Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Park? Yes! Housing? No!: Take Time Out To Testify Against Luxury Housing In Brooklyn Bridge Park

IMG_8183
Looking towards the waterfront at Atlantic Avenue

Identified building sites in Brooklyn Bridge Park indicated in orange
Picture 2
Rendering of Pier 6 Brooklyn from Bridge Park Development Corporation

Picture 3
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates' vision for Brooklyn Bridge Park
made into a postcard by the Park Defence Fund


Another public hearing on alternatives to housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park will be held on Thursday, March 31st at 5:30 PM at St. Francis College, 180 Remsen Street (between Court and Clinton Streets)
Though the City and developers have tried to convince the community that five additional buildings within the park are the only solution to finance the Park, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund and community activists know that this is not true.

As Roy Sloane, President of the Cobble Hill Association notes below, the community overwhelmingly opposes the idea of luxury housing in a public park. The public put forth a number of ideas to generate revenue for the park to fund its operation and maintenance.

From Roy Sloane:
I want to thank you again for your commitment to creating the best park possible for our communities, along the waterfront.
We are at a critical juncture. The Brooklyn Bridge Park developers and private Conservancy are out in force trying to convince park users that the only way to pay for the park is through housing inside park borders. 5 more buildings are in the plan.

The new report by Bay Area Economics proves differently. These consultants found many ways to pay for the park without housing. But they did not look at the biggest revenue opportunities: The Jehovah Witness properties immediately adjacent to the park.
Nor did they consider the Atlantic Ferry Landing concept that would serve as an entertainment and recreational draw on Pier 6.
Nor did they consider the Real Estate Transaction fee (East Hampton does this to preserve open space).
Nor did they fairly price events, concessions or even movie shoots (suggesting that Steven Spielberg pay only a $300 permit fee to use the park is, well, irresponsible).

I ask you to please take 1 hour out of your civic schedule to please attend the hearing on Thursday, March 31st at 5:30 PM and TESTIFY that we don't want nor do we need more private housing inside this park. The consultant's report proves this. And if they now look
at the revenue ideas they ignored in the draft, maybe we can move to a new phase for BBP.

They do not read our testimony but they do listen. Could you pls attend this meeting and speak out?

Thank you. Roy Sloane

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Full of lies.
1) the bae report does not prove you can maintain thenpark without housing. Quite the opposite. Even if you do eberything in the report you will still need to earn several million dollars from housing
2) the bae report looked very closely at several ways to earn money from the jehovas witness buildings. None of them really pan out without siphoning money out of the city's coffers.
3) the bae report looked at commercial realnestate development and adiditional concessions, which is basically what the fulton landing concept is
4) if anything, the concessions are priced way too aggressively. I would like to hear on what basis mr sloane is saying that they are too low.