The Brooklyn Paper mailbag

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

To the editor,

Your story about the arborcide caused by the New York City Waterfalls exhibit (“Silent spring — It’s official: W’falls were arborcidal maniacs,” April 4) should have made a least some reference to Mayor Bloomberg, who diverted $2 million in 9-11 disaster recovery money for its funding.

He led and directed almost all the $15-1/2 million in funding for it and then gave his pet project a (self-congratulatory) city award notwithstanding the damage it did.

It was probably because of Bloomberg’s involvement that there wasn’t an environmental impact statement or assessment ahead of time sufficient to identify the damage that was likely.

In addition to the diverted disaster recover money, funding came from Bloomberg’s private “charity” and from a City Hall “charity” that Bloomberg controls by being mayor and then from a long list of mostly real-estate industry interests, like Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner, all of whom who benefit terrifically from discretionary decisions made by the Bloomberg administration.

The kicker is that the recipient of all this money, Susan Freedman, president of the Public Art Fund, testified in support of the Bloomberg-proposed special extension of term limits.

Michael D. D. White,

Brooklyn Heights

Two way? No way!

To the editor,

Your recent article about a proposal for two-way traffic on Eighth Avenue and Prospect Park West (“Eighth Ave and Prospect Park West should go both ways,” online, March 25) indicated that the Park Slope Civic Council was basing its support for the plan on a community survey.

Additionally, Eric McClure and the group, Park Slope Neighbors, are circulating a petition in support of this proposal.

As a member of the Civic Council, I would have been happy to complete the community survey, but it was never circulated to me, and I do wonder how they chose their recipients.

As a 30-year resident of Prospect Park West, I am strongly opposed to the idea of two-way traffic. There is a traffic light every two blocks and one way to calm traffic (which, I agree, goes too fast) would be to change the timing of those lights.

The 78th Precinct used to do an excellent job of issuing speeding tickets.

I have done my own informal poll of neighbors on Prospect Park West and on several park blocks, and they have also been opposed to this proposal.

If there were one lane of traffic in two directions, there will be many drivers making illegal U-turns (as they do on Seventh Avenue), and pulling into the oncoming lane to overtake slower cars.

There are children constantly crossing Prospect Park West for access to the park and two-way traffic would create a very dangerous situation.

I would hate to think that because of their very-inclusive names — “Park Slope Civic Council” and “Park Slope Neighbors” — that city agencies and elected officials might think that they automatically represent a majority of the Park Slope residents.

I very much hope that there will be public hearings where we will all have the opportunity to express our views.

Jasmine Melzer, Park Slope

Updated 5:12 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: