By Tatiana Baez

The city is facing costly criticism for its recent approval of New York University’s expansion plan, dubbed NYU 2031. Eleven groups and several individuals opposing the development filed a lawsuit against the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The lawsuit was filed Sept. 24 in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
Here are the basics of what you need to know about the expansion plan and the lawsuit:

1. The plaintiffs on the lawsuit include NYU Faculty Against the Sexton Plan; the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation; the Historic Districts Council; the Washington Square Village Tenants’ Association; the East Village Community Coalition; Friends of Petrosino Square; LaGuardia Corner Gardens Inc.; the Lower Manhattan Neighbors Organization; SoHo Alliance; the Bowery Alliance of Neighbors; and the NoHo Neighborhood Association; as well as 11 individuals.

2. The lawsuit states that the plan involves an illegal use of public land.

3. The lawsuit also claims that city residents were not given an opportunity to voice their concerns in a public forum until after the plan was finalized and approved.

4. “GVSHP is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit because we believe that the NYU plan would have a profoundly negative impact upon our neighborhood, eliminating much-needed open space, shoehorning 2 million square feet of facilities into an area already oversaturated with NYU facilities, and turning a residential neighborhood into a 20-year construction zone,” said Andrew Berman, executive director for the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

5. GVSHP believes that NYU is overturning the terms under which NYU was given the public land in the 1960s.

6. According to NYU spokesperson John Beckman, NYU 2031 seeks to construct new academic facilities, student dormitories and faculty housing.

7. Several professors are opposed to the plan and have united against NYU 2031. In a previous statement, Tejaswini Ganti, a professor at NYU, said that the Department of Anthropology “has voted unanimously to express [their] concerns regarding the NYU 2031 plan for expansion on the ‘superblocks’ between West Third and Houston streets.”
8. According to Ganti, one of the problems with NYU 2031 is the lack of “adequate or genuine consultation with the faculty regarding the rationale for the plan, the logic of expansion, its location and design, and the health and environmental consequences of an anticipated 20 years of construction.”

9. Opponents of the plan worry about the creation of an “irreparable rift with [the NYU] community neighbors given the plan’s anticipated rezoning for commercial development and the reduction of public green space in this high-density residential area,” said Ganti.

10. NYU and the plan’s organizers responded to claims made in the lawsuit by saying that public concerns were taken into consideration before designing the plan. “The City Planning Commission and City Council overwhelmingly approved NYU’s proposal after holding extensive public hearings and engaging in a thorough and rigorous public review process as required by law,” said Beckman.

Community members wait to hear the vote. Photo by James Kelleher.

University makes modifications to plan, likely to be approved by full council

(by Alissa Fleck)

NYU’s modified expansion plan is one step closer to fruition, much to the disappointment of staunchly opposed community members. The City Council’s Zoning Subcommittee and Land Use Committee voted back-to-back on Tuesday, in overwhelming support of NYU’s expansion plan, with certain mutually agreed upon modifications. All nine members of the Zoning Subcommittee voted in favor of the project, while the Land Use Committee voted 19 in favor and one opposed. Councilman Charles Barron was the sole holdout. “We will regret this,” said Barron, urging his colleagues to have the courage to vote “no” and “send it back to the drawing board.”

Councilmembers, who defended their votes in support, expressed immense respect for Councilwoman Margaret Chin’s efforts. They applauded her attempts to negotiate all sides, while maintaining their displeasure with the plan despite modifications.

Chin, whose district covers Greenwich Village, stated she had not originally supported the proposal, but tried to keep an open mind and find a way to achieve a tolerable medium for all groups involved.

“I’m confident this proposal strikes the appropriate balance,” said Chin. “It holds NYU to its responsibility as a good neighbor.” Chin explained NYU had made significant concessions and no one got everything they wanted.

“I wholeheartedly believe NYU’s growth will occur at a sustainable pace and not overwhelm the village,” she said, adding the school’s willingness to cooperate in the process had been encouraging.

Councilmembers acknowledged continuing chasms between the community and the University. Councilman Vincent Ignizio urged NYU: “Now the real work begins for you. The community has issues with you…start the rebuilding process today.”

The primary modifications to the original plan include a 20 percent (70,000 square foot) reduction in overall density (for an approximate 1.93 million square foot expansion), space dedicated to community use, an increase in publicly accessible space and NYU taking responsibility for the maintenance of these open spaces.

“I have put in place strong checks and balances to ensure that NYU holds up its end of the bargain,” said Chin. “If NYU fails to do so, there will be consequences.”

These “checks and balances” include, for one, funds set aside to make sure the school adheres to its promises. The University will create a yearly endowment of $150,000 toward open space maintenance, proving they want to move beyond questions of trust to tangible verification. NYU Senior Vice President Lynne Brown echoed Chin, calling the modifications “a thoughtful balance.”

Brown, questioned by Councilwoman Jessica Lappin on how the school would fund the project, said financial support would come largely from philanthropy, working capital and fundraising, while adding a certain amount of debt is to be expected. With regard to tuition, she said: “There is always upward pressure on tuition.”

Before the plan went to vote, community member Georgina Bedrosian, who lives in the area in question and opposes the plan, said she was afraid councilmembers would accept some version of the plan.

“It lays primarily on Chin,” said Bedrosian. “We little people can make a lot of noise, but one would think councilmembers have been wined and dined. [We’ve] lost out to big real estate.”

Throughout the presentation process, disparaging gestures and outcries from audience members revealed there is still significant tension among community members who feel NYU is not being honest and forthcoming, particularly with regard to public space accessibility and conversion. Nonetheless, the hotly contested Sasaki Garden, at the heart of the Washington Square Village Superblock, will be preserved.

Following the vote in favor of the plan, Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, called the plan’s passage a violation of public trust.

“The changes are less bad,” said Berman, “but not less bad enough.” Berman explained Council has a strong tendency to defer to local councilmembers, in this case Chin. He called the decision “deeply disappointing,” and said his group would continue to fight to full Council and beyond, and was considering legal options as well.

One NYU affiliate said he would not provide a statement to the press, while Vice President Alicia Hurley said, to the press, of the Council’s decision: “It’s so important for us to have these opportunities.”

As the session concluded, several audience members were escorted out, chanting: “Shame on you, Chin, you’ve killed the Village!”

The full City Council will convene Tuesday, July 24, to provide the final vote on the plan.

UPDATE: “The revised NYU plan remains grossly inappropriate and a violation of the public trust.  This was public land given to NYU a generation ago with clear stipulations that forbade this kind of development from ever taking place here.  There has been no true examination of viable alternatives and no real justification by NYU as to why this massive expansion of facilities must take place in the already oversaturated Village. NYU’s neighbors and faculty remain united in opposing this plan and we will continue the fight to the full Council and possibly beyond,” said GVSHP’s Executive Director Andrew Berman.

President John Sexton defends plan to the community, and city council members

By Alissa Fleck
City Council members struggled to quell boos, hisses, applause and chants at a hearing on the NYU expansion on Friday, June 29. Even Greenwich Village resident and actor Matthew Broderick showed up to voice an opinion on the controversial proposal; Broderick said NYU 2031 would “destroy the village” by hurting the “quirkiness and humanness” for which it’s known.

Council members largely agreed with Broderick, expressing concern over the plan, which would add 2 million square feet for academic and residential uses. One of the greatest sources of debate was how much community green space the plan would ultimately allow.

The hearing, the last expected before the City Council votes on the expansion proposal in July, incorporated presentations and testimony from opposition and proponents alike. Elected officials, NYU faculty members, community advocates and others came together to debate the highly contentious NYU 2031 plan also known as the “Sexton Plan.”

Two morning rallies proceeded the hearing outside City Hall, with plan opponents having a significantly larger turnout than supporters as people scrambled for space inside to attend a pre-hearing. Opponents held colorful banners that read “NYU 2031 is Wrong for NYC, Wrong for the Village and Wrong for NYU” and appeared to fill the majority of seats in the chambers. Security struggled to allow an even number from both camps to enter as people flooded into chambers.

The proposal, which was announced publicly in 2010, was approved by the City Planning Commission (CPC) on June 6 of this year after receiving feedback from Community Board 2 and Borough President Scott Stringer. The CPC passed the plan along to the City Council with several modifications, including the elimination of a hotel and commercial space.

The hearing opened with a presentation from supporters affiliated with NYU, including university President John Sexton, Tisch Dean Mary Schmidt Campbell, Senior Vice President Lynne Brown and Vice President Alicia Hurley. Council members then thoroughly questioned aspects of the NYU 2031 plan.

Councilwoman Margaret Chin, representing the area contained in the proposal, roused excitement from plan opponents by calling the expansion “unacceptable” and urging for greater balance.

“This plan tries to shoehorn too much into too small a space,” said Chin to wide applause and jazz hands.

The issue of scale was a hot topic. Councilwoman Jessica Lappin, representing parts of the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island, agreed with Chin, calling the plan “too dense, too big, too tall and too much.” She added it could be made significantly more contextual with its surroundings, agreeing with many dissenters’ arguments against the plan. Lappin also pointed to the contradiction in the university’s choice to grow the undergraduate student population in the past and its current insistence on resource expansion to meet those needs.
Lappin said community members’ wariness about the plan was evident in the overwhelming contact she has received, even as a representative outside the relevant district.

Supporters affiliated with the university said there is a direct correlation between space and the ability to stay competitive with peer universities, while community supporters added that the plan will create jobs and benefit the local economy. NYU representatives have stated the plan will create 18,200 construction jobs and 2,600 opportunities for long-term employment.

Sexton, a lifelong New Yorker, said the university is desperately in need of space, which “translates into talent.” He pointed to the growth of new disciplines—the study of genomes, for instance—and the resulting need to attract the fields’ top researchers.

Currently, according to evidence the school put forth, NYU’s science facilities are outdated and not adequately sophisticated to keep pace with other top research institutes. Up-to-date science labs require additional space and flexibility over the average classroom. Without the necessary facilities, attracting top experts would be near impossible, said Sexton.

Sexton and other supporters continually reiterated that the school has no intention of growing the student body or viewing this as a real estate or corporate development project; it’s about academic necessity and meeting current needs and demands. The students themselves are “the loudest voices” calling for more space, explained Sexton.

Opponents of the plan granted that NYU may be in need of additional space, but encouraged the university to consider development elsewhere, like the Financial District, which would welcome the development, according to downtown District Leader Jenifer Rajkumar. Plan opponents overwhelmingly argued the proposal would change the character and ambiance of the Village, including decreasing green space, and some say it would force residents to live in a construction zone for at least 20 years.

It’s essential for facilities to be developed near the school’s core for many reasons, explained Brown, including efficiently delivering curriculum to undergraduates, creating community, decreasing university costs and not having to duplicate crucial facilities. Proposed changes, NYU claimed, will be built entirely on the school’s existing footprint or space currently owned by the institution.

Hurley responded to accusations against the school by providing a breakdown of space allocation, saying the university is dedicated to transforming current private space into public open space, including increasing open green space.

The debate over whether the plan will increase or decrease public green space is still highly contested on both sides. Council Member Robert Jackson put Sexton on the spot, asking whether he and his other representatives, were being as honest and forthcoming as they possibly could. Audience members’ hisses indicated their opinion as Sexton affirmed he was being truthful.

Some opponents believe the university is being deceptive about its motivations for the project. Many say the school is acting as a corporation rather than a university, with an eye toward taking over its “backyard.” Protesters pointed to a law firm hired by NYU to advocate for the plan, construction worker union members in the crowd who had little understanding of what the plan entailed and the many faculty members against the plan choosing who chose to remain anonymous as evidence of the school’s deceptive tactics.

NYU maintained it has tried to engage the community and remain transparent about the plan for the past five years. While the plan is projected to cost from $3 to $4 billion in total, Sexton asserted it would have no financial impact on NYU students. The City Council is expected to reach a decision by the end of July.

By Laurent Berstecher

It is no secret: going to college is becoming an increasingly expensive choice. NYU’s recent tuition hike for 2012-13 is simply following the trend, as the average cost of attending college in the United States has increased tenfold in the past 60 years. In 1950, a year at NYU would have cost a mere $496 (this represents about $4,500 today,) while the 2012/ 2013 tuition for Stern Business School, is estimated at around $51,562.

The phenomenon is not NYU-bound, and tuition has been steadily increasing in both public and private universities around the country. According to FinAid, tuition costs are raised by an average of 8% a year at the national level.  In retrospect, NYU’s 2012-2013 4% hike, the lowest in years, may not be that bad. But 4% of $50,000 is still a lot of money.

Seeing no realistic end to ever-increasing tuition fees, it may be tempting to ask where all the money goes. As far as NYU is concerned, the school depends on tuition for most of its expenses, since it does not benifate from large endowments like most of its competitors. Thus, NYU president John Sexton has constantly been reminding his students that their money is necessary to maintain the university’s standards of excellence.

While those tough financial conditions may discourage many from pursuing a college education, NYU has seen its numbers of applications steadily increase over the past few years. There is thus no real risk for the school to run out of students, and tuition does not look like it will be dropping anytime soon.

However, there is good news for those of you who benefit from scholarships or other financial aid, as they have been increased accordingly to match the new tuition costs. Meanwhile, national student loan debt is silently growing, reaching a record $1 trillion in April 2012.

Borough President’s Compromise Not Enough to Sway Public Opinion

On Wed. afternoon (4/25), the City Planning Commission (CPC) held a public hearing at the Museum of the American Indian to hear both concerns and support over the NYU Sexton Plan – a project that would radically expand the NYU campus over a 20 year period.

CPC members heard the raised, and sometimes distressed voices of community members who were against the plan, as the standing room only “crowd” gave raucous applause to members speaking out against the expansion, and provided a chorus of hisses and even outraged shouts to those advocating it.

Members of NYU Faculty weighed in on both sides of the coin. Mary Schmidt Campbell, Dean of the Tisch School of the Arts, advocated on behalf of the plan, citing a lack of performance space and the need to remain competitive as universities around the country put additional pressure on the already taxed School of the Arts.

“We’ve achieved at the highest level and contributed to the creative economy of downtownNew Yorkin spite of the fact that Tisch’s Institute for Performing Arts has, for years, struggled with inadequate, obsolete, sometimes dangerous, and cramped facilities…Our existing facilities are at a crisis point. In order to continue to thrive, we’ve embarked on an ambitious plan to design the world’s finest performing arts training center as part of the 2031 plan.”

Other faculty members were not so supportive of the expansion, which makes The Tisch School seem more like an outlier when compared to many other departments and faculty at the university. However, less than one third of NYU faculty have chosen to publicly align themselves.

Despite concerns over anonymity, a senior faculty member, who was introduced improperly,  spoke out against the Sexton Plan,  urging the CPC to say “N-O” until they “K-N-O-W” more.

The CPC's Public Hearing on the NYU Expansion (Sexton Plan) drew the full attention of the maximum capacity auditorium at the Museum of the American Indian.

“The NYU leadership would have you believe that the university can’t fulfill its educational mission and be a global leader without anEmpire State Building’s worth of square footage squeezed into a few blocks. But the NYU team pushing this plan does not speak for its faculty; for we, too, are the university.”

“As of today, 20 academic departments and programs, including the Department of Economics (which might know something about something) have passed resolutions against this plan overwhelmingly.”

More than anything, however, the public hearing revealed a poor dissemination of information. Many attendees representing NYU and its expansion plan seemed unable to adequately describe different phases of the plan when pressed by the commission, and there was also an apparent disconnect between those who spoke on behalf of the  Sexton plan  sans “Stringer’s Compromise” and those who spoke exclusively of it – which NYU President Sexton agreed to on Apr. 11.

Speaking on behalf of the Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation (GVSHP), lawyer Randy Mastro urged the CPC to consider the usage of space, and the impact it will have on Greenwich Village.

“This commission is being asked to approve over 2.2 million gross square feet of construction over the next nineteen years that will fundamentally change the character of one of our city’s most beloved neighborhoods – Greenwich Village…yet hundreds of thousands of square feet of this project are not for academic purposes,”

“As a result of this construction, this neighborhood will have to accommodate up to 2,000 new residents, and find itself flooded with more than 10,000 new people visiting the area every day. It will substantially reduce the amount of open space available for community use in an area already lacking such open space.”

Members of the Public Hearing show their opposition to the Sexton Plan

While nearly all of the community members present at the hearing were opposed to the Sexton plan, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s Director of Land Use, Brian Cook, spoke on behalf of Stringer, bringing to light many of the Borough President’s amendments – some of them for the first time to the CPC.

“The office [of the Borough President] has maintained a philosophy of seeking ways to strike a balance to ensure that development, when it is occurring, does not overrun or take away things and hurt the community in ways that we can prevent,”

And as he outlined the Borough President’s amendments, Cook commented on the President’s decision to dissuade NYU from building “below-grade” below street level) around parks was perhaps the most popular opposing point made at the hearing.

“The clear direction we heard from the community was taking the below-grade of those parks [Northern Mercer St. Park, Western Mercer St. Park] and tearing out the old trees and what existed, even if they were eventually replaced was an unacceptable line.”

However, when pressed by the City Planning Commission  and the community for information regarding the concessions NYU was unwilling to make at President Stringer’s urging, Mr. Cook declined to comment.

Members of the City Planning Commission, including Chairperson Amanda Burden

As it stands, the City Planning Commission has, at the present time, many more questions than it does answers. In light of the tremendous public opposition to the project, as well as the points raised by several community speakers, it does not appear likely that the CPC will approve the Sexton Plan without at least first requesting a full disclosure and review of Stringer’s Compromise.

“It’s  important that the commission to hear the modifications that the borough president recommended,” said City Planning Commission Chair Amanda M. Burden.

A rendering of NYU's s expansion plan. Rendering courtesy of NYU.

In his recent conditional approval of NYU’s 2031 core campus expansion plan, Borough President Scott Stringer was able to take a few items off the massive table. But many local residents, preservationists and politicians still believe the plan is huge, despite its recent reining-in.

The revised plan, sent by Stringer to the Department of City Planning last Wednesday, includes a density reduction of 19 percent, or 377,000 square feet, of the project’s proposed 2 million square feet.

Further, public strips of parkland around Washington Square Village will be designated and preserved, while the temporary gymnasium on the site of two community playgrounds will be eliminated, as will be the proposed dormitories in the Bleecker Building. An affirmation was also secured regarding NYU’s commitment to provide space for a K-8 school.

Other modifications to the plan include building reductions to increase open space and light and setting limits on the hours of construction.

Stringer has also emphasized the economic benefits of NYU’s plan for New York City, which promises to create around 9,500 permanent jobs and as many as 18,200 new construction jobs over the next 20 years.

Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP), was not impressed by the modifications to the plan.

“Paring down the buildings in the NYU plan doesn’t address the fundamental problem; unless NYU develops a long-term strategy for directing its growth outside of the neighborhood, they will be taking over more and more and more of the Village, tipping the balance of neighborhood character and becoming more and more of the overwhelming and dominant presence in the area,” he said

Berman noted that other schools such as Yale, Harvard and Brown had all faced similar issues. “Those schools managed to work with their respective municipalities for winning solutions, including satellite campuses in nearby areas of the city where large-scale growth was wanted and needed and would add to economic development and diversity, not deaden it,” he explained.

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. said he would give serious thought to any NYU plan to return to the borough with a renewed presence.

“It would be a great asset both for the Bronx and NYU if the school would consider returning to the Bronx and building a campus in our beautiful borough,” Diaz said. “The Bronx has so much to offer—we already have many high-quality higher education institutions, and our borough is filled with rich history, culture, food and a diverse population.”

Berman said that the revised plan still dooms the Village to be overtaken more each year by NYU. He added that Stringer’s vote was particularly disappointing since he didn’t hold a public hearing on the plan before making his decision, and he didn’t heed the recommendations of his own community task force on NYU development.

“The amount of growth proposed is titanic and, just like the ship, it might sink the community,” said Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council (HDC), of the modified NYU plan.

“I believe, in terms of process, the [borough president] should have held a public hearing on this,” Bankoff said. “I know he has been working hard for several years on this topic, but by not holding a public hearing on it, he has deprived the people who have just come to an understanding of the proposal a chance to voice their concerns to him.”

Bankoff said that by not holding a public hearing, Stringer missed the chance to better inform his decision-making.

Both the HDC and the GVSHP are part of a group, which also includes NYU faculty, that has retained the law firm of Gibson and Dunn to mount a legal challenge to the NYU plan.

Assemblywoman Deborah Glick said in a statement that the NYU plan “continues to be a travesty” and that only minimal concessions were secured by the Stringer negotiations.

However, Brad Hoylman, chair of Community Board 2, which voted against the NYU plan, had some positive comments regarding Stringer’s efforts.

“The agreement announced today by the borough president with NYU is an important initial step that addresses major concerns identified by the Community Board, and represents the first time NYU has committed to any changes to its massive expansion plan,” Hoylman said.

But he also reiterated that the board would continue to seek additional changes to the plan in the ULURP process with the City Council.

On April 11, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer gave NYU a show of measured support by detailing his recommendations for modifications to the university’s proposed Greenwich Village expansion, a 20-year plan currently slated for completion in 2031.

“N.Y.U. must coexist with Greenwich Village and not overwhelm the neighborhood,” Stringer said in an interview disclosing the deal. “This strikes an important balance.”

According to the New York Times, who originally reported Stringer’s plans on Apr. 10, NYU has agreed to President Stringer’s provisions, which include a scale back of the Mercer Building expansion (the location currently housing NYU’s athletic center) to 162 vertical feet, a number that is equal to other Washington Square Village buildings. Additionally, NYU will erect four new buildings in the area.

“The density of this project has come down almost 20 percent,” Stringer said. “We’ve saved playgrounds, we’ve preserved public strips as parkland, we’ve eliminated the temporary gym.”

Stringer’s recommendations come at the heels of a unanimous Feb. 23 rejection of the expansion by Community Board 2. Approval for the expansion must now pass on to the City Planning Commission and the full city council. Though a final verdict will not be rendered until Summer 2012, the New York Times has reported that Stringer will urge for “conditional approval” at a press conference.

With 370,000 square feet cut from the project, NYU feels it has made fair concessions to accommodate and quell residential concerns regarding the project. Indeed, as NYU Spokesperson John Beckerman noted, NYU’s plans for expansion “have gone through multiple changes over the years.” Stringer also preserved a beloved playground, with NYU agreeing not to destroy it until another has been built to replace it.

“From the beginning, our focus has been to achieve an outcome that will meet the University’s academic space needs in a way that will keep NYU strong — and we’re comfortable we’re still well on that path — while addressing the concerns of our neighbors.” said Beckman in a statement.

However, the New York Times is reporting that Stringer’s endorsement is “considered important because he is planning to run for mayor and has close ties to the liberal activist groups in and nearGreenwich Village.” In addition, they say, Stringer’s stance with NYU’s expansion is consistent with his existing track record (including expansions atColumbiaUniversity and Fordham University).

From an economic standpoint, Stringer estimates that the NYU construction will “create at least 9,500 jobs in the area.” And as for construction, the WNYC reports that NYU has promised to “limit construction to between8 a.m.and4:30 p.m.and that weekend construction would be “limited,” but did not elaborate further.”

UPDATE: By Wednesday Afternoon (4/11/12), The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and members of the NYU Faculty had made public their retention of international lawfirm Gibson Dunn to aid in their pursuit against the city’s land-use process.

Mark Crispin Miller, a member of NYUFASP, said “Although we have raised many good-faith and analytically based concerns about the Sexton Plan, it is clear that NYU will not engage us on the merits. It is also quite clear that – as a negotiating tactic in the land-use process – they have certified a plan that involves much more extensive, and far more concentrated, development than is necessary or rational. It is a shame that some elected officials have voiced support for the plan, or some modified version of it, without seriously considering the community’s concerns. We need to make sure our voices are heard and fairly represented, which is why we have now turned to Gibson Dunn. We did not authorize any elected official to ‘compromise’ on our behalf, which convinced us we need a powerful voice speaking for us.”

According to a statement, Gibson Dunn partners Randy Mastro and Jim Walden will be leading the matter, as they represented elected officials, historic-preservation organizations, and community groups in several other high-profile, land-use matters. They will be working with Alison Greenberg, a noted litigator and former member of  Community Board 2 Manhattan.

UPDATE (4/19/12): Opponents of the NYU 2031 Expansion Plan re-doubled their efforts against the University when, on Apr. 19, they called for renewed awareness concerning NYU’s plans. Members of organizations, as well as residents of Greenwich Village are planning a march and rally for Apr. 20, where they aim to gain further support in their efforts against the NYU expansion. Over 15 organizations and leaders have pledged their support, including Community Board 2, SoHo Alliance, Assembly Member Deborah J. Glick, NYS Senator Tom Duane and NYU Faculty Against the Sexton Plan.

A public hearing, to be held by the City Planning Commission (CPC) is scheduled for Apr. 25 at the National Museum of the American Indian