A Walk in the Park: Carolyn Maloney

Showing posts with label Carolyn Maloney. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Critics Blast NYCHA/Mayor Over UES Playground Land Grab

Rendering of proposed plan. The De Blasio Administration is moving a head with its controversial plan to build a 47-story, 350-unit high-rise building on a playground on the NYCHA Holmes Tower site at E. 92nd Street between 1st and York Avenues. Critics say the deal does little to alleviate NYCHA’s massive $ 17 billion dollar structural deficit including approximately $35 million in capital repairs needed in Holmes Towers alone.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Public housing residents were joined by several elected officials yesterday to protest the De blasio administration’s plan to build a controversial 47-story building on a playground, the city refers to as “underutilized land” on NYCHA’s John Haynes Holmes Towers.

The 350-unit high-rise would rise on E. 92nd Street between 1st Avenue and York Avenue.

Tenants at Holmes Towers have expressed outrage over the proposal, which would cost them light, air, and a 5,100 sq. ft. playground, while providing very little in return they say.

Existing Site. The Holmes Tower building behind numerous trees. (Photos: By Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.

The De blasio administration has reinvigorated a failed Bloomberg-era plan that aims to sell off bits and pieces of NYCHA properly in desirable locations. Holmes Towers is one of 80 sites across the city identified as a “strong neighborhood” for new mixed-use development.

Critics point out that the city does not have a viable overall plan to solve NYCHA's massive structural problems. While succeeding in making communities more dense this development deal does little to alleviate the monumental financial deficit NYCHA faces, estimated at $17 billion in capital needs.

Only half of the $ 25 million in development rights - $12.5 million - from this sale would go directly to Holmes Towers for repairs, not nearly enough to cover the $35 million NYCHA says it needs.

Fifty-percent of the proceeds would go elsewhere.

According to the city though, “residents will have a voice in setting the priorities for capital repairs at the buildings participating in the NextGen Neighborhoods program.”

That voice does not extend however to having a say if the building gets to keep the money needed for those repairs.

The plan would allow for the construction of a 47 story building with 350 apartments, half of which would be designated “affordable,” however the income thresholds for these apartments would be too high for the vast majority of public-housing eligible New Yorkers to afford.

This new building will have 50 percent affordable and 50 percent market-rate housing. These new affordable homes will be permanently affordable and be available to the City’s low-income residents making up to 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) according to the city.

The development will include units affordable to residents earning less than $41,000 for an individual, $52,000 for a family of three, and NYCHA residents will have a preference for 25% percent of the affordable housing units the city says.

Critics have expressed concern that the so-called affordable housing is middle class housing that NYCHA residents cannot afford. They have stressed that while middle class housing is important, there’s an irony in telling NYCHA residents that they have first dibs on housing they earn too little to qualify for.

Residents have also questioned the sense of developing the site without first fixing the existing needed repairs.

NYCHA will retain ownership of the land through a 99 year ground lease in exchange for twenty-five million dollars, a price many think is far below what the site is worth.

“I am deeply disappointed by this development plan, which creates the impression that residents of Holmes are essentially being asked to bear the burden of fixing NYCHA’s financial difficulties because they happen to live in a desirable neighborhood,” said Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).

“Not only does this deal not help residents of Holmes, it will actually hurt them. In one of the city’s most densely populated areas, open green space is critical. Every inch of New York City is valuable and in theory can be sold for a price. Parks and playground are vital to public health and civil society, and it is short-sighted to lease them to developers for a pittance that doesn’t even come close to addressing the financial hole.”

“Funding for NYCHA repairs should not come on the backs of NYCHA residents, especially children who will be losing their light, air, and playground for little in return,” said Council Member Ben Kallos.

“His deal does not create enough affordable housing, and the affordable units being built are too expensive for NYCHA residents to move into,” Kallos said.

Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer making a point at yesterday's press conference.

Critics also complain that NYCHA has been to slow in releasing basic details of the plan, residents and elected officials feel they have been left in the dark.

Seven area elected officials fired off a letter to NYCHA Chairwoman Shola Olatoye that included thirty-one questions regarding the project.

The letter expressed “outrage” by residents of the Holmes Towers questioning how it could justify “losing light, air and their playground and getting very little in return.”

The joint letter was signed by Maloney and City Council member Ben Kallos, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, State Senator Liz Krueger, State Senator Jose Serrano, Assemblyman Robert Rodriguez, and Assemblyman Dan Quart.

The city has boasted of, “unprecedented community engagement” but many of who have attended meetings say their concerns have been ignored. They also complain that the project is skirting ULURP.

The administration has made it clear they are moving forward despite community opposition.

Holmes Towers, named after social justice pioneer John Haynes, is a public housing project for low income residents of the Yorkville section of the Upper East Side. The two public housing buildings, completed in 1969, are 25 stories tall and contain 537 apartments.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to raise money for cash-strapped NYCHA by building luxury apartments on public land failed, his plan to build on the Holmes Tower site were scuttled due to community opposition.

In May the city announced it had chosen Fetner Properties as the developer.

If built the proposed mixed-income development will be the first NextGeneration (NextGen) Neighborhoods site, a NYCHA initiative.

The city also awarded Asphalt Green which also operates on city property, to run a 18,000-square-foot pay-to-play recreational and community center. The proposed center will include a new indoor basketball court and a rooftop turf field that can be used for soccer and other activities.

Memberships at the pricey Upper Eastside company run $254 a month plus one-time $199 initiation fee for two adults and up to two children: $149/month plus one-time $199 initiation fee. Hardly the market for public housing.

The city has indicated that a percentage of free memberships would be available to Holmes residents but details remain vague. According to the city’s press release, all “Holmes Towers residents will be able to access free or low-cost programming for youth, adults and seniors.”

No mention was made however for residents of the adjacent Stanley M Isaacs Houses, the three building NYCHA complex containing 635 apartments.

“When we use precious public land – especially NYCHA’s open space – for new development, it’s our moral obligation to make sure we are getting the best value for the community,” said Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer.

“For this kind of project, I think we should be striving for 100 percent long-term affordable housing.”

Residents complain about the lost of air and light in part due to the close proximity - just 60 feet of separation - between the proposed 47-story building and the existing 25-story Holmes Tower building.

“This building is going to be forty-seven stories these (existing NYCHA) buildings are only 25,” said 40-year-old Holmes Tower resident LaKeesha Taylor, 40, at Tuesday’s press conference.

“It's a tower, towering over those who do not have. Who’s looking down at us. What are you saying that we don’t matter. I don’t understand. Please explain,” she said to loud applause.

Close Quarters. Residents complain about the loss of air and light in part due to the close proximity - just 60 feet of separation - between the existing 25-story Holmes Tower above and the proposed 47-story development.

Joint letter signed by seven area elected officials to NYCHA Chairwoman Shola Olatoye, that included thirty-one questions regarding the project which included thirty-one questions regarding the project.

The letter expressed outrage by residents of the Holmes Towers questioning how it could justify losing light, air and their playground and getting very little in return.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Union Square Park: Mayor de Blasio Called On To Halt Controversial Bar/Restaurant & Return Historic Pavilion For Community Uses

There is nothing progressive about displacing families, children, seniors and eliminating one of the county's most historic free speech sites in a public park. On Sunday community residents and representatives from more than 50 neighborhood associations came together to call on Mayor De Blasio to void the concession agreement and give back the pavilion to the people and do what is right for New York City. (Photos: Courtesy NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge

(from L) US Representative Carolyn Maloney, State Senator Brad Hoylman, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, former Council member Carol Greitzer, NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, NYC Park Advocates president Geoffrey Croft, City Council Member Corey Johnson and civil rights attorney Norman Siegel.

The new administration has an opportunity to set a very important tone concerning its public policy towards parks.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Children, parents, seniors, elected officials, advocates, community residents and representatives from more than 50 neighborhood associations came together on Sunday to call on Mayor de Blasio to cancel the Bloomberg - era contract to build a controversial high-end bar/restaurant in the historic Woman's & Children's Pavilion in Union Square Park.

On Friday seven elected officials sent a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio with the request.

The signatories included US Representative Carolyn Maloney, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, NY State Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, State Senators Liz Krueger and Brad Hoylman, City Council Member Corey Johnson.

For the past decade the community has been fighting to have the historic pavilion in Union Square Park restored to its former uses which include a sheltered, indoor recreation center that served a variety of year-round recreation and free public uses for children, teens, families, seniors, and the greater community at large.

The area around Union Square Park has the lowest amount of playground space but the highest concentration of restaurants in the entire city. In Community District 5 there are only two playgrounds, but more than 150 eating establishments, bars and markets within just a two-block radius of the park.

Despite this history, and the serious need for additional recreational and sheltered community space, since 2004 Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Union Square Partnership, a business improvement district (“BID”), have attempted to seize thousands of square feet of potential recreation and neighborhood space by turning the historic Pavilion into a high-end bar and restaurant despite vehement community opposition. The BID, run by Bloomberg's former deputy press secretary, paid for and pushed though a plan which displaces all of the traditional community uses.

The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation.

Assembly Member Richard Gottfried making a point.

The City's lawyers have repeatedly argued that the contract can be canceled by the administration at no cost to the tax payers.

“The Mayor has the legal right to cancel this contract for any reason,” said Assembly Member Richard Gottfried.

“As the concession agreement provides and the City’s Law Department vigorously argued to the New York State Court of Appeals, the license is freely terminable “at will” at any time.

We have any number of restaurants, but we have only one park pavilion, and we want it back. Fortunately, we have a new mayor who has the power, and we hope, the will, to give it back to us. We know he has the power to give it back to us, because when the city was in court, they argued that there's nothing to worry about, because the city can breach the contract and give the pavilion back at will, at any time. Well, that's right, and we want to give it back now. That's the law, that's our right, and that's what this community needs."

“For years this community has made it plain that it would be unconscionable to turn a part of Union Square Park, which has historically been a center of activism, recreation and other park uses, into just another high-end restaurant," said Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney.

"It blows my mind that the previous administration would consider confiscating precious park space to develop another fancy eatery and watering hole. I strongly urge Mayor de Blasio to cancel the arrangement.

I join my colleagues in the neighborhood by saying that this is one of the dumbest ideas that I have seen, to take parkland and turn it into a restaurant," the Congresswoman continued.

"We need to stop this, we need to stop it now. And fortunately we have a new mayor who can turn this around. We are a community that is absolutely starved for open space and parkland...Every inch is valuable to the families and the children, and we need every square inch of this park to stay a park. We have lovely restaurants all around here, and we shouldn't have to give a large chunk of this park for a high end restaurant...We can think of hardly anything that is less suited for this park than a high end restaurant," she said.

“It's beyond ironic that the Union Square pavilion where Emma Goldman and Dorothy Day made history practicing their brand of free speech could instead become home to free-range pork," said Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer.

"This neighborhood already has an enormous choice of restaurants – and a shortage of park space. To put a restaurant here, in this designated National Historic Landmark, puts a price tag on the public’s enjoyment of what should remain a public space.

This is a community of restaurants, and all you have to do is walk around to see them all, and there's very little park space. There are millions of people in this park every single day...We need every single opportunity for public space. This is really a unique, fabulous pavilion, and we want it available to the public, and that's why I'm here. I'm for restaurants in parks, but not this one," she said.

“There is nothing progressive about displacing families, children, seniors and eliminating one of the county's most historic free speech sites in a public park, said Geoffrey Croft of NYC Park Advocates and a board member of The Union Square Community Coalition both plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"The new administration has an opportunity to set a very important tone concerning its public policy towards parks. We are requesting that the Mayor void the concession agreement and give back the pavilion to the people and do what is right for New York City. The BID has been allowed to dictate public land use policy aided by an eight million dollar anonymous donation. This is terrible public policy.”

Geoffrey Croft holding up a photograph and rendering of competing uses for the pavilion — mommy and me yoga and the proposed high-end bar/restaurant.

The community is demanding that the Parks Department allow for community input in a fair and open process that gives organizations and the public the opportunity to submit proposals to be re-established to its original intent as public space.

"This shouldn't be a tale of ‘two pavilions,’ said former City Councilmember Carol Greitzer who represented the area for 21 years.

"The Columbus Park pavilion serves the recreational needs of all age groups while this one, although designated the Children's Playroom nearly 150 years ago, has been allowed to deteriorate by the Parks Department. A restaurant would displace families, children, seniors, and eliminate one of the county's most historic free speech sites."

Manhattan's only remaining historic park pavilion in Columbus Park was handsomely restored recently and given back to the public for community activities and is a valued neighborhood resource.

"The public space of Union Square is a civic treasure -- a place with a rich history of speeches, protests, and social movements, and a rare open space in one of the city's densest hives of activity, State Senator Liz Krueger stated. "

We must not sacrifice this hallowed ground for another restaurant in a neighborhood full of restaurants."

New York State Senator Brad Hoylman and daughter Sylvia.

New York State Senator Brad Hoylman called on the City to cancel the restaurant contract and restore the pavilion as part of a unified and non-commercial public space.

"With dozens places to eat within blocks of Union Square, it's wrong and shortsighted to place yet another dining establishment in the park's pavilion," Senator Hoylman said holding his daughter Sylvia.

"I'm here as a State Senator, but also as a dad, and a user of the park along with my daughter, Sylvia. She's been pulling at my hair throughout this entire press, conference, saying 'I want to go play, I want to go play, ' and that's, the principle that's really at stake here. It's the public trust, doctrine. It dates back to Roman times, when natural resources were for the public, and whether that was rivers, or waterways, or public parks, we as a public deserve those public spaces. And that's really why we're all here. That's why we're asking Mayor de Blasio to put an end to this farce, and make certain that the pavilion is returned to the people, to make certain that the pavilion is returned to users like Sylvia."

NY State Assembly Member Deborah Glick, a passionate protector of parkland added, “I have long held that public space should not be given over to private development. The community needs is more parkland, not another wildly expensive restaurant. I join with the local community and elected officials, to ask Mayor de Blasio, to cancel the contract and ensure New Yorkers get the open space they deserve.”

‎"Union Square is one of our city's most important public spaces. Its very name echoes the historic role it has played in New York City's history,” said Councilmember Corey Johnson.

“The private takeover of public spaces is unacceptable. We need to create more public green space, not give away what is already rightfully ours," he said.

Critics also charge that the proposed new seasonal restaurant and its outdoor seating area will also dramatically alter the Parks' historic first amendment and free speech role by prohibiting these uses in the pavilion and in the North end of the park year-round. Union Square was designated as a National Historic Landmark in large part because of these important uses which began in 1882 in the park' s first pavilion.

"We call upon Mayor DeBlasio to cancel the contract to create a high-end restaurant in Union Square Park and return the historic Pavilion for community uses," said Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel.

"In this controversy, a "progressive" mayor should place the community's needs, wishes and rights over the establishment of and the development of business profits.

“So, Mayor de Blasio, this is a test for you, ” Siegel exclaimed, “to see whether your actions will meet your rhetoric.”

Council Member Mark Levine said he also opposes the use of Union Square Park Pavilion for bar/restaurant and called for the preservation of this historic open space for the community and a safe playground for children.

"In a neighborhood already densely populated with restaurants and bars and lacking in public parks, it is essential to preserve Union Square as an open space pavilion," Council Member Levine, the newly appointed Chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation Committee said in a statement.

"For over a hundred years, Union Square has been the central ground for community activism and engagement. I stand with the community in their calls to rescind the contract put forth by the former administration and the Union Square Partnership - BID. We need to prioritize the needs of this community for recreational and gathering space over the interests of private development and ensure that this historic location continues to be the focal point for special events and programming that will benefit residents of all ages regardless to their income level."

The day brought out representatives from numerous neighborhood and community groups including, Union Square Park Community Coalition, The Council of Chelsea Block Associations, Tilden Democratic Club, and several plaintiffs fresh off their victory in NYU park land alienation case.

U.F.T. co-founder George Altomare recalled using the Union Square pavilion as a free-speech platform in the 1960s and ’70s.

Sign of the Times. U.F.T. co-founder George Altomare calling out the Union Square Partnership BID. He recalled using the Union Square pavilion as a free-speech platform in the 1960s and ’70s. Mr. Altomare, along with Eadie Shanker and Carol Greitzer were among the first group of people who helped raise awareness of the BID/Bloomberg pavilion privatizing scheme in the park beginning in 2004. (Photo: Sam Spokony/The Villager)

For more than 130 years, the historic Pavilion in Union Square Park has served many vital functions to all New Yorkers - a covered playspace for children and mothers, a bandstand, a reviewing stand, a speakers’ rostrum, and as a focal point for countless labor rallies and social protests. Recently the pavilion has also been used for wonderful new uses like free arts and film programs as well as for dance classes.

In 2004, Save Union Square Park, a grass roots, community - based campaign was organized by NYC Park Advocates to advocate for the needs of the community. With the help and support of 57 community organizations, elected officials and a broad-based labor coalition, the campaign succeeded in defeating an irresponsible plan to create a year-round restaurant and greatly increased the amount of playground space, much of it recaptured from play areas lost to the previous seasonal cafe.

In March 2012 the city quietly approved a fifteen-year deal with Chef Driven Market, LLC. – the owner of a number of high-end restaurants – to build a restaurant at the expense of the children and the community.

Plaintiffs including the Union Square Park Community Coalition sued claiming the City violated the Public Trust Doctrine which says that municipal park land can not be used for non-park purposes without the consent of the State Legislature.

Comments made by the City's lawyer in January before the New York Court of Appeals were shocking and park and open space advocates hope they are not indicative of the new administration.

The City argued that there is virtually no limit to the amount of space a restaurant can occupy in a public park, or a price they can charge too high even if the vast majority of people would be prohibited from affording it - a restaurant would qualify as a "park purpose" under the law.

In fact, the city argued the only scenario where a resturant might not be a park purpose would be if it took up to “98 percent” of a park. Under this scenario, the public would have no say in private businesses swallowing 826 acres of Central Park. The city argued the parks commissioner has unlimited power in making such decisions, once again completely eliminating the checks and balances system required by the Public Trust Doctrine.

Last month the Court of Appeals ruled that the restaurant could go forward.

Sign of the Times. New Yorkers for Parks, a partner organization of the Parks Department filed an Amicus Brief, written by a board member, supporting the irresponsible restaurant plan. In what is clearly a conflict of interest the group has repeatedly failed to disclose to the media that restaurateur Danny Meyer was the co-chair of the Business Improvement District (BID) which created and paid for the Union Sq. restaurant plan while simultaneously serving on NY4Parks Board. He also made at least a $ 25,000 donation to the group.

In several instances NY4Parks has actively worked against communities trying to protect parks and have provided cover for bad park policy issues.

The public is encouraged to contact the Mayor and the Speaker.

Contacts:

Mayor Bill de Blasio

City Hall

New York, NY 10007

Email: http://www.nyc.gov/html/static/pages/officeofthemayor/contact.shtml

City Council Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito

City Hall - New York, NY 10007

(212) 788-6960

mviverito@council.nyc.gov

The Villager - March 13, 2014 - Sam Spokony

Protesters of fancy restaurant in Union Square Park call on Mayor de Blasio to halt project

New York Daily News - March 9, 2014 - BY Erin Brodwin

De Blasio to Review Restaurant Plan at Union Square

Epoch Times - March 9, 2014 - By Ivan Pentchoukov

Park Advocates Urge Mayor to Block Union Square Restaurant

DNAinfo - March 9, 2014 - By Dana Varinsky

Community Reps Plead With De Blasio To Block High-End Union Square Bar

WCBS - March 9, 2014

1010 WINS

Plan Offers No Picnic for Union Square Park

New York Times - February 26, 2014 - By Michael Powell

Only Bill De Blasio Can Save Union Square Pavilion From Brunchers

NYU Local - February 25th, 2014 - By Kevin Beerman

New York Court of Appeals To Hear Controversial Union Sq. Park Restaurant Case

A Walk In The Park - January 13, 2014 - By Geoffrey Croft

Judge Stops Union Square Restaurant Plan

A Walk In The Park - January 9, 2013

Bloomberg Unveils Redesign Plan for Union Square Park

NY Sun - October 26, 2004 - By Dina Temple-Raston

Monday, October 17, 2011

Related Companies Finally Agrees To Sit Down Over Ruppert Playground

Children peer though the locked gates of Ruppert Playground on Sunday. The Related Company locked the popular playground on September 12th. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on image to enlarge.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Council Speaker Christine Quinn delivered some good news yesterday to Upper East Side residents who have been locked out of a popular playground for more than a month. The Speaker announced that the mega-developer The Related Companies had finally agreed to sit down to discuss options that would preserve Ruppert Playground, a popular park located between E. 92nd/93rd St. btw. 2nd/3rd Avenues.

Opened in 1978 through a federal grant, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) sold the playground to The Related Companies in 1983 in a behind-closed-door deal against the community's wishes. The deal was orchestrated by a former HPD official who later went to work for Related.

On Sunday children, parents, seniors, and community members gathered for a press conference and rally

to demand that The Related Companies open the locked park gates, come to the negotiating table and abandon plans to erect a 49 story building in a community that ranks dead last in the amount of parks and open space in the entire city! Participants demand that the City negotiate a deal to acquire the land back.

"Although Related Companies has locked these gates and shut us out of this park, they will not be able to shut us down, this has only made us stronger and more resolved to win this fight and boy are they in for a tough fight against a strong community," Oscar Fernandez, Campaign To Save Ruppert Playground organizer said to thunderous applause.

"This community has been taken advantage of for far too long. We will no longer stand idly by while greed tries to destroy our community, much less take away Ruppert Playground. City Hall must right a wrong that was done to this community when this park was sold to the Related Companies over 25 years ago."

A host of elected officials, including Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn,

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer,

Council Members Daniel Garodnick and Jessica Lappin, New York State Senator Jose Serrano and State

Assembly member Dan Quart, attended the event.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn rallied with residents and other elected officials on Sunday, Oct. 16, to save Ruppert Playground. They are hoping to work something out with the Related Companies, which plans to build a 49-story tower on the site. (Twitter/ChrisCQuinn via DNAinfo)

"This neighborhood is one of the parts of the city with the least open space anywhere in the five boroughs but it's a neighborhood with one of the largest residential communities anywhere in the city. Those two facts together just don't work," said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

The speaker said The Related Companies just yesterday finally agreed to sit down with the Council, Bloomberg administration officials, park and community representatives and "start the dialogue of what we can do to save this park for Manhattan as a whole and for this neighborhood," she said to loud applause.

She noted that a lot bigger things have been worked out than saving a park when people were at the table talking.

"I am very confident that we will prevail now that we will be in the room together.

I look forward to coming back and reporting success out of those negotiations."

The Speaker also thanked the community for being vigilant in bringing this important issue to the attention of the elected officials.

Neighborhood children pose with some of the more than 1200 correspondences collected over a few hours during a recent letter writing night.

"We are united today with a simple message," said Congresswoman and long time area resident Carolyn Maloney.

"Related must come to the table and negotiate with the city, with the community and with the elected officials to reach a compromise that will save greenspace and save Ruppert Playground. The kids have the best message, they're trying to get into their playground, they said '"don't build here we want to play here,"' and we want to help them achieve that. It used to be a park and it was sold, they never should have done that."

"These are uphill struggles but the magic formula is how communities come together from one tip of Manhattan to the bottom throughout our city to make sure that we create open space in a city that is expecting one million new residents to be here in the next twenty years, " said Manhattan

Borough President Scott Stringer.

"We simply can't accommodate everybody and give people the quality-of-life they need and hope for unless we get to the table."

Mr. Stringer said he has been in touch with Related and believed a compromise could be reached that met the company's needs but, "also meets the needs of the community."

"I represent the forth council district,"

said

Council Member Daniel Garodnick. "

he forth council district ranks fifty-first out of fifty one council districts in the City of New York in terms of its open public space. And when we have some we are not going to let it go that easily."

"It's a beautiful day out here today," he continued. "The kids of this neighborhood should be standing inside enjoying themselves as opposed to being out here complaining, protesting the loss of a neighborhood park. It is a shame."

Mr. Garodnick, like Speaker Quinn, pointed out the increased need for park and open space since the original deal was made.

"We need to fight to make sure that this park is re-opened. Our message to Related today is come to the table, act in good faith, work with us, find alternatives, we will work with you."

"If you look around us you'll see in this neighborhood skyscrapers are a dime a dozen, but a park like this, this is rare, this is a jewel, it is a treasure for this community and we are going to save it,"

Council Member

Jessica Lappin

said emphatically.

"I have no doubt that when you bring people together with a common goal which is a common good we are going to get there."

New York State Senator member Jose Serrano spoke of the important need

to invest in parks and open spaces and provide recreational opportunities to help prevent the rise of childhood obesity, diabetes, and hyper-tension.

"Without viable open space where are our kids going to go," Mr. Jose Serrano asked. "Where are they going to burn of all those calories. When you think about what is the antidote for all those horrible preventable diseases I mentioned, this playground is that antidote. And the City will spend far more money caring for unfortunately a sicker population over time if we do not provide the recreational outlets, the positive outlets for this community.

We are short-changing our youth today. We have to save this park."

Newly elected State Assembly member Dan Quart has personal experiences with the park.

"From a personal standpoint living a block away, having lived in this community for twenty-three years, having played with my nephew, playing basketball in this park-having taken my four-year-old son to this park... I know personally how important it is to the future, to the people of the East-Nineties," he said.

Mr. Quart noted that a few weeks earlier the community collected more than twelve hundred letters and less than twenty days later

Related agreed to come to the table.

"Those two facts are intertwined, " he said.

"We must keep the pressure up.... It's so important that Related knows that when they're in City Hall negotiating with the political leadership behind me that there is an active community willing to fight and I know we will."

The event ended with a rousing "Save Our Park, Save our Community" rallying cry.

The community began raising awareness two years ago when it discovered the agreement between Related and the city that required the developer to keep the playground open for twenty-five years had expired.

BACKGROUND: For more than 30 years the park has played a vital role in the lives of countless people. In 1983 the City sold the land to The Related Company in a behind-close doordeal against the community's wishes. The deal was orchestrated by a former HPD official who went to work for Related. On June 30th, 2008, the 1983 Land Disposition Agreement between the Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) and Carnegie Park Associates (The Related Companies) expired. The end of this agreement allowed Related Companies to develop the park.

The original 1968 Ruppert Urban Renewal Project Plan and subsequent revisions recognized the severe lack of park and open space which said contributed to "unsatisfactory living conditions" in the neighborhood. It also noted that "inadequate recreational and community facilities” were contributing to the “unsatisfactory living conditions to the immediate area and in general neighborhood." The plan was deeply flawed however as it fell significantly short in adequately addressing the community’s needs. Since the original Renewal Plan was created the need for parks and open space in the community has only grown worse. Density has increased dramatically as numerous high-rise buildings have been built in the immediate area. The Plan did not adequately factor in future development in the area nor its impacts.

The Related Company is one of the country's most successful and politically connected developers. They are very friendly with the Bloomberg administration and are involved with many projects that involve the City. One possibility is for the City to swap another piece of land in exchange for the Ruppert Playground property. This is done all the time.