Public Meeting On Controversial Housing Plan Expansion In Brooklyn Bridge Park Set For Tonight

Rendering of the two proposed towers at Pier 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Park. A meeting tonight, which will unveil what the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation is touting as its financial justification for needing even more housing in the park,  is expected to be a highly contentious public hearing.

Initially just high-rise luxury housing, Mayor de Blasio added an affordable housing component which the administration hopes will make the controversial plan easier to swallow. That has not occured. 

Naturally proponents of the development plan do not argue that the heavily utilized park be funded by the government - like most public parks are. 

Opponents of the plan are hoping Governor Cuomo gets involved.

Paying for Parks With Housing

By Geoffrey Croft

Opponents of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and Mayor de Blasio backed plan to build 339 units of housing by Pier 6 at the southern end of Brooklyn Bridge Park are expected to come out this evening to a meeting being held at St. Francis College beginning at 6 p.m.  - 180 Remsen Street - 1st Floor Board Room. 

Critics have long argued that that the money generated from these last two housing towers - as well as other developments - are not needed to fund the park. They say the three acres now proposed for housing should instead be used as parkland. 

The Empire State Development Corp. recently modified the language in the project plan it approved in 2006 to allow the Blasio administration to move forward with planned 31-story and 15-story towers by Brooklyn Heights waterfront.

Opponents have been strongly against allowing yet another development into the park and are calling the new project plan language, "a bait and switch."

Up until very recently the  General Project Plan (GPP) allowed for building in the park only if a financial need could be demonstrated. 

Page 12 of 2010 GPP plans states that,  “building envelopes described … represent the maximum build-out within the Project, with the intention being to build only what is necessary to support annual maintenance and operations.”  

This language however was recently removed and replaced with:  “without regard to Project finances.”

"The city wants to change the plan (called a Modified General Project Plan or MGPP ) to eliminate the restriction of building housing only for "financial need,"  Judi Francis recently wrote to supporters.   



Instead of parkland the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the de Blasio administration want to build controversial housing in the park. 

"For 11 long years, the city and state have promised they would '“build no more housing than is necessary to fund the park”'. They will break their promises if they go forward with these buildings. 

Given the huge changes in the area with 12,500 new apartments not planned 10 years ago, school overcrowding, no new transit and even a reduction in bus service, the loss of our hospital, no new fire, police, sewer or electrical grid improvements, the fact that this area is in a flood zone, has been ignored by the city and state in their quest to build housing inside the park.  The park is now at a breaking point with visitors reaching over 100,000 on a weekend day. This will only increase given the magnificent harbor views and huge increases in population with no new parklands to accommodate residents, let along tourists who represent almost half of all BBP visitors.  Eliminating these unneeded towers will give back 3 acres of park at this critical entrance," Ms. Francis stated.

Opponents of the plan are hoping Governor Cuomo gets involved.

"Tonight we ask Governor Cuomo to step in and retake control of this park,"   The Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund said in a statement. 

"Tonight we ask Governor Cuomo to initiate a Master Planning process for pier 6, pier 7 and 8 along with the former hospital site, a mere 500 feet from this park."

Last month BBPC awarded the Pier 6 project – which also includes retail space to developer Robert Levine,  President & CEO of RAL Development Services weeks after Levine donated $10,000 to the mayor’s fundraising committee.

Levine is also the developer of controversial One Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Show Me The Money

Desperate for a strong public showing the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation (BBPC) has ramped it its efforts to try and get people to support the plan.

For weeks they have been trying to drum up support.  The BBPC proved once again that they are not below attempting to leverage groups, some say intimidate, that depend on their relationship with the park to generate support for the park's pier 6 position.

Oasis summer camp is one such organization.  The Oasis day camp at Brooklyn Bridge Park depends heavily on many Brooklyn Bridge Park's facilities for the camp it runs for kids ages 3, 15 in partnership with the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy. (Oasis also utilizes several facilities of St. Francis College  the location of tonight's meeting as well as the Parks Department's Van Voorhees Park near Brooklyn Bridge Park.)

On July 22, Oasis wrote a letter to parents imploring them to support the development plan.

"We know how important this park has become to you and to the whole Oasis in Brooklyn Bridge Park family. We are doing our best at Oasis to make this final phase a reality and hope that you feel the same way. If you do I know that the Brooklyn Bridge Conservancy would appreciate it if you could write a short note supporting this final phase of the project and maybe even volunteer to share your thoughts on July 30th at a public hearing.

The solicitation provided a sample letter to send along and an email address.

"The completion of the development of the park will not only bring tremendous added services and benefits for all of us who use the park, but it will also ensure that BBP will continue to serve my family and 10s of thousands like us for generations to come. I whole-heartedly support this development of Pier 6 and look forward to the completion," it read. 

"While I love the day camp for my daughter," one angry parent wrote in response,  "I'm disappointed in this thinly veiled attempt to garner support for the proposed condo buildings." 

Nancy Webster,  Executive Director of Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy claims they are not the ones responsible for putting pressure on the camp whom they are partners with, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation is.    

"It was the Corp who reached out to Oasis, not the Conservancy,"  she wrote on July 24th after receiving an email which called Oasis's letter, "in very poor taste."

Tonight should be an interesting evening watching all the employees and lobbyists swarming around on behalf of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation,  Mayor de Blasio and the developer.   

A few people to look out for:     

All in the Family:  Prospect Park Alliance flack,  and former New Yorkers for Parks spokesperson James Yolles heads up pr for developer Robert Levine for Risa Heller Communications.  It was Risa who tried in vein to help Major League Soccer seize parkland in Flushing Meadow Corona Park to build a new stadium. Belinda Cape,  formerly from State Senator Daniel Squadron office is heading up pr for the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation team.  

The Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation has even organized a rally tonight prior to the ESD hearing in support of building in the park. (It's not in park they are laughably fond of saying)  Naturally the city's park partner organization New Yorkers for Parks' Tupper Thomas are supporting the park development plans as well as the usual city-friendly organizations including the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance and the League of Conservation Voters.  

Crain's NY Business was given the "independent study"  that BBPC commissioned ahead of its official unveiling this evening.   The report backs ESDC's claim that the 85-acre waterfront park will not be able to pay for its own maintenance if the Pier 6 development does not move forward.  The report was prepared by Barbara Denham who worked for the city’s Economic Development Corp during the Giuliani administration.  

“They didn’t have the courage to provide it to the public in time for our financial analyst to take a look at it,” Judi Francis, president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, told the Development friendly publication. 

Naturally proponents of the development plan do not argue that the heavily utilized park be funded by the government - like most public parks are. 

Brooklyn

It’s a fight for the right to stick both high-rise luxury and affordable housing smack at the front entrance to Brooklyn’s hottest park. 

Both opponents and supporters of a controversial plan to build 339 units of new homes by Pier 6 at the southern end of Brooklyn Bridge Park are expected to pack St. Francis College Thursday night beginning at 6 p.m. for what is expected to be a highly contentious public hearing, according to an article in the NewYork Post.  

At stake is whether the Empire State Development Corp. should modify a project plan it approved in 2006 and green light the Blasio administration to move forward with planned 31-story and 15-story towers by the tony Brooklyn Heights waterfront. 

The project was modified to include 117 units of affordable housing for low- to middle-income families as part of Mayor de Blasio’s plans to raise the city’s affordable housing stock. During the meeting, reps for the city-run Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. are expected to unveil an independent study it commissioned. 

Sources said it will back the quasi-government agency’s claim that the 85-acre waterfront park will be in the red in 10 years – and no longer able to pay for its own maintenance – if the Pier 6 development doesn’t move forward.

The report was prepared by Barbara Denham, a renowned economist who once worked for the city’s Economic Development Corp. two decades ago during the Giuliani administration. “The biggest reason why the Pier 6 development should go forward is to make sure the park remains open and is maintained at the same high level it is today,” David Lowin, BBPC’s vice president of real estate, told The Post.

The report was prepared by Barbara Denham, a renowned economist who once worked for the city’s Economic Development Corp. two decades ago during the Giuliani administration. 

“The biggest reason why the Pier 6 development should go forward is to make sure the park remains open and is maintained at the same high level it is today,” David Lowin, BBPC’s vice president of real estate, told The Post.

Francis and other opponents – which include the powerful Brooklyn Heights Association and condo owners residing a block away at the swanky One Brooklyn Bridge Park complex – are quietly hoping de Blasio’s recent bad blood with Gov. Cuomo might cause ESDC to hold off on supporting the new development. However, a state source said “it is highly unlikely” that any friction between Cuomo and de Blasio will play any role in ESDC’s decision.

ESDC and the city under former Mayor Bloomberg had long promised to only build housing at Pier 6 as a last resort — provided the park wasn’t generating enough revenues through other residential and commercial development to pay for its maintenance. 

The proposed amendment to the project plan, opponents say, wipes away a nine-year agreement that required the city to demonstrate it needs additional revenues to pay the park’s bills before it can break ground on new housing inside the green space. 

Opponents also say the green space is already self-sustaining thanks to 440 luxury condos already up at One Brooklyn Bridge Park – not to mention the more than 150 other condo units, a 200-room hotel and tens of thousands of square feet of commercial space already in the construction pipeline on the park’s north end in DUMBO.

However, city officials and their supporters claim the amendment is needed so that affordable housing can now be part of a park project plan once vilified by opponents for allegedly catering to the rich. 

“We think adding affordable housing makes the project more responsive to the needs of the city and the community,” said Lowin. 

Opponents also say the new housing would overwhelm Brooklyn Heights and adjacent Cobble Hill, which are already in line to be banged with a series of other nearby large construction projects. 

They include repairs to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and a planned conversion of former Long Island College Hospital into more than 800 units of condos. 

BBPC last month awarded the Pier 6 project – which also includes ground-floor retail space and a 75-seat pre-kindergarten school — to developer Robert Levine, weeks after Levine donated $10,000 to the mayor’s fundraising committee. Levine is also the developer of One Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Read More:

Battle begins over luxe and affordable housing plan at Pier 6  

New York Post - July 30, 2015 - By Rich Calder 

NY State Court of Appeals Agrees to Hear Case Against NYU Park Alienation Expansion Plan

The state’s highest court,  the Court of Appeals, has agreed to hear arguments regarding NYU's Greenwich Village massive expansion plan.  Plaintiffs are seeking to protect four park parcels that NYU is planning to build on as part of its  $6 billion, 20-year plan.

Last January Manhattan Supreme Justice Donna Mills ruled that the City, "alienated public parkland without approval by the New York State legislature in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine.” The decision would have spared three of the four parks plaintiffs are seeking to protect —Mercer Playground, LaGuardia Park and LaGuardia Corner Gardens—from destruction under NYU’s current expansion plan.  Under that ruling construction could not have begun until the Legislature authorized the removal of the park space.  In January NYU said they were going to appeal. 

On October 14th, the Appellate Division’s First Department overturned the lower court’s decision, ruling in NYU's favor. 

Plaintiffs are hoping to get a better outcome than last years disastrous Court of Appeals Union Square Park ruling. 

"Park advocacy" group New Yorkers For Parks supported the city and developer in both alienation cases. 

- Geoffrey Croft


Manhattan/Albany

NY State Court of Appeals Agrees to Hear Case Against NYU Expansion Plan;

Could Save Village Parks From Destruction, Affect Countless Parks and Open Spaces in the City and State; Actor and Activist Ruffalo Lauds Court’s Acceptance of Case, Warns Earlier Decision Must Be Overturned or Have Disastrous Implications for Public Commons

In the latest installment of the ongoing struggle against NYU’s huge expansion plan, the State's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals, has agreed to hear a case that was filed by petitioners in mid-November regarding public parkland, according to a press release put out by plaintiffs.

The lawsuit has passed through two lower courts, with differing results. Those following the dispute, especially park advocates, are awaiting a verdict that could have massive ramifications on the way that the City and the State deal with public parks in the future.

On October 14^th, the Appellate Division’s First Department overturned a lower court’s decision that would have spared three parks—Mercer Playground, LaGuardia Park and LaGuardia Corner Gardens—from destruction under NYU’s current expansion plan. According to the lower court’s ruling, all three strips are public parks, and therefore entitled to protection, since the public has been using them as parks for many years, making them “implied” parkland, with the City funding, labeling and maintaining them as parks.

NYU and the City counter-argued that those parks aren't really parks, since they were never "mapped" as parks (a bureaucratic technicality), and are nominally overseen by the City's Department of Transportation. The First Department’s decision would allow NYU to raze those treasured parks to make way for its vast expansion plan, and set a precedent that could potentially threaten countless public parks throughout the City and the State.

Petitioners, NYU Faculty Against the Sexton Plan, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, Historic Districts Council,Washington Square Village Tenants’ Association, East Village Community Coalition, Friends of Petrosino Square, LaGuardia Corner Gardens, Inc., Lower Manhattan Neighbors’ Organization, SoHo Alliance, Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, NoHo Neighborhood Association, Assembly Member Deborah Glick and 10 other individuals, are represented on a pro bono basis by the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, with Randy Mastro as lead attorney. 

Their motion papers make clear that “the First Department’s decision disregarded well-established common law principles for determining when municipal land has been impliedly dedicated for parks usage.  In recognition of the unique value that public parks hold for children, families, and communities, the Public Trust Doctrine accords parkland special protection.”

“We’re glad that the Court of Appeals agrees that this case is important. These parks have been a vital part of the Greenwich Village community’s daily life for decades. Not only do we want to save these parks from NYU’s reckless, unnecessary expansion, but we want to do the same for the parks that will be threatened elsewhere if the lower court’s decision stands,” said Andrew Ross, Urbanist and Director of American Studies Program at NYU.

The petitioners are asking the Court of Appeals to consider two issues: that the First Department’s decision actually conflicts with prior appellate court decisions, and prior decisions by the Court of Appeals itself, about this kind of “implied” parkland, and that the First Department’s decision, if left intact, will have the effect of abolishing implied dedication—a consequence with widespread negative effects, not just in New York City, but throughout the State.

Parks and open spaces are protected by the Public Trust Doctrine, which maintains that the government holds the titles to certain waters and lands in trust for the people. In New York State, if an entity wishes to develop or remove a parcel of parkland from public ownership and use, it must follow a legal process called “alienation,” which, among other conditions, requires approval from the state Legislature. This was not done in the case of the Village parks that NYU wants to destroy for its ill-advised expansion plan. The First Department’s decision flies in the face of this doctrine and of its own decisions, and would imperil all kinds of public and green spaces throughout the state; it would leave ordinary New Yorkers with no protection against the removal and abuse of open spaces and parks for development.

“We understand that the battle is not yet over, but we appreciate that the Court of Appeals grasps the gravity of the situation. If these parks can be handed off to NYU in spite of the Public Trust Doctrine, it sets a terrible precedent, and the outcome for similar cases is bleak,” continued Ross.

Professor Mark Crispin Miller, President of NYUFASP, said, “Green spaces like these parks play an imperative role in keeping New York livable. We hope that the Court of Appeals overturns the First Department’s decision before it can do irreparable harm to the Public Trust Doctrine. Without the legal protection that provides, we could lose countless other City and State parks to greedy speculators like NYU.”

“These public parks have been a vital part of the Village for decades, and they have benefitted the public in numerous ways. Without the Court of Appeals’ intervention, not only will they be given to a private corporation for its own financial gain, but such a thing could become a common and unremarkable occurrence throughout New York,” said actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo.

Read More:

Court of Appeals to Hear Case Against NYU Expansion

Wall Street Journal -  February 24, 2015 - By Mike Vilensky

Court agrees to hear opponents of NYU expansion

By Bloomberg News - February 24, 2015

Judges to Review Challenges to NYU's Expansion Proposal

New York Law Journal - February 25, 2015 - By Joel Stashenko

NYU Expansion Foes Take Fight To Top NY Court
New York Post - February 24, 2015 - By Julia Marsh    

THE LATEST ON NYU’S EXPANSION PLAN WILL ALSO DICTATE FUTURE PUBLIC PARKS POLICY   
NYULocal - February 24, 2015 

Park Disparity Funding Solution According To Daniel Squadron - Have Central Park Foot the Bill

Heckscher Ballfields - Central Park.  Do Your Fields Look Like This? Central Park is meticulously maintained by the Conservancy. Unlike in municipally maintained parks the playing fields are lush and well cared for. Dedicated personnel are assigned to maintain the park's 28 ballfields.  Central Park's annual operating budget is now up to $ 58 million dollars.  However unlike the city they protect the money they invest into the park. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)

City-Wide

By Geoffrey Croft

Legislation introduced last year by New York State Senator Daniel Squadron and supported by Mayor Bill de blasio would have the government deciding where your private donations to parks can be spent. 

As most people are acutely aware our park system is enormously underfunded.  The policy of allowing public parks in wealthy areas to be paid for by private donations while most languish due to a lack of public funds has further compounded the problem, it has created a wildly disparate, separate and decidedly unequal park system.

And although these are city-wide problems that affect virtually every segment of the population, it is no secret that a disproportionate amount of the most severe issues exist in poor neighborhoods, among the city’s underserved communities—namely, the working class, the poor and the disenfranchised, and in areas populated by people predominantly of color. The City’s increasing reliance on public/private partnerships has resulted in a vastly inequitable distribution of services. It has become “a tale of two cities.”

Outfield Burnt Grass.  Fr. Macris Park - Staten Island. The city does not have a single dedicated ball field maintenance crew for more than 600 natural turf fields.  

The further fostering of what is already an ad hoc system premised on noblesse oblige, with all the neglect to the working class and poor that implies and has wrought, should be challenged, and not embraced as Sen. Squadron suggests.

The fact that Central Park receives large private donations while 99.9% parks do not is not the problem.  The Central Park Conservancy exists solely because of a failed city policy i.e. our elected officials refusal to take care of all of our parks so the wealthiest people per capita in the world took matters into their own hands.  This is hardy a sustainable model, nor should it be.

Each year our elected officials allocate approximately one-third of the desperately needed  funds required to properly operate our public parks. This year is no different.  The Mayor's preliminary budget allocates just $301.2 million in city-funds - just .52 % of the overall city budget in city funds for an agency responsible for 14 % of the city's land.  Up until the 1960's parks received up to 1.4 % of the city budget or greater. An astonishing decrease.  

For decades the public has been told the expense funding needed to hire the employees that are so desperately needed are not available.  Increasingly these basic services are being paid for privately in wealthy neighborhoods.

Central Park.

What this means in practical terms is that those chosen few have dedicated staff assigned to individual parks while the vast majority of the rest have to make due with the deplorable and unequal conditions found throughout the city.

Senator Squadron introduced the controversial legislation as a means he says to help address the inequity.

Squadron's  "Neighborhood Parks Alliance," would form partnerships between a "well-financed" conservancy and less fortunate parks. 

Under the plan a poor park would perform tasks like gathering signatures from local residents, establishing their own conservancy group, and receiving a city commitment, from the Parks Department and local council members, to maintain current government financing levels.

The issue of seizing money from organizations is a non starter for a number of reasons the first one being the legality of such a ridiculous proposal. 

A clue to the fundamental flaw in Sen. Squadron’s well-intentioned but deeply misguided law is the lack of the government’s role and responsibility in addressing  and preventing these issues.

In a May 24th Op-ED published in the New York Times announcing his proposal Senator Squadron asked, "Can A Tree Grow In The Bronx"  when a park like Central receives large private donations while most parks do not. 

Mr. Squadron spent just 32 words out 746 acknowledging the responsibility of the government.

"One solution," he writes,  "is to provide more financing for parks in the annual city and state budgets." 

No, that is THE solution.

And while he does admit his plan "is not a comprehensive solution" to the problem of open-space equity, his idea is fundamentally flawed non-the-less and sends the wrong priority.

Sen. Squadron says John A. Paulson's $ 100 million donation to the well-heeled Central Park Conservancy, "invites a question: where is the political will, and the money, for the millions of New Yorkers who depend on the 1,700 other parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities managed by the city?” 

The political will to do what? To get the people who live around Central Park to donate to other less fortunate parks? He is asking the wrong question.  

Instead of addressing the issues and attacking the very system that allows and encourages this enormous disparity and discrimination in the first place, he is inviting more.  The political will necessary to provide funding for safe, well-maintained parks, and public recreation programs that every neighborhood deserves, simply does not exist. It is not a priority. 

All New Yorkers deserve this, not just those who can to afford to pay "extra."  This is a basic quality-of-life issue.

“A Neighborhood Parks Alliance is one simple way for more New Yorkers to have decent open space,  so that more families,  in more communities,  can make a life in the city," he wrote. 

"Like good schools and safe streets,  decent parks must not be reserved for those who can most afford them.”  

His plan unfortunately accomplishes exactly that. 

Creating this Alliance is simply another way to further discriminate against the haves and the have nots while continuing to allow the city, state and feds off the hook.

"But the conservancies would still be the best way for donors to support their park of choice," he writes.  

Encouraging the public to discriminate against who is worthy of receive funding and who is not is certainly not the solution. 

As history has proved time and time again leaving the decision of  "who gets saved"  in the hands of the wealthy and influential is not good policy to say the least.

It is the government's legal responsibility to properly fund our public parks,  not private citizens or businesses.  Elected officials constantly say how important parks are but they refuse to fund them. It is not a priority. 

And to be sure Mr. Squadron is not alone his misguided solution.  

Over the last 40 years no other city agency has lost a greater percentage of its workforce than the Parks Department.  This happens year after because the public does NOT demand accountability.

Legislating Public Donations?

A few weeks after his May Op-Ed Mr. Squadron introduced the pass-the-buck legislation.

When asked if the 20 percent under his proposal would be voluntary or mandated by law  Squadron replied, " Our hope is that….. folks would step up and be interested in being a part of this voluntarily but my legislation would require it. "

And while Mr. Squadron admits that city and state have cut funding for parks "in ways that are unacceptable"  I could find no evidence of him truly fighting to correct this cronic budget shortfall including authoring legislation to address this pressing issue.

In the same interview he also bizarrely claimed that, "for large parts of the city they don't see the effects of those cuts if you live near Central Park or if you live near Prospect Park whatever your lifestyle is you don't experience the injustice of these parks cuts. "

That is simply not true. 

The interview got off to a bad start Squadron cited statistics that left out almost half of our parkland - State and Federal facilities - that reside in our city. (He's a NY State Senator)

Queens City Council Member Peter Vallone -  who was  then running for Queens Borough President  followed suit.  

He sent out a press release entitled, GRASS SHOULDN'T BE GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTY FENCE!” announcing he would be introducing legislation mandating that all park conservancies with more than $5 million in the bank would be legally required to donate 20 percent of their funds to maintain parks that have received a grade of unsatisfactory for two consecutive years. 

At a City Council hearing last May Mr. Vallone said he had lunch with Senator Squadron and discussed the idea.

This  well-intentioned but deeply misguided law  shows clear lack of understanding of the enormous problems facing our vast but severely under-resourced park system.  Relying on what in reality are a few conservancies to deliver the tens of billions of dollars in capital needs and another three quarter of a billion dollars annually for maintenance and operation is deeply misguided. 

On Thursday at a City Council hearing Mr. Squadron testified that he thought his proposal could generate approximately $ 15 million dollars annually -  in other words enough to build a few bathrooms.  Another unfortunate consequence of this conversation is that it is detracting from the real issue - that our elect officials refuse to fund parks as an essential city service.

The city itself has already created a number of non-profits with the expressed mission to encourage donors to contribute to less fortunate parks city-wide. They have had to put it mildly an extremely limited impact city-wide on the deplorable and unequal conditions found throughout the city.

The solution to the inequality issue is not a secret:  The administration needs to take responsibility by dramatically increasing the parks budget and ensure they are distributed based on need and not on politics or private interests, while also demanding accountability from an agency that is in desperate need of reform. 

But first a detailed and honest assessment of our park system's is required,  something multiple administrations have refused to do. 

Unfortunately the political will necessary to provide funding for safe, well-maintained parks, and public recreation programs that every neighborhood deserves, simply does not exist. It is not a priority. 

Experience with public/private partnerships over the last 30 years has proven that the private subsidization of individual parks, however well intentioned, has created an enormous gap between the haves and the have-nots, while ignoring the real problem—that our parks are not funded as an essential government service. 

All New Yorkers deserve this, not just those who can to afford to pay "extra."  This is a basic quality-of-life issue.

Early last summer then mayoral candidate Bill de blasio announced his support for Squadron's initiative as well as the irresponsible Flushing Meadow Park Alliance being created by Council Member Julissa Ferreras and a Parks Department partner group New Yorkers For Parks.   

We do not need another Alliance,  a funding model dependent on businesses exploiting and  destroying our parklands - we need the government to do its job and adequately fund our public parks.

We sincerely hoped Mr. de blasio's support for these irresponsible ideas were simply early mis-steps.  

Compounding the problem are the remarks of consecutive Parks Commissioners. 

"We have a great operating budget,"  Veronica White embarrassingly testified at a City Council hearing,  a view consistently shared by Adrain Benepe who was fond of the calling the funding  "robust."

These are irresponsible and dangerous statements that harm communities and the city as a whole.

While working under Michael Bloomberg over the last decade Mr. Benepe had a tough time publicly admitting the poor conditions that plague the park system - and no amount of "surveys" from his current employer will be able to change that reality.  

Mr. Benepe called the disparity a "phony premise"  in one of many embarrassing moments caught during an interview on NY 1 in 2013.   

"I think they are nothing but positive,"  he said of the conservancy model in a typical Benepe see-no-evil defensive moment. 

"The beauty of that is that it allows the city to take its public dollars and allocate them to the vast majority of parks that don't get  any private support,"  he said in a claim that is clearly not supported by the city's continued lack of underfunding.

The City - including Mr. Benepe - claim that $ 165 million dollars is now being brought in annually from private funds to parks however less than half of that amount is accounted for in a reporting mechanism created to monitor such funds. A 2008 law specifically meant to expose city parks'  inequalities by tracking private allocations is not being adequately enforced.   A staple of the Bloomberg administration - the lack of accountability. 

We are happy this administration, and others have finally begun to embrace our decade-old park Tale of Two Cities inequity campaign, a disparity it is important to note that the Bloomberg administration including the Parks Department partner group New Yorkers For Parks absurdly pretended did not exist. 

We expect the city's new leadership who were elected on a  "progressive" agenda to tackle the policies that have resulted in our Tale Of Two Cities park system have clearly existed for far too long.

We need to attack the very system that allows and encourages this enormous disparity and discrimination in the first place, not invite more.   

Until these things happen nothing will change. 

Geoffrey Croft - is the founder and president of NYC Park Advocates, a city-wide watchdog group.

An excerpt of this post will appear in Sunday's Daily News.

Park Crime Increases 18% - Up Nearly 60% Over 5 years

Police investigate the rape and strangulation of a 28-year-old Russian woman on November 17th in Central Park near 100th street between Fifth Avenue and the East Drive. Police arrested Omar Hoist, 32, a few days later. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) 

There were 26 incidents in Central Park during the final quarter of 2013 including eight robberies, and two felony assaults. 

City-Wide

By Geoffrey Croft

Crime in the city's 31 largest parks rose 18% in 2013 over the previous year according to the latest figures compiled by the NYPD.

There were 417 major felonies reported in these parks the highest yearly total since 2009 when the City Council began to receive crime in parks information from the small data set.

In 2012 there were 354 felony crimes reported. 

Crime increased by nearly 60 % over last 5 years of the Bloomberg administration the data shows.

Three parks accounted nearly 60% of all crime that occurred in quarter: Central Park (26 incidents); Flushing Meadows (17 incidents); and Riverside Park (13 incidents).  

The dramatic increase in park crime comes of heals of comments made last week by Police Commissioner Bratton who spoke about his work in re-organizing the department including some of the issues he will focus upon.

The commissioner mentioned that he along with his consultant, criminologist George Keeling, author of the "Broken Windows Theory" -  will be resurveying "parks and open spaces."

Under Bloomberg the city had been remarkably slow to implement a GPS system to track crime in parks. GPS mapping which is what is ultimately needed has finally begun in some parks as part of the Citywide Street Centerline (CSCL) database - but this should have been completed many years ago. 

Year  Total number of major felony crime complaints

2013   417  

2012   354  

2011   327 

2010  328 

2009   265

There were 93 major felonies in city parks in the fourth quarter of 2013. This is the highest number of felony crimes in parks in a fourth quarter in the past four years.

Lowlights

Central Park  - Manhattan       1 Rape, 8 Robberies, and 2 Felony Assaults 

Crotona Park - Bronx                     8 Robberies

Flushing Meadows - Queens 4 Robberies, two Burglaries, and 9 Grand Larceny

Prospect Park -  Brooklyn 1 Rape, 6 Robberies, 

Riverside Park - Manhattan 8 Robberies, and 5 Felony Assaults

Last month the City Council passed Int 859-A, Peter Vallone's revamped park crime bill after Mayor Bloomberg vetoed it in one of his final acts as mayor.   

The new bill includes important improvements to a previous weak law passed in 2005 that omitted more than half the park properties.

The bill also removes the language that made compliance of the original 2005 park crime reporting bill, “subject to the availability of resources and the introduction of the necessary technology, ” a stipulation that the NYPD relied on, at least legally,  in order to avoid comply with the law.   

Beginning January 1, 2014, the new bill requires the NYPD to report the data for the thirty largest parks, as determined by acreage;  beginning June 1, 2014, the NYPD would have been required to report data for the one hundred largest parks, beginning January 1, 2015, report data for two hundred largest parks, beginning January 1, 2016, report data for the three hundred largest parks and beginning January 1, 2017, the NYPD  report data for all parks one acre or greater in size.

Unfortunately the new law gives the city another four years to comply with the tracking crime for more than half of the park properties.  Beginning in January 1, 2018, the NYPD will be required to report data for all public pools, basketball courts, recreation centers, and playgrounds that are not located within parks one acre or greater in size. 

The bill also requires the NYPD to conspicuously post all quarterly reports of major felony crime complaints for parks online via the department’s website within 5 business days of the department’s submission of such reports to the Council.  The data was not released this way on Tuesday. 

The original bill dubbed,  "What Happens In Parks Stays In Parks,"   by critics contained a number of glaring omissions that continued to jeopardize public safety. The bill was introduced by Peter Vallone and supported by the Parks Department partner organization New Yorkers For Parks.

In 2005 the City passed Local Law 114, requiring the Police Department to track and release felony crime data in all parks only one acre or greater after three years which the city did not comply with.   More than eight years after being passed the NYPD was still only reporting crimes in 30 city parks, plus Central Park which has it own police precinct.

In response to an uptick of violent crimes and to repeated calls on the Bloomberg administration to increase the severely depleted ranks of Parks Enforcement Patrol (PEP),  last year the administration doubled the number officers. 

The City hired 80 officers bringing the total number to 161 a dramatic decrease of 450 officers in the 90's. 

More than a dozen officers however have already left the agency since being hired bringing the number  down below 150.   Officers cite poor pay, lack of moral caused by poor management, and opportunity for advancement within the job as reasons for leaving. 

Evergreen Playground, Brooklyn - July 13, 2012.   A Parks Department worker washes down the basketball court hours after 24-year-old Kevin Daugherty was shot in the eye while playing ball died a year later. Most playgrounds are less than 1 acre in size. Unfortunately the new law gives the city another four years to comply with the tracking crime for more than half of the park properties.  Beginning in January 1, 2018, the NYPD will be required to report data for all public pools, basketball courts, recreation centers, and playgrounds that are not located within parks one acre or greater in size.  

Read More:

Biggest New York City Parks See Increase in Felonies

Wall Street Journal - March  12, 2014 - By Michael Saul

Bloomberg's Park Crime Reporting Bill Veto is Overridden By City Council

A Walk In The Park - February 4, 2014 - By Geoffrey Croft

New York City crime down, except in parks

WABC News -  March 12, 2014  

Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Alliance: Let's Not Make A Deal

Op-Ed: Let’s not make a deal

April 13, 2013

BY GEOFFREY CROFT

In a recent op-ed (“A new alliance for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park,” March 10) Councilmember Julissa Ferreras argues for the need to create a new nonprofit alliance dedicated for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park (FMCP).

The alliance would collect money from the USTA and other businesses using the park and spend it exclusively on the park. Agreeing to a deal that puts money into a park fund in exchange for a yes vote, along with a few other “concessions”  is a misguided policy that would allow the USTA to expand and set the stage for more businesses to try and take more public parkland.

That is exactly what is not needed for the park.

It is the city’s legal responsibility to properly fund our public parks, not that of private businesses.

Make no mistake this is NOT like the Central Park Conservancy or the Prospect Park Alliance model as she has attempted to claim.  There is a huge difference between receiving philanthropic contributions from civic-minded people seeking nothing in return and establishing a fund explicitly created for extracting money from businesses exploiting the park.

She said she is doing this to ”to help protect this irreplaceable park.”  The park does not need this type of “protection.”

A detailed plan on how this alliance model could work has already been drawn up.  It was devised with the help of a Parks Department partner group New Yorkers for Parks, in concert with the councilmember, working behind closed doors.

Despite repeated requests Ferreras has refused to voluntarily provide a copy of this plan.  For the first time in 15 years I’ve had to resort to FOILing a councilmember. This is not a good sign.

These deals only weaken communities and make it easier for the next encroachment. They also allow the very people whose job it is to properly fund and protect our public spaces off the hook.

The councilmember was correct, though, when she said the park has not received the attention and resources it deserves.

Whose fault is that? Does anyone think our elected officials are doing their jobs when FMCP has only 14 employees for a 1,200-acre park?  That’s disgraceful.

Each year our elected officials allocate a fraction of the funds desperately needed to properly maintain, operate, secure, and program our 29,000 acres of public parks.

This year is no different.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s current $70.1 billion proposed budget allocates just $ 283.2 million or o.4 % in tax levy funds for parks.

Over the last 40 years no other city agency has lost a greater percentage of its workforce than the Parks Department.  This happens year after because the public does NOT demand accountability.

The city continues to try and abdicate its responsibilities by entering in these public/private agreements that officials are not only allowing but actively encouraging.  They are increasingly resorting to these pay-to-play funding schemes.  This welfare mentality has to stop.

These deals hand over enormous power and decision making authority to these groups with little transparency and accountability on what is supposed to be public land.

We need our elected officials instead to allocate proper resources for our parks; it’s what the public pays taxes for.

Until communities begin to stand together and demand accountability from officials and “so called” park advocacy groups, the public can expect more of the same – our parks being sold out.

Geoffrey Croft is the founder and president of NYC Park Advocates, a non-profit watchdog group dedicated to improving public parks. He is also a founding member of Save Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, a coalition of community-based civic and environmental groups opposed to the commercial encroachment of FMCP.  

Read More: 

Op-Ed: Let’s not make a deal
Queens Courier - April 13, 2013 - By Geoffrey Croft