Page 34 - Demo

EditorialsWhere%u2019s A Comprehensive Park Plan?In 13G3 James Stranahan, then Brooklyn%u2019s Parks Commissioner, commented after Prospect Park opened: %u201c So large a number of visitors at this early stage of our enterprise, the genuine pleasure manifested in the appearance of all, and the quiet and orderly behavior exhibited by the miscellaneous multitude who throng the Park . . . show unmistakably, not only how welcome all such breathing spots are to our pent up population, but also their decidedly educational tendency.%u201dOf course, not everyone behaved well in those days either, as witnessed by the Commissioner%u2019s request for more uniformed men to \may occur, from blasts, runaways, pickpockets going upon weak ice, orthe like.%u201dBut Commissioner Stranahan%u2019s point was that to open the park to everyone would teach people %u201c that they are themselves the parties most deeply interested in their preservation, and that it must be the interest of the public, to protect that which is intended for the public advantage.%u201dLater, city fathers and commissioners did not always have the commitment, the money or the foresight to keep the high standards ofmaintaining the park and everyone agrees that many sections are in a sad state of disrepair.iitronys of people siiii COme, out find that cduCationa! and aesthetic aspects of the park are sadly lacking and with a lack of protection, vandalism and fires have destroyed some of the most beautiful structures.In this year%u2019s budget %u2014 to everyone%u2019s delight %u2014 there is more money than allocated in many years to rehabilitate and renovate the park%u2019s facilities. But just now that the future of the park appears brighter, there also seems to be a lack of clear leadership, knowledge and direction as to what should be done.The City officials who allocated the money, and adjacent community boards, the Borough President and other organizations like the Friends of Prospect Park, all have ideas. Some even have moved to action. But there is no coordination and certainly no plan.With Urban Park Rangers now available to handle visitors to the park and watch out for the park%u2019s well-being, and with more than $1 million slated to be used for tree replacements, renovation and rehabilitation of structures and buildings in the park, it is time that someone put the pieces together. We need a comprehensive plan and to get it we need to sort the priorities in public so that everyone who is affected can debate knowledgeably and intelligently.Sound Off Readers Talk BackFt. Greene DemoI would like to clarify some of the \complex%u201d issues in your July 12 article concerning the Landmarks Preservation Commissions%u2019 decision to allow the demolition of 86 Greene Avenue, a landmarked building, for replacement with 97 units of federally sponsored senior citizens housing (Landmarks Okays Demolition Request).First, the article calls this precedent setting. It certainly is! After Ft. Greene%u2019s long fight to obtain landmark status the Commission%u2019s first decision in a neighborhood landmarked not even one year is to demolish a historic building!The Phoenix reprt that the Community Board Subcommittee supported demolition is a misstatement I%u2019d like to see retracted. Community Board 2%u2019s Landmarks Subcommittee%u2019s June 20 hearing voted unanimously to veto, not approve this project. The Committee considered the building%u2019s design insensitive to the character of the neighborhood. The executive committee of the Vanderbilt Avenue Block Association also went on record as opposing destruction of the brownstone.The article mentions it was \works%u201d for several years before 86 Greene was designated part of the landmarks district and that this constitutes a unique situation. Why, when the district was on the %u201c drawing board%u201d and site surveys were taken to decide what houses to include, was the house included? It could easily have been penciled out as other undesirable houses were.Your article further states that the community generally seemed to back the developer%u2019s %u201chardship application.%u201d (No proof of hardship was ever offered at the June 27 hearing). The only %u201c individual community members%u201d supporting the project were residents of Clermont and Greene Avenues who will be directly affected.One community member who did speak as an individual was Tom Kennedy. I resent the printing of his association title in this article because it lends the air of positive support from those involved in landmarkes. He further stated he%u2019s fought to keep buildings up more than anyone else in this neighborhood, and vowed over his %u201cdead body%u201d would any more buildings be torn down. That statement was followed by, %u201c But in this case . . .%u201d If this is the attitude of people who supposedly represent community interests in landmarks, who needs them?!In addition, the article doesn%u2019t mention that the planned building is basically a 7-story BOX whose sheer bulk will dominate that corner. A variance had to be granted to allow this bulk for the project%u2019s profitability. The architect told someone that he wouldn%u2019t want this building next to him. 1 bet that if this design were planned for Brooklyn heights, the residents would create an uproar.Rich of landmarks statps snvpral facade changes would be made as the project progresses. This is small potatoes when one considers the entire project.Fort Greene seems to be starved for development at any cost. If this project moves forward, then landmarks is littlemore than an empty phrase %u2014JosephVicino, Vanderbilt Avenue.No Theatre?As the newly elected President of Gallery Players, one of the city%u2019s oldest and finest community theatre groups, I am compelled to write to express my anger over your recent (albeit as yet not widely known) decision to exclude future coverage of local arts groups from your publication.I represent the two hundred members and friends of G.P., Brooklyn residents all, who have hitherto read your paper regularly, a paper I thought was devoted to the glorification of the Brooklyn lifestyle. It is now clear that you have no interest in supporting Brooklyn culture, only in accepting the advertisement revenue of Brooklyn merchants (many of whom, I might add, are our members) without providing them (or us) the adequate service that is their due, i.e., the latest news and feature articles on groups like us that help shape this borough%u2019s cultural life. The amount of space you have devoted to Gallery Players has dwindled over the past two years, a period during which our group has grown drastically both artistically and financially. I now learn that coverage is to cease completely.I do hope that this has all been a misunderstanding and that no such anti-theatre or anti-arts policy is in the works. However, until such time as I am reassured that this is the case, I am forced not only to stop buying The Phoenix, but to strongly suggest to our membership that they do likewise. %u2014Alice J. Kellman,President, Gallerv Plavers of Park SLopeFor the past five years I have served on the Board of Directors of the Gallery Players Theater of Park Slope. The last two years I was its president. This year I was elected to vice president in charge of publicity. Prior to this year I don%u2019t think we ever had a serious problem with the Phoenix, but I have been very disappointed in the coverage we have recieved especially on the last few shows. It is my understanding from our current president Ms. Kellman who for the past several months has been in constant touch with your staff, that the Phoenix will be decreasing coverage of local theater. I would like to go on record as saying that I think that this is an abomination ofwhat your paper stands for - or at least should stand for. I see that you never have a shortage of space to cover BAM - and admittedly BAM is certainly worth covering - but if that is going to be the sum total of arts news that your paper will feature then your readers might as well buy the News, Times, etc. because they would be getting more for their money. A %u201c local%u201d paper in my opinion should cover %u201c local%u201d events and that is why I have previously bought the Phoenix, but until such time as your policy changes, I will not be buying the Phoenix and I will encourage all our patrons and members and my friends to do the same.Just to add a bit of information %u2014 the Times has picked us up for our last two shows, and incidentally, we were on the front cover of the weekend section for our last show. Now I realize that this will not'always be the case because there are so many theaters for them to cover us all all the time, but evidentally they thought that our theater was worth covering - what about you? I feel that it is your responsibility to your readers.%u2014Mary RathGoodley, Vice President, Gallery Players,Inc.EDITOR%u2019S NOTE: Someone sure has misunderstood somewhere. Look at our issues and our coverage, week-by-week, issue after issue and judge us on what we have done and continue to do, not on what you seem to hear. This past season for example, Gallery Players received in our columns critical reviews of two of its four productions, %u201c Focus%u201d centerspread announcement on another and Artsbrief advance announcements and %u201c Up and Coming%u201d calendar listings of every run, in addition to coverage of its coming \Gallery is one of more than ten local theater companies that The Phoenix routinely covers. Everybody wishes they had more space and we wish we had more to give. Anti-theater? Anti-arts? Us? Not hardly!CancellationDear Mr. Armstrong:I write rather crinkily (if also a little sadly) to ask that my name be removed from your subscription list. It has been a couple of years since I have paid for a subscription %u2014 indeed, not since your first support of the Gowanus drive for low-income housing on State Street.While I have in the past joined the Phoenix in backing some of its more unpopular %u201ccauses,%u201d I find your viewpoint on the need for more low-income housing in Boerum Hill inexcusable. No site could be more disastrous not only to the Hill but, more importantly, to downtown Brooklyn. Its threat alone (or so I believe) has prevented Caldwell-Wingate from being able to build on an adjacent site. And that project could have rejuvenated both Boerum Hill and Fulton Street. If you loved Brooklyn, you couldn%u2019t possibly have conducted your paper as you have. And if you don%u2019t love Brooklyn, then I%u2019m afraid you%u2019re just not my newspaper after all.In fact, your stand on this particular issue (especially in view of the fact you seem to side with brownstoners in other areas) seems almost like a personal vendetta of some kind. I think you know Boerum Hill is already the host of more low-income projects than any other brownstone area and that one more such project will probably tip it back to the slum it all too recently was. And I am almost beginning to feel this is what you want.1 will go farther than this and suggest that few boroughs this side of the Bronx have built so much housing for the poor as Brooklyn. What we need %u2014 if only to balance things out %u2014 is more housing for middle-income families. Except for spontaneous, unsubsidized renewal areas like Boerum Hill, most of Brooklyn is gradually tipping toward one vast ghetto. You would do well (in my mind) to help save it from this fate rather than adding to it. Brooklyn simply will not survive as anything except an area of inner-city blight when middle-income families are driven out. At best, this may be coming.That%u2019s all. I have written to you personally because I have admired much of the Phoenix in the past and in the present. I am sorry to have been forced to take the only step I can think of to express how strongly I feel about this. All the same, however difficult it may be, I do want my name-plate withdrawn from your file.Barbara Sharnlk, State StreetOn LandmarksI would like to briefly expand upon last weeks article %u201c Landmarks Okays Demolition Request.%u201dThe New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission took two votes at their June 27 executive session. First, using the normal criteria, they unanimously voted their opposition to the design submitted for the 74-86 Greene Ave. senior citizen housing proposal.It was only after this decision had been rendered that the %u201chardship%u201d situation, such as time limitations and financial constraints claimed by the developer, the Commission then reviewed and unanimously approved the original design proposal, which included the demolition of one building.%u2014Howard Zimmerman,Pierrepont Street.Missing JudgeYour June 28, 1979 article concerning the judicial primary elections failed to mention that Michael Wolfson, candidate for Civil Court Judge, Sixth Municipal District has received the nomination of the Liberal Party. Mr. Wolfson, who has been endorsed by the Kings County Democratic Coalition, is also seeking the Democratic nomination in the primary election on September 11, 1979.--Kenneth Nolan,78th StreetKennedy SupportIt is with the greatest pleasure that I report the election of Helen Polonsky, long time Brooklyn reformer, as the new Chairperson of the New Democratic Coalition. The election took place at a Delegate Assembly held on Thursday, June 28th. Helen was a 1972 McGovern Delegate; President of the Bay Ridge Independent Democrats in 1974 and NDC Vice Chairperson for 1974-75.At the same meeting, the delegates voted overwhelmingly to %u201c ...urge Senator Edward M. Kennedy to seek the Democratic Nomination for President in 1980.%u201dFor the record, the votes on this resolution from clubs in our area were as follows: IND Delegates Gordon & Ruth Haskell voted in favor; CBID Delegates voted in favor; Delegate Peter Vogel of LID (Lambda Independent Democrats), voted in favor; Delegates from WBID voted against: Eileen Dugan, who has a vote because of status as a State Committeewoman, voted against; my vote, as an NDC Officer, was cast in favor.As an elected Delegate to the Democratic National Party Conference in Memphis, last December, I saw first hand theContinued on page 17