To the Editor:

I offer some comments on various issues affecting the Island:

Extension of 50-year tax abatement: The WIRE reports (May 14) that "earlier statements affirming applicability [of the 50-year extension] to four Mitchell-Lama Island buildings were incorrect" because the statute and implementing City Council resolution refer only to buildings that pay "real-estate taxes" imposed by the City and not those that make "payments in lieu of taxes" (PILOT). I would point out that since the City owns Roosevelt Island's land, there can be no "real-estate taxes" levied by it onto itself. Nor can the City levy taxes against the Island's lessee, the State's Urban Development Corporation (UDC), since it is exempt by statute from taxes. UDC leased land for the four buildings to housing companies that pay the "equivalent" of taxes called PILOTs. They are "equivalent" because the IRS has ruled that they have the same legal status as real-estate taxes; both are deductible from income under the Internal Revenue Code.

The reason the Council resolution may not be applicable to the four Island buildings is that their leases with UDC provide for a 30-year tax abatement, which is about to expire. Without extensions of the tax abatements, owners are more likely to withdraw from the Mitchell-Lama system. Hence the Legislature acted in 2003 to "permit" tax abatements to be granted for an additional 50 years. But, due to the leases it can be argued that it is up to UDC, not the City Council, to extend those abatements by modifying the leases.

This calls into question whether the four Island buildings enjoy tax exemptions because of their inclusion in the leases or because of the Mitchell-Lama law. I believe UDC was required to provide for tax exemptions in the leases since the Mitchell-Lama law states that all housing companies "shall" be entitled to tax exemptions set at 10% of their annual shelter rent (total rent or maintenance less utilities). But what is not so clear is whether UDC "must" now modify the leases so that each building is granted the additional 50-year abatement. Since the statutory language is "permissive," it can be argued that UDC has discretion to let abatements end next year and not extend them. But, since it is a State agency, I would argue it "should" grant the extension so as to be in accord with the new law's purpose, which is to encourage Mitchell-Lama housing companies to remain in the system.

Should UDC nevertheless choose to collect real-estate taxes from the four buildings under the leases once the 30-year period of abatements ends, it will frustrate the new State law and the Council's resolution to provide a substantial tax incentive to remain in the system. Ironically, the City as the ultimate recipient of these taxes, will have decided to forego those payments yet find its lessee, UDC, collecting them. This is not what the statute or Council resolution intended. Indeed, UDC's failure to modify the leases to extend tax abatements for another 50 years invites a lawsuit by any of the four buildings that wish to remain in the system to challenge any effort by UDC to collect such payments. Finally, to conform to the new statute and Council resolution, the City for its part must amend its lease with UDC so that only the tax abatement amount (10% of annual shelter rent) is due for each housing company that remains in the system.

Implications of the Octagon decision: The May 14 news analysis points out that Southpoint Park is at risk of commercial or residential development in areas surrounding the Renwick Ruin, but notes "the Residents Association doesn't have the funds to keep a lawyer on standby." There are, however, some things it can do. It can raise funds now for such a contingency from Island and Sutton Place residents facing the Island who previously showed concern for its southern end when plantings were financed by them; it can use the Octagon legal papers to now prepare the Article 78 suit and application for a temporary restraining order and injunction needed in the future. Since it needs a lawyer to represent it in any suit, it can also now seek counsel willing to take this on a reduced-fee basis; it can also now seek representation from law-school clinics and other public-interest organizations who are able to do this on a pro bono basis. In other words, it should not wait for development to happen. And, if construction were to begin, it cannot wait to seek a court order to stop it.

Tim Johns' commentary and letter: In his commentary (April 2), Johns raised doubt about whether the 50-year tax abatement applies to the four Island buildings. In support of his view, he referred to the building leases which grant only a 30-year tax abatement. As noted above, I believe the statute's purpose should take precedence over the existing lease provisions and that UDC should modify the leases to grant an additional 50-year abatement. (Incidentally, while I disagreed with his views, I did not claim he had not read the statute or resolution; inexplicably, in his May 14 letter of response, he asserts that "clearly" I have not read them.)

I also disagreed with his statement that, "Under the Mitchell-Lama law, a building loses its property-tax exemption once it pays off its mortgage." This is not correct. While the statute provides that a tax exemption "continues and operates so long as the mortgage" is in effect, it does not state that the exemption ends once the mortgage is paid off. How else could the legislature have extended tax abatements for another 50 years, a period beyond every Mitchell-Lama building's current mortgage?

There is a requirement under the Mitchell-Lama law that if a building decides to withdraw from the system, it must both pay off the State mortgage and notify the City of its withdrawal so that its tax exemption will be ended immediately. But, so long as it stays in the system with its limited profits, a building can enjoy tax abatements after its mortgage is paid off. That is a significant aspect of the 50-year extension: it provides a substantial savings in building's costs for those owners who choose to remain in the system. This savings is in addition to the reduction in costs resulting from retiring the mortgage.

Robert Chira
Editor's note: Robert Chira, a longtime resident, is an attorney practicing in Manhattan.

To the Editor:

As a New York State First Responder, I've noted that an average response time for an ambulance to arrive on Roosevelt Island is between 15 and 25 minutes. The New York City Fire Department has the best response time, providing it is not already on another emergency call.

Anyone who has been involved in emergency medical training realizes that this response time is far too excessive. This is not the fault of Public Safety, hospitals, or ambulance drivers. The simple fact is that Queens hospitals are located 25 minutes from our Island.

The purpose of this letter is not to assign blame, but to offer a possible solution.

Presently, there exists on Roosevelt Island an organization, RISAR - Roosevelt Island Search and Rescue - headed up by Michael Acevedo, a State-certified EMT (see his web site, RISAR10044.com).

Mr. Acevedo is looking for volunteers to become State-certified EMTs and First Responders. To become a First Responder requires a 50-hour training course and passing a State examination.

For those individuals interested, please call Michael at 917-731-3732, or e-mail RISAR10044@aol.com or RlissRealty1@att.net.

The function of RISAR will be to respond directly to Island residents. We should note that an ambulance and EMT personnel will still be dispatched from the nearest hospital; a Roosevelt Island EMT or First Responder, however, should reach the emergency within five to ten minutes of notification and proceed to stabilize the individual until an ambulance providing transportation arrives. New York State protocol requires that EMT or First Responders sign off the patient only to higher-rank medical personnel.

I am presently looking for 15 volunteers to be First Responders. We plan to have a course begin in September, with examinations taking place in December.

Robert Liss

To the Editor:

I have been a Roosevelt Island resident for six years but only recently have I uncovered what the abbreviations in WIRE stand for.

For unknown reasons, the editors have decided to remain faithful to the original four buildings (Westview, Island House, Rivercross, Eastwood), rejecting the possibilities that the industrious Island developers are offering to enhance this overly simple abbreviation.

As the U.S. Flag added stars every time a new state joined the Union, I suggest that we continue to incorporate new letters and reshuffle the name to the amusement of Island residents who can read.

To begin with, we can include Southtown and become The WISER.

But construction at Octagon Park gives us a useful "O," the long-forgotten Manhattan Park an "M," and don't forget the unlimited possibilities of future Blackwell House Park condominiums and the Cherry Tree Esplanade luxurious high rises.

Vojislav Psoncak
Editor's note: There's also an extra "R" available at Riverwalk. All together now, anagrammers: EImorrsw (and other letters, too, if you can make the case for them!)...

To the Editor:

Now that the suit to stop development at Octagon Park has been dismissed, perhaps it is time for RIRA to step back and analyze what has occurred and what can be learned from it. There are now three residential complexes built on Roosevelt Island since the original four buildings. Each of the new projects - Manhattan Park, Southtown, and the Octagon Apartments - was opposed by RIRA and various citizens' groups. Each was delayed for years and lawyers were paid enormous sums without materially affecting the outcome. Today, as a consequence of the Octagon Park decision by Justice Wetzel, there is a distinct possibility that developers will approach RIOC with plans for Southpoint. At that point, RIRA and the residents of Roosevelt Island will have three choices - to once again file a lawsuit to block any development of Southpoint, lobby Albany to have Southpoint declared an open space in new and specific legislation, or to sit down with RIOC and a potential developer to work out an agreement that meets the needs of all.

The first choice, a lawsuit, would seem a fruitless exercise, given the past history of such litigation. The second option offers some hope of success, given the past efforts of Pete Grannis. Whether the Legislature will go along with Mr. Grannis a second time in enacting new legislation declaring an open space on the Island is a question no one can answer. As to the likelihood of Albany taking action, one must consider that any new development on Roosevelt Island brings additional tax revenues to Albany, and it is a rare occasion when politicans there turn their backs on a new source of funds for their pet projects.

One must also consider that one of the duties of our elected officials in Albany is to devise ways to utilize the public lands in the State in ways that benefit the most people. This means that the open spaces on the Island do not belong to the residents here for our private enjoyment; they are subject to the decisions of the State Legislature as to the best use of such spaces. To argue, as some have, that the open spaces are open to all residents of the City, and not just for our pleasure, is disingenuous. The time and effort it takes for residents of Manhattan and Queens to reach Roosevelt Island means that very few from other boroughs ever come to our parks specifically for that purpose.

Given the pressing need for additional housing in the City, it is not unlikely that Albany will now look at Roosevelt Island and decide that some measure of residential development should occur at Southpoint. If that happens, it would behoove RIRA to eschew its history of legal obstructionism and find a way to work with RIOC and any potential developer to achieve a project that enhances life on the Island and does not detract from it. There is little hope that public funds will be found to transform the waste land that now comprises much of Southpoint. It is a depressing eyesore and will adversely affect the experience of those venturing through it to reach the FDR Memorial when it is built. The most realistic solution is to negotiate with a developer so that any project for Southpoint will include a substantial amount of parkland open to all. This will require extended negotiations by individuals from RIRA and RIOC willing to compromise and not motivated by animosity or a desire to sabotage the process.

One of the axioms of negotiating is, "the threat is always more powerful than the action." In such future negotiations RIRA has one thing in its favor: It has not hesitated to file suit in the past to stop development on the Island. That the past litigation has been unsuccessful is of little consequence. A developer faced with the threat of litigation by RIRA will certainly be willing to negotiate some of the aspects of his proposal rather than face a lawsuit that will drag on for years and add greatly to the cost of the project.

Such an approach also means that RIRA must reach an understanding with RIOC beforehand as to the objectives of the negotiation and the strategy and tactics to be employed. As a first step, the name-calling and finger-pointing by RIRA officials should cease. The focus should be on fixing the problem, not fixing the blame.

Jim Baehler

To the Editor:

It is true that Roosevelt Island follows me everywhere I go. While in Barcelona last week, I was visiting this charming city with Nina Lublin. We decided to visit the Joan Miró Foundation Museum, where the artist Miró's collection is housed.

Outside the museum was a banner "Sert." Little alarms went off in my mind. This name was too familiar. Sure enough, there was a special exhibit on the architect José Luis Sert. Sert was the architect of the Miró Foundation Museum. Some interior features are the same as Eastwood's, such as the walls that have the imprint of the wooden forms on them.

There was a comprehensive exhibit about Sert's career and how he was influenced by Le Corbusier and designed many homes and municipal buildings in Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War. In 1939, he was exiled in the U.S. By the 1950's he was at Harvard and worked on urban planning. In subsequent years he worked extensively with Ed Logue and the UDC on many projects in New York, including Eastwood and Westview.

I must say that standing in front of a wall-size slide show on Eastwood and Westview is not exactly what I thought we would be doing on a sunny spring morning in Barcelona. Not only were there slides of the artist's conceptural drawings, there was a floor carpet designed with the architectural rendering of Eastwood. Two comfortable chairs were on the "rug" where you could sit and watch the slide show. Nina and I thought that this was a great way to see the Island, though we wanted to stay in Barcelona and not return home the next day.

The explanations are excellent and well written. All material in this museum is in Catalan, Spanish, and English. As with all of Barcelona, Catalan is the primary language. When the natives hear your Spanish, they immediately switch over.

I chatted with the two docents at the exhibit. They were fine arts students from the university who worked at the museum half days. They were thrilled to meet someone from Roosevelt Island. They hoped to be able to visit the States someday and now have an open invitation to the Island.

The exhibition did not have a catalog, but a full 400-page book on Sert's life. I bought the book (also available in Catalan, Spanish, or English) and carried it home in the luggage.

Yesterday, when I finally had time to look through it, I discovered that "Images of America - Roosevelt Island" by J. Berdy and the Roosevelt Island Historical Society was quoted in it and credit given in a footnote. The chapter, written by architect Joan Ockman, tells the convoluted story of our Island's early development and Sert's work here.

Judith Berdy

To the Editor, New York magazine:

I really took offense at the quotes attributed to Jennifer Connelly in the May 16 issue of New York magazine where she spoke about her starring role in Dark Waters, the movie that was filmed on Roosevelt Island. It is obvious that Ms. Connelly didn't spend enough time on our Island to really get to know it.

I've lived on Roosevelt Island for the past 29 years and do not find it to be in any way "spooky" or "freaky" or "lonely." We are a small-town type, close-knit community of friendly people from all ethnic backgrounds and nationalities who live together harmoniously on a safe, almost crime-free Island with lovely park space and breathtaking views of Manhattan. We are not "isolated" because we're a three-minute Tramway ride from the heart of Manhattan and have both subway and bus service to anywhere in the five boroughs and a bridge that leads into Queens for vehicular traffic.

Ms. Connelly and her movie crew came into our town, disrupted our way of life for weeks on end, changed the structure and appearance of one of our apartment buildings to look like a slum tenement, accepted our hospitality, and then had the nerve to badmouth our Island.

Shame on you, Ms. Connelly. I thought you had more class.

Nancy Brown

To RIOC President Herb Berman:

I want to report a serious problem. I was out riding my mobility scooter Sunday night, May 15 (man, it was warm). I noticed that all the lights on the river walkway behind the school and Manhattan Park were out. Who is responsible for these lights and, more important, who is responsible for making sure that the lights are in working condition? I would love to stay out later, but I feel it's too dark for me (an old-timer) to be scooting around without proper lighting. Will you take care of this and let me know who is responsible? I really don't want to bother a person as busy as you, if this occurs again.

Thanks.

Jim Bates
Editor's Note: The writer is a new member of the RIRA Common Council, representing 4 River Road.

To the RIRA Common Council:

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed by the court's decision in the Octagon case. The very agent of the systematic destruction of Roosevelt Island under its current administration was New York State, the chief architect since the beginning. I give each of you applause for the attempt. Without RIRA, there would be no representation of residents. I know how hard each of you worked to correct the shortsighted money-hungry RIOC and its true "president," Governor George.

What does surprise me is the crowing RIOC column in the April 30 issue of The WIRE. Shame on you, Herb Berman. There was no "true" victory for Roosevelt Island residents, nor was there a victory to preserve the historic Octagon Tower. It will be assumed into a building, rather than being used for the people of the Island - just another grand lobby for its rich tenants.

Berman writes of "soliciting input from the public." Well, you weren't there years ago when the project was first on the table, Mr. Berman. I was, and so were hundreds of other residents whose voices of concern and discontent fell on deaf and absent ears, with a project that changed so often there were surely cost overruns as architects drafted new plans every month, each time making the project bigger and less involved with the interests of the residents and more involved with money-making.

Herb, if you are really interested in affordable housing, then help the "WIRE buildings" (Westview, Island House, Rivercross, Eastwood) by protecting the current residents from having to leave the Island due to the sale of the buildings and rent increases, as I had to.

The worst outrage was your claim that they wasted $300,000 of RIOC's money. It's not your money. Remember the designation of your organization, "public benefit." If the Governor had not zeroed out the Roosevelt Island line in the State budget years ago, there would be more than enough money to maintain the Island.

Roosevelt Island will never be free of petty bureaucrats until RIOC has a true, elected representation of Island residents or it is eliminated, and until the Governor moves on. Until then, thank you, RIRA, kudos, RIRA, keep fighting the great fight!

I may live 2,500 miles away now, but my heart and my love will always be Roosevelt Island.

Kenneth E. Diebner

To the Editor:

In the spring of last year, Mr. Berman-Disney et al amply demonstrated their flagrant disregard for quality of life matters on RI, particularly the east side of Main Street. Little fish emulating DC behemoths. Last evening, June 1, 540, 510 and 516 were regaled by repeated ear-splitting feedback from a mishandled microphone system in the courtyard amphitheater, for well over an hour. I knew that Public Safety would tell me, "They have a permit," so merely hoped that I and my two felines would not go deaf or mad. We were pretty much confined to quarters due to my disability. And why must one flee one's own home to preserve health and sanity?

An unidentified neighbor did lose control, however. When I heard her ranting and cursing in the courtyard, then silence but for the screeching loudspeaker, I called Public Safety to ask if the woman had had a heart attack; and to explain her distress, which matched my own, in magnitude if not volume.

An officer admitted to "five calls of complaint," and further explained, "They have a permit from RIOC" (to drive hundreds mad? I wondered) and, "We have her in house." No heart attack. "We're waiting for EMS and the police."

I attempted to explain the legitimacy of the crazed woman's grievance. "Her behavior is incorrect," he said. "She lost it," I tried to explain, adding, "I'm losing it, too. I still hear the ear-splitting noise."

I wonder if they carted this woman off to Rikers or Bellevue. What has become of civility and basic respect for the rights and welfare of neighbors?

Sharon Stern
Editor's note: The writer apparently has reference to amplification equipment used for a performance of the Roosevelt Island Free Theater.