DEIS: Parkland concerns; Alienation of parkland

ALIENATION OF PARKLAND

Draft EIS states:

As described further below, the proposed project would require the alienation of certain areas of mapped parkland to allow for its disposition by NYCDPR through leases, for operation of the proposed stadium and several new parking garages. These areas would, however, remain mapped parkland. In addition, new areas of mapped parkland would be created to provide additional new open space and to accommodate park facilities displaced by the new stadium and garages. Overall, the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 4.63 acres of accessible recreational facilities and parkland within the project area.

New York State legislation enacted in June 2005 authorizes the alienation of certain areas of currently mapped parkland—portions of Macomb’s Dam and John Mullaly Parks—to allow for its disposition by the City, through leases, for operation of the proposed stadium and several parking garages. Following that disposition, however, these areas would remain mapped parkland.

The State legislation also requires that the City dedicate the existing Yankee stadium site as parkland and acquire additional parklands and/or dedicate land for park and recreational purposes which are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the parkland being alienated.

The State legislation also requires that the City dedicate the existing Yankee Stadium site as parkland and acquire additional parklands and/or dedicate land for park and recreational purposes which are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the parkland being alienated.

Response:

The State and City should not have alienated public parkland to create space for a private entity (the Yankees) to use for a new stadium and for parking that will not be open to the public to use unless they are attending a Yankees game. This is taking a public use (park) away from the public and giving it over to a private use (stadium and parking). This is not fair to the community.

While new replacement facilities have been proposed, they are not equivalent in quality and location compared to the existing facilities. Even though some of the existing facilities are worn out and old, they are superior to new facilities that would be constructed atop parking garages or located in out-of-the-way places that nobody can easily get to. This is examined in greater detail below.

State and City officials were wrong in voting for this alienation of parkland. While some claim that they believed at the time that they were getting “a fair trade of parkland for parkland” it is clear that a fair trade is not part of the arrangement. Elected officials who voted for the alienation should now consider withdrawing support from the project due to the bad deal the community is getting. Local community members should consider running and voting for alternative candidates at the next election if the elected officials continue to support this bad deal.