Washington Square Park Gets Conservancy

New public/private partnership will raise funds, maintain park

By Adam Janos

Manhattan's Community Board 2 voted to approve the Washington Square Park Conservancy on Thursday June 20th, creating a private/public nonprofit entity that will raise funds to maintain the landmark. Executive director Sarah Nielson will play a dual role as head of the group and Parks department employee.

The decision to approve the Conservancy was a emotional one, with community members on both sides spitting rhetoric about legacy vs. civic engagement, transparency vs. trust.

Originally approved in an 11-1 vote by a Community Board 2 Parks Committee on June 5th, the proposed Conservancy avoided vote of postponement by 25-18, and was then approved shortly thereafter.

Parks committee Chair Rich Caccappolo seemed baffled at the heat of the debate concerning the group of private citizens whose stated mission is to raise funds for the park.

"My first impression was not that they're malicious. To me, the idea sounded great. Since then, we've met several times with these people. For those of you who are trying to malign then? I just think that's really distasteful," Caccappolo said.

Several community members expressed concern over the non-profit's lack of bylaws, and wondered if ? down the line ? the Conservancy could begin dictating control over programming and the very character of the park. Keen Berger, assistant secretary to the Community Board, called the conservancy a potential bait-and-switch.

"I'm From Minnesota, the land of ten thousand lakes, so I know about bait and switch," Berger said. "We like the bait. It's beautiful. But you can't see the hook until it's too late, and you're fried fish."

For the Conservancy, their 501(c)(3) non-profit status makes some of the allegations about their lack of transparency factually thin. As a non-profit, their fundraising figures will be available for scrutiny, and the law prevents any individual organization (e.g. New York University) from giving such a large of a percentage of donations as to fully "buy" the group.

For her part, Nielson's only testimony involved her reading a section of the group's typed-out resolution back to community members. When approached at the meeting for comment by Our Town Downtown, several conservancy members refused to answer questions, and Nielson redirected inquiries to the Parks Department's press office.

According to Cathryn Swan, the editor of the Washington Square Park Blog, the Conservancy is being set up similarly to the Riverside Park Conservancy, whose website states that its mission is to "maintain, operate, improve and provide programming to the park." That's a mission which far outreaches the current proposal for the Washington Square Park Conservancy, who currently claim to want nothing more than to raise money under one organization title, and help coordinate volunteers to fix the various problems the park chronically deals with (e.g. dead rats, trampled flower beds).

Community Board 2 member Coral Dawson seemed to present the emotionally-charged argument that ultimately won the day, and the group's vote. "I'm shocked," Dawson said. "There's no legitimate complaint here. Our job is to help the community? and it seems to me that their biggest mistake was in coming before us to ask for our input."