One Light Too Many

We Get Email

One Light Too Many

Dear Editor:

I see that the DOT's threat to install another traffic light on Beach Channel Drive at Beach 92nd Street is coming to pass. That is going to make westbound traffic already impeded by the Beach 90th Street traffic light even worse. The traffic light on Beach 90th Street was never needed, and has caused far more problems than it solved. With a new traffic light about to be activated just a couple of blocks away, it really needs to go.

Rick Horan


Dumb & Dumber

Dear Editor:

So our street has been repaved. I was joking with some neighbors about how long they thought it would be before one of the utilities came to cut it open to work. Answer, three days! That's right, three days. National Grid sent a man out to mark out the gas lines. I asked why and he told me that my house and any other within 50 feet was scheduled for gas valve "maintenance. They do it annually.” I told him it was the first time in 30 years I've seen it done. Eight phone calls later, no info on what or when they will be here. Only in NY!

Mike O’Toole


Oh, the Humanitree

Dear Editor:

The Christmas tree in front of the firehouse is dying to be recycled to mulch. My wife and I laugh and say maybe they are going to use it for next year’s lighting. Can someone answer the question? WHY IS IT STILL UP??? WISE UP!!! At least it’s in front of the firehouse in case it goes up in a blaze. I would love to know why it is still up. Who runs the Rockaways??  

Enrico Luisi


A Deeper Look

Dear Editor:

(In regards to the Far Rockaway Project, #C241224)

I am writing for myself and as a member of the board of the Bayswater Civic Association.

I believe that the proposed remedy for the above caption's site is grossly inadequate for a number of reasons.

First, the developer has proposed to develop several apartment buildings, all in excess of six stories with one or more levels of underground parking. Thus, the builder would excavate far below the level at which the proposed remediation would deal with contamination.

Second, the proposal to remove dirt and place it somewhere else does nothing to remediate the problem. It just moves it to another site. Remediation must involve removal of the contaminants from the soil.

Third, the developer has only explored a very small portion of the site. As the DEC notes in its description of the site, the site was originally a railroad depot. It housed railroad shops, Railway Express and United Parcel Service offices and shops. The Railway Express and UPS offices service delivery trucks. The LIRR depot services all manner of railroad and motor vehicle equipment. Those portions of the lot have not been seriously explored and there is every reason to believe that those areas contain a wide variety of contaminants including but not limited to coal, coal ash, gasoline, motor oil, other lubricants, and a variety of solvents. It is not reasonable to approve a remediation plan until the entire site is examined at varying depths.

In summary, I believe that the proposed remediation must be held in abeyance until the entire site is examined by DEC at varying depths, at least down as far as the developer intends to dig and an effective plan is developed to remove the contaminants from the soil and not just make some other area contaminated.

Eugene Falik


Sign up via our free email subscription service to receive notifications when new information is available.