missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
RH (not verified) says:
I'd venture to guess that Naftali is a Shaoul relative or employee -- correct me if I am wrong.
I live on 11th Street. The two Shaoul buildings here are completely out of context -- they look like spaceships from another planet. There are many other new buildings on our block which fit in the context, Shaoul's do not.
To build the one between Avenues B&C, he evicted the tenants by undermining the structure of the building they were living in then having the building declared unsound.
For the building on St. Mark's Place, he made use of the community facility bonus to add extra bulk and height, but instead of a community facility, he rented the ground floor to a commercial head-shop.
His architect has been decertified. Others in our neighborhood have documented his abuses. These are not anti-developer nuts. They don't document all developers -- not all developers abuse. Shaoul has been documented because he has appalled so many of us.
It is not impossible to develop with respect for the city and its communities. There are three new structures on my block that are extremely attractive, unobtrusive, in-context both historically and in their scale. No one complains about them. Mr. Shaoul could do better if he cared. But he doesn't.
There seems to be no end to Shaoul's disregard for law, for people, for aesthetic context, for community or for the Lower East Side. He is all and only about money.
That's why the interviewer is so tough on Shaoul -- Shaoul has a record and it's not good; it's notoriously bad. Apparently, word of that record has reached the Observer.
And really, should tenants have to leave their homes just because their building has been bought by an aggressive scofflaw? I don't live in a Shaoul building, but it seems to me that the proper response to the tenants' claims is not "Why do you live there" but "Why doesn't the city bring the landlord into compliance with the law?" Why blame the innocent victim? Should landlords be a priori unaccountable and free of blame?
If you read the interview carefully, you'll see that it's really all about the charges. It is to be assumed that Shaoul would deny the charges. Those of us who have watched Ben Shaoul know different. Evidently the Observer knows too. Let's not be naive in our reading.
I'd venture to guess that Naftali is a Shaoul relative or employee -- correct me if I am wrong.
I live on 11th Street. The two Shaoul buildings here are completely out of context -- they look like spaceships from another planet. There are many other new buildings on our block which fit in the context, Shaoul's do not.
To build the one between Avenues B&C, he evicted the tenants by undermining the structure of the building they were living in then having the building declared unsound.
For the building on St. Mark's Place, he made use of the community facility bonus to add extra bulk and height, but instead of a community facility, he rented the ground floor to a commercial head-shop.
His architect has been decertified. Others in our neighborhood have documented his abuses. These are not anti-developer nuts. They don't document all developers -- not all developers abuse. Shaoul has been documented because he has appalled so many of us.
It is not impossible to develop with respect for the city and its communities. There are three new structures on my block that are extremely attractive, unobtrusive, in-context both historically and in their scale. No one complains about them. Mr. Shaoul could do better if he cared. But he doesn't.
There seems to be no end to Shaoul's disregard for law, for people, for aesthetic context, for community or for the Lower East Side. He is all and only about money.
That's why the interviewer is so tough on Shaoul -- Shaoul has a record and it's not good; it's notoriously bad. Apparently, word of that record has reached the Observer.
And really, should tenants have to leave their homes just because their building has been bought by an aggressive scofflaw? I don't live in a Shaoul building, but it seems to me that the proper response to the tenants' claims is not "Why do you live there" but "Why doesn't the city bring the landlord into compliance with the law?" Why blame the innocent victim? Should landlords be a priori unaccountable and free of blame?
If you read the interview carefully, you'll see that it's really all about the charges. It is to be assumed that Shaoul would deny the charges. Those of us who have watched Ben Shaoul know different. Evidently the Observer knows too. Let's not be naive in our reading.