FOR BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.QNS.COM MAY 16, 2019 • THE QUEENS COURIER 31
oped letters & comments
Banning fur bad for New York
BY KAREN GIBERSON
A ban on any of fur products is unacceptable. Th e bill,
which was just introduced in late March, is being inexplicably
fast tracked to the hearing stage, which was scheduled
for May 15. Th is does not allow our industry ample time to
prepare or accurately study the implications of this decision.
We are baffl ed as to why there is a sudden rush to pass this
legislation.
If government can pick and choose to eliminate a specifi c
material, then what’s to stop politicians from telling us what
else we can’t wear, eat and create moving forward?
As the fashion capital of the world, we must work with textiles
and fabrics that our customers are demanding today.
Our industry has embraced a variety of materials, including
vegan leathers, faux furs and other options that are being
developed every day.
Th at said, calf hair, shearling and fur still play a signifi cant
and sustainable role in our designs – from shoes, handbags,
gloves and hats, to trim and cuff s on coats.
Fur is already a heavily regulated industry, with rules covering
from farming and trapping standards to ethics to labeling.
Th e animal byproducts are used in a variety of other
products, from the beauty industry to compost and fertilizers.
We encourage all to learn more about the process. If you
don’t like these materials, you don’t need to use them, to
manufacture with them or buy them as a consumer.
New York City is the hub of retail, wholesale, trade shows
and commerce for many fashion accessory companies. Th e
ban preventing any sale of these products would cut off one
of designers’ largest markets, negatively impacting their livelihoods
and those of the suppliers and retail shops they work
with.
In all, a recent economic study commissioned by the
International Fur Federation Americas found the ban would
result in $850 million in lost taxable business revenue and
cost New York City 7,500 jobs in the fi rst year alone.
According to a survey we conducted this month of accessory
and outerwear companies in Manhattan’s Garment
District, more than 90 of the factories there use these materials,
making items such as gloves, handbags and outerwear.
One of them, Cockpit USA, makes shearling coats for the
United States military.
Th ese are specialized experts. If the “fur ban” passes, some
of them would need to close their businesses, while others
would face signifi cant layoff s.
Let’s be realistic: If the law passes and a manufacturer can’t
sell in New York City, the owner has two choices: close up
the business and fi re all employees or lay off workers and
rent space in New Jersey, Yonkers or Nassau County to ship
the product. Either way, once again New York City loses
much-needed manufacturing jobs – but this time it’s by its
own direct action.
Losing valuable blue-collar jobs is not the only unintended
consequence of this legislation. Council members have
championed environmental issues. In this case, they fail to
recognize the negative environmental impacts of synthetic
materials.
Most fake furs are petroleum-based and do not biodegrade.
One faux fur coat is the equivalent of thousands of
plastic straws.
My biggest concern, however, is that a fur ban would be
just the start. Animal rights activists have made no secret of
the fact that their eventual goal is to ban the use of all animal
products. If the City Council succeeds in banning fur today,
they will next take aim at leather, feathers, wool and silk.
To wear fur, like any consumer product, is a choice. It’s one
New Yorkers have been making for hundreds of years and a
product that remains in high demand today. It’s not the job
of City Council members to legislate away livelihoods simply
because fur is a choice some of them wouldn’t make for
themselves.
Karen Giberson is president of the Accessories Council, a
trade group for accessory, eyewear and footwear brands.
THE COSTS OF
A SHELTER
While it might be feasible to
have a shelter for women and children
in College Point, it is another
matter to have 200 homeless men
roaming the streets and loitering
in nearby businesses.
Th is is far too many for one
neighborhood, especially with
schools nearby.
We’ve been informed that these
men passed a “comprehensive
background and mental health
check.” If they were able to pass
such tests, why aren’t they productive
members of society?
Some may still be unstable and
we don’t know if they had problems
with addiction or criminal
backgrounds.
According to the Daily News,
the Department of Corrections
places many former prisoners into
the shelter system. While they
will be provided with training,
employment services, etc., and
the shelter will have guards, these
men cannot be forced to use these
services or stay on the premises.
Staying in a shelter isn’t a remedy
for homelessness. Shockingly,
it will cost $9 million to shelter
these 200 men, or $45,000 per
bed. For well under that $3,750
per month per person, we could
rent an apartment for each of
them, or establish group homes
so they would no longer be homeless.
Th ese men are supposedly
being sheltered in “communities
they once called home,” but they
have undoubtedly lived in a wide
variety of other places. Although
College Point is in Queens, it is
isolated from the rest of the borough
and the city, and it has no
subway service.
Residents and local politicians
have loudly voiced their opposition
to this shelter. Overall, this
isn’t a good fi t for either the men
or the community.
Linda Imhauser, Whitestone
ODDLY SILENT ON
PRISON REFORM BILL
Queens Assemblyman David
Weprin introduced legislation
in the Assembly to permit some
prison inmates who committed
murder or rape to be eligible
for parole once they reach
age 55 and have served at least
15 years of their sentence. Th e
same legislation was introduced
by Manhattan State Senator Brad
Hoylman in the state Senate.
Th is legislation, if passed by
both the state Assembly and
Senate and signed into law by
Governor Andrew Cuomo, would
permit the state prison parole
board to assess a convicted felon’s
potential risk to society as part of
its decision on the possible early
release of the inmate.
Both Weprin and Hoylman reference
as justifi cation that allowing
these criminals to be eligible
for parole could save New York
state a billion dollars or more
over time.
Never shy around a microphone
or photo opportunity, Assembly
member Weprin has yet to promote
this legislation at one of
his standard Sunday press conferences.
You will not read about it
in one of his periodic newsletters
mailed to constituents at taxpayers
expense.
Th is ultra-liberal legislation
compliments a similar push to
allow convicted felons the right
to vote while serving time in prison.
Some want paroled felons the
right to serve on jury duty.
What’s next, reparations in the
form of taxpayers rebates to reimburse
ex-felons for lost income
due to time served in prison?
Larry Penner, Great Neck
REFUSING TO
ACCEPT LOSSES
In 1993, President Bill Clinton
put his wife Hillary in charge of
health care policy. Aft er one year
of opposition from Republicans,
insurance companies and a good
portion of health care professionals,
President Clinton — seeing
that he didn’t have enough
votes in Congress for his proposed
changes — scrapped his
health care plan and moved on
to other issues. He accepted the
political loss.
In 2005, President George W.
Bush thought he had a mandate
aft er he was re-elected and
attempted to privatize many
aspects of the Social Security
program. Aft er strong opposition
from AARP and many other
senior groups, President Bush saw
that he didn’t have the votes in
Congress and abandoned his proposal.
He then moved on to other
issues. He accepted the loss.
We now have a president who
is incapable of accepting a political
loss. For the fi rst two years
of the Trump presidency, his
Republican-controlled House
and Senate didn’t give him his
wall. Sixty-two percent of the
American people don’t want the
wall. In the recent bill — which
passed overwhelmingly in both
houses of Congress — Trump was
only given $1.3 billion for “fencing.”
So what does he do? He declares
a “national emergency” to attempt
to get $8 billion that Congress
wouldn’t give him. Trump didn’t
have the votes in Congress, but
unlike presidents before him,
he stubbornly and irrationally
refused to accept a political loss.
Donald Trump should listen to
the words of the Rolling Stones
song he plays at his rallies: “You
can’t always get what you want.”
Robert Vogel, Bayside
Email your letters to editorial@
qns.com (Subject: Letter to the
Editor) or leave a comment to any
of our stories at QNS.com. You can
also send a letter by regular mail
to Letters to the Editor, 38-15 Bell
Blvd., Bayside, NY 11361. All letters
are subject to editing. Names
will be withheld upon request, but
anonymous letters will not be
considered for publication. Th e
views expressed in all letters and
comments are not necessarily those
of this newspaper or its staff .
SUNNY DAYS AT THE LIC WATERFRONT // PHOTO VIA INSTAGRAM @astoriamylife
Send us your photos of Queens and you could see them online or in our paper!
To submit them to us, tag @qnsgram on Instagram, visit our Facebook page,
tweet @QNS or email editorial@qns.com (subject: Queens Snaps).
/WWW.QNS.COM
link
link
link
/qns.com
/QNS.com
link
