$ 170 Mil. Secret Pier 55 Deal: Barry Diller To Create Park & Entertainment Complex

The Hudson River Park Trust finally found a solution for the crumbling Pier 54 delema - get a billionaire to foot the bill and exclude the public from having any say.  The proposed 
$ 170 million dollar Pier 55 project will be built between the soon-to-be-demolished Pier 54 and the already demolished Pier 56 between 13/14th Street in the West Village.  (Renderings: Heatherwick Studio) 

The Barry Diller-Diane von Furstenberg Family Foundation will contribute $ 130 million dollars to design and build the off-shore pier then lease it from the park trust for 20 years.   The city and state are contributing $39 million for construction.  The nonprofit Pier55 Inc. will run the pier’s programming and fund day-to-day operations. 

The unique space will feature lush lawns, gardens and several performance spaces. 

See how a confused Madelyn Wills, president and CEO of the Hudson River Park Trust attempts to get around a reporter's question regarding whether the deal was done behind closed doors and misrepresents that it was discussed with many in the community including elected officials and contradicts herself all in a matter of seconds.

"The funding of this, although discussed with many in the community and many electeds was obviously a funding agreement is done not in the public….   

"The Trust also said they kept and elected officials and community leaders apprized during the process," WCBS's Dick Brennan reported.

Area representative State Assemblymember Deborah Glick's has a differant view on this subject according to the NY Times.

Elected officials weren't the only ones left in the dark.

Several members of the Trust's own Advisory Council have expressed not knowing as well.

The Hudson River Park Trust continues to push the Bloomberg public/private partnership agenda to abdicate its responsibility for caring for its public spaces.  They approached billionaire Barry Diller more than two years ago and have been negotiating behind closed-doors since. 

“Somebody’s got to pay for it. We don’t have the money,” Diana L. Taylor, the chairwoman of the Trust told the NY Times.  

That statement is true because people like her partner former Michael Bloomberg and other elected officials simply refuse to allocate the necessary funds. Over the years several media outlets have erroneously reported that Hudson River Park is supposed to be self-sustaining.  

Ms. Taylor famously told a group of public school parent representatives hoping to include a school during a meeting regarding the stalled redevelopment of Pier 40,  "I don't give a shit I don't live around here."   

The deal was supposed  be announced today by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Mr. Diller.  

 - Geoffrey Croft

Manhattan

The Hudson River is about to get a spectacular new floating park, thanks to media mogul Barry Diller and his wife, celebrity fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg, according to the New Yor Daily News. 

The couple has partnered with the Hudson River Park Trust to build a $130 million pier and performance space to replace the unused and decaying Pier 54 at W. 13th St., Diller told the Daily News. 

 "There is no performance center in New York with these kinds of aspirations," said Diller, who heads media conglomerate IAC. 

The plan calls for a square pier the size of two football fields to rise on stilts between the existing, but decrepit, Pier 54 and the remains of Pier 56. Both piers’ pilings will remain as a habitat for fish.  

The new pier, to be known as Pier 55, will feature undulating gardens, lush lawns and pathways and a 700-seat waterfront amphitheater.


The platform would sit atop 300 mushroom-shaped concrete columns that are to range in height from 70 feet above the water to 15 feet above.

It was designed by Heatherwick Studio, the same company behind the flaming cauldron at the 2012 London Olympic Games.  

"New York has always reminded me of Venice, so I am happy the time has come to properly honor its waterways," von Furstenberg said.  The Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation will design, build and maintain the pier — then lease it from the park trust for 20 years. 

Oscar-winning movie producer Scott Rudin, theater director Stephen Daldry, and playwright George Wolfe are all on board to select acts to perform on the pier.  The city and state are contributing $35 million for construction, but most of the financial burden will fall on the famous couple.

“We are so lucky as a family that we get to do this,” Diller said. 

 One park watchdog was more critical, saying such a project should have local input. 

 “Diller is obviously being extremely generous, but private citizens are being able to dictate public spaces,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of NYC Park Advocates.

 “The public has been completely left out.”  But the Hudson River Park Trust defends the partnership.

"This is not privatization," said Madelyn Wils, president and CEO of the trust.

 "They're going to be operating in a public park so the park has to remain open and accessible."  

The lease still must be approved by the trust’s board, and will undergo a 60-day public review. Plans will be presented to Community Board 2 next month. 

For Croft, it’s too little, too late. 

“It’s already a foregone conclusion,” he said. 

If approved, work will begin next year with a scheduled completion date of late 2018 or early 2019.

Barry Diller, chair and Scott Rudin, vice chair of nonprofit Pier55 Inc. will run the pier’s programming and fund day-to-day operations under a 20-year lease with the Hudson River Park Trust.

The crumbling Pier 54, which juts 875 feet into the Hudson River will be demolished and replaced by a 2.4 acre off-shore park and performance spaces.    (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge

The Hudson River Park Trust has rented out the former Cunard-White Star pier for events including concerts and the annual Gay Pride dance each June.  In 1998 it became part of Hudson River Park.   

The rusting Cunard & White Star arch at the foot of Pier 54 will be restored under the plan and will provide one of two access points to the park which will be 186 feet off-shore. 

Read More:

Questions Raised Over Plans For New Hudson River Park

WCBS - November 17, 2014 - By Dick Brennan

Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg propose $130 million park pier in Hudson River

New 'Pier 55' would offer two football fields worth of greenspace. Critics see 'privatization.' 

New York Daily News -  November 17, 2014 - By Katherine Clarke  

With Bold Park Plan, Mogul Hopes to Leave Mark on New York’s West Side

New York Times - November 17, 2014 - By Charles V Bagli AGLI and Robin Pogrebin 

Pier 55 gets $130M bid to create an ‘island oasis’

New York Post - By Steve Cuozzo  November 17,  2014 

Electeds Say Deal To Transfer Unused Development Rights To Pay For Pier 40 Repairs Is News To Them

Pier 40, part of Hudson River Park,  is deteriorating and the government has refused to pay for the repairs which has created a mess.  (Photos:  Richard Perry/The New York Times

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Assemblymember Deborah Glick sent out a press release this afternoon titled, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON PIER 40 AND THE HUDSON RIVER PARK after the NY Times revealed that the Cuomo administration and park officials struck a tentative agreement with a developer to transfer unused development rights from Pier 40 to the St. John’s Terminal Building across the West Side Highway in return for more than $100 million that would be used to rehabilitate the deteriorating pier.    

The press release stated that the local elected officials were united in opposing a General Project Plan (GPP) that would silence the community's voice.  Six officials -  Congressman Jerry Nadler, Assemblymember Deborah Glick, State Senator Brad Hoylman, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, and Councilmember Corey Johnson wrote to both Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio on May 1st, spelling out their strong opposition.

"A GPP would completely usurp local zoning and local input from the community and is in no way condoned by the Hudson River Park Act," the release states. 

"It is the same land use procedure that brought the Barclays Center to the Atlantic Yards, despite widespread disapproval from that community." 

The release also included a letter (below) elected officials sent more than two weeks ago outlining their unified opposition to any such plan. 

"There was no response from the Cuomo Administration to this letter. Apparently, they felt a NY Times article would suffice in alerting the community and their elected representatives to what they should expect.  Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is an important process, by which all voices are heard, and is the hallmark of democracy." 

A deal to develop the St. John’s Terminal Building, left, could fund the repairs at Pier 40. 

May 1, 2014 Governor Andrew Cuomo NYS State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224 Mayor Bill de Blasio City Hall New York, NY 10007 Dear Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo, As elected officials who represent Manhattan's West Village neighborhood, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility that the State and the City are working towards the adoption of a General Project Plan (GPP) to transfer air rights from Pier 40 in the Hudson River Park to the St. John's Building at 550 Washington Street. Such an action would enable air rights from the park/commercial pier to be transferred to a property across the West Side Highway without going through New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). This would demonstrate a blatant disregard for our community, and deny the local community board and local elected officials a real voice on what will no doubt be a controversial proposal.  The idea of a GPP has been a non-starter from the moment it was first introduced to local elected officials as a possibility in the fall of 2013. We are all strong advocates of increased funding for Hudson River Park. However, the state legislation that was enacted in 2013 and codifies the Hudson River Park Trust's ability to generate revenue through the transfer of air rights was predicated on the premise that local zoning laws would dictate the process. This was to ensure that resources would be made available to the Park but not at the expense of local input. A GPP would be in direct violation of this principle and would rightfully enrage the community, which would be effectively left powerless through this process. Any lip service paid to the needs of the community would only be that, as the local officials who have a formal role in the ULURP process, the City Council Member and Borough President, will have no binding authority when it comes to negotiating any agreement, or voting on whether to approve the proposal. Furthermore, if a GPP is being considered, it is difficult to understand why. This action would obviously create enormous benefit for the developers of the transfer site, and would provide the Park with a quick infusion of capital, but it is highly unlikely that the value of the air rights would decrease during the time needed for a transfer mechanism to be established and a proper ULURP process to take place. In fact, there is a great chance that time will only increase the value of these air rights leading to even more money for the Hudson River Park. Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is that sometimes messy process, in which all voices are heard, that is the hallmark of democracy. And most importantly, it ensures that government takes actions that accurately reflect the wants and needs of its citizens. If a GPP moves forward, we will actively oppose it.  The public process must unfold in the way that it is designed to, and failure to do so is extremely bad precedent.  Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to discussing this issue further.

Read More:

Possible Deal May Bring Money to Repair Pier 40 in Manhattan

New York Times - May 15,  2014 - By Charles V. Bagli

Where's Government Money As Bloomberg’s Girlfriend Helps Raise $2.5M for Hudson River Park

A Walk In The Park -  October 6, 2013 

Future Of Two Hudson River Park Proposals Forum Draws A Crowd

A Walk In The Park  - March 8,  2013

Friends of Hudson River Park's Improvement District Funding Scheme Rears Its Ugly Head Again

A Walk In The Park  - June 28,  2012 

Facing Deficits Hudson River Park Trust Looking For State Legislation

To Loosen Development Restrictions-Major League Soccer Hoping To Come To Pier 40

A Walk In The Park  - April 5,  2012 

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

A Walk In The Park  -  January 28,  2012 

NYU/City In Court Over Attempted Illegal Parkland Swipe

Judge Grants Expedited Discovery Against NYU and City In Attempted Park Land Grab Case


NYU 2031 Massive Two Million Square Foot $ 6 Billion Expansion Project.  The plaintiff's lawsuit contends that the Bloomberg administration gave NYU rights over public parkland, in violation of state law, which requires, under the Public Trust Doctrine, that parkland cannot be given away without the approval of the State Legislature.

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

A Manhattan State Supreme Court judge this afternoon granted an expedited discovery motion request in favor of plaintiffs suing NYU and City in an attempted park land grab case which has erupted in the West Village.

At issue is whether or not NYU can proceed in building its massive two million square foot expansion project without first getting State Alienation approval to remove 4 parks - some of which have been used for more than three decades - in order to build its enormous NYU 2031 project.   

The suit contends that the Bloomberg administration gave NYU rights over public parkland, in violation of state law, which requires, under the Public Trust Doctrine, that parkland cannot be given away without the approval of the State Legislature.

The City and NYU are attempting to argue that because the four parks in question were never officially, "mapped" they are in fact not legal parkland and as a result they do not require State Alienation approval.

Former NYC Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro presented the plaintiff's argument before the Honorable Donna Mills at 111 centre street this afternoon. 

Mr. Mastro argued that the parkland had been used for decades and the absence of official mapping does not afford the parks any less legal rights for protection under state law. 

"You can't take that precious parkland away without prior State approval under state law,"  he said.

He said they needed this discovery based on "misrepresentations by the City and NYU."

More than a 100 people attended today's hearing - many of which wore stickers distributed by Andrew Berman, Executive Director of Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

The City, represented by Christopher Reo stated that because the four parks were never de-mapped from the Department of Transportation they were not parks in the legal sense no matter how long they have been used as parkland.

This is position that is not consistent with other park and open space policies stated by the Bloomberg administration.   

In September lawyers filed suit in Manhattan State Supreme Court on behalf of 11 Greenwich Village groups trying to stop NYU's city-approved expansion.     

On Friday plaintiffs filed a blistering affidavit from former NYC Parks Commissioner Henry Stern which called out NYU's and the Bloomberg Administration's contention that four parcels of parkland are not actually City parks.  

The four parks involved with the proposed NYU expansion-Mercer Playground, LaGuardia Park, LaGuardia Corner Gardens,  and Mercer-Houston Dog Run range from 13 to more than 32 years of continuous public use.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick also wrote an affidavit supporting the contention that the City’s approval of the NYU expansion plan amounted to an illegal giveaway of public parkland and that any move to turn City parkland over to a private entity, like NYU, must have the approval of the State legislature under the Public Trust Doctrine.


Actor Matthew Broderick speaks with reporters after the hearing.

Actor Matthew Broderick was among more than 100 people who attended today's hearing many of which wore stickers saying, PLEASE SAVE OUR PARKS. 

"This issue is personal. I live in the village, I use the parks," Broderick, a life-long Greenwich Village resident said after the hearing. 

"It's not just my children.  I grew up on Washington Square and NYU is taking up more and more."

Matthew Broderick testified at the NYU expansion hearings at City Hall on June 29, 2012.  

"Parks they make the city livable, It's hard enough. There's only one Greenwich Village, its great if any parkland is preserved."

Broderick was accompanied by fellow Village native and parent Kenneth Lonergan, a noted playwright and screenwriter, and New York University alumni.

"The university doesn't own Greenwich Village, and the part they do own they're destroying. And it's not for the students, it's for money," Lonergan said.  

Both Broderick and Lonergan noted the dearth of available parkland in the community. 

The case contests the City Planning Commission's and the City Council's decision to approve a massive building plan by NYU, which would radically impact the area-  turning the heart of Greenwich Village into a jam-packed construction site for over 20 years, The plan would also permanently destroy two of the four parks. 

Various groups, including NYU Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (NYUFASP), the Historic Districts Council, and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, filed suit because the approved construction plan, among many other illegalities, gave NYU rights over public parkland.

At the end of the hour hearing Alan Levine argued strenuously on behalf of NYU to no avail.

Judge Mills signed an order show cause granting the plaintiffs permission to argue for discovery before the April 29th hearing.

“We are deeply gratified by the judge’s ruling today," said Andrew Berman Executive Director Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

"It’s only one small step, but an important one towards ensuring that New Yorker’s parks, light and air, and control over the fate of their communities are preserved, and not simply sold off to the highest or most politically well-connected bidder.”   

Besides Mr. Mastro plaintiffs are also represented by Jim Walden, both partners of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Read More:

Actor Matthew Broderick joins Greenwich Village neighbors

in protesting New York University expansion plans

New York Daily News - February 26, 2013 - By Barbara Ross 

NYU gotta be kidding! Matthew Broderick rips $6B expansion

New York Post -  By Julia March February 27, 2013

Professors And Villagers Take NYU To Court, Matthew Broderick Shows Up To Watch

NYU Local - By Zoë Schlanger  February 26, 2013 

Matthew Broderick Joins NYU Expansion Opponents in Court

DNAinfo - February 26, 2013 - By Andrea Swalec

Fight Against Housing In Hudson River Park Heats Up

“The park act says, ‘The state and the city will put money into the park as necessary.’ Clearly, it’s necessary.” - Riverkeeper

Packed House - St. Paul’s Chapel - May 31, 2012. Over two hundred people came out to the meeting. Legislation is being proposed which would change the Hudson River Park Act to allow development options to raise revenue for the park. Housing and a hotel are being proposed. Proponents of the change have represented that the park was required to be self-sustaining according to the original law that established the park. This is inaccurate. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) click on images to enlarge.

Despite the fact that the park has generated billions of dollars in revunue for the city and state, they refuse to allocate the proper resources to maintain the park.

Organizers allowed people who serve on the advisory board to testify before the general public. Many people who had waited hours were turned away.

Park advocates have fought years to keep housing out of Brooklyn Bridge Park.

- Geoffey Croft

Manhattan

More than 250 people packed St. Paul’s Chapel near City Hall last Thursday to hear Hudson River Park Trust President Madelyn Wils present a recent study’s finding that market-rate residential housing on Pier 40 could offer the best hope for saving both the cash-starved park and the crumbling pier within it. Housing would raise the most revenue for the park while offering the least traffic impact, according to the study, according to The Villager.

However, to allow residential use, the Hudson River Park Act would need to be modified by the state Legislature, whose current session ends soon, on June 21.

At the meeting’s outset, Arthur Schwartz, head of the task force that has been studying how to improve the park’s finances, explained the pessimistic picture. The park is only 70 percent finished, and needs more than $200 million to complete the job — not counting Pier 40, at W. Houston St., which is expected to be redeveloped by a private group that would pay rent to the park, and Pier 57, at W. 17th St., which also will be redeveloped privately, but doesn’t have Pier 40’s revenue-generating potential, since it’s smaller.

“The park’s capital needs are outstripping the park’s revenues,” Schwartz said, “the biggest problem being at Pier 40, where $9 million is going into repairs this year just to keep the roof from collapsing. It’s in a general climate where government funding for parks has fallen off.”

State Assemblymember Deborah Glick, who has been a vocal opponent of altering the Hudson River Park Act, was the first person from the audience to speak. She stressed that it was never the park act’s intention for the Trust to have to finance the park’s construction.

Hudson River Park is intended to be financially self-sustaining, at least in terms of its operations and maintenance. The current parking at Pier 40 has been the park’s main economic engine. Meanwhile, the 14.5-acre pier is also home to a sprawling courtyard ball field heavily used by youth sports leagues, plus teams from Stuyvesant High School and other schools.

Over the next 10 years, the park is expected to bring in $200 million in revenue but have expenses of $280 million — a deficit of at least $80 million. Pier 40 needs about $100 million in repairs.

Opponents of the proposed Spectra pipeline at Gansevoort Peninsula also made their presence known, though the meeting wasn’t about that issue. As Wils began to speak, a banner reading “Keep Your Fracking Pipeline” was unfurled from the chapel’s upstairs gallery.

Wils said the park faces unique problems. For example, marine borers have been chewing the piles at Pier 54, at W. 13th St., forcing the Trust to close off most of its main event pier.

“Times have changed,” Wils said. “We now have these marine borers that eat the wood because the river is cleaner. Hudson River Park is the first park to be built in the river.”

Pier 40 has metal pilings, many of which are badly corroded and need to be encapsulated in concrete.

Like others who spoke at the meeting, Wils said a proposed “park improvement district” extending a few blocks inland that would raise revenue for Hudson River Park is warranted, given the 5-mile-long park’s impact on property values.

“The park has brought people over to the West Side,” she said. “All that development of property down the West Side is now the ‘Gold Coast’ — 94 new buildings, it’s quite extraordinary.”

A PowerPoint presentation of the study’s scenarios was given — including some massing studies, showing generally how residential buildings could be situated on Pier 40 while preserving the sports fields.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick, the first person from the audience to speak at the microphone, said she appreciated the Trust letting the public in on the process and showing the massing studies. However, she stressed, it was never the park act’s intention for the Trust to have to finance the park’s construction.

Furthermore, with climate change and rising sea levels, luxury rental apartments on Pier 40 would be “putting the city and state on the hook for lawsuits for half-done developments damaged in a storm that will need bailouts,” she said to cheers from the audience. Glick indicated she backs a park improvement district, which would assess a small tax on nearby property owners.

Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, the second speaker, said that when he was crafting the park’s legislation in the mid-1990s, the hope was that the park would get $400 million for its construction. But while the park has gotten about $350 million in government funding so far, it now needs another $200 million to finish the job. The main fear before was that the park would be “a 5-mile wall of buildings like Co-op City in the Bronx,” he said. But the park that has emerged has been “extraordinarily successful,” and what’s there now — benches, trees, pathways — blocks any future development of buildings, he assured.

Gottfried zeroed in on Pier 40 and Pier 76 — the latter currently used as the Police Department tow pound at W. 36th St. — calling them the park’s “two big ugly monsters.” Both piers block people’s views to the water, he noted.

“A parking garage and a tow pound — I don’t think either one of these belongs in Hudson River Park,” he said, to some hisses from the crowd.

Gottfried said if the park act is changed, there is still a planning process, including ULURP, which would allow communities to have input on decisions affecting the park’s future, “so that things the community values could replace those two monsters.”

Brad Hoylman, chairperson of Community Board 2, noted the city recently announced it was giving $260 million to spruce up Governors Island while the East River esplanade is getting $30 million.

“We as West Siders have to ask, Where is the money for our park?” he asked, drawing cheers. “We’re talking about maintenance — but let’s finish the park,” he said. “Before we open up the park act…city and state government must be made aware that the West Side of Manhattan deserves a park that is completed.”

Similarly, Corey Johnson, chairperson of C.B. 4, said, “The city and state need to step up and complete the funding of the park. Governors Island is used five months a year. Hudson River Park is used 365 days a year.” However, he added, “Let’s look at opening up the act in a smart way that doesn’t hurt the park.”

Paul Gallay, president of the environmental group Riverkeeper, said, “The park act says, ‘The state and the city will put money into the park as necessary.’ Clearly, it’s necessary.” He supported a park improvement district.

John Doswell, who founded Friends of Hudson River Park as the park’s main advocacy group, said of the grim financial picture, “This was not manufactured. … It will become a crisis, and we need to decide what to do. Eighty percent of the park is free and open to the public. It’s supported by the other 20 percent. It doesn’t get paid for magically.”

Tobi Bergman, president of P3, a commercial youth sports group at Pier 40, noted community opposition sunk two past requests for proposals (R.F.P.’s) for Pier 40. He said the permissible uses must be expanded beyond big-box stores or “Las Vegas on the Hudson”-type extravaganzas.

“We rejected retail the first time around,” Bergman said. “We rejected entertainment the second time around. We rejected everything that’s legal. We have to open up the act to get more ideas.”

Andrew Scruton of Downtown United Soccer Club said, “Our home field is Pier 40. We think options are needed. We support the Trust seeking options, searching for solutions.”

Marcy Benstock, director of the Clean Air Campaign, who battled Westway in the 1980s, which was sunk because of its potential impact on striped bass, also spoke.

“We strongly oppose opening up the Hudson River Park Act in this session,” she said. Like Glick, Benstock said the pier is a bad spot for housing since it’s battered by powerful winds and corrosive tides. She added that housing would also “destroy fisheries.”

Geoffrey Croft of NYC Park Advocates told the Trust representatives, “You said that operating expenses exceeded revenues — that’s exactly what a public park is supposed to do.”

No legislative changes will get passed if Glick opposes them, particularly concerning Pier 40, which is in her district. Some proposed changes to the park act are less contentious, such as the Trust moving up its southern border to Chambers St. so that it doesn’t have to pay for the maintenance of an inland park strip along the bike path south of there. In addition, the Trust wants to get any future commercial revenue from Pier 76, which is in Gottfried’s district — whereas the park act currently says the city would get this money.

This Tuesday, reached in Albany during a break in session, Glick said, “the spirit of the law” of the park act requires a more formal public hearing with 30 days’ notice before major changes affecting the park. Some of the Trust’s proposed changes are “minor” and might not require a hearing, she said, but major changes would need more public input.

Asked if the Trust’s desire to get bonding authority, for example, was minor, she replied, “No, no, no — that is a major change — as are terms,” referring to extending the permitted lease terms for Pier 40 and other “commercial nodes” in the park beyond the current 30 years.

As for whether allowing residential use was a major change, Glick said, “Of course,” before saying she had to get off the phone and head back into session.

The Spectra pipeline at Gansevoort, according to Glick, would only need an easement to pass 4 feet under the park, not a legislative change.

Read More:

At meeting, pier housing idea is in eye of the storm

The Villager - June 7, 2012 - By Lincoln Anderson

Crowd Denounces Parks Dept. Washington Square Park Performer Crack Down

Attorney Norman Siegel addressing Manhattan Community Board's 2 sponsored Washington Square Park Speak Out on Monday night at NYU. Except for Manhattan Borough Commissioner Bill Castro, not a single person spoke in favor of the Parks Department's recent crack down involving the ticketing of performers in Washington Square Park. Mr. Castro claimed the news rules were not meant to ban performers from soliticting donations. He also claimed that performers are permited to solitict donations in the area between the plaza and the Arch, the area where sand artist Joe Mangrum has received numerous summonses. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.

On December 6, New York State Assemblymenber Deborah J. Glick sent a letter to Parks Commissioner Adrain Benepe urging him to reconsider the recent practice of ticketing performers individuals within 50 feet of a city monument. (see below)

The entire meeting can be heard here.

Sand artist Joe Mangrum holding up the numerous summonses he has recieved between the park's historic Arch and plaza. On Monday Manhattan Borough Commissioner Bill Castro claimed performers could solitict donations at that location. - Geoffrey Croft

Manhattan

There was only one speaker on Monday in favor of the Parks
Department’s citing musicians and other performers in Washington
Square Park for violating park rules.

The lone supporter was Bill Castro, Manhattan borough Parks Department
commissioner, who told a packed audience that the recently enforced
rules still allow buskers plenty of room to perform in Washington
Square — as long as they’re 50 feet from any monument and 5 feet from
a bench, according to an article in the Villager.

“The rules are not intended to ban performers from this or any other
park, regardless of whether they solicit or accept contributions,”
Castro said.

“The department seeks to regulate and accommodate a variety of
activities and uses,” Castro added, but he promised that the
department would review and reconsider the enforcement policy that
began in the park around May. The rules only apply to buskers, meaning
performers who accept cash contributions.

Manhattan CB2's Washington Square Park Speak Out on Monday night was very well attended.

Given that Washington Square, the spawning ground in decades past of
music luminaries including Bob Dylan, Judy Collins and Joan Baez, has
benches along its paths and large monuments, including the iconic
arch, the central fountain, the Garibaldi statue and the monument to
Alexander Lyman Holley, the claim of “plenty of room” rang hollow.

All others at the Dec. 19 speak-out, sponsored by Community Board 2
and its Parks Committee, called for an end to what they called an
anti-life and hypocritical enforcement effort.

Indeed, one speaker, Mitchel Cohen, mocked the rules, saying he was in
favor of barring musicians because they interrupted the sound of
jackhammers and sirens and they prevented people from getting close to
the monuments.

“Everybody knows that people come to Washington Square Park from all
over the world to see the Holley Monument,” Cohen quipped.

Gregory Nissen, a theater composer and pianist, introduced himself as
Robert Zimmerman who just blew in from Minneapolis with his banjo, but
decided to leave because the cops wouldn’t let him play in Washington
Square.

Katie Kat, a soprano and voice instructor at New York University who
performs under the arch (“great acoustics”) with her partner, Roxanne
Walitzki, sang part of an aria from Puccini’s “La Bohème” at the end
of her remarks and won admiring applause.

C.B. 2 members Keen Berger and Doris Diether, both speaking as
individuals, urged an end to the enforcement.

Berger, a resident near Washington Square for 47 years, said she has
visited the park at least 2,000 times. She said she cherished the
music and didn’t recall negative reactions against performers.

Diether reminded the forum that performance in Washington Square dates
back more than 50 years.

“This is ridiculous,” Diether said about the enforcement, which she
recalled started two or three months ago. “First, they said that
musicians were blocking the pathways. Then, they said there was no
solicitation in the park. The rules are idiotic and the Parks
commissioner [Adrian Benepe] should be told they’re idiotic and they
should be thrown out,” Diether said.

“The people who perform are the people who keep the park safe,” said
Susan Goren, a regular parkgoer known as “The Squirrel Whisperer.” The
rules, she said, are eliminating what people find joyful in the park.

A longtime jazz performer known as Black Bobby said, “First they came
for the black folks. Now, from the look of the audience here tonight
[largely white], it seems that there is equality.”

Norman Siegel, a civil rights lawyer, recalled that he came from
Brooklyn to Manhattan in 1965 to study at New York University Law
School on Washington Square South. He said he was concerned that the
Bloomberg administration was targeting free expression in the parks —
in Zuccotti Park [previously, the site of the Occupy Wall Street
encampment] and Washington Square Park. Noting that the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that music is protected under the First Amendment,
Siegel threatened that another lawsuit was likely unless the city
narrowed the scope of its parks rules.

Robert Lederman, president of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists’ Response To
Illegal State Tactics), reminded the meeting that he has a pending
federal lawsuit challenging the city’s rules limiting where artists
can vend art and other expressive matter in Union Square, on the High
Line and in Central Park and Battery Park. The rules were only imposed
on musicians, according to Lederman, after he raised the issue to
Parks that musicians were excluded from the Union Square limits, while
vendors were forced to abide by them.

Lederman, who cited an editorial, “Don’t ban the buskers” in last
week’s issue of The Villager, said the rules practically ban artists
and musicians from any New York City park.

The activist said the hypocrisy of the rules is apparent from the
city-sponsored holiday markets that pre-empt space in Union Square and
other parks.

Lorie Moody, a resident of 2 Fifth Ave., agreed, citing the
Greenmarket in Union Square and “the less-than-glorious, white-tented
event in Washington Square,” referring to the annual Taste of The
Village event under the Washington Square arch.

Colin Huggins, “The Crazy Piano Guy,” who wheels his piano to play in
Washington Square and other parks, said he has received summonses that
would cost more than $2,000 in fines if they are not eventually
dismissed. He said his playing brings people together.

Joe Mangrum, who does sand painting in Union Sq. and Washington
Square, has also received numerous summonses.

“New York City is unique because there is this creative freedom,”
Mangrum said. The city, he said, appears to be “militarizing’” the
park.

“Freedom is the most important thing we have. If you don’t have that
you don’t have a country,” Mangrum said.

Ryo Sasaki, a jazz trumpeter, said he came to New York four years ago
from Japan because of the music culture. He has been playing in
Washington Square Park for three years, “and suddenly this season we
cannot do it anymore,” he said. “I learned to play music in school but
I never learned how to entertain and communicate with people. Those
skills I learned in Washington Square Park,” Sasaki said.

“The city crated a problem that never existed,” said Natalie Albert, a
neighborhood resident for 40 years.

Tobi Bergman, chairperson of the board’s Parks Committee, called for
speakers supporting the parks rules at the end of the two-hour forum,
but there were no takers. Pros and cons may weigh in online at
www.washingtonsquarespeakout.com .

“I take it as a good sign that the enforcement could change,” said
Brad Hoylman, C.B. 2 chairperson, citing Castro’s assurance that the
department would reconsider the policy. Earlier this year, Board 2
opposed the Parks Department’s limits on vendors of expressive matter
in the four Manhattan parks.

“That was even before we knew that musicians would be summonsed,” Hoylman said.

Read More:

A symphony of no’s on Parks’ musician rules at speak-out
The Villager - December 22, 2011 - By Albert Amateau

Artists to 'Speak Out' Against Washington Square Park Crackdown

DNAinfo - December 19, 2011 - By Andrea Swalec

Don’t Ban The Washington Square Park Buskers - Editorial

The Villager - December 17, 2011

Bloomberg $ Cracks Down On Performers In Washington Square Park Ticket Blitz

A Walk In The Park - December 4, 2011 - By Geoffrey Croft

December 6, 2011

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

Dear Commissioner Benepe,

I write to express my extreme consternation over the recent flurry of
summonses issued by the New York City Parks Department to performers in
Washington Square Park. Theses actions appear to be an infringement on
their First Amendment rights. Additionally, theses restrictions impede
upon the cultural tradition of street performances that has helped define
New York City, and in particular Greenwich Village for many years. It is
during the holiday season when New York City residents and tourists alike
flock to our City's beautiful and historic parks to see decorations as
well as local performances. Therefore, it seems that the City is hurting
performers and tourists by ticketing these popular attractions and
diminishing the ambiance that has long characterized Washington Square
Park.

I urge you to reconsider the recent practice of ticketing performing
individuals who are within 50 feet of a city monument, especially when in
such places as Washington Square Park's 10 acres of land there are very
few if no locations which could be consistent with that requirement.
Furthermore the regulation, which specifies that vendors may not be within
50 feet of unauthorized locations, is ambiguous as it covers not only food
vendors and merchandise purveyors but artists and musicians as well. I
propose that the term "vendors' be elaborated upon in this definition to
exempt street performers. To not do so would be to eliminate so much of
the vibrant culture and performing arts that has become part of life in
Greenwich West Village. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick
New York State Assembly