Sunday, November 23, 2003
Sorry...people keep emailing me! More news:
Sad to report that the "Concerned Citizens of Carroll Gardens" (or Carroll Gardens Concerned Citizens—it keeps changing) have set up a new website. Apparently, Danny Contreras thought that continuing to use his "Our Carroll Gardens site" as their base of operations was hurting business. Worse news is that the new site is once again posting Rose House's address. Since Danny is now providing a link to the new site, some SCAMPers are organizing a boycott of all businesses that advertise on "Our Carroll Gardens". You can visit or e-mail them and let them know what you are doing and why you are doing it (by advertising with Danny they are helping to enable the publication of the address). Tell them the boycott will end when they take their ad off Danny's site,or Danny discontinues the link, or the "Concerned Citizens" stop publicizing Rose House's address.
In the meantime, please be careful. There have been several instances of menacing behavior by shelter opponents. During a recent meeting of the First Place Tri-Block Association, a long time area resident who is not even involved with CG-SCAMP described being menaced at a public meeting at PS 142 for asking an “impertinent question.” In a recent CG-SCAMP e-mail, Howard Graubard described in incident which took place in a court room. Tuhina De O'Connor has described a threatening phone call. As opponents realize they no longer have a legal leg to stand on, it is not inconceivable that such isolated incidents may increase in number. Remember, these are people who think nothing of endangering the lives of women and children by posting the address of a battered women's facility.
I received some good news. The effort by opponents to obtain a Temporary restraining order against the operation of Rose House was unsuccessful. Judge Lawrence Knipl dismissed their motion at the conclusion of their evidence without even hearing from NYAWC or the City (also opposing the motion). Two CG-SCAMP activists had been ready to offer testimony, but were not disappointed by the results. We are told that one of the most interesting moments of the case was when Sal Russo, a member of the bar, testified under oath that one of his neighbors was visited by a man who appeared to be Asian, and asked where the shelter was, because he was looking for his wife; Sal also testified that his house was visited by a person looking for the shelter, although he did not elaborate that person's perceived ethnicity, and the visitor did not elaborate why he was asking. Given the litigious proclivities of Sal and some of his neighbors, we will refrain from further comment.