With the recent Coney Island Development Corporation's e-mail announcement alerting that the New York Times editorial endorses the City's Coney Island rezoning plan is not an accurate statement. (See full CIDC e-mail below).
The New York times specifically states, "The Council should approve the new zoning while also improving the plan". The NY Times also believes that the Municipal Art Society's recommendation of expanding not shrinking the amusement area is an idea they like.
We like the Municipal Art Society’s idea of doubling the size of the amusement area and removing hotels from the south side of Surf Avenue. This way, when visitors get off the subway, they will meet sunlight and open air, not a high-rise barricade.
The CIDC and the city have, as of yet, not addressed the overwhelming concerns of the public that they have been completely ignoring. Where are their statements or retorts to the pleas by all the amusement advocates from 'Save Coney Island' coalition, Coney Island USA's 'Mayor' Dick Zigun, and posters from the forums and blogosphere? We haven't seen them anywhere. Yesterday, Council Speaker Christine Quinn commented on the Coney Island rezoning issue in regards to the protection of the amusement size during her speech at the Jane Jacobs street naming ceremony saying, "We're very happy that the Coney Island folks are here today. And if anybody thinks Jane Jacobs tradition is dead, they can go to the city council phone lines, where Coney Island folks have been calling on a regular...regular basis. And it certainly is not dead".Other than Quinn's statement, there is little or no word from the city or the CIDC about the pleas. Since they have not addressed us and instead are sending out false statements and continue to ignore the big flaw in their plan it is safe to say the city is bullying us!
Below is the full e-mail announcement from the CIDC:
___________________________________
IN THE NEWS...The New York Times endorses City's Coney Island Plan!
"This is the year [Coney Island] could get moving again, if the City Council approves an ambitious redevelopment proposal from the Bloomberg administration. ...We hope the Council steps up and gets the job done."- New York Times editorial, Monday, July 13, 2009
Dear Friends:
As we approach the City Council's upcoming vote on the proposed Coney Island rezoning and redevelopment plan, we just wanted to make sure you had seen the editorial in today's New York Times urging a "yes" vote for the future of Coney Island. The Times editorial -- which follows a similar strongly supportive editorial in the NY Daily News -- says of the plan:
"It calls for revitalized year-round amusements, badly needed apartments and new retail and commercial development. Coney Island is not just a decrepit carnival -- it's a community starving for civic amenities, affordable housing and jobs, all of which could flourish amid the tacky splendor of a reborn seaside paradise."
We remain extremely proud of all of the work we have done together with the community and local leaders to arrive at this important moment and we join the Times in believing that Coney Island can, and will, flourish once again. Thank you for all of your continued support and assistance.
Sincerely,
Lynn Kelly
12 comments:
Waaa!!! The city won't listen to bloggers who don't live in the neighborhood Waaaa!!!!
By the way, Omar the city is now working on agreements with all the resident labor and jobs coalitions. Since I attended the community meetings I know they are having serious discussions. The neighborhood has stepped up to the plate, and the government is listening to them.
Best of Luck!
You dont live here... I do :)
The discussions with the unions? to give lower benefits then current union contracts allow. What hotel chain in their right mind will give better benefits then union contracts allow??
[MUSCLE13 said...
Waaa!!! The city won't listen to bloggers who don't live in the neighborhood Waaaa!!!!]
In part I can't argue with you there. But on another part are you saying only Coney Island residents are allowed to voice their opinion on what they feel is right for Coney in regards to saving the amusement aspect of Coney's history?
Of course, you do. You only want Coney Island to mainly benefit the local neighborhood. You don't beleive in the "Coney Island Playground of the World" concept.
And if that's what you want you have total right to want that. But then please urge your city planners to change the hotels into condos because 1) they won't be deceive anyone, that way. and 2) They'll at least have a plan that will work once the economy improves, that is.
And what I want is what many of us want. To preserve the historic character of Coney as a place of fun. Not destroying that character with gentrification.
But we're each entitled to our own opinion. Unfortunately, it seems Bloomberg thinks like you do to some degree.
Neighborhood first. Much more important than any aspect about Coney. It always has been about the neighborhood and it always will be about the neighborhood.
You guys keep fighting for your pie in the sky fantasies. All 3 of you. I prefer reality. I wish you the best of luck!
Council Meeting in a week and a half.
Sorry but here is where we disagree and maybe even many will disagree with me but neighborhood is NOT FIRST.
When Coney Island started pre-20th Century there was no neighborhood. People lived here but the glory started before.
You should focus on Coney Island the neighborhood WEST of the 20's.
LEAVE THE EAST OF THE 20'S ALONE!
STAY AWAY!
THIS IS FOR THE WHOLE CITY AND THE COUNTRY AND EVEN THE WORLD!
Coney Island has always been all about amusements!
You can't come and try to change it now.
Your part of Coney for "the whole city, country and the world' has been a decrepid mess for about 40 years.
And it will change - for the neighborhood. Count on it!
Good luck with your pie in the sky fantasy plan with no developer.
Monster, reality? you dont know what that is. You constantly spout how there are just 3 people who are against what you you say on here and on the CI boards, instead of acknowledging all those people really exist. It is easier for you to grasp that they are unreal, then real. Again, I ask you to either prove what you say, or stop saying it, it should be that easy, shouldnt it?
But the truth of the matter is, you know they exist, but hope to have others think that they dont, to prove your in the majority about everything you say, but who do you think your fooling?? just yourself.
I am the neighborhood, so are my friends who live with me there, so is my family and so are my neighborhors who dont want to see your vision of a residential development take hold where amusements used to exist.
By the way that is not Christine Quinn in the pic you have posted.
Thanks, Muscle for the picture correction. I didn't focus on it.
thanks
No problem.
This thing is about to explode Omar
http://coneyrocks.blogspot.com/2009/07/ny-observer-lots-of-negotiations.html
Omar, try and leave a comment on his blog, see if it isnt just about him
Who speaks for the neighborhood? absent landowner? no
Someone who doesnt live here? no
Someone who pretends to represent the neighborhood?
Somewho lives here, but has no political ambition, no money tied into it? yes
Post a Comment