Letters to the editor

Volume Number 1 Issue Number 10 / Devember 1 - 7, 2006

He doth protest too much

To The Editor:
Re “The Seminary Shuffle” (letter, by Robert Trentlyon, Nov. 17):

Robert Trentlyon correctly reports that since April the General Theological Seminary voluntarily held meetings with community representatives and elected officials to seek common ground about our Ninth Ave. proposal. It is not correct that the seminary controlled the agendas, as documented by the many e-mail exchanges of the “working group” — representatives of block associations, community groups, Community Board 4 and elected officials. The working group set the agendas, not the seminary. Nor is Mr. Trentlyon correct when he claims that the meetings were chaired by the seminary’s C.F.O. The chairperson of C.B. 4, Dr. Lee Compton, chaired the meetings except for two, which he co-chaired with Fred Bland of Beyer Blinder Belle.

Because these meetings were at our initiative, they were held on our premises. Two meetings were during the summer, and to our knowledge no one was turned away. The auditorium where we met holds 150 people and sign-in sheets from these sessions reflect that 62 people attended the first, and 78 people attended the second.

As for the promotion of the unveiling of the new design for Ninth Ave., Mr. Trentlyon subscribes to the seminary’s e-newsletter, “News for Our Neighbors.” Both the Oct. 6 and the Oct. 24 issues carried announcements of the unveiling. (To receive the e-newsletter, contact ballard@gts.edu.) In response to community requests, we moved the unveiling to a more accessible non-seminary space, the Church of the Holy Apostles, which, while Episcopal, has no formal affiliation with the seminary. (Our church is decentralized.) We also asked a well-respected, independent group facilitator, Dr. David Rosenthal, executive director of the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center, to facilitate.

Regarding the fliers for the meeting, the seminary posted fliers throughout the neighborhood. Apparently some were torn down. When Mr. Trentlyon was asked if he knew about this, he said that he saw the fliers. Now he claims that there were no fliers.

Finally, to the issue of future meetings, the seminary has no plans for any public meetings regarding Ninth Ave. until early 2007, after the holidays.

Ward B. Ewing
Ewing is dean and president, General Theological Seminary

Revisionist rector

To The Editor:
Re “Dean: Right back at you” (letter, by Ward B. Ewing, Nov. 10):

In a May 9 letter, the New York Landmarks Conservancy did indeed agree with the assessment of Beyer Blinder Belle regarding the deteriorated condition of General Theological Seminary’s buildings and the “need for restoration and repair,” as Dean Ewing cites. However, the dean’s assertion that the “Landmarks Conservancy recommends that the work begin as soon as possible to prevent irreparable decay” is not supported by the letter and accompanying memorandum.

Instead, the cover letter states: “We urge you to try and complete work on all the listed buildings within a specified time frame.” The attached memorandum reviewing the preservation plan observes: “Although work could be prioritized and phased, we think that the majority of the proposed work will need to be done at [sic] over the next 10 to 15 years and that phasing of the work will not be as cost effective.” Nowhere does the Landmarks Conservancy memorandum or cover letter recommend “that the work begin as soon as possible to prevent irreparable decay.”

Hilda Regier

Curb unfit drivers

To The Editor:
Over the years of reading the Police Blotter section, there have been numerous references to traffic accidents where pedestrians, bicyclists et al. have been killed, maimed, critically injured, with the explanation that the motorist “lost control of the vehicle,” “accidentally stepped on the accelerator instead of the brakes,” etc. Almost invariably the article ends by saying that “the police did not file any criminal charges.”

In some of these incidents, the driver is said to be elderly. In another case, a middle-aged diabetic man killed a woman on a bicycle, despite being warned by two doctors not to drive. I saw this latter case on “Court TV.”

My point — beside the lack of criminal prosecution — is why are people who are physically, mentally or emotionally unfit to drive a vehicle permitted to do so? Why are they not screened out for the sake of public safety? I understand that these are “accidents” and there was no intent to kill or maim. However, the victims are just as dead, just as maimed as if there was criminal intent. I am not attacking senior citizens. But if a senior citizen, or anyone of any age is not physically, mentally or emotionally capable of operating a vehicle safely, they need to be removed from the streets and roads.

Michael Gottlieb