Room Eight | Brooklyn Bridge Park: A Modest Proposal

“One of the real issues in the campaign (on the Brooklyn side of the district) is the proposed construction of luxury housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park (BBP). Connor's for it. Diamondstone's against — and so is the community. It's not Atlantic Yards. Call this story "on the waterfront." But this primary election is shaping up as a referendum on an issue. And isn't that what they're supposed to be about.”

Alex Navarro – Working Families Party (WFP) Blog (9/6/06)

Although Marty Connor beat Ken Diamondstone 55/45, these numbers are deceiving. About 65% of the the 25^th Senatorial District is in Manhattan, about 10% in Williamsburg/Greenpoint; Connor won those areas handily; although a 36 year resident of Brooklyn Heights, with 28 years representing the area in the State Senate, Connor lost the Brownstone Brooklyn area by a resounding margin, taking less 40% of the vote. While there were other issues, Mr. Navarro is exactly right. Atlantic Yards, which Mr. Navarro and the WFP support, is not in the 25th SD, and the intensity of opposition to it drops exponentially with every block. The proposed park is at the edge of the prosperous areas of Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill, and has inspired intense, albeit uninformed, opposition. If this was a referendum on the Park, and I think it was, the Park lost.

Mr. Diamondstone’s election day palm cards said “Save Brooklyn Bridge Park”, and doubtless he believes every word. In reality though, he is like the American general in Vietnam who stated that we had to destroy the village in order to save it. Like so many of his positions, Mr. Diamondstone’s opposition to the Brooklyn Bridge Park plan is both sincere and simpleminded. By contrast, many of his supporters knew exactly what they were doing.

This project has a long history, stemming from the desire of the Port Authority to divest itself of Piers 1-5, probably at least since the late seventies. At one time in the not-so-distant past it was the explicit intent of the Port Authority to sell these properties to the highest bidder with the likeliest consequence being the construction of high rise residential buildings and big box retail. While it was the desire of many in the community to maintain the status quo (lightly used wasteland), it was clear that the only way to stop the worst from occurring was to propose an attractive alternative. Hence, the idea for Brooklyn Bridge Park was born. However, it soon became clear that the City and State would be unwilling to consider the construction of a park of this size, unless it was self supporting. Hence the creation, by local elected officials (Marty Connor, Eileen Dugan, Abe Gerges, Steve Solarz and Howie Golden) and civic organizations, of "13 Guiding Principles" for a Park which would support itself by including just enough revenue creating activities. Ironically, a movement driven by NIMBY had produced a vision, not merely to avoid what was not wanted, but to create something better; much needed greenspace for the Downtown Brooklyn communities.

In 1993, the plan for a Park embodying these principles was officially endorsed by City government, largely through the assistance and insistence of Ed Towns, and the large shadow of an impending election. But, for a while every time the community got the ear of the Mayor and Governor (Eileen Dugan having persuaded Mario Cuomo), democracy intervened and they were back at square one. But in the mid-nineties, the visionary efforts by Marty Connor and Howie Golden to create the Brooklyn Bridge Park Local Development Corporation resulted in a public process which created a plan for the development of Brooklyn Bridge Park. All the while Marty Connor used his muscle as Minority Leader to provide the essential funding for this process, and to get the Governor to implement the plans.

But then the poetry of the vision has gave way to the hard prose of its implementation. And it would be foolish not to admit that the prose is far less pretty than the poetry. This park is extremely costly. The environmental movement of the sixties and seventies yielded much needed legislation which has improved the water quality of the East River to such an extent that marine borers (but not their predators) have returned. These tiny worms love pier-wood more than Winnie the Pooh loves honey, or Ravi Batra loves receiverships. Preserving the Piers is extremely costly, and even with such expenditures, the condition of the Piers does put limits on their usage. As such, some of the wonderful things envisioned for the Park could not be in these plans, because of cost and other factors. More importantly, some of the less than wonderful things not envisioned for the Park had to be included, if there were to be a park at all. Basically, only two things are capable of generating the necessary revenue, apartment buildings or big box retail. The Plan chose housing, encompassing less than 10% of the total proposed footage. Not such an awful sacrifice to facilitate the creation of a world-class park running from Atlantic Avenue to beyond the Manhattan Bridge.

There are those who have been deceived into thinking that further study will show that something else, something which will not attract traffic or otherwise impact upon the quality of life, will generate the necessary revenue. Essentially this is the argument of those whose goal is the perpetuation of the status quo for longer and longer periods of time. But delay has a large price. The Port Authority funding which the Governor allocated to this project is not growing; delay means the same money will buy far less park, further down the road. If the goal is a better park, then delay undermines this goal. Moreover, delay means unpredictable shifts in political power. In January, we will have a new Governor and there is no assurance that this change will result in an executive who has an ownership stake in these plans. The time to put facts in the ground is rapidly running out. Facts in the ground make it more likely that these plans will be carried to fruition, fully funded. Delay means other priorities may intervene.

What then would happen? The status quo will not last. The Port Authority is getting rid of these Piers. And an unsustainable park will not be countenanced. A park without sufficient revenue will mean no park at all.

*********************************************************************************************
"I'm not against the park, but when I as a black women in Brooklyn have to ask permission to walk through a building to get into the park, I have a problem".

PAULINE BLAKE; Land Use Chair Brooklyn Community Board #6
Downtown Brooklyn Star
September 15, 2005

Would white people, as this statement seems to imply, be permitted to enter the building without getting permission? Inquiring minds want to know. I mean, what does such demagoguery add to the debate? As a Jew, the most persecuted people of all time, I resent it when someone wants my community to turn down a good bargain.

Blake’s statement is especially ironic because many opponents of the Park plan have been using white racist code words for years. The Willowtown Association, which is currently part of the Orwellian “Brooklyn Bridge Defense Fund”, states that it supports the original, financially unfeasible, 2000 Park plan, although back in 2000 they were holding rallies against it because it would create additional “foot traffic” on Joralemon Street (they actually hung up signs with the welcoming slogan "Don't Tread On Me"). One suspects that the real objection is that those feet treading upon their street might be walking from areas east of Brooklyn Heights and wearing the wrong brand of sneakers.

Other opposition is more nuanced. Unlike the Willowtown folks, the Cobble Hill Association did support the original plan. They just don’t like the new one. Unlike the Willowtown folks, there is no element of racism in their opposition; they aren’t afraid of people of color coming into their area; they are worried about a few more white people. No racism; just short-sighted mean-spirited parochialism. But, can one imagine the elation it would have created among those opposing Fairway or IKEA if they were instead offered a large waterfront park at the price of a relatively small amount of residential construction (compare Atlantic Yards) as an alternative? How does anyone who supported IKEA look Red Hookers in the eye and say IKEA is Okay, but this park plan is unacceptable? Those who support Atlantic Yards should think long and hard how one could support putting Starrett City at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush, but object to one 30 story building at Atlantic and the Waterfront (which comes with a park). Mr. Navarro is correct; this isn’t Atlantic Yards, it’s so much better. Yet relentless pro-development voices like WPF oppose Brooklyn Bridge Park, possibly because some of its local leadership lives in Cobble Hill and doesn’t want to practice what it preaches.

Other opposition comes from overly idealistic parkies (pragmatic parkies like Tupper Thomas of the Prospect Park Conservancy support the plan) because they oppose park having to support themselves. I too am nostalgic for the days when parks weren't required to support themselves. I also miss vinyl records and funny Woody Allen films.

I do think it is not unreasonable to ask that the park contain additional active recreation. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that appropriate traffic measures be taken. But, lowering the revenue stream is not an option. Those who oppose a park which can pay for itself should have the guts to say they oppose the Park, because, in every realistic sense, they do. At least one leader of the Defense Fund, Roy Sloane, a former President of the Cobble Hill Association has admitted as much. "There shall be a fair park, or no park at all". Even if cutting the revenue stream did not kill the park, it would still be a bad idea. The adjoining neighborhoods would not be well served by creating a park that becomes a wasteland because of government neglect. A sufficient revenue stream is the insurance that this will not occur.

The other arguments being raised are red herrings. Brownstone Brooklyn faces serious potential problems from overdevelopment, but this should not cause blind opposition to every project, rather than taking each on its merits; this project's plusses heavily outweigh its minuses. I share the concerns of some about the use Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) and tax abatements (I feel the same way about Economic Development Zones), but only as part of a larger public policy debate. At present, these things are facts of public policy, and Brownstone Brooklyn residents should feel no obligation to go out of the way to oppose their use in a project where their usage will actually benefit their community. And, in the case of PILOTs, I am hardpressed to think of any alternative that could possible ensure that the revue generated by this plan actually gets dedicated to the park and nothing else.

I am also not unaware that, as in so many Pataki administration projects, some developer is likely to benefit, and I will be unsurprised if when the web is unraveled something unseemly will appear to have occurred concerning this project. That the Pataki administration has operated this way for years is no secret, but I am hard pressed to find many in the community who've raised these concerns independent of a project they didn't like anyway. The only way to stop this is to close the government down entirely (which would, no doubt, please many in the Governor's party). I myself, however, feel that communities are under no obligation to stop accepting beneficial projects to protest this distressing situation, which hopefully will be rectified in this year's election.

If I were Elliot Spitzer, facing huge budget gaps, and I saw a huge money pit of a Pataki project going into a community that didn't particularly seem to want to take Yes for an answer, I’d stop giving it to them, and I'd take the money and put it somewhere where someone might actually show some gratitude for it. What State or City official in his right mind wants to go forward with a project when all evidence indicates that the only result will be good money being spent to create community ingratitude?

But, what to do with the Piers? Well, the WFP proudly proclaims their side won the referendum, so now let’s advance a WFP solution. After all, this must be a WFP issue of the highest priority as it was seemingly the primary cause for them to oppose the re-election of a member with a perfect record of support for the positions of organized labor. WPF opposes luxury housing paying for Parks, but at Atlantic Yards it explicitly favors luxury housing subsidizing housing for less than the market rate. Many of the WFP mindset, including Atlantic Yards dissident Tish James, have objected to the lack of affordable housing in the Park plan. Yet it is clear that Atlantic Yards is too damned big and involves troubling usage of eminent domain. Clearly a WFP sanctioned solution is staring us in the face.

The new Governor should cut the housing at Atlantic Yards in half, and move the balance, including a proportionate share of the affordable housing, to the Brooklyn Heights waterfront. Why should only rich people get to wake up to world class views (now that there won’t be a world class park). The community won’t mind, as its leadership has stated its preference for no park at all over a park they dislike. Since it’s been clear to any idiot not deluding themselves that apartments are coming to the waterfront, and the only question is whether a park is coming as well, the results should not be a surprise; this is what a Park was suppose to forestall; kill the park and this is what you get. Dorothy Siegel, a WFP leader from Cobble Hill has always been outspoken in her opposition to the use of PILOTS and the construction of large luxury developments without an affordable element. Under my modest proposal, she will proudly be able to gaze upon the affordable housing she’s created from the rooftop where she used to see New York harbor, while her neighbors give her full credit for her leadership in ensuring this result.

After all, the people have spoken. They didn’t want the Park plan; now they should be allowed to fully enjoy the inevitable alternative. This primary election really was a referendum; and isn't that what they're supposed to be about.

(OK schmucks, it’s called “A Modest Proposal” for a reason; Read Swift’s original before you start bitching. On the other hand, if Swift’s original “Modest Proposal” had been implemented, Marty Connor would never have been born, and no one would need to be fighting to kill Brooklyn Bridge Park).