To the editor,
Your article (“Ticket blitz: City has claws out for pet salon,” Dec. 6) is completely misleading. The subject of the story was not “hit” with 116 summonses in one day. Our enforcement agents enforce the law as it is written and are allowed to write as many illegal posting summonses as they see.
They perform a complete investigation to identify the proper violator named on the summons(es). [But] summonses are not mailed to the violator until summonses are written for all summonses, which includes those sighted at a later date.
The summonses in this particular case, which were upheld by the Environmental Control Board, were written over a period of two months, not one day as your article indicates.Matthew LiPani, Manhattan
The writer is a spokesman for the
Department of Sanitation.
Editor’s note: The story reported that the tickets received by Paws ’n’ Claws were written on two different days, though all 116 were received via mail on the same day. The story also reported that the enforcement officer hoarded summonses — a practice that LiPani confirms.
•••
To the editor,
Your article about the pet store getting 116 city summonses on one day is outrageous! Mayor Bloomberg should get involved with this, either by stopping this practice or paying the fine himself after apologizing to the people who were victimized! Robert Harris, Park Slope
Hear her now?
To the editor,
We the concerned shareholders of 130 Eighth Ave. appreciate your article about our building’s victory over T-Mobile (“Slopers reject cellphone tower,” online, Dec. 4). But there’s one thing for your readers to know.
On our coalition Web site, safeantenna.org, they can read about the national and international scientific, legal and legislative news regarding research and precedents set by those who are quite fearful about the radiation emitted by these antennae.
They also should be aware that we all need to challenge Congress to redress the absurd provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, lobbied for by the corporations who would benefit long-term, that prevents cities and states from banning cell antennae solely on the basis of health concerns. Leonore Gordon, Park Slope
The writer is coordinator of the NY State Coalition to Regulate Antennae Siting.
No slices
To the editor,
I read your story about the pizza deliveryman who ruined an building elevator with scratchiti (“Caught in the scratch!” online, Dec. 4). I guess from now on, we all have to specify to just slice the pizza, not the lift!Al Lipset, Bensonhurst
Concert gall
To the editor,
As a avid reader of your newspaper, I appreciated your story about Borough President Markowitz’s proposed “pet vanity” project of building a $64-million amphitheater at Asser Levy Park (“Coney is ‘Jonesing’ for concerts,” Nov. 4).
In these dire economic times, when firehouses, the NYPD, libraries and the Education Department are cutting back, Markowitz has the audacity to build the “Marty Markowitz Concert Hall.”
In addition, when the food pantries are going bare, his main concern is concerts, and not the concerns of the health and welfare of the people of his borough. This is disgusting and, quite frankly, unethical.
I feel that it is your responsibility to at least look into this fiasco more.
I’d love to read how Markowitz will spin this. Maybe citing the added jobs the amphitheater will create?
The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal created about 60 jobs, instead of the 600 he had promised before it was built.
Name withheld at writer’s request
LICH lives
To the editor,
I am a user of Long Island College Hospital — indeed, both of my children were born there in the past few years (“Breaking news: LICH divisions saved!” online, Nov. 17).
I live within a mile of the hospital. Of the many other local families with young children that I know, none used LICH for their births or pediatric care. I believe that much of the hand-wringing by Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens community leaders is disingenuous.
A hospital, like schools, churches and businesses, can only thrive if the community supports them. LICH — use it or lose it! It’s that simple.
John Battis, Red Hook
Mean streets
To the editor,
I have been reading the articles about banning cars in Prospect Park (“Is a car-promise possible in Prospect Park?” online, Dec. 2).
I am from Windsor Terrace — and I drive. When I lived near where the traffic builds up at Park Circle, I regularly took the loop through Prospect Park. Furthermore, I ride a bike, and I am a Prospect Park user.
My kid — not to mention my dog — practically grew up there. I ride my bike in the park every day during morning rush hour.
As a Brooklyn driver, I understand that, once I am on the road, there will be inconveniences. Traffic jams, careless drivers, no parking, potholes, and of course — if I am stupid enough to drive at 3 pm — school buses!
As a bicycle rider and park user, I am subject to fewer traffic jams — but I put my life on the line every time I hit the streets. There are very few places in Brooklyn I can ride where I don’t risk being hit by a car — maybe Floyd Bennett Field?
Bicyclists have been hit and killed by cars in Prospect Park, and there are near-misses all the time.
Because the bike and running track is not maintained, runners often have to veer into the bike path to avoid obstacles, forcing cyclists into traffic. Traffic rules are largely unenforced. I’ve never seen police ticket a driver for speeding, and drivers speed all the time.
So what’s more important — convenience for drivers — or safety for park users?
I think improving park users’ safety — whether a mom and toddler, a dog walker, a runner, or a bicyclist — is worth some inconvenience to drivers, including myself!
Peter Levinson, Windsor Terrace
• • •
To the editor,
I cycle to work from Mill Basin to Lower Manhattan and ride through the park during rush hour (“OK, keep cars in Prospect Park,” online, Dec. 4).
Parks are for people, not for motor vehicles. It’s time to get the cars out of the parks!Murray Lantner, Mill Basin
