« How BIG is big? | Main | Kelo coverage »
June 30, 2006
The Park Is Not in the House (or vice versa)
Brooklyn Downtown Star
By Phil Guie
The Brooklyn Bridge Legal Defense Fund's lawsuit against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) alleges that the Brooklyn Bridge Park Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is flawed because it doesn't take into account traffic generated by the Atlantic Yards Plan.
In the same hearing, NY City prevailed in its petition to join the lawsuit as an "interested party." The attorney for the City, Susan Amron, opined that "'city property is going to be part of the park. The city has committed $65 million to [its] development.' She called Brooklyn Bridge Park a paradigm for other parks in the city."
Attorney David Paget, already known to Brooklynites from the suit brought by DDDB and other neighborhood organizations, plays a starring role, representing the Empire State Development Corporation.
NLG Q: Will the Atlantic Yards EIS take into account traffic that may be generated by other development proposals? Community folks want to know if anyone at the Department of Traffic and Transportation is minding the store, and if Brooklyn will get the comprehensive traffic/transportation study and plan it deserves?
The "paradigm" Amron cites is the model of the "self-sustaining park."
Which begs the question: Why must a park be self-sustaining, while Atlantic Yards must receive billions of dollars in tax subsidies?
Posted by lumi at June 30, 2006 8:50 AM