The Proposal
A proposal is being circulated to bring a Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) to the West Side of Manhattan. This would be similar to the approximately 67 Business Improvement Districts (BID) that now function throughout New York City. Residences and businesses would pay a small additional fee, collected by the city tax bureau, which would be earmarked for improvements within the specified district.
This NID would run from Chambers Street to 59th Street and from the Hudson River, including the Hudson River Park, to either Hudson Street or 10th Avenue as the eastern border. The fee would be 7.5 cents per sq. ft. for residences and 15 cents for businesses. A 1,000 sq. ft. residence would cost $75 per year and a similar size business would cost $150 per year.
It is estimated that about $10 million per year would be raised and this would mostly go towards maintaining the Hudson River Park, but also to support the crosswalks and medians along West Street (aka The Westside Highway), and possibly improvements in the several small parks on the east side of West Street, located at Chambers, Canal, 14th 23rd and 54th Streets. Improvements or maintenance in areas outside of the Hudson River Park itself would enable the district to be accurately described as a Neighborhood, not just a Park, Improvement District. The direct benefits of the district would be more widespread than just maintenance for the Hudson River Park.
As with BIDs, this NID would be supervised by the city’s office of Small Business Services. Any other changes in the district, including the level of fees, would require approval of the City Council with, presumably, whatever public input is usually involved in decisions of this type.
There are several major rationales for this proposal. First, the park needs money. Legislation establishing the park in 1998 required that it be financially independent and require no operating funds from the state or city, other than the large capital expenditures that have been, and are being, used to construct the facilities within the park. The $15 million annual budget for operations comes from fees from various facilities in the park, including the deteriorating Pier 40. NID funds could maintain and even improve park operations.
Second, besides the esthetic benefit of finally having a large park on the West Side, the park has also produced significant economic benefit to local residents and businesses. An NYU study in 2008 showed that, after the park was actually built, property values, judged by sales prices, in the West Village increased by about 20%. Property values adjacent to the park increased by as much as 80%, compared to 45% in other nearby areas. It was not clear how much of this increase was due to the construction of new luxury housing and how much was from improvements in the value of existing housing. Extrapolating this increase to the entire NID, the increased value of property in the West Side might be as much as one billion dollars. Paying a tiny fee to a newly established NID would seem like a small payback for this windfall. A similar argument can be made in terms of an improved quality of life, in that Westsiders who have needed a park for so long can help ensure the quality of that park by paying a small fee.
The Problems
All of this information describes the NID as it is supposed to work. But what possible problems can arise if things don’t go according to plan? Keep in mind, as we look at possible problems, BIDs are around for a very, very long time and, if there are unforeseen difficulties, they can persist for a significant period. When the first BID in New York City was established in 1976, after the city’s financial crises, I always assumed it would be a temporary solution to an immediate problem, although I don’t remember if anyone actually promised that it would not be permanent. Also, although the present BIDs have varying levels of success, I can’t remember any that have actually been disbanded. Once they are established, they can generate self-perpetuating constituencies that support their existence after the need, or efficacy, has passed. When we look at the Westside NID, we are not just planning for the present, but well into the future.
First, we have to be sure that, as the planning for the NID proceeds, changes aren’t made without public knowledge. Considering the size of this proposal, in area, economic, and quality-of-life issues, it has received little public attention. Verbal reports indicate that support for the NID has already been recruited on a building-by-building basis; however, many residences, businesses and residents of the West Side are unaware of what is happening, or at least of all the details. If this under-the-radar approach continues, we can eventually be presented with a done deal, regardless of the details. When a proposal builds up enough political and economic momentum, it is hard for local community leaders, or even the whole City Council, to stop it in its tracks. The NYU2031 proposal and the St. Vincent’s closing showed how difficult it is to reverse a fait accompli. We need community involvement and transparency at this early stage, not in the end game.
Second, what if the numbers are wrong? It might be easy to calculate the square footage of most Westside businesses and residences, even as more are built, but what of expenses? The operating expenses for the park seem fairly stable for the last several years, but we have to keep an eye on them as the park, and all the facilities within it, age. How will the City Council react if costs increase and more NID fees are needed?
Third, will the funds usage continue as planned? The income from the NID is now earmarked for the maintenance of the park, and not for capital expenditures or for commercial maintenance. Is this written in stone, or is there wiggle room now or in the future? Some expenditure might not be so clear cut. If the pilings under the park space in Pier 40 deteriorate and need to be replaced, would that be considered maintenance or a new capital expenditure, and how would we distinguish between shoring up the park space pilings and not the parking space pilings? There may be simple, clear answers to this that I hope we can depend on.
Speaking of Pier 40, the fourth problem is what to do with this massive facility. The income from it has been used to support the park but, as it deteriorates, so does this income. New York State Assembly members Deborah Glick and Richard Gottfried, both representing the West Side, are attempting to change the Hudson River Park Act such that a wider range of uses, and longer commercial leases, are possible. But, even assuming that these two local representatives and all the other parties in Albany can come to an agreement, the recruitment of new commercial entities will not occur instantaneously. Some plans that are not publically known, the “ shovel ready “ projects, may be acted on quickly, but large new multimillion dollar proposals will take time to process. Then, of course, there is community input, which is not completely predictable in respect to these unknown new commercial possibilities.
This brings us to the source of much of the problem that faces the pier and the park. The requirement for financial independence puts pressure on the Park Trust to recruit the largest and most profitable enterprises with possibly the greatest impact on the neighborhood. Local residents demand a facility that will be neighborhood-friendly, with space for school children’s playing fields and available parking spaces. It seems as if the Park Trust must simultaneously maximize and minimize density of use on the pier. If the Park Trust and all the involved parties (political leaders, community groups, Friends of the Hudson River Park, commercial interests, pier destroying wood borers, etc.) have not resolved this question in at least 14 years, can they do it in the time left before the pier becomes unusable?
This last question leads to a larger philosophical issue, which can be only touched on here. What happens when you privatize previously public functions? There was a time when the construction of parks was considered a public, not private, duty. In a recent public statement by Gov. Mitt Romney, he answered a heckler who, I believe, was mocking his “Corporations are people, my friend,” comment. Gov. Romney said words to the effect that, if corporations don’t build parks, who will do it?
It seems as if the principle of privatization has gone so far that sometimes public projects are becoming increasingly ignored, except for a new subway line here or there, by many of our political leaders. What are the results of privatization? Sometimes they are beneficial (parks) sometimes problematic or controversial (schools, medical services, Social Security) and sometimes deadly (prisons, military). But, what they all have in common is that privatization diffuses responsibility and accountability. If the park runs into significant financial problems or Pier 40 collapses (financially or literally), who is responsible: the Park Trust, the New York State legislature or individual legislators, the community for asking for too many restrictions, the commercial interests for asking for too much money, or the kids for wanting too many soccer fields? Who?
The Solutions?
In public policy issues, as in medicine, sometimes preventing a problem is a great deal more useful then trying to cure it after it occurs. Many of the problems I have listed are theoretical at this point and may never happen. But let’s see if we can start to look at potential solutions to potential problems.
The park is supposed to operate independently, with no city funds other than capital expenses. Why? Just because this was put in the original legislation does not mean that it is inviolate. If the estimates for increased property value are anywhere near the one billion dollars mentioned previously, this means that the property owners bonanza will translate into significantly increased tax revenues soon, if it hasn’t occurred already. The current situation implies that, if an additional service or amenity, like a park, is established in a neighborhood, then the neighborhood itself has to bear some of the burden above and beyond the taxes that are already being paid. But shouldn’t increased taxes from a neighborhood go, at least in part, to support increased services for the neighborhood rather than be completely siphoned out into the city general fund? If the taxes from a neighborhood increase, shouldn’t the funds to that neighborhood also increase?
In future articles, I will try to find out if there have been increased tax revenues and if they are large enough to help the park and neighborhood. If funds are available, tapping into them will require considerable political initiative so, if anyone associated with the park has the mayor’s ear, this is the time to speak.
There should be more public input, on a neighborhood-wide level, into this process as the planning for the NID proceeds. A few months ago, there was a public meeting, I forget by whom, that I couldn’t attend due to scheduling. But, considering all the interested parties here, there should be a possibility of more public meetings throughout the proposed NID area. Many of the questions and fears I have raised here may already have been addressed in a manner acceptable to even the most suspicious (okay, maybe paranoid) citizen. Maybe there are other problems that need to be addressed that haven’t been.
Looking back over the issues I’ve tried to raise, I can see there are a lot more issues than solutions. But there are many more community residents who have experience in, and knowledge of, these issues than I have. I’ve only just started to look at this. As more voices are heard publically, planning can proceed more logically. It would be a shame if, a few years from now, some real avoidable problems surface and the only community response is “How could this have happened?” That’s the response many people had to the closing of St. Vincent’s Hospital, and you can see where that got us.
The Future
When you raise questions, suspicions may appear as negativity, if not outright opposition. I’m not opposed to a NID, at least not yet. But I would like to see some of these questions answered and some of these concerns addressed. Meanwhile, the park goes on. As someone who has lived within a block of West Street for 19 years, I can say that the park has been a wonderful improvement to the neighborhood. The lack of park space was always a problem, and it really has made over the area and significantly improved the quality of life here. Financial issues aren’t important because I don’t plan to sell my co-op anytime soon. In fact, if the city’s assessors catch up with the increased real estate value, my taxes might go up, even if the value of my apartment is only in the form of more expensive bricks. If (hopefully) small tax increases, or even a new NID fee comes in, it will be well worth it. At least, so far.
