In what could be called the meeting that wouldn’t end, (it was over three hours long!) it was rather productive.
The meeting opened surprisingly with the boy scouts opening with the pledge. Which was a nice touch.
First up, was the 61st who really didn’t know much about the recent helicopter chase, they didn’t doubt it happened, but hadn’t prepared any information about it. They did however issue about 12 summonses during the 4th of july with one arrest, because the person had active warrants.
The meeting was mainly about White island. With an impressive panel from various agencies. What is happening now with White Island will be a separate post to keep this post short.
After the White Island portion they went into the usual stuff.
Lew Fidler
He spoke about the Gerritsen Avenue Traffic changes. Saying that the DOT is looking to remodulate the traffic patterns on Gerritsen Avenue north of Avenue U
Lew said that the DOT didn’t approach his office or any civic group just CB15. Lew hasn’t had an opportunity to review the plan but said that it would not be his decision to make(to make these changes). He suggested that he will get DOT to meet with ALL civic groups and to gather a response to see if these changes are going to be made.
According to the proposal from DOT, DOT is making these changes due to a request by Lew Fidler. Lew suspects that because he requested DOT to look at Gerritsen and Nostrand they came up with a plan for the rest of Gerritsen Avenue.
Lew Fidler spoke a bit on white island complimenting Gerritsen Beach residents on knowing about its nature, waterways and environment.
He spoke about the court flooding and is still waiting on a list from the GBPOA of the “worst” blocks.
Lew said the GBCares issues will be resolved by Friday. Apparently NYC Parks put GBCares role in the community in writing, but not on parks letterhead. They are waiting for it to be transferred to letterhead.
The GBPOA association had requested from Lew Fidler: a no u-turn sign in front of library and a push button green traffic signal at seba avenue park. Lew has sent in letters asking for these to be put in, when he knows he will pass the information along.
Then a 20 minute heated debate ensued when Bill Dumphy of ETO confronted the GBPOA to clear up “bad reports. This will also be a separate post.
ATV’s and Paintballers were also agin brought up (it wouldn’t be a meeting without mentioning them), Lew Fidler is investigating into finding a location for the paintballers. However the dirtbikes and streetikes still remain to be a major problem, there are about 4 “bad apples” that do not care for the law. Everyone knows who the 4 are names are not being mentioned at the meeting, not because people don’t want to, some are waiting for the parents to step up.
So anyone driving for example lets say a blue scooter, or a mini-bikes, should maybe lay really low or not use it for awhile.
The property owners lastly voted on and passed an amendment lowering their membership age to 18, there were eight opposed to the change.
is there really enough traffic to have a light a Seba avenue?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, Maisel never showed up, did he?
This loser needs to be voted out of office.
ASAP!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Assemblyman was most definitely there and was present throughout the meeting. The Satate officials who were there to discuss White Island with the community were ther at his request.
Lew from Brooklyn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But obviously, community spirited person that you must be, you weren’t, or you would have already known that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lew from Brooklyn, Assemblyman Maisel was at the meeting from beginning to end, as was I. So I’ll corroborate the Councilman’s assertion.
But I won’t stand here and allow him to insult members of the public and get away without a response.
Snide comments like this do not serve any purpose other than to rile someone up and it shows arrogance and disdain for people. Acting like this alienates people and communities.
Based on your comment, I guess only active community members who attend all meetings should be allowed an opinion – and even then only informed opinions are allowed. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to that, or to hurling personal insults, fun and self-satisfying as they seem to be.
Make no mistake, I’m not defending the commenter’s point of view in any way. The point I’m trying to make is that you and Alan are elected officials. If someone wants to say “throw the bum out” or “I don’t like ______” for no good reason or based on misinformation or for whatever, then by all means attempt to correct any misconception, but keep the personal garbage to yourself.
It’s no way for a person who represents all of us to act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gene, It just strikes me that if someone is going to ridicule one of my colleagues and is expressly wrong, they ought to KNOW what they are talking about. Blog writers often hide behind the anonymity of the medium. And that someties crosses the lines of fairness.
Should you be fortunate to be elected to office some day, perhaps you too will understand that elected officials are entitled to the same presumptions of fairness that other people are.
For someone who obviously did not care enough to come to his local civic meeting to PUBLICLY cast an aspersion based upon misinformation about that meeting is just not fair. YOU might call that position “arrogant”. I call it defending a colleague who deserved to be defended and telling it like it is.
I have a pretty thick skin…and frankly, I am perhaps the only member of the City Council who engages his constituents on the issues on public blogs. Some of my friends think that makes me nuts.
I would prefer to think it both educates me, and extends the openness of my office and its positions thru a new medium.
Yet, I refuse to twitter lest someone call me a Twit.
Come bacck down from that high horse. We can discuss issues if you like, but not personalities.
Lew from Brooklyn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lew from Brooklyn, I have to say I completely agree with Gene.
“For someone who obviously did not care enough to come to his local civic meeting to PUBLICLY cast an aspersion based upon misinformation about that meeting is just not fair.”
First off, what “misinformation”? GB.net gets a lot of crap for what he does & nowhere did he write that your colleague did not attend the meeting.
“For someone who did not care enough” – seriously? Is this really how you talk to people who vote you in/hire you to represent them? I am not the original poster and I was offended by this phrase. You have no idea what people’s lives are like. Yes it was directed at one person but how dare you. You don’t know if someone has 8 kids or 4 jobs or is sick or had a death in the family or got stuck an extra hour on their commute home. You were at that meeting because it’s your job.
Speaking of your job…unless I check this website, I never receive any notices about community meetings. I don’t recall ever getting anything in the mail. And if mine was mislaid and you do in fact send postcards or inform the community, do you do it in a timely manner so that people who do want to attend can rearrange their schedules or arrange for child care?
Your comment would have been complete with just the correction that your colleague was in attendance. The second comment was not necessary and with every reply you just dig yourself in a little bit more.
Finally, a word of advice…if you want me to “rehire” you, proofread your comments before posting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bob,
Bob, Sorry you were offended. There was no misinformation posted by GB.net. It was the anonymous commenter who asserted that Maisel was not there. HE mde a public remark rebuking my colleague for something that had not happened. I of course recognize that there are a myriad of reaons why someone may not make a meeting. In my view, the commenter before going into the public domain to cast an aspersion should take the time to know that the facts are correct.
As to notices about community meetings, please note that this was not MY meeting, but the regularly scheduled meeting of GBPOA. I do not send out their meeting notices. I represent communities from Bedford Avenue to East 108th Street in Canarsie and attend all of my civic organization meetings and do so personally the vast majority of the time. But I am not responsible for sending out their meeting notices.
As to proof reading my comments, I think I do pretty well with the small type for a guy who has had four eye surgeries in the past 3 years.
And Bob, you are right. the second post was gratuitous and unnecessary.
I would hope that you evaluate my performance as your Council representative on the body of my work. I think when it comes to the Beach, my record of doing the right thing and getting things done will meet with your approval.
Lew from Brooklyn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lew from Brooklyn, So it’s about retaliation. He’s a dummy, He insulted my friend, so I will try to hurt back. That may have worked in the schoolyard, but we’re a long way from there.
The issue isn’t fairness – re-read my comment: I said that you can by all means correct misinformation. That is fair. But why take the extra time to make that second comment? Did it make you feel better?
You could have left it at that first comment, and I would have backed you up, but you didn’t. You choose to make it personal. You took it to the gutter. It’s not productive.
And while we’re at it, there could be any number of reasons why someone doesn’t attend a meeting – work, family, any number of commitments. To assume that absence means not caring is a false assumption that… well you know the saying about assumptions.
And pointing that out is not getting on any high horse, it’s simply standing up to a bully tactic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gene B.,
I re-read my answer again and again and I don’t even remotely see where it was about retaliating against some anonymous human being or bullying. and frankly, I don’t see where this was “in the gutter”.
As I wrote to Bob, the second comment was unnecessary and I will leave it at that.
As blogs evolve as a medium, there will necessarily be a push come to shove with people’s first amendment rights and the rights of individuals written about to confront their accusers.
This was not the first time I have chosen to defend a colleague or a constituent who I think was wrongly and anonymously accused. For THAT, I will not apologize.
Ready to get back to real issues and off of personalities any time now….
Lew from Brooklyn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lew from Brooklyn, Glad you came around to see things my way.
No one was asking you to apologize for your first comment – in fact, I backed you up! Then after backing you up, I agreed that responding as you did with fact was the right thing to do – if you didn’t, I or any number of people – including GB.net – would have.
As the part-owner of an internet-based business (which I will not plug!), I’ve moderated many forums. I understand the frustration towards “trolls” (not my term, it’s actually a technical term for people who disrupt sites.) who incite and inflame people. I’ve found that setting facts straight works, but insults / picking a fight with a shadow is a waste of time and energy, and only comes back to haunt you.
This country’s foundation is rooted in anonymous writing – look at The Federalist Papers.
Yes, by all means, time to move on!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gene B.,
Gene, everybody “knew” who wrote the Federalist Papers. It was one of the worst kept secrets of the day.
But your point is valid, nevertheless.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
Lise
Like or Dislike:
0 
0