Why Revisit The Past?

Earlier this week, another tenant referred me to the article written by Mr. Powell for the NY Times about corrupt FBI informer "Tony" Merritt. (See the post immediately preceding this one). I wonder what the point is, really, except that it confirms that the government uses dirty tactics to accomplish its goals (DUH!) and that it's been a very long time since Kenmore Hall was even remotely a decent place to live. I don't see how coverage of old, nasty news addresses the issues that are problematic at Kenmore Hall today. The people mentioned in the article aren't tenants any more. Conditions aren't necessarily better now than they were then - they're different. Some of the current problems almost seem to contradict each other; we have several "populations" living in the building that aren't homogeneous and don't get along either with each other or with management, and management appears to be clueless about how to deal with any of the different groups. Tenants with severe problems seem to wander at will and do what they want, regardless of whether it makes their neighbors uneasy or actually poses a risk to them or staff (note the staff member who was recently attacked by a deranged tenant who is now back in the building). Other tenants who are competent, independent and well adjusted are asked by staff "what program they're in", and are lied to about their alleged obligation to participate in H.S.I.'s social services programs - they're treated as defective clients instead of as tenants. When tenants ask management and staff to be accountable for the services that actually matter, like having the Security Director provide a safe place to for all tenants to live where they don't have to worry about being assaulted or harassed by other tenants, they're told to call 911 if there's a problem because the front desk staff is not licensed as actual security guards. Management allows some potentially dangerous people move into the building - and instead of making it clear that their tenancy is dependent upon not creating a nuisance for other tenants or staff, they allow them to become stuck in cycles of behavior that are destructive not only to themselves but to others they come into contact with. Five years ago, it wasn't necessary to have plexiglass surrounding the front desk in the lobby; having it there seems to be a sign of the times - that the already lowered expectations that are part of living here are becoming even lower - it's a visual admission that the building is becoming more dangerous than it used to be.The plexiglass is not part of the Gramercy Park experience - it's much more along the lines of visiting a bodega or liquor store in a "rough" neighborhood in an outer borough.

Anyone have any suggestions for what positive change we should work toward?