In the News: Playing hardball in Bloomingdale Woods. Also, Parks embattled by accusations of prejudice and arbitrary fees; court victory over a water filtration plant underneath Van Cortlandt Park.
(Feb '01) A plan to put ball fields in Bloomingdale Woods Park is rolling ahead, in spite of opposition by Staten Island's leading environmental group, Protectors of Pine Oak Woods. The project raises the question of whether it is acceptable to build recreational fields in a city park set aside for its natural values.
Many people see the dizzying pace of development in south Staten Island as the underlying problem. So much new housing has been built and continues to be built without any planning for recreation or other community needs. Staten Island is actually one of the most biological diverse areas in the state, and environmentalists are trying to preserve some of the last unprotected scraps. Yet there is such an acute shortage of playing fields that kids are on waiting lists for sports, and sports groups are clamoring for the use of existing open space.
The project's supporters say that only the park's eastern section would be affected -- just 38 of a total of 138 acres, with actual construction on 11.8 acres. Baseball and soccer fields, as well as tennis and basketball courts, would be fitted in among the hills, to use the most level spots, save 70 percent of the mature trees, and avoid the officially mapped wetlands scattered about, although significant earth-moving would also be required.
The environmentalists say that they want ball fields, too, but argue that other potential sites would be more appropriate and cost-effective. They say that the wetlands in this section of the park are actually much more extensive than the official maps show, and that the project will fragment a rare native-species forest, allowing invasive species to come in. They note that the City Department of Environmental Protection originally designated this section of the park for its Bluebelt stormwater management plan. They also insist that it doesn't make sense to put ball fields in a hilly, wet site with poorly draining clay soils, predicting problems with muddy and eroded fields. A feasibility study done for the Parks Department in 1999 determined that creating sports fields in Bloomingdale Park would cost four times more than putting those fields at several other sites, with higher maintenance costs as well.
The political pressure to build is huge: Borough President Guy Molinari, Councilman Stephen Fiala, and Mayor Guiliani are all lined up behind the $5.8 million project, along with many other local officials. The Staten Island Advance editorialized against Protectors, saying the group was unreasonable in its opposition to altering even a fraction of the park. The Parks department resisted the idea at first, but has kept its silence since. The city transferred the project to the Department of Design and Construction, which intends to finish the required Environmental Impact Study by March. The department is accepting written comments on the issue until February 21.
Embattled at Parks
Parks Commissioner Henry Stern has been under siege recently, criticized for setting arbitrary fees for events in the parks and for discriminatory promotional practices within the department. Many of the criticisms focus on free-market strategies he has used to compensate for budget cuts by the city. The parks chief, who has a reputation for politically incorrect comments, eccentric behavior, and an abrasive management style, has also been called one of the best parks commissioners the city has ever had. Most recently, City Council members attacked his policy of charging high fees to homeowners who want to cut down established street trees.
In the discrimination case, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that there was "reasonable cause" to believe that the department had discriminated on the basis of race and national origins in the promotion and assignment of employees. The commission also said that the department had retaliated against three workers who complained of discrimination. Twenty black and Hispanic current and former "parkies" filed complaints with the commission, saying they were passed over, some of them numerous times, for promotions that were given to younger, less experienced white colleagues. They also charge that job locations were assigned along racial lines.
A lot of the resentment focuses on a program (called the "Class of" program) instituted by Stern in 1994 to recruit top college graduates the way businesses do. Participants don't follow union rules and typically work long hours for little pay, but are given a lot of responsibility and have access to top department officials. About 80 percent of the young people who have signed on have been white. Although most program participants leave after two years, some have stayed and been promoted to permanent senior jobs - some of which were never formally posted -- ahead of career employees.
The day after the discrimination finding was released, Commissioner Stern appeared before the City Council with 46 boxes of financial data subpoenaed in an inquiry into the way the parks department set fees for companies and charities to stage events in the parks. This long-standing parks practice came under fire last fall when the Catholic Museum balked at paying $20,000 to stage a fundraiser in a Harlem park.
A few days later, Stern was back before the council testifying against a bill that would substantially lower what the department could charge homeowners who cut down trees on their sidewalks. Homeowners must pay the cost of planting a certain number of saplings, depending on the size of the original tree. This issue comes up mostly when a tree needs to be removed for a construction project -- a homeowner can't cut down a healthy street tree just because he or she doesn't like it. The parks department has collected $1.5 million in replacement tree costs in the last seven years, with the money going into a special tree trust. Council Speaker Peter Vallone said the fees "appear to be another set of arbitrary charges imposed by the Parks department." At the hearing, Deputy Parks Commissioner Alan Moss said that the number of replacement saplings was calculated from an accepted forestry standard based on the diameter of the tree.
Filtration plant blocked at Van Cortlandt Park
A decision by the state's highest court has essentially killed the city's plan to build a water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt Park. The plant was the city's solution to a federal order to filter the part of the city's water supply that comes from the Croton watershed. The court affirmed that state law requires permission from the legislature to use a park for another purpose, which is unlikely given the wide opposition to the plant by Bronx legislators, including Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and State Senator Guy Velella, who represent the district the park is in.
There has been speculation that the new administration might allow the city to avoid filtration through new measures to protect the already heavily developed Croton watershed. The New York Times reported that Charles Sturcken, chief of staff of the city's Department of Environmental Protection, said that the agency would pursue every avenue with the federal government. But Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Mary Mears was quick to squelch that notion. "Our bottom line is that the Croton watershed must be filtered in order to protect public health," she was quoted as saying. "That bottom line isn't one that comes from any particular administration." If the filtration plant is not built soon, the city faces millions of dollars in fines.
Anne Schwartz is a freelance writer specializing in environmental issues. Previously, she was the editor of the Audubon Activist, a news journal for environmental action published by the National Audubon Society, and an editor at The New York Botanical Garden.
If anyplace is a paradise paved over into a parking lot, it is the Hudson shore of Manhattan. For two generations, parking apparently was the best and highest riverside use from the Battery to 59th Street, followed by homeless encampments and dumps.
Green is returning to the Hudson shore through efforts of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, its successor, the Hudson River Park Trust, and the community. By late 2001, recreation paths will connect Battery Park to Riverside Park. In Greenwich Village, the park has trees and a grassy lawn heavily used by sunbathers. Pier 40 houses a soccer field, batting cages and a cafe. On Piers 25/26, there is a day camp, a river research facility and a boathouse for human-powered craft. In season, the Trust sponsors movies and concerts.
Still, most of the plan for the Hudson River Park remains on paper. The existing park is far more asphalt gray than it is green. And residents fear delay, or worse, a sellout.
At the heart of the debate is the plan for capacious Pier 40. Proponents of P3 the Pier, Park & Playground Plan seek to convert the 1.2 million square foot site to open space and neighborhood recreation. The Pier now houses freight transshipment, police barricade storage, and over two thousand cars. P3 hopes to build 20.8 acres of ball fields, running paths, and sunbathing areas intermingled with artistsÅó» studios, limited concessions and parking. The $120 million plan is financed by parking revenue and an assumed $30 million contribution from the Trust. Parking revenues would also pay operating costs. Tobi Bergman, P3's President, extols the "self-sufficient" plan as "the best opportunity to provide Lower Manhattan with open space and recreation". Community Boards 1 and 2 have endorsed the plan.
The Trust, the entity in charge, has no comment on P3. It plans to broadly seek proposals for pier development and operation. According to Noreen Doyle, Trust spokesperson, the proposal process will seek "compatible uses, open space and revenue consistent with the Hudson River Park Act of 1998".
Arthur Schwartz, Chairman of both the Hudson River Park Advisory Council and CB2's Waterfront Committee knows how important this site is to the locals. Residents of Chelsea and the Village have surprisingly little parkland. For decades, residents have seen waterfront plans come and go. Schwartz senses the time is now. "If we get the ball rolling this year, there will be a Pier 40 park by 2005-6".
Reaching goals and getting balls rolling differ. Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is concerned about the eventual magnitude of commercial space and the allocation process for using park space. Schwartz carefully defined his goals emphasizing his hope for "the greatest amount" of park, the "least noxious" commercial uses and the "minimal necessary" revenue. It is these "details" that will define how green (or gray) the park will be and how much revenue Pier 40 will contribute to the Hudson River Park. Glick argues that Pier 40 and its local users should not have to make up park-wide shortfalls at the expense of local green.
Sounding Off
The Trust's proposal process may yield concepts that kick off revenues to sustain the three-mile park while kicking out neighborhood uses and green. It's about balance -- political balance between Mayoral and Gubernatorial appointees, financial balance between revenue needs and open space for park uses and a balance among users - local, visitors, passive, and active.
Achieving balance depends on two key steps. These are the words the Trust puts into its proposal documents and the guidelines the Trust adopts for evaluating the completed proposals. The choice of words and criteria will likely color all that follows.
Glick's concerns are about values, community values. When the trust talks revenues, they also talk values, many fear -- financial values. Green is a color of many shades. To some it is the color of money, to others it is the color of paradise.
The question remains whose values will choose the words and criteria that create a park.
(Feb '01) If anyplace is a paradise paved over into a parking lot, it is the Hudson shore of Manhattan. For two generations, parking apparently was the best and highest riverside use from the Battery to 59th Street, followed by homeless encampments and dumps.
Green is returning to the Hudson shore through efforts of the Hudson River Park Conservancy, its successor, the Hudson River Park Trust, and the community. By late 2001, recreation paths will connect Battery Park to Riverside Park. In Greenwich Village, the park has trees and a grassy lawn heavily used by sunbathers. Pier 40 houses a soccer field, batting cages and a cafe. On Piers 25/26, there is a day camp, a river research facility and a boathouse for human-powered craft. In season, the Trust sponsors movies and concerts.
Still, most of the plan for the Hudson River Park remains on paper. The existing park is far more asphalt gray than it is green. And residents fear delay, or worse, a sellout.
At the heart of the debate is the plan for capacious Pier 40. Proponents of P3 the Pier, Park & Playground Plan seek to convert the 1.2 million square foot site to open space and neighborhood recreation. The Pier now houses freight transshipment, police barricade storage, and over two thousand cars. P3 hopes to build 20.8 acres of ball fields, running paths, and sunbathing areas intermingled with artistsÅó» studios, limited concessions and parking. The $120 million plan is financed by parking revenue and an assumed $30 million contribution from the Trust. Parking revenues would also pay operating costs. Tobi Bergman, P3's President, extols the "self-sufficient" plan as "the best opportunity to provide Lower Manhattan with open space and recreation". Community Boards 1 and 2 have endorsed the plan.
The Trust, the entity in charge, has no comment on P3. It plans to broadly seek proposals for pier development and operation. According to Noreen Doyle, Trust spokesperson, the proposal process will seek "compatible uses, open space and revenue consistent with the Hudson River Park Act of 1998".
Arthur Schwartz, Chairman of both the Hudson River Park Advisory Council and CB2's Waterfront Committee knows how important this site is to the locals. Residents of Chelsea and the Village have surprisingly little parkland. For decades, residents have seen waterfront plans come and go. Schwartz senses the time is now. "If we get the ball rolling this year, there will be a Pier 40 park by 2005-6".
Reaching goals and getting balls rolling differ. Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is concerned about the eventual magnitude of commercial space and the allocation process for using park space. Schwartz carefully defined his goals emphasizing his hope for "the greatest amount" of park, the "least noxious" commercial uses and the "minimal necessary" revenue. It is these "details" that will define how green (or gray) the park will be and how much revenue Pier 40 will contribute to the Hudson River Park. Glick argues that Pier 40 and its local users should not have to make up park-wide shortfalls at the expense of local green.
Sounding Off
The Trust's proposal process may yield concepts that kick off revenues to sustain the three-mile park while kicking out neighborhood uses and green. It's about balance -- political balance between Mayoral and Gubernatorial appointees, financial balance between revenue needs and open space for park uses and a balance among users - local, visitors, passive, and active.
Achieving balance depends on two key steps. These are the words the Trust puts into its proposal documents and the guidelines the Trust adopts for evaluating the completed proposals. The choice of words and criteria will likely color all that follows.
Glick's concerns are about values, community values. When the trust talks revenues, they also talk values, many fear -- financial values. Green is a color of many shades. To some it is the color of money, to others it is the color of paradise.
The question remains whose values will choose the words and criteria that create a park.
Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.
A longstanding Parks Department practice of soliciting "donations" from private groups that want to use city parks for large-scale events has come under increasing scrutiny recently. The issue came to a head when the National Museum of Catholic Art and History protested a last-minute requirement by the Parks department for a $20,000 payment in order to stage a fundraiser in an East Harlem Park.
The immediate crisis was solved when an anonymous donor came up with the money, but the action angered City Council speaker Peter Vallone, who began an investigation. Parks Commissioner Henry Stern and Mayor Giuliani defended the practice, although Stern ultimately apologized for the way the request had been handled, saying that he would draw up new guidelines to clarify the process of soliciting donations. A City Council official confirmed news reports that Speaker Vallone and Mayor Giuliani were negotiating a revision of the system.
New Yorkers generally support charging private organizations for using the parks, especially profit-making companies, or when the event damages or prevents the public from using the park. Criticism has focused on the informal and sometimes vague nature of the requests, and whether the amounts requested are fair. In one article, the Colombian Civic Center and several other nonprofits bemoaned the increasingly steep fees they have been charged to hold festivals in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.
Another problem is lack of accountability for how the donations are spent. The money goes to a number of non-profits that help city parks, including the City Parks Foundation. If the money were given directly to the Parks Department, it would end up in the city government's general fund (like the $45 million in other revenues the Parks Department raised last year), where it could not be specifically earmarked for parks. But there is no public accounting for how much money is brought in and how it is spent.
Some parks advocates feel that decreasing public funding for parks has put pressure on the parks department to conduct this type of problematic fundraising, a charge that city officials deny. Although the city has had great success in raising private money to restore some of the city's flagship parks, maintenance suffers in many parks. Parks advocates wonder whether the city has gone too far in expecting private donations to make up for lack of public support.
Anne Sounds Off
We New Yorkers love our parks and rate them highly, but without realizing it, we have lowered our expectations for what kind of resources we can expect the city to devote to parks. The parks department operating budget, which covers maintenance and recreational programs, has been declining for decades and is now less than one half of one percent of the city budget. The city has cut the parks department staff in half since 1986. Private donations have made a dramatic difference in a few flagship parks, but haven't begun to close the gap overall. We're used to a shortage of playable ball fields and jam-packed pools and skating rinks. We're pleasantly surprised when the bathrooms work. Most New Yorkers don't even know that the city once had employees in most parks to provide upkeep and youth recreational programs.
This could change.
In 2001, because of term limits, we'll be electing a new mayor, comptroller, public advocate, and 36 of the 51 city council members. It's a golden opportunity to elect representatives who understand the importance of parks and recreation to the life of the city.
The Parks Council, a nonprofit advocacy group, has begun laying the groundwork to make the most of this opportunity. The organization's overall goal is to raise the parks department's operating funds to one percent of the city budget, as well as to make sure that this additional money is distributed equitably to bring parks throughout the city up to the standards of our best parks. As part of its "Campaign for Parks and Recreation: 2001," the council is developing profiles of parks, open space, and recreation facilities in every city council district, and meeting with all the candidates to educate them on park issues. It plans to publicize the position statements of the candidates on its web site. The council is also building s upport from many sectors of the community that depend on parks in some way but don't generally advocate for parks. This includes youth service agencies, sports leagues, real estate and business groups, schools, and the police force.
Just a relatively small additional investment of city funds in parks, with good managerial oversight, would reap significant dividends for nearly every aspect of city life. We can raise our expectations a little. After all, shouldn't a city like New York have a world-class park system?
Anne Schwartz is a freelance writer specializing in environmental issues. Previously, she was the editor of the Audubon Activist, a news journal for environmental action published by the National Audubon Society, and an editor at The New York Botanical Garden.