Reconstruction of LaGuardia's central terminal announced

From DNA Info:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey voted Thursday to move ahead with the first phase of a $3.6 billion project to replace the crumbling Central Terminal Building, known as Terminal B, with a new facility which will serve approximately 50 percent of all the passengers at the airport, officials announced.

The agency also selected the LaGuardia Gateway Partners to build the new terminal.
The Central Terminal Building, which first opened in 1964, will be demolished. The replacement will serve as LaGuardia's main entry.

The project also calls for linking the airport’s four terminals, which are currently disconnected, and a number of amenities such as a hotel and business center and a connection to the proposed AirTrain.

A master plan for the redevelopment will be unveiled in the coming weeks, officials said.

According to the Port Authority, construction will be funded by a public-private partnership.

Sounds like NYCHA's going private

From the Observer:

Shola Olatoye, the chairwoman and chief executive officer of the New York City Housing Authority under Mayor Bill de Blasio, said today that partnerships with private real estate interests may be the future for the cash-strapped agency.

Speaking at a hearing of the City Council’s Committee on Public Housing, Ms. Olatoye indicated that the housing authority could look to selling stakes in its 2,563 buildings across the city in order to fill its infamous budget deficits, in the absence of federal funding streams. She said a recent deal in which the housing authority formed a limited liability company with two private developers to co-own and manage six of its non-project properties in order to qualify for $465 million in loans and tax abatements could prove to be a model for arrangements going forward—as could the ongoing programs of rezonings and monetary incentives the city has used to encourage builders to construct below market-cost apartments.

“We don’t know what the future holds. But I think it would be irresponsible for us to not take advantage of tools that, frankly this city has utilized and pioneered to create thousands of affordable housing units,” she said.

Selling off public parkland is now common practice

From City Limits:

The audacity of the mayor's final development campaign has been unprecedented. "I can't recall any comparable push by lame-duck mayors to cement their ‘legacies' with such chutzpah," says Tom Angotti, a professor of urban planning at Hunter College. Angotti had worked in city government under Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani, and he was on the inside when two of those administrations drew to a close. "It really does seem that Bloomberg is trying to make it difficult for the next mayor to take a different path," he says.

But will the next mayor take a different path? The candidates have their own ideas, but both de Blasio and Lhota would essentially build on Bloomberg's development agenda, supporting such current initiatives as the rezoning of Midtown and the expansion of public-private partnerships in parks. De Blasio has even said the Flushing Meadows soccer stadium is "worth discussing" if the league provides funds to fix up the rest of the park. Both candidates would allow new construction on public-housing property, though de Blasio insists any towers must contain affordable housing and Lhota says developers would not be allowed to take playgrounds.

Also from City Limits:

While Manhattan and Brooklyn have ended up with some showplace parks, no one is interested in operating, say, Highland Park on the Brooklyn-Queens border or Ferry Point Park in the Bronx. Donald Trump has struck a deal to take about half of the 413-acre Ferry Point to build a private club and a "world-class" golf course on what had been a garbage dump , but he won't be sharing the revenue with the park, and it's unlikely the patrons of his luxury facility will be the residents of the neighboring public housing project.

Even middle-class and well-heeled areas have been forced to pick up the slack, with volunteers maintaining such parks as Juniper Valley Park in Middle Village, Queens, and Dag Hammarskjold Plaza in Manhattan, right across the street from the United Nations. Half of the city's 1,800 parks and playgrounds now depend on some type of private group to at least chip in on maintenance, according to the Parks Department, but many, if not most, of these groups struggle.

Some people, like Public Advocate and mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, have pinned their hopes for more equitable parks funding on legislation proposed by state Senator Dan Squadron that would create a Neighborhood Parks Alliance to take 20 percent from the budgets of large park conservancies and distribute that money to the parks most in need. "It will make for a fairer city," says de Blasio, "and I think it's a great idea."

But the proposed alliance would be blocked from accessing a large part of the nonprofit funds, says James J. Fishman, a professor at Pace Law School. Endowments would be off-limits, and if donors make restricted gifts, then that money can't be diverted to another use. Nonprofit-law experts consulted by City Limits say the legislation is sure to face legal challenges.

Fact is, the proposed fund would draw from the same private-money system that led to the great disparities it seeks to correct, and the redistribution of money simply won't be enough to right the deeper wrongs. There is no such thing as a free lunch: Taxpayers still cover a portion of the budgets for even the biggest park conservancies, and that means they would end up funding the Neighborhood Park Alliance too. In the end, most public parks remain the responsibility of the public.

Though Ferreras compared her new nonprofit to the Central Park Conservancy and the Prospect Park Alliance, she had created a new model, funded not by philanthropic contributions but by extracting money from businesses that want parkland.

When Ferreras told City Limits of her plans to ask the Willets Point developers for money, she listed other businesses located in the park, including the Mets and the Terrace on the Park banquet hall, noting that all of these businesses already operate under agreements with the city—the Terrace on the Park, for example, pays the city $2.5 million a year, or $100,000 more than the U.S.T.A.

But some park advocates fear Ferreras's forging of separate deals will now set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more development in underfunded parks. The Willets Point deal was "shameful," according to Richard Hellenbrecht, president of the Queens Civic Congress, an umbrella organization of 106 civic and community groups. The Congress opposed the mall plan not only for its taking of parkland but for the harm it could cause to local small businesses, not to mention the likelihood of more traffic and congestion.

"It's taking parkland, mapped parkland," Hillenbrecht says of the "Willets West" shopping mall. "It makes me angry. I worry about this in a lot of ways, and it upsets me that it could have been approved so quickly, ignoring all the concerns of Queens residents. We're going to have a new administration in a few more months. Why couldn't it wait?"

Several community groups have told City Limits they're contemplating a lawsuit over the city's claim that the shopping mall is permitted under a 1961 law that allowed for the financing of Shea Stadium. They claim the administration wants to avoid the burden of alienating that parkland, which would require state legislation to strip the land of its legal protections. Alienation legislation mandates the replacement of lost parkland or a payment for other park improvements equal to the land's fair market value.

As for the combined $25.5 million for Flushing Meadows from the mall and tennis projects, more than half of it will be spent on one-time capital improvements while the rest gets spread over two decades. That might sound like a lot of money, but it amounts to an annual $550,000 over most of the life of these two deals.

"That really won't do much," Hellenbrecht says. "It might pay for some more staffers, but not many. It's not enough to make a dent in what needs to be done, either operationally or even capital-wise. It's better than nothing, but I'd rather not have somebody taking parkland."

LIC having trouble sustaining public-private partnership

From LIC Post:

The non-profit group that has been doing much of the gardening and landscape work at Gantry Plaza State Park for the past 15 years is in serious decline.

The group’s membership continues to dwindle as its long-serving volunteers grow old and newer residents failed to join. Membership has halved since its inception and if current trends continue the organization will soon no longer exist.

Nevertheless, next month the Friends of Gantry will be celebrating its 15th anniversary at Riverview Restaurant (details below). The organizers hope that the event will help them recruit new members and raise funds.

The group, in its heyday, was formed shortly after the state completed the first phase of Gantry Plaza State Park in 1998, which at that point was just a little over 2 1/2 acres in size, a fifth of the size of what it is today.

Today, the group has about 30-members, which consists of about 10 core members.

And this is Julissa Ferreras's bright idea to fix up Flushing Meadows?

Council Members act clueless at park hearing

From the Daily News:

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being generated each year in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park by big-money operations like the Mets, but Queens lawmakers say the park isn’t getting its slice of the pie.

The Mets and the U.S. Tennis Association pay a total of $2.5 million to lease their sites from the city. Meanwhile, the 900-acre park operates on $11.6 million in city funds and counts only 18 full-time city maintenance workers.

“It’s incredibly frustrating that this city has not identified a way to have our park be able to collect on the revenue it generates,” said City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst), who called a Council hearing on Friday to address the lack of city funding to help pay for the park’s upkeep.

Ferreras said during the packed hearing that she is in talks with the city to create a public-private alliance — similar to the Central Park Conservancy — to fund much of the maintenance of the nearly 900-acre park, which is surrounded by predominantly immigrant and low-income communities.

Ferreras would like to fill the coffers of the alliance with private donations and a cut of the almost $7 million in annual concession fees and rents that are paid by the businesses and stadiums in the park.

Queens officials and parks advocates blasted the city after learning Citi Field pays only about $155,000 a year to lease its Flushing Meadows site from the city. That amount is slated to jump to $400,000 in 2014.

The U.S. Tennis Association, which hosts the U.S. Open in the park, pays roughly $2.4 million a year.

Meanwhile, Terrace on the Park, a banquet hall in Flushing Meadows, pays the city roughly $2.5 million a year.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates. Citi Field is “clearly not paying their fair share.”

City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria) said, “there’s something fishy in those numbers.”

“It sounds to me like Citi Field and the USTA are getting off really easy,” added Vallone, who said he will introduce a bill requiring all park conservancies with more than $5 million of annual income to give 20% to maintain other needy city parks.

So let me get this straight... The City Council voted to give the Mets a sweetheart deal when they came to them for permission to build a new stadium, yet now this same legislative body is shocked that the Mets have a sweetheart deal? Nice try, but we weren't born yesterday. And what difference does it make how much rent each entity pays under the current system? It goes into the general fund and hardly any of it goes back to Flushing Meadows anyway.

Hey City Council, how about DOING YOUR JOB by budgeting adequate funding for ALL city parks as you are required to, so there will be no need to further privatize our parks or have dog-and-pony show hearings?

Meanwhile, we have Parks Commissioner Veronica White, who conveniently skipped the FMCP hearing, telling Brian Lehrer (at about 14:00) that Parks chose to fund the High Bridge instead.

Public-private partnerships hurt the general public

From the NY Times:

The Central Park Conservancy manages $220 million in assets, and has four officials who make more money than the city parks commissioner, Veronica M. White. At a High Line fund-raiser, a host held aloft a million-dollar check and asked for a match. Another $1 million check was written on the spot.

At the other end of this spectrum, the cracked path around the Shore Park-Verrazano Narrows offers an exercise in horizontal mountain biking. At Flushing Meadows-Corona Park children play in dry wading pools and lake paths are unnavigable without machetes.

Prospect Park occupies a middle ground. It has overseen a stunningly beautiful reconstruction of its lake side. It also rents out its Audubon Center on weekends to the wedding-bar mitzvah-birthday crowd.

Our lame duck mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, has started to turn off his charitable money shower. His foundation informed the Prospect Park Alliance that it intended to end its quarter-million dollar annual contribution. (Ms. Lloyd declined to discuss this.)

Those who defend privatization are candid. Ask about inequity and they talk of commodities; the emerald brilliance of Central Park draws tourists. The High Line is a brooch in the luxury transformation of Chelsea.

As for Flushing Meadows? When told that partisans hoped to transform a homely asphalt-ringed fountain into a grass-edged lake, John Alschuler Jr., co-chairman of the Friends of the High Line, offered an exasperated sigh. In his day job, he lobbies to place a U.F.O.-size professional soccer stadium in the midst of that Queens park.

Cities, he said, no longer pay for parks properly. Such exuberant hopes will not be realized in my life, he said, or that of my child. Find a corporate sponsor, he suggested.

So condescension passes as realism.

Holly Leicht of New Yorkers for Parks is a vigorous parks advocate, and would demand transparency and accountability from conservancies. But she would not upset the conservancy lords until the Parks Department is properly financed and revamped.

This feels backward. Former Police Commissioner Bill Bratton transformed a hidebound Police Department in months; why demand less of the Parks Department?

Julissa Ferreras & "New Yorkers for Parks" pushing for privatization of FMCP

From the Daily News:

A Queens lawmaker is in talks with the city to create a public-private alliance to fund the upkeep of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) said such an alliance could solicit donations from Queens residents and businesses for the borough’s 1,255-acre, flagship park.

It could also eventually seek a cut of the rent paid to the city by Citi Field and the U.S. Tennis Association, which are located in the park, she said.

“Flushing Meadows-Corona Park has not received the attention and resources it deserves,” Ferreras told the Daily News on Wednesday. “We get such a small percentage of the dollars that are generated by our park reinvested into our park.”

Holly Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, said she supports the idea of an alliance.

“It is the most heavily used park in Queens,” she said of Flushing Meadows, which is bordered by low-income, immigrant communities. “It really does need that public-private partnership to have that level of care it deserves.”

Well if it is bordered by low-income, immigrant communities, then where does this dingbat think private donations like the ones that fund the Central Park Conservancy and the Prospect Park Alliance will come from?  And if conservancies work so well, then why did the one for Flushing Meadows not raise any money?   Why do we need another one?  The Queens Chronicle asked the same question in an editorial this week.

Why aren't these people demanding adequate funding in the city budget, as the city is supposed to provide?

What kind of park advocates push for the privatization of public parkland?

Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, said if an alliance profits from the stadiums located within its perimeters, this could create an incentive to rent out more parkland to other private companies.

“It is the elected officials’ job to adequately fund public parks — not private businesses,” he said.

A city Parks Department spokesman said the idea is under serious consideration.

Of course it is! It lets them off the hook for proper funding and that's more money that can be funneled into tweeding programs and developers' pockets.  Why do these pols think they are entitled to treat public parkland like it's personal real estate to make a deal with?  And this comes just in time for the third project to be revealed.