To the editor,
In a recent issue, Borough President Markowitz accused The Brooklyn Paper of being biased in its reporting of the Atlantic Yards project (“Marty’s humble opinion,” Dec. 30). I totally concur with the borough president, but I would like to add that this paper has also engaged in race-baiting.
In your editorial following Atlantic Yards public hearing on Aug. 23, you referred to the opponents of the project as “nerds” and the supporters of the project as “thugs.”
As an African-American who has resided in Clinton Hill for 14 years and has lived in Brooklyn all his life, I remain particularly appalled at that.
During that hearing and at others before it, members of anti-project groups have been unruly, disruptive and insulting [while] pro-project groups have had to be equally aggressive in order to compete with the anti-project groups’ lack of candor and decorum.
Members of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and other anti-project groups repeatedly jeered the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to social justice; Assemblyman Roger Green; and other pro-project speakers. They called Roger Green a criminal, yet this paper castigated Green for defending himself against boorish behavior.
I, too, have had my differences with Roger Green, but I tell you, I was never prouder of him than at that moment when he stood up against that crowd.
During the hearing, an anti-project participant sitting next to me (a long time friend, by the way) had to be forcibly ejected from the room after she failed to heed the moderator’s calls for decorum. Yet The Brooklyn Paper failed to emphasize the boorishness of the anti-project demonstrators using the relatively benign term “nerds” to describe them.
During the course of this community debate, DDDB members referred to Bertha Lewis as a “whore.” I myself was called a “thug” by prominent members of the DDDB, a term that was both racist and sexist in its application.
Those of us who support the Ratner plan are good people with good intentions who want to see much-needed jobs and affordable housing made available to minorities, women and low- to moderate-income working people. We who support the project simply don’t accept that the Ratner plan won’t achieve this. We do not agree, as you claim, “that Atlantic Yards will actually increase the gentrification that drives out low-income residents and create mostly minimum-wage jobs that keep them in poverty.”
Most of us don’t want to just give Ratner a free pass. We agree that there has to be moderations to the project, that certain aspects will have to be downsized and mitigated. But we do not believe that the best way to achieve this is through the unreasonable, obstructionist, divisive and very often racist tactics that the anti-project folks seem to be employing.
This “All or nothing, you are with us or against us” posture has gotten real old, real fast and has rapidly turned off people of good will.
The Brooklyn Paper can help to mitigate some of these divisive elements by attempting to engage in balanced reporting and in refraining from divisive and sensationalist elements in its editorial comments.
Selah Eric Spruiell, Clinton Hill
Editor’s note: Our use of the terms “thugs” and “nerds” had no racial connotations, but was merely a reflection of the various groups’ demeanor at the Aug. 23 hearing. But for the record, former Assemblyman Roger Green was convicted of filing false travel expense forms with the state.
Garden green
To the editor,
Thank you for your writing about the garden on the corner of Tenth Street and Eighth Avenue (“Rev Liz speaks: Garden must go,” Jan. 13, Park Slope Edition).
Your columnist’s point of view comes through loud and clear, but I find it sad that you felt it necessary to paint the opposition to the sale of the garden — i.e. the loss of the green space — as opposing the mission of the church. Just because columnist Nica Lalli sympathizes with Rev. Liz Alexander and her mission doesn’t make it right to ascribe venal motivations to others. I am personally hurt and offended that she took that tack.
We have debated the possibility of raising money from the neighborhood to match the developer’s price, or to have the state provide funds from its park acquisition fund (“park,” mind you, not “pork,” as an earlier article suggested).
In either case, the church would still receive the money. Yet your article made us look mean and petty.
I can remember walking my kids to P.S. 107 back in the 1970s. I realize Prospect Park is close, but passing the garden every day was our connection to the seasons. Now, 30 years later, when I pass the garden, I think of my kids and those daily walks and those tiny moments of peace. And yes, it’s still the first place I see the flowers in spring.
The lead article in the same issue (“94 years old and homeless”) tells the poignant story of the elderly man being evicted from his Carroll Gardens apartment.
I don’t expect the same level of sympathy for our loss, but like him, we are victims of our own efforts in saving and improving this once-neglected neighborhood. It was our fight and sweat that got us to this point.
As I said, I am happier that you are writing about it instead of it disappearing unmentioned, but please don’t slander our motivations.
Mitch Freidlin, Park Slope
Selfish pols
To the editor,
I found it very instructive to read the resolutions of politicians (“Resolution revolution,” Dec. 30). They seem to be divided into those who focus on personal objectives (weight loss, svelte figure) and those who focus on community betterment (children, energy, hospitals, land use).
Some could be considered self-congratulatory like Mayor Bloomberg’s. Interesting!
Natalie Burrows, Cobble Hill
• • •
To the editor,
Your resolution article reminded me that taxpayers have our own wish list for members of the New York State Legislature.
For 20 of the past 22 years, the Legislature couldn’t even pass a balanced budget on time. Adding insult to injury, this is after voting themselves healthy salary increases several years ago, along with all the lulus, bonuses for chairing committees, day-to-day meal expense accounts and reimbursement for travel to and from Albany.
Legislators average only three days per week when in session. There are many weeks when they don’t even have to travel to Albany, as they are not in session. Many members even hold down second outside jobs! How about working full-time — and paying for your own meals and travel to and from work like the rest of us?
State legislators should tell us how many hours and days they actually worked in Albany, detail sources of outside income and the amount of time they spend on their outside jobs, how much they spent on meals (does your boss pay for breakfast, lunch or dinner during the course of a regular work day?), how much they spent traveling from home to Albany and back (does your employer pay for your commute from home to work on a daily basis?) along with a detailed list of all their “pay to play” campaign contributions.
Most observers of state government would argue that members of the legislature should consume a lot less of their own political pork! How about passing a balanced budget on time — minus the hundreds of millions of dollars of member item pork-barrel projects designed to grease the future wheels of reelection.
Larry Penner, Great Neck, New York
