Rep. Dan Donovan (R–Bay Ridge) has flatly stated he will no longer hold town hall meetings in Bay Ridge after being roundly heckled the last time he crossed the Narrows by Brooklynites opposed to his pro-Trump policies. The freshman lawmaker criticized Ridge locals for practicing “disruptive rhetoric that’s not productive.” Some of our online commentators were outraged by the congressman’s snub, while others applauded it:
Just goes to show that you win more flies with honey than with vinegar. I would like a town hall, but have not been able to jump on the bandwagon of bullying and mocking to get this to happen. I think it would be more effective to request one politely.
While he is supposed to represent our interests, he is under no obligation to hold a town hall. If you want him to use his time to prioritize such a meeting, you should always start by requesting one nicely. You should do that for much longer than you think you need to, as he has many obligations and may need time to sort out the logistics of such.
Starting aggressively and making it clear your intention is to ambush him is unlikely to give you what you want.Michael from Bay Ridge
Dear Michael,
Would you believe that our congressman has been asked quite nicely many times? Because he has. During his campaign he was scheduled to be at a debate and didn’t bother showing up. How does that look to the people of Brooklyn? Looks pretty rude to me. This isn’t much about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. This is about showing the district you supposedly represent that you care about them at all and they won’t be left behind with zero representation in Washington. Because that’s what it’s felt like for a very long time. When your voices aren’t being heard, you gotta get creative. Hats off to these guys for holding him accountable.Molly from Bay Ridge
This is getting a little chicken and egg. Donovan represents many constituents who are directly affected by his votes and want to air their concerns and hear his rationales. He has refused to do this since before he was elected, to the point that people felt it necessary to disrupt his one (heavily controlled) appearance in Brooklyn. Donovan won’t meet his constituents on this side of the bridge, and now he’s making up a rationale about civil discourse that’s just a cover-up for the fact that, apparently, he can’t look his Brooklyn constituents in the eye, or he just doesn’t care about them.Hank from Bay Ridge
I want to be heard. I want to yell and scream at my congressman. And then I want to yell some more, until my throat is hoarse and my words are unintelligible. I want to hold up signs demanding that I be heard. This is what I want.
Sparkle from Bay Ridge
How many other Congress people in Brooklyn held town hall meetings in the last eight years? Not too many. In this case I don’t blame Donovan because this movement is being funded by some Clinton operative and meant to publicly mock the congressman. They are not interested in a real town hall but a yelling session.Jelly
Hakeem Jeffries, Yvette Clarke, Nydia Velazquez, and Jerry Nadler all have a town hall event at the start of the year. Jeffries calls his the State of the District address. So Jelly, keep your alternative facts to yourself because you come off ignorant.
Jay from Bay
And how many people were bussed in from outside the district to these so-called town halls like they are planning on doing to Donovan? They don’t want a town hall, they want to publicly admonish him. I am sure if he does have a town hall he will get a few people who actually hold down jobs and voted for him to take time off from work to counteract the operatives funded by (George) Soros who want to make Republican lawmakers look foolish. Transporting professional protesters from outside the district isn’t a town hall. Good luck unseating Donovan. Staten Island is a strong Republican district.Jelly
Cart-narsie
To the editor,
The “see something, say something” request must apply to the concerned neighbors of Canarsie who see their beloved communities left with trash in (their) its parks, streets, and walkways. This is where our homes are, this is where our children live and play. Therefore, the care by all homeowners and/or renters of Canarsie must take action and have a continued sense of pride for “home.”
One of our community problems (along with people dropping or leaving trash such as food trays, bottles, etc. in the streets, curbs, private lawns and properties), are the large red shopping carts from BJ’s Wholesale Club, located at 8719 Avenue D between Remsen Avenue and E. 89th Street, that are walked off the store property and then abandoned once the individual(s) have finished with them. They are left in front of a homeowner’s property, or on city property as an eyesore because someone is unconcerned for another’s property.
BJ’s has been repeatedly notified of its abandoned shopping carts left on the streets of Flatlands, the E. 80s, and the 90s streets, to no avail. One of the daytime general managers commented: “There is nothing we can do to stop customers from leaving with their groceries in the carts at the present.”
I say there is something that can be done if the company really sees it as a business loss and problem. One solution is to have fines and tickets issued to stores whose carts are left on the street abandoned. The city is trying to charge for plastic bags usage … how about charging the stores for street clean-up of their abandoned carts? Fines and tickets issued by the Sanitation Department repeatedly will force stores like BJ’s to enforce outdoor security by the entrances and exits, to add multi-security poles where gaps exist to cease the ability to remove a shopping cart from the premises. The cost of adding security poles versus the cost of carts long range?D. Justin
Canarsie
Delay ‘ban’ critique
To the editor,
Jay Sheth wrote a very eloquent and historically-detailed letter concerning President Trump’s “ban” on Muslim immigration. I would like to inject several comments about that.
Firstly, the President already has the legal authority to do what he is proposing. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 authorizes the President — at his sole discretion — to prohibit any person or group of persons from entering the U.S. which he deems a danger to this country. As we all should know, the first, and most important duty of any President is to protect this nation. Every President since the law was passed has used that law to protect the nation. Oddly enough, President Obama holds the record of how many times the law was used — six times.
Secondly, it is not an outright ban; it is a 90-day delay in order to give this country an opportunity to try to be sure that terrorists are not among those coming in from the named countries. People might be interested to know that ISIS has taken control of a number of passport printing facilities in Syria and Iraq, so they do have the ability to issue passports to whomever they want to. The number thrown around by the Obama administration as to how many immigrants, refugees, or migrants, or whatever they call themselves this week, that he wanted the U.S. to accept is about 100,000. If “only” one percent of those were terrorists, there would be 1,000 trained terrorists roaming freely in our country. If that happened, we would be in a world of trouble.
Thirdly, as if any more reasons for not accepting them are needed, I direct attention to the events now taking place in Europe since the Muslim migration northward began. Those Muslim migrants have caused nothing but trouble. Look to Macedonia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and others, at the assaults, robberies, rapes, rioting and property damage in uncountable numbers that these “peaceful Muslim migrants” have caused. Normal refugees would’ve been kissing the ground in gratitude of those countries that invited them in. Without proper vetting of these people — if that is even possible — that is what we can look forward to here.
Has anyone wondered why their neighbors in the Middle East have not accepted even one of these people? In that region, they would’ve had a common culture, common language and common religion. It would’ve been perfect for them there. The reason that their neighbors rejected the migrants was — as those nations themselves have told the world — is that they were afraid that their countries would be infiltrated by terrorists and that their countries would become just like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.
What I have trouble understanding, is why anyone in their right mind would want that to happen here.
David F. Podesta
Marine Park
