Letters to the Editor

Illegal hotels balderdash

Dear editor:
Re “First city action vs. an illegal hotel hailed as a major step forward” (news article, Sept. 28):

In Chelsea Now’s recent article on illegal hotel’s, a vital component of fair reporting and journalistic principals was omitted by reporter Chris Lombardi, the truth. The article omits the fact that more people demonstrated in favor of the Candy Hotel than opposed it. No mention of this occurs in the article.

The truth is that many people on the Upper West Side don’t mind tourist hotels. Many of us would rather see SRO hotels used for affordable housing for long-term neighborhood residents. But after watching 30 years of hand-wringing and cheesy press conferences by political hacks, is it not time to face the fact that the economic model for SROs is broken?

Isn’t that why SRO owners will more likely convert their properties to be used for homeless shelters, welfare facilities, supportive housing and foreign tourists than rent at the old stabilized rents for long-term tenants? We can either believe what we see, or believe what the Working Group is telling us, except that they have put nothing on the table that addresses the subsidies and abatements that might be needed to make it possible to run an SRO as affordable housing. Most SRO owners can’t earn a return on their property investment because real estate in Manhattan is so prohibitively expensive.

It is an inconvenient truth that Upper West Side residents, having seen the Candy used once as a homeless shelter, outnumbered others at the so-called rally with a bigger counter-protest because the hotel is a better neighbor than the shelter was. Or that even more hotel workers came out to ask that their jobs be protected, lest they be homeless. Or that the cadre of outside politicians were greeted with shouts of “carpetbagger” and “get off our block.”

I am sadly disappointed that any media outlet could publish a story that so completely missed what happened in this City. It can only diminish the credibility of Chelsea Now.
Aaron Biller

Protecting Pier 40

To The Editor:
Connie Fishman’s dismissive view of parent/family distress at the possibility of losing that wonderful sports field complex on Pier 40—Caccapollo said, “‘Connie [Fishman] always tells me that ‘You can’t say you can’t live without something that’s only been here 2 1/2 years,’”—reflects her ignorance of important local history. The Pier 40 fields represent close to 20 years of dedicated parents fighting for safe and adequate sports fields for our community’s kids, years of intense hopes, efforts and plans that repeatedly fell through or met unbreachable resistance.

I speak from my family’s involvement with this earlier history, beginning in September, 1987 when my first-grader son (now 26) signed up for what was the Greenwich Village Soccer League. It was a small, shoe-string, completely parent-based effort, with t-shirts and cotton gym shorts for uniforms. They practiced and played (2 games simultaneously) on tiny J. J. Walker in its pre-rehab days—a packed uneven dirt surface with sparse tufts of grass that was shared by dog walkers and the homeless. The field was littered with broken glass and dog poop and soaked with dog urine.

My husband, François Haas, began coaching that fall. In spring 1991 he formed the very first Travel Team—a U-10—and they were allowed to use the field by the East River at E. 6th St. for home games. My husband joined the GVSL Board, eventually becoming president. As GVSL grew beyond Greenwich Village, he renamed it Downtown United Soccer Club, got funding for proper uniforms, and designed a club patch. Finding larger fields to borrow for the growing Travel program and the older recreational teams was a constant and anxious struggle, at times down to the wire and potentially jeopardizing the program. Continued attempts for a permanent solution were fruitless. My son had long outgrown DUSC by the time J. J. Walker was transformed and then some makeshift playing space was gained on the pier. And finally, 2 1/2 years ago, this expansive gem on Pier 40 officially opened.

So it’s far more than these 2 1/2 years, Connie Fishman! The Pier 40 playing fields were sorely needed and a great many years overdue. Don’t you dare try to take them away!
Sheila Sperber Haas

Pier 40 idea

To the Editor:In your informative article on the new Pier 40 Partnership in last week’s issue of Chelsea Now, Rich Caccapollo is quoted as mentioning a “maritime museum” as a possible feature of the Partnership’s vision for the future Pier 40. Where did he ever get such an idea?

At the September meeting of the Waterfront Committee of Community Board 2 Manhattan, the Partnership, represented by Fred Wilson and Bruce Goldfarb, made a presentation. Representing the Greenwich Village Community Task Force, I decided this was a good time to talk about an idea I had been thinking about since the P.S. 42 event in the Spring. So, I suggested to the Committee members and the Partnership reps that a Maritime Museum on the pier would be invaluable. After all, the heritage of the Hudson Riverfront, especially the Far West Village sector, will have completely disappeared in a short time, except for the one-block-long Weehawken Historic District and the three protected waterfront hotels.

This would not be another South Street Seaport, but a much more modest affair, consisting primarily of a gallery of historic photographs of the piers and the waterfront enterprises associated with them.

In addition to the support of Katy Bordonaro and Zack Winestine, co-chairs of the Task Force, and Carol Feinman of the Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront, I have received an endorsement in a personal message from Andrew Berman of the GVSHP.

So the word is out there. I’m glad it reached Rich Caccappolo.
Albert S. Bennett
Bennett is the Landmarks Chairperson for the Greenwich Village Community Task Force