From the NY Post:A Queens waterfront-park project will become the first city-run green space funded by the construction of new housing, The Post has learned.
City officials confirmed that daily maintenance of an 11-acre esplanade planned for Long Island City will largely be funded with revenue from 5,000 apartments in the same project.
And park advocates fear the city's Hunters Point South development will open the door to other city parks relying on housing to survive, as a state-city quasi government entity is with Brooklyn Bridge Park.
They’re also concerned that the new park, like the 85-acre Brooklyn Bridge Park project that includes condos, will ultimately feel more like a fancy back yard for residents of the adjoining housing than a true public park.
"It's a dangerous precedent to rely on these funding schemes, as they create an enormous disparity between the haves and the have-nots," said Geoffrey Croft, of New York City Park Advocates.
"Plus, it's even worse than Brooklyn Bridge Park because Hunters Point is a denser project, with many more residents and less parkland."
With an anticipated budget of about $1.1 million, or $100,000 an acre, Hunters Point’s esplanade would also be among the city’s top-funded parks through the creation of 3,000 affordable and 2,000 market-rate adjacent apartments.
The city spends nearly $10,000 an acre in tax dollars to maintain the average park. Historically, the best ones — like Bryant and Central — are usually in elite neighborhoods that supplement their budgets with private dollars raised by well-funded conservancies.
12 comments:
Yes sure a fancy gated community destined to be for only the residents in the small six block area. Who's green park space?
Bloomberg's and the apathetic settlers who dont care about the history of the neighborhood or what they live above?
Stay out of our park. LOL!
Look, guys this is complete bullshit. Go to Chicago, the waterfront is a park.
Go to the Hudson. A park all the way up to Albany.
Where is the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance? Take a look at their board - why do I see a lot of developers?
The other bullshit are the young people that are the waterfront advocates - calmly taking orders from the developers and politicans -
"Oh you can do 'X' but you cannot do 'Y' and to keep you in line here is a dollop of money so you can go out and buy some ice cream."
Answer -"OK"
The people have always been cut off from their waterfront - first by the rich people and their estates, then by industry, now again by the rich people.
This is bullshit!!!!
The community preservation folks have their head up their ass on this one.
But, then again, Brooklyn Heights has its little park so the rest of you can go f*k yourselves, right?
JUST THINK OF ALL YOUR TAX DOLLARS THAT COULD BE USED FOR A PARK THAT IS GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPERS FOR THEIR LITTLE PROJECTS THAT WILL KEEP YOU FROM YOUR OWN WATERFRONT.
LOSERS.
I know we are well on our way to becoming a socialist country, but since when does that waterfront automatically belong to "the people?" The waterfront belongs to whomever cares to buy it. If the waterfront belongs to the people I'm claiming my share of the Hamptons.
Actually, in the Hamptons, the beach below the high tide mark belongs to the people. That's a federal law. The riverfront here does not "automatically" belong to the people. That's what elected officials are supposed to do - secure it for them.
What a joke. Affordable housing for people who make 6 figure salaries, like the rest of the transplants along OUR river.
Bloomberg has truly gotten his way and fucked the middle class native New Yorkers here and forgotten about us. This is a city of the transient rich who will soon move on when the economy truly tanks next year and tons more 'luxury Queens crap condos sit idle and barren, including this new fantasy along the East River ALL PAID FOR BY OUR TAX INCREASES BY WAY OF TAX ABATEMENTS TO BLOOMBERG's GREEDY DEVELOPER BILLIONAIRE FRIENDS.
You voted for this guy!
REMEMBER!!!!!!
I know we are well on our way to becoming a socialist country, but since when does that waterfront automatically belong to "the people?" The waterfront belongs to whomever cares to buy it. If the waterfront belongs to the people I'm claiming my share of the Hamptons.
---
Actually the trend around the country is to recognize the waterfront as a public amenity.
Only NY do you have half wits like this even saying stuff like this.
The riverfront here does not "automatically" belong to the people. That's what elected officials are supposed to do - secure it for them.
---
Ok Comrade. You and oh-Bama will get along great. We are already securing banks, insurance companies, healthcare, etc. for the people. Let's also nationalize the waterfronts. What's a few million acres of waterfront and a few trillion dollars after all when you can print money? Also your comment about land below the high tide mark is stupid. What are you going to do build an underwater kingdom on the sea floor? Dumb...
The point is that the shore, even in the Hamptons, is open for recreation to everyone. Your comment is therefore just plain ignorant. We aren't "building an underwater kingdom on the sea floor". We aren't building anything on the shoreline, so everyone can access it. That's the point - get it?
My favorite are the rich morons who build their houses on sand and then when they get destroyed in a storm, expect the government to declare a disaster area and bail them out.
Affirming our moderator's statements, American law follows British and Roman precedents in declaring shores and navigable waterways to belong to the people. More about the Public Trust Doctrine here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine
This isn't like New York's eminent domain abuse, where government conspires with industry to take private land for another's private gain, plus some tax revenue. In this case, the shores were never supposed to have been gobbled up by private entities in the first place.
Post a Comment