Chelsea Residents Fight Over a Small Patch of Land

Congressman
Jerrold Nadler addressed his constituents last week at the Community Board 4
meeting in Chelsea, and he used the time to cover the most pressing issues
facing New York State: health care and the budget.

When the
board allowed for questions, however, the only constituent who stood up accused
the Congressman of not doing enough to support putting a park in an empty lot
in East Chelsea, Nadler’s face went blank.

“How can you
say you care about the elderly and disabled?” asked a man with a white beard
and glasses. He pointed his finger at Nadler. “There are people in our
neighborhood who are disabled, who cannot get to Madison Square Park, who
cannot get to Union Square Park.”

He went on
to complain that the Community Board did not pay attention to its constituents
and, after the crowd packed into the Chelsea community center hooted, hollered
and clapped, Nadler replied: “What is your question?”

“How do you
feel about the park?” the man said.

The answer
was diplomatic. “You have a competition here between two necessary public
goods,” Nadler said. “We need a park; we need low-income housing. We have to
figure out how to do them both.”

The battle
to figure out how to do both in Chelsea has grown increasingly contentious
since it began last September, when residents became aware of an empty,
city-owned lot on 136 W. 20th St.

Some saw the
10,000-square-foot lot, formerly used by city sanitation workers, as the
perfect opportunity to build a public park from scratch. Over the months,
residents built a coalition, called Friends of 20th Street Park.
It grew to include over 1,000 members and garnered the support of numerous city
organizations, including the Council of Chelsea Block Associations, Save
Chelsea and NYC Park Advocates.

But
Community Board 4 had been interested in using the lot for affordable housing
since at least 2004, when the West Chelsea Rezoning Plan went through. The
Board also passed a resolution in July 2009 that reaffirmed its commitment to
affordable housing in anticipation of the Western Rail Yards Rezoning.
The rezoning plan called for 20 percent, or 1,000 units, of new residential
development to be reserved for low-, middle- and moderate-income New Yorkers.
On Jan. 5, the CB4 Board voted to reaffirm their position: with plans to
develop the lot into permanent, affordable housing would go forward.

A
back-and-forth between camps through letters ensued. Park advocates drafted a letter
to the Board, reiterating their case for the park and calling the vote “a pro
forma exercise that was compromised by distortions of facts and should be
withdrawn.” Advocates argued that the vote should have been tabled until they
had a chance to present before the Chelsea Preservation and Planning committee
Jan. 11, but the suggestion to table the vote was shot down. Their scheduled
appearance before the Preservation committee was taken off the agenda and moved
to the Transportation Planning and Parks Subcommittee, which the group
rejected, arguing the park was a “land-use issue.”

The board
responded in a Jan. 18 letter, stating that, “The matter has been fully
debated, voted on, and will not be reconsidered.” It suggested the group
schedule an appearance before the Waterfront and Parks Committee, to discuss
alternatives for green space.

On Jan. 19,
the group shot back another letter,
arguing that the vote was not conclusive. While the board votes on this lot had
initially been unanimous for housing, according to Matt Weiss, a member of the
group’s steering committee, the pro-park campaign had managed to turn the tide:
the Jan. 5 vote saw four votes against housing, two abstentions and 11 votes in
favor of an amendment to erect a temporary park on the site.

“We made a
big dent in what had previously been full consensus,” Weiss says. “Given more
time, I think we could turn this around.” At issue now, he explains, is
convincing the board to reconsider a vote. “One thing we’re asking for tonight
is that nothing should be etched in stone,” Weiss says. “No construction is
imminent.“

Friends of
20th Street Park is currently conducting a letter-writing campaign and lobbying
leaders like City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who had made an agreement
with the Community Board to reserve the space for subsidized housing. When
Quinn’s office was contacted for comment, she still seemed hopeful that there
would be an opportunity to create green space in the area.

“The creation of new permanent affordable housing and
increased park space on the west side of Manhattan are both important and
laudable goals,” Quinn says. “The city has previously identified this
particular site as a future home for permanent affordable housing. I met with
and heard the concerns of neighborhood residents. We will work together to explore
options to keep our district both diverse and livable.”

The tension
at the Feb. 2 meeting, however, was palpable and far from resolved. Mothers
hugged babies to their hips, and small children, including some still in
strollers, carried poster board signs with “We want a park” scrawled in marker.
Lines of park supporters stood to speak at the podium and chanted, “We need a
park! We need a park!” Strangely enough, a documentary film crew
was also there, filming the process.

As the
supporters spoke for their allotted two minutes, many board members, who sat at
plastic tables around the room, fidgeted in their chairs or scrolled on their
BlackBerries. Others rolled their eyes, or crossed their arms and sighed. As
one elderly woman spoke, a board member looked up to the ceiling, scoffed and
whispered, “What is she talking about?” to another board member. Most of the
park supporters reiterated the group’s talking points.

Before the
meeting, Weiss said he regretted that the fight had turned into a
“people-versus-parks” issue. At the podium, he and other park supporters said
that they fully support affordable housing, but adequate green space is
necessary for the health of a community. Supporters cited a 2009 report by NYU’s Furman Center,
and the Department of City Planning, that District 4 ranks last out of
Manhattan’s 12 districts for parks within a quarter mile of residents.

Supporters
also argued that the housing slated for the space is not “affordable”: the
average income for the 70 units is about $120,000.

In a
follow-up interview after the contentious meeting, John Weis, chair of CB4,
says that for a married couple, $120,000 is not a large sum. “For a family of
four with two working parents, $120,000 is not unreasonable when you have a
schoolteacher and a fireman,” he says. “It’s really for working-class folk.”

Weis
explains that, while the Board is committed to incorporating more green space
into the district, housing is one of the most pressing needs facing the
community. “There has been quite a boom in development in Chelsea, and it’s all
been very high end,” Weis says. “It’s driving a lot of people out of the
neighborhood. CB4 feels strongly that in order to help preserve the character
of the neighborhood, we have to make sure middle-income people can stay here.”

The Board
had previously suggested to Friends of 20th Street Park that it would consider
other options, such as green roofs or blocking streets for children to play
safely in during the day. Many supporters mentioned these ideas at the podium,
arguing that elderly and disabled residents could not access green roofs, and
that Chelsea children already had enough concrete on which to play.

Ronnie Tuft,
82, a former painter and writer and longtime resident of Chelsea, said that the
board should keep its legacy in mind. “Thirty to 40 years from now, the legacy
you leave by this decision, will it be another building of stone and concrete
and wood and windows and glass?” she asked. “Or will it be a little green
space, one that’s very much needed, that will dot this little area of concrete
and glass and stone?”

A handful of
housing supporters also spoke, drawing applause from some audience and board
members. At times, the issue seemed to swerve from the need for affordable
housing in Chelsea, to general frustration with rising costs and lack of
affordable housing across New York City.

 “August of this year I will be 70 years
old,” Lamar Stubblefield, a former fashion designer, said. “I receive
retirement, Social Security. Even if I did receive pension, I would not be
getting more than two or 3,000 a month, and that’s just rent alone. If you need
to fight for something you need to fight for some affordable housing.” Board
members nodded their heads and clapped. Stubblefield continued: “I pay my taxes.
I pay my Social Security. And I want to live in New York City.”

 After at least two hours of speeches and
shouting, most of the crowd had drained out of the room. Before the board
turned to other business, Weis announced that many constituents complained that
the board acted rude and uninterested during the public session, and that they
would be writing letters to complain.

The board
may have seemed frustrated at the meeting, Weis explained later, because the
park issue wasn’t on the agenda. “It was the third or fourth time the park
advocates came out,” he says. “Of course, public session allows anyone to speak
about anything they want. The park people can all come out next month as well.
But as far as we are concerned, the issue is resolved for CB4.”