THAL- it is in your phrase "in the right way" that your true colors show. My point is that in the city, you take neighborhoods as you find them. See, some of us actually enjoy the differences among areas of the city. We see those differences as part of the mosaic of the city, not as something to be changed "in the right way." Perhaps this make me a complete ass to you, but I find people like you to be soulless, overprivileged, overinsulating prigs with little appreciation for all of the elements that make this city great. Your desire to sanitize the city with the "right" development (gee, if it were just a little more like Shaker Heights, it would be so great) disgusts some of us. We like NY with its warts and all. As I said at the outset, if you are going to live near a jail, deal with the consequences. And to your comment about it being dumb to put a bail bond business in the ground floor of a condo, have you considered it might be dumb to put a condo in such a neighborhood and then complain about the neighborhood.

Also, do you write much? Your attempted insults make you sound like a 12 year old, complete ass.

Posted by: orestes at November 12, 2009 1:39 PM in response to StreetLevel: New Bail Bonds Office Closed Til Next Year

Who are you people to dictate how a business should look? Oh, if they had nice furniture, if it looked like another tedious pseudo-French bistro it would be fine. Please stop trying to impose your suburban aesthetics on the city. You live near a prison, deal with it. Or better yet, go back to the suburbs, where you really belong.

Posted by: orestes at November 12, 2009 10:15 AM in response to StreetLevel: New Bail Bonds Office Closed Til Next Year

This is Greenpoint. Ask any native.

Posted by: orestes at November 6, 2009 1:12 PM in response to Closing Bell: Greening of Greenpoint

Wait Benson, it is undemocratic for people to band together to support a candidate (see WFP and Liu). Is this topsy-turvy world? Presumably, the epitome of democracy would be for citizens to pick one overprivileged pr*ck over the other. Got it.

Posted by: orestes at October 21, 2009 2:33 PM in response to Rental Prices Continue to Fall in 3rd Quarter

fsrq- boy, you really do have to twist your logic into pretzels to justify BB. His term limit act offered more choice- that is an embarrassing, assinine comment based upon the fallacy that no one else would have run (unsupportable, but all too necessary to prop up your specious argument). BB is really in trouble if this is what his ardent supporters bring to the debate.

As asked above, on what does one base the conclusion that Thompson will not be a good mayor? More importantly, have you followed how BB has spent money like a drunken sailor on his cronies (two money-losing stadia, developer handouts all of over the place, the recent outrageous leases for temporary schools). BB is good at spending money on his friends, but keeps squeezing the funds out of the working class. Good riddance, I say.

Posted by: orestes at October 21, 2009 11:41 AM in response to Rental Prices Continue to Fall in 3rd Quarter

This place is not a 13-15 minute walk to the L train.

Posted by: orestes at October 14, 2009 2:31 PM in response to The Locale: Greenpoint Condo Auction

Joe- I disagree with your basic premise. NYC will accommodate as many people as it has to. It has done so in the past and will do so in the future (one hopes). So, I do not agree with your limited space/resource argument. I don't think we need to decide who gets to live here and who doesn't. Frankly, that's not a decision any of us should make for someone else in a free society. Someone could move to NYC from Utah tomorrow and they could receive housing assistance if they qualify for it. And I don't think they should be stopped. I hope that answers your questions.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 7:39 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

Benson- I thought it was apparent that I am expressing my personal wish that overprivileged suburban people and their values would stay out of the city because I do personally believe they have the ability to destroy the fabric of communities. Of course, that is simply a rant. I would no more try to stop those people from moving to the city than I would anyone else. And I know I am painting with a broadstroke, but that is the nature of argument. One cannot account for every exception and variation. I don't know how this relates to housing subsidies. I am not generally in favor of housing subsidies, although if it is the only tool to achieve the goal of economically diverse communities than I would embrace it. As I mentioned above, I agree with the mixed use/purpose model of Jacobs and would more readily zone areas to achieve that end than give housing subsidies.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 7:35 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

Joe- my request that people leave the city was not meant literally. I was using shorthand to say, please leave your suburban values/attitudes about restrictive communities out there where they belong. The city thrives on a different set of values (indeed suburban values evolved in reaction to city values), values which I appreciate and embrace. Montrose has made this point eloquently. The city belongs to all people, but I would hope that they embrace the ethos of the city rather than tear it down. One of the great things about NY specifically is that there has always been an influx of new people from around the world, who bring new ideas/cultures/etc.

As far as your Yonkers example goes, I don't see how you could not have intended the "hue" you mention. You would not have made the statement if you didn't believe it. Also, I find it amusing that you read my comment as a statement that I think I should choose who can live in NYC, when you are the one espousing the view that those who cannot afford high rents should move someplace else. A bit of transference, no?

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 3:03 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

Benson- I do not claim any moral superiority and was directing my suburbia comment generally, not at any specific poster. I meant no personal offense. Clearly, I do not know the life story of the people who post here. However, from my experience, the people who espouse the view "tough luck, if you can't afford it, you'll have to go elsewhere (Yonkers, etc.)" tend to be people who are used to only living among their socio-economic class and this occurs most frequently in the suburbs. Having lived in the city my entire life, I am accustomed to neighborhoods being more variegated for the most part. Yes, there have always been areas which are exclussively for the wealthy, but for the most part neighborhoods tend to blend into one another with middle and working class living in neighborhoods with the wealthy (perhaps in separate pockets, but alongside). I adopt the Jacobs model of urban design and reject the notion that money should solely determine where one lives. I think vibrant, varied communities serve the most social good.

Joe- my reference to squalor was a rhetorical device. However, if people adopt the view that poor people should be shunted out of the city or to its most remote corners, this is tantamount to saying that you get what you can pay for. Some can only afford squalor; ergo squalor it is. I don't accept this view. I think it's better social policy to ensure that poor/working/middle class (in real terms) people have space in every community (hell, they collectively make up the vast majority of the population). Just as the wealthy demand better/more services, the middle classes are equally entitled to affordable housing throughout the city. If they had better political representation, they would have it.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 2:12 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

I agree with Joe that the government should not use public funds to prop up foolish developers by leasing properties at outrageous rates to use for public housing. That serves to maintain the false market. The city should tax empty properties at a high rate to force developers to sell/rent at market rates. Then we will know the true state of the NYC real estate market.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 1:05 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

I'm with Montrose. First of all, with regard to the set asides- the developers derive their return up front by being able to build larger buildings. They recoup the supposed loss from affordable housing by being able to sell more units. That does not push up market rates; if anything, it adds more market rate units to the market, which should keep prices lower. The gift is to the developer, not the few tenants who win these apartments through a lottery. I agree that this is not the best method for bringing affordable housing into the market, but it's assinine to assert that it drives up the prices for others.

The argument on this issue boils down to the basic question of capitalism. Some argue that the market should rule and if working class people have to live in horrible Victorian conditions, so be it. That's what they can afford. I reject that view. There are certain necessities in life that I believe should not be subject to the vagaries of the market (remember that the end result of unfettered capitalism is that one person wins and everyone else loses- that's called tyranny). Health care is an easy example. And housing is another. I agree with Montrose that neighborhoods should accommodate people of all socio-economic levels. The UK takes this approach with their public housing. Council estates exist in all neighborhoods in London (except Mayfair, of course). And many neighborhoods functioned in that manner for generations. Look at the mansions in Bushwick right alongside the housing for the workers of the economic barons. I can't help but feel that the proponents of economically separatist urban neighborhoods came from economically separatist suburbs. Go back to where you came from and allow we urban dwellers to live in our "soup."

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 1:01 PM in response to Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

OK, Benson. I don't have the complaints that you do about the book. I did not approach it with any preconception about Moses, but walked away with the view that he was a contemptible human being and a worse public servant. When I finished reading the book, I wanted to start a campaign to remove Moses' name from every public project it adorns. But then I figured in another twenty years no one will remember him and things will get renamed for a minor celebrity or something. I haven't heard any similar criticisms about the book. It is generally held in high regard. I will have to look for some negative reviews to see what was unfair in the book.

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:44 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Benson- I suggest you read the Moses biography, The Power Broker. Aside from educating you about Moses, it's also a great read. For my money, the last thing any city needs is another Robert Moses.

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:26 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Southbrooklyn- right on! Bloomberg is an egomaniac with Robert Moses aspirations. He has improvidently spent billions of dollars on bad projects (new stadia, outrageous public leases, etc.) while nickeling and diming the working people of the city. He believes no one has the right to criticize him and, sadly, the media and the Democratic party have let him get away with it. Need I remind all of you lemmings that Bloomberg swept American citizens off the streets during the Republican convention without legal cause and detained them for days in unsafe conditions. How can anyone endorse that kind of behavior?

Posted by: orestes at October 7, 2009 4:09 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Why shouldn't bicyclists simply walk their bikes over the bridge? If they want to move more quickly there is always the Manhattan Bridge. I am of the school that pedestrians always have the right of way. In this case, there is simply not enough room to accommodate bikes and pedestrians on the Brooklyn Bridge- so bicyclists should dismount. The bridge promenade is a great outdoor location to stroll and enjoy the view.

Tyburg- your analysis of the intended users of the bridge is way off. I have not researched this, but I would bet good money that the intended purpose of the upper deck was always to transport pedestrians. It is bikers who are more likely the unintended users.

Posted by: orestes at September 29, 2009 3:00 PM in response to Bikes and Bodies on the Brooklyn Bridge

In NYC you do not have to give 30 days notice on a month to month lease. However, if you remain during a rent cycle you are responsible to pay that month's rent.

Johnny's assertion is true in most other places, but not NYC.

Posted by: orestes at September 29, 2009 2:46 PM in response to 30-Day Notice Req'd?

Isn't this supposed to be covered when removing paint? How have they gotten away with spraying this stuff all over? Hmmm

Posted by: orestes at September 29, 2009 2:38 PM in response to 312 Dean's Cleanup Almost Done

This is typical Times- write a story about Bed Stuy and focus on white people. The comparison to the upper east side and brooklyn heights says it all. And as I believe someone above pointed out, just because investment bankers may not live in Bed Stuy does not mean that the neighborhood is not affected by wall street. That is simply absurd- car service companies, restaturants/cafes/etc., messengers, staff, etc. may just live in Bed Stuy. Ah, but the Times isn't concerned about them; its focus is the influx of former investment bankers and other affluent residents.

Posted by: orestes at September 28, 2009 1:21 PM in response to Bed-Stuy, a Harbor in the Tempest?

These "legions of mostly young people" seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands, most of which they apparently spend trying to attract attention to themselves. It's the invasion of the annoying overindulged children come to flower.

Posted by: orestes at September 28, 2009 11:53 AM in response to Invasion of the Invisible Dogs

This is a shame and I expect there will be more horror stories of this sort (and of new buildings falling apart) in which the developers fade away leaving the residents holding additional expenses and/or the inability to transfer their property.

Posted by: orestes at September 23, 2009 2:15 PM in response to Subpoena for Fraudulent Spencer St Developer

Minard- you reach an illogical conclusion. The fact that one may have a moral objection to spending money on unnecessary street lamps in a time of recession does not lead to the conclusion that such a person believes that no money should be spent on public projects. I don't know how you get there. Sure, wise spend of public funds can have a stimulative effect on the economy during a recession, but not all expenditures are equal. I would think it were self-evident that public spending is not evil. In my view, public spending should be used wisely during these times- provide necessary services to people, rebuild infrastructure that needs repair, etc.

Posted by: orestes at September 22, 2009 2:10 PM in response to Flatbush Streetlamp Project Draws Criticism

Minard- I think the moral objection relates to the fact that we are in a serious recession and unemployment is over 10%. This may not be the time to allocate funds for such a project.

Posted by: orestes at September 22, 2009 11:00 AM in response to Flatbush Streetlamp Project Draws Criticism

Also, I think it's better to have more courts spread around the city to meet the needs of more communities (as in the new park). Of course, I don't expect you would disagree with this and I respect your prerogative to try to do what you can.

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 10:50 PM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

Velour, thanks for the information. I am not opposed to more tennis courts at all and appreciate that you and others are willing to undertake efforts to create more and better courts. I will confess that I am uncomfortable with taking away a space that has been used for the 19 years I've lived here (and before) by the people who have lived here all of their lives to meet the needs predominantly of a new demographic. That is why I think new courts in the new park are preferable- no one is displaced and we have a lot of happy tennis players/fans. That's all.

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 10:47 PM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

Velour- to be fair, the city is not planning on moving softball to a new park, it plans to include baseball fields in a new waterfront park (which proposed park is this?) and because there will be new fields, we will convert the present one to tennis courts. I would also bet that demand for the tennis courts is met during the week (the same time the softball field is vacant). Of course, all recreational facilities are more heavily used on the weekends and evenings. Finally, I think your use estimate is very aggressive.

I think it's a great idea to have more tennis courts in the neighborhood and applaud your willingness to raise private funds to make it happen. But why don't you lobby the city to include tennis courts in the new waterfront park? That would also alleviate the unmet demand for courts and allow greater access to residents (ie, people closer to the new park will go there to play tennis).

I'm also curious about the specifics. Will the courts remain public? Is the city permitting private citizens to contract and build on a public park or will the funds be handed to the city to make the necessary renovations? Who decides how much money must be raised? Who will be responsible for upkeep? With all of these issues to resolve, I truly don't understand why building new courts in the new park is not the best solution. Have you lobbied to have tennis courts added to the new park? What kind of response did you receive?

I am a big tennis fan (although I don't get to play that often) and would welcome additional courts in the neighborhood, but I have to admit I get a slightly uneasy feeling about this proposal. I fear the end result will be new tennis courts and no new ball fields (notwithstanding the city's stated intention).

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 5:29 PM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

I live almost across the street from the park and have not noticed this phenomenon. I will have to look more closely.

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 3:59 PM in response to McCarren Park

I agree with altervoce- if you believe there are an "abundance" of concrete playing fields in the vicinity, prove it. Furthermore, I thought you would understand from my post that I am all for tennis courts in Greenpoint. I merely suggested that other available land be used (it's pretty desolate behind the school) before taking away recreation space that is just as heavily used as the tennis courts. I simply don't believe that one group's preferences (and I bet the people behind this tennis initiative (hats off to them) are privileged newcomers to the neighborhood)should supercede the use of public land by others who may be less vocal/organized/politically savvy. Just because you may be able to travel twenty minutes to another field does not justify taking away the one that has been embraced and enjoyed by the community.

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 1:28 PM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

I have used the courts in Greenpoint over the years and you'd be surprised how popular the courts are, especially with the Poles (at least before most them were priced out of the neighborhood). However, tennis is NOT free in NYC. You have to buy a permit to play on the city courts and it costs $100 for an adult/much cheaper for kids. That keeps tennis out of the hands of many NYers, and in that sense it is elitist. Also, why not try to commandeer some land laying fallow around the high school instead of taking away a ball field that also gets lots of use. I have to say these bourgeios arguments of, well, the ball field used to be tennis courts or there used to be a street running through Pratt's campus are pretty disgusting. These arguments attempt to create objective justifications for what is really only a personal desire. The real argument being concealed is- we want it our way and we'll use any ridiculous argument as a justification for getting our way.

Posted by: orestes at September 17, 2009 12:02 PM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

Wasder- try to put yourself in Pratt's shoes, instead of thinking only of your own loss. When parents ask the administrators, what are you doing to ensure my child is safe? would you have Pratt respond, nothing because that incident (and others) happened off campus. That would be suicide. Furthermore, if something did happen on campus, Pratt would have an even larger PR nightmare on its hands than it presently does. Instead of being angry at Pratt for this decision, how about you feel some gratitude for all of the time you were able to enjoy their property?

Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 3:09 PM in response to Pratt: Not In Our Front Yard

Bxgirl- I used pejorative language because that is what the circumstance called for. It is clearly an overprivileged and over-entitled position to rant against a school because it has decided to use its PRIVATE property for its own use. To complain as if you have some right to the enjoyment of someone else's property is the view of an overprivileged person. I bet you the non-gentrifiers in the neighborhood would give this little consideration- because they would have respected that this is private property from the start.

Your overreaction to this- Pratt is all of a sudden "turning its back on the community" because it's tightening security on its campus- is ridiculous. I would bet you money that Pratt has been busily engaged in crime fighting in the community, working with police, politicians, and neighborhood groups. It is in its best interest to do so. But you couldn't possibly see this because- heaven forfend- I can't prance around the campus like an overaged co-ed, so Pratt is turning its back on the entire community. My language may be strong, but it's a reaction to the sense of entitlement some have expressed in this thread, coupled with a willingness to condemn Pratt because it is not putting MY [commenter] interests first. From the outside, those views are quite offensive.

Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 2:30 PM in response to Pratt: Not In Our Front Yard

Bxgirl- surely you are not implying that somehow Pratt owes the general public the right to treat its campus as public space because it is a tax-exempt organization? Your understanding of the tax code is misplaced. Tax exempt status is granted to organizations that provide a public good. What Pratt "gives back" for its tax exempt status is that it educates students. That's the quid pro quo here- not opening its doors to the public because certain people feel they are entitled to enjoy the campus, too. If you want to hang out on campus, matriculate!

With regard to your second point, additional security makes a place safer or at least makes people feel safer. Pratt's constituency is the students and their parents. If closing off the campus creates a greater feeling of security, it's their prerogative to do so. What's so difficult to understand?

Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 1:15 PM in response to Pratt: Not In Our Front Yard

You selfish louts. You have no right to hang out on Pratt's campus. The school extended that privilege kindly. Now, the school is in the middle of a PR nightmare and you're all in high dudgeon that your access to private property is being limited. Where do you get off? The school has an obligation to create a safe environment for its students (many of whom have never lived in a big city in their young lives). One of the ways they can offer at least some additional security is to restrict access to the campus. Can you really blame them for that? They don't owe you overprivileged, over-entitled SOBs anything. And as for being a good neighbor, a healthy Pratt (one in which they can keep enrollment up despite the rash of crime in the area)is good for the neighborhood, too. I bet you far fewer longtime residents of Fort Greene/Clinton Hill rant and while about this.

Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 12:23 PM in response to Pratt: Not In Our Front Yard

As I mentioned on the other post, although you have breached a clause of the contract, yor landlord has not suffered any damage as a result of this breach. Furthermore, he has a duty to mitigate his damages, which means that he cannot simply wait around until you leave to then start to show the apartment and expect you to pay for the apartment's vacancy after your lease term has ended.

Bohuma must be a landlord trying to help his/her brethren rook another tenant or an idiot, because that advice is all wrong. You can take your landlord to small claims court, which will not require a lawyer or other extensive costs.

Posted by: orestes at September 10, 2009 4:53 PM in response to Confusing Lease Notice

Technically, you have breached a covenant of the contract. However, the problem for your landlord is that he has not suffered any damage as a result of the breach. Furthermore, he has a duty to mitigate his damages. This would have been done by asking you if you intend to renew on day -59. The apartment was going to be vacant after the term of the lease regardless. Your breach did not cause this. Sue him- and do it fast so he may just relent quickly.

Posted by: orestes at September 10, 2009 2:08 PM in response to Lease Notice & Termination

northsloperenter- there is a difference between a one-off event or very occasional occurrence and repeated noise. A good neighbor doesn't complain about the occasional parties of a neighbor. But if the neighbor has a party everyday, then it's a problem. The same would apply to the noise generated by children. Your child rolling a ball one day is no big deal, as would the occasional noise that all children make (throwing or dropping things, for example). But if you think your apartment is your child's substitute playground and you would permit him/her to make excessive noise on a daily basis, then you would be an obnoxious neighbor. There is no special treatment exemption for children's noise. If my peace and quiet are being disturbed in an unacceptable manner, it doesn't matter whether the noise is generated by children or adults. Again, I do believe in being understanding and avoiding battles with your neighbors, but I think it's outrageous for people to assume that others should tolerate the excessive noise of their children, especially if they are the prevalent ill-behaved ilk.

Posted by: orestes at September 8, 2009 4:07 PM in response to Running Child Upstairs

northsloperenter- I think everyone would agree that children make noise, but do you think it's acceptable to permit a child to run back and forth in an apartment for 45 minutes with a resident underneath? That's the issue here. It's not about the noise that is attendant to children (dropping things, running or falling occasionally). It is about parents permitting children to use the apartment as a playground. That is extremely rude to other residents and utterly selfish and unacceptable. Take your child to the park to play or move into a single family home.

Posted by: orestes at September 8, 2009 1:22 PM in response to Running Child Upstairs

"Having to get by without help from your family doesn't make a person morally superior to someone who is lucky enough to receive help. Being the beneficiary of your family's good fortune does not necessarily mean that you are infantile, spoiled, lazy, etc."

I respectfully disagree. In my value system, people who pay their own way are morally superior to the leeches who live off of others. And I respect those who are self-supportive more than the dependent on others types because they have achieved on their talent and tenacity; the latter group achieves because of the privileges and perks handed to them.

Posted by: orestes at September 8, 2009 11:51 AM in response to Renters Become Their Own Landlords

I'm surprised there are so many on here who think it's normal or acceptable for children to be running around indoors. When I was growing up, we were never allowed to run around indoors. That's what outdoors is for. For the poster who mentioned that playground equipment may be too dangerous for a small child, nothing is more dangerous than a home.

It is completely inappropriate for this family to allow their child to run roughshod indoors and disturb your peace. Of course, such noise once in a while should be tolerated, but if these parents are too lazy to take their kids to the park to get out their energy that should not become your burden. I would speak to them again and tell them that the constant noise on the weekend is a nuisance and you would like it to stop. Since they are not willing to put down carpeting, they are just going to have to train their child not to run around all day. If it doesn't stop, I would then complain to the board. I would definitely raise the issue with the owners again before going to the board. You might be able to resolve this amicably. You simply need to state your position more assertively.

Posted by: orestes at September 8, 2009 11:14 AM in response to Running Child Upstairs

There are sure some lazy lawyers on this site. If you read the article, you will see the judge's quote to the effect that he wants to make sure the bank owns the property before it forecloses. This is basic jurisprudence. The bank has the burden of demonstrating a right to the relief sought. Only the lazy and privileged would bemoan having to satisfy their burden of proof. And to claim this judge is biased for this reason is beyond chutzpah. Try to think about the people who have had their rights infringed because of shenanigans by banks and mortgage companies.

Posted by: orestes at August 31, 2009 4:04 PM in response to The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines

According to property shark a mortgage was taken out in 2006 for $400. If that is close to the 2006 (RE height) transfer price, it must need some serious work.

Posted by: orestes at August 26, 2009 4:37 PM in response to House of the Day: 552 47th Street

I wouldn't trust the police stats on crime rates- especially when used to allay fears after an attack as vicious as this one.

As to "five lives lost," I cannot disagree more strongly. When you pick up a crowbar and bash someone into a coma, you get no sympathy from me. One life almost taken, that I'll agree.

Posted by: orestes at August 12, 2009 3:47 PM in response to Despite Brutal Assault, Crime Down in 88th

I don't get it. It appears the tenant thought they were doing a nice thing by putting out the trash. I don't understand how they put the trash out 12 hours too early if you woke up to find it there. Did they put it out in the morning when the next pick up wasn't until the following morning? If so, I would explain the rules to them and then ask for half of the fine or permit them to challenge it. I'm just not clear on the facts here.

Posted by: orestes at August 11, 2009 6:44 PM in response to Ticket for Trash - Who Pays?

The Beastie Boys are not from Brooklyn. One of them is from Brooklyn, but the group itself is Manhattan all the way. I second crimsonson- overrated.

Posted by: orestes at August 3, 2009 5:35 PM in response to Closing Bell: Jay-Z's 'No Sleep Till Brooklyn'

Coney Island is a public space as well as an entertainment area. I am all for cleaning up Coney Island- there is no reason why poor and working class people should have to put up with the tawdriness when they take their kids out for a day's entertainment. For once, can the city please consider the needs of the millions of working class people in this city who have so few options for public recreation? We get the absurd waste of money high line for the wealthy, but there's no hue and cry for spaces for the working-class.

Posted by: orestes at August 1, 2009 2:10 PM in response to City's Coney Plan Approved, Deal With Sitt Near

Also, using the law to thwart your neighbor because you don't like what they've done with their property is generally considered bad form by urban dwellers and will not foster good relationships with your neighbors.

Posted by: orestes at July 15, 2009 2:48 PM in response to Neighbor's Huge Tent

Dealing with neighbors is a price you pay for living in a city. I imagine part of the appeal of suburbs back in the day was that people were able to escape all of the difficulties dealing with neighbors (noise, tree branches hanging over your property resulting in bird doo on clothes on lines (the old days), ugly paint jobs and structures, etc.). For those of you who were raised in the suburbs and moved to the city (I would bet the OP falls into this category), you bring your suburban expectations with you. Sorry, these are things you have to deal with when you live on top of one another. As a city dweller all my life, I am able to tune out most of these things. Of course, if your neighbor is breaking the law (excessive noise at 4 am- note that speaking in a normal or low tone is not enough), you call the cops or go to your councilperson, etc. and demand results. You will get them, unless you are being unreasonable. If they are making as much noise as you imply, other neighbors would be complaining, too. You can talk to them to create a united front. But, my suspicion is that you simply don't like having to deal with others (perhaps rude people) and expect that your needs supercede all others. Your initial complaint is that you simply do not like this tent. You did not cite any safety concerns. It's just aesthetics for you. Well, tough, other people have different aesthetics and as long as they are expressing those aesthetics on their property, you're just going to have to deal with it- or move back to the suburbs.

Posted by: orestes at July 15, 2009 2:45 PM in response to Neighbor's Huge Tent

Bxgirl- I agree that arts education is sorely lacking (it certainly was in my pre-college education) and perhaps you are right. Perhaps the lack of arts education has led to this dilletantism in which one thinks that because they can put paint to canvas, etc. that they are an artist. Without an understanding of the history of art and an appreciation for the special talents and skills involved in artistic creation, these new artists have no yardstick against which to measure whether they have any talent (esp. in the tangible arts). But this is the postmodern endgame- if everything is subjective, everything can be art. I personally find that notion trite. Ok, I'll step down from my soapbox.

Posted by: orestes at June 9, 2009 11:05 AM in response to Dose of Reality for Trust Fund Kids

bxgirl- I don't think people resent artists and creative types, just poseurs. I have lived in Greenpoint for the last 17 years and watched the change in the Northside over the years. I have met more "artists" who knew nothing about art history and could not enunciate an artistic vision if their lives depended on it. These people hold very little interest to me and garner no sympathy from me.

On the larger theme, people who contribute nothing, like these so-called adults, are a blight on a community. That has certainly been the case in Wmsbg/Greenpoint.

Posted by: orestes at June 8, 2009 5:35 PM in response to Dose of Reality for Trust Fund Kids