hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

FW: nyt on Esperanza

This message was from the NY Times, a national newspaper in the developer's
pocket, that was updated every few weeks by garden activists and "suddenly"
came across this hidden atrocity.



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	L.A. Kauffman [SMTP:lakauffm@erols.com]
> Sent:	Friday, February 18, 2000 1:40 PM
> To:	Undisclosed-Recipient:;@rly-za01.mx.aol.com;
> Subject:	nyt on Esperanza
> All the letters that people have been sending to the New York Times
> have clearly had an effect -- below is the text of an editorial they
> published yesterday. But the paper's Metro editor, Jonathan Landman,
> clearly still doesn't get it -- check out the double-speak in his response
> to one garden supporter's letter.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ----
> EDITORIAL: "Death of a Garden" NY Times, Feb 12, 2000
> On Tuesday morning, Esperanza Garden, a community garden
> on East Seventh Street in Manhattan, was bulldozed after
> 22 years of existence. Its destruction marked the latest
> battle in the long-running war between Mayor Rudolph
> Giuliani and community advocates over the use of city-owned
> lots for community gardens. City Hall contends that many
> lots were only lent to the neighborhoods for gardens with the
> understanding that they would ultimately be taken back. Now,
> the mayor says, the lot on East Seventh Street should be
> sold to a developer to build low- and middle-income housing.
> But the developer for this lot has set aside only 20 percent
> of the planned housing units for low-income housing. The
> rest will be made available as the market dictates. There
> are also provisions for nearly 7,000 square feet of retail
> space and 5,000 square feet of permanent open space.
> The fate of Esperanza Garden had been decided during
> a series of public hearings intended, in the administration's
> words, to balance competing interests, though it is not
> clear how the users of a community garden can compete
> with the economic clout of a developer.
> No city ownership right can quite absolve the mayor and
> his administration of insensitivity in their handling of
> community gardens. "If you live in an unrealistic world
> then you can say everything should be a community
> garden," the mayor said. But their defenders do not
> assert that everything should be a community garden.
> They only say that such gardens, rare as they are, bring
> vitality and a sense of purpose to neighborhoods.
> The conflict underlying the destruction of Esperanza
> Garden seems more fundamental than a struggle
> between gardeners and developers, green space and
> housing. It seems to be a conflict about the expression
> of public will. In most cases, the mayor clearly tries
> to take a broad view of what is best for most New Yorkers.
> Not every community garden will survive in an economic
> climate as ebullient and a housing market as tight as
> this one. But the most meaningful definition of public
> value is not always the broadest or most economically
> justifiable one. A patch of green or a plot of flowers
> can often do more for a neighborhood than new
> apartments and retail establishments.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> TIMES EDITOR: "Low-income housing has meant
> mixed-income housing for many years now"
> >Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:25:15 -0500
> >From: Jonathan Landman <joland@nytimes.com>
> >Subject: Re: Letter to Metro Editor
> >To: Joel Westheimer <joel.westheimer@nyu.edu>
> >
> >
> >         Dear Professor Westheimer,
> >
> >         Thanks for your letter. Glad you liked the coverage. I don't
> think
> >our description of the housing issue was inaccurate, though it certainly
> >wasn't exhaustive. The 80-20 formula is, as I'm sure you know, a standard
> >one in mixed-income housing. Low-income housing has meant mixed-income
> >housing for many years now.
> >
> >         Sincerely,
> >         Jonathan Landman
> >         Metropolitan Editor
> >         The New York Times
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 12:42 PM 2/17/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>Letter to the Editor
> >>New York Times
> >>
> >>To Jonathan Landman:
> >>
> >>Bravo on the terrific coverage of the Esperanza Garden bulldozing (NYT,
> >>2/16/00, p. A1).  Given the dearth of greenspace in the East Village and
> >>the Lower East Side, the Guliani administration should be raising
> gardens
> >>rather than razing them.  Unfortunately, the article was factually
> >>inaccurate in portraying Guliani's motives.  The fact is that only 20%
> of
> >>the housing will be reserved for low to middle income tenants while 80%
> >>will bear market prices.  Even the 20% will only be subsidized for 10
> years
> >>after which 100% of the units will be made available at market prices.
> >>
> >>Joel Westheimer
> >>Professor of Teaching and Learning and Fellow of the
> >>Center for the Study of American Culture and Education
> >>at New York University

community_garden maillist  -  community_garden@mallorn.com

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index