"Brooklyn CB6 believes that until such time as the alternative sources of revenue (without housing), including those additional unstudied sources noted above, are sufficient to fund the operating costs of the park, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the City should fund the shortfall."-
Community Board 6 letter,
April 14, 2011.
"Brooklyn CB6 believes that until such time as the alternative sources of revenue (without housing), including those additional unstudied sources noted above, are sufficient to fund the operating costs of the park, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the City should fund the shortfall, " CB 6 wrote to Bay Area Economics on April 14th. (full letter below.)
Maker: Dorothy Siegel, BBPDF
Seconder: Richard Bashner, CB 6
The CAC endorses the positions taken by CB6 and CB2 that encourage the BAE to aggressively study potential revenue generating ideas and expense reduction options, including fundraising/sponsorship opportunities and options involving the Watchtower properties. In addition to the revenue sources mentioned in the CB2 and CB6 resolutions, the CAC urges BAE to consider other potential revenue sources including, but not limited to: a real estate transfer fee; enhanced revenues from parking (specifically, the police garage); alternative approaches to the PID; and potential revenues from the yacht marina. The CAC further urges BAE to provide a point by point analysis of the revenue generators covered in the 1997 Praedium Group study.
Community Board 6 Letter (Below)
April 14, 2011
Ron Golem, Principal
Bay Area Economics
121 West 27th Street, Suite 705
New York, New York 10001
Dear Mr. Golem:
I am writing to advise you that at its April 13, 2011 general meeting Brooklyn Community Board
6 resolved by a vote of 31 in favor, 2 against, with no abstentions, to support the submission of
the following statement as our testimony in response to Bay Area Economics’ (BAE) draft report
prepared for the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation’s Committee for Alternatives to Housing
(CAH) entitled, “Study of Alternatives to Housing for the Funding of Brooklyn Bridge Park
Brooklyn Community Board 6 (CB6) truly appreciated the presentation to our Executive
Committee on April 11, 2011 by representatives of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, as it
gave us, and those in attendance, a much deeper understanding of the challenges and
opportunities related to the revenue potential for the park.
Brooklyn CB6 commends the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, the Committee on Alternatives
to Housing and BAE for finding many ways to pay for the park without the need for more
housing, in keeping with our long-standing position against housing inside this park.
The BAE draft report has already identified millions of dollars in potential revenue that has the
potential, at a minimum, to drastically reduce the need for housing revenue to sustain the
ongoing operations of the park.
Brooklyn CB6 believes that the CAH could go further than it has in identifying revenue.
Specifically, as originally proposed, BAE should analyze the potential revenue opportunities
involving the currently tax-exempt Watchtower Society properties. We call on the CAH to
reconsider its finding that this revenue source does not meet the study threshold parameters and
to consider a fuller range of other revenue opportunities relating to these properties.
Brooklyn CB6 believes that the CAH should also reconsider and study further the fundraising
and sponsorship opportunities for alternative funding, since they have both been proven,
effective strategies for other major urban park-centered organizations like the Prospect Park
Alliance and the Central Park Conservancy.
Brooklyn CB6 also believes that the CAH should investigate design and/or engineering changes,
working within the parameters of the approved General Project Plan, which could substantially
reduce operating expenses. As with the Watchtower properties, we call on the CAH to
reconsider its finding that exploring those opportunities for expense reduction does not meet the
study threshold parameters.
Lastly, Brooklyn CB6 believes that until such time as the alternative sources of revenue (without
housing), including those additional unstudied sources noted above, are sufficient to fund the
operating costs of the park, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the City should fund the
shortfall. Such a subsidy would be particularly justified by the fact that this unique location’s
characteristics have already contributed to a vibrant synergy between the park, its surrounding
neighborhoods, the waterfront and New York Harbor. Brooklyn CB6 strongly believes that this
park will eventually become one of the City’s premier destinations, and therefore merits such
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Daniel M. Kummer
cc: Hon. Michael Bloomberg
Hon. Marty Markowitz
Hon. Daniel Squadron
Hon. Joan Millman
Hon. Steven Levin
Hon. Brad Lander
Robert K. Steel, Chairperson, BBPC
Regina Myer, President, BBPC
John Dew, Chairperson, Brooklyn CB2