The development that is being built by H2H for St. John’s University in Jamaica Estates is a threat to many communities well beyond the borders of this residential community.
As a civic leader who has had significant experience with St. John’s residential development, I feel obligated to comment on H2H’s media campaign. H2H states that safety and security for students and the community is their goal. They claim that they wish to address the severe shortage of safe, affordable student housing and that by providing institutional, supervised housing they will reduce illegal apartments within the community.
History tells us otherwise. The more housing the university provides, the greater the demand will be; the greater the demand, the more students who will rent private homes in the surrounding community - many of them illegally.
“Our building is entirely in keeping with the existing zoning regulations,” H2H claims. This may be true. It is an example why a misapplied zoning text approved in 1961 needs to be changed in a more aggressive method.
H2H states that the city sewer system is capable of handling the addition of their building. It is well known that the sewer system supporting this area is insufficient.
The blocks that are affected by this development are of a different character than a seven-story dorm. This R5 zone is across the street from a R1-2 zone, one of the lowest density zones in NYC.
They claim that traffic disruption will be minimized by providing 80 spots underground for 485 car-driving-eligible residents. The reality is that there will be hundreds of additional cars without any corresponding increase in parking at the Henley Road site.
SJU wishes to expand to meet a demand for more housing for their students and generate the income that residential students provide. H2H wishes to fill St. John’s demand for student housing.
That is the business of a developer - to meet demand and realize a profit. I find it insulting to try to spin this development into anything other than what it is: the pursuit of the myopic self-interest of a university and a good investment for a developer.
Kevin J. Forrestal
Let us set aside race and gender
The election and the debates should be about ideas and strategies that will affect our country’s future. Instead, the media has turned the election into a popularity contest pitting racial and ethnic groups against one another by focusing on ethnic and gender identity and not on substance and ideas.
The question is not whether we want health care, but do we want a mandatory government controlled system or a free market solution permitting individual choices.
The question is not are we against immigration but do we stop illegal immigration and enforce existing laws.
The question is not do we raise taxes but can we control entitlements and reign in spending.
These issues are not linked to race or gender nor will voting on that basis provide any solutions.
To suggest that black people should vote for a black candidate, or women for a woman, for no other reason than race or gender pride and solidarity is counter-productive and inherently racist. Whatever race or gender, a fascist, socialist or jihadist is an equal opportunity destroyer.
Let us ask the right questions and differentiate the candidates, not by appearance, but by examining their views of the role of government in a free society. Let us not dismiss any candidate until he or she reveals substantive ideas and possible solutions to our problems and not merely issue platitudes and an appeal for votes based on race and gender.
Ed Konecnik
Flushing
On Social Security . . .
The government produces nothing so whatever it promises, it must take from someone else. The simplest and clearest illustration of this principle at work is the Social Security system.
It is a tax and spend scheme whereby current recipients are paid with money collected from current workers. There is no fund for savings and investments. In 1950, 16 workers provided benefits for each retiree. In 1996, the ratio was 3.3 to 1 and the projection for 2030 is less than 2 to 1.
Before Congress closed a loophole in 1983 that municipal governments could opt out of the Social Security system, three Texas counties, including Galveston, opted out and the results are worth pondering.
Danny Brooks in The Observer reports a retired $20,000 per year worker has a personal account of $383,000 and receives $2,740 per month compared with SS income of $775; a $50,000 per year worker has a personal account of $956,303 and receives $6,843 per month compared with SS income of $1,302.
Since the retirees own their account, they could opt for a lump sum or choose from several annuities.
When will the government stop confiscating our retirement money and restore our freedom to make choices, invest and accumulate an estate for our heirs?
After all, it is our money.
Ed Konecnik
Flushing
Testing taking a toll
The news that the New York City Department of Education will soon begin using results from students’ standardized tests to measure teacher performance raises a serious concern about how high-stakes testing dominates public schools. Assessing teachers based on students’ standardized test scores will exacerbate the current overemphasis on test-taking techniques and lack of focus on real learning.
Students are learning how best to fill in the correct answer choices, spending weeks doing practice tests and memorizing test strategies. How much more will teachers focus on test preparation when their jobs are on the line?
Teachers need to be accountable for their job performance, but incessant test prep takes the place of learning when teachers fear losing their jobs.
Mark S. Weprin
The parent of two public school students, who represents the 24th Assembly District in Eastern Queens
Letters To The Editor
Email us your letters to editorial@ queenscourier.com for publication in The Queens Courier or send them to The Queens Courier, 38-15 Bell Blvd., Bayside, NY 11361, attention: Editorial Department. Please include name and contact information.
