|
|
Letters to the editor Support for seminary To The Editor: Last week, to commemorate National Coming Out Day, the General Theological Seminary hosted a talk by Bishop Gene Robinson attended by 250 L.G.B.T. New Yorkers and friends, at which Speaker Christine Quinn extended an enthusiastic welcome. Seeing the first partnered openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church and the first openly lesbian speaker of the New York City Council on the steps of the altar of the Chapel of the Good Shepherd was exhilarating. The seminary appreciates the support of members of the L.G.B.T. and other communities throughout a long and difficult process to replace the deteriorating Sherrill Hall. Since the summer of 2005, we have held and attended scores of meetings with members of Community Board 4, residents, block, tenant and community organizations. Many suggestions from those meetings — that the proposed building be shorter and slimmer and more set back from the side streets, that some of the mass be moved to 20th St. or underground, that the design include more masonry and less glass — have formed the basis of our new approach. Throughout the yearlong process, we also opened our financial books to the point where one prominent preservationist and community activist acknowledged, “You have made your case, I’m sorry to say.” Many community members have expressed strong support and have worked with us to create the best plan for all involved. A new group has emerged, savetheseminary.com. Despite the seminary’s openness, we have met a refusal to compromise by some as reflected in a button that said, “75 feet and not an inch more” (ironically, displayed at a meeting called to find middle ground). The seminary has repeatedly demonstrated that a 75-foot-tall building does not begin to save its other historic buildings. No one needs to take our word for this — the New York City Landmarks Conservancy analyzed and confirmed our plan. Fortunately, for those who love historic buildings, current preservation law allows institutions like the seminary to use their development rights to serve their preservation needs, even when that means new buildings taller than seven stories. We hope that, like Matt Foreman, more people will approach this complex issue with an open mind. In truth, the survival of the seminary is at stake. Ward B. Ewing
To The Editor: I take serious issue with Matt Foreman’s talking point. I have attended every public meeting since the seminary’s initial presentation of its building plans in November 2005. I have never heard even one of the many, many speakers at any meeting “mocking the gay seminarians” or speaking in any way negatively about any of the seminary’s programs. The opposition to the proposed building has nothing to do with the seminary’s religious or social positions. It has everything to do with the fact that any building over 75 feet (or 7½ stories) high is totally inappropriate to the seminary’s immediate surroundings. It is a question of building size, not sexual orientation. Neither I, nor anyone I have ever spoken to in the neighborhood, wants the seminary to leave Chelsea. What we do want, and what we think is eminently possible, is for the seminary seriously to explore other options to fund its renovations. The present plan benefits the real estate developer far more than the seminary. In fact, the seminary’s gains from the proposed plan pale in comparison to the profits going to the developer, who will have all that extra square footage to turn into $2 million co-ops. It is clear that there is strong disagreement on this subject between the seminary and most of the residents of the surrounding community. Over the past 11 months, our mutual discussions have been frank and heartfelt. They have never been “vitriolic.” Mr. Foreman’s extended diatribe does both sides a disservice.
To The Editor: I am stunned by Matt Foreman’s vitriolic claim that the Chelsea neighborhood opposition to the General Theological Seminary’s plans to allow a private developer to build a 17-story apartment tower right in the heart of brownstone Chelsea is tantamount to an anti-gay, anti-Anglican, anti-seminary hate campaign. I happen to be Episcopalian (baptized and confirmed at St. Luke’s in the Fields, which openly embraced gay and lesbian congregants even before Stonewall). Growing up, I used to play on the lovely grounds of the seminary with friends whose fathers taught there. My sister-in-law grew up across the street from the seminary. She and my brother still live there and sent their daughter to day care at the seminary. We all desperately want to see the seminary survive and thrive. Still, we all oppose the seminary’s plan for a condo tower. As a longtime active member of the L.G.B.T. community, I know and respect Matt Foreman as a person and as a tireless worker for the L.G.B.T. community. So I have to give him the very large benefit of the doubt and assume that he is simply misinformed about this matter. But if so, he is very badly misinformed. What is at issue is not hostility to the seminary or indifference to its economic survival. It is the seminary’s arrogant rebuff of all efforts of reasonable and concerned neighbors to try to find a better and more thoughtful solution to the seminary’s financial woes, without needlessly spoiling the surrounding neighborhood, including W. 20th St. between Ninth and 10th Aves., which the current issue of Time Out magazine identifies as number three on its list of the “50 Best Blocks in New York.” The seminary is acting more like New York University — which treats the entire Village (East and West) as merely a pleasant backdrop for its students to enjoy, while it heedlessly eats up everything that made the Village special in the first place. The seminary is hardly a beleaguered victim of heartless, pitchfork-wielding bigots that Matt’s piece makes it out to be. Institutions and residents often have different and equally legitimate interests. But as Matt himself acknowledges, the only way to arrive at a reasonable accommodation of both sets of legitimate needs “is through genuine dialogue, not…vicious demagoguery” on either side. There are plenty of committed, reasonable and talented community leaders and Chelsea residents (my own brother and sister-in-law included) who would be only too glad to work with the seminary to find a reasonable compromise. If only the seminary leadership would try listening, there would be a lot less need for shouting. Unfortunately, Matt’s piece does not help in that effort. It only adds to the hysteria and name calling his article deplores. Worse, because of Matt’s credibility as an outstanding leader of the L.G.BT. community, many readers will simply accept at face value his baseless claims that this is a gay-rights issue, and will be left with a completely false idea of what all the fuss is really about. Erica Bell
To The Editor: I am a resident of the so-called “seminary block,” a gay man, 61 years old, and I have been very active in gay rights causes for 15 years. I have attended perhaps six to eight of the public meetings held over the last year to discuss the General Theological Seminary’s proposed building plans on the block. I am of course aware of the support given to gay rights by the Episcopal Church, this seminary and the priests it has trained. I also heard comments by one (or two) gay seminarians at two public meetings I attended, expressing support for the seminary’s gay-rights positions and its building plans. Although I, of course, have gratitude for any support given to gay rights, I oppose the tower proposed by the seminary. In Manhattan, in the year 2006, support of gay rights does not justify expectations of a quid pro quo. This is not Moscow or Warsaw. This is an issue of a proposed use of neighborhood property which does not conform to existing regulations, not of gay rights. Having spent many hours at these meetings, I can say that most of the persons I have heard strongly support the existence of the seminary; I have heard no comments mocking the gay seminarians who spoke (although I myself thought their comments were irrelevant); and the general tenor of neighbors’ comments at the meetings has been one of concern and opposition but not vicious demagoguery or knee-jerk absolutism. Perhaps most sad to me is that through tying support of gay rights to support of the seminary’s plans, there is an implication that even in Manhattan, even in Chelsea, in 2006, the gay community still holds such an inferior position in society that it must be grateful for whatever comes its way, without being able to make any individual and independent judgments on issues. James S. Davis
To The Editor: As a middle-aged heterosexual man with family who has lived and worked in West Chelsea since 1982, I was deeply offended and incensed by Matt Foreman’s conflation of the General Theological Seminary’s blatant attempt to shove a completely inappropriate high-rise building project for mega-developer Brodsky (with only partially disclosed contractual terms) right in the middle of the Chelsea Historic District, with the fictional specter of anti-gay sentiment on the part of the G.T.S.’s neighbors. I thank God that Chelsea is one of very few communities that can take pride in the fact that L.G.B.T. and heterosexual brothers and sisters live in true mutual respect and natural harmony with each other. To suggest otherwise, and attempt to graft this false notion onto a proposed big-bucks development project, is an obscene and divisive distortion of fact. A great many gay and straight citizens fought arm in arm for nearly 20 years to obtain zoning restrictions that would limit new construction to a height of 75 feet in the Chelsea Historic District, (as well as for passage of the rest of the Chelsea Plan.) The G.T.S. is on record as having fought against the creation of a Chelsea Historic District way back in the late ’60s. Perhaps they were anticipating that this day would arrive. Since the G.T.S. apparently got locked into their Brodsky contract years ago without any discussion with the community, subsequent suggestions (and there have been many) of alternatives that might solve or diminish their financial hardships have, so far, fallen on deaf ears. Nick Fritsch
To The Editor: I was dismayed by Matt Foreman’s ridiculous attack on his neighbors. His remarks of implied homophobia were a real shocker. Sexual preference was never an issue with the General Theological Seminary. Not once in his column did he mention our cause was protection of the historic district, and we certainly have never suggested that the seminary should leave Chelsea. He obviously has not been following our campaign to protect the historic district and our discussions with the seminary on alterative solutions to their financial problems. Doris Corrigan
To The Editor: I have long admired Matt Foreman’s commitment to the L.G.B.T. community and the work he has done to advance our rights. In fact, I consider him a friend. But I have to take issue with his recent talking point. For the more than 15 years that I have lived in Chelsea, I have been involved in many battles: confronting bad landlords; struggling to preserve rent regulations; fighting rowdy bars; protecting a woman’s right to choose; and expanding and preserving L.G.B.T. rights. In all of these battles I have been joined by many of our neighbors, whom I have come to know, admire and respect for their commitment to this community and the folks who live here. I am now working with many of these same people as part of the Save Chelsea Historic District coalition in an attempt to preserve Chelsea’s zoning regulations and landmark designation, which we fought so hard to secure many years ago. I find it hard to believe that anyone would “mock the gay seminarians” at any meeting, public or private. And as much as we want the General Theological Seminary to thrive here, we must maintain our historic and architectural integrity. The issue with G.T.S. is about keeping Chelsea this wonderful, thriving, open and progressive neighborhood we call home. I like to refer to it as our own promised land. Let’s keep it that way. Tom Schuler
To The Editor: Congratulations on a very nice editorial on Chelsea Park. What a shame that you failed to mention the park’s primary designer, Michael Van Valkenburgh. Thomas Balsley
To The Editor: It’s been so long since any of those street boxes had publications that interested me; I grew to ignore them. I will now give them my attention and look for the orange box containing Chelsea Now. Ken Naarden
To The Editor: News editors refuse to place helicopters over the river. Not only are these aircraft an annoyance but they also pose an unnecessary risk to residents. These helicopters should be over the river. Please do something about this! Ernest Budnick
E-mail letters, not longer than 350 words in length, to news@chelseanow.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to Chelsea Now, Letters to the Editor, 145 Sixth Ave., ground floor, NY, NY 10013. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. Chelsea Now reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel.
|
View our previous issues >our latest family addition:
|
|
Chelsea Now is published by |
Written permission of the publisher must be obtainedbefore any of the contents |
