Parks should negotiate, not litigate, on Washington Square Park

Volume One, Issue 17, January 19 - 25, 2007

Editorial

As residents of Chelsea know, parks and other public spaces play an important role for the inhabitants of New York City, offering tranquil, if bucolic, respites from the pressures of city life.

And while Chelsea does not have a park on the scale of either Washington Square or Union Square Parks, the same planning process between city government and the community plays out Chelsea on myriad issues, from the creation of the Special West Chelsea District to the development of affordable housing and beyond.

That is why the bevy of current lawsuits against the Washington Square Park renovation plan, in the heart of Greenwich Village, as well as the ongoing battle over the renovation of Union Square Park’s northern end, are fights worth keeping an eye on.

There are now four lawsuits pending on Washington Square Park. One charges that Parks failed to fully and faithfully present its design plans to Community Board 2 during the public review process; the second charges that the public was denied access to the most current design plans within a reasonable amount of time prior to the January 2006 Art Commission hearing; a third suit, filed last Friday, argues that the renovation must undergo a full environmental impact statement that could take a year and a half; still another lawsuit contends the renovation will disrupt the park’s habitat, which has recently attracted a red-tailed hawk to take up residence there.

The first of these suits already has stalled the project for six months, and a decision by the Appellate Division could come down any day. Clearly, this lawsuit is strong, as it already won in July in State Supreme Court when Justice Emily Jane Goodman ruled Parks should return to C.B. 2 and re-present its plans for the fountain and plaza.

Again, Parks should heed Goodman’s ruling and re-present to C.B. 2 — old plan or new plan. Or, Parks should work with the Washington Square Park Task Force to iron out the issues. Parks should sign any resulting agreement, unlike the last time when Parks disavowed its agreements with Councilmember Alan Gerson and Speaker Christine Quinn.

We don’t understand why Parks won’t work in good faith with the community. Will Mayor Bloomberg’s legacy on Washington Square be one of trying to ram this project through, against community objections? We see the same situation with the Union Square pavilion. We feel the Parks commissioner is a good person, but, sadly, we’re seeing a pattern. Please, Commissioner Benepe, work with the community.

If the city continues to fight in court, however, we have a nagging sense that Parks will have squandered a broad community consensus to renovate, rather than revamp, Washington Square Park. Achieving workable parks renovations should not be such a struggle. Let the city and community join together to create the greatest parks in one of the greatest cities in the world.