This is particularly significant because the park's pro-housing operators had tried unsuccessfully to claim that the citizenry of Brooklyn - those individuals they had hand picked to be on the Committee in the first place - agreed that housing was the only solution for park payments. It is obvious once again that the people of Brooklyn know that more housing is not needed inside Brooklyn Bridge Park and that there are many ways to pay for park maintenance without private housing. They have demanded that the Jehovah Witness properties adjacent to the park be mined for tax revenue; that the city explore a Real Estate Investment fee (used to secure and protect open space in East Hampton) and that all concessions, including the River Cafe inside the park, pay-in; that the combination of off site and on site parking, events and movie shoots will also go a long way to pay for the park without housing.
Please read the Community's motions for yourself.
Motion passed at April 20, 2011 CAC meeting at LICH:
Maker: Dorothy Siegel, BBPDF
Seconder: Richard Bashner, CB 6
Seconder: Richard Bashner, CB 6
The CAC endorses the positions taken by CB6 and CB2 that encourage the BAE to aggressively study potential revenue generating ideas and expense reduction options, including fundraising/sponsorship opportunities and options involving the Watchtower properties. In addition to the revenue sources mentioned in the CB2 and CB6 resolutions, the CAC urges BAE to consider other potential revenue sources including, but not limited to: a real estate transfer fee; enhanced revenues from parking (specifically, the police garage); alternative approaches to the PID; and potential revenues from the yacht marina. The CAC further urges BAE to provide a point by point analysis of the revenue generators covered in the 1997 Praedium Group study.
No comments:
Post a Comment