Here’s a quote from gourmet.com:
“Van Leeuwen, a 24-year-old former Good Humor truck driver, makes his delicious, rich (18 percent butterfat) ice cream from local, hormone- and antibiotic-free milk and cream (no stabilizers or preservatives), plus other ingredients he culls from around the globe. The superb chocolate is Michel Cluizel; the equally addictive vanilla is made not with extract but with Tahitian beans that a Vancouver company ages in vodka in oak barrels, then grinds. Try a scoop in a float made with Virgil’s Root Beer or Mexican Coke (both sweetened with cane sugar instead of corn syrup, which Van Leeuwen eschews). The nuts in the pistachio ice cream come from a slow-food farm in Sicily; the ones in the hazelnut variety are from Piedmont. All the toppings—caramel and hot-fudge sauces, fresh whipped cream—are homemade and organic.”

More info: http://www.gourmet.com/restaurants/2008/07/firsttaste_icecream

Having disagreements on one issue while maintaining a wider alliance is perfectly normal, but as long as the SoHo Alliance comes roaring back against mild, accurate criticism (“was slated to go car-free on Sunday’s all summer long until the SoHo Alliance scuttled the deal”) with attacks on this weblog and its readers (in concert with some verily heinous residents flaunting the debate’s classist underbelly), it isn’t going to have any allies in a popular movement.

We worked very hard this past year to get Congestion Pricing implemented. In fact, Shelley Silver came to our members and we lobbied hard to get CP passed.

We also had lobbied Silver to kill the Westside Jets Stadium, which would have resulted in a traffic fiasco. He listened to us in that instance.

Sometime you win, sometimes you lose.

Again, remember, do not alienate your allies, streesbloogers, for you will accomplish nothing, except abetting your adversaries.

Go to sohoalliance.org. Check out the current news reports on the left-hand menu and other news stories under ‘archives’.

It will show that the Alliance has consistently fought to control auto congestion in SoHo.

Further examples

-Defeat of Moses’ Lower Manhattan X-pressway by SoHo pioneers in the 60s which led to the rebirth of our neighborhood

-Sued the MTA in 1987 to reverse the tolls on the Verrazano Bridge, which is responsible for much of the truck traffic and pollution in lower Manhattan

- Agitate politically constantly to reverse the Verrazano Bridge tolls at every one of our meetings to this very day

- Advocated in the mid-90s for one of the first bike lanes in the city, the one on Lafayette Street

- Opposed attempts by DOT to turn Houston Street into a faster highway than it already is.

- Fought with bike groups in 2006 for a Class A protected bike lane on Houston St

- Work getting trucks off of Broome Street (they are being ticketed this very day, thanks to agitation by our membership)

- Consulted with various traffic studies, even with Transportation Alternatives, to determine what is best traffic-wise for SoHo

- Sponsored demonstrations for more police enforcement of traffic law violators

- Crafted Zoning legislation that will eliminate every parking lot in SoHo

- etc, etc, etc, = time does not permit me to list all the good things we have done to make SoHo ped friendly

Do we agree all the time with rigid-thinking cyclists with an agenda? No.

Does that therefore indicate that we think out our position for what is best for the neighborhood, instead of a knee-jerk reaction? Yes!

We are not paid employees, like the folks at Streetsblog or Transportation Alternatives, .

We are 100% volunteer, dedicating our time for the benefit of our community. We have wide, wide, widespread support from our residents for all the good deeds we have done for our neighborhood over the decades.

Instead of attacking your allies, show some political savvy and go after the people who have neither of our interests at heart

http://www.vimeo.com/1309444

- By a ratio of 5:1, expanding pedestrian space would attract people to come to Prince Street more often

- Those visitors who would come more often with a reallocation of space from parking to pedestrians spend about five times as much money in the neighborhood as do visitors who would come less often

So ostensibly pedestrianizing Prince Street would invite most people to come to Prince Street more often, and those that would be coming more often are the ones who spend the most. Translation: significantly increased business for everyone.

I don’t know who the heck is on the board at Soho Alliance but how do they go around parading the fact that they killed a pilot project that would have brought increased business at no cost to them?

If Prince Street were closed to auto traffic and the vendors were permitted to set up on the pavement, facing in toward the street, the sidewalks would then be wide open for all manner of pedestrians/wheelchair riders/strollers/etc. to pass relatively uninhibited. I believe the bike lane could even be left intact with the vendors on one side setting up with their backs to the lane.

The notion that there is no evidence that pedestrianizing streets improves quality of life is ludicrous. Take a look around NYC the few times alternative street arrangements go into place. Or, go elsewhere. I was just in Buenos Aires, a city even less pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly (and more car-obsessed) than NYC, and even there I found pedestrian-only streets. They were lovely.

I have not stated anywhere that SoHo’s *residents* are anti-pedestrian. Rather, I stated that the *SoHo Alliance’s* arguments are *anti-pedestrianization.* Pedestrianization refers to the closure of a street to automobile traffic and reserving it exclusively for foot traffic. By publicly opposing the pedestrianization of Prince Street, the Alliance is stating a position that is anti-pedestrianization.

Xenophobia refers to a fear of strangers and foreigners–outsiders. And this quote from the executive director of the Alliance in the NY Times exemplifies a concern about outsiders overrunning Prince Street:

“The first week, if you had no cars you’d have some room maybe,” Mr. Sweeney said. “But after a couple of weeks or a couple of months, the word would go out in all the tourist guides: ‘Oh, the Prince Street mall!’ ”

I’m not here to misrepresent others’ opinions, be divisive, or resist reason. If I heard a compelling set of arguments as to why closing Spring Street to automobile traffic were bad for SoHo, I would gladly support the Alliance’s position. As someone who works in SoHo, I have an interest along with the Alliance in making SoHo a pleasant place to live, work, and visit.

-or-

“Even though you keep trying to sell a Prince Street closure as a good thing there is absolutely no real life evidence that it would work in this particular setting.”

I’m sorry, but this sounds like a contradiction. I’m not following you here…

Even though you keep trying to sell a Prince Street closure as a good thing there is absolutely no real life evidence that it would work in this particular setting.

You’ve got to be kidding, Timmy. The “real life evidence” that Prince could make a successful pedestrian-only zone is OVERWHELMING. Look at Copenhagen, Paris, London, Istanbul, Bogota, Freiburg, Jerusalem, Portland or any number of other cities around the world and you will find scores of streets very similar to Prince in scale, character and use that have been pedestrianized with great success for merchants, residents and visitors.

Given that your community group blocked this summer’s proposed car-free Sunday experiment, I can’t believe that you’re sitting here arguing that we don’t have the evidence to support a Summer Streets program on Prince. Of course, we don’t have the best possible evidence. You prevented that evidence from being gathered.

At any rate… I do hope you’re enjoying yet another summer of vendor-filled sidewalks, horn-honking jerks inching their way to the Holland Tunnel and a public realm in SoHo that is, for the most part, deeply unpleasant. This crappy environment is a direct result of the SoHo Alliance’s advocacy work “on behalf of the community.”

The slideshow I saw posted on Streetsblog says:

- “Open Sundays” will be studied by DOT during operation to evaluate positive or negative effects on pedestrian movement and local traffic circulation

- During the program and after the pilot program ends, local businesses and residents will be surveyed for their opinions

- A post-mortem evaluation will be held with the Community Board to measure the program’s success

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/12/dot-details-prince-street-open-sundays-project/

Even though you keep trying to sell a Prince Street closure as a good thing there is absolutely no real life evidence that it would work in this particular setting.

I’m also a huge fan of your site. I think what Daniel and others here are saying is that rather than pit vendors against pedestrians in a competition for sidewalk space, we should make all of Prince Street a pedestrian and bicycle-only zone. The street is both narrow enough and the foot traffic heavy enough to warrant it. A pedestrianized thoroughfare would also be far more charming than the current street configuration.

I read the anti-pedestrianization arguments here as saying, “let’s not make our streets too attractive or we’ll be overrun.”

I’m not saying put ‘em out of business, but let’s clear out some part of the sidewalk for peds. Pedestrians are being squeezed wherever you turn…

http://www.forgotten-ny.com