Rezoning And Overdevelopment Aren’t Always Good For A Community

I don’t take the same route to work every day. However, when I pass the same block a few days in a row, I see the same empty lot where a one-family house once stood and a boarded-up vacant property screams: “Here comes a four-family home!”
Thanks to City Councilman Lew Fidler, Canarsie is presently undergoing the city’s largest rezoning project to preserve the character of our community. Huge, multiple family dwellings cannot be built on property previously zoned for one- and two-family houses. Rezoning will hopefully deter developers from turning our “small-town” into an overcrowded place where everyone is literally on top of each other.

However, when you look in the classified sections of local newspapers, hundreds of residents are trying to rent rooms and illegal basement apartments. This is normally a positive thing for most neighborhoods, but not when zoning laws are overlooked.
If you recently purchased a two-family house in Canarsie and the basement was never renovated or furnished, the house was most likely always occupied by just two families. But when you decide to turn that basement into a habitable, though illegal, apartment and you rent it, it’s then occupied by three families! And if one of those three families rents a room or two in a new apartment — the residence becomes a four family home.
You can rezone, reconstruct and reorganize Canarsie however you’d like — but those who already live here in one- and two-family homes are bringing more people into the community and into their homes — illegally — and we don’t even suspect it’s taking place.


I agree that some of those gigantic condominiums look obtrusive and out of place in the middle of a block lined with the cute bungalows that have existed in our community for over a century.
My question to those objecting to more housing in Canarsie is: Would you rather the bungalow be bought by an absentee landlord, who illegally rents the rooms and a basement to a “family?” If each of the illegal occupants in that bungalow has a car, they are, in turn, crowding our streets, producing additional garbage and possibly endangering their neighbors with fire hazards.
There was a legal six-story house in The Bronx that caught fire on July 17, 2008, in which three children were injured. The incident left more than 200 people homeless and officials claimed the house was apparently not suited for so many residents.

Who’s to say that this can’t happen in a small twofamily home in Canarsie where all the rooms are unknowingly occupied/rented by people using portable heaters, air conditioners and other potentially hazardous devices? Will those landlords and homeowners ever obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Fire Department?

Yes, we’ve successfully fought for rezoning while many empty pits of land remain surrounded by planks of wood. But the next time you walk down a street in Canarsie — ask yourself how many people really live in that century-old single-family home.
Who knows, one day you might pass by a house and see an excessive number of people exiting like clowns emerging from a tiny car in a circus.
Those are the people who are a potential danger to you, your neighbors and our community.

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-01-13/Letters|Opinion/OpEd.html

Who Really Loses If Walmart Is Banned In Brooklyn?

When I was 18 years old, a student at Brooklyn College and living in Canarsie, I got a job in Manhattan, working in a small “Mom and Pop” stationery store. It was annoying to have to get up early on weekends to travel outside my community for minimum wage job — it was $5.50 an hour then — that didn’t provide any benefits. We were only allowed a half hour lunch break and on the holidays we got no breaks at all.

For four years I worked at this “sweatshop”-like retail store, wishing there were more big businesses in and around Canarsie, so I wouldn’t have to commute for a job with a company that offered little to its employees. But, in order to finance my education and pursue a journalism career, I endured the hours and years of underappreciated labor.

Thinking back, it would have been great if Gateway Mall had existed in 1999 — I could have worked at one of those stores, which would have made things so much easier. It would have given me options for a decent part-time job that was, at least, closer to home.

When I read about the possibility of a Wal-Mart opening in a new Gateway shopping center, I realized that people have a right to object to the superstore — which may take away business from other area businesses.

Objections to a Walmart in Brooklyn, and other boroughs, has also stemmed from the company’s lack of care, treatment and benefits for workers.

If this is the case, why wasn’t the “Mom and Pop” shop I worked in for four grueling years brought down and protested against? We never picketed when we worked eight straight hours without a break during the busy seasons. I recently also learned that high school students, who say they are just grateful to have a job, work for my previous employer.

Of the few small, privately owned businesses still in existence in our community, I’m sure there are companies and retail stores that don’t treat their employees fairly. Some might not offer health care and only pay the new minimum wage.

Why don’t politicians start attacking those small businesses — like our beloved 99 cents stores and mini-marts — where workers sweep or shovel outside in all weather conditions, stock shelves and lift heavy parcels just to make a small salary so they can survive in this rocky economy? Employees obviously took those jobs accepting their responsibilities and work conditions.

It seems that small businesses manage to remain open because the demand is still here— and I don’t think the existence of a big box store like Walmart will change reality: if you just want a roll of toilet paper, a carton of milk, or a loaf of bread at 8 o’clock at night, you’re NOT going to travel all the way to Walmart at Gateway — you’ll probably head to one of the stores on Flatlands Avenue, Avenue L or Rockaway Parkway!

In addition, there isn’t as much retail competition in Canarsie now as there was years ago. Stores like Telco and Sona’s Gift Shop closed when their leases expired and rents were raised too high for the owners, who decided not to renew them even though residents still loved their convenience.

I’m sure there will be plenty more negative attention drawn to the issue of Walmart in Brooklyn. But with the lack of so many retail shops to work in and shop locally, who is really losing out on this modernday big box store proposal? 

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-02-17/Guest_Column/Who_Really_Loses_If_Walmart_Is_Banned_In_Brooklyn.html 

Admitting When You’re Scared Of An Epidemic Doesn’t Make You Sick!

Oh please Facebook! I can help "stop" it by NOT going overseas!!!

It was only a matter of time before I sat down and mapped out a column on how I feel about how our country – and city – is handling the Ebola scare. Ha! If you ask a large majority of the people out there if they ARE scared, they’ll say no! It seems like every broadcast and interview I’ve seen features citizens who aren’t scared or concerned about contracting the Ebola virus – and they’re not really worried about their health if they’ve been in the same environment as someone who’s contracted the Ebola virus.

Of course not! Why should anyone worry! According to health officials it’s not “contagious until it’s symptomatic!” There are people who will say, what’s there to worry about – our government is doing all that they can to keep the epidemic under control – and that most of the people who had Ebola are now back in good health or are on their way to getting their health back.

Call me ignorant and naïve….or whatever – I AM SCARED!

It’s hypocritical for our government to say Ebola “isn’t as easy to contract as you think.” Really? So, how, in all honesty, did Doctor Craig Spencer contract the disease if he was following protocol – and was suited up with hazmat gear like he was heading to a nuclear danger zone?

Even though I’m part of the media, I have a feeling many media outlets aren’t showing the truth – that there is a population of people out there who are scared of Ebola spreading more easily at SOME point in the future.

The Health Department recently issued this statement: “…As of Wednesday, November 5th, 357 individuals are being actively monitored by the Health Department. The vast majority of these individuals are travelers arriving in New York City within the past 21 days from the three Ebola-affected countries who are being monitored post-arrival, as well as Bellevue Hospital staff caring for Dr. Spencer. The list also includes FDNY EMS staff who transported Dr. Spencer to Bellevue and the lab workers who conducted Dr. Spencer’s blood test. All of these individuals are being monitored out of an abundance of caution, and none are showing any symptoms. The number of individuals who will be actively monitored will continue to fluctuate as people arrive or depart New York City, we learn more about people’s exposures, and 21 days of monitoring has passed.”

I’m probably not the only one who thinks this – but why allow ANY doctors who treated Ebola-stricken patients overseas back into the U.S.? It's ironic that we’re sending doctors to other countries to “stop the spread” and “provide a cure” to the infected population, yet they’ll fly infected Americans back home to get treatment? Soooo…I’m guessing the treatment we’re providing to sick patients overseas isn’t all that effective? If the treatment was working, couldn’t American doctors who contract Ebola overseas be treated overseas too?

So? We have the BEST technology, medicine and antibiotics here in the states to treat the Ebola virus…What – are American doctors giving infected patients in Africa Fruit Loops and a make believe time machine to backtrack how things got this bad?

It’s still scary to think and know that doctors are coming home – knowing they were exposed to the illness, to whatever extent – and we have to wait nearly a month to find out if they’re Ebola-stricken. It’s 2014 and we’re quarantining and monitoring hundreds of people as if they were exposed to a deadly amount of radon or nuclear chemicals. We’re clearing out areas and “testing” for…God knows what.

When I heard that Dr. Spencer traveled on the ‘L’ train, it hit home for me in a lot of ways. If you can contract Ebola through bodily fluids, what if there’s sweat or blood left behind somewhere on the railings or poles? Oh, right…it’s not that easy to contract until the person is symptomatic – which he was less than 24 hours after riding the rails. This ‘hero’ wasn’t completely honest when it came to telling officials about his whereabouts – so what else was he lying about? The media revealed that people who lived and interacted with this doctor – or other infected doctors – weren’t afraid. They didn’t seem concerned – in the LEAST – about their own health.

I’m sure there were a handful of people who actually said, “Yeah, I’m scared as hell!” or “Of course, I’m concerned – who knows what can happen now that this guy came home with the Ebola virus!!” None of these interviewees made it to the broadcast. If anything, they’ll air folks who will say, “Yeah, I’m concerned, but, hey, you can’t let it stop you from living your day-to-day life!”

Let’s get real! No one wants to create a panic and no one wants to stir feelings of fear even though it’s obvious how vulnerable we really are. However, if we can’t get a handle on a disease that was discovered over 30 years ago, we mind as well bring back measles, mumps and rubella – and let’s get some of that classic malaria over here too! Besides, it won’t be too much of a concern to anyone!

(Unpublished as of 11/7/14)

Who Needs Proof That A Lot Of Men Are Just Plain Disrespectful!

Another sociological study was performed a couple of weeks ago when “street harassment” was recorded by actress Shoshana B. Roberts.  Forget about spending “10 Hours Walking As A Woman in NYC…” – women have been dealing with catcalls since the beginning of time! Don’t you just love how someone comes along and “recaptures” an obvious social or public scenario – but nothing is done to change or address it?

I’ve already written a column on how I don’t feel safe walking the community when dozens of potentially dangerous men want to simply “say hello,” to a pretty woman (“When Courteousness Is Mistaken For A Dangerous Encounter,” 12/8/2011). 

The idea brought on by Roberts’ disturbing experience – which was captured by a man who strapped a hidden camera to his back and walked in front of the attractive subject– is that women are constantly being harassed in the streets.

Questions about whether catcalls are all that “innocent” are being raised…

Questions on whether these complimentary sentiments are potentially “dangerous” were raised…

Questions about crossing the line between flirting and being a clear and present danger to a woman were also entertained.

How about the fact that some men are just plain RUDE and DISRESPECTFUL? How about the fact that most men DON’T know how to approach a woman in the first place – and this pathetic attempt at getting someone’s attention is proof that a lot of men weren’t taught the right way to speak to a woman – without coming off as an arrogant idiot with no manners!

It wasn’t just disrespectful – it was downright DANGEROUS that one of the men walking next to Roberts was following her as he was talking! What woman wants to be followed and nagged for attention? If you’re a man in the community who thinks senselessly hollering at a woman will get her to date you – then you’re pretty pathetic! Shouting at a woman and talking to a woman is two different things. Also, just because a woman is attractive and crosses your path, doesn’t mean you have to react! You don't know what her situation is and you don’t know what she’s going through in her life. When you’re walking the city streets – trying to get to work, school or to an important appointment – that's definitely NOT the place or time to start a conversation!

Let’s get real!  These days, it seems, even if a man has ample time to hold a conversation, he can’t even compliment a woman in a reputable manner. Instead of saying, “Miss, that’s a nice jacket you’re wearing,” or “How are you today?” some hoodlum decides to sidle up to a woman and snap at her – saying,  “Yo Ma, lemme git your number!” or “Sup, girl….You don’t wanna say hi?...Fine be like that b***h!”

So you don’t have the decency to say something…decent…and YOU decide to call a woman a derogatory name? We don’t know – and most of us don’t want to know – where the conversation’s going to lead. If we start responding to these douchebag men, we know it’ll provoke more unwanted conversation. How much of a gentleman can you be if you walk up to random women spewing horrible words you think will get you a date…or more!

Why should we respond? In a city where women are the ones who have to be careful and protect themselves, it’s only natural to ignore a man who uses sexist pet names and crude language to get our attention. If all a man can do is throw aimless flirts at a woman, how classy and proper would he be if he actually got a chance to have a date wit her?

A man’s choice of words – and how he makes his first impression – sets the stage for how a woman sees his personality and character. Do you really see a serious relationship coming from someone who yells, “Lookin’ good shorty!”? How polite can a man be to you and your your family if he invades your personal space and talks trash the second he gets one look at you? What’s more – if you dated this creep, would you seriously marry and have kids with someone who hollered at you on the street? Let’s take it a step further – would you want this loser, with their street talk and sloppiness, raising your children to talk with same disgusting vocabulary?

Whether you enjoy being a creep…a loser…a douchebag…or if you just don’t care that your “flirty” and “innocent” words can lead to a woman feeling like her sense of privacy has been violated, it doesn’t take new video footage from a small time actress to tell us what we all know: Seeing some mens’ horrible manners and hearing their tacky pick-up lines is like seeing garbage tossed all over the street – and that’s where I think these guys belong!

(Unpublished as of 11/6/14)

Why Aren’t Our Civic Groups Working With Each Other?

Seeing the same faces at community meetings is often a welcome sign when I have an assignment. While I attend basically the same three or four meetings a month, I usually try to generate something new and interesting from each session that helps people in the community stay informed.

The only thing I don’t quite understand is why, although everyone wants to believe we are a “tightknit” community, not all civic organizations work together or attend critical meetings of other organizations to keep themselves informed!

I’ve gone to countless meetings on the situation at P.S. 114. Even though I couldn’t attend every meeting since the issue arose in November, I’ve never seen any of our civic leaders, other than politicians, at these rallies. Understandably, teachers and parents spearheaded the move towards saving the school. Maybe none of our civic leaders even went to P.S. 114: so does that mean they shouldn’t bother fighting with the rest of the community?

Strangely, all the civic leaders spoke about P.S. 114 at their respective meetings each month and voiced their opinions when they’d never been to any of the Department of Education hearings at the school.

Is it fair to say that if you’re “active” in your community, you should make time not only to host your own meeting, but to join others whose goal is to make Canarsie a thriving neighborhood?

When I covered the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) meeting last week at the Hebrew Educational Society, only 20 to 30 residents were there. It seemed like the only reason they were there was to get answers about their higher water bills. I didn’t see any of our civic leaders (only elected officials or their representatives) at this meeting, during which the commissioner informed everyone about the Paerdegat Basin Project and how critical it is to cleaning out our water system.

Everyone wants to complain to and about city agencies and their lack of appearance in Canarsie – but when agencies finally host an elaborate and well-thought-out session about how projects impact us, the civic leaders are nowhere to be found!

Are civic leaders in contact with each other about when other meetings are held? The Canarsie Courier’s Community Guide isn’t just a listing of events in black and white to acknowledge and pass by. It’s meant to spread the word to your friends and neighbors, as well as civics, so attendance at the events would be even higher. Did anyone even know about the DEP meeting? Why didn’t all the civics get together and attend so that they could bring these important issues back to their members at their next meeting?

Whether it’s bad timing for your schedule or you just “don’t care” anymore, is not my business. But if we’re truly going to return to the “tight-knit” community we were over 10 years ago, I suggest more civics get involved – with each other and take advantage when an agency avails itself to us.

If your only concerns are issues within your own group, then you might as well have your head in the sand!

 http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-03-31/Letters|Opinion/Why_Arent_Our_Civic_Groups_Working_With_Each_Other.html

What’s A “Homicide”? Categorically Speaking, It’s An “Assault” Gone Wrong!

Everyone’s definition of “crime statistics” differs.

First, you’ve got the NYPD’s definition – based only on what they record. Then, you’ve got city and state representatives, who base the severity of current statistics on what’s happened in past years. Then, you’ve got local precincts which throw various crimes into different categories that don’t make things sound “too bad.”

THEN…THEN you have the residents – homeowners and folks in the community – who REALLY see what’s going on and catch all the action that often turns out to be “nothing,” as police report.

I started rethinking about how crime is reported when I wrote about two stabbings that took place in the community within one week early in October. Then, in our October 30th issue, there were three more stabbings that took place – in only three days!

Whether the public knows this –or disagrees with it – officials file crimes like stabbings and non-violent shootings (which don’t result in death or casualties) under “assaults.” Legally, an assault – which is what most non-fatal shootings and stabbings are categorized under – is “carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent present ability to cause harm.”

Bodily harm? That’s all? WHY? You were STABBED! You were SHOT! If you were within a foot of the person who shot or stabbed you, does the word “assault” really even begin to describe what you experienced? Whoever shot or stabbed you took a chance at ending your life.

Someone punching you in the face or somewhere on your body is also just an “assault.” Is someone kicking or choking you – almost to death – also considered an assault – not just an attack?

In my opinion, if someone’s using a lethal weapon – especially an illegal one – that has potential to end one’s life, shouldn’t whatever harm they cause be considered more serious than just “an assault”?

Let’s break it down…You could get stabbed with a knife once in a major artery or in your heart and bleed to death. You could get shot once in your head or chest and die. In those cases, the “assault” resulted in death and it’s rightfully labeled a homicide.

It’s sad to know that if you get stabbed or shot at and you don’t die as a result of your injuries – it might be counted as an attempted murder. But it’s still listed in crime stats an “assault.”

Nahhh, the suspect didn’t mean to kill you – they just have fun poking people with a knife and firing a gun at you for no reason! Plenty of innocent people get wounded by gunshots when they were the in line of fire. Whoever fired that shot or pulled their weapon out – consciously – acted with the intent to harm or kill someone. So that’s simply an assault? If someone gets arrested for carrying out a brutal beating – and that’s also an “assault” – how can they throw something more serious, involving a gun or knife, into the same crime statistic/category?

I know – there’s a lot of legalese and technical terms that subsequently allow the bad guys to continue walking the streets – armed, dangerous and a threat to others’ lives. All of these sub-categories and toned-down labels of pure intentional violence also results in less time in prison for someone carrying a weapon.

Lastly, the time served in prison should be A LOT longer than a decade or so for attempting to take someone’s life. Yes, 20-year-old Kareem Potomont was charged with attempted murder after he “unintentionally” shot young Gama Droiville, who was caught in the crossfire earlier this year in the East Flatbush area.

Come on! The poor kid was left scarred, blind and visiting hundreds of doctors months later so he could receive a prosthetic eye. Potomont, already noted by the press as a troubled individual whose aim was not Droiville, was said to get “25 years to life” for carrying the heinous act. Only 25 years…to life? He opened fire on a public street and changed an innocent boy’s life for the worst! He could have killed multiple people – and the minimum is 25 years?

There’s apparently a fine line between attempting to kill someone and actually killing them…It’s only matter of exactly where the bullet or knife strikes you! Remember, if you’re gonna shoot someone, please don’t kill them – cuz, according to our legal system and crime stats, you’re only “assaulting” them and you won’t really be punished for all that long…

Unpublished 10-29-14

Our Government Is Home Alone!

When someone trespasses on your property and tampers with its contents, what’s the first thing you want to do? What’s the first thing that comes to mind? Train a ferocious dog to rip them apart? Rig up some type of booby trap like that kid did in Home Alone? Hire your own security guard to search the premises and stand at the door like a bouncer?

Okay – maybe you want to take a lighter and less expensive route and do what the NYPD advises. Install some surveillance cameras to capture the crooks’ images and if you can get an alarm for your home, that might work, too. Police say doing simple things like locking your windows and doors will help keep intruders out, too.

I’ve received plenty of calls at the office from homeowners who were robbed while they were inside their house. It’s frightening to know that anyone can just enter your comfort zone at any time and rob you blind. That’s why people should also set their home alarm systems when they go to sleep – we’re most vulnerable when we’re asleep and not paying attention to what’s going on.

It’s ironic that the city puts out all of these advisories for residents to “protect their homes” and properties when the city can’t even protect its own property! In early October, Federal legislation was proposed to “toughen” penalties for those trespassing high-profile structures. That’ll scare away those kids and “activists” who were able to climb to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge! That’ll show those hooligans who somehow gained access to the top of the World Trade's Freedom Tower!

I don't care about security “oversights” and lack of resources. What if, in one of those instances, the perpetrators made it to the top of the structure and planted a bomb? What if those scoundrels were able to place cameras where they intruded and plot an attack? What if they were carrying weapons and were able to obliterate vehicles or passersby?

Ok – maybe you want a lighter and less invasive excuse for why they climbed some of the city’s most vulnerable high-profile structures. They just wanted to “make a statement” and make the news! They didn’t hurt anyone!

In an ideal, post-9/11 world, we wouldn’t need to make excuses for why our government isn’t protecting us from trespassers. Do you realize how easy it is to access a public structure and potentially plan something dangerous?

Sure, now they’re taking measures to put “new barriers” in place…once the damage has been done. That’s like waiting until your gorgeous house gets ransacked by a pack of thieves before you finally decide to dish out money for an alarm system.

Why are we waiting for someone to trespass on a high-profile building or structure to implement a stronger safety or prevention plan? What have they been doing all of these years? The more you hear about these incidents on the news, the more an average New Yorker will realize how the government really isn’t prepared to protected us.

Out of the security breaches that were reportedly “prevented” already, where do those handful of dangerous incidents fall in the “prevention” category? If it happened before, what makes anyone think it won’t happen again?

Plenty of “safety measures” can be put into effect. Deterring offenders through “tougher fines” doesn’t really address the issue – that we’re vulnerable and unprepared because no one is physically preventing trespassers from getting to their destination.

Let’s get real…Who was patrolling the Brooklyn Bridge when someone stuck a white flag at the top? If this act was committed in the dead of night, when no one was around – what does that say about limited the hours during which we’re protected? Shouldn’t the grounds of the Brooklyn Bridge be protected 24/7?

Oh, well…Isn’t it good to know that the government can’t afford around-the-clock protection for our most vulnerable landmarks? How can we prevent trespassers in the first place if access points are so easy? Which landmark or high-profile structure will be next?

If you ask me, the government’s been sleeping for way too long. Maybe it will take another catastrophe and another breach of security for Senator Chuck Schumer and other lawmakers to start practicing their open-mouthed Home Alone expressions. 

Unpublished 10-20-14