Stringer Questions Library’s Spending Wants Trustees To Address Lavish Expenses them back once the infectious danger has passed. When one does a logical benefit-to-risk analysis, it is clear that the worst things that could happen by intentionally bringing this dangerous disease to America are far worse than the best things that could happen. Some say if we bring infected individuals here, it will accelerate research endeavors and a potential cure or effective vaccination. Others say not bringing infected citizens back demonstrates an insensitivity toward wonderful people who risk their lives for others. I am sympathetic to these arguments, and if we did not have safer alternatives, they would convince me. Perhaps we should be concentrating on stopping the spread of Ebola in Africa and As the Ebola infection rate and death toll continue to rise rapidly on the African continent, many of us have become complacent with the measures we have taken to protect Americans from this deadly disease. Other nations, such as England, have gone so far as to ban flights emanating from the affected regions of Africa. The Centers for Disease Control and various infectious-disease specialists have done a yeoman's job in their efforts to prevent infected individuals in our country from contaminating others. They have put excellent protocols in place that would virtually guarantee complete safety. Unfortunately, all of those valiant efforts cannot preclude human error, which remains an ever-present danger, regardless of intellect. For this reason, I and many others are not comfortable with the idea of bringing infected individuals into our midst when we can readily treat them elsewhere and happily receive MMAAUURREEEENN EE. WWAALLTTHHEERRSS..........................................PPuubblisshheerr && EEdditoorr JJOOHHNN TT.. WWAALLTTHHEERRSS................................................................................................PPuubblliisshheerr EEmmeerriittuuss RROOBBEERRT POOZZAARRYYCCKI.................................................MMaanaaging EEdditorr JJOOSEE VVAARRGAAS.............................................Prrodducction//Saaleess MMaanaageerr DDEEBBOORRAAHH CCUUSSICCKK..............................................CClaassssiffieedd MMaannaaggeerr MMAARRLLEENNEE RRUUIZZ............................................AAssssisst. CClaassssifieedd MMaanaageerr TTIIMMEESS NNEEWWSSWWEEEEKKLLYY IIss LLiisstteedd WWiitthh TThhee SSttaannddaarrdd RRaattee && DDaattaa AAnndd IIss AA MMeemmbbeerr OOff TThhee NNeeww YYoorrkk PPrreessss AAssssoocciiaattiioonn TIMES, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2014 • 4 BEN CARSON News & Opinion Times Newsweekly EEDDIITTOORRIIAALL Why They Fight The Shelter Times Newsweekly Established In 1908 As Ridgewood Times PPhhootoo SSuubbmmissssioonnss AAnndd RReeqquueesstss Photographs submitted to the Times Newsweekly/Ridgewood Times should be in electronic high resolution (300dpi) JPEG (.jpg) or TIFF (.tif) formats. Sharp and clear non-Polaroid photo prints in color or black and white are also acceptable. Photographs submitted will become the property of this newspaper, with the exception of photos or other materials sent for use by The Old Timer and photos which are part of paid announcements. We welcome the submission of unsolicited photos or related materials for consideration of publication, but we cannot guarantee their use. The return of such photos or materials, except in cases as noted above, is not possible. We regret that we are unable to accommodate requests for photos taken by photographers working on assignment for the Times Newsweekly/Ridgewood Times. Reaching The Queens Homes Of Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village, Woodside, Sunnyside, Astoria, Long Island City, Ozone Park, South Ozone Park, Howard Beach, Richmond Hill, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Woodhaven, Elmhurst & Kew Gardens. Reaching The Brooklyn Homes Of Ridgewood, Bushwick, Cypress Hills, East Williamsburg & Williamsburg. COMPOSITION RESPONSIBILITY: Accuracy in receiving ads over the telephone cannot be guaranteed. This newspaper is responsible for only one incorrect insertion and only for that portion of the ad in which the error appears. It is the responsibility of the advertiser to make sure copy does not contravene the Consumer Protection Law or any other requirement. CCOOPPYYRRIIGGHHTT 22001144 RRIIDDGGEEWWOOOODD TTIIMMEESS PPRRIINNTTIINNGG && PPUUBBLLIISSHHIINNGG CCOO., IINNCC. 60-71 Woodbine St., Ridgewood, N.Y. 11385 General Pub. Office: P.O. Box 863299 Ridgewood, N.Y. 11386-0299 Periodicals Postage Paid At Flushing, N.Y. (USPS 465-940) TTEELEEPHHOONEE: 11--771188--882211--77550000/77550011/77550022/77550033 FFAAXX: 11--771188--445566--00112200 EE-MMAAIILL: iinnffoo@@ttiimmeessnneewwsswweeeekkllyy..ccoomm WWEEBB SSITTEE: www.timessnnewssweekklyy.ccoom OON TTWWITTTTEER @@timessnnewssweekklyy PPUUBBLLIISSHHEEDD EEVVEERRYY TTHHUURRSSDDAAYY FFOORR OOVVEERR 110066 YYEEAARRSS -SEE CARSON ON PG. 26- Glendale and Middle Village residents have been placed in the awkward position of fighting city government over a homeless shelter proposed for a site on the communities’ border. Both neighborhoods neither sought nor wanted this battle. This isn’t a matter of NIMBY-ism or selfishness, either, as residents in these communities demonstrated time and again in previous crises their willingness to help those in need, regardless of who they are. It’s a fight against a bad city policy of warehousing hundreds of disadvantaged people in shelters at a time, and offering those residents few paths out of that system and back into normal housing. It’s a fight against adding hundreds of residents to the community at one time, adding students to already overcrowded schools and further straining inadequate infrastructure across the area. It’s a fight against a tone-deaf, careless city agency that’s willing to place homeless people just about anywhere—in Glendale’s case, in the heart of an industrial area immediately adjacent to a chemical plant. It’s a fight against shelter operators who all too often neglect these facilities, failing to provide proper security and maintain the physical structure, subjecting residents to squalid conditions and crime. It’s a fight against advantageous property owners who exploit the city’s homelessness problem for every nickel they can, selling or leasing properties to the city at above-market rates. It’s a fight against the city trying to forcefeed all of this to these neighborhoods, and other areas across this borough, simply because this administration seems to think Queens hasn’t received its “fair share” of burdens and bad ideas. Fearful of the repercussions the proposed shelter might bring— including, yes, reduced property values—Glendale and Middle Village residents must dig into their own pockets and invest thousands on attorneys to stop it. The Glendale Middle Village Coalition, a civic group formed to fight this legal battle, set a goal of $100,000 toward commencing various legal proceedings in earnest; it already secured $30,000, enough to get one challenge off the ground. How much good could that $100,000 do for the homeless people of New York City? The contributors could very easily give these funds to the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, the Coalition for the Homeless or any other charitable organization that offers services for the homeless. Instead, this money is used for litigation deemed necessary to protect the city from itself. How much good could the $27 million the city plans to give Samaritan Village—the nonprofit group behind the Glendale homeless shelter proposal—do for the homeless people of New York City? These funds could very easily be provided to homeless families in the form of monthly rental vouchers, enabling them to live independently in real homes anywhere they wish in the five boroughs. More than 56,000 people in New York City are homeless today, and the city isn’t doing them any favors by moving forward with its Glendale shelter plan. Even though it bucks Mayor Bill de Blasio’s own housing policy, the city continues to insist on building this shelter, the feelings of nearby residents and business owners be damned. This nonsense must stop. Glendale and Middle Village aren’t the problem; New York City’s homeless policy is the problem. The system is broken, and it must be fixed in the best interests of both homeless people and communities—not property owners or shelter operators. Reinstate and expand rental vouchers so homeless families can find affordable housing. Build more housing units where appropriate to adequately address demand. Place a residency requirement on public assistance so homeless New Yorkers, not individuals from out of town, receive first priority. Let’s come together as a city to help the homeless without destroying entire communities. Keep Ebola Out Of America agreement nullified, thereby compelling the trustees to fully open its books to his office. The board changed its mind during its September vote after Mayor Bill de Blasio and Queens Borough President Melinda Katz removed eight trustees who voted for the May resolution and declined in April to place Galante on leave. The new trustees also voted in September to temporarily and conditionally relieve Galante of his duties. According to Stringer, Galante used Queens Library funds to make “multiple charges for room service, guest rooms, minibar items, ‘sky lounge’ purchases, snacks and movies” while traveling out-of-town. Additionally, the library by Robert Pozarycki From extravagant dinners to concert tickets and sports memorabilia, the Queens Borough Public Library made a host of questionable purchases at the public’s expense, the city’s financial watchdog claimed in a letter to the library’s Board of Trustees last week. Writing in his capacity as a non-voting member of the board, City Comptroller Scott Stringer, in his Oct. 1 letter to the trustees, stated he was “deeply troubled by the nature and possibly excessive amount of many expenditures” after auditors reviewed financial documents the board provided to his office last month. The documents, Stringer stated, were “some of the records that the library has not yet produced to the auditors,” including “general ledger payments from fiscal years 2008 to 2013 and credit card statements for fiscal year 2013.” As previously reported, the trustees authorized in September full compliance with Stringer’s audit of Queens Library, commenced earlier this year after questions arose over the library’s finances under the leadership of Thomas W. Galante, currently on a leave of absence pending the results of ongoing investigations. In May, the trustees voted to provide Stringer with documents in accordance with the 1997 agreement it had with then-City Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Stringer went to court to have the -SEE EXPENSES ON PG. 27-
RT10092014
To see the actual publication please follow the link above