A Walk in the Park

Reliance On Self- Sustaining Hudson River Park "Model" Continues To Plague Project

2012-01-28T02:08:00.017-05:00

Chelsea Piers, a tenant of the Hudson River Park Trust sued in November for at least $37.5 million to repair damage by marine borers to wood pilings supporting the piers. The park - which was created to be self-sustaining according to its by-laws - has run into a number of financial issues for both its daily operating expenses and capital needs. Douglas Durst, chairman of the Durst Organization and Co-Chair of Friends of Hudson River Park (FHRP) are spearheading a Park Improvement Area (PID) funding scheme where area residents and businesses would pay a special tax to fund Hudson River Park's upkeep. A similar proposal to benefit the Friends of the High Line was quickly quashed when area residents and businesses complained bitterly. A similar proposel for Broklyn Bridge Park also met the same fate. (Librado Romero/The New York Times)

Manhattan

It is supposed to be the model for New York City parks to come — built from dilapidated industrial structures, self-sustaining and financed by commercial ventures operating on parkland. And Hudson River Park, which stretches five miles along the Manhattan waterfront from Battery Place to 59th Street, has succeeded in drawing millions of visitors and billions of dollars in development to the West Side. But it now finds its future in doubt, according to the New York Times in a follow up from the NY Post's 2009 story.

Capital funds from the city and state have fallen to just $7 million from a high of $42 million in 2008, because of the recession. Meanwhile, two of the park’s planned revenue-producing commercial piers have yet to be developed, leaving the Hudson River Park Trust, which runs the park, short of the money it needs for routine maintenance.

Adding to its woes: A lawsuit filed in November by the owners of Chelsea Piers, the sports and entertainment complex, which leases three piers from 17th to 23rd Street from the trust. The suit seeks to force the trust, and by extension taxpayers, to spend “at least $37.5 million” repairing damage its piers have sustained over the past two decades from small marine borers known as gribbles and teredos.

This month, the trust fired back in court with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit amounted to nothing more than a “for-profit commercial venture trying to secure a huge public bailout for longstanding problems of its own making and for which it bears the sole legal responsibility.”

The suit is a contest between the Bloomberg administration, state officials and the trust on one side and on the other, a well-connected group of investors led by Roland W. Betts, whose list of friends includes George E. Pataki, Michael R. Bloomberg and his Yale fraternity brother George W. Bush. The trust’s board chairwoman is Diana L. Taylor, Mayor Bloomberg’s live-in companion.

Hudson River Park grew out of the ill-fated proposal to build Westway, a superhighway, on 200 acres of landfill along the West Side.

State and city officials in 1998 estimated the park’s cost at $300 million — within a year, that had jumped to $370 million — and its completion date as 2003. The city and the state have already put in $340 million in capital funds, and the trust says another $200 million is needed to finish the public areas of the park. Fourteen years after it began, the park is 70 percent complete.

The cost of caring for structures built on or over water is enormous because they are constantly subjected to battering by tides, winds, fungi and marine borers, problems largely unknown at landlocked properties. Indeed, the biggest hurdle in the park’s development has been the piers themselves.

“It’s far more expensive to replace, repair and take care of these piers than anyone anticipated,” said Madelyn Wils, president and chief executive of the trust and a former executive vice president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Ms. Wils said demolishing and replacing Pier 54, at West 13th Street, where the wood pilings are severely deteriorated, would cost $33 million; constructing its planned amenities would cost an additional $30 million.

Pier 40, at Houston Street, is even more problematic. The 14-acre pier has thousands of steel pilings that are severely corroded; a recent estimate for their repair came in at $80 million to $90 million.

Pier 40 also happens to be one of the piers designated for commercial development, with revenues to cover park maintenance. The others include Chelsea Piers and Pier 57, at West 15th Street, where plans are moving ahead for an urban market fashioned from recycled shipping containers, as well as a rooftop park.

The annual budget for routine maintenance at the park is $15 million, a figure Ms. Wils says has not grown despite a doubling of the landscaped areas in recent years. Almost half of the $15 million comes from fees at the covered parking area on Pier 40 — revenue that is now threatened by a leaky roof.

“Part of the challenge is how to put together a plan for successful private investment and appropriate redevelopment when you’re basing that thinking on quicksand,” said Vin Cipolla, president of the Municipal Art Society, a nonprofit group dedicated to planning and preservation, and one of 29 members of a new Hudson River Park task force. “There has to be public investment, and the leadership will have to come from the governor. Otherwise we’ll just see more deterioration.”

The task force, formed by the trust in December, is charged with looking at the fiscal challenges confronting the park and considering possible amendments to the state law that established it.

That legislation was highly specific — some say restrictive — in terms of the sorts of commercial activity allowed in the park, with prohibitions on hotels, offices, housing and casinos, as well as limits on the length of leases.

“We want to make changes so we can move ahead and finish building this park,” Ms. Wils said. “This is not an impossible task, but we can no longer sit around and say, ‘What do we do with Pier 40?’ We need to take action.”

The trust also hopes to step up private fund-raising, taking a page from the successful campaign of the nearby High Line park. The Chelsea Piers lawsuit may make that task even more difficult.

The suit describes the dire state of Chelsea’s wood pilings, arguing that the company has already spent $16 million on “necessary emergency repair work.” It contends, as it has several times in the past, that the Hudson River Park Trust has a legal obligation to pay for the rehabilitation of the pilings.

Executives and officials of the piers and the trust were reluctant to discuss the issue because the lawsuit is pending. A spokesman for the trust would say only that it would vigorously defend itself.

The mayor’s office played down the dispute. “This is a good-faith disagreement between the two parties, which is what judges and courts are for,” Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said.

Chelsea Piers, which currently pays $3.5 million a year in rent, opened in 1995, three years before the State Legislature created the Hudson River Park. In the late 1990s, Chelsea Piers asked for a rent rebate to pay for pier repairs.

After the trust rebuffed its demands, Mr. Betts went directly to Mr. Pataki, who was then the governor, and won a five-year rent rebate for pier repairs, beginning in 2004, that was worth $2.5 million. The trust insisted, however, that the rebate “should not be viewed as a waiver, modification or concession by the trust to any of the terms and conditions of your lease.” The lease states that Chelsea Piers is required “to make all repairs,” structural and nonstructural.

But the lease also contains an exception: The state will use its best efforts to include Chelsea Piers in any comprehensive, government-sponsored rehabilitation of the Hudson River piers.

Mr. Betts and Chelsea Piers Management contended in the suit that contrary to the lease, the complex had been wrongfully excluded from a multibillion-dollar effort by the city and the trust to rehabilitate the Hudson River waterfront.

To defend itself, the trust hired Randy M. Mastro, who was a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration and over the past seven years has served as the go-to lawyer for companies suing the Bloomberg administration. He has a reputation as a fierce and combative litigator.

In his response to the lawsuit, Mr. Mastro argues that there is no “comprehensive plan” to repair all the piers on Manhattan’s Hudson River waterfront. Indeed, the trust’s motion states that only about one-third of all the piers on the river have been scheduled for construction work by the trust. The trust also says the cost of repairing the pilings at Chelsea Piers could reach $100 million.

“And now, unable to obtain any further subsidies from its public landlord,” the trust says in its brief, “Chelsea Piers belatedly sues as its ‘last gasp’ effort to avoid its contractual repair obligations, and in the process, threatens to bankrupt a public corporation charged with the development and stewardship of the most acclaimed public park in New York City since Central Park.”

New York Times - January 27, 2012 - By Charles V. Bagli and Lisa W. Foderaro

Hudson River Park under pier pressure

December 15, 2009 - By Tom Topousis and Rich Calder

NYU's Mega-Expansion Plan Presses Forward With Park/Open Space Destruction

2012-01-28T01:33:00.007-05:00

N.Y.U. is asking the city to lift development and open-space restrictions on its two superblocks south of Washington Square so that it can add 2.5 million square feet of space, with 1.5 million of that aboveground and 1 million underground.

The proposed expansion would have a number of negative impacts to area parks and open spaces.

"Villagers should feel absolutely no reticence in asserting their opposition to New York University’s monstrous, grandiose 2031 plan," writes former City Council Member Carol Greitzer in a very informative historical piece published in this week's Villager about NYU and the former Board of Estimate's past transgressions involving the original Washington Square Southeast Title I project.

Manhattan

In what opponents blasted as an “orchestrated” show of support for N.Y.U.’s 2031 large-scale development plan, union construction workers — along with university deans and even the women’s basketball team coach — testified on behalf of the ambitious development scheme at Community Board 2’s packed full board meeting last Thursday night, according to the Villager.

And, in a first, a lone local resident spoke in favor of the plan. But the crowd mockingly accused him of being paid off.

Meanwhile, local residents among the 300-person audience at P.S. 41 repeatedly told N.Y.U. and the construction workers to “Build it Downtown!” — meaning the university should develop its new space nearby in the Financial District where Community Board 1 has an open invitation for N.Y.U. to come grow.

Several N.Y.U. faculty members also spoke against the plan, saying it would disrupt both their classrooms and their families’ lives.

Brad Hoylman, C.B. 2 chairperson, said 1,000 people had turned out at the board’s previous five hearings on the N.Y.U. “Core Proposal” this month. He noted the board had “avoided a melee” after the first of these hearings, when the auditorium at the A.I.A. Center proved to be too small for the overcapacity crowd, and the meeting had to be quickly moved to Our Lady of Pompei Church’s basement.

Hoylman said, at this point, the board will send a formal letter to N.Y.U. regarding the plan, asking the university to respond to it in writing. Following that, there will be a second round of meetings on the 2031 plan by the C.B. 2 committees during February.

Then, on Mon., Feb. 20, the board’s N.Y.U. Working Group, co-chaired by David Gruber and Terri Cude, will take all the resolutions from the various committees and use them to draft a comprehensive “omnibus resolution” on the N.Y.U. plan.

On Thurs., Feb. 23, the full community board will vote on this resolution — which is sure to be a lengthy one — which will then be sent to the City Planning Commission as the board’s advisory recommendations as part of the ULURP (uniform land-use review procedure) for the proposed plan. It’s the same procedure that C.B. 2 followed in its ULURP review of Rudin Management’s residential redevelopment scheme for the former St. Vincent’s Hospital site — which was approved on Monday by the Planning Commission.

The board didn’t pass any resolutions on the N.Y.U. plan at last Thursday night’s meeting, since it’s only midway through its 60-day ULURP review for the university’s application.

In total, four new buildings would be added on the superblocks, located between Houston and W. Third Sts., including a new dorm, a replacement gym and an N.Y.U hotel on the southern block, plus two academic “Boomerang Buildings” in the Washington Square Village courtyard on the northern block.

In addition, N.Y.U. will provide space for the city’s School Construction Authority to build a new public school at the southeast corner of Bleecker St. and LaGuardia Place. Initially, N.Y.U. had thought it would be constructing the “core and shell” for this public school, but now is only providing the land for free. In an e-mail, Alicia Hurley, the university’s vice president for government affairs and community engagement, explained that, at first, the university thought it might be putting the school in the planned, mixed-use “Zipper Building,” to be developed on the Coles Gym site on Mercer St., or possibly one of the new “Boomerang Buildings” in Washington Square Village, in either of which case it would have built the public school’s basic structure. But the situation changed, Hurley said, after N.Y.U. scrapped plans for adding a fourth slender tower (not well suited for a public school) within the landmarked Silver Towers complex and decided instead to build on the adjacent Morton Williams supermarket site, which is better configured for a public school; the revised proposal now calls for an S.C.A.-built public school in this planned building’s base, topped by an N.Y.U. dorm.

One of the building trades officials at last Thursday’s full board hearing noted that N.Y.U. is an “economic driver” for the city, generating $2.5 billion for the economy and providing 25,000 jobs. The 2031 plan, he added, would provide 2,400 construction jobs over the next 20 years. Hard hats in the audience, who were all wearing orange T-shirts, cheered and held up “Build It!” and “Build Now!” signs.

However, Steve Ashkinazy, a C.B. 2 member, said if N.Y.U. instead built in the Financial District it would still mean the same number of new construction jobs — only not in the Village. Local residents in the audience cheered their approval.

Dennis Lee, of Local 79 of the masons and carpenters union, said New York needs the educational power of N.Y.U. to keep pace with global competition.

“I think our thoughts really do have to go back to our kids,” said Lee, a hulking figure who looked like he could play for the football Giants. “This is a worldwide economy, and we’re getting left behind.”

Jennifer Falk, executive director of the Union Square Partnership business improvement district, similarly said that the area’s large institutions, N.Y.U., The New School and Beth Israel Hospital, “are all major economic drivers. The economic impact that N.Y.U. has had… . They shop in our shops, they use our services. I strongly urge everyone in the room to work to make this plan happen for the benefit of the entire city of New York.”

As she spoke, an opponent called out, “Downtown!” and someone else chided her, “Shame on you!”

Scott Dwyer, the lone Village resident — not counting N.Y.U.-affiliated employees — to testify in favor of the scheme, said, “The current superblocks are monolithic failures, and the city and N.Y.U. are to blame.” He said the superblocks’ main feature is “private, walled-off gardens.”

“How much did they pay you?” audience members called out derisively. No residents had spoken in favor of the plan at C.B. 2’s five previous N.Y.U. meetings in January.

Mary Brabeck, dean of N.Y.U.’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, said the new construction would allow Steinhardt to centralize its faculty, now scattered over four different spaces, in one location.

Mary Schmidt Campbell, dean of N.Y.U.’s Tisch School of the Arts, said, “Greenwich Village is one of the world’s great artistic centers. For the past 50 years, the Tisch School has been a part of that.” She added that there would be a new performing arts center at Houston and Mercer Sts.

“That’s the hotel!” one anti called out incredulously. Indeed, N.Y.U. has not mentioned an arts center being part of the planned “Zipper Building” up to this point.

Calling the 2031 plan “elegant,” Janice Quinn, the N.Y.U. women’s basketball team coach, stated, “I say this as a neighbor, and not as an employee… . I think it’s time for us [N.Y.U.] to improve.”

Also testifying in support of N.Y.U. were representatives of social-service organizations, including the Bowery Residents’ Committee and University Settlement House.

“N.Y.U. has been a really excellent partner in helping those in need,” said the University Settlement representative. She said the Lower East Side settlement house supports N.Y.U.’s “ability to grow and remain a resource.”

The pro-N.Y.U. speakers were weighted toward the first half of the meeting. Hoylman said one person had signed them all up — which is allowable. About midway through the meeting, some N.Y.U. officials, including Hurley and Senior Vice President Lynne Brown, and the construction workers left. The plan’s opponents angrily said they felt “disrespected” by the N.Y.U. officials for not staying to hear all the criticisms of the plan. However, John Beckman, the university’s spokesperson, did stay for most of the full 2½ hours of public testimony. He later noted that Hurley had already attended five meetings on N.Y.U. that month — plus, no resolution on N.Y.U. was being voted on that night.

Former Councilmember Carol Greitzer recalled how 50 years ago the community had fought N.Y.U.’s effort to obtain the two superblocks, which were part of a federal Title I urban renewal area. The original developer wanted to get out of the deal, and so the property should have gone to a bidding process — but the city wanted the university to get the blocks, Greitzer said. To appease the community, the university agreed to give one of the new Silver Towers — 504 LaGuardia Place — as a residential building for Villagers. In addition, the university promised to create an N.Y.U.-run, experimental public school on the present Coles Gym site, yet this was never built, Greitzer said.

“This is infill infamy, and we can’t let this happen again!” Greitzer declared as the crowd cheered.

Beth Gottlieb, president of the Mercer-Houston Dog Run, said, “The buildings and scale of this project do not belong in the Village. We do not want to be homogenized, overbuilt or Gap-ified.” Warning politicians who will vote on the plan as part of ULURP, Gottlieb said, “To Councilmember Chin, Borough President Stringer and all our elected officials who say you represent us — do it! If not, you’ll hear from us on Election Day.”

Matt Viggiano, Councilmember Chin’s land-use planning director, said he knows people are eager to know Chin’s position on N.Y.U. 2031. The superblocks are in her district, and her stance presumably would have a major influence on the Council’s vote on the ULURP.

“It’s a little early for us,” he said of Chin revealing her full position on the project. “Over the next few months, the councilmember will continue to meet with residents and the community board. We have serious concerns about the size and impact of the 2031 plan.”

Nina Hernandez, an N.Y.U. alumna who lives on Mercer St. across from the “Zipper Building” site, said, “I know we need the jobs. But we need our community, we need our light, we need our air. I don’t want to live in a canyon.”

Mary Johnson, a former C.B. 2 member who lives east of Washington Square Park, said recent N.Y.U. projects, like its co-generation plan upgrade, turned the neighborhood into a nonstop construction zone.

“N.Y.U. has been renovating buildings, putting things on top of roofs, digging holes, connecting the co-gen to every area — it ain’t fun,” she said. “Eighteen to 19 years of that would be hell.”

Also, she said, the residents of the so-called “loft blocks” east of the park don’t want N.Y.U.’s proposed rezoning to add commercial uses in this area.

“We have plenty of shops on Eighth St. and Broadway,” she said.

Fearing the construction’s fallout and its impact on air quality, Laurence Maslon, a professor at the Tisch School, said, “What happens in my classroom when I have to take my 6-year-old to the doctor because he has a lung infection? Faculty housing is a covenant between a university and its faculty,” said Maslon, who lives on the superblocks. He said if a project of this magnitude were proposed at a small liberal-arts college like Wesleyan or Oberlin, the faculty would revolt.

Gary Anderson, a Steinhardt professor, referred to Villagers’ past battles to beat back the neighborhood-destroying plans of Robert Moses.

“They know they’re on the wrong side of history,” he said of N.Y.U.

The Villager - January 26, 2012 - By Lincoln Anderson

N.Y.U. promised an elementary school — back in 1960

The Villager - January 26, 2012 - By Carol Greitzer

NYU Expansion Plan Presses Forward With Park Destruction

A Walk In The Park - September 17, 2011

Friends of the High Line Sole Supporter At Chelsea Market Expansion Meeting

2012-01-27T01:56:00.007-05:00

"The proposal's sole supporter to speak out at the meeting was from Friends of the High Line. The elevated park stands to reap huge financial benefits if Jamestown's expansion goes through."

The Jamestown Properties’ proposal for a massive expansion to the Chelsea Market got a resounding thumbs down from its neighbors Wednesday night — with only a single voice speaking in support, according to DNAinfo.

At the first of many public forums on Jamestown Properties’ proposal for a huge expansion to the historic building, dozens of community members wearing "Save Chelsea Market!" stickers took to the podium to voice their opposition to the plan.

The proposal's sole supporter to speak out at the meeting was from Friends of the High Line. The elevated park stands to reap huge financial benefits if Jamestown's expansion goes through.

Jamestown’s proposal for the market at 75 Ninth Ave. would add nine floors and 240,000 square feet of office space on top of the building’s 10th Avenue side, and a 90,000 square foot hotel on the Ninth Avenue side.

In order to do that, Jamestown needs to convince the City Council to approve a zoning change that would put Chelsea Market into the Special West Chelsea District, an area created largely to facilitate the construction of the High Line.

The tentative plan still needs to be certified by the city’s planning department — likely to happen on Feb. 27 — before undergoing a comprehensive and lengthy rezoning review process.

"Would the city really change its own zoning so that new office space can be built in a neighborhood that does not need it, and clearly does not want it?" asked Jim Jasper, head of the West 15th Street Block Association.

"What public good could possibly be created by Jamestown out of Chelsea Market? We’re choking on traffic along Ninth Avenue. The last thing we need is another hotel."

That sentiment was echoed by dozens of others, who said the expansion is out of character with the market and its surrounding buildings, that it would raise rents in the neighborhood and block light to the High Line.

Residents said zoning officials should not bend over backward to satisfy a single developer.

"We feel that this private investment scheme bonanza is not what our zoning regulations are intended for," said Lesley Doyel, who heads up Save Chelsea, a community group that’s led the charge against the market’s expansion.

If the development goes according to Jamestown’s plan, the developer would make a substantial one-time $17 million contribution to the city-run High Line Improvement Fund.

Jamestown would also add roughly 3,000 square feet of activity space and 1,000 square feet of storage space to the park — plus provide it with a freight elevator.

“We really see this as a unique opportunity to provide the High Line with infrastructure for the future,” said Peter Mullan, head of planning and design for Friends of the High Line. His comments were met with grumbles from many in the room.

Some members of Community Board 4’s Chelsea Preservation and Planning Committee, while not directly supporting the proposal, said they see an opportunity for the neighborhood to benefit from the market expansion.

This is the committee that will be first to weigh in on whether to support the rezoning application, and some members said they see it as a chance to improve upon the Special West Chelsea District.

Community members originally hoped the Special West Chelsea District, created in 2005, would include greater height and bulk limits, more affordable housing and additional open-space requirements. If Jamestown Properties does win the right to expand Chelsea Market, the community may have a chance to expand the boundaries of the Special West Chelsea District and sweeten the 2005 deal.

"I would like to use it as a spearhead to look at larger zone changes, larger configurations in Chelsea," said committee member Burt Lazarin. "And perhaps how we go about creating a Chelsea park fund and a Chelsea affordable housing fund."

Still, many residents said they disliked the idea of giving Jamestown special treatment.

"Why is just one block being singled out for this spot zoning?" asked Hilda Regier.

"If you truly want all those areas considered for rezoning, vote this down this time around — if you want the whole thing, then we have another fight."

DNAinfo - January 26, 2012 By Mathew Katz

Neglected Conference House Pavilion Need $ 1.3 Mil In Repairs

2012-01-27T01:53:00.005-05:00

A railing at the neglected pavilion at Conference House Park appears dislodged at the site that's been closed since the Summer months. According to a Parks Department inspection report, the pavilion would require $1.335 million in repairs, nearly the same amount of money that was spent to build it. The pavilion was built as part of a $14 million plan to unify the historic 225-acre Conference House Park.The city's Department of Parks and Recreation did not respond to requests for comment. (Staten Island Advance/Mark Stein)

Staten Island

Centuries ago, it was London Bridge that was falling down. Now, it's the Conference House Park Pavilion that's in danger of toppling over, according to the Staten Island Advance.

At the very least, it needs plenty of costly work to shore it up before it reopens to the public. According to an allegedly official city Parks Department inspection report received by the Advance, the structure at the end of the South Shore was inspected on Sept. 30, 2011, and needs extensive repairs to timber beams, planks, posts, and other parts.

The airy wooden structure stands in Conference House Park, Tottenville. According to the report, the pavilion would require $1.335 million in repairs, nearly the same amount of money that was spent to build it. The city's Department of Parks and Recreation did not respond to requests for comment.

The 3,000-square-foot pavilion, which cost $1.4 million when it opened in 2002, has been closed since last summer. It was inspected by "in-house engineers, architects, Five Boro & Borough M & O."

STUDY FINDINGS

The assessment claims all 2-inch by 12-inch timber beams showed considerable section loss wherever there is contact with accumulated water. In a few locations, total loss was noted. This condition is typical at all columns, stairs and the ramp area. The "heavy timber section" also revealed section loss, similar to the condition and location described above. "There was no total loss," the inspection reports.

"However, at every column location the top two to four of these members appear to be spongy, indicating deterioration of timber due to water accumulation." Timber planks, posts, beams and bracing at the stairs and ramps appear to be completely depleted, and will require reconstruction before re-opening the pavilion, says the report.

Additionally, all shim plates and bracing at the columns needs to be replaced, and all columns have deteriorated and also need to be replaced. The structure exhibits signs of lateral movement, the inspection reads. Additional lateral bracing and/or batter piles will be necessary to stabilize the structure against lateral movement.

SOME GOOD NEWS

On the bright side, the roof and piles appear to be in fairly good condition. The inspection's scope summary explains "This capital project involves the removal and replacement of all structural framing members, columns, deck planks, railings, railing posts, stairs and ramps."

The roof and piles will be retained, and additional piles (battered) or bracing will be installed to stabilize the structure against lateral movement. "I have expressed to Commissioner (Adena) Long the importance of the Pavilion at Conference House Park," said Assemblyman Lou Tobacco (R-South Shore.)

"I am confident that they are working to remedy the problems and I stand ready to assist Parks to expedite the process." An open-air structure, the Pavilion was part of a $14 million plan to unify the historic 225-acre Conference House Park.

The pavilion faces the Raritan Bay and affords a view of the surrounding waterways for visitors who used to come to take in the salty air and relax on the pavilion's long, green benches. It was the second such structure in that location.

allegedly official engineering report

Staten Island Advance - January 25, 2012 - By Mark D. Stein

Neglected Conference House Pavilion Closed

A Walk In The Park - October 13, 2011

Proposed New Ballfield Rules Favor Youth Over Adults

2012-01-27T01:50:00.013-05:00

Members of Mundys Softball League playing at Prospect Park. A public hearing on the proposed new ballfield permitting rules was held today at the Chelsea Recreation Center. A reported 140 attended. See the full list of proposed rules changes below. (Photo: Kryssa Schemmerling)

City-Wide

Grownups are crying foul over the city’s move to free up more ballfields for kids’ sports teams.

New rules proposed by the Parks Department say that all youth leagues requesting permits for ball fields will be considered before any adult groups get a shot, according to the New York Daily News.

City officials say they’re just putting in writing what has long been an informal practice, but adults who play ball at Prospect Park are worried a strict application of the rules will shut them out.

A member of the Just For Kicks adult softball league (left) testifies at today’s hearing. The proposed changes to the system governing ball fields in city parks drew around 140 people today, many of whom expressed concern that a new priority for youth leagues would end up pushing adult games out, according to The Other Local East Village. (Photo: Stephen Rex Brown)

“An unintentional side effect could be that these smaller leagues are going to be wiped out,” said David Rawson, 49, head of the Mundys Softball League, which plays Sunday afternoons at Prospect Park, who plans to testify against the rules at a hearing Thursday. “We’ve been around for 25 years and we’ve built up a nice little community around the league, and we’re just concerned we’re going to lose our permit.”

Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said it makes sense to give kids first dibs.

“It’s not just knee jerk kids first. Children can pretty much only get exercise in the context of organized sports. Adults can go for a run; they can join a gym,” he said, adding youth and adult leagues mostly request different times that don’t conflict.

“Some of the adult leagues worried they’re going to be pushed out are needlessly worried.”

Benepe added the city has greatly expanded the number of fields available. “Adult softball leagues used to play on asphalt fields. You’d come home bleeding after a game,” he said.

Many little league teams are eager for new rules in Manhattan, where competition for space is fierce and a few large adult leagues dominate many fields.

The dynamic is different in Brooklyn, where little leagues hold most of the permits for Prospect Park.

“We always need more fields...but we’re not desperate,” said Steven Pisano, head of the South Brooklyn Baseball League, one of eight little leagues in the Prospect Park Baseball Association. “We would make no effort to block the adults from having the access they have.”

Still, adult players are worried they could be unintended casualties, since any youth group that applied for weekend spots would get priority.

“I’m definitely a supporter of youth baseball, but I also enjoy playing myself,” said John Georges, 63, who plays in the Brooklyn Meadows Softball League.

“Most of the guys we play with, the only time they can really do it is early in the morning on Sunday...I hope there’s room for everybody.”

Jimmy Wallenstein, 48, who plays in the Mundys league, said the city should be encouraging sports as a lifelong pursuit.

“Kids have a lot more time. Kids can play during the week. Adults can’t,” he said. “It goes without saying children need a place to play, but adults need a place to play too.”

New York Daily News - January 25, 2012 - By Erin Durkin

Can’t Play Ball at East River Park? Change to Permit System on the Way

New York Times - January 10, 2012 - By Stephen Rex Brown

Parks Dept. Weighs New Rules on Permits to Free More Fields for Youth Sports

New York Times - January 12, 2012 - By Stephen Rex Brown

Adult Ball-Field Users Worry Reform Is Too Kid-Friendly

New York Times - January 26, 2012 - By Stephen Rex Brown

Subject:

Date / Time: Location:

Contact:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Opportunity to comment on Proposed Rule regarding changes to Ballfields Rules.

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11a.m.

Chelsea Recreation Center 430 West 25th Street
New York, NY 10001

General Counsel
Alessandro G. Olivieri
Department of Parks & Recreation The Arsenal, Central Park
830 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10065

Proposed Rule Amendment

Pursuant to the authority invested in the Commissioner of the Department of Parks & Recreation (“Parks”) by Sections 389 and 533(a)(9) of the New York City Charter and in accordance with the requirement of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, Parks proposes to revise § 2-12 and to delete § 2-13 of Chapter 2 to Title 56 of the Official Compilation of Rules of the City of New York.

These amendments were not included in the Parks regulatory agenda because Parks was not aware of the necessity for the amendments at the time the regulatory agenda was prepared.

Instructions

Prior to the close of the hearing, you may submit written comments about the proposed amendment by mail to the Department of Parks and Recreation at:

General Counsel Alessandro G. Olivieri

Department of Parks & Recreation The Arsenal, Central Park
830 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10065

or electronically through NYCRULES at www.nyc.gov/nycrules by January 26, 2012.

To request a sign language interpreter or other form of reasonable accommodation at the hearing, please notify Shanay M. Smith at (212) 360-1383 or email shanay.smith@parks.nyc.gov, on or before January 12, 2012.

To notify the Department of Parks and Recreation of your intention to testify at the hearing and have your name included on an advance list of those expected to testify and who will be called in order of sign up, please contact:

Assistant Counsel
Shanay M. Smith
Department of Parks & Recreation The Arsenal, Central Park
830 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10065
(212) 360-1383 shanay.smith@parks.nyc.gov

Summarized copies of the written and oral comments received at the hearing will be available as soon as practicable after the hearing between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. at:

Department of Parks & Recreation The Arsenal, Central Park
830 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10065

Room 313 (212) 360-1313

The proposed rules:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

Clarify and codify practices utilized by Parks when accepting, processing, and issuing ballfield permit applications in order to fairly allocate ballfields and courts amongst a wide range of applicants.

Better explain how permit requests are processed;

Continue the long-standing practice of Parks to promote and accommodate youth athletic opportunities, while still providing adults with reasonable access to ballfields and courts; and

Reflect Parks’ efforts to fairly accommodate as many requests as possible for ballfield or court permits.

New material is indicated by underlining. Deletions are indicated by brackets.

"Shall" and "must" denote mandatory requirements and may be used interchangeably in the rules of this department.

Section 2 Title 56 of the Official Compilation of the Rules of the City of New York is amended to read as follows:

§2-12 Ballfield Permits [Basketball, Baseball, Softball, Cricket, Roller Hockey and Volleyball

(a) Permit applications. (1) Those who wish to reserve a court, rink or ballfield (“sports facility”) under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for the sports of basketball, baseball, softball, cricket, roller hockey, and volleyball must obtain a written permit from the Department. If an individual is applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league, he or she must so designate on the permit. Only one individual may apply for a permit per group or athletic league.

(2) The completed application must be received by the Department no later than March 1 of each year. Later applications will be filled on a space available basis.

(3) The completed application must include a list of all sports facilities requested.

(4) The Department reserves the right to require a cleanup bond and/or personal liability insurance for the event/game, naming the City of New York as co-insured. The factors to be considered in requiring a bond and/or insurance are: (i) estimated number of spectators to attend sessions, (ii) involvement of vendors (where permitted by the Department), (iii) past history of league/event.

(5) Admission tickets, refreshments or any other articles may not be sold or offered for sale within or adjacent to any park area without the prior written authorization of the Department.

(b) Permits. (1) The permittee must confine sports activities to the locations and times specified on the permit.

(2) The permittee shall remain subject to the Rules of the Department, the specific terms of the permit, and to all rules, regulations and laws of all City, State and Federal departments insofar as applicable.

(3) The permittee must clean and restore the premises after each session.

(4) Pamphlets, handbills, or advertising material of any kind may not be posted, placed or distributed at the courts or ballfilelds, unless written permission is granted by the Department.

(5) The permittee must have in his/her possession at the time and site of the reserved session the permit for the use of the sports facility and any other Permits or documents required by the Department or any other City agency for proposed activities at the session.

(6) The permittee is liable for all damage or injury to property or persons that may occur or be caused by the use of the permit, and by accepting the permit the permittee agrees to save the City of New York and the Department harmless from any claim whatsoever which may result from such use.

(7) Any transfer of permits requires the approval of the athletic permit coordinator of the borough in which the sports facilities are located. Such transfer, if approved, must take place in the office of the athletic permit coordinator of the relevant borough with both transferor and transferee present. The permit is not otherwise transferable.

(8) The permit is revocable at any time at the discretion of the Commissioner, or his or her representative. The reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to, (i) providing incorrect information on an application form, (ii) failure to adhere to the rules of the Department or the conditions of the permit, and (iii) the use of a permit issued to a youth organization by adults. If a reserved session is cancelled by the Department for administrative reasons, the session may be rescheduled where feasible. The permittee has the right to appeal the revocation of a permit to the Chairperson of the Department’s Ballfield Task

Force within 10 days immediately following the mailing of notice of revocation by the Department. Such appeal must be in writing. The decisions of the Chairperson of the Ballfield Task Force shall be final.

(9) The maximum number of reserved sessions that any adult single-permit holder or league may control is limited to sixteen sessions per week, per park. The maximum length of any permit is six months. Exceptions may be made by the Commissioner or his or her representative. Youth leagues shall not be subject to the 16 session per week, per park limit.

(10) The Department may review the practices of all leagues and tournaments to determine whether the permittee should receive the requested number of reserved sessions. If the Department determines that sports facility space is in high demand and that the permittee does not reasonably need all of the session time requested, the Department may approve the permit in part, granting to the permittee some fraction of the field or court time applied for.

(11) The Department may inspect the site to determine if the permittee is utilizing all of the reserved time requested. In the event that the Department determines that the permittee is not using all of the time requested, the Department may reduce the number of permitted sessions.

(12) Due to space limitations, the Department will not allow the reservation of sports facility space for practice sessions.]

(a) The following terms (as they are used in this section) will have the meanings listed below: “Adult League.” Adult Leagues are Adult Recreation sports leagues, including, but not limited to

community based organization leagues, independent leagues, college leagues and corporate leagues.

“Adult Recreation.” Adult Recreation refers to a category of applicants for and holders of permits for the use of ballfields or courts for athletic activity that are not within the category of Youth Recreation.

“New Applicant.” New Applicant(s) are:

(1) those applicant(s) that received permits for the previous year or season, and wish to apply for a different number of hours, or a different number of ballfields or courts at the same location for which a permit was held in the previous year or season;
(2) applicant(s) who have never sought permits for the use of a particular ballfield or court before; or
(3) Returning Applicant(s) who include new or additional requests in their permit application(s) are treated as New Applicant(s) for such new or additional permit requests.

“Returning Applicant.” Returning Applicant(s) are those applicant(s) requesting the same number of hours, and number of ballfields or courts at a location as they received under permit(s) for the previous year or season.

“Seasonal Applicant.” Seasonal Applicant(s) are all applicants who are not within the category of Short Term Permit Applicants.

“Short Term Permit Applicant.” Short Term Applicant(s) are applicants that request permits to use ballfield(s) or court(s) for no more than four (4) days of athletic activity within a seven (7) day period. The request must not be connected with any other request for a ballfield or court permit during the same season.

“Youth League.” Youth Leagues are Youth Recreation sports leagues, including, but not limited to high school leagues, little leagues, community based organization leagues, and unaffiliated leagues.

“Youth Recreation.” Youth Recreation refers to a category of applicants for and holders of permits for athletic activity with participants who are all 17 years old or younger. Youth Recreation shall also include school recreation programs (grade school through high school athletic programs) regardless of the age of the participants.

(b) (1) Permit Application Process. Any person who wishes to reserve a ballfield or court under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for basketball, handball, baseball, softball, cricket, roller hockey, volleyball, football, lacrosse, rugby, ultimate frisbee, soccer, or any other ballfield or court sport must obtain a written permit from the Department. Any person applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league must indicate that they are doing so on the permit application. Only one individual per group or athletic league may apply for a permit. Tennis permit regulations are separately addressed in section 2-01.

(2) The permit applicant must submit all applications to the Department’s borough permit office in the borough where the requested ballfield or court is located. Applications may be submitted via postal mail, through the Department’s website, or in-person or via facsimile (fax). Permit applications received by the borough permit office will be date and time stamped to acknowledge receipt. Applicants must apply separately to each borough permit office where they are seeking a ballfield or court.

(3) In order to process applications in advance of the start date for each season, the Department has established seasonal application periods. Applications (for each of the respective periods) will not be accepted prior to the start date for a given application period. For the purpose of this section the seasonal application periods for the following seasons are:

(4) For purposes of this section, the seasonal recreational periods are as follows:

(5) The Department reserves the right to determine appropriate recreational usage for each ballfield or court. Permits shall be issued for the use of individual ballfields or courts designed for a specific sport, (e.g., baseball or soccer) at any time during the year. Ballfields that are designed to host a variety of sports will be allocated as follows: during the spring/summer season priority will be given to applications for bat and ball sports such as baseball and softball and including but not limited to cricket, and during the fall/winter seasons priority will be given to sports played on rectangular ballfields, such as football and

Season	Spring and Summer Season	Fall Season	Winter Season
Application Period	November 15 through January 15	April 15 through June 15	September 15 through November 1

Season	Spring and Summer Season	Fall Season	Winter Season
Seasonal Recreational Period	March 17 through August 31	September 1st through November 31	December 1 through March 16

soccer. The Department may consider an out-of-season permit application for ballfields that are designed to host a variety of sports (e.g., baseball in the fall, soccer in the spring) provided there are not qualified applicants for the priority seasonal uses set forth above. Permit holders granted permits for out-of- season use will not be treated as a Returning Applicant should they apply the year following the issuance of an out-of-season permit. No grass ballfields will be available during the winter season.

(6) Applications received (during the relevant application period) will be categorized by the following factors:

(i) Youth or Adult Recreation
(ii) Returning or New Applicants
(iii) Short Term or Seasonal Applicants

(7) For Applications received during the relevant application period, the Department will first consider Youth Recreation permit requests before any Adult Recreation permit requests. Youth Recreation applicants that are also Returning Applicant(s) and have fully complied with a) the terms and conditions of the previous season’s permits and b) all other Department rules and regulations, will be given preference to use the same dates and times allotted to them in the previous season. The Department will also consider the following factors when allocating Youth Recreation permits:

(i) whether the applicant is part of a Youth League.
(ii) whether the Youth League is part of an official school league.

(iii) whether the Short Term Permit Applicant(s) can be accommodated before allocating permits for Seasonal Applicants.

(iv) whether the Department can accommodate newly established Youth Leagues in order to equitably allocate ballfield and court usage as between newly established and Returning Applicant Youth Leagues.

(v) Due to space limitations, the Department may reject permit requests from applicants that seek the reservation of ballfields or courts for practice sessions. Permits issued for practice sessions will not be treated as part of a Returning Applicant’s previous season’s permits for purposes of determining whether an applicant is a New Applicant or a Returning Applicant.

(8) For applications received during the relevant application period, after the Department has accommodated the Youth Recreation applications, the Department will process Adult Recreation permit requests. Adult Recreation applicants that are also Returning Applicants and have 1) fully complied with the terms and conditions of the previous season’s permits and 2) all other Department rules and regulations, will be given preference to use to use the same dates and times allotted in the previous season. The Department will also consider the following factors:

(i) whether the applicant is part of an Adult League.

(ii) whether Short Term Permit Application(s) can be accommodated before allocating permits for Seasonal Applications.

(iii) whether the Department can accommodate newly established Adult Leagues in order to equitably allocate ballfield usage as between newly established and Returning Applicant Adult Leagues.

(iv) Due to space limitations, the Department may reject permit applications that seek the reservation of ballfields or courts for practice sessions. Permits issued for practice sessions will

not be treated as part of a Returning Applicant’s previous season’s permits for purposes of determining whether an applicant is a New Applicant or a Returning Applicant.

(9) Applications received after the relevant application period will be processed on a first come, first served basis, after all Applications received during the relevant application period are processed.

(1) The Department reserves the right to leave ballfield or court time unpermitted at various locations for other authorized uses, to accommodate Departmental use, for maintenance purposes, or to allow other unpermitted activity.

(2) The Department reserves the right to move permit holders to another location if necessary as determined by the Department, or assign a permit applicant to a location other than the location(s) the applicant requested.

(3) The Department reserves the right to cancel permitted ballfield or court activity due to inclement weather and/or conditions that can result in long-term damage to the ballfield or court.

(4) This section does not apply to use of a ballfield or court that is subject to a license agreement to maintain and operate specified ballfields or courts during the times the licensee is authorized to use the ballfield or court.

(5) The Department reserves the right to require a clean-up bond and/or liability insurance for the use of a ballfield or court, in which case the City shall be named as an additional insured. The factors considered by the Department to determine whether a bond or insurance are required for such event or game are: (i) estimated number of spectators expected to attend, (ii) involvement of vendors (where permitted by the Department), (iii) past history of the league or event, or (iv) such other factors as the Department may reasonably consider.

(6) All permit holders must have their permit(s), and any other documents required by the Department or any other City agency, in their possession at the time and site of the proposed activity.

(7) Any transfer of permit(s) requires the approval of the athletic permit coordinator of the borough in which the ballfields or courts are located. Once approved, the transfer must take place in the office of the Department staff responsible for issuing ballfield permits in the relevant borough with both transferor and transferee present. A permit may not be transferred in any other way.

(8) All permits are revocable at any time and at the discretion of the Commissioner, or at the discretion of the Commissioner’s designated representative. Reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to: (i) providing incorrect or false information on an application form, (ii) failure to adhere to Department rules or the conditions of the permit, and (iii) the use, by adults, of a permit issued for a Youth League. The permit holder has the right to appeal the revocation of a permit to the Department’s General Counsel, within ten (10) days immediately following the mailing of notice of revocation by the Department. Said appeal must be in writing. The decision of the Department’s General Counsel shall be final.

(9) The maximum number of reserved hours that any person or entity (other than a Youth League) holding a permit may have is 32 per week, per park. If the Department determines that ballfields or courts are in high demand, the Department may approve a permit application in part

and reject it in part, granting the permit holder some fraction of the requested ballfield or court time and/or granting permits for alternate locations.

(l0) The Department may inspect any ballfield or court to determine if the permit holder is utilizing all of its permitted time. In the event that the Department determines the permit holder is not using all of the permitted time, the Department may reduce the amount of permitted time.

(11) If the use of ballfields or courts constitutes a special event as outlined in § 2-08 of the Department’s rules, a special event permit shall be required in addition to the relevant ballfield permits. If the use of ballfields or courts involves vending as outlined in Section 1-05(b) of the Department’s rules, vending permits shall be required in addition to the relevant ballfield permits.

[§2-13 Football, Lacrosse, Rugby, Ultimate Frisbee and Soccer

(a) Permit applications. (1) Those who wish to reserve a court, rink or ballfield (“sports facility”) under the jurisdiction or management of the Department for the sports of football, rugby, ultimate Frisbee and soccer must obtain a written permit from the Department. If an individual is applying for a permit on behalf of a group or athletic league, he or she must so designate on the permit. Only one individual may apply for a permit per group or athletic league.

(2) The completed application must be received by the Department no later than March 1 of each year for spring and summer reservations, and no later than July1 for fall reservations. Later applications will be filled on a space available basis.

(3) The completed application must include a list of all sports facilities requested.

(5) Admission tickets, refreshments or any other articles may not be sold or offered for sale within or adjacent to any park area without the prior written authorization of the Department.

(b) Permits. (1) The permittee must confine sports activities to the locations and times specified on the permit.

(3) The permittee must clean and restore the premises after each session.

(4) Pamphlets, handbills, or advertising material of any kind may not be posted, placed or distributed at the courts or ballfields, unless written permission is granted by the Department.

(12) Due to space limitations, the Department will not allow the reservation of sports facility space for practice sessions.]

NYPD To Use Drones To Monitor NYC Parks?

2012-01-25T03:08:00.004-05:00

The NYPD could be exploring plans to use drones as a law enforcement tool in New York City to keep an eye on city parks and streets, according to WPIX.

Drones are unmanned aircraft that can be used for surveillance or to shoot live missiles.

In a recent email obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, an NYPD Detective in the Counterterrorism Unit asks the Federal Aviation Administration about the use of drones as a way to protect the city.

Drones have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're already being used by law enforcement in some European cities.

They have also flown in the United States, but only in restricted airspace along the borders with Mexico and Canada.

There is some concern about the invasion of privacy.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a report about the lack of laws protecting average people from drone surveillance.

So far, no local police departments have been authorized to use them, but police departments in Houston and Miami have conducted field tests -- and New York could be next.

NYPD Reportedly Experimenting With Drones To Monitor NYC

WPIX11 - January 24, 2012 - Kerry Drew

Randall's Island/South Bronx Connector Path Land Easement Still Not Secured

2012-01-24T14:04:00.005-05:00

Existing Randalls Island connector path. The pedestrian and bicycle span would link South Bronx to parks and ballfields. The land between the bridge and the South Bronx is owned by the State DOT but controlled by a private company, Harlem River Yards Ventures under a 99 year lease. The New York City Economic Development Corp. needs an easement so it can build a path from the bridge to E. 132nd St. (Photo: New York City Economic Development)

Bronx

The city could be building a bridge to nowhere, thanks to a muddled South Bronx land deal.

The Randalls Island Connector, a planned pedestrian and bicycle bridge, will eventually span the Bronx Kill, a narrow waterway separating the South Bronx from public ball fields and green space on Randalls Island.

But land between the bridge and the South Bronx street grid is controlled by a private company, Harlem River Yards Ventures. The New York City Economic Development Corp. needs an easement so it can build a path from the bridge to E. 132nd St, according to the New York Daily News.

The EDC and HRYV have worked together on the project for years and now that the city is ready to start bridge construction, it has made the company an easement offer. But no deal has been struck and now the project is in doubt, sources said.

Anthony Riccio, senior vice president of HRYV, said negotiations are ongoing and claimed there is no cause for concern.

"There is no problem," he said. "We are confident we will reach a satisfactory resolution soon."

But the viability of the $6 million bridge is at stake, said an EDC spokesman.

The Connector will link the South Bronx to a greenway network that stretches from Randalls Island to Astoria, Queens and East Harlem.

We are hopeful that the negotiations with (HRYV) can be resolved quickly, so the city can move forward with this important project," said Kyle Sklerov, EDC spokesman, claiming the bridge will help South Bronx residents enjoy the outdoors.

The strip of land needed for the path is actually public property already, part of a sprawling 96-acre rail yard owned by the state Department of Transportation.

But HRYV controls the land because it secured a 99-year lease for the site in 1991 under terms later slammed by the state controller as a sweetheart deal.

Harry Bubbins, executive director of Friends of Brook Park, a South Bronx group, called the Connector "an extremely important" project with widespread community support. But he blasted the easement negotiations.

"The site belongs to the state. It is unfathomable why we even have to pay to use it and (HRYV) should expedite the easement."

The EDC and HRYV are also in talks about building a new headquarters for Fresh Direct at the rail yard. The Queens-based grocery delivery company is mulling a move to the site, with the EDC offering it millions of dollars in public benefits.

Despite the timing, Sklerov said the Connector and Fresh Direct projects are unrelated.

U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-South Bronx) is betting on the Connector.

"I am confident any last minute problems will be worked out and this important project will move forward," he said.

muddy South Bronx property deal

New York Daily News - January 24, 2012 - By Daniel Beekman

City Releases Wetlands Strategy Draft

2012-01-23T17:58:00.002-05:00

City-Wide

This draft wetlands strategy is written in accordance with Local Law 31 of 2009 (see Appendix C). Signed by Mayor Bloomberg on May 26, 2009, this law requires the City to create a strategy with the overall goals to conserve, protect, enhance, stabilize, restore, and expand wetlands and associated buffer areas in the city. The law also calls for a strategy to avoid and minimize wetlands losses and achieve no net loss of wetlands in the city; standardize and improve the management of wetlands and associated buffer areas; and balance the needs for wetlands protection with other, competing land uses that are in the public interest.

In particular, Local Law 31 and this draft wetlands strategy focus on the question of how to better protect small vulnerable wetlands parcels. New York City Wetlands: Regulatory Gaps and Other Threats found that existing Federal and State regulations protect New York City’s tidal wetlands and its large freshwater wetlands from threats related to land use and development. However, freshwater wetlands smaller than 12.4 acres are not protected by State law and are vulnerable to determinations that they are outside of the scope of Federal protection. This draft strategy advances the City’s understanding of the quantity and ownership of these vulnerable wetlands and proposes strategies that will enhance protection.

This draft wetlands strategy has been released to the public on January 18, 2012. The City will accept public comments on this draft strategy through February 18, 2012 at planyc@cityhall.nyc.gov.

Park Safety City Council Hearing Rescheduled

2012-01-23T12:03:00.008-05:00

On Monday, January 30th at 10:00 am, the New York City Council's Parks & Recreation Committee will hold a joint hearing regarding safety issues in our city's parks. The hearing will be held jointly with the Committee on Public Safety, and will take place in the 16th Floor Committee Room at 250 Broadway in Lower Manhattan.

Last year, the Parks Committee held an oversight hearing regarding the Parks Enforcement Patrol (PEP) program. This hearing raised a number of additional questions about crime in parks and the extent to which the NYPD works with PEP officers to deal with criminal activity. We expect representatives from both the Parks Department and NYPD to testify at this hearing.

The hearing was originally scheduled for Tuesday, November 15th but the Police Department pulled out.

Public safety, community members, and park advocates have been pushing for the hearing to highlight the city's severe under reporting of crime in city parks. The hearing was supposed to examine the city's compliance with local Law 114 of 2005 which mandates the tracking and reporting of crime in parks. By 2008 the city was supposed to compile this data for all parks and playgrounds one acre in size and larger which they are not doing.

Hearing On Public Safety in City Parks Cancelled

A Walk In The Park - November 13, 2011 - By Geoffrey Croft

City Employees Fined For Accepting Gifts From High Line Contractor

2012-01-21T14:00:00.014-05:00

The High Line contractor - Kiska Construction Corporation - lavished gifts on three government officials overseeing the project. In September 2008, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) leveled more than $14,000 in fines against three city employees including two from the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and one from the Parks Department (DPR) for accepting gifts from the construction company building the High Line. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on image to enlarge.

Nazir Mir, the former Vice President of Capital Programs for EDC was fined $ 11,500 accepting gifts for a portion of his son's honeymoon trip for Istanbul, Turkey valued at $4,000 and two meals at New York City restaurants, valued collectively in excess of $50.00, from Kiska Construction, a firm doing business with EDC and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Kiska had been awarded three major contracts by EDC and Parks related to construction at the High Line. Mr. Mir supervised the Project Manager of the High Line project.

Leonard Greco, Vice President for the New York City Economic and lead Project Manager for the High Line was fined $2,000.00 for four meals. Michael Bradley Administrative Project Manager for the DPR who served as the Project Administrator for the High Line accepted two meals and was fined $600.00.

They all admitted violating the City 's conflict of interest law which prohibits a public servant from accepting a valuable gift defined by Board Rules as anything which has a value of $50.00 or more. - Geoffrey Croft

Manhattan

Free dinners, free luncheons and barbecues, even a free $4,000 honeymoon in Istanbul – three city officials overseeing construction of Manhattan’s High Line received these and more from the chief contractor on the project, according the New York World.

The company, Kiska Construction Corporation, had more than $60 million in contracts with the city’s Economic Development Corporation to “pretty much build 75 percent of the High Line,” Kiska vice president Alp Baysal told The New York World, “from the structure holding it all up to the finishing touches on the rails.”

In 2008, the officials who took those goodies from Kiska received something else in addition to full stomachs and a hotel room: thousands of dollars in fines from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB).

City employees are barred from receiving gifts in excess of $50. Yet the arm of the city’s ethics law does not reach to private citizens, developers, contractors and companies, like Kiska, which repeatedly induce city officials to commit ethics violations. Kiska continues to be eligible to serve as a contractor on city projects, including the future third phase of the High Line, to be built north of 30th Street. Planning for that final section of the elevated park is now underway.

According to Baysal, Kiska carried out its work on the High Line until last year, when the second section of the park, from 20th to 30th streets, opened to the public. It also went on to garner almost $80 million in contracts with the state Department of Transportation, one of which is still in effect.

As to whether Kiska should have been allowed to maintain and gain city and state contracts back when the violations occurred, Baysal responded, “Of course it would not have been okay with me if I had been in power then as vice president.” Reminded that he had assumed the vice president position in 2007, before the High Line gifts, the executive had no response save to emphasize that Kiska’s “internal code of conduct is more strict than anything the laws can come up with.”

“It’s not infrequent that someone or a vendor repeatedly induces or causes a public employee to violate the gift law but then goes on to suffer no penalties,” said Mark Davies, executive director of the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. “It’s unfair, and a loophole in the current laws that we’re trying to close.” Davies stresses that many cases never come to the conflicts board’s attention it the first place.

In the wake of the fines for the three city officials who fell for Kiska’s enticements, as well as similar incidents involving others doing business with the city, in 2009 the Conflicts of Interest Boardproposed changes to the city’s ethics rules that would, for the first time, give the board the power to penalize and even blacklist companies that have repeatedly been tied to improper transactions with city employees.

The proposals would require changes to the City Charter, which can only be altered through public referendum, a special vote by state or local legislators. The city’s Law Department is still determining which course to pursue.

“Cases like Kiska are exactly the reason why we’ve proposed amendments,” said Davies.

Ross Sandler, professor at New York Law School and publisher of CityLaw, a bimonthly journal on the city’s regulations and their enforcement, says there are no legal reasons the city can’t penalize or ban companies that ply city workers with gifts even as they do business with the city. Under state and federal laws prohibiting bribery, said Sandler, the city “has authority not to contract with those who don’t follow the rules,” but that “there certainly is a gap” in existing regulations, especially for cases that do not warrant criminal prosecution but require COIB enforcement.

As of now, the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services only provides a loose warning about past improprieties by a company. Its VENDEX computer system lists “caution” items, but city agencies are free to disregard the information provided there.

In the case of Kiska Construction, the company’s VENDEX file includes three notes indicating that federal agents and the New York City Department of Investigation investigated the company in 2008, regarding union payroll records and gift giving to city employees, respectively.

The file also notes that a Kiska foreman on a Goethals Bridge project was also brought before a grand jury in New Jersey four years ago. He is still in federal court fighting accusations of engaging in wire fraud to provide no-show or low-show jobs.

Baysal said that no action had been taken by the city Department of Investigation, after Kiska adopted a new code of conduct for its employees that established a “zero-tolerance” policy toward gift giving.

“If the investigators had really thought that Kiska was guilty, they would have done something, but questions were asked, we co-operated, and it was all dismissed after,” said Baysal. Asked if it was fair to only have public officials penalized, he insisted that Kiska had suffered sufficiently by having been investigated, and added, “Obviously those people in EDC were also involved.”

The Economic Development Corporation did not respond to inquiries sent last week by The New York World.

New York World - January 20, 2011 - By Pei Shan Hoe

$12 Million Park Planned For Columbia Street Waterfront District In Carroll Gardens

2012-01-20T16:29:00.011-05:00

Park With Changing Views. Rendering of proposed Columbia Street Waterfront District park between Degraw and Kane Streets in Carroll Gardens Brooklyn. The Department of Transportation ownes the two-acre property. The new park would feature ever changing views of shipping containers from the adjasent piers and port and the Manhattan skyline. (Image: Rogers Marvel Architects)

"Carroll Gardens West" was cut off from the adjacent Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill to the east the late 1950s by the construction of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

Brooklyn

Old Brooklyn, meet new Brooklyn.

A plush $12 million riverside park planned for the isolated Columbia Street Waterfront District will feature views of the Manhattan skyline — and massive shipping containers, according to the New York Post.

Renderings released this week show a dingy, city-owned storage lot — running from DeGraw to Kane streets on Columbia Street — being transformed into a 2-acre park behind industrial containers and towering cranes.

For the area’s growing hipster and yuppie crowds, it’ll include a dog run, tree-lined paths and a hilly lawn that officials said could be used to host small concerts and other shows.

Columbia Street Waterfront Park would also be part of a massive bike lane connecting to nearby Brooklyn Bridge Park and eventually other waterfront neighborhoods.

"The goal is to make this park a destination for the neighborhood," said Robert Pirani, a vice president at Regional Plan Association, which is overseeing the project’s design phase with the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative.

He envisions the park becoming a smaller version of Manhattan’s Bryant Park, adding that it could spur takeout business at Columbia Street’s many eateries — such as Alma Restaurant and Margaret Palca Bakes — by providing a serene spot to chow down.

The project, however, can’t break ground just yet.

The city’s Department of Transportation needs the lot for at least another year to store equipment for nearby street-repair projects, and then the city will have to raise money to build the park.

But Councilman Brad Lander, who represents the area, said he believes it won’t be too difficult to raise money through the public and private sector. He said there is "overwhelming community support for it."

Once a vibrant community, the Columbia Street Waterfront District — often referred to as "Carroll Gardens West" — fell on hard times in the late 1950s after being cut off from adjacent Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill to the east by the construction of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

Frank Buffa, owner of the 108-year-old Ferdinando’s Focacceria on Union Street between Columbia and Hicks streets, hopes the park "finally gets people to cross the BQE" and into the neighborhood.

"If they come to walk their dogs, maybe they’ll see our shops and come in," he said. "Many of my loyal customers live far away, but there’s people a block away [in Carroll Gardens] who don’t even know we’re here because they don’t walk past the highway."

The Bloomberg administration previously wanted to revive the neighborhood by pushing the shipping terminal out in favor of new housing, a conference center, cruise terminal and beer garden along Piers 7-10 and the lot. But in 2008, the Port Authority, which owns the piers, ultimately opted to keep a working port.

Meanwhile, the neighborhood has been hurt the past eight years by a series of street-repair projects of aging infrastructure along Columbia and Van Brunt streets that has made things difficult for existing businesses.

By Rich Calder - January 20, 2012

Community/Electeds Demand Related's Co's Ruppert Playground Building Project Go Through ULURP

2012-01-19T14:59:00.013-05:00

Ruppert Park. Residents and elected officials are pressing the City Planning Commission to require the Related Co.'s plan to build a 35 story building on a popular playground in Yorkville go through the City U
niform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP.)

The 1 acre public park, built with a Federal Community Development Block Grant, opened in 1978. In 1983 the park and the parcel across the street, were sold by HPD for $ 10 million dollars to the Related Companies in a behind closed door deal orchestrated by a former HPD commissioner.

Manhattan's Community Board 8 has the least amount of publicly accessible park space in the city while the Upper East Side has the highest density. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)

Manhattan

UPPER EAST SIDE — A developer's plan to replace a popular playground with a 35-story residential tower and cancer treatment center has incurred the wrath of Yorkville residents.

Now, the Related Companies' project could face an even bigger hurdle, according to DNAinfo.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wrote a letter Wednesday to Community Board 8 calling its plans for Ruppert Playground a "major land use decision" that requires a full public review.

"I will strongly oppose any efforts to bypass the ULURP [uniform land use review procedure] process if Related ends up moving forward with its plans," Quinn wrote.

Public scrutiny could call into question the fate of the 32,000-square-foot project slated for the open space at 222 E. 93rd St.

Under the deal Related struck with the city in 1983, the developer was only required to keep the space open to the public for 25 years. After that agreement expired in 2008, the company began gearing up to build. It closed the playground in September 2011.

But advocates from the group Save Ruppert Playground believe they recently uncovered a wrench in Related's plans. They claim that nothing can be developed on the playground without a land use change.

If the building is considered a "minor modification" to the site, it would simply be handled by the City Planning Commission without public input. But if it's deemed a "major modification," then the City Council must review the project and hear community input. Many elected officials are pressing for the public review.

"With its basketball, tennis, handball courts, a tot lot and sitting areas, Ruppert Playground was cherished by this community," Councilwoman Jessica Lappin, who represents the area, told Community Board 8 members Wednesday.

She, too, wrote a letter to City Planning calling for a full public review, and City Councilman Dan Garodnick spoke in support of it, too.

"I think we have some good momentum to our fight," Lappin added. "I can't really imagine a bigger change in public space use. It deserves a ULURP [uniform land use review procedure] hearing and for the community to have a say."

Geoffrey Croft, of NYC Park Advocates claimed that Related had misrepresented the project initially as one that would not need a land use change.

"The evidence strongly supports that City Planning should determine that a change of this magnitude is subject to ULURP," he said.

"The decision to remove a heavily used public playground in a community board that ranks dead last in the amount of publicly accessible open space in the entire city and has the highest density is clearly a major land use decision," he added.

Many residents, including Gillian Begelman, have lamented the park's closure. The mother, whose son is one of 75 tots in a daycare center at the nearby Ruppert Towers, told CB8 members, "Now these children don't have a safe place to play."

Neighbors also worry about the potential traffic and construction concerns that a big tower with a medical center could bring.

"Our plan will bring an important cancer research and treatment center to New York City," a Related spokeswoman said Thursday.

"Not only will we be able to offer a first-of-its-kind facility in the region, enhancing New York City’s reputation as the leading destination for cancer care, but we will also create hundreds of jobs and critical affordable housing," she added.

The spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the land use requirements.

Community Board 8 voted to approve the plan be subject to the land use review process.

DNAinfo - January 19, 2012 - By Amy Zimmer

A Walk In The Park - September 14, 2011 - By Geoffrey Croft

Community Rallies To Save Ruppert Playground

Walk In The Park - September 11, 2011 - By Geoffrey Croft

Anti-Semitic Graffiti Found At Floyd Bennett Field Gardens

2012-01-18T10:44:00.006-05:00

A swastika was found painted on a tree at the Floyd Bennett Field community garden in Brooklyn Saturday morning. The National Park Service Police said they were stepping up patrols. (Photos: Pat Cotillo, Jr)

Brooklyn

By Geoffrey Croft

A swastika spray-painted on a tree and Polish anti-police graffiti were found scrawled in a beloved community garden at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn on Saturday morning NYC Park Advocates has learned.

Polish flag colors were also painted on a picnic bench and tree.

The disturbing images were discovered by gardener in an area the non-profit community group that manages the area set up to attract wild life.

According to Adriann Musson president of the Floyd Bennett Field Gardens Association the incident occurred sometime between 4:30 pm on Friday and 8:00 am Saturday morning.

"I assume it was done on Friday night," said Ms. Musson who has been gardening there since 1992.

"We found a six-pack of Polish beer bottles in the picnic area and right across from our habitat area was the vandalism.

There was a swastika painted on a tree, one of our benches was turned in a Polish flag. I assume it was the Polish flag it was red and white. And rocks that we use in our planting area had the letters HWDP."

HWDP is the abbreviation for a derogatory anti-police phrase in Poland which means F*** The Police. The graffiti can be found on walls and buildings in Poland and is part of the hip-hop vocabulary according to published reports.

"I am hoping it was just a group of really stupid young people who decided to just do it," she said. "We have a very large community garden. We have over four-hundred and fifty members. We have every race, religion, ethnicity that you can imagine. Everyone gardens together and gets along.

"We've never had anything like this happen before. It came out of nowhere."

The letters HWDP were spray painted on rocks that border a flower bed planting area beside the swastika tree. HWDP is an abbreviation for a derogatory Polish anti-police slogan.

The garden president said she was so upset she took brown spray paint and covered up the offending swastika on the tree just to get rid of it.

"I'm upset, it bothers me. I could not leave it there and have people going around seeing it thinking we are ok with it. But we have to get the spray paint off the tree."

She said she was waiting for the National Park Service to send down someone to figure out how to get rid of the paint.

"Hate doesn't do any good," she added.

"What they are doing is generating more bad feelings. They need to work together and get along with one another. We garden, it doesn't matter where you come from or what you believe in. It's a sad commentary on the world today. It just makes no sense to me. Hate breeds hate."

National Park Service Police Sgt. Peter Culver said an active investigation is being conducted but admitted they did not have much evidence to help catch the perpetrators.

"Quite honestly there's really not much to go on. There are no witnesses to this incident.

We are doing what we can. We are stepping up patrols. It's a very remote area. There's not a heck of a lot to go on. We are going to keep our eyes out for it."

Sgt. Culver said the park is normally very quiet and cars speeding on the abandoned air strips were the main law enforcement issues in Floyd Bennett Field which is managed by the US Department Of The Interior's National Park Service.

"We really don't have a lot of issues out here, no we don't."

Pat Cotillo, Jr. was out taking photos of the nearby abandoned historic buildings when he said he was approached by a gardener who asked if he would document the vandalism.

"Its disturbing to see that there are so many people who still have so much hate," he said.

Since 1997 the Floyd Bennett Field Gardens Association has maintained and administerd the 7 acre garden under an agreement with the US Department Of The Interior, National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay Unit.

Mrs. Musson said people come from all over the city to garden including residents from at least four of the five boroughs. Besides the over four-hundred and fifty current garden members, a hundred and fifty people are on a waiting list to join.

Each year the garden donates over 500 pounds of vegetables to City Harvest.

Squash, peanuts, artichokes, peppers and 36 different tomatoes are among the many items grown in the garden's 10x20' plots. The garden was created in 1977 as part of the Cornell University Cooperative Extension program. She said the biggest problem was during the Summer when people steal vegetables.

"Its great to find a place in the middle of Brooklyn where you feel like you are in the country. It really is a very peaceful place."

The incident was first reported by Queens Crap.

Two National Park Service employees, and Jill Weingarten from the Floyd Bennett Field Gardens Association at the site on Saturday.

The normally peaceful gardens were the scene of disturbing vandalism over the weekend.

Polish flag colors spray-painted on a bench and tree found on Saturday. (Photos: Pat Cotillo, Jr)

Queens Crap - January 16, 2012

Abor-rent behavior! Vandals deface community garden with swastikas

Brooklyn Daily - By Thomas Tracy

After an arrest - Midwood still reeling over rash of swastika graffitti,

Man arrested in other AntiJewish hate spray

New York Daily News - January 16 2012 - By Simone Weichselbaum

Swastika reported in Brooklyn park

Metro New York - January 18, 2012 - By Emily Anne Epstein

Woman's Body Found On Far Rockaway Beach

2012-01-14T21:53:00.006-05:00

(Screen Grab: NY 1 News)

Queens

Police are investigating after a body was found on a Queens beach.

Officers were called to the shoreline near Beach 17th Street in Far Rockaway just before 8 a.m. Saturday.

When the officers arrived, they found a woman unconscious and unresponsive.

She was pronounced dead at the scene.

Officials say it appears the woman was in her 40s.

There are no signs of trauma on her body, but the medical examiner will determine the cause of death.

Dead Body Discovered On Queens Beach

By NY1 News - January 14, 2012

A passer-by discovered the body of an unidentified woman believed to be in her 40s in Far Rockaway yesterday, cops said., The grisly find was made at about 7:50 a.m. on Rockaway Beach near the Boardwalk and Beach 17th Street., The woman was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said., Sources said there was no apparent sign of trauma and that it did not appear she had been in the water., The investigation is ongoing, cops said.

NYPD Daily Blotter

New York Post - January 15, 2012 - By Rebecca Harshbarger

Port Morris Gantries Access Could Usher In South Bronx Waterfront Access

2012-01-13T19:56:00.011-05:00

"We have no official public waterfront access along the coast of the South Bronx," said Harry Bubbins, Director of Friends Of Brook Park. "The gantries are an example of the rich nautical history of New York and could become a bridge to future community use."

The historic Port Morris ferry gantries located at 134th Street and the East River in the South Bronx could become the heart of a new waterfront park in the South Bronx. Friends of Brook Park and the Historic District Council are hoping to preserve and transform the ferry gantry site that launched passenger ferries decades ago into a vital new public space. The new park would provide recreation, youth programs, education, preservation and create desperalty needed waterfront access for the South Bronx. (Photo: Alexandra Corazza)

Bronx

Two remarkable but unheralded Bronx sites could be remembered, restored and reborn thanks to recognition from a powerful advocacy group.

The Historic District Council this week recognized the Port Morris Gantries and Van Cortlandt Village as New York neighborhoods in need of preservation, according the New York Daily News.

"Neighborhoods throughout New York are fighting an unseen struggle to determine their own futures," said Simeon Bankoff, HDC executive director.

The soaring gantries arched cranes once used to lift ferry boats in and out of the East River could become the heart of a new waterfront plaza in gritty industrial Port Morris near E. 134th St.

Meanwhile, highlighting the rich history of middle-class housing in Van Cortlandt Village could help local residents beat back what they call inappropriate real estate development.

The sites were two of six recognized by the HDC this week. Last year, no sites honored by the nonprofit were in the Bronx. "To some degree, the Bronx is overlooked, said Bankoff, pledging to put the borough on the map."

Friends of Brook Park, a South Bronx community group, asked HDC to recognize the Port Morris Gantries. The group is working on a proposal for the redevelopment of the abandoned ferry terminal as a waterfront recreation and education center, said Harry Bubbins, executive director.

"We have no official public waterfront access along the coast of the South Bronx," said Bubbins. "The gantries are an example of the rich nautical history of New York and could become a bridge to future community use."

The Historic Districts Council, the city-wide advocate for historic buildings and neighborhoods, included the Port Morris Gantries in its recently announced Six to Celebrate, the group's annual listing of historic New York City neighborhoods that merit preservation attention. "By bringing these locally-driven neighborhood preservation efforts into the spotlight, HDC hopes to focus New Yorker’s attention on the very real threats that historic communities throughout the city are facing from indiscriminate and inappropriate development,” said Simeon Bankoff, HDC’s Executive Director. (Photo: Jake Dobkin)

The Port Morris site was a ferry terminal from 1906 through the 1960s, carrying New Yorkers from the Bronx to Queens, Long Island and North Brother Island.

Used briefly as a police marina, the site is now mostly abandoned, and the gantries are decrepit and rusty. But the property is still owned by the city. Bankoff said HDC plans to help Friends of Brook Park gain access to the site for youth programs and boating.

In Van Cortlandt Village, the Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association has been fighting a handful of land grabs and new housing projects.

The community sits atop the ruins of a Revolutionary War fort and was designed by legendary landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead. It boasts small Tudor revival homes and during the 1920s became a mecca for socialist factory workers fleeing the tenements of the lower East Side to build cooperative housing.

Now that former co-ops such as the Shalom Aleichem Houses have fallen on hard times and the character of the neighborhood is threatened by overdevelopment, HDC will help FIPNA get it listed on the national historic register, said Kristin Hart, president of the community group.

“We want people who live here to know about and celebrate the great history of the neighborhood,” she said.

Friends of Brook Park hope to launch human-powered watercraft and provide recreational and educational youth programs from the Port Morris Gantries site.

New York Daily News - January 13, 2011 - By Daniel Beekman

Port Morris Gantries Preservation

Friends Of Brook Park

Parks Dept. Proposes New Rules For Ball Field Permit System

2012-01-13T16:10:00.004-05:00

City -Wide

During football season, the young players of the Downtown Giantshave three practices each week at three different parks: Chelsea Waterside Park, the Battery Park City Ball Fields and Hudson River Park at Pier 40. Games take place at East River Park on Saturdays.

Confused parents frequently end up at the wrong location, and players complain about the hectic schedule. Adding insult to injury, a solution is visible most nights to Julian Swearengin, the team’s founder, from his apartment, which has a view of East River Park.

“There are many nights when soccer and football fields are empty,” said Mr. Swearengin, who is a former coach of the team, which is for children up to 15. “On the same night, my kids are wedged into a corner on Pier 40. There’s certainly an overall frustration that there’s no consistency with the permits.”

Soon, the system that maddens Mr. Swearengin and many others may be reformed. For the first time since 1999, the city’s parks department has proposed changes to its permit system, raising hopes that the grip many leagues have on coveted ball fields will be loosened, according to an article in the New York Times.

A hearing regarding the rules change is scheduled for Jan. 26 at 11 a.m. at the Chelsea Recreation Center.

Last year, the parks department issued 2,233 permits in 50,808 time slots for ball fields in Manhattan. Under the current system, permits can be renewed in perpetuity if no problems arise. A vast majority of permits granted each year are renewals, the parks department said.

Under the new rules that the agency has proposed, youth leagues applying for new permits would be given priority. The department would also have the right to reduce the hours of field time for adult leagues that dominate a particular park.

In Central Park, the two top permit holders are adult leagues, the United Athletic Association and Manhattan Indoor-Outdoor Sports, which together controlled 634 of 8,484 time slots in 2011, or about 7.5 percent, according to a permit database obtained through a Freedom of Information request. That percentage may go down under the new rules.

The proposals are in part a response to complaints from league administrators at meetings around the city. In the area covered by Community Board 3 in Manhattan, which includes Chinatown and the Lower East Side, around 20 league operators have bemoaned a permit system that they described as obscure and ripe for abuse.

“We are turning away hundreds of kids because we still have the same permits from 10 years ago, when we had half the kids,” said Tony Rivera, the finance director of the 53-year-old Our Lady of Sorrows Little League, whose games are played in East River Park.

“We see adult leagues using more space, and we wonder how they’re increasing and growing and our ability to gain more space is capped.”

Al Morales, the president of the United Athletic Association, said, “The problem is that people have a permit and they hoard it.”

Some leagues hold on to fields even when they do not plan to use them, for fear that alerting the parks department to an available time would lead to losing the slot permanently, he said.

“If people knew that they could return the permit and get it back,” he said, “that would probably cut down on the hoarding.”

Liam Kavanagh, the first deputy commissioner for the parks department, said the proposed changes included improvements in data management to make the process more transparent. But most important, the changes would enshrine in policy the city’s commitment to youth sports, he said.

“The rationale for giving youth leagues priority is that kids, for the most part, are most likely to play sports as part of organized leagues, and that they are less able to travel to other parks or communities and play in the late evenings, unlike adult leagues,” Mr. Kavanagh wrote in an e-mail.

Still, Mr. Morales expressed some concern that the changes could push out longtime permit holders — the other adult league he founded, the Yorkville Sports Association, has organized games for 33 years.

But relative newcomers to the scene are eager for change.

“While we appreciate the field time we have secured, we’ve come to feel that the parks department is not in charge of their own permit process,” said Matthew Penrose, the founder of Group Stage, which organizes casual soccer games for children and adults. “Instead, there are those of us that spend an inordinate amount of time fighting for scraps while others get just about anything they want.”

Applicants new and old complain that they are usually in the dark about who controls a ball field at a given time, and typically have no way of knowing what times will be available next season. Both longtime permit holders and newcomers said making the permit database accessible to the public would cut down on abuse of the system.

Tobi Bergman, a former official of the parks department and now the Community Board 2 parks committee chairman, said that ideally a person passing by an empty field could view the permit database from a smartphone to see who should be using it. “If I go out to a park and no one is there,” Mr. Bergman said, “I should be able to easily find out who is supposed to be there.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 16, 2012

Because of an editing error, an article in some editions on Friday about a proposed overhaul of the parks department permit system for ball fields in New York City misspelled, at one point, the surname of the founder of a children’s football team, the Downtown Giants, that practices in the parks. As the article correctly noted elsewhere, he is Julian Swearengin, not Swearingen.