Showing posts with label ULURP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ULURP. Show all posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

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

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


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

Manhattan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More:

N.Y.U. calls out the troops in support of its mega-plan

The Villager - January 26, 2012 - By Lincoln Anderson

The Villager - January 26, 2012 - By Carol Greitzer

A Walk In The Park - September 17, 2011

Thursday, January 19, 2012

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



















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

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

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


Manhattan

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Read More:

Developers' Plan for 35-Story Tower at Ruppert Playground Hits Snag
DNAinfo - January 19, 2012 - By Amy Zimmer

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

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

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Elizabeth Crowley To Transfer Money From Hard Fought St. Saviour’s Project - Parks Dept. Walks



A makeshift basketball court kept in place with a cinder block faces the former St. Saviour’s church site on Thursday. For more than five years the community has been fighting to turn this formerly lush church property into a public park. This week they learned from a Daily News article that Council Member Elizabeth Crowley was pulling the money she allocated for that proposed park in order to pursue an alternative site approximately one fourth the size of St. Saviour’s. The Parks Department immediately responded saying they were no longer pursuing the St Saviour's site. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates.) Click on images to enlarge.

Critics have also strongly questioned the timing of her announcement and her decision to go to the media to announce her plan instead of waiting until next month when the DEC is required to make its determination on the first round of Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Mitigation Funding. On October 25th the Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) announced the projects it had chosen in a letter to the City Parks Foundation. The DEC has sixty days to make their final decision whether the projects were all feasible.

According to Christina Wilkinson, president of the Newtown Historical Society, State Senator Joseph Addabbo was waiting for a return call from DEC regarding $300,000 of unallocated settlement money and if some of it could be used to cover the St. Saviour’s ULURP fees now.

"The decision by Council Member Crowley and the Parks Dept to prematurely announce the non-guaranteed acquisition of the $14,785 sq ft Martin Luther site as a replacement for the 62,500 sq ft. St. Saviour's project means that the original project is now ineligible for $1.2M from the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Mitigation Funding that it was being considered for," said Christina Wilkinson the lead in fighting for the park.

"St. Saviour's had been listed as a priority 2 finalist, which meant it could have been eligible for funding had any of the priority 1 projects been found to be unfeasible. The determination of the feasibility is to be made next month. But Elizabeth Crowley could not wait that long to run to the Daily News and announce her "Maspeth park victory" in effect, screwing the community out of funding for the only project it had on the DEC list. A project many people had fought hard for. "

According to Ms. Wilkinson, Council member Crowley called her on Tuesday, November 8th and told her of the opportunity to acquire a 14,875 sq ft property at the corner of 61st Street and Maspeth Avenue from Martin Luther School, which currently uses the site as an accessory parking lot. Crowley said that Parks was on board with acquiring the Martin Luther site and had asked DCAS to appraise the property so that negotiations with the school could commence.

“Crowley assured me that it was her intention to use some of her funding toward the Martin Luther site, and then continue to seek other green space in Maspeth, including the St. Saviour’s site,” Wilkinson said. “I took her at her word. She asked me to gather community feedback on her proposal. I was in the process of doing so when I found out a few hours later that she had gone to the Daily News with her idea and was pitching the Martin Luther site as a “replacement” for the St. Saviour’s site. I can’t believe they torpedoed this project which has borough-wide and city hall support, in return for a much smaller site that is nothing but a maybe at this point and is not in jeopardy of being sold or developed as the St. Saviour’s site is."

Juniper Park Civic Association President Robert Holden says that about two months ago the association approached the Parks Department with the idea of transferring $75,000 from the original community grant allocated by former State Senator Serf Maltese to rebuild the church to begin ULURP for the park.

According to Mr. Holden, Maltese's successor, Senator Joseph Addabbo, says the money is still there. Holden noted that his staff keeps stalling him on that issue and he has still not received an answer.

Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe and Joshua Laird last week reiterated to a Walk In The Park that the Parks Department had not ruled out using eminent domain to acquire the St. Saviour's site.

People are also wondering that since the acquisition of the St. Saviour's site is much further along, why going after the Martin Luther site is not being done in tandem with the St. Saviour's site.

Multiple people who have been involved with the process for many years from the community say this decision was made without any community consultation or participation.

The community has also asked that since allocation funds have been earmarked for St. Saviour's, what guarantee is there that these funds will be available for the Martin Luther site?

“Unfortunately it appears that Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley has given up the fight to save one of the most historic sites in the City of New York and Maspeth’s most important landmark," Juniper Park Civic Association President Robert Holden said.

"I’m not surprised. The St. Saviour’s historic land now contains warehouses as symbolic and grotesque monuments to the failure of the City of New York and our elected officials to recognize the importance of saving the last remaining landmarks of Maspeth’s history for future generations to enjoy.”

Repeated requests seeking a response from Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley went unanswered. - Geoffrey Croft

Queens

The city has given up its long fight to acquire the land where a historic Maspeth church once stood and turn it into park space, according to the New York Daily News.

But the city and City Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley (D-Middle Village) are now looking into purchasing a smaller parcel of land from the nearby Martin Luther School as an alternative to the St. Saviour’s site.

A Parks Department official told the Daily News Thursday that the city would not pursue the St. Saviour’s site, much to the dismay of locals who had been pushing for years for a park there.

But “we remain keenly interested in building a new park in Maspeth,” Parks Department spokesman Zachary Feder said in a statement.

An official from Maspeth Development, which owns the St. Saviour’s site, said the city’s offers were “significantly” lower than what the company paid for the property in 2006.

“I was willing to take a loss,” said company President Scott Kushnick. But “the price was way below anything I could accept.”

Kushnick began constructing warehouses there earlier this year. His original plan to build homes there were was scuttled by the city and the housing market crash, he said.

Crowley and the Queens Borough President Helen Marshall earmarked more than $4 million to buy the property and preserve and reconstruct the historic church.

But Crowley said she’s worried they could lose the money set aside if it isn’t used soon. “I don’t want that money to go away,” she said.

She said she recently spoke with the Martin Luther School, in Maspeth, about selling the city a third of an acre.


At 14,875 sq ft, the Martin Luther School site at the corner of 61 Street and Maspeth Avenue is about one forth the size of the St. Saviour's site. The property used to belong to St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, which is across the street.

“We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place right now,” said Crowley, who had pushed for St. Saviour’s to become a park.

“I want the people who live in and around Maspeth to have green space,” she said.

Randal Gast, head of the middle and high school, said the 52-year-old Lutheran institution is “willing to listen and engage in conversation” with the city.

The property is currently used only sporadically by the school, he said.

Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, a Manhattan-based group, said the potential park land swap “should no way be considered a replacement for getting St. Saviour’s.”

“The new site is about a fourth of the size,” Croft said. “That community has so little park land.”

Christina Wilkinson, president of the Newtown Historical Society, based in Ridgewood, called the loss of St. Saviour’s “unacceptable.”

“It was a very historic site and it means a lot to the community,” she said. “It’s more than just green space — it’s our history.”

Read More:

City surrenders in long battle to turn historic St. Saviour’s site into Maspeth park

Crowley hopes to purchase smaller parcel as alternative
New York Daily News - November 10, 2011 - By Clare Trapasso

City looking at St. Saviour’s alternative

Times Ledger - November 17, 2011 - By Howard Koplowitz


Queens Chronicle - November 17, 2011 - by Michael Gannon


CITY REALLOCATES ST. SAVIOUR’S PARK MONEY

The South and West Forum - November 17, 2011


A Walk In The Park - November 7, 2011

A Walk In The Park - October 13, 2011

A Walk In the Park - May 22, 2011

Monday, November 7, 2011

St. Saviour’s Park Activists Want State To Release Funds

A rendering depicting the community's idea for a park at the St. Saviour's site. Last week the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released its list of projects to receive $7 million in mitigation funds in connection to the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment plant. The community in Maspeth is asking that $ 75,000 be released now to begin ULURP in order to acquire the property. The City Park Foundation is receiving a fee of $ 700,000. The site's owner recently began building warehouses. (Image courtesy Christina Wilkinson)

Queens

Advocates for a park at the St. Saviour’s site in Maspeth are hoping the state will change its mind and provide crucial funds for the project’s future, according to the Times Ledger.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation pledged to dish out $7 million in green projects to compensate for the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment plant’s role in polluting the waterway of the same name, and the winning suggestions were announced Friday.

The state budgeted $75,000 for one of two projects at St. Saviour’s, which is a lot where a church used to sit but where a developer is currently building warehouses. The project is about 1 percent of the total allocation money. But the DEC put it near the bottom of a list of other, more expensive projects that must be completed first, which means the money might dry up before St. Saviour’s’ number is even called.

“It’s just very strange how this all came about, and I hope our electeds get the DEC to make an adjustment,” said Christina Wilkinson, an advocate for the park.

The money — which pales in comparison to projects like a $3 million boathouse in Brooklyn and a $2 million park in Dutch Kills — would be used by the city to begin legal proceedings to acquire the land where the park would be built, know as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.

On Sept. 30, a group of 13 Queens lawmakers sent a letter to the DEC asking to release the funds before the final projects were selected from a list of 22 suggestions on how to use the money.

“The release of the funding is imperative, since delaying the start of ULURP further threatens the acquisition and increases the cost of the project,” the letter said.

On Friday they saw that the money had been set aside, but might never be released at all.

A spokesman from the DEC said the state finalized the projects in the order they were ranked by the community.

“The state’s review did not change how the projects are ranked, but provides an opportunity for the development of projects on the secondary list should funds become available after the priority list is exhausted,” said a DEC spokesman.

But the final ranking put St. Saviour’s fourth, not its current seventh.

The DEC is not the agency responsible for actually seeing that the projects are completed. That responsibility lies with the nonprofit City Parks Foundation, the group that released the list and order of the projects.

And the city Parks Department would be the agency responsible for implementing ULURP and has repeatedly pledged to begin the process as soon as the money is available.

Although there is $5.5 million in funds already allocated toward the park from various elected officials and sources, none of that capital money can be used for ULURP.

And the process will likely end in the city using eminent domain to seize the property, according to Geoffrey Croft, president of the nonprofit NYC Park Advocates, who said he had spoken with high-ranking Parks officials.

“The expectation is that the elected will continue to fund the acquisition for St. Saviour’s and by the time ULURP is complete we’ll have money to buy it,” he said.

But Parks has refused to make an official statement regarding the use of eminent domain.

A separate St. Saviour’s project was included in the winning entries, and would set aside $1.125 million for the park’s construction.

Read More:

St. Saviour’s activists want state to release funds

Times Ledger - November 4, 2011 - By Joe Anuta





Thursday, October 13, 2011

City’s St. Saviour's Park Plan Stalled Over $ 75K

A developer continues to build warehouse walls on the old St. Saviour's Church site where the community wants a park to be built instead. (Photo courtesy Marek Skiba)

Queens

Nearly two months have passed since the city committed itself to acquiring the old St. Saviour’s Church site in Maspeth for parkland, and even though $5.5 million has already been allocated to purchase the property, a sum of money totaling about 1 percent of that amount is holding up the process while warehouse walls rapidly climb, according to Times Ledger.

“It’s not an enormous amount of money,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of NYC Park Advocates. “There are so many examples of the city putting up money for things. This just does not seem to be a priority.”

The scene a few months earlier - May 21, 2011. Construction equipment in the barren St. Saviour's site. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates)


The city Parks Department needs between $50,000 and $70,000 to begin the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, a formal process that takes at least a few months whereby the city can legally buy private property.

By law, Parks cannot take the money for ULURP from the capital fund, which is the roughly $5.5 million purse that has been set aside by borough politicians to actually purchase the land.

There are several other places where the money could come from, and Croft and other advocates for the park have been trying to be creative in order to secure the funds.

He has reached out to the National Trust for Public Land, a national nonprofit that seeks to secure parkland, as well as the City Parks Foundation, a nonprofit with a similar mission on a city level.

So far, he has heard nothing.

The money could also come from city discretionary funding given to lawmakers on a city level.

“I think honestly there has been a real reluctance and an insecurity to getting this job done on the part of the electeds,” Croft said. “They’re not as aggressive as the community wants them to be.”

A total of 13 lawmakers sent a letter to the state Department of Environmental Conservation in September asking for funds for the ULURP process.

The potential park at St. Saviour’s is on a list of projects that could receive funding by the DEC in the future, but the electeds requested that some funds be released early to cover the cost of ULURP.

“The release of the funding is imperative, since delaying the start of the ULURP process further threatens the acquisition of the site and increases the cost of the project,” the letter said.

Neighbors who live across from the lot have witnessed a barrage of construction in the two months since the city agreed to begin ULURP.

Concrete block walls have risen from the dusty lot that housed only foundations in August.

Water mains and other utilities appear to have been installed, according to residents who monitor the construction.

In June, a full stop work order was issued on the property.

According to the city Department of Buildings website, the stop work order was fully lifted at the end of August. But for another section of the lot, a partial stop work order is still in effect.

But if the city actually begins the ULURP process, it will attempt to acquire the entire property, even the portion with the impending warehouses, according to Croft.

Christina Wilkinson has also advocated heavily for the park, and was incredulous the city could not find the money somewhere.

“We are to supposed to believe ... there isn’t $70,000 somewhere in the city’s $66 billion budget for a park for Maspeth?” she asked, citing multi-million projects like the renovation of Times Square and a new golf course in the Bronx.

In July 2007, all 185 trees on the property were cut down without any warning. Shortly after the parsonage was demolished, the church was removed and the land was leveled.

Read More:

Times Ledger - October 13, 2011 - By Joe Anuta

A Walk In the Park - May 22, 2011