion’s interior is somehow well-suited for children’s play; and it’s certainly not even as large a space as he claims.

Carol Greitzer goes on to say that the restaurant is going to be “expensive.” One of the things that Gail Fox and I advocated for when we were with U.S.C.C. was to make sure that the request for proposals for the restaurant includes moderately priced fare; so, I believe Greitzer’s mistaken on that point. Greitzer also said in The Villager article that “schools...don’t pay for themselves. They’re funded by the city: they’re necessary.” True, but only to an extent. If Ms. Greitzer had children in public schools today, she’d get a list the first day that asked for pencils, paper, soap and paper towels. Next she’d get a flier about a fundraiser to help pay for the art, music and dance programs. No, Ms. Greitzer, the city does not pay for a great deal of what is necessary in schools. Does that mean I should stand on principle and not bring pencils to school?

The cafe has been in the park for about 14 years and I’ve never, ever, heard a complaint about it except from this U.S.C.C. board. In my opinion, it has been a very positive presence in the park. I find nothing wrong with being able to sit smack in the middle of Union Square enjoying the lively scene taking place within, whether I’m sitting among those folks or just walking through. Most of my playground friends like having the restaurant there, especially since it is so close to the playground. It’s an entirely different thing to be sitting at a cafe on the sidewalk than it is to be sitting at one inside the park, so I don’t see the need to count and compare those.
Susan Kramer

Speaker shortchanges animals

To The Editor:
The investigation into Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s office concerning slush funds and bogus organizations continues. Time will tell how much she knew and when she knew it. But now seems like a good time to let New Yorkers know her position on issues affecting animals, whether dogs, cats, carriage horses or elephants.

Since 2004, Speaker Quinn has consistently received a score of zero on the League of Humane Voters’ scorecard, which rates New York City councilmembers on their positions concerning animal-welfare bills before the City Council. Quinn has not supported any of these bills, nor has she allowed any of them to reach the floor for a vote. The bills include allowing pets in housing, even though more than 30,000 animals are killed at city shelters annually; protecting animals in circuses and rodeos; requiring sprinklers in pet shops, shelters and stables; requiring New York City schools to comply with a humane-education mandate; banning foie gras (liver from force-fed ducks) in restaurants; and Councilmember Tony Avella’s legislation banning the cruel carriage horse industry.

Because of Quinn’s opposition, most councilmembers will not co-sponsor Intro 658, the bill to ban horse-drawn carriages. Many believe that to support it would be political suicide. So the bill flounders, as do all the other bills concerning animal welfare.

A recent article in the Harvard Crimson entitled “Compassionate Campaigners” discussed how people who care about animal issues have become a powerful new constituency against animal abuse. The Crimson referred to this constituency as “news savvy, socially integrated and politically active.” While not card-carrying animal rights activists, they care about animals and see a candidate’s attitude toward animals as a broader reflection of his or her compassion and character. They are the silent majority of mainstream compassionate voters.

Legislators would do well to pay attention to this trend.
Elizabeth Forel
Forel is a member, Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages