• February 14, 2016
  • Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Queens Chronicle

Letters To The Editor

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:00 am

Gas Suppliers

Dear Editor:

Re: “Complaints Raised About Energy Suppliers,” in the March 8 edition.Thank you for publishing the article.

I was foolish enough to signU.S. Energy Savings Corp.’s contract and later discovered that the salesperson had lied to me in order to secure the sale. And today I got my bill from Con Ed — it was many hundreds of dollars higher than expected. I called Con Ed and asked how much the bill would have been with them (and not the supplier). I was told that if I had not switched to the USESC, my bill would have been almost $500 less this month.

In any case, I intend to file complaints as per your article.

Michelle Ronda,


Mission Accomplished

Dear Editor:

It’s taken Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald many years to convict Scooter Libby of perjury and by now he must be convinced that George Bush, Dick Cheney and their extended crony family, led America into another horrible crime against humanity in Iraq.

The media will not begin their usual “examination” of all the lies they’ve spread over the years since Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” with a round of talk shows, a Senate hearing and a gold-embossed Libby Report. There will be in-depth analyses of the motives behind Libby’s outing of a CIA agent, the Cheney sacrifice of his chief of staff, and while all this artificial blather goes on, the Iraqis will die while more American bases are built in preparation for the invasion of Iran.

Since Vietnam, millions of peasants have been slaughtered by imperial America and war will continue to generate the huge Wall Street profits needed to oil our way of life and hurry more Iraqis into the hearafter.

Fitzgerald should threaten Libby with heavy prison time for perjury. Libby would give up Bush and Cheney in a minute and the Iraqi genocide they perpetrated will end with some honor for America.

Michael Walsh,


Vets Deserve Better

Dear Editor:

At a recent public meeting held by Congressman Gregory Meeks to discuss federal services provided to our veterans, I was once again reminded about the failings of some of our elected officials to assist these patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It is most painful to hear of our veterans’ pleas for better housing and health care when we hear of officials reporting surpluses in our state budget. There were harrowing accounts from many of the daily hardships caused by hefty health care costs and inadequate housing. It is hard to accept that the brave, who have served our country by putting their lives on the line, are now forced to live in shelters. Their pleas are for our elected officials to pay attention to these problems.

An appeal is hereby also made to the mayor to fulfill his promise and remove the undignified circumstances that our veterans face every day in their lives.

I urge our elected officials to listen to our veterans’ pleas and provide more funding, rather than merely spewing rhetoric. The welfare of all seniors, including our veterans, is paramount. Photo-ops with these brave stalwarts will not suffice.

Albert Baldeo,

Ozone Park

Douglaston Hill District

Dear Editor:

Regarding your “Couple Wants Out Of Landmarked District,” in the March 15 Queens Chronicle,it is a pity that your reporters were not present at the Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing two daysprior to that story to witness for yourself what actually transpired. And itis a shame that you ended your story by quoting Bill Sievers with astatement that was obtained prior to that hearing. As it relates to the LPC hearing that the Mosley family complained about, Sievers’ statement is absolutely correct, but a non sequitur. As for the Mosleys’ complaint that their renovation of a historic property has “turned into a nightmare,” it is a bad dream of their own making.

Theywere fully aware of the anticipated historic district designation of their property before, during and after they purchased it. They would have had to have been living under a rock to have avoided the newspaper accounts, fliers, posters, public hearings, meetings, legally mandated full disclosure by realtors, and just plain word-of-mouth. They seemed to think that they were above the law or that it did not apply to them.

Apart from the fact that the proposed designation had been well publicized (some of that publicity appearing in your own paper) for some time prior to their acquisition, they would have had to have been grossly guilty of not performing their own due diligence to actually be uninformed of the Landmark Preservation Commission’s plans.

The Mosleys complain that “their dream has turned into a nightmare.” What about the dreams of the other 30 homeowners and their families? Where is the criticism of the Mosleys’ attempts to dash the hopes and dreams of the families who worked long and hard to obtain landmarking to prevent the destruction of their neighborhood? The Mosleys criticizeLPCfor landmarking their property after they bought it. All of the homes in the district were landmarked after the homeowners bought them. And all except the Mosleys, who thought they could beat it, wanted the designation.

When the dust settles, if there is any justice at all in the world, they will realize that they have to obey the same rules as everyone else. Far from their claimed nightmare, the Mosleys are living the American Dream. They own two houses, both in beautiful Landmark Preservation Commission designated historic districts. It is time they started giving something back to their community instead of trying to destroy it.

Stuart Hersh,


Douglaston/Little Neck Historical Society,


More On Landmarking

Dear Editor:

In the Queens Chronicle’s March 15 story on landmarking Douglaston Hill, you quote Mrs. Mosley — “This is an unsual case because we got permission (from the Department of Buildings) to do the work before the area was landmarked.” This is difficult to understand. The DOB works in strange ways, but does it give verbal permission in October 2005 and then follow up with a permit on Feb. 10, 2006, Permit No. 402 114 190-1.

The Mosleys further contend “that this is a unique situation” because they did not know about the impending landmark status for the Douglaston Hill Historic District when they bought their three-story house. Judge Paul Feinman held that the Landmarks Preservation Commission couldn’t be held repsonsible for notifying potential future homeowners. He said the argument of not knowing is unavailing. The footnote on page 10 of his decision states that the DOB records were flagged for landmarking. Title companies report these facts.

Real estate agents, title search companies, interviews with potential neighbors, lawn signs warning against overdevelopment, all would have provided additional confirmation of historic designations. On March 10, 2004, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a town meeting at the Zion Episcopal Church in Douglaston and on April 13, 2004, the commission held public hearings to announce the calendaring of Douglaston Hill.

With respect to the Article 78 lawsuit, the judge did not agree that the designation was arbitrary and capricious. And he also declared that the inclusion of their property was vacated and that the matter was remanded to the LPC so they could conduct an examination once again. The contention that “the local historical group pressured the commission” is simply false.

We also can point out that, at the request of the Mosleys, the executive board of the Douglaston/Little Neck Historic Society met with them on April 16, 2005, in the Zion Church Guildroom.

The complaint that “People from the local historical group made personal and vicious comments about us and made no comments on the history of the house” is also not true. It was in reverse; the members of the historical society and members of the historical preservation community spoke of the nature of the Douglaston Hill community and the house. The vicious comment originated from Mrs. Mosley.

The speakers centered their testimony on a request for help and the desire to preserve the community. They also spoke of the love, work and care they have devoted toward that end in the past decades.

W. Sievers,


St. Pat’s Parade

Dear Editor:

For this year’s Manhattan St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the FDNY was moved from the front, where they have been for many years. I find it appalling the way New York’s Bravest are being treated by John Dunleavy and his St. Patrick’s parade committee. The reason given was that the FDNY held up the parade last year because of its support of the New Orleans firefighters, who marched to thank New York for its help during Hurricane Katrina and took time to unfurl their banner. This took an extra 35 minutes. Well, who cares?

Then there is the other reason — which is the accusation that there is a great deal of drunkeness by firefighters — and that I find an insult.The FDNY members put their lives on the line every time they go into a fire, and furthermore, I think that the parade committee has forgotten the 343 who lost their lives on 9/11 trying to save others. What this committee has done is totally disrespectful, and they all should be ashamed.

Frederick Bedell,


Jackson Heights Traffic

Dear Editor:

I applaud the efforts of Will Sweeney and the Western Jackson Heights Alliance for highlighting the gridlock and noise emanating from 73rd Street and 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, as reported in the March 15 Queens Chronicle.

As a former deputy chief of staff to the City Council member in this area, I often dealt with constituent concerns about many quality-of-life issues, particularly those involving sanitation, transportation and overdevelopment. As a resident, I’ve personally witnessed the cacophony of horns that punctuate the day and the bumper-to-bumper congestion that appears poised to provoke daily episodes of road rage.

Councilwoman Helen Sears has worked arduously to remedy these problems, but the responsibilities for addressing the issues often fall outside her purview. The town hall meeting covered in the Queens Chronicle should send a rallying cry that law enforcement and the Department of Environmental Protection need to work jointly to rapidly bring calm to this corner.

Ticketing does notseem to remedy the problem. And it’s a shame that a stiff fine won’t bring swiftresults. At the same time, the community needs to have an influential voice — as it displayed at the alliance meeting — in determining the direction of traffic flow on 74th and 75th streets.

We must also view this intersection as a microcosm of this city’s current and future transportation needs. As the city prepares to meet the needs of an aging infrastructure and a growing population, traffic patterns — not just in Jackson Heights but across Queens and New York City as a whole — will likely shift. Alternative options should be considered.

I am heartened to see that Sweeney’s group plans to hold monthly meetings to broach areas of concern and hopefully chart a better direction for the future ofour neighborhood and our borough. It is important that these voices — and not the horns — be heard in the days to come.

Alfonso Quiroz,

Jackson Heights


A March 15 article titled “Hospitals, Nursing Homes Brace For Spitzer’s Cuts” misstated the name of New York Hospital Queens’ chief financial officer. He isKevinWard.

Welcome to the discussion.