Letters

By continuing to insist sanctimoniously that “for years, Concern’s residents and staff — many of whom are veterans who have faced serious struggles since returning from service — have been subjected to baseless accusations and offensive insults” [“Deserve Respect,” Letters, February 1], and by laminating this broad accusation onto legitimate concerns raised by the public about his proposed development, Ralph Fasano hopes to cloud and evade the real issues rightly challenging him.

His contempt for the public, and for the veterans he evokes or buses in whenever he is in trouble, is evident. Claiming to appreciate “feedback,” which “makes us better,” he consistently disparages, vilifies and personally attacks everyone and anyone who opposes his slanted presentations or is skeptical of his messianic-inflected nastiness.

His repeated SBV (“small but vocal”) dismissal of the opposition doesn’t hold up against the evidence of 1,000-plus signatures on a petition, and the letters and emails against it on file in the town. But SBV, like a virus, identifies his hand, or that of his consultant/ghostwriter in print.

Inconvenienced by truth, but always demanding “facts” — facts that support his “mission” — he now has honed his SBV attack on me. He states that I (baseless, and offensively?) “hurl accusations of criminality based on residents’ income levels” instead of “understanding” them. And I probably can’t “understand” because I have an apartment in Manhattan?

And, equally baseless and offensively, I am “[predicting] a future of ‘cars vandalized, tires slashed, windows broken and catalytic converters stolen.’” Baseless? This refers to the past, not the future: reports of criminality and the fatal stabbing at one of his residences, quoted by Newsday, Channel 12, ABC News, CBS News and the New York Post.

If Fasano were a man of integrity, he would have presented his “vision” honestly and openly at a meeting to inform the public. He would have clarified who was eligible for his housing, and who was not, per the requirements of the New York State Office of Mental Health, which funds him.

The public could then have considered his proposal, considered the plight of veterans who would be brought to their community, and be sustained by it, voiced their concerns and asked their questions. They might have asked for a referendum.

Instead, he omitted inconvenient truths and fought to silence others by vilification, nullification and constant reliance on how fabulous the apartments he constructs are.

Most outrageous, considering the circus that Fasano created and Jay Schneiderman condoned at public hearings, is his imperious demand “as a community that our public debates be defined by respect and civility.”

Fasano waived civility in favor of vituperation, and forfeited respect. His “vision” notwithstanding. Respect is that which can neither be demanded nor pleaded for: It must be earned.

Frances Genovese

Southampton