By The TimesLedger
According to a recently published report, only 13 percent of the bills introduced in the City Council ever make it into law. To that we are inclined to say: thank God.
Last week Queens councilmen introduced legislation that would make it a crime to sell violent video and computer games to children under the age of 18. Like many of the bills of recent years, this legislation is well-intentioned and poorly thought out. Under the proposed legislation, a merchant caught selling a violent game to a minor would face a fine of up to $1,500.
The bill was prompted by the popular video game Grand Theft Auto. There’s a lot not to like in this game. Earlier versions include a character that brands all Haitians as drug dealers and urges his friends to “kill all the Haitians.” Although the offensive language has been removed, the game celebrates the seedier side of life, including drug dealing and prostitution.
We agree this is not a game for young children. But that is first and foremost a decision for parents to make. Parents should play close attention to the games that their children buy and play. The video game industry itself has tried to meet its critics half way by labeling the content of video games. Some stores already voluntarily restrict the sale of certain games to young children.
But who will decide that a game is too violent or too nasty for a 17-year-old? If this law passes – and it probably won’t – the city becomes the video game police with the power to override parental guidance. And what will the standard be? In Doom, one of the most popular computer games, the player uses a variety of increasingly violent weapons to slaughter monsters and bad guys. A Simpsons game features a deranged Homer who mow down pedestrians with his car. Where will the thought police draw the line?
And to make sure that teenagers play council-approved video games in safe boxers, Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of used underwear.
The days are numbered for MoMA Queens. The newly renovated Museum of Modern Art is scheduled to reopen on Sept. 27. MoMA will leave its temporary home in Long Island City and return to Manhattan’s West 53rd Street.
It has been a privilege for Queens to host one of the world's great museums for the past two years. And we’d like to think the museum directors will agree that MoMA has had a good run in this outerborough.
There is good reason for MoMA to consider keeping a smaller satellite museum in Queens. Call it MoMA East. The world may soon be coming to Queens. If New York city wins the right to host the 2012 Summer Olympics, Long Island City will be the home of the Olympic Village. The economic and cultural development that has already begun in Western Queens will be supercharged.
What a great opportunity for a museum that features the best of modern art to have a presence in a borough where real people live and work – now its directors know that there is life outside of Manhattan.
State Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette (D-Jackson Heights) has been working to keep MoMA, at least a part of it, right here. The lawmaker said he doesn’t expect the museum to maintain the 25,000 square feet of exhibition space it has in the Queens facility. “That might be very costly,” he said, “but it could be a gallery type thing, smaller in space but at least with a respectable exposition of modern art.”
At a town meeting on the future of Municipal Lot #1 that was impressively democratic, stakeholders in downtown Flushing were adamant that the parking spaces in that lot must be preserved.
There were intriguing proposals, including using some of the space for a national retail bookstore or for expanded youth recreational facilities. Both ideas have merit. But it is essential that Flushing does not lose a single parking space. This is self-evident to anyone who has tried to park a car in downtown Flushing on a Saturday afternoon.
The meeting was held at the Sheraton LaGuardia East in Flushing, a site that has become the political and economic center of Flushing. It was organized by Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), state Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky (D-Whitestone) and Assemblyman Barry Grodenchik (D-Flushing), who publicly requested that the city stay within the zoning regulations and maintain the number of parking spots.
The city is naturally driven by the need for economic expansion. But the people of nearby College Point have witnessed what can happen when planners do not take into consideration the effect that economic expansion will have on the community. In that case the problem was traffic congestion on 20th Avenue.
In Flushing the issue is parking, parking, parking and parking. Flushing cannot afford to lose this parking lot and plans for development should begin with that as a starting point.
State Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) is hoping that the expansion of the AirTrain to Lower Manhattan will result in greater economic development in Jamaica.
The idea is that the AirTrain will make Jamaica more of a destination.
Smith wants the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which is spearheading the AirTrain extension program, to include the incentives that will draw businesses and investors to Jamaica.
That sounds good. But, as we understand it, the extension of the AirTrain to Lower Manhattan would create a one-seat ride from downtown to JFK. If that happens, Jamaica becomes much less of a destination even though there would be a stop in the heart of the downtown area.
The potential of downtown Jamaica has yet to be tapped. The Greater Jamaica Development Corp. has been working to bring retail, office, hotel and housing projects to the area to serve the aviation industry's employees and customers and they should continue to do so.
Smith is right when he says Jamaica should become “a destination to which people come to work, visit and shop.” But the senator should not pin the future of Jamaica on passengers taking the AirTrain from Manhattan to the airport. That bet is a long shot at best.
