Sections

Letters

December, 2004

To the Editor

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

To the Editor

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

October, 2004

To the Editor

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

February, 2004

LETTERS:     

Letters: I am writing in response to Borough President Marty Markowitz’s Jan. 31 letter to the editor published in The Brooklyn Papers. Comment

This week’s featured advertisers

See all ads

LETTERS:     

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:

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:     

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:     

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:     

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:     

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:     

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:      

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:      

Letters: This letter is in response to Editor Neil Sloane’s column, “CB2 blows it bigtime.” Comment

LETTERS:      

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. Comments (1)

LETTERS:      

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:      

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:      

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:

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