To the Editor:

In response to several letters in The WIRE dated August 26, 2000:

When I first visited my now husband, Frank Farance, on Roosevelt Island, I thought it was a beautiful place. As time went on, Frank introduced me to many nice people and some of the better aspects of the community here. Ultimately he convinced me to live here.

What a welcome I've received! Wow!

My official introduction to the Island, our August 5th wedding, was apparently quite controversial. There were good wishes generously given by many but also complaints and anger from others. I never expected this response.

When Frank and I began to plan our wedding, I said that I always wanted a backyard party. But unfortunately, as city dwellers, neither of us has a backyard. Then Frank took me to Lighthouse Park, a truly lovely spot. He said that this could be our "backyard". Frank said that we could rent the park through a permit from RIOC. He is familiar with the permit procedure from the years he ran the softball league and rented ballfields.

We met all of RIOC's requirements, filled out all forms, obtained the necessary insurance, paid all fees, including paying for the Public Safety officers' overtime. As an attorney, I can assure everyone that RIOC has the legal right to issue such permits.

I believe that the real controversy here is not the renting of a public space. That happens all over New York City and probably most of the world. Fifth Avenue closes for a parade, the courthouse closes for the filming of a movie, even the Verrazano Bridge closes for the marathon.

As a newcomer here, I see that the real issue is: the lack of resident input in the governing of the Island. People would probably feel better about RIOC decisions if they had direct, i.e. elected, representation on the Board. In fact one of the letters in the August 26th WIRE reflects that position.

I am very sorry that people have chosen to use our wedding reception - our happy event - as a vehicle to attack RIOC. But RIOC was not wrong. Permits to use public spaces are legal, commonplace and necessary. We were required to restrict access to the park because we were serving alcohol. We might have been liable for the results of someone drinking at our reception. Not to mention potential liability to anyone getting hurt.

For others who see our reception as an inconvenience, an intrusion or as our lack of neighborliness, I am very sorry for that too. But we did what we were required to do and what was best for us, for our guests and for Roosevelt Island.

I only wish that everyone could be as generous as the people Frank and I met as we walked into the park. We saw a group of people with coolers and blankets being turned away by a Public Safety officer as we approached the park entrance. Frank apologized for ruining their picnic. These people applauded us, wished us congratulations and then laid their blankets on the spot where they were standing. I don't know who they are or even if they live here. I hope they do and I hope they had as wonderful a day as we did. I'd also like to thank them for their good wishes and exceptional behavior.

In summary, we felt we were being "neighborly" by following all the procedures for obtaining a permit (like anyone else can do). I wish there were a better forum for residents to affect policy in Island matters so that residents wouldn't feel frustrated.

Marguerite Camaiore

To the Editor:

In the last edition of The WIRE, there were three letters that expressed concern over the use of Lighthouse Park for my wedding. I believe some of the concerns are based on incorrect information about permits. These concerns are also fueled by the lack of resident involvement in the planning, operation, and governance of our Island (read: frustration with RIOC). Here are some of the finer points about permits and our wedding:

1. We did have a permit from RIOC and RIOC is allowed to grant permits. We started our planning in February and we completed all the procedures, as required by RIOC and as specified in their permit request (see the procedures at www.rioc.com).
2. Parks are "permited out" for a variety of reasons: the Little League, the Softball League, the Soccer League, the carnival, shooting a movie - all of these have been Island events. In all these cases, it is necessary to get a permit because there is so much advance planning for a successful event - whether it is players and umpires all planning to use the field at once, or planning all the little details of a wedding. Permits are commonplace: they are the normal method for using city and state parks, regardless of the city or state.
3. Other Roosevelt Island facilities have been closed for exclusive access, such as Main Street being closed for exclusive access for the annual Road Runners club - ask Public Safety about the complaints they hear from residents who are waiting for their car service to pick them up when cars are not allowed onto Roosevelt Island.
4. RIOC had taped waterproof posters in advance to the pillars at both entrances of the park. The posters were still there through rain storms and up until our wedding. This gave advance notice to those that use the park.
5. Contrary to some people's perception, the whole park was closed only for 7 hours (11 a.m.-6 p.m.). It was necessary to close the park because we were serving alcohol at a private event (thus, we needed to make the event private). Outside of those hours, the park was open to everyone.
6. We paid overtime for the additional Public Safety officers (including the 24 hours prior to the event). Neither RIOC nor the Island residents paid for their time. And we paid for additional liability insurance for the park over and above RIOC's insurance.

In conclusion, we followed all the steps we were supposed to; we paid for our services; we took care to make sure the event was posted in advance and that alcohol was not served improperly; and, we arranged the timing to minimize the use of the park (7 hours).

After the guests left and the park was opened, my wife and I were caught staying several hours later to make sure any garbage and litter were picked up. Not particularly romantic, but certainly "neighborly."

I'm sorry that some people were upset. However, I believe people should focus their frustration on something constructive: residents should have involvement in influencing Island policies.

Frank Farance (the groom)

To the Editor:

I feel like a gadfly. I must be the only one who notices the lack of inspection of maintenance on or about Roosevelt Island. Here are three new areas of questionable repair.

1. The sidewalk in front of the Montauk Credit Union has a grate which was worked on by Con Ed. We now have a partial asphalt sidewalk. Would this be done on Park Avenue?
2. Westview seems to have a permanent dumpster at the side of 625. Is this the only building that needs a dumpster or does something need to be repaired? The front door lock was recently fixed. Now it should be used instead of being kept permanently open. Why?
3. The roadway from Vernon Boulevard over the bridge to the Island was recently repaved. Along came Bell Atlantic and now we have a big bump in a brand new roadway. Is this acceptable? Would it be done the same way on Park Avenue?

Name Withheld

To the Editor:

The August 26 first-person report of Roger Galindo on his participation in The Ironman was an excellent demonstration of setting a goal and working to achieve it on his own efforts.

The story is in marked contrast to the self-pitying letter of Dr. Wade, who flails about seeking others to criticize. It is easy to find things to criticize. More difficult is to do what Mr. Galindo did in setting himself a goal to be accomplished, doing the necessary preparation, and then actually getting involved in the accomplishment.

David Bauer