To the editor,
The city’s position has consistently been that there would be no eminent domain involved in the Coney Island plan (“City to Thor: Take Coney plan or leave it,” April 26). But The Brooklyn Paper’s story did not accurately reflect that position.
In the story, I was quoted as saying that “we’re going forward with this plan,” but the quote referred to advancing the city plan to proceed with remapping nine acres of Coney Island as parkland. I was not referring to eminent domain.
We are sure that you would want to clarify the city’s position for your readers which, as stated above, has not changed.
Madelyn Wils
The writer is executive vice president of the Economic Development Corporation.
Editor’s note: Wils is correct; our article should have been clearer that she did not specifically say that the city would resort to eminent domain. That said, Wils said that the city would move ahead with its Coney Island plan whether or not local landowners sell their properties to the city. Under such a “take it or leave it” scenario, if those landowners choose not to sell, eminent domain is the city’s only remaining option, as we reported.
Dirty Vito
To the editor,
Rep. Vito Fossella (R–Bay Ridge) has tapped into some of the dirtiest money with that fundraiser with Dick Cheney (“Cheney stumps for Vito — yet he still leads!” April 26).
Cheney is bad enough, but the host of the fundraiser, David H. Koch, owns Koch Industries, the largest privately held company in the United States, which has a very serious record as a major polluter. During the Clinton Administration, the company was hit with a landmark EPA penalty of $35 million.
They were also fined an additional $8 million for discharging oil into streams in Minnesota.
Vito Fossella has been a loyal rubberstamping minion for the Bush/Cheney administration and not a check on executive branch power that we expect from Congress. He supports no-bid government contracts, entitlements and tax exemptions for multi-bullion dollar polluters like Koch Industries, but destruction of entitlements to individuals like Social Security and Medicaid.
What else can you expect from someone so beholding to those interests?
George Rosquist, Staten Island
Brooklyn is America
To the editor,
As a former Brooklynite, I still read The Brooklyn Paper every week. But lately, it seems that I could be reading any paper in the country: A new IKEA? A Vegas-ized Xanadu on Coney Island? Everything is so generic, so homogenized, so … American.
Soon Cindy Adams will no longer be able to say, “Only in New York, kids, only in New York.”
The development going on in my new hometown is far less generic. Perhaps everyone is so focused on the Atlantic Yards project that they’re not seeing what else is going on around them.
Lawrence Goodman, Providence, RI Brooklyn’s decline
• • •
To the editor,
We are paying the price for becoming a “popular” place in which to live. I lament the loss of the old “neighbor”hood, when neighbors were friendly, the kids played together, the street fairs were fun with pony rides and games.
While the arrival of the young crowd and the new bars and restaurants are welcome, the Mom and Pop stores are disappearing. Buyers now plunk down millions, spend a few more with endless construction, and isolate themselves within fenced backyards.
And what about all the babies whose nanny’s take them to the doctor and for trick-or-treating? Sad!
Asha Nayak, Park Slope
In-snide job
To the editor,
Letter writer Thomasina Millet (“Mixed Message.” April 26) really made me see red with her snide comment about how Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn is “defending the property rights of million-dollar homeowners.”
DDDB has been the major group pushing for a transparent, public process for deciding on the future of Atlantic Yards so that all could participate!
Millet should be going after those so-called “community” groups who bought into Ratner’s lies — some of them in exchange for a six-figure paycheck.
Carol Wierzbicki, Park Slope
Power for people
To the editor,
Your article “Power plant gets renewed energy” (Downtown and North Brooklyn editions and online, April 26) reminded me that two years ago, the Brooklyn Chapter of the American Institute of Architects took a position favoring the construction of the proposed underground generating plant for the following reasons:
1. The city would like this property for a park. The proposal for a generating plant underground would automatically clean up the ground condition and, except for a smoke stack, a truck ramp to below grade and some ventilation and exit structures at grade level, the entire grade area could be developed as parkland.
2. One objection to the proposed power plant was its supposed adverse impact on air quality in the area. However, natural gas is relatively clean burning and a 325-foot-high smoke stack would deposit pollutants, if any, miles away from the site.
3. Others questioned the safety. But explosions of fossil fuel power plants are extremely rare. Even that small risk could be mitigated by proper design, with relief venting, explosion depression systems and reinforce concrete design, making the park safe.
4. The city needs additional generating facilities and this location, adjoining a river and close to electrical distribution facilities, works well for a generating plant.
5. This power plant could be built immediately, by a private operator, at no cost to the city.
Since the site will be a park at grade level, and will be safe for park use, this site should be looked at again for its intended purpose, namely to generate electricity.
Donald Weston, Brooklyn Heights
The writer is chair of the urban design committee for the Brooklyn Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
