BHB Exclusive: Q & A Nancy Webster, Executive Director BBP Conservancy

BHB: BBPC has suggested that it’s a mistake to reopen/modify the General Project Plan (GPP). Yet when a velodrome was proposed for BBP near Pier 5 the project was greenlighted until being shelved due to a lack of funding. Do you agree that some might see an inconsistency in this position when discussing altering or eliminating the proposed housing at Pier 6?

NW: It’s my understanding that—and I actually want to differ with how you’ve characterized this—the folks at BBP Corp certainly have opened the General Project Plan. For instance, when the park went from state to city control, that certainly was a modification of the [GPP].

So my understanding was it was not said that we would never open the GPP. What was said is that we don’t believe it makes sense to open the GPP over the Pier 6 funding issue because we have studied this in the past and we have already address this question.

BHB: In keeping with Mayor de Blasio’s commitment to affordable housing, approximately one-third of the buildings’ square footage will be devoted to middle income housing. Please walk me through the rationale on how it makes sense for BBP to incorporate affordable housing at Pier 6 given the project’s stated need for Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILOTS].

With that in terms of approximately a third of the buildings being workforce housing, I’m going to be completely frank with you here. The conservancy is supportive of this plan, but it was not without some soul-searching.

NW: What we’re looking at is in the park’s revenue projections and final financial model. There’s the anticipation that if you fully build the two Pier 6 buildings, there will be enough money to sustain the park, with also some left over building space that could be used for workforce housing. Basically, you will have the income you need to support the park from approximately two-thirds of the buildings square footage.

The conservancy’s first line of concern is making sure that there are enough dollars to sustain the park, and given that, we believe that the Pier 6 dollars are necessary to sustain the park. BBP Corp. within its model has shown us all that they anticipate they can create those dollars with about two-thirds of the square footage. We’re supportive of the development.

With that in terms of approximately a third of the buildings being workforce housing, I’m going to be completely frank with you here. The conservancy is supportive of this plan, but it was not without some soul-searching.

Ever since 2005, we have advocated that there should be no more building in the park than was absolutely necessary to sustain the park. However, and I articulated this in the letter that was sent, there has also been a crucial part of our mission to work for and be supportive of a park that was [as] welcoming and inclusive as possible to citizens from all tracks of our city.

That’s a fundamental core [aspect] of our mission. We recognized that the inclusion of workforce housing does create that sense of welcoming for greater New York City.

Given that, we are supportive of the current proposal.

BHB:
I assume you have read the August 18 People for Green Space press release, which, in essence, accuses BBPC of deliberately providing misleading financial information. I’d appreciate your response to PFGS accusations.

NW: I will say I was surprised when I first saw the flyers going up around the neighborhood about a lack of transparency, saying that it was specifically around the fact most notably that One Brooklyn Bridge Park has a J51 tax abatement that is going to be totally burnt off by 2024 and, therefore, will be throwing off more income into the park.

The surprising thing to me about saying that the park is not being transparent is that the park has always stated that it is incorporating the burning of J51 [revenue] into its financial model. The park corporation has always talked about J51 as [being] incorporated into its financial model. So this is not an undiscovered pot of money. It’s always been a part of the plan and acknowledged [as such].

BHB: “NIMBYism” appears to be the worst thing you might say to anyone living in Brooklyn Heights. What’s your take about this accusation being applied to Save Pier 6 supporters/your neighbors by the New York Times in an August 13 editorial?

NW: Is the opposition [to Pier 6] NIMBYism? That’s a question that only people who are opposed to Pier 6 development parcels can answer. I will say that when I think about the opposition, I [fear] that a movement to “Save Pier 6”—if it were successful, eliminating those development parcels—could very well put the rest of the park in jeopardy. That’s the irony of it. It’s not really a matter of saving Pier 6, it’s a matter of making thoughtful, fiscally responsible choices, to ensure the health and longevity of Brooklyn Bridge Park.

PHOTO CREDIT: Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy

, , ,

  • marshasrimler

    Nancy Webster is paid and bought by the real estate interests. She is really a hidden paid lobbyist–nothing more,nothing less

  • Lady in the Heights

    That is false! Nancy is the exec director of a non profit organization and is wonderful, dedicated principled person who holds this job because she cares deeply about the neighborhood and having a wonderful resources for the city. I have known her for 15 years. Shame on you!

  • marshasrimler

    Nancy has multiple conflicts of interest..like she heads the CAC but is handmaiden to the BBPDC. Ask members of the CAC who believe she is
    bought and paid for.. Wake up and smell the roses..Non profit and carrying water for the big profit making developers.
    Either you are naive or whatever

  • HenryStreeter

    Medication… use it.

  • marshasrimler

    is that a legitimate answer to conflict of interest questions?
    ask members of the cac. It would be good if this was looked into by the press

  • Lady in the Heights

    If you are going to sling accusations, you better have the facts to back them up. Please explain what exactly Nancy has done that is corrupt?

  • marshasrimler

    ask members of the cac about ongoing conflict of interest issues they have.. why not put it on the agenda and in the public sunlight?

  • johnny cakes

    HenryStreeter. That is a spiteful thing to say to someone. Maybe you should follow your own advice and get a prescription.

    Non-profits are the preferred method of hiding money. Ask Lito Lopez, or even Eric Adams about the use of non-profit covers to hide money.

  • Lady in the Heights

    I am asking you because you put it in the “public sunlight”. Stand behind your accusations. What has Nancy Webster done that is corrupt and what specifically are her conflicts and what has she done that is questionable? Be specific, please.

  • marshasrimler

    As I said she has ongoing conflict of interest issues
    that need to be spelled out in the cac. She raises money for the organization she runs from the developers. They in essence pay her salary and then build and overbuild in the community. She supports their efforts . This needs daylight at the cac. Have a pleasant day. Bye

  • Lady in the Heights

    Sounds like general mudslinging to me. Doesn’t sound like you have much.

    Maybe you should focus on some positive things in this world instead of only looking for the negative? Maybe take a walk in our gorgeous park on this beautiful fall day.

  • marshasrimler

    We shall see

  • Doug Biviano

    Much of what Nancy Webster says is thoughtful and her point of view is obvious, so I can appreciate that, but to say that the rest of the park will be put in jeopardy without development at Pier 6 is pure hyperbole and fear mongering.

    What puts parks, libraries, hospitals and schools in jeopardy is the overbuilding with the one-two punch of public subsidies to developers in the form of tax abatements (421A and J51 that last up to 25 years), specially legislated tax breaks (Extell, Atlantic Yards, etc), and public asset and infrastructure giveaways below market value (Atlantic Yards, IRS building, etc).

    In essence, tax payers are being forced by politicians (with tools to combat the 1970’s decline of NYC but now fund their campaigns) to support developers and newcomers instead of the parks, libraries, hospitals, and schools we need to live happy, healthy and productive lives.

    Given Nancy Webster’s Role, one cannot expect her to speak to this broader issue that is harming our communities. All the talk of Affordable Housing is actually a smoke screen because people here and now are being driven out in droves despite the AH hullabuloo.

  • cindy s

    Well, its really two factors which is
    Causing/enabling the tulip bulb
    Craze in housing prices. First the
    Behavior or government but of far
    More significance the behavior of
    The banking sector. Only ONE
    Element WRITES the PAPER…

  • cindy s

    Without the behavior of the financing
    Sector you cannot (duh) have housing
    prices ever escalating in a tulip craze.
    Period.

    As far as the park is concerned,
    Everyone really needs not to focus
    on personalities or smaller aspects
    And focus on what FUNDAMEN-
    TALLY is going wrong.

    This park is the classic PRIVATE
    Corporation being allowed to take
    over the function of a govermental
    Body responsible to the electorate.
    Starting with the Federal Reserve…
    Which is the model for this severe
    Distortion, private trusts, funds and
    “quasi-public” corporations with all
    their lack responsibilty to the public
    will, murky visabity have proliferated.
    And with the rise of each one of these
    artificially created power centers,
    there is alwaysthe rise of circles
    of supporters or individual lead-
    ers of satellite organizations who
    are here to assure the public that
    everything is being well monitored.
    But let anyone seriously ask for
    a real time review or audit by any
    Kind of an outside independent
    Agency all the lapdogs go into
    deflectiowhennd when that doesn’t
    work, they go into attack mode.

    This is what is going wrong here;
    Government has got to govern.
    It has do so efficient ly and effect-
    ively. The PEOPLE HAVE to insist
    on this. And, private bodies are
    NOT a substitute for honest,
    effective govrrnment. This is well,
    what you were always taught in
    School: government always
    Responsible to the direct will of
    The people.

    The people must be vigilant
    But the people in this republic
    are the absolute sovereigns.

    Now let’s see all the lapdogs and
    Extra government policy creating
    NGO Types attack the above…too
    bad its the truth….

  • gatornyc

    Your point has little to no applicability to BBP in view of its funding structure. The fact is that the Park has not yet provided sufficient information regarding its finances to determine whether additional development on Pier 6 is necessary for BBP to meet its financial obligations. It remains an open question that must be vetted, which can only occur once BBP provides additional budget information.

  • marshasrimler

    well said the BBP Board.. must come clean and open its books. government must govern not these private groups that the politicians hide behind

  • Solovely

    Seems worth pondering that Ms. Webster chose to take a position on the save pier 6 issue; is such a stance within the mission of the Conservancy’s mission statement? And/or should it be? Is worth some discussion? These organizations were conceived as separate entities with different missions. How do supporters of the park, support the park, but be against pier 6? now that Ms. Webster has taken this position? Is this “mission creep” on the park of the conservancy? Was her position on pier 6 even necessary within her role?

  • Doug Biviano

    My point is that you and everyone else are focusing on the PILOTS (whether covering the cost of BBP which we suspect they are without Pier 6 buildings) when this scheme is an under-performing distraction created by politicians to justify development where it doesn’t belong that is ironically subsidized by other tax payers (many who don’t want it). An unabated tax base is all we ever needed to fund this park, our libraries, our hospitals and our schools (way over crowded from overbuilding). If we had elected officials who respected the voters they would end these tax abatements, public giveaways and our park would be a park, not a development project.

  • Doug Biviano

    That is what I was getting out with my point of ending tax abatements and public giveaways. These public-private partnership schemes are harming transparency, accountability, our ability to govern, and robbing the tax payer in so many ways. When people hear Public Private Partnerships they need to scream to elected officials HELL NO! Note, our “Authorities” like Port and MTA fall into this category as well shielding politicians from accountability as well.

  • gatornyc

    True or not (and I’ll go with not; the funding of government is far more complicated than you suggest), the ship sailed long ago on the debate of whether the Park should be self-funding through PILOTS, land leases (you don’t mention those), etc.

    Attempting to bring the debate back to whether the Park should or should not be self-funding is the distraction.

  • gatornyc

    With all due respect (and I do respect your cause), such questions distract from the core point. Indeed, why should anyone — particularly the head of the Conservancy — not be able to voice their position regarding the issue? Your core issues are very strong, so why distract from them by raising these types of questions which candidly only provide fodder for your opponents.

  • johnny cakes

    gatornyc. You sound like a lawyer. Are you a lawyer? That could make you an ordained liar for your client.