Page 576 - WhyAsInY

Why (as in yaverbaum)
The Inquirer comes on Fridays. We probably didn’t see it until late that evening at the earliest. It was clearly quite upsetting. And the power of the pen was even more clearly demonstrated the next day. We awoke to what seemed to be an endless line of cars, obviously occupied by Inquirer readers, slowly moving past the house in order to see firsthand the cause of all the trouble. This was, to say the least, a bit unnerving, especially to Kathy, who prefers her privacy. When the kids came home from school on Monday, they reported that they had been teased about living in the “Monstrosity,” and that added to the tension and our anger. When the next Inquirer arrived, the issue was still alive, and we were treated to some not particularly helpful letters on this galvanizing issue. The one that I remember best, the most offensive one, was written by the woman who had sold us the house. It was outrageous of us to sully the architecture of her beautiful home, she said, writing, I might add, from Bronxville, to which she had moved at the time of the completion of our transaction. I believe that she had moved there with the rifle that had been hanging in the library. Somehow she had been following events in Scarsdale closely and wished to express her gratitude for the money that we gave her and for the consideration that we had shown her when we were advised that her husband might be dying. Other, not particu- larly nice, letters came to us by mail.
So, what did the two high-powered, experienced attorneys who lived at 16 Church Lane South and were the subject of the article, the headline, the photo, the editorial, the petition, the line of cars, the teas- ing of the children, and the letters do? Nothing. That’s right, nothing. How un-lawyerly. Don’t big-time attorneys respond to every provoca- tion, every writing, every veiled threat of litigation? Weren’t we capable of putting together some powerful rebuttal, one that would sting our opponents, expose the folly of their position, threaten our own litiga- tion, perhaps even offer to tear the new structure down, provided, however, that the Lukes et al. repay us for our fairly substantial costs to date and bills yet to come to us?
Of course, we were capable of responding, countering every argu- ment, demanding apologies, etc. But we ultimately looked at each other
• 558 •