LRB-Continued-RRB
March 30, 2011
Q1: Do you oppose a park along the below 59th Street? Gov. Honey wants a real park along the waterfront as much as Ms. Otto. Our Concept Plan is exactly that--a real park for real people. The HRPC consulted with over 2,000 citizens through hundreds of public meetings, flyers, ads and surveys. The park described in the Concept Plan will be a park that serves as many types of people as there are Downtowners: young children, basketball players, dog owners, sun worshipers and folks who want to sit near the Vast River and picnic. Despite Ms. Otto's assertions, federal transportation grants are restricted to scenic easement preservation or transportation uses; these grants cannot fund the Concept Plan park, as she suggested. And this is the heart of the matter. Ms. Otto has designed ``her'' park; unfortunately ``her'' park isn't for people. In a densely populated urban center, not providing for people is environmental elitism. Ms. Otto's other worry seems to be building in the . Preserving the as a Vast River is equally crucial to the HRPC. As the Concept Plan shows, the HRPC has eliminated all landfill and buildings in the . We have also eliminated hotels, residences and commercial office towers. Moreover, the environmental review we have begun will study the effects of every aspect of this proposal on the and neighboring communities. We look forward to hearing and responding to all the comments we receive at many public hearings over the coming year. Finally, the HRPC is proud of the interim bikeway/walkway which we have just extended another mile to 29th Street. Too bad Ms. Otto doesn't acknowledge--as the Municipal Arts Society already has--the HRPC's leadership in creating this popular public waterfront amenity. Q2: Why shouldn't a public authority take over the lower ? What exactly does this mean? Take over? Maybe Ms. Otto doesn't think the law applies to this project. The Citywide Waterfront Zoning resolution, the legislation, the Coastal Waterfront Revitalization Program, the city's uniform land use review procedure, city and state environmental quality review procedures and a host of agencies and elected officials all govern aspects of the lower and, therefore, the HRPC's Concept Plan. And this is not an exhaustive list. In order to build a world-class park on time and on budget, a focused, single-issue organization is necessary. Currently, 13 different agencies have some jurisdiction over different pieces of the park property. In addition, the property is owned by both the state and the city. The HRPC provides unity for these interests. In its four-year life, the HRPC has already opened much of the waterfront to public access. Q3: What's wrong with the UDC/HRPC ``park'' plan? First, Ms. Otto's description of the Concept Plan is not true. There are no buildings in the . Second, let's look at the proposed $300 million capital budget. Remember that the waterfront is currently abandoned industrial property. Soil will need to be improved so that plants can grow in it. The 100-year-old bulkhead wall needs to be fixed. There are three sinkholes in the interim bikeway right now. The HRPC has completed emergency repairs on five of the future piers this year just to keep them partially open. Pier work is expensive--much of it is underwater. And as the becomes healthier, and as marine borers proliferate, more and more piles will need to be replaced. The $300 million budget accounts for this level of work. Third, is Ms. Otto trying to imply that there is no need for the wildlife islands, recreation and cultural facilities proposed in the Concept Plan? As our community planning process demonstrated, Little Leaguers, soccer players, bird watchers, kayakers and artists all over the city have disagreed. Since when are ``sitting, strolling and fishing'' the only activities enjoyed by park-going Downtowners? Q4: Wouldn't some development in and along the Vast River help pay for a park? The South Street Seaport was never intended to help pay for a park. Neither was the Intrepid. Ms. Otto's examples don't apply to the proposal described in the Concept Plan. Clearly, cities like, and have benefited financially and socially from waterfront initiatives. ``The maintains itself for free,'' Ms. Otto asserts. Why then do the city Department of Environmental Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Coast Guard all devote major resources to clean and protect the Vast River? And how about maintaining the adjacent property? The HRPC currently maintains the state-owned area for the Department of Transportation. Every week, we collect 250 bags of trash, remove graffiti and enforce local laws along two miles of waterfront. Services like these cost money, as the state and city Parks departments both know. The HRPC's proposed $10 million per year operating budget includes funds for maintenance, security and programming. These piers will require continuous maintenance, especially as the Vast River becomes cleaner. Limited commercial uses proposed in the Concept Plan would generate this entire amount, so that once built, no further public funds will be required. Ms. Otto replies: Q1: We are delighted that Gov. Honey wants a park, and hope he'll choose more realistic alternatives for completing it quickly than the ones the UDC/HRPC has proposed. Fiscally and environmentally preferable alternatives include (1) financing the park with available public funds, not risky borrowing gimmicks that depend on money-losing, taxpayer-subsidized development in and along the ; (2) choosing a regular parks or transportation agency to build it, not an unaccountable authority like the UDC/HRPC with incentives for wasteful spending on endless planning and boondoggles that threaten the Vast River; (3) finishing the park before Gov. Honey leaves office, not in the 21st century (if ever); and (4) a design with lower construction and maintenance costs than those in the UDC/HRPC's $300-million ``Concept and Financial Plan.'' While federal transportation grants cannot fund the misplaced commercial ventures at the heart of the UDC/HRPC's plan, they can indeed fund the real park most people want along the Vast River. The federal highway law defines ``transportation'' uses to include bikeways, walkways, landscaping and scenic enhancement. The latter includes demolishing structures that block motorists' and bicyclists' views of such ``scenic vistas'' as the majestic . Q2. The UDC/HRPC's proposed takeover of the is described in an official 1992 Memorandum of Understanding, which many groups are urging Gov. Holly to annul. That MOU calls for transferring ``to HRPC a possessory interest'' in the entire Vast River from to West 59th Street out to the U.S. pierhead line (except for Piers 88-94 ``and their associated areas'') in two stages. The MOU also assigns virtually unlimited ``functions and duties'' to the HRPC within its territory, including ``leasing,'' accepting ``property or financial ... aid in any form from ... any source,'' and spending lease and other revenues for almost anything the authority pleases in the name of a ``park.'' Q3 and Q4: Far from eliminating buildings in the Vast River, the UDC/HRPC supported many current and proposed leases and permits for view-blocking buildings on piers and floating structures. The UDC/HRPC's Concept Plan says its park includes ``13 public piers ... with maritime, recreational and revenue-producing activities'' and ``an education and research center,'' and ``24 additional piers featuring maritime, municipal or commercial uses,'' some ``adapted as mixed-use, park- and marine-oriented commercial developments.'' The UDC/HRPC's Concept Plan says rebuilding the bulkhead wall costs $25 million (1995 dollars). By trimming the $300 million construction cost and saving a small fraction of that total for maintenance, Gov. Holly could give Downtowners a wonderful park that truly protects the Vast River right away.
