Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

(An open letter to Landmarks Preservation Committee Chairman Robert Tierney)

I am writing regarding the Brinckerhoff Cemetery, heard by the Commission on May 15. The people of Fresh Meadows, elected officials, preservationists and historians have been requesting a hearing for the last 12 years.

There is no doubt that this property is a cemetery. In 1919 the city surveyed the site and counted 77 graves with headstones, dating back to the mid-18th century. Photographs taken in the 1920s show a number of headstones that were clearly standing at the location.

Unfortunately, the city sold the cemetery illegally around 1960. Over the years, the property was neglected by its owner, while local residents periodically took care of it. The actions taken by the Fresh Meadows community show the commitment its people have to preserving history.

Brinckerhoff is not an abandoned lot and should not be treated as such. The Brinckerhoff family settled in Queens in the early 17th century, and this property should be preserved and recognized for its significance. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that remnants of the tombstones that once stood there are currently underneath the land.

As a former high school history teacher, I believe it is important for young people to respect their past. Students should be able to see an example of an early Dutch settlement. I urge the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review the facts, the historical records and the documentation provided. As someone who has worked on this issue with the community for the last decade, I encourage the LPC to landmark the Brinckerhoff Cemetery as a cemetery.

Dear Editor:

(An open letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano)

We, as members of the New York City Council, who represent immigrant communities throughout the city of New York, are deeply disappointed in your decision to deploy Secure Communities in New York City. Implementation of this flawed policy will have potentially devastating effects on New York City’s immigrant communities. You should not activate this program in New York.

Since its inception in 2008, the reach of Secure Communities has been overbroad. The stated goal of the program is to, “prioritize[s] the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators.” Yet your own data shows that, in Fiscal Year

(FY) 2011, 26 percent of all Secure Communities’ deportations were immigrants with Level 1 convictions; 19 percent of those deported had Level 2 convictions; and 29 percent were individuals convicted of Level 3 crimes (minor crimes carrying sentences of less than one year). Twenty-six percent of those deported had only immigration violations. This dragnet approach may lead to the deportation of New Yorkers charged with minor offenses who have lived in this country for more than 10 or 20 years, and who have deeply rooted family and community ties. This result is simply wrong.

As you know, in an effort to address the many concerns raised by those affected, the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s Task Force on Secure Communities issued a report containing findings and recommendations designed to improve the program in September of 2011. Advocates criticized your recent response to that report, which proposed to change little more than the way an individual accused of a traffic violation is treated, as falling far short of what is needed. We join in that criticism. For example, although the Task Force recommended that ICE improve the transparency of Secure Communities and strengthen accountability mechanisms, there continues to be limited oversight of the program and it remains far too difficult to make a complaint. In light of these facts, we cannot support the program or its activation in New York City unless and until the issues raised in the task force report are addressed.

Perhaps most importantly, it is clear to us that the decision to deploy this program here will create fear in immigrant communities and corrode the bond between immigrants and the New York Police Department. In New York City, we have worked tirelessly to ensure that immigrants feel comfortable accessing local government, in particular, local law enforcement, to report crimes, seek assistance, and support their communities. The deployment of Secure Communities will cause grave damage on all of these fronts.

Dear Editor:

Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry took a few cheap shots at our 39th president, Jimmy Carter. They said that Barack Obama is making the Carter presidency look good!

While most Americans agree Carter was an average president, he served our nation with dignity and devotion. Assisted by a great national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter had respect for human rights, which served as the fundamental tenet of his foreign policy.

Here are several foreign policy decisions of his one term presidency.

1. His faith-based peacemaking skills were demonstrated at Camp David in 1978. The Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt was concluded, and still serves these two former bitter enemies well.

2.Carter resolved the Panama Canal Crisis.

3.When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, he took three important actions. He ordered a grain sale embargo against the USSR. He gave military aid to the Afghans. He ordered all U.S.A. teams to boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics.

4.The violent Iran Revolution of 1979 brought an end to the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This “political earthquake” led to Ayatollah Khomeini seizing power. Seventy-nine Americans were taken hostage after students stormed our embassy. President Carter ordered Operation Desert One — a U.S. military mission to rescue our citizens. The failure of this operation cast a dark shadow upon the rest of his presidency.

During the past 30 years, Jimmy Carter has emerged as a great champion for many noble causes. I hope all Americans would respect his service and devotion to the cause of human rights.

Dear Editor:

This week as the media reported Chief Judge Johnathan Lippman’s decision to require applicants for admission to the New York Bar to perform 50 hours of pro bono law work as part of their admission requirement, every story included a lament that lawyers might oppose this sorely needed initiative. The Times wrote the “measure may prove more controversial ... because it wades into the fierce debate among lawyers over whether mandatory pro bono service is the right solution — and because it could hit the pocketbooks of young lawyers at a time when they are struggling to find jobs.” The story went on to quote one attorney saying lawyers don’t want to be told what to do.

I applaud Judge Lippman’s mandatory requirement; it is absolutely needed. Not just poor people, but middle class families have too often been priced out of the civil legal system in America. Lawyers and judges who practice in civil courts can attest to the rising occurrence of unrepresented pa

rties, even in very complicated and crucial cases. As a practicing attorney I’ve seen how it can tilt the legal playing field, and rob our civil justice system of our desire for “equal protection under the law.” Frankly, the problem is growing worse. In fact, as necessary and laudable as Judge Lippman’s requirement is, it is really just a start. Though the new admission mandate is likely to produce at least 500,000 pro bono hours a year, it will only begin to address the need.

Before people begin to think most lawyers don’t recognize the crying need for access to affordable representation, or oppose ways to address it for reasons of narrow avarice, we should all recognize that bar associations, law schools, consumer groups and, yes, individual lawyers across New York and America have been struggling to address this growing need. In the New York City area, some of them are associated with the CUNY Legal Resources Network, a group of several hundred lawyers dedicated to practice in the public interest including meaningful pro bono and low bono representation for individuals, families and small businesses otherwise practically denied access to our justice system.

Dear Editor:

In your April 26 issue the headline “Pay up or city will sell your tax lien” (multiple editions) paraphrased a quote by City Comptroller John Liu. What will this newspaper’s headline read about John Liu not paying up for over $500,000 he owes for violating the “no posting law” when his campaign posters were plastered all over the city? And, the monies he owes the New York Campaign Finance Committee for breaking the campaign finance law?

I don’t think he has the credibility to request any monies from a taxpayer until he pays his own debts.

Editor’s note: To answer the writer’s question, our most recent headlines about the Liu campaign controversies were “John Liu fundraiser indicted for fraud,” “Liu ‘reassesses’ after arrest made” and “An idea for John Liu.” That last was on an editorial; our “idea” was to stop allegedly violating the campaign finance laws.

Dear Editor:

“At the city line, where the street had two names” (I Have Often Walked by Ron Marzlock, April 19) reminded me of the recent demise of our old Q79 Little Neck Parkway bus. This coming June 25 will mark the second anniversary to the day when at 6:23 p.m., right on time, my wife and I boarded the last Q79 bus that departed Little Neck for its final destination on Jericho Turnpike in Floral Park.

Growing up in the neighborhood during the late 1960s and early 1970s, I recall it was known back then as the Q12A and was part of my life and that of many others.

When the MTA introduced MetroCards with free transfers between subway and bus, riding the Q79 became an even better bargain and become a more frequent part of my journey.

If service was suspended or seriously delayed on the Long Island Rail Road’s Port Washington Branch, the Q79 was my little secret lifeline. I would use the Hempstead Branch Floral Park Station. A quick three-block walk to Jericho Turnpike would reunite me with my good old friend the Q79.

It was always sad that residents of Floral Park practiced the NIMBY (not in my back yard) philosophy and refused to grant permission to extend the Q79 to the Floral Park LIRR Station.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its operating agency, New York City Transit, always seemed to have a policy of only running the same standard 40-foot local buses on all routes. Too bad that neither would budge.

Imagine if the MTA/NYCT, like other transit agencies, had purchased smaller 35-, 30- or 25-foot buses. Perhaps the Village of Floral Park would have agreed to accommodate those on its streets.

With a direct connection between both the Floral Park and Little Neck LIRR stations, there might have been a sufficient increase in ridership to justify keeping the Q79. Sadly, we will never know.

Let us toast the Q79 and memories of good times gone by.

Dear Editor:

I was recently informed that at the Feb. 16 meeting of the Broadway Flushing Homeowners’ Association, the citywide community affairs officer for the Department of Sanitation, Mr. Ignazio Terranova, reviewed the rules and regulations regarding garbage collection. Citizens may be fined if they place garbage out for pickup before 4 p.m. from October to March and before 5 p.m. from April to September.

Our government, in its ongoing quest to mold and make us model citizens and rid us of evil habits, like using salt, has now decided to eradicate the scourge of premature ejection of refuse. Who are the aggrieved and offended parties? What are the specific provisions of the law or statute as well as applicable fines and when was it passed? Why is our garbage ejection subject to daylight savings time?

It seems to me that these regulations are an attempt to extract money from the citizenry and to boost employment figures with an army of patrolmen who must now be schooled and trained to nab the premature ejectors among us.

Have they no shame?

Dear Editor:

In the April 19 issue, Joanna Livingstone wrote to complain that Congress voted against eliminating tax breaks for oil companies (“GOP: not for the people,” Letters). Ms. Livingstone is advocating action for something with little knowledge of the consequences.

President Obama has touted how much oil production is happening in the United States. What he has not mentioned is that the rising production is all occurring on private lands and if you take away the incentives that production will be reduced.

If I were to ask Chronicle readers what the oil depletion allowance is and how it affects companies most of them would not be able to answer. Yet, people like Ms. Livingstone wants to change tax laws just because some politicians are demagoging the issue.

Exxon Mobil made over $41 billion in 2011. That is a lot of money. What readers do not realize is that they ended the year with over $331 billion in assets. Their return on assets was not very different than that of Google or many other companies. Why is it that no one wants to raise the taxes of th

ose other companies? It is only because President Obama is playing the politics of envy and blaming others for his lack of real results just like he is with his false argument that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes.

I suggest that Ms. Livingstone would benefit from taking some courses in economics and taxation. It would result in a more enlightened letter.

Dear Editor:

The Jamaica Bay area has a number of public works named for notable New Yorkers who merit our remembrance. There is the bridge over part of the bay named for the late Congressman Joseph Addabbo, the Marine Park Bridge named for Mets and Dodgers hero Gil Hodges, and Floyd Bennett Field, which honors the famous Brooklyn aviator. And of course, there is John F. Kennedy International Airport.

But there is a long-standing major omission in recognizing someone who has helped to change Jamaica Bay and the Rockaways for the better, and we urge that this be corrected.

The individual we are writing about is former U.S. Sen. James L. Buckley.

Sen. Buckley was a co-sponsor of S.1192, creating the Gateway National Recreation Area, including the Rockaways and Jamaica Bay. The senator spoke on behalf of the bill on the Senate floor on Oct. 14, 1972, and specifically mentioned the “wildlife preserve in Jamaica Bay” during the floor debate. Jamaica Bay is the only wildlife refuge within the U.S. National Parks System. We propose renaming the area the “James L. Buckley / Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge.”

The bay and its wetlands, marshes and islands also represent “one of the most significant bird sanctuaries in the northeast United States,” according to the refuge’s website. Senator Buckley is an amateur ornithologist (bird watcher) of some note, and continues his love and observation of birds at age 89.

As a candidate for U.S. Senate in 1970, Jim Buckley questioned the wisdom of a proposed extension of a JFK airport runway into Jamaica Bay, supporting local community groups. Although Buckley was known for his conservative views on most issues, many liberals and Democrats acknowledged his expertise in and support for conservation and environmental issues.

James L. Buckley is perhaps the only living American to have served at the top levels of all three branches of the U. S. government. Aside from his election to the U. S. Senate, Buckley was under secretary of state, after which he served as president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Then he was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed to serve on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit — generally held to be the second highest court in our judicial system. Although retired, Judge Buckley was in a “senior judge” status, and could be pressed into service under certain conditions.

In our lifetimes, all of New York’s U.S. senators (except for the very most recently serving) have had major public works or other facilities named for them. Sen. Moynihan has the huge Manhattan Federal office building named for him, with the new Penn Station to be called “Moynihan Station.” Sen. Javits has the other immense Federal building named for him, along with New York City’s primary convention center. Sen. D’Amato has the federal courthouse on Long Island named for him, and the Federal building in Rochester is named for former U.S. Sen. Kenneth Keating. There are a number of schools bearing the name of Robert F. Kennedy, along with the recent renaming of the Triboro Bridge for RFK. Even unelected Sen. Charles Goodell’s name adorns the Fire Department headquarters in his former Congressional district in western New York.

Clearly, it is time to honor and recognize the contributions of James L. Buckley to his nation. Aside from his decades of top-level leadership in the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, Buckley also served in the U.S. Navy during and just after World War II.

Because of Sen. Buckley’s advocacy for the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge and the Gateway National Recreation Area, this would be an ideal opportunity to recognize Buckley by renaming the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge for him.

Finally, at a time when local leaders are trying to marshal resources to save and restore Jamaica Bay’s declining ecosystem, renaming the wildlife refuge for our former U.S. Senator can only draw more positive attention to the cause of the bay, its islands and the Rockaways Gateway region.