To the Editor:

Shame, shame on us! Only 554 people voted in the election Tuesday, June 5! Situated in the school, the voting station is convenient for all of us, just 1-2 blocks at most. We have at least 5,000 adults on Roosevelt Island qualified to vote... and yet only 554 people voted in the election on Tuesday, June 5.

In the full 65th district, a total of 6,196 people voted. Can you imagine what power we have if we used it. If all 5,000 adults (100%) on Roosevelt Island voted, our votes would represent 95% of all votes in the 65th district. With our votes we could decide every local election and have a great impact on City and State elections, as well.

We Roosevelt Islanders depend on our representatives. Pete Grannis, Jessica Lappin, and Carolyn Maloney truly care for us. They spend time on Roosevelt Island, most of us have talked with them personally, they know our issues. And we depend on them to assist us with a huge range of important issues, issues that affect our quality of life such as privatization, the MetroCard, traffic signs, the Youth Center, our art gallery, protecting our park land and so much more.

This last election was to determine Grannis’s successor. With approximately 5,000 voters, we could totally decide so many issues in our favor if we all took the time to vote. It takes only 20 minutes at most out of our day. Let’s aim for 100% next time.

Doris Chernik

To the Editor:

I appreciated Jonathan Kalkin’s article (June 15 WIRE). I always had curiosity and lack of understanding of why RIOC would leave storefronts empty and, in some cases, close some, when in my uneducated mindset, I found that to be uneconomical and certainly a loss of money. Although I do not focus my own life around the almighty dollar, I can fully understand that RIOC is a business and "money is good." I now have a better sense of understanding of where things are from RIOC's point of view.

With that said, I have to commend Jonathan for an excellent introduction and explanation of the proposed Master Leaseholder model. I think that would be an excellent way to solve the challenges imposed by the Public Authorities Act and RIOC.

I would like to address some of the concerns/risks listed:

• Jonathan states that a concern would be having a Master Leaseholder potentially use a majority, if not all, of the storefronts for office space instead of retail. As much as I would be concerned about that, I agree with him that "money talks," and we have a unique model here on Roosevelt Island with a captive audience, street foot traffic, and virtually no competition. However, even if the theory of "majority of office space" were to happen, I am certain many Island residents would still relish even the introduction of just one single retailer. Even one would be a blessing and better than what we have today. But I tend to agree that a Master Leaseholder will see all the factors at hand and will want to have retail storefronts that will attract money to the retailer and thus allow the Leaseholder to increase rents and be more profitable in subsequent years.

• Jonathan also states a concern about the aesthetics and appearance of storefronts, especially when involving franchises. But look at what we have today. Today, in my humble opinion, if you walk down Main Street, we have a "Soviet-era" look and feel. All grey stone walls. Red signage. Bland white lettering. There is absolutely nothing appealing to the appearance of Main Street today, in terms of storefronts. However, I do agree that we should have a common "signage" appearance, but feel it should be much more appealing and "small town" in feel. I am aware of the examples you have mentioned in other communities. Those common signages take on the appearance of a wooden shingle that can hang out from the storefront, and have an appealing small-town look and feel. With this said, I also believe that franchises are not a bad thing, if that is what residents want. And I agree that the "selection" will happen "naturally" based on which storefronts residents patronize.

As part of that selection process, it would be important for merchants and retailers to have spaces meeting ADA requirements. As you may know, we have a lot of residents who are wheelchair or scooter bound. As a Master Leaseholder allows merchants to come in, the retail space itself will need to take that into account. A storefront should not follow a "typical" demographic "foot traffic" profile. Roosevelt Island is unique in many ways, in particular the demographics of its residents. So any establishment would need to be considerate to such needs.

All in all, I think your suggestion will certainly solve the "dilemma" at hand for RIOC. I also think it will give the residents retailers, both "mom and pop" and franchise, and will certainly give a boost to our livelihood and offer choices that no longer involve crossing the bridge or taking the Tram or F train.

You suggest a resident advisory board to provide RIOC or any Master Leaseholder with suggestions or advice on retail selection. I would gladly want to be considered on that board if the opportunity would present itself.

Thanks again, Jonathan.

Alex Ricardo

To RIOC President Steve Shane:

I call your attention to the dismissive, contemptuous disregard for the prohibition of bike riding on the bridge sidewalk. One is often passed from behind by a bicycle going what seems like 10 to 20 mph, where a misstep could cause serious injury to most able-bodied people, especially daily bridge crossers such as this 87-year-old letter writer.

I understand that enforcement of this is impractical, if not impossible, and depends really on the sense of responsibility of the riders, which is lamentably lacking. But I respectfully urge that you do as much as you can to protect us and suggest new, larger illustrative signs of a bike rider with an X across the face of the sign. It would need no reading. It would be unequivocal, and those who disregard it would be in clear violation. The installation must be substantial and secure. The present Island sign is dangling by a wire.

Edward B. Hussey

To the Editor:

Thanks to a number of Roosevelt Islanders who contributed time and talent to the memorial concert [photo, page 10] Friday, June 22, honoring the late Robin Russell and for the benefit of his son, Matthew. Matthew’s mother, Rosemarie Van Zandt Russell, died in 2002.

Although Robin didn’t live on the Island, he contributed greatly to the arts on the Island, starting the River Music Concert Series over ten years ago and the Island Arts Music School three years ago.

Performers included Ralph Allen, Iris Jortner, Roy Eaton, Kyra Humphreys, Andrea Hallam, and Amie Weiss. Thanks to them and to Marianne Lau, who organized both the traditional students’ music recital in May and the memorial event.

A fund has been set up for Matthew Russell. Contributions can be sent to either of the following addresses:Smith Barney Custodial Account

c/o Christopher Phillips

340 East 74th Street #7D

New York, NY 10021(Write "Matthew Russell Custodial Account" in the memo line of your check.)R.I. Residents Association

P.O. Box 341

New York, NY 10044(Include "Matthew Russell Fund" in the memo line.)

Judy Arond

To Sophia Geier, Main Street Theatre:

Back when there were only five or six channels on TV, the only thing programmers could fill time with was old movies. In 1977 my contemporaries and I were well acquainted with the archetypes of film like Jimmy Cagney and Bette Davis.

But congratulations to you as the director, your superb cast, musician, and crew for putting on a fantastic production of A History of the American Film. Through study and extraordinary talent, the young actors at MSTDA managed to re-incarnate the spirit of the movie icons of the past.

Thank you for a delightful evening.

Joan Pape

To the Editor:

I love to shop here, there, and everywhere – malls, Fifth Avenue and off, and in all boroughs. I have noticed that when you make a purchase, salespeople wrap your item in three or four layers of tissue paper. Why? The paper just gets tossed in the garbage once you hang up your item. (Garbage is another topic.) I have been refusing all tissue paper unless it's for a gift. Just a little paint brush idea to keep NYC green.

Marlene Flom

To the Editor:

My two elderly aunts (90 and 96, God bless them!), and my cousin visiting from Rome, could not sing the praises of Roosevelt Island enough: the water views and promenade, the parks and Islanders’ garden plots, The Main Street Theatre and its talented teens, the feeling of community and friendly people, etc. Then came the Octagon.

They were duly impressed with the restoration, not impressed with the institutional look of the residential buildings, and understandably offended by the request made by an Octagon employee to vacate the premises.

We had gone to the convenience store on the first level to purchase some cool beverages to help mitigate the effects of the hot sun and long stroll we had just taken from Rivercross. The doorkeeper had started to question me when he saw my cousin and me pushing my aunts in their wheelchairs to the elevator. I thought he was about to say we could not go up to the apartments and I interrupted with, "I know. I’m an Island resident. We just need to get some refreshments and rest a bit," to which he gave his approval.

After our purchases, we proceeded out the store exit onto the terrace overlooking the pool area. We parked ourselves at one of the first tables we came to (far from the pool), took a few photos of each other, and had started to partake of our refreshments when an Octagon employee came to admonish us and escort us out.

As a long-time Island activist, I was witness to the promises made by Octagon’s Becker and Becker and RIOC that there would be compensations for the destruction of the park Islanders had built years ago. It had contained swings and other playground equipment, barbecues, picnic tables, shade trees, and a long expanse of turf on which several groups could play ball or engage in other recreational activities. "We will replace it with bigger and better," was the implication made by the developers when they sought approval for the site, because they would recoup what was, at the time, unuseable land. There were also promises that a convenience store or coffee shop and other amenities in the rooms of the Octagon rotunda would be made available to the public.

I am not aware of any rooms above the ground level available to the public in the rotunda, and the convenience store had been off-limits until a complaint was made and it was subsequently, though quietly, opened. There is a public tot lot but I do not see barbecues, picnic tables, or even an expanse equal to what we had before where this would be possible.

After long years of being witness to broken promises made by Roosevelt Island developers, I am not shocked but I am disappointed. Of all the potential and actual developers that have made their pitches here, I found Becker and Becker to be the most impressive because of their commitment to landmark restoration and to building "green." I am also one of those Islanders who welcome Octagon residents and already see evidence of some of them contributing actively to our community. And I understand the need for security.

However, I would hope those at Octagon would understand that those of us who have lived here a long time and helped to develop this unique community to what it is today, have lost something we valued greatly (our playground and park at Octagon), were promised more than we are getting, and would at least appreciate consideration when visiting land much of which was once ours to roam freely. Some of our Octagon neighbors have complained that we have not been welcoming to newcomers. I am astonished that Octagon management would see two elderly women in need of rest and refreshment, and their escorts, as a threat – or anything else that might require summary ejection. It was not neighborly, to say the least, and perhaps Octagon should rethink their policies or at least use better judgement on a case-by-case basis.

What are the rules concerning Islanders? As the recipient of public funds, is the developer obliged to "give back" to the community for having taken away public land or have we forever lost access to space we had and that which was subsequently promised to us? Whatever the answer, a straightforward response would be appreciated so we won’t feel like intruders when we walk into the building.

Why not ask visitors to sign in and make it clear to them, via a written handout or signage, where they are and are not allowed to go? For that matter, why ban customers of the convenience store from sitting outside to enjoy their purchases? Either of these very reasonable practices would have saved my guests (and me) the embarrassment of this unseemly episode, the memory of which has marred an otherwise delightful visit to our Island.

Linda Heimer