43
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, MARCH 25-31, 2022
BXR
BY FRANK VERNUCCIO
Examined individually, the positions
advocated by progressives,
now empowered through the Biden
administration and big city government,
appear to be isolated acts
of irrationality.
What is the end goal of their
ideas such as allowing violent
criminals to walk the streets? Reducing
defense preparedness even
as authoritarian enemies grow
stronger and more threatening?
Spending far more than the national
income, leading eventually
to confiscatory taxes? Encouraging
racial division? Claiming that
parents should have no say in the
education of their children? Opening
the southern border to massive
illegal immigration? Restricting
the development of energy, even as
Americans struggle to pay fuel and
heating bills?
Clearly, those favoring these
concepts are aware of how they
do not stand up to scrutiny. That
is why there has been a concerted
effort to throttle the First Amendment.
From college campuses that
intimidate non-leftist professors
and students, to politicians that
use the power of government to intimidate
their opposition, the level
of degradation of what was once
seen as sacred American rights is
truly shocking.
Those ideas, taken singularly,
appear illogical, but they are advocated
in the pursuit of ending the
American experiment in individual
rights.
Throughout most of human history,
the concept of personal freedom,
of rights granted by God or
nature and not government, barely
existed. Whether ruled by emperors,
kings, chieftains or strong
men, the idea that an individual
could assert their rights was essentially
a nonstarter.
Piece by piece, Western civilization,
as we now know it, began to
evolve. First came great religious
figures that introduced the concept
that each human was precious
to the heart of God. Centuries later
came the idea that inhabitants of
an area were not “subjects” of monarchs,
but citizens of a nation.
It’s no wonder, then, that many
progressives disdain the concept of
nation states, advocating the concept
instead of “open borders” that
the Biden administration now pursues
despite numerous denials of
reality. Similarly, the idea of religion,
an entity independent of government,
is frequently targeted,
because the Judeo-Christian ethic
cherishes the soul of each man and
woman.
The American concept of individual
rights, expressed in and
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights,
was a truly revolutionary concept,
refuting the normal mode of
rule that had prevailed throughout
history. Through the genius of the
Constitution, flaws in the execution
of that concept were eventually
eliminated, so that in the 21st
century, the concept of personal
freedom has reached its highest expression.
And that has powerfully
upset those that prefer authoritarianism.
The counter-revolution against
the concept of inherent rights and
individual freedom reaches the
highest levels. During the 2010
confirmation hearings of Supreme
Court nominee Elena Kagan, she
evaded answering a question about
whether she even believed in the
concept of inherent rights.
Sen. Schumer (D-NY) actually
introduced legislation to limit the
First Amendment’s application
to some political speech. Rep. Ted
Lieu (D-Calif.) boldly announced
that he would “love to be able to
regulate the content of speech.”
During the Obama administration,
those disagreeing with the
president were harassed by the
IRS and the Department of Justice.
The progressive strategy is
dangerously real and coherent.
Create disorder through crime
that will eventually make authoritarian
government attractive.
Transfer funding from defense to
welfare-style programs that make
much of the population financially
dependent on Washington. Reduce
the ability of citizens to meet
their own needs through hiked
taxes and inflation. Distract voters
from the growing power of government
by turning races and ethnic
groups against each other. Dilute
the concept of citizenry by opening
up the border, then allowing
aliens to vote, as has already been
done in New York City. Remove the
influence of parents, as progressives
have attempted so vigorously
through our education system, so
that an entire generation is overwhelmingly
influenced by big government.
It’s a roadmap to the end of freedom.
CIVIC CENTER
Community Action
Civic Association
The following is an open letter
to Councilmember Marjorie Velázquez
that was also sent to the
Bronx Times/Bronx Times Reporter
for publication.
BY SANDI LUSK
As you know, for many years
we have been working to improve
the residential and business
(along with the Westchester BID)
environment, and in so doing
have learned a lot about the siting
of various city and state social
service facilities, of which Westchester
Square has always shouldered
much more than its share of
the burden.
Overburdening the community
The siting of duplicate 200-bed
SROs for homeless single men
within short walking distance on
either side of the Square, both city
facilities serving the exact same
population, we feel is oversaturation
and does not comply with the
Fair Share criteria:
“Minimal concentration of
residential facilities in surrounding
neighborhood*.”
From: FAIR SHARE, An Assessment
of New York City’s Facility
Siting Process
A Report to the Mayor and The
City Planning Commission 1995.
We strongly feel the siting
of these two 200-bed shelters so
close together in one community
— Westchester Square is one
community although trisected by
three community board boundary
lines; although the two shelters
are technically situated in
CB11, closely abutting CB9 and
10, this fact should not be used to
obfuscate the real issue of community
impact — meets the oversaturation
test and is clearly not
consistent with the Fair Share
Criteria.
Westchester Square has
enough of a burden for a 2-mile
area. The first shelter on Blondell
Avenue will have enough of an effect
on Westchester Square. Placing
another one almost next to
this one on Poplar Street, which
is a residential area, is unconscionable.
Individual site issues
Blondell Avenue: extreme contamination
And now further to the individual
sites themselves: the
Blondell site would cost the taxpayers
$350 million to build on because
it is a brownfield contamination
site. The environmental
report had this to say about the
contamination at the site:
“The site is completely fenced,
however, persons who enter the
site could come in contact with
contaminants in the soil by walking
on the site, digging or otherwise
disturbing the soil. People
are not drinking the contaminated
groundwater because the
area is served by a public water
supply that is not affected by this
contamination. Volatile organic
compounds in the groundwater
may move into the soil vapor (air
spaces within the soil), which in
turn may move into overlying
buildings and affect the indoor
air quality. This process, which
is similar to the movement of radon
gas from the subsurface into
the indoor air of buildings, is referred
to as soil vapor intrusion.
The potential exists for people to
inhale site contaminants due to
soil vapor intrusion in any future
redevelopment and occupancy.”
Although this preliminary
assessment was done for the proposed
adjacent Blondell Commons
affordable housing site, the
conditions are the same next door
at the proposed shelter site, actually
possibly even worse given the
site’s history. As you put it at the
meeting: No one should be building
or living on these highly contaminated
sites.
Poplar Street: very close to an
elementary school
This is the second site proposed
for this 200-bed shelter for
single men, the first proposal was
slated for Stillwell Avenue. That
site was changed because of the
direct request of the leadership of
CB11 and then Councilman Mark
Gjonaj, for reasons having more
to do with real estate issues than
proper location siting, although
they sited proximity to schools
and homes as the reason for the
switch to another site.
The letter described the Poplar
site as “ideal.” This only proves
that no one checked out the site,
as it is just several yards from the
Bronx Easterseals Developmental
School for elementary schoolaged
children — literally across
the street.
The juxtaposition of these populations
is of great concern, as
these types of shelters can house
men who have serious issues,
such as Level 1 sex offender status,
mental health, alcohol and
drug abuse issues. As mentioned
at our meeting, a family shelter
would be the only appropriate
type of shelter for such a sensitive
setting, and that is what the residents
would consider.
CIVIC CENTER
Westchester Square/
Zerega Improvement
Organization
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT BXTIMES.COM
/BXTIMES.COM