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.

Flushing Meadows development conspiracy continues

Exactly one month ago today, this blog published a post entitled, "How phony park groups, the press and elected officials are conspiring to develop FMCP". It generated a bit of buzz within the activist community, but the media coverage of the Flushing Meadows issues unfortunately has not changed. In fact, it has only gotten worse. We can now add Claire Trapasso, reporter for the Daily News, to the list. Here's what she wrote about FMCP this past week:

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall came out in support on Friday of the $500 million proposed expansion in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park — provided the USTA make some significant concessions. The plan must still be approved by the City Council.

The USTA, which holds the U.S. Open in the park every year, has come under fire from community advocates who have accused it of being a “bad neighbor” and seeking to use 0.68 additional acres of parkland in its expansion — without being required by the city to replace it elsewhere.

Notice how there's absolutely no mention of the fact that the USTA does not need to take additional parkland in order to build what they want to build.  Also, real park activists have called for disapproval of the project, not approval if the USTA replaces parkland.

Let's continue:

Holly Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, called Marshall’s conditions “a good step forward.”

“It’s an important precedent” that privatized land be replaced, she said. “Otherwise, it becomes too easy to privatize public parkland. We have so little parkland.”

But she said she would like Marshall to take it further and require the USTA to make annual contributions toward the upkeep of the park.

There's Holly Leicht promoting the privatization of parkland again, when she is supposed to be protecting it from development. Another "park defender" who fails to mention that the USTA doesn't need the land, but if they want it, it's ok, so long as they replace it and throw a little money around. This is unacceptable and dangerous.

Not quoted are NYC Park Advocates and the Save Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Coalition. I can only assume that was deliberate.

What's also been left out of all this coverage is that the Parks Department is the one that said the USTA should not be required to replace the parkland. It actually wasn't the USTA!

Dana Rubinstein of Capital New York also did a piss-poor job of covering the USTA issue again this month.

We know that we get the representation we deserve.  Do we also get the press coverage we deserve?  Or is something else going on here?

Kudos to the Times Ledger and the Queens Courier for at least publishing Op-Eds by Bob Harris and Geoffrey Croft that are critical of Flushing Meadows development even though all the local papers save for the Queens Chronicle seem to think that the projects in the park are just peachy.

How phony park groups, the press and elected officials are conspiring to develop FMCP

You may have read in various articles that representatives from New Yorkers for Parks have been testifying at Community Board meetings against the USTA plan to expand inside Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and have been working with Council Member Julissa Ferreras and other elected officials to come up with "concessions" from the USTA in exchange for their alienation of public parkland.  Who are "New Yorkers for Parks" and should we trust them?

Holly Leicht

Holly Leicht:

Before becoming Executive Director of NY4P in March 2011, Holly served under Bloomberg as Deputy Commissioner for Development at the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), Prior to joining HPD, she was a Director at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, another so called public/private slush fund.

This so-called advocacy group is trying to associate itself with the FMCP issue but they are hurting the efforts to protect the park. Let's examine why.

A Little Background:

NY4Parks was created in 2002 (on their website they say they have been around for over 100 years) as basically a front for the City. The city wanted what was then the city's only independent park group, The Parks Council, to be eliminated, so they were disbanded after the Parks2001 Campaign, and a new group was formed with more administration-friendly folks - basically the board members of the Conservancy and their lawyers from Weil, Gotshal & Manges, one of the city's most powerful law firms - as you will see below. It should also be noted that this was all insider stuff that the general public - including neighborhood park groups - was not privy to.

The founding Co-Chairs of NY4Parks were:

• Michael Grobstein - Treasurer of the Central Park Conservancy. (A position he still holds at the Conservancy today.)
• Lynden Miller - director of the Conservatory Garden in Central Park, designer of gardens at Bryant Park and Battery Park City, a very early supporter of the High Line. She is the mother of former Speaker and now lobbyist Gifford Miller who initially allocated funds to that project) Both she and Grobstein are long time CPC board-members and very connected.
• Mark A. Hoenig - Secretary. Hoenig works for Weil, Gotshal & Manges, one the city's most powerful law firms, but more importantly the home of long-time CP Conservancy Chairman - Ira M. Millstein, Esq., Senior Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP (their offices on 5th Ave and 59th Street overlook the park).    Mr. Millstein is a Life Trustee and former Chairman of the Board of the Central Park Conservancy (1991-1999).
• Philip R. Pitruzzello - Treasurer. Pitruzzello was former president and chief executive officer (1994 to 1996) of the Battery Park City Authority. In 1998 be became Vice President, Real Estate Projects vice president, real estate projects, for Time Warner where he was in charge of real estate for the building of the new world headquarters at Columbus Circle.

The Central Park Conservancy Board is filled with a who's who of wealthy and politically connected folks, including Jeff T. Blau CEO of Related Companies - the fine folks who are trying to build a mall next to CitiField.

Other board members include:

• Peter Rothschild - Former Dir. & Vice-Chair, NY4 Parks
• New York Times heiress Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger & Marian S. Heiskell, The New York Times Company.
• Landscape Architect and Partner, Quennell and Rothschild and Partners (They are HUGE in the Parks world getting private work on public land)

From Capital New York:

Nicholas Quennell, a partner at landscape architecture firm Quennell Rothschild and Partners and the other lead author of the strategic plan, said he thought the Major League Soccer proposal to build a 25, 000-seat stadium on the site of a long-disused World's Fair fountain, known as the Pool of Industry, "was actually intelligent." In 2008, Hawkinson and Quennell (and Quennell's partner Mark Bunnell) co-authored the city-commissioned "Flushing Meadows Corona Park Strategic Framework Plan," the purpose of which was to enable the park to achieve its "full potential by establishing a long term vision, a basis for decisions about the Park’s management and the allocation of attention and resources for the coming years."

Past or president board members:

• Danny Meyer
• Ira M. Millstein
• Richard Gilder (also long time CP Conservancy board member). Until Paulson's $100M gift, Gilder's was the large single gift to a park ever - Central Park, of course!

Bottom line:

New Yorkers for Parks are a beard for the city. They have zero credibility. They are listed right on the Parks Department home page as a Partner.

In their publications, they routinely praise mayoral initiatives and they aggressively push finding "innovative financing strategies" as opposed to holding the government accountable. They have also written letters to the editors praising the Mayor while trying to counter the work of groups such as NYC Park Advocates. And now that they are being exclusively quoted in the Times, they have a voice which they are using to push the Mayor's agenda and undermine communities such as ours.

Check out this NY Post expose about the group:

A Queens park that got high grades in a new report is no bed of roses, local activists say.

Little Bay Park earned an A-plus in a New Yorkers for Parks report released yesterday, including a grade of 93 for its bathrooms.

But “there’s no bathrooms,” said local park advocate Alfredo Centola.

Instead, the 55-acre park in Bayside has dingy port-a-potties — including one that was set on fire, leaving it melted into the weeded ground.

“If they consider bushes bathrooms, they can get a 93,” Centola said.

He said the park also needs more drinking fountains — despite scoring a 100 in that category — and better lawns and athletic equipment. The park has only two fountains, and none worked yesterday.

The playing fields are currently uneven, and filled with holes, a Post reporter found. Crossbars on soccer goals were bent, and the goals' netting were ripped to shreds.

“There are flooding conditions the minute it rains,” said Centola. “Even in light rains, the kids playing on the soccer field slip in mud.”

Lisa Foderaro (Twitter)

It has not gone unnoticed in the administration-friendly pages of New York Times that NYC Park Advocates, a true independent group, has all but disappeared from park coverage under Lisa Foderaro's beat. (Westchester resident Lisa Foderaro of the NY Times is married to the former official state photographer for Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.) This, while the Parks Department partner group, New Yorkers For Parks, has appeared almost exclusively. In fact, since May 2012, Holly Leicht has been quoted at least 17 times in the paper - the vast majority in Ms. Foderaro articles. Since taking over the parks beat, the coverage has resulted in park stories of noticeably lower quality, none of which Metro Editor Carolyn Ryan and Co, apparently have a problem with.

Former Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe and park flack, Warner Johnson, famously wrote a 36-page letter to then Metro editor Joe Sexton complaining about Foderaro's predecessor, Timothy Williams, and his hard hitting stories. His articles helped add much needed context and shined a light on the Bloomberg administration's endless spin. Naturally, the taxpayer-funded letter also attempted to attack Mr. Croft of NYC Park Advocates.

A simple Google search shows that NY4P's presence in other media has increased dramatically since the Times exposure which lends the group credibility that they do not deserve. Before that, it was wildly known that NY4P was not quoted because of credibility issues, including its cozy relationship with the administration. The Times's coverage has changed that. If you want some really good background info on New Yorkers for Parks check out the comments section of this Crain's article. Very detailed. Scroll to the bottom.

Dana Rubenstein (Twitter)

Dana Rubinstein of Capital New York is also conspicuously not quoting NYC Park Advocates even though they are the group that is actually working with the community. She has also not quoted the Coalition to Save Flushing Meadows-Corona Park for USTA/FMCP stories. These are the only two citywide groups that are against parkland privatization and making deals to privately fund them. Dana however manages to always include statements from New Yorkers for Parks who represent themselves.

Here are two articles from Capital New York - both published on the same day, Feb. 20th:

Flushing Meadows-Corona Park - Lots of Land, Little Upkeep
Urban Planners suggest alternative soccer arena sites, and the MTA actually offered one

Holly Leicht is also quoted in one of the articles with regard to the Flushing Meadows issue - again pushing the public-private partnerships agenda. Once again, private funds are considered to be the solution - not government funds - and the benefits are not even questioned.

Six days days later, this very harmful article by Dana Rubinstein came out:

"Holly Leicht, the executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, has been consulting with Ferreras on this issue and strongly backs the idea of a conservancy-type arrangement for Flushing Meadows.

“We would definitely agree that ongoing maintenance, not just a onetime mitigation payment, is an essential component of the processes for all of the projects under review,” she told me. "It seems that some kind of conservancy—a public-private partnership model—makes the most sense for Flushing Meadows Corona Park."

So the result…

"Risa Heller, a spokeswoman for M.L.S., sent over the following statement: "We look forward to continuing our ongoing conversations with Councilwoman Ferreras to figure out the appropriate way for M.L.S. to contribute to the future of Flushing Meadows Corona Park."

So you have a VERY connected group with the Bloomberg administration who has ABSOLUTELY NO connection to our community working directly against the interests of it and trying to dictate policy. And this is not the first time by any means.

In September 2011 - after supposedly working with the community fighting this enormous NYU expansion that would take away public parkland (which is currently in court) - the neighborhood found out that NY4P had betrayed them.  How did they find out?  By reading an NYU press release that contained a quote by NY4P approving the project! Unbelievable.

The N.Y.U. press release quoted Holly Leicht as praising the university for being responsive to the group’s concerns and for mapping the two properties as parkland. In an interview, she indicated that closing the parks to construct underground rooms was not a major concern.

“The reality is that if you’re constructing buildings of that scale so close to public spaces you would not have been able to keep a playground open during construction anyway,” she said.

They sold out the community, a community that is vehemently against the project. Holly was repeatedly quoted in the media as a supporter and gave the project cover for the city and NYU. Really disgusting. The community was just in court about that issue last week.

Here is a Nov.7th letter from Holly Leicht to the Times about a large donation to Central Park. Its all about following the Mayor's initiative of getting private dollars and their favorite catch phrase, "exploring creative ways to finance…"

The letter was co-written by the Chair of NY4Parks - Edward C. Wallace, a former City Councilman-at-large for Manhattan and member of the board of the Riverside Park Fund, another city public/private partnership. He also served on the boards of many city politically-connected groups like NYC 2012, the failed Olympic bid and the Grand Central Partnership, etc.

"the Central Park Conservancy and private donors like John A. Paulson do not worsen the problem; they help address it.

Mr. Paulson’s $100 million gift to Central Park will ensure that the most visited park in the city, and likely the world, can be maintained for generations to come, with minimal reliance on limited public dollars. build upon this validation of urban parks by encouraging more private involvement in neighborhood parks and exploring creative ways to finance pressing needs in parks citywide without sacrificing their character.

This is the NY4Parks message they sent out a few days ago. As you will see its all about how it's ok to take the land as long as they replace it and the park gets money.

Public Hearings Underway for Proposed USTA Expansion

"...While the potential lost acreage is relatively small, sanctioning parkland alienation without acre-for-acre replacement is a slippery slope. If an expensive pay-to-play tennis facility that contributes no annual funding to the park is deemed "public," where is the line drawn to protect city parkland from privatization? Right now, USTA's annual rent payment – which wouldn’t increase after the expansion – goes entirely to the City’s general fund, not to the park.

The USTA – which, according to a recent Crain’s review, reported a $17 million surplus in 2010 – needs to commit NOW to a significant, long-term investment in and partnership with Flushing Meadows Corona Park. And this doesn’t mean just funding one-time capital projects to sweeten the pot during the public review of its expansion proposal.

It means:
• active participation in a new nonprofit dedicated to the park, including an ongoing, annual contribution to the park's maintenance;
• a commitment to cease using park lawns for parking during the U.S. Open; and
• either replacement of the parkland it proposes to alienate or a redefined relationship with park-users and the surrounding community to make the tennis complex a truly public use.

As New York City’s leading advocate on parkland alienation issues for more than a century, NY4P looks forward to continuing our work with community stakeholders, elected officials and others throughout this process to ensure the best possible outcome for FMCP's users and neighbors."

This comes from Save FMCP's Christina Wilkinson:

Why is New Yorkers for Parks irresponsibly taking the position that it would be perfectly acceptable for the USTA to steal more parkland so long as it sets up a “park maintenance fund” for Flushing Meadows?

Instead, they should be advocating for adequate resources to be allocated to the park in the City budget. The current fraction of 1 percent allocated toward parks citywide is woefully inadequate, and the City is required by the City Charter to maintain its property.

Genuine park activists would not be advocating for the USTA to take and replace parkland since the obvious thing to be demanding here is that the City not allow this private business to expand within the park.

So as not to mislead the public, they may want to rename their group “New Yorkers for the Privatization of Parks.” Positions such as that of this organization are the reason why we have such a disparity in park conditions in the first place.

Meanwhile, last Friday, a press conference was held by the Fairness Coalition. The Fairness group represents themselves as an organization dedicated to protecting public parkland, but their agenda is, as far as we can see, not that clear. Their message is very inconsistent and hypocritical. Aren't these some of the EXACT same elected officials who have already come out in favor of the USTA seizing the park if they establish a maintenance fund, built it union and replace the land? Isn't Jose Peralta one of the MLS's staunched supporters of building the stadium in the park!

With Friends Like these…

Standing shoulder to shoulder with some of the VERY people who want to take away public parkland isn't halting a land grab it is helping to facilitate it! The public (as featured in their photos) probably perceives FC as working on their behalf, but they are doing the exact opposite by supporting these deals. Watch Fairness Coalition leaders contradict themselves multiple times in this video. At their press conference, Council Member Julissa Ferreras was asked by a reporter about her seemingly contradictory positions on Flushing Meadows-Corona Park: On the one hand, she stated that she was for protecting parkland, but on the other hand, she was willing to give it away in return for concessions. She replied that the park was never going to be adequately funded by the City, so a deal had to be made with the USTA to fund it.

Jose Peralta, Danny Dromm, Julissa Ferreras

Julissa Ferreras is a Council Member and last time I checked, the City Council is who determines what gets funded. So she basically revealed that she won't be making an effort to ensure that there is adequate funding for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in the upcoming budget and therefore would prefer to sell off pieces of it to private interests.

Council Members Leroy Comrie and Danny Dromm stood next to her while she said this and said nothing. State Senator Jose Peralta, Assembly Member Francisco Moya, and borough president candidate Melinda Katz also thought this was a swell idea because they were in attendance and didn't object, either. The Fairness Coalition, who held the press conference, supports this position rather than adequate parks funding in the City Council budget, which is what would actually be FAIR.

Makes you want to throw up, doesn't it?