Alternatives To Brooklyn Bridge Park Housing Gaining Traction

"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 Bridge Park, Phase One, July 11. 2010. The city still refuses to take responsibility for paying for the maintenance and operation of the park. Photo: © Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates (click on image to enlarge)

Brooklyn

Could the tide finally be turning for advocates fighting to prevent housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park? On Wednesday night the Mayor-appointed so-called Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to Brooklyn Bridge Park overwhelmingly approved a resolution to explore revenue alternatives to housing in the park.

During a meeting at Long Island College Hospital the committee voted 13-3 with one abstention, to encourage the consultant hired by the BBDC to "aggressively study potential revenue generating ideas" other than housing in the park and explore "expense reduction options."

The vote follows Community Board 2 and 6's similar motions over the last month against park housing and to study additional revenue sources to pay for the operation of park.

"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.)

These turn of events are particularly significant also because the park's pro-housing operators have long claimed unsuccessfully that the citizenry of Brooklyn - those individuals that they had hand picked to be on the Committee - agreed that housing was the only solution to pay for the park's upkeep.

The Mayor and the park's operators failed to influence these critical motions. Opponents of housing believe this is further evidence that the people of Brooklyn do not want housing inside Brooklyn Bridge Park and that there are numerous alternatives to pay for park maintenance without private housing.

"This is a good day for parks throughout the nation if private housing does not go through in this test case in Brooklyn Bridge Park," said Judi Francis of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund.

Ellen Ryan, a park spokeswoman, told the NY Post, "copies of all submitted comments will be made available to the Committee on Alternatives to Housing, and the CAH, working with Bay Area Economics, will to decide how to respond to these comments after the comment period closes."

Opponents of housing in the park have demanded alternatives to explored including the Jehovah Witness properties adjacent to the park be utilized for tax revenue; that the city explore a Real Estate Investment fee (used to secure and protect open space in East Hampton) and that all concessions, including the River Cafe inside the park, contribute. Idea also include the combination of off site and on site parking, events and movie shoots can also go a long way to pay for the park without housing.

Critics have also long questioned the park's wildly inflated proposed $ 16 million dollar annual maintenance and operation budget which is seen as a transparent attempt to justify housing in the park. The park's 2009 Financial plan for instance includes a number of Capital expenditures such as maritime bulkhead and pile protection, vehicle replacements, and a capital reserve. Together these add up to more than $ 6 million annually, or roughly 40% of the proposed budget.

So far the City has refused to take responsibly to fund the park's annual upkeep.

"The City does not have the money to have new parks and fund them," Mayor Bloomberg famously said at the opening of Brooklyn Bridge Park on March 22, 2010. - Geoffrey Croft

Read More:

Community advisory council to Brooklyn Bridge Park honchos: reconsider Jehovah Witness properties before building new park housing

New York Post - The Brooklyn Blog - April 22, 2011 - By Rich Calder

Motion passed at April 20, 2011 CAC meeting at LICH:

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

Operations.”

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

support.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Kummer

Chairperson

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