Photo by Mildred Alpern.
March 13, 2017 Weather: Sunny, with a high of 36 degrees.
Notices:
A free Spanish class for kids at the library and many more local events on our calendar.
CaringKind provides free information and support for Upper West Siders with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, and their families. It’s never too early – or too late – to get support. Trained staff on our 24-hour Helpline can help; no problem is too big or too small. Call 646-744-2900 or visit www.caringkindnyc.org.
News:
A basketball coach was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a girl at the private Ideal School. “Channing Parker, 22, of the Bronx, lured the student at the Ideal School of Manhattan into a school bathroom Friday afternoon and forced her to perform oral sex on him, cop sources said. The girl was playing basketball with other kids at the W. 91st. St. school at about 2 p.m. on Friday. When the game broke up, the students went to watch a movie, but Parker asked her to stay behind, cops said. He then took her into a bathroom where he forced her to perform the lewd act, police said.” Parker is employed by an outside provider, not the school itself.
There was another disturbing story connected to the very same school last week: A 6-year-old said a bus driver on his way to the Ideal School punched him in the face. Other students reportedly said the driver had told them to pull down their pants.
On Monday at 2:14 a.m., police found a dead man lying on the tracks just above the 103rd Street train station and are investigating.
Rent-controlled tenants at 345 West 86th Street claim the landlord is trying to force them out by spreading pesticides near their apartments. “Late at night, employees at Dexter House — a single-room-occupancy building at 345 W. 86th St. just off Riverside Drive — allegedly walk the building’s winding hallways spreading a poisonous mix of pesticide and deodorizer near the apartments of longtime rent-controlled tenants…Dexter House’s manager, Robert Goicochea, said the pesticides found by the state inspector were used to provide good service to tenants.”
The New York Post article on the SRO at 345 West 86th Street does not address another significant issue: that the SRO / building is being illegally rented out as a hotel.
I’m pretty sure the Ideal School is special ed, which makes this even worse. The girl was 9 yrs old.
The IDEAL School is not a purely Special Ed school. 70% of the children are typically developing and 30% receive services.
The act was despicable, regardless of whether the child was special needs or not. In this particular case she wasn’t, and was able to tell her parents about it right away.
You are right, of course. It is appalling for any person to experience an assault, and sexual assault is particularly damaging.
Appalling. That poor child.
Channing Parker needs to go to prison for 20 years at least. I truly hope the justice system in NYC will work in this case.
I’m sure this child wasn’t his first victim, if he’s been freelancing at schools like this, and it’s enabled him to move around and have access to hundreds of children. There needs to be a thorough investigation in to his background.
That sick F&*(^!. Lock him up!!
Kudos to that brave little girl for telling her mother.
Now what about the bus driver?
Below is a statement issued by The Ideal School
“On Friday, March 10, The IDEAL School became aware of a serious incident allegedly perpetrated against one of our students on Friday afternoon by an individual working for an outside provider of after school services, Kids Creative, who was using our space. When we became aware of this matter, we notified the authorities and have cooperated fully with them in this investigation. The individual in question has been arrested.
“Since student privacy is a primary concern of the school, and because the criminal investigation is ongoing, we are extremely limited in our ability to share further details at this time. We can share that the individual involved was not a school employee—he was employed and supervised by Kids Creative. Kids Creative, the outside provider, has been in business for more than 15 years and has provided after school and other programming to our school and more than 25 other independent and public schools, and other organizations, throughout New York City. They conduct thorough background checks, and it is our understanding from the police that the individual in question passed those background tests.
“Our students’ safety is our top priority. The IDEAL School has terminated its relationship with Kids Creative effective immediately.”
A little bit of paranoia by the tenants at 345W86?
Late at night is really the best time to spread pesticides in public areas since it really isn’t harmful to humans for more than a few minutes. This decreases the possibility of exposure to near zero.
Also, most pesticides have some sort of fragrance added. Seems that the tenants don’t approve of the fragrance.
No story here, unless they are ONLY doing this near rent controlled tenant’s doors it looks like management is doing their job.
If the management is using the building for short term hotel stays, these complaints are just distracting from the real problem.
“Late at night is really the best time to spread pesticides in public areas”
For a residential multiple dwelling, wouldn’t weekdays between the hours of roughly 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, as the time when the greatest number of tenants are away from the building (at work or school), generally be best?
At any rate, how common is it for pesticides to be applied in residential buildings late at night? From my experience, knowledge and observations, pesticides in such buildings are generally applied by professional, licensed exterminators who, in turn, work during normal business hours. (Note that according to the linked article at the NY Post, this building was cited by a state inspector for unauthorized possession and usage of regulated pesticides.)
“Also, most pesticides have some sort of fragrance added.”
Do they?
While I make no claims of any expertise in this area, from my experience, pesticides are either odorless or have a distinctly unpleasant– if not downright noxious— odor that I cannot imagine anyone seriously calling a “fragrance”.
apparently you didn’t bother to read the article. it said:
“Late at night, employees at Dexter House — a single-room-occupancy building at 345 W. 86th St. just off Riverside Drive — allegedly walk the building’s winding hallways spreading a poisonous mix of pesticide and deodorizer near the apartments of longtime rent-controlled tenants”
Although I’m not a rent stabilized tenant (I think “rent-controlled” is a misnomer in this case), i have become aware of ongoing efforts to vilify rent-stabilized tenants in WSR comments. It’s hard to tell if it’s an organized campaign or not.
it is a common practice on the UWS for landlords to harass rent-stabilized tenants, in the hopes that they will give up their leases. there is a financial incentive to do so. tenants who complain about these practices, especially in an SRO, are usually not “paranoid.”
The last sentence in “young_man!”s comment would indeed suggest to me that he missed the article’s mention of the building-in-question being an SRO. His main point, however (at least I understood him), was that he failed to see any actual evidence presented that the cited spraying of pesticides was anything less-than-legitimate. Where, in the sentence you quoted or elsewhere in the article, is any such evidence? I do not see it.
I would not suggest that the tenants complaining are acting out of paranoia (or that they lack credibility in any other way). But neither would I assume that the landlord must be guilty of any deliberate wrongdoing in the matter. That there are unfortunately many landlords who engage-in any number of unethical, abusive and often illegal means of harassing rent-regulated tenants, I would not dispute*. Is this such a case? I have no idea and I don’t see how anyone else could without knowing much more than the highly limited information that is reported here.
Did you “bother to read” “young_man!”s comment before attacking him as you did?
*There are also many tenants who engage-in unethical, abusive and often illegal behavior both toward landlords as well as toward other tenants. Would you dispute that? How often do you allow for it?
evidence of targeted spraying of pesticides:
“Rent-controlled tenants at 345 West 86th Street claim the landlord is trying to force them out by spreading pesticides near their apartments. “Late at night, employees at Dexter House — a single-room-occupancy building at 345 W. 86th St. just off Riverside Drive — allegedly walk the building’s winding hallways spreading a poisonous mix of pesticide and deodorizer near the apartments of longtime rent-controlled tenants… ”
of course, they might be falsely claiming such. but this is certainly evidence. I very much doubt they are paranoid.
I was not disputing the actual claim made by the tenants-in-question in the quote that you have now posted twice, that a pesticide was sprayed near their apartments. What I had pointed-out was that I failed to see, from that quote, evidence that the reported spraying was not legitimate.
I have now read the linked NY Post article in full and I must say that it contains a considerable amount of additional information that, if reported accurately, would certainly reflect negatively upon the credibility of the landlord-in-question, while lending credence to that of the tenants’ claims. Lest you would criticize me for not having read the linked article in its entirety before commenting, I would point-out the following. First, you only included the excerpt quoted by WSR in your comments and I found no evidence or indication in either of them that you had actually ever read the NY Post article from which said excerpt was taken. Moreover, I found nothing conclusive in the article and maintain my basic position that more information is needed before any judgments can be made.
Please note, as well, that I have also just submitted a direct reply to young_man!‘s comment, in which I challenge the claims that he made in it.
It appears to me that both of you are guilty of drawing conclusions based on each of your respective biases rather than reserving judgment until more information and facts emerge, as prudence and propriety would demand.
That’s the part of the sentence and the story that needs the highlighting and emphasis here. No fewer than three of the individuals that have commented thus far apparently do not to appreciate the critical difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of one. Last I checked, we still have something called due process and the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty was still valid and in effect.
The wording of the quoted Daily News article itself blurs these lines; after writing “allegedly” in the opening sentence, the wording goes-on to increasingly dispense with that critical qualification and to report what, at this point, are clearly still only allegations as if they were established facts.
(Incidentally, I’m sure that on this one, those fervent ACLU admirers we heard from recently here, if no one else, would side with me.)