Page 377 - Demo

EditorialsThe Case For A PlannerWith the latest round of musical chairs in city government. Mayor Koch has an opportunity to select a new chairman of the City Planning Commission who will reflect some of the vigor and movement that has been associated with that post in the past, but has too often been lacking in those who have occupied it over the most recent decade.It%u2019s easy to make the knee-jerk analysis that New York%u2019s days of capital budget glory are over with the current fiscal crisis and hence we need a quiet, caretaker Planning Commission Chairman. But we think it is precisely because of the tight budget that we need a creative, action-oriented, working planner as Chairman of the Commision, someone who has proven they can work within enormousconstraints both of physical site problems and budgetary famine to make things happen.One person whom we believe fills this bill is Richard Rosan, whon i r r o n t l w h o a H o t h o M a v / n r %u2019o r w f i r s r * rs t E r * r s r % r > r r > a rw J %u2022%u2022ww~%u2014w %#.w . %u00bb i J, i V# WIIIWV/ \\J I UOUI IUI I IIU UV/VUIOpI I IUI II. f~\\ I Iarchitect and a planner, Rosan has made things happen in downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, and other areas of the city, too-rcreated projects, nursed them to construction, and at the same time pointed us toward a future that makes major use of the heritage and strengths of New York City%u2019s past. The appointment of a proven professional like Rosan to the post of Planning Commission Chairman would be a strong signal that this city administration wants to take advantage of every opportunity to see that the self-interest of builders and developers is matched up most effeciently and effectively with what is best for the interests of all New Yorkers.Sound Off Readers Talk RackSave A LandmarkTogether, the New York Landmarks Conservancy and Brookyn Union Gas are getting New Yorkers to join with us in trying to save an historic landmark. The Church of St. Ann and the Holy Trinity stands in the heart of Brooklyn Heights, at the corner of Montague and Clinton Streets. One of the City%u2019s most outstanding religious structures, the Church is endangered and its future uncertain.Many of you know the architectural beauty of this sadly weathered building. It is also significant that the building contains some of the earliest stained glass produced in this country. Executed in 1844-47 by William Jay Boulton, these windows are of national importance. The rare achievements within this structure mandate the participation of all of us who love New York.Despite the advances we have brought forth in our civilization through technology, we have yet to preserve the legacy of our ancestors and their contributions as well as we might. Those of us who have joined together arc hopeful and determined that we may leave this same landmark for the enjoyment of those who see this Brooklyn street 100 years hence.%u2014Eugene H.Luntey, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Brooklyn Union Gas; Brendan Gill,Chairman, New York Landmarks Conservancy.Let%u2019s Be Sensibleibc anti-fluoridation letter by Hugo Krueger (Forced Fluoridation) on September 27, 1979 must not go unanswered. Diseases like small pox and dypthcria were eliminated by mass medication over the objections of people like Mr. Krueger. Dental disease is not a killer, but it is widespread, debilitating and costly. There arc many controlled studies, for as long as thirty years, showing the tremendous reduction in decay, and no other medical effects, from artificial fluoridation of public water supplies.As a practising dentist since 1949, I have seen the remarkable change in New York City following fluoridation in 1966. Prior to that date it was almost impossible to find a person with no fillings and no decay. Now the reverse is true, and the majority of my young patients have no need for the dentist%u2019s driil.Let us be sensible and scientific about fluoridation, not emotional. %u2014 Howard B.Moshman, D.D.S., 89 Remsen Street.Appalling ConditionsThere is a brownstone, an S.R.O. hotel at 71 Pierrepont Street, where a situation must be brought to the attention of the community.I was telephoned by neighbors from the immediate vicinity who had become aware of the appalling conditions existing in that brownstone. They know that I am a community activist.1 visited the building and went one flight up. What struck me immediately was the ceiling in the corridor, which has a huge area of exposed lathes. There were broken pipes visible, with a pot on the floor to catch the dripping water. The corridor was strewn with apparently discarded tables, room doors and ladders.The rooms I entered appeared to be sparsely furnished with odds and ends of left-over furniture. I saw a bed on which an additional ancient m attress had been placed to try to cover the lumps on the oneunderneath. 1 was told that no linens or towels arc provided for these %u201c furnished rooms%u201d . The one window in each of these cubbyholes face a dingy solid brick wall. There seemed to be no ventilation. For all this magnificence, the tenants pay between $150 and $195 a month -mice and cockroaches included.How did the Health Department and the Mayor%u2019s Office of the Single Room Occupancy Housing overlook this house of horrors?Legislation directly applicable to this S.R.O. situation has been silting in the Council's Committee on Housing and Building. It has been proposed by Manhattan Councilman Henry J. Stern and Stanley E. Michels. I have spoken to the Mayor%u2019s SRO Office and that of Councilman Stern. Neither could give me any information as to the present status of the bill.I am appealing to concerned people to work with me to help push that bill out of Committee and place it before the Council for consideration. Please contact me and perhaps together we can get some action.%u2014Ruth Rafael, 75 Henrv Street.CongratulationsThank you for your editorial on October 4th calling attention to our historic FultonFerry waterfront district. There is certainly a need for organized planning on the part of city officials - and a stamp of %u201c top priority%u201d from Mayor Koch would, of course, be welcome.May we remind you, however, that private citizens, too, have a lot to say and do as this very special place undergoes redevelopment. Private citizens over the years have been responsible for attaining landmark designation for the area, for defending public access to the water, and for seeing to State acquisition of the Empire Stores.In the last year, we have all been coming together in the Fulton Ferry Renaissance Association. We%u2019ve been at work for a ferry, a trolley, a broadbased community voice in the Empire Stores development, short-and long-term traffic planning, and sanitation, to name a few of the larger issues.In all fairness, a number of our political leaders are actively working with us right now laying the groundwork for Fulton Ferry%u2019s future. They include Boro President Howard Golden, Councilman Abe Gcrgcs, Congressman Fred Richmond, State Parks & Recreation General Manager Clare Beckhardt, the City Department of Ports & Terminals, and the Mayor%u2019s office of Development.But they wouldn%u2019t be as active, and (heir planning wouldn%u2019t have the bearing it does without (he planning by private citizens and the inspired work of F.F.R.A. members like Ed Dewey, Mrs. Allyn Rice Blocme, Ellis Simon, %u201cScott Hand, and Terry Manning.Watch for the next meeting of the F.F.R.A. usually held on Olga%u2019s Barge at Fulton Ferry Landing. We would welcome you and your readers as government-and citizen-planning for the Fulton Ferry Renaissance proceeds.--CynthiaGoulder, President, Fulton Ferry Renaissance, Association.A Need For PlanningI wanted to congratulate you on the way you managed to translate a very difficult subject into comprehensive terms (in Irene Van Slyke%u2019s article, %u201cCustomers Complain of Prices, Utility Companies Differ on Solutions to Energy Shortage,%u201d Phoenix, Aug. 3 ;). I thought your coverage was very fair. 1 d also like to say that the general Phoenix insert on energy was excellent and the information about insulation and solar clear, correct and useful. -Karen Burstein,Commissioner, Slate of New York, PublicService Commission.Mayor Replies To Energy Concerns But Constituent Is Not SatisfiedOn September 6, 1979, the Phoenix printed my letter addressed to Mayor Koch. I received a reply to that letter which I am enclosing herewith together with my response to the letter from the Mayor. After reading both items I am sure you will agree that it merits publication in full.Dear Mr. Huerta: I greatly appreciate your letter concerning fuel conservation measures in New York City, and I referred your suggestion to the City department directly responsible. My administration has done, and will continue to do so, its utmost in support of energy conservation measures in the City.The City%u2019s J-51 Tax Abatement progam for capital improvements, for example, has supported many solar energy and house insulation projects around the City My administration has approved Con Edison%u2019s request to burn a high sulfur oil at certain generating plants, a test project which may eventually lead to the burning of coal in those plants. The City has also renovated a number of City government buildings, wih substantial energy savings resulting.I am acutely aware that we as a city have a tremendous potential to conserve energy and use energy efficiently. Compared to other areas of the country, our use of energy per capita is already half the national average.I will continue to support further conservation measures, however, and 1 thank you for your concern.-Edward I.KochI appreciate the Mayor%u2019s reply to the le tte r that a n n p a rrd in ih p P H O F N IY on ASeptember 79. It shows consideration and courtesy on his part to have answered at all, but unfortunately the contents of the letter are not as encouraging.The article on 6 September 79 considered the energy problem we had in the City during the summer, and it suggested some possible solutions and courses of action. The Mayor%u2019s answer to the letter suggest, unfortunately, only undecisive and unimaginative leadership. What he has effectively done is pass the buck to %u201c the City department directly responsible.%u201d What I would like to ask the Mayor is, %u201c What department is that?%u201d Do we really have an energy management department which we do not know about, or is that simply his way of saying, %u201c Thanks for the letter and now let me have it get lost in bureaucratic red tape so that I do not have to make the tough decisions on energy.\What it appears to be is that our Mayor is following the national energy plan. Do Nothing Until The Problem Slaps You In The Face. In his response he makes no reference to any of the suggestions that were mentioned in the original letter. Can it be because he truly does care about constructing a City Energy Plan which can lead the way for the State and Nation? Or can it be that he thinks we are not sufficiently clever enough to notice gas lines, increased costs in home heating oil and electricity?The Mayor in his response says his Administration has done much to support energy conservation. He cites tax-abatement programs, insulation of city buildings, etc. What he has effectively done is miss the entire point of the letter! I commend his Administration for what they have done in energy conservation. But what he, the State, and the Federal Government have failed to do is make energy conservation a real possibility for the millions of us in the middle class.T a v - d h o to m o n tc o rn F in n K ilt Ka h >us own buildings, and if we do it would cost a fortune in expenditure to qualify for the tax-abatements.Having Con Edison burn higher sulfuroil is good, but only for Con Edison who will have a lower overhead and therefore increase their profit margin, not lower prices. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that we, the middle class, do not own power companies, we do not have thousands of dollars of disposable income to insulate the buildings most of us don%u2019t own. What everybody seems to be forgetting is us.Consider the apartment dweller. Everybody tells us to conserve energy, but whether we use it or not we pay for 600 cubic feet (6 ccf) of gas bi-monthly at the rate of $1.72 per 100 cubic feet. But the glutton gas user consistently pays less for gas! What this tells us is that the energy user gets the reward, not the energy saver. Why can%u2019t we, the small users of energy, get some type of refund? The story is the same for electricity: the more you use the less it costs. Why can%u2019t electric bills reflect energy conservation of the small users and give them some abatement? When one considers the price arrangement in the middle of an %u201c energy crisis%u201d it makes one want to ask who is fooling whom...So, to Mayor Koch I say, Don%u2019t %u201c refer%u201d our suggestions but take ACTION on them, take the initiative. Guarantee us that our homes will be heated in the winter, that we will not have to wait ridiculously long for gasoline again. Guarantee us not with empty words, but with a plan which assures that all of us conserve, that all of us divide the energy in a way that is feasible, as inexpensive as possible, and with an eye to the future we all must share. Because if you can%u2019t, we, a unique people, living in a unique city, will find one among us who %u25a0 will.The %u201c energy crisis%u201d is manageable... particularly before the real problems set U1 ...SU manat;<_ u.%u2014Carius C. Kueria, 5A;MS; Teaching Fellow, Department ofMathematics, Polytechnic Institute of NewYork, 333 Jay Street