68th Street Rehab (NIMBYism at its Finest)

[DanTheTransitMan]

Yes, maybe that will slow them down on their elitist twitch. lol

 

I really don't think so because people have tendency to do two things that are completely irrational:

1). Never admit that they are wrong (no matter how wrong they actually are).

2). Try to assert themselves over people who are more successful then themselves (notice the irony here).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I really don't think so because people have tendency to do two things that are completely irrational:

1). Never admit that they are wrong (no matter how wrong they actually are).

2). Try to assert themselves over people who are more successful then themselves (notice the irony here).

 

Oh of course not. We'll never hear the end of the elitism card thrown around because you know everyone on the Upper East Side is somehow different from the rest of us and they're all filthy rich. They're not supposed to want their neighborhood to stay nice because they may have more money than some of us. LOL

[DanTheTransitMan]

Oh of course not. We'll never hear the end of the elitism card thrown around because you know everyone on the Upper East Side is somehow different from the rest of us and they're all filthy rich. They're not supposed to want their neighborhood to stay nice because they may have more money than some of us. LOL

 

Oh yeh, somehow there is correlation between being clean and being an elitist. The weird ideas that go around on this forum. These guys kind of remind me of the occupy protesters, because some of their ideas are just that crazy.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Oh yeh, somehow there is correlation between being clean and being an elitist. The weird ideas that go around on this forum. These guys kind of remind me of the occupy protesters, because some of their ideas are just that crazy.

 

LMAO... Of course we're the "weirdos" because we don't like the majority.

[CenSin]

I've got friends that live in the Upper East Side. They're not rich. They want the Second Avenue Subway and more entrances (if possible) for their crowded subway entrances. I've been there. It seems to take forever to move through the stairs because of the crowds.

 

If the problems at 68 Street are anything like some of the other stations I've visited along Lexington Avenue, I say build that entrance. I strongly suspect that there's a silent majority who do want an extra entrance; they just can't bother to hire lawyers or contact their media connections to put the word out.

[checkmatechamp13]

Why does everyone assume that all residents of the Upper East Side are automatically affluent?? It's like my future neighborhood in Riverdale. Some parts of Riverdale are very wealthy (subsections like Fieldston) and other parts (i.e. Northern Riverdale) is more middle class, so yes, the little guy is right. In any event your comment just proves my point that if this was a poor neighborhood, the yearning to build a subway entrance despite the opposition from the immediate residents in the area as a way of "getting back" at the perceived "rich folks" wouldn't be the priority.

 

In this case, that particular section of the neighborhood can be considered wealthy. The median income around the 68th Street station is $150,819, with a median per capita income of $171,496.

 

See here: Upper East Side (UES) neighborhood in New York, New York (NY), 10021, 10028, 10128 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

The Broadway YMCA is in what you could probably consider an upper middle-class neighborhood (maybe you could argue it's only middle class). The median household income is $92,311, and the median per capita income is $33,718.

 

West Brighton (West New Brighton) neighborhood in Staten Island, New York (NY), 10301, 10310 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

Or you can try North Riverdale (which would be closer to what would be considered a middle-class community). Click on any block group and it'll give you much lower numbers than those posted for that part of the UES: North Riverdale neighborhood in Bronx, New York (NY), 10471 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

So the area around the station in question is definitely not a middle-class neighborhood by any stretch.

 

Just to add on, there are a lot of people on section 8 who live on the upper east side especially on 94th and 93rd. I love when people jump the gun and automatically assume that a neighborhood is filled with rich people just because the average income is high in that area. Don't get me wrong I'm well aware that there are a good amount of people with an extremely high salary in the upper east side, but you also have to take into account that there are a lot of people who live in the upper east side that are part of the working class and the impoverished class (the people who are on section 8). These income gaps skew the economic data that is derived from the area. Thus people get the misconception that all upper east side residents are rich, pompous, and live immaculately.

 

The Section 8 residents aren't by the Lexington Avenue Line. None of those areas could be considered middle class. You might be able to argue that for the areas by York Avenue (and it would be even harder than for the middle class example I posted because the per capita income is even higher), but definitely not for the area in question (where the people on the block are arguing against the station opening)

 

And those aren't Section 8 buildings: Those are regular housing projects by 92nd Street/York Avenue. The thing is that they aren't like the average housing project because the surrounding area is upper middle-class and wealthy, so they probably monitor it more.

 

Not to mention that even 93rd Street/Lexington Avenue has nothing to do with this because it isn't near the 68th Street station.

 

Of course it doesn't. My main issue is I feel some of the folks pushing this so called necessary for the majority line on the forums here are doing so only because they feel like it would get back at the so called rich people that they can't stand and that shouldn't be the reason for building it. It's like all of a sudden everyone gave a damn about the disabled in this city. I still remember the thread where some folks said that there aren't that many disabled people in the city (and now suddenly, the disabled folks matter so much that we absolutely MUST build this entrance). That's my main issue with the whole thing. If the cares so much about the disabled folks at this station then don't make this an isolated incident. They pledged that going forward, all new stations will have air conditioning on the platforms, so they should pledge to make as many new stations ADA accessible as possible.

 

Mind you I was the one months ago saying that more stations need to be ADA accessible and I still stand by that statement.

 

 

And how do you know it's "because we want to get back at the rich people"? If these NIMBYs were in an overcrowded station in the South Bronx, we'd be saying the same thing.

[6 Lexington Ave]

Oh of course not. We'll never hear the end of the elitism card thrown around because you know everyone on the Upper East Side is somehow different from the rest of us and they're all filthy rich. They're not supposed to want their neighborhood to stay nice because they may have more money than some of us. LOL

 

Yes, saying that everyone on the Upper East side is rich is a generalization. But they surely have an above average income. Anyway, this is not the point and it's my fault for bringing it up. The point is that it's just a damn subway entrance and I fail to see how it stops the neighborhood from being nice. This argument about destroying the neighborhood is ridiculous..

If the problems at 68 Street are anything like some of the other stations I've visited along Lexington Avenue, I say build that entrance. I strongly suspect that there's a silent majority who do want an extra entrance; they just can't bother to hire lawyers or contact their media connections to put the word out.

 

Exactly!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

In this case, that particular section of the neighborhood can be considered wealthy. The median income around the 68th Street station is $150,819, with a median per capita income of $171,496.

 

See here: Upper East Side (UES) neighborhood in New York, New York (NY), 10021, 10028, 10128 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

The Broadway YMCA is in what you could probably consider an upper middle-class neighborhood (maybe you could argue it's only middle class). The median household income is $92,311, and the median per capita income is $33,718.

 

West Brighton (West New Brighton) neighborhood in Staten Island, New York (NY), 10301, 10310 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

Or you can try North Riverdale (which would be closer to what would be considered a middle-class community). Click on any block group and it'll give you much lower numbers than those posted for that part of the UES: North Riverdale neighborhood in Bronx, New York (NY), 10471 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

So the area around the station in question is definitely not a middle-class neighborhood by any stretch.

 

Oh please. Averages are just that... Averages... They don't represent everyone. Northern Riverdale has some affluent folks as well, as does West Brighton, esp. going past Forest Avenue and towards Randall Manor. The same could be said for subsections of Riverdale like Spuyten Duyvil and Fieldston and such, but still. It doesn't mean everyone is rich.

 

 

 

The Section 8 residents aren't by the Lexington Avenue Line. None of those areas could be considered middle class. You might be able to argue that for the areas by York Avenue (and it would be even harder than for the middle class example I posted because the per capita income is even higher), but definitely not for the area in question (where the people on the block are arguing against the station opening)

 

And those aren't Section 8 buildings: Those are regular housing projects by 92nd Street/York Avenue. The thing is that they aren't like the average housing project because the surrounding area is upper middle-class and wealthy, so they probably monitor it more.

 

Not to mention that even 93rd Street/Lexington Avenue has nothing to do with this because it isn't near the 68th Street station.

 

 

 

And how do you know it's "because we want to get back at the rich people"? If these NIMBYs were in an overcrowded station in the South Bronx, we'd be saying the same thing.

 

 

1) Is that right? Well a colleague of mine lives in Yorkville in the 70s and she is not uber rich... Upper middle class yes, but not filthy rich.

 

2) As for your 93rd street comment, where did any of us talk about 93rd street?? :confused:

 

3) And finally for your how do I know "it's because we want to get back at the rich people?"... First off, you should speak for yourself and not everyone else. Second, if it wasn't about getting back at the so called "rich people", money and class would've never been discussed in this conversation when referring to the residents that oppose this project.

 

You have a hard time reading between the lines... Someone's wealth has NOTHING to do with building an entrance, yet several of the folks in favor of the entrance keep bringing it up in this thread and then proceed to talk about how it should be built as some sort of "punishment" because they assume that these folks all have money. Repetitious comments like "rich elitists", and "Oh the poor little guy on the Upper East Side..." and discussions about "astronomical" sums of money that folks spend for rent in the neighborhood clearly allude to the idea that there is some resentment towards these people because they are thought to be "rich" and the feeling is that the rich always get their way and always get what they want, so the idea of the building a subway entrance on 68th street, which some residents in the area oppose has to happen because for once the rich folks wouldn't get their way. Their legitimate concerns for their community are seen as trivial and rhetorical, yet others in this very thread have expressed empathy for other communities that are generally poor if some sort of subway construction was proposed. Yeah, that's hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Cait Sith]

DanTheTransitMan]Just to add on, there are a lot of people on section 8 who live on the upper east side especially on 94th and 93rd.

 

Around those parts I usually consider to be the border between Spanish Harlem & The Upper East Side. 96th is usually where the border strikes.

[Mysterious2train]

I strongly suspect that there's a silent majority who do want an extra entrance; they just can't bother to hire lawyers or contact their media connections to put the word out.

 

lol

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Oh please. Averages are just that... Averages... They don't represent everyone. Northern Riverdale has some affluent folks as well, as does West Brighton, esp. going past Forest Avenue and towards Randall Manor. The same could be said for subsections of Riverdale like Spuyten Duyvil and Fieldston and such, but still. It doesn't mean everyone is rich.

 

2) Is that right? Well a colleague of mine lives in Yorkville in the 70s and she is not uber rich... Upper middle class yes, but not filthy rich.

 

3) As for your 93rd street comment, where did any of us talk about 93rd street?? :confused:

 

4) And finally for your how do I know "it's because we want to get back at the rich people?"... First off, you should speak for yourself and not everyone else. Second, if it wasn't about getting back at the so called "rich people", money and class would've never been discussed in this conversation when referring to the residents that oppose this project.

 

You have a hard time reading between the lines... Someone's wealth has NOTHING to do with building an entrance, yet several of the folks in favor of the entrance keep bringing it up in this thread and then proceed to talk about how it should be built as some sort of "punishment" because they assume that these folks all have money. Repetitious comments like "rich elitists", and "Oh the poor little guy on the Upper East Side..." and discussions about "astronomical" sums of money that folks spend for rent in the neighborhood clearly allude to the idea that there is some resentment towards these people because they are thought to be "rich" and the feeling is that the rich always get their way and always get what they want, so the idea of the building a subway entrance on 68th street, which some residents in the area oppose has to happen because for once the rich folks wouldn't get their way. Their legitimate concerns for their community are seen as trivial and rhetorical, yet others in this very thread have expressed empathy for other communities that are generally poor if some sort of subway construction was proposed. Yeah, that's hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

1) There are people of all classes living in all neighborhoods. There are people living in East NY making over $200,000 per year (zoom into the area on this map. Mapping America ? Census Bureau 2005-9 American Community Survey - NYTimes.com It's a sample, so I highly doubt it's as high as 10% of the households, but the point is that there are households making that much), and there are households on the UES making less than $30,000 per year (again, it might not be as high as the map makes it out to be, but they're there. They're probably college students or something, but anyway)

 

The point is that you can't say "Well, there are people there who aren't wealthy and therefore you can't say it's a wealthy area".

 

2) I don't know what to say to that. Somebody may not live the lifestyle of a wealthy person, but that doesn't mean that they aren't wealthy. There was an article talking about the 1% of the nation and how most people assume that they're high-level CEOs and living in mansions, but there are a decent number who are entrepreneurs and still have to get up and go to work.

 

And from what you described, she does sound like she's living high on the hog.

 

3) DanTheTransitMan talked about how there's Section 8 buildings and stuff down by 93rd Street.

 

4) And there are plenty of people who believe like me: They're NIMBYs who should be overruled by the vast majority (which includes people from their own neighborhood and even their own block), and that would apply if this was the South Bronx, the UES, or anywhere in between. Look up the posts: There aren't as many "We should shove it down their throat because they're rich". Most of them are talking about how it's sorely needed because of how well-used the station is.

[SmallParkShuttle]

The "neighborhood" they're concerned about is 69th St. They don't seem to have a problem passing the buck to 70 St or 67 St, which would do more harm than good to the actual neighborhood. Acute geographical focus, with disregard for everyone else. This has all the characteristics of NIMBYism and serves to benefit (in all honesty) less than 1% of the affected population, who most likely don't even take the subway. So because of this, the has to spend more money it doesn't have? This is the problem I have with this situation.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) There are people of all classes living in all neighborhoods. There are people living in East NY making over $200,000 per year (zoom into the area on this map. Mapping America ? Census Bureau 2005-9 American Community Survey - NYTimes.com It's a sample, so I highly doubt it's as high as 10% of the households, but the point is that there are households making that much), and there are households on the UES making less than $30,000 per year (again, it might not be as high as the map makes it out to be, but they're there. They're probably college students or something, but anyway)

 

The point is that you can't say "Well, there are people there who aren't wealthy and therefore you can't say it's a wealthy area".

 

Oh please. That was NOT my point and you know it. The point is you can't classify everyone in a neighborhood as being wealthy based on the majority being wealthy.

 

2) I don't know what to say to that. Somebody may not live the lifestyle of a wealthy person, but that doesn't mean that they aren't wealthy. There was an article talking about the 1% of the nation and how most people assume that they're high-level CEOs and living in mansions, but there are a decent number who are entrepreneurs and still have to get up and go to work.

 

And from what you described, she does sound like she's living high on the hog.

 

Well some folks don't let money go to their head. Some things they feel are more important than others. Me for example, I think eating well (eating organic and natural products) is an important priority so I spend more in that area. Others would rather not and spend more in cars and such.

 

3) DanTheTransitMan talked about how there's Section 8 buildings and stuff down by 93rd Street.

 

That was just an example to clarify his point, nothing more, nothing less. It still doesn't mean that the folks in question are wealthy by any means. A lot of folks on the Upper East Side have lived there for years. The lady I talked to while waiting for the BxM1 Saturday night had lived on the Upper East Side for 15 years before moving to Riverdale where she's lived for 20 years. Many of them have low rents or low mortgages because they moved there before the whole price boom went into effect, so they may not be as wealthy as you think. For example, my colleague who lives in Yorkville has lived there for over 25 years in the same apartment and her rent is considerably cheaper than what it would be on the open market since she's in the 70s.

 

4) And there are plenty of people who believe like me: They're NIMBYs who should be overruled by the vast majority (which includes people from their own neighborhood and even their own block), and that would apply if this was the South Bronx, the UES, or anywhere in between. Look up the posts: There aren't as many "We should shove it down their throat because they're rich". Most of them are talking about how it's sorely needed because of how well-used the station is.

 

Uh huh and calling them "rich elitists" at the same time. A total BS cover up to try to "hide" their disdain for their wealth. You yourself strongly support redistribution of wealth so I'm not shocked that you would be against the NIMBYs.

[Wallyhorse]

In this situation, the hasn't done any bullying; this project is still in the concept phase and they went to the board first for the neighborhood's input. Don't give me any other instances, because I will bring you back to this instance, the latest, in which they handled it by the book.

 

This impending court battle is a waste of time and resources, and that is what pisses me off. Do they realize that any other alternatives can cause more financial damage than the current plan? Tunneling to 67th or 70 will bring a true taste of the SAS to Lexington, effectively gridlocking the area due to concurrent construction in the area. That will guarantee that property values will decrease and their neighborhood will be tarnished.

 

If the "little guy" is middle class, then I'm pretty sure he is on the (MTA)'s side this time...

 

Like I've said in this, these are likely people who don't have that much longer (relatively speaking) to live in a number of cases, and at this point they likely are more concerned about their legacies for after they are gone and what they did to preserve the value of their properties for those who may inherit them.

 

It also may be that those who stand to inherit the properties when those who have them now pass on may be concerned about their value because they may have been counting on that money coming from a sale of such properties at some point, especially if they are in debt and that could wipe that debt out. They may very well be worried about losing in their minds as much as low six-figures if not more because of such an entrance being there.

 

That said, if it were me there, I'd be all for it because I would love having a subway entrance not far from me knowing how essential the subway really is to Manhattan. As said before, the only alternative I can see is to build it on Lexington between 69th and 70th and set it up so that entrance/exit is at the very back of that station so they can build the mezzanine as far north as possible. That is one of the busiest local-only stations in the entire system and needs a second entrance.

 

As also said before, I'd be looking to add a second entrance/exit to the 77th Street station at 76th Street, the main purpose of such being for students of Wagner Junior High School (2nd/3rd Avenues) and Eleanor Roosevelt High School (east of 1st Avenue), both of which are on 76th Street. That is another station that needs a second entrance along the , which I know because that was my home station for many years.

[checkmatechamp13]

@ VG8

 

1) Alright, so one middle class person lives on the block and opposes the entrance. What's your point? And even if they've lived there for a long time, the UES has always been an expensive neighborhood, so you can't use that excuse.

 

2) The point is that they still have money and their lifestyle reflects that (and just because your boss lives a bit frugally doesn't mean everybody in that area is like that)

 

3) Except that this doesn't fit this example. He's saying that one section of the neighborhood has more poor and middle-class people, and somehow that applies to the whole neighborhood.

 

4) When did I ever say anything about rich elitists? And yeah, I support redistribution of wealth, but that's irrelevant.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@ VG8

 

1) Alright, so one middle class person lives on the block and opposes the entrance. What's your point? And even if they've lived there for a long time, the UES has always been an expensive neighborhood, so you can't use that excuse.

 

That is not true. If they lived there before the prices went through the roof, it would still be affordable for someone earning a modest salary.

 

2) The point is that they still have money and their lifestyle reflects that (and just because your boss lives a bit frugally doesn't mean everybody in that area is like that)

 

Correction not boss, colleague. The boss lives in a Penthouse on the Upper East Side. :cool: :tup:

 

3) Except that this doesn't fit this example. He's saying that one section of the neighborhood has more poor and middle-class people, and somehow that applies to the whole neighborhood.

 

Ay yay yay... He used one example to show that not ALL of the Upper East Side is wealthy. I demonstrated with other examples that do apply to this discussion as to how someone can indeed live in "sections" of the Upper East Side that are thought to be all uber rich, but yet not be uber rich, so no point in even talking about whether or not his example applies. Two examples have been given to show that A) not all of the Upper East Side is wealthy and that the residents in this section of the Upper East Side which is considered to be uber rich may not be uber rich. They may have pooled together their savings to hire the lawyer. If they have low expenses and have been living there a long time and watch their spending, it is not that expensive for them to pool together their monies to hire a lawyer.

 

4) When did I ever say anything about rich elitists? And yeah, I support redistribution of wealth, but that's irrelevant.

 

Read the post again... I talked about what others posted and then about what you've stated. And your redistribution of wealth "philosophy" is relevant because you also support doing things for the benefit of the majority even if it severely effects the minority, but you have no problem taking from the wealthy and the more fortunate to give to the less fortunate, but the wealthy or those who are more fortunate shouldn't receive any benefits at any time because they're just supposed to cater to the majority. Yeah, that is most certainly relevant.

[CenSin]

Read the post again... I talked about what others posted and then about what you've stated. And your redistribution of wealth "philosophy" is relevant because you also support doing things for the benefit of the majority even if it severely effects the minority, but you have no problem taking from the wealthy and the more fortunate to give to the less fortunate, but the wealthy or those who are more fortunate shouldn't receive any benefits at any time because they're just supposed to cater to the majority. Yeah, that is most certainly relevant.

The philosophy of taking from the rich and redistributing to the poor is actually morally correct. If you take into consideration how the wealth was obtained, you'd find it hard to argue that it shouldn't be redistributed. But that's another topic of debate.

[NX Express]

Why is wealth relevant to this conversation at all?

 

Thousands of people in this neighborhood would like a new entrance. One is required for ADA reasons as well.

 

But for some reason, a few dozen on one block think that the entrance should not be built just because of them. That's arrogance and NIMBYism.

 

And please, VG8 especially, let's keep wealth out of this. Besides Checkmate and his concrete facts, you seem to be the only one mentioning wealth for the past few pages.

[CenSin]

Why is wealth relevant to this conversation at all?

 

Thousands of people in this neighborhood would like a new entrance. One is required for ADA reasons as well.

 

But for some reason, a few dozen on one block think that the entrance should not be built just because of them. That's arrogance and NIMBYism.

 

And please, VG8 especially, let's keep wealth out of this. Besides Checkmate and his concrete facts, you seem to be the only one mentioning wealth for the past few pages.

Exactly. The argument should really boil down to the benefits and cost (not only financial costs).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Why is wealth relevant to this conversation at all?

 

Thousands of people in this neighborhood would like a new entrance. One is required for ADA reasons as well.

 

But for some reason, a few dozen on one block think that the entrance should not be built just because of them. That's arrogance and NIMBYism.

 

And please, VG8 especially, let's keep wealth out of this. Besides Checkmate and his concrete facts, you seem to be the only one mentioning wealth for the past few pages.

 

Don't "especially" me. I'm not the one that introduced it into the conversation. Had it not been introduced I wouldn't have mentioned it. If the SOLE reason for everyone being in favor of this entrance was for the reasons you've stated I wouldn't have a problem, but they have other "buried" alternatives and I'm simply calling them out on it. Don't like it?? Too bad, because it's the truth. Don't think you're going to try to take jabs at me because you've got personal issues or whatever. Just putting it out there. Now on with the topic at hand...

 

In a related topic, the supposedly hired a consultant to run some tests on the air quality from the SAS construction for about a month and the conclusion was that the air quality is about about average levels. Residents however remain skeptical, citing things like dry coughs and other breathing issues and say that they never had these problems before in the past. My question is what is the going to do to ensure that this entrance is as non problematic as possible and doesn't cause any further health concerns, etc. for residents that are already skeptical? Many residents say they can live with the noise issue, but air quality is a big concern for them.

[Guest lance25]

Now those are legitimate concerns that should be brought up at the Community Board meetings, not crap like "the subway is crowded, deal with it" or "we're gonna make this as difficult as possible just 'cause we can".

 

And I agree, let's keep wealth out of this discussion since this isn't a rich v. poor debate.

[checkmatechamp13]

Don't "especially" me. I'm not the one that introduced it into the conversation. Had it not been introduced I wouldn't have mentioned it. If the SOLE reason for everyone being in favor of this entrance was for the reasons you've stated I wouldn't have a problem, but they have other "buried" alternatives and I'm simply calling them out on it. Don't like it?? Too bad, because it's the truth. Don't think you're going to try to take jabs at me because you've got personal issues or whatever. Just putting it out there. Now on with the topic at hand...

 

 

So 1 or 2 people have "getting back at the wealthy as their motive", and somehow that represents all of us? There was like 1 person who said "Yeah let's stick it to those rich SOBs", and then you go off on a tirade acting like that's the only reason any of us want this project to go through.

 

I know for a fact there were a lot more people who said "I don't care if this situation were taking place in the South Bronx", than there were people who want it done solely because it would hurt the wealthy.

 

You're not "calling out" anybody. If there were people who, a while back said "Let's do it to stick it to those rich SOBs" and then came up with a bunch of invalid reasons for doing so (nothing to do with the fact that it's a crowded station or anything like that), then they spoke for themselves.

 

In a related topic, the supposedly hired a consultant to run some tests on the air quality from the SAS construction for about a month and the conclusion was that the air quality is about about average levels. Residents however remain skeptical, citing things like dry coughs and other breathing issues and say that they never had these problems before in the past. My question is what is the going to do to ensure that this entrance is as non problematic as possible and doesn't cause any further health concerns, etc. for residents that are already skeptical? Many residents say they can live with the noise issue, but air quality is a big concern for them.

 

 

Well those are valid concerns and should be addressed, and that's a much better reason than "It'll bring bums to my block".

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So 1 or 2 people have "getting back at the wealthy as their motive", and somehow that represents all of us? There was like 1 person who said "Yeah let's stick it to those rich SOBs", and then you go off on a tirade acting like that's the only reason any of us want this project to go through.

 

I know for a fact there were a lot more people who said "I don't care if this situation were taking place in the South Bronx", than there were people who want it done solely because it would hurt the wealthy.

 

You're not "calling out" anybody. If there were people who, a while back said "Let's do it to stick it to those rich SOBs" and then came up with a bunch of invalid reasons for doing so (nothing to do with the fact that it's a crowded station or anything like that), then they spoke for themselves.

 

LOL... It's far more than 1 or 2 and some of them aren't going to come out and say that's the reason, but they do a very good job of hinting at it from their snide remarks on the side. You really have a hard time understanding when folks have other motives. They don't need to say it directly, but they'll bring up issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. And also, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "all" at anytime, so stop misquoting me. :mad: :tdown:

[Joel Up Front]

I'm waiting for the :lock: because this thread has devolved into a circlejerk involving only one person...

[Wallyhorse]

I'm waiting for the :lock: because this thread has devolved into a circlejerk involving only one person...

 

Agreed, especially since I've tried to point out that these are likely a small bunch of people more concerned about their legacies and what they leave behind for heirs than what the greater good is.

 

As said, I would be looking to build the entrance as far north as possible without building a station extension between 69th and 70th on Lexington if these people are going to be that insistent.