In addition, the BBPark budget is bloated – the cost per acre is WAY higher than it should be. Please note that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation counts the water acres in their figures. The park is cited as c. 85 acres, when the actual land mass is c. 65 acres — if you take out the water between the piers! Their tactic is that total cost divided by more acres = lower cost per acre. Do water acres have to be landscaped, fertilized, watered…? I hope you get my point.

I want very much to see this park built AS A PARK. I wish the plan was scaled down, so the central piers could get developed sooner. Can’t we claw back the design budget for a less over-the-top plan? Andrew Cuomo, are you available for audit duty?

The point of the film was to enlighten those in the area of what development will be taking place in your immediate area and where it will be. Secondarily, my commentary was a concern that the Park’s major dependence on financing on Real Estate revenues in problematic and I proceeded to give examples of declining real estate values in the immediate neighborhood. This isn’t a revelation to anyone who reads the paper.

I wasn’t being negative as much as just being realistic. The park will be beautiful and because I am such an advocate, I want it to succeed.

This is a very expensive project that has got to be self sustaining on an ongoing basis. After all, 15.2mm is not a low annual figure. We all have read about the controversy regarding annual costs problems with respect to HighLine in Lower Manhattan. That was another point in the film, City and State government, because of the projects proximity to the waterfront will not contribute to the annual operation and maintenance of the park. That was mentioned in the film.

There was good news coming from 1BBP condo a couple of days ago when they announced the following results due to price reductions:

“In less than one month, the building has signed 12 new contracts and eight contracts out.”

If you are truly an advocate of the park, aren’t you concerned about the dependence of 3 condominiums that are at relatively undesirable locations for financing in an already glutted luxury condo/rental market?

Personally, I am fine with condominium development in the park, my question is if there is demand for that product and if not are their alternative proposals to fund the park? I’m aware of the new economic realities that confront NYC public development and I accept that the city needs to develop private partnerships for revenue.

In summation, I am a tremendous advocate of the park and because of that I have tremendous concern about its financial underpinnings. Don’t you?

“We are especially excited by Senator Squadron’s proposal for a new revenue model, the Park Increment Recapture (PIRC). The PIRC will not raise anyone’s property taxes, nor will it take any revenue from the City’s financial plan since it is based only on future rezonings. It is a simple and elegant solution to a problem that has vexed Park supporters for half a decade: how to maintain the Park without the proposed new housing. The argument all along has been that housing is necessary to pay for the park’s operations budget. No one wants the housing per se. The housing plan has only sown division and distrust since it was first foisted on the neighborhood. Nor does housing belong in a park as a matter of principle. What an awful precedent the City would be setting by building apartments inside a park. Senator Squadron’s PIRC proposal may be the way to prevent that dreadful precedent from ever happening. It deserves your support.”

The idea is to capture some of the increase in the property values of real estate generated by proximity to a “world class park.” Some PIRC versions target new real estate — I prefer capturing the property increase of all real estate in the general park area.

As I have writtten elsewhere on this and other blogs, I do believe that the park plan being built now is too extravagant for our economic situation . Yes , some pretty fancy stuff is emerging — but the central piers with the much needed- active recreation space are still unfunded.