Letters: I would be remiss as a gentleman if I neglected to thank [Paulanne Simmons]
for [her] inspiring and motivating review of the production of “Anything
Goes” [“Frivolous and frothy,”
GO Brooklyn, Dec. 11]. As a long-time resident of Brooklyn and supporter
of community theater ventures, I have had the pleasure of reading your
insightful reviews and have looked forward to each week’s edition
of The Brooklyn Papers for that
Comment.
Letters: I write to you today in response to Drew Pisarra’s review of “Who
is Wilford Brimley? The Musical” [“Soggy
Oats,” GO Brooklyn, Nov. 20]. It seems that Mr. Pisarra took
the play a bit too literally.
Comment.
Letters: [I am writing] in reference to your article about “Don Slovin’s
Jamprov, an improv show you can really get into” (“Jamprov
blues,” GO Brooklyn, Oct. 9). Thank you so much for bringing
light to my plight. I didn’t realize how much of an s.o.b. I am.
I was hoping when I get out of Jamprov Prison (see the picture), I might
be involved in an (enforced) exchange work program. I will be glad to
learn all there is about jou
Comment.
Letters: It is unfortunate and a disservice to the members of Community Board 2
(CB2) and your readers that you were so ill prepared to write the editorial,
“Neil Sloane/ CB2 blows it bigtime,”
that appeared in the Feb. 7 edition of The Brooklyn Papers. Your fact-less
and irresponsible reporting further adds to the misinformation disseminated
by other ill-informed individuals.
Comment.
Letters: Your Feb. 7 editorial [“Neil Sloane/CB2
blows it bigtime”] and Deborah Kolben’s article [“Mum’s
the word”] grossly mischaracterize the circumstances of my participation
in the Community Board 2 vote on the Brooklyn development Plan.
Comment.
Letters: The type of character assassination you have engaged in without checking
your facts or the reliability of your “source” makes it difficult
to take The Brooklyn Papers seriously. The Community Board 2 member, Rachel
Foster, who you describe as “intimidated” and “cowering”
[“CB2 blows it bigtime,”
Feb. 7] is not the same Community Board 2 member Rachel Foster w
Comment.
Letters: In the last issue, I read your editorial account of the Community Board
2 vote on the proposed plans for Downtown Brooklyn. I was deeply disturbed
at your overly personal and vitriolic attack on board member Rachel Foster.
Not only were your remarks intentionally defamatory (i.e., calling for
Ms. Foster’s resignation), much of what you reported was unsubstantiated.
Comment.
Letters: We were shocked to read your paper’s alleged “coverage”
of the recent vote of Community Board 2 on the proposed plans for Downtown
Brooklyn and, in particular, the severe criticism of board member Rachel
Foster.
Comment.
Letters: This letter is
in response to Editor Neil Sloane’s column, “CB2
blows it bigtime.”
Comment.
Letters: The Feb. 7 article headlined “Mum’s
The Word” rightly notes that the Downtown Brooklyn Plan is “the
most complex rezoning plan in city history.” Unfortunately, the lead
agencies, City Planning and the Economic Development Corporation, selected
the plan’s submission date just prior to Christmas and New Year’s,
effectively abbreviating the already scant 60 days avail
Comment.
Letters: I find the inability of Community Board 2 to make an effective statement
on the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning proposals [“Mum’s
the word,” Feb. 7] to be an appalling betrayal of the public
trust.
Comment.
Letters: Perfectly timed for the winter holiday season, EDC and co-sponsors sent
to this board a prettily packaged cluster bomb of 22 complex proposals.
To their surprise, this board swept aside much other business, both personal
and civic, to render its study.
Comment.
Letters: Thank you for your coverage of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan. Your map clearly
shows how much is going on in such a small area of our borough. As a member
of the Traffic & Transportation committee of Community Board 2, I
was saddened to see the Draft EIS for Downtown Brooklyn, submitted by
the Economic Development Corporation.
Comment.
Letters: I am writing to thank you for your Jan.
31 issue that clearly lays out the massive changes taking place in
Brooklyn. I work with an organization named Brooklyn Vision, founded to
facilitate communication between community organizations and increase
the input that residents have in planning developments that will directly
impact their lives, and the lives of their children and grandchildren.
Comment.
Letters: I loved your editorial on Brooklyn’s identity [“Brooklyn’s
identity safe without the ‘Jersey Nets,” Jan. 31]. I love
Brooklyn for what it is and what it’s not (i.e. Manhattan). I don’t
want to see it become Midtown Manhattan — filled with cars, pollution,
and high-rises buildings. At the same time, I realize the need to improve
some parts of Brooklyn. The que
Comment.
Letters: I can assure your readers that just about all the development now under
discussion for Downtown Brooklyn and the vicinity will be built. The only
question is whether it will be built in Downtown Brooklyn and the vicinity
— accessible by mass transit to tens of thousands of working people
in need of employment, with any tax revenues going to New York City’s
schools and other services — or on a greenfield site on the suburban
Comment.
Letters: [Brooklyn Papers Editor Neil Sloane] was right to ask what Brooklynites
get out of this massive stadium and adjoining towers [“Brooklyn’s
identity safe without the ‘Jersey Nets,” Jan. 31]. None
of the people who worked on the plan have any connection to the existing
communities, so the only agenda is money, money, money. It’s time
to set an agenda that Brooklyn citizens in adj
Comment.
Letters: I am writing in response to Borough President Marty Markowitz’s Jan.
31 letter to the editor published in The Brooklyn Papers.
Comment.
RSS Feeds
Past issues
The Paper in print
Bay Ridge (PDF)
Email Alerts