Quantcast

The Brooklyn Paper mailbag

To the editor,

In your recent editorial (“Let DUMBO thrive,” April 11), The Brooklyn Paper states that DUMBO needs to adapt as circumstances change. I believe, based on my review of past recommendations, Community Board 2 shares this opinion.

The community board opposed Two Trees Management’s first Dock Street development proposal, but recently recommended approval of the redesigned plan. The city’s final determination on plans by the Watchtower Society for a new headquarters includes modifications suggested first by Community Board 2.

In recent years, the community board recommended approval of three applications to the Board of Standards and Appeals for conversion of properties to residential use, but disapproved of a fourth. The Brooklyn Paper’s statement that the community board has “increasingly exhibited an antipathy to residential development in DUMBO” is not supported by the record. Instead, the record suggests thoughtful and nuanced review of land-use applications.

Community Board 2 and others have called for a rezoning of DUMBO for a decade or longer. There is mixed opinion in DUMBO about the city’s proposal to rezone the area east of the Manhattan Bridge for mixed use. In a close vote — a fact not only unmentioned, but apparently disregarded — a majority of community board members expressed the opinion that the proposal did not adequately fulfill the request of the community and community board for a neighborhood rezoning.

The community board’s vote recommends disapproval of the city’s current proposal, but does not conceptually reject rezoning DUMBO for residential development.

John Dew, Clinton Hill

The writer is chairman of Community Board 2, which covers Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, Downtown, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill.

He likes us

To the editor,

After meeting some of the reporters from The Brooklyn Paper at the Manhattans bar on Washington Avenue the other night (“‘Siberia’ exile finds home in Brooklyn,” GO Brooklyn, April 18), I tore through your Web site and found myself continuing to read your editorial archives for hours.

I’ve been so pre-occupied that my re-watching of the questionable “Enterprise” series has truly suffered.

You should know that your paper has a new convert. If I run into your crew again at the Manhattans, the first round’s on me.

Pat Hipp, Prospect Heights

Cookie crumble

To the editor,

I watched Gersh Kuntzman’s podcast about his sad search for a cookie near your Metrotech offices (“Gersh’s fruitless cookie search!” online, April 17) and first wanted to bid him a hearty, “Welcome to the neighborhood!”

I certainly wanted to remind Gersh that he only roamed part of the area and his descriptions were on target. But just one block from where he searched for a treat is the Metro Cafe on the Metrotech Commons. And another block away is Junior’s — both great places for fresh baked goods.

It’s true that we only have a few “table cloth” restaurants but the Metrotech area is the ethnic fast food capital of Brooklyn, if not the city.

Mike Weiss, Downtown

The writer is executive director of the Metrotech Business Improvement District.

Last century

To the editor,

I want you to know that Century 21 discriminates against overweight women!

I recently went to buy some pants in their plus-size section, which used to be in the smallest corner of the second floor. But when I got there, all I saw was sign that said, “Petites.” Did the world shrink?

Century 21 no longer carries plus-size clothes. Is the store embarrassed to have heavy women as shoppers? Why not put a larger section for larger women and make it visible to the public and not hidden away?

Plus-size women do have money to spend on good quality clothes at a reasonable price. The average woman is above a size 12. Profit is the goal of retail.

We had money to spend, but now Century 21 has to reduce the prices of all its size 4’s, so where is the profit? The store could have made more money if it had more plus-sized clothes — and not hidden them away all these years.

Shame on you, Century 21!

Maryteresa McKenna,

Bay Ridge

Rewrite!

To the editor,

As much as I normally could commiserate with an artist whose work has been less-than-ideally presented, for Nathan Currier to sue the ever-teetering Brooklyn Philharmonic in these parlous times for such a large sum is kicking an institution when it is down (“Sym-phony! Composure sues Philharmonic for butchering his ‘Gaia’ masterpiece,” April 17).

Perhaps the solution is to rein in the scope of his “Gaian Variations” so that it is doable in under two hours.

After all, I believe even Mahler managed to keep his notorious “Tofu Symphony” to little more than 60 minutes.

Laurence Dankel, Park Slope

School daze

To the editor,

As a member of the PTA at PS 230 in Windsor Terrace, I am disappointed by planned elimination of some school art and music programs due to budget cuts.

We do understand that the Department of Education has to make some very dificult decisions, but eliminating such programs is not the best option.

Veronica Guzman-Meyer, Windsor Terrace

Pols not dull

To the editor,

While the candidates running to replace Councilman David Yassky may not differ as much on substance, the candidate forum could hardly be considered a “yawn,” as your columnist called it, given the candidates’ universal objections to the current administration’s development policies and big project initiatives (“Candidates to succeed Yassky yawn it out in Brooklyn Heights,” the Politicrasher, online, April 21).

Isn’t Mayor Bloomberg’s ability to create such unity a fascination in itself?

The candidates were nearly unanimous in opposing Atlantic Yards as the most-destructive project in Brooklyn; opposing housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park; opposing Jed Walentas’s Dock Street project; wanting a federal Superfund cleanup of the Gowanus Canal; and in calling for stronger community boards and a stronger Council.

How can such clearly marshaled opposition to the status quo be boring?

Perhaps The Brooklyn Paper is merely concluding that strong opposition realistically means nothing because a) the mayor is supreme over the Council, and b) Bloomberg’s claim to the mayoralty is not subject to practical political challenge.

Michael D.D. White,

Brooklyn Heights