Dear Editor (Queens Chronicle):
We couldn’t help but notice that during Council Member Elizabeth Crowley’s recent interview with your paper(“Elizabeth Crowley on the 30th District,” Feb. 2, multiple editions) she repeated her trite assertion that land owned by Martin Luther High School will become a park because they are a “willing seller.”
Martin Luther is on record only having said that they would “listen to what the city has to say.” That is far from the done deal that Crowley is making it out to be.
It was premature for her to announce a shift of money away from the St. Saviour’s project when that money could have leveraged other funding for it. In previous interviews, Crowley said she would continue to work toward making the St. Saviour’s site a park.In this latest interview,it sounds as though she has ruled that out.While it is disappointing that we most likely will not get the sizable park that we deserve,it is even more disappointing that our so-called representative gave up so easily.
After six years, the community still hasn’t given up hope on this project, but after three years, we have given up hope that Crowley will actually accomplish something that improves life in Maspeth.
Frank and Eileen Nevarez
Maspeth
__________________________________________
Dear Editor (Queens Chronicle):
Under guidelines set forth by the city's Department of City Planning, based upon the current residential population of about 35,000 (which is certainly undercounted because of illegal home conversions), Maspeth should have 88 acres of parkland at [its] disposal.
In reality, Maspeth only has 12 acres of parkland, so why does Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley think it is wise to give up on the 1.5-acre St. Saviour’s project in order to focus on the non-guaranteed 1/3-acre Martin Luther site? Why is she citing high cost as a reason for not acquiring the larger site when other communities across the city are getting new, larger and much more expensive parkland, via either direct sale or condemnation, with the support of their elected officials? Why does she believe that her own district is not worth the same money and effort?
With the last name Crowley, and the clout that it supposedly carries in political circles, there is no excuse for this project not getting done.
Maureen Mullaney
Maspeth
In other words...
16 comments:
"Screw" Crowley?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
But isn't that what she likes
and is known for?
Yessiree Bob!
This ding-a-ling will bend over for any developer at the drop of a hat filled with a campaign contribution!
I was in Martin Luther 2 months ago for their open house; spoke with the Head Master, he said their has been no offer and no contact from anyone.
Yeah so what was this really about? There's no deal for a smaller park and the dimwit nixed whatever chance there was for a larger park. Time to dump the shanty Irish blowjob queen.
I think the point here is the community really has to get after the local councilperson.
But even more important, you have to go after the organizations whose silence is bought by dollops of member items - yes the cultural and civic organizations that look the other way and permit your elected photo ops and carefully scripted listening sessions that show up ad nauseum in the weeklies.
Show up at their events and act up! They are not doing their job!
This women is incompetent and barely literate. She's a put-in because she's related to "Virginia Joe Crowley." It's up to her constituents to vote her out. Someone needs to run against her. She has done nothing for the communities she represents. I've called her office numerous times and her staff is equally incompetent. This park business is just a carrot dangling in front of her constituents because she screwed up the St. Savior Park. People -- THERE IS NO PARK AND THERE WILL BE NO PARK. Smarten up this time and vote her out.
I thought the weaklies didn't run anything critical of the establishment. Guess I was wrong. Surprising.
99%? — these letters were in a weekly, ya silly bird.
Anon 1 & 4 — classy.
Why wasn't the weakly the one to question Crowley's actions? Why did the readers have to be the ones to do it VIA letters after the pointless interview was printed?
I would guess they did bring it up and that's why it was in the article. I doubt Crowley brought up something like that herself. The readers didn't so much question as criticize, which is what they should do and why there is a letters column. If you think interviewing electeds is pointless, I have no response to that. It's just the kind of thing newspapers do. Unlike, say, calling a council member a blowjob queen. You decide which adds more to the discussion.
And that right there is what is wrong with local journalism. The weeklies give pols a forum to spout their nonsense unchallenged. Would it have been so hard for the reporter to call Martin Luther to verify what Crowley said? Yes. Because they might have exposed a lie. And if you do that, the oil stops advertising in your paper when a holiday comes around and you need the revenue. Papers in Queens live off that shit.
It was the NY Post that revealed that Brian McLaughlin locked himself in his office with Crowley, so she earned her x-rated moniker. Funny how 2 Queens pols were caught in a compromising position and no Queens paper was around.
There is such a thing as the follow-up story. And there are many issues to cover, not just one. Plus whoever wrote that article probably wrote 10 others that week. Wherever you think it comes up short, it's hard to see how that means papers shouldn't interview politicians and tell their constituents what they said.
But there's no changing your mind, so let's say you're right: all Queens weeklies should shut their doors tomorrow since they're so useless and everyone can get all their news solely from this blog and the dailies, because they've done so much coverage of St. Saviour's, the trash trains, the bypass, school zoning and all the rest. That better?
And once again, you fail to understand the point. Crowley's been saying these same exact things since November. Not one paper has done a follow up story on the debacle. Why? Christmas ads, New Year's ads, MLK ads, I could go on...
This blog is where most of the standard media gets their stories.
Case in point...
Or this one...
Where is the local paper coverage of the shady Stavisky clan?
Post a Comment