The Pier 40 Debate: Getting the Facts Straight

There was an important meeting of the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) Board on Thursday the 31st. An open meeting (where members of the community can attend but cannot speak from the floor) that usually attracts 20-30 people was attended by at least a few hundred, at 4pm on a Thursday afternoon down in Batter Park City (at neither a convenient time nor a convenient venue). My fellow colleagues from the Pier 40 Partnership (P40P) group were there en masse. We were riding high, feeling great about the attendance at Sunday's Pier 40 rally as well as the support our efforts had received from the entire community, the public and independent schools, the elected officials and virtually every other local constituency.

It was a powerful wave that led up to Thursday's meeting, at which the HRPT could have chosen to designate either of the two RFP respondents (Related and People's Pier), close out the RFP entirely and follow P40P's "third way forward" or punt. At the end of the day they punted, buying time between now and the March HRPT Board meeting to gather more information about the P40P feasibility study and to see if a compromise among the three parties can be reached. The outcome was not unexpected. A statement from P40P is shared below:

********************

Statement from Pier 40 Partnership – February 1, 2008

Yesterday, the board of directors of Hudson River Park postponed a decision on
redevelopment of Pier 40 until their March 27 meeting.

The events of the last few days have been mixed. We were exceedingly pleased that all
six of our local elected officials* wrote letters to the Trust to affirm there will be no
amendment to the Hudson River Park Act to allow a 49-year lease for a project the
community rejects. We were delighted that they all expressed openness to the idea of
non-profit stewardship of the pier and the use of IDA bonds to finance its redevelopment,
in keeping with concepts developed in the feasibility study prepared by HR&A Advisors.
We were glad that the Trust has again withheld support from a Related Companies’s
mega-entertainment proposal that at one time seemed to have the inside track. We were
proud that the selection of Related has been prevented by the unified stand of our entire
community. However, we were somewhat disappointed that the Trust was not persuaded
that the time has come to close down the RFP.

The Trust said that neither developer has met the basic requirements to be designated to
develop the pier. We agree. Related has stated it cannot provide the pro forma for a 30-
year lease required by the RFP and the Park Act. We think now is a moment of
opportunity to move the Pier 40 project forward, and that the effort would have been
better served by creating an even playing field for all participants. Whatever path
forward the Trust chooses, we believe it will be best served by first closing out the RFP,
thereby enabling all concerned to engage fully in the enterprise.

We are pleased that the Trust understands there will be no change in the Park Act to
accommodate a proposal that has no community support. But we are still concerned that
some on the Trust board see this as a debate between "people who want no change on the
one side and people who understand the park needs income on the other." To the
contrary the community clearly understands that there will be commercial activities on
Pier 40 to pay for repairs and support the Trust. Criticism of the Related plan has focused
on the impacts of the intensive nighttime entertainment uses. In fact, the study prepared
for the Partnership by HR&A pragmatically addresses the need for revenue while the
Related plan depends on a fantasy: an amendment of the Act that has no support among
legislators. A closer look at the community's concerns and the concepts proposed by the
Partnership will ultimately help the Trust overcome the difficult challenges ahead.
We are hopeful that the time between now and the next Trust board meeting can be used
productively and that we can continue to work together to craft a plan to redevelop the
pier in a way that benefits the park and the community.

* A joint letter from Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Assemblymembers Deborah J. Glick
Richard N. Gottfried, and State Senators Martin Connor and Tom Duane is available at
pier40.org/downloads/letter1.pdf A letter from Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn is
available at pier40.org/downloads/letter2.pdf

********************

So we're in the game, continuing our efforts and working to catalyze the right answer for the community and the entire city. The one bothersome thing is the spin, politics and positioning that go into a battle like this, one which characterizes our efforts as from "those who don't want change" versus those who are "pragmatic and realize that people are needed to pay for the Pier." This is simply garbage and not reflective of the feasibility study put forth by P40P by HR&A or any of the objective facts known by the HRPT Board. It is spin, pure and simple. Clearly I'm not a very good politician because this kind of disingenuous banter makes me red hot. Bottom line, we are pressing the issue and looking to make it a war of facts, not spin, and we've got the facts on our side. The facts, the community, the heart. It's about doing the right thing and paying for it. And it's possible. We've proved it.