Cuomo Lets PR Firm Speak for Him
West View asked Governor Cuomo who asked him to allocate $17 million of state tax payer funds to build a bridge to Diller Island and his press office forwarded our request to a PR firm retained by the Hudson River Park Trust. They did not, of course, answer our question.
George,
In response to your questions for the Governor’s office (and you can attribute this to a Trust spokesperson):
Statement:
This is an unprecedented deal which will lessen the burden on the public to fund the rebuilding of the pier. Fifty-one percent of ticket sales at the theater will be free or low cost. All revenues will go back into paying for maintenance and programming at the pier.
James Yolles
Risa Heller Communications
James,
Imagine my surprise when my e-mail—to Governor Cuomo’s press office asking when and how he agreed to spend $18 million taxpayer dollars to build out the embankment on 14th Street so it would more easily accommodate two $17 million city financed bridges to Diller and Von Furstenberg’s proposed concrete island—was answered by you, James, a paid PR person
It is a big no-no for journalist inquiries to be passed off to public relation firms.
Unfortunately for you, James, I started some 50 years ago in IBM Corporate Communications convincing people that computers would not take over and throw everybody out of a job, and I learned how to argue the question that was not asked.
OK, James, perhaps you are not expected to know that in the original charter setting up the Hudson River Park the city and state are responsible for “capital” improvements—that is actually building, repairing and planting the piers. The paid management of the park needed to lease a few designated piers, like the 15-acre Pier 40, to generate the funds to maintain and operate the park.
The formal way to do this is to issue a Request For Proposal. These RFP’s are long impressive documents written by firms who specialize in them at considerable expense. Over the last 20 years, 2 such RFP’s were issued causing a bunch of expensive proposals from aquariums to a permanent theater for Cirque du Soleil—all of which were turned down by, I guess, the ever-changing non-paid board of directors.
I think it is safe to suggest that HRPT is running out of maintenance money and that is why they quickly and secretly passed a bill that would allow them to sell the air rights over the piers (hmm is that really legal?).
So, James, when you say, “this is an unprecedented deal which will lessen the burden on the public to fund the rebuilding of the pier,” you have to remember we don’t have to rebuild pier 54. That isn’t in the original charter.
No, the instructions of the original “law” were to find developers that would create something of interest and use to us taxpayers. That developer would then pay a monthly fee to rent the pier, presumably making a profit to cover the cost of building and operating it.
In true PR tradition you argue a question not asked by offering “fifty one percent of the ticket sales at the theater will be free or low cost” but, James, the top ticket price is $40 and the term “low cost” doesn’t mean much when so much taxpayer money is subsidizing these “affordable” tickets.
And finally you offer “that revenues will go back to paying for maintenance and programming at the pier” so it sounds like you are telling us that ticket sales will cover the cost of the prestigious staff, the performers and the maintenance so there is no cost to the Diller Foundation or, god forbid, to Barry himself.
But wait—remember what I told you earlier, James—the purpose of inviting developers was not so they could create break-even for them attractions, but so they might contribute the millions needed to maintain and operate the five-mile long park.
Diller Island will contribute one dollar a year.
George Capsis
WestView News Editor and Publisher
