Today's article in the New York Times, "Possible Deal May Bring Money to Repair Pier 40 in Manhattan," implies that State officials and a developer have struck a deal to transfer air rights through a General Project Plan (GPP). The fact that a deal has been struck is news to all of the elected officials who represent the area that have already expressed united opposition to any such process. In fact, Congressman Jerry Nadler, Assemblymember Deborah Glick, State Senator Brad Hoylman, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, and Councilmember Corey Johnson wrote to both Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio on May 1st, detailing their active opposition to this approach. A GPP would completely usurp local zoning and local input from the community and is in no way condoned by the Hudson River Park Act. It is the same land use procedure that brought the Barclays Center to the Atlantic Yards, despite widespread disapproval from that community. Following this statement is the letter that elected officials sent more than two weeks ago outlining their unified opposition to any such plan. There was no response from the Cuomo Administration to this letter. Apparently, they felt a NY Times article would suffice in alerting the community and their elected representatives to what they should expect. Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is an important process, by which all voices are heard, and is the hallmark of democracy. Letter from Elected Officials May 1, 2014 Governor Andrew Cuomo
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224 Mayor Bill de Blasio
City Hall
New York, NY 10007 Dear Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo, As elected officials who represent Manhattan's West Village neighborhood, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility that the State and the City are working towards the adoption of a General Project Plan (GPP) to transfer air rights from Pier 40 in the Hudson River Park to the St. John's Building at 550 Washington Street. Such an action would enable air rights from the park/commercial pier to be transferred to a property across the West Side Highway without going through New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). This would demonstrate a blatant disregard for our community, and deny the local community board and local elected officials a real voice on what will no doubt be a controversial proposal. The idea of a GPP has been a non-starter from the moment it was first introduced to local elected officials as a possibility in the fall of 2013. We are all strong advocates of increased funding for Hudson River Park. However, the state legislation that was enacted in 2013 and codifies the Hudson River Park Trust's ability to generate revenue through the transfer of air rights was predicated on the premise that local zoning laws would dictate the process. This was to ensure that resources would be made available to the Park but not at the expense of local input. A GPP would be in direct violation of this principle and would rightfully enrage the community, which would be effectively left powerless through this process. Any lip service paid to the needs of the community would only be that, as the local officials who have a formal role in the ULURP process, the City Council Member and Borough President, will have no binding authority when it comes to negotiating any agreement, or voting on whether to approve the proposal. Furthermore, if a GPP is being considered, it is difficult to understand why. This action would obviously create enormous benefit for the developers of the transfer site, and would provide the Park with a quick infusion of capital, but it is highly unlikely that the value of the air rights would decrease during the time needed for a transfer mechanism to be established and a proper ULURP process to take place. In fact, there is a great chance that time will only increase the value of these air rights leading to even more money for the Hudson River Park. Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is that sometimes messy process, in which all voices are heard, that is the hallmark of democracy. And most importantly, it ensures that government takes actions that accurately reflect the wants and needs of its citizens. If a GPP moves forward, we will actively oppose it. The public process must unfold in the way that it is designed to, and failure to do so is extremely bad precedent. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to discussing this issue further.