By Alec Pruchnicki, MD
Supporters of the Elizabeth Street Garden who are willing to block construction of needed housing on part of that site have conducted a wide-ranging media, political, and legal campaign to get their way. If you look through all the statements they have made and wade through their websites carefully, you will see a proposal which, as far as I know, is unprecedented in New York City, to take this city owned-land and privatize it with something called a conservation land trust.
The present Elizabeth Street garden is accessible to the community now, but what will happen after privatization? Photo credit: Alec Pruchnicki.
If you go to elizabethstreetgarden.com (but not elizabethstreetgarden.org) and click on About Our Future Plans you will see a description of what a conservation land trust is. It will be non-profit but will “own” the property, possibly on a long-term lease with the city, or maybe even permanent with ownership. This proposal is outrageous. Many parks around the city, such as Washington Square Park, Central Park, Hudson River Park, and the Highline, have conservancies or friends groups that support the parks and supplement city services. None of these “own” the parks they support. And they are also all identified as “.org” and not “.com.”
But if the land trust is non-profit and run by public-minded individuals for the benefit of the surrounding area, wouldn’t that help the community? Not necessarily. In 1964, during our senior year economics class at The Bronx High School of Science, Dr. Silver explained to us how a non-profit business can make more money for you than a tax-paying business. You make sure that the board of directors, who are supposed to oversee the organization, are relatives, supporters, and friends who will pretty much give you the salary and benefits you want. Will the leader or leaders of the privatized Elizabeth Street Garden actually do this? I don’t know. But, I do know that they will be able to do it. On the elizabethstreetgarden.com website, under Rentals, you can already apply to conduct video and photo shoots, weddings, and private events. As the garden has to raise money for maintenance or the ambitious expansion plans they talk about at both their websites, this provides a reason, or maybe an excuse, for more private events and maybe even some type of membership or entrance fees.
The lovely, private, exclusive Gramercy Park—available to the fortunate local residents who are wealthy enough to access it. Photo credit: Alec Pruchnicki.
This brings us to Gramercy Park. This beautiful park in the Gramercy neighborhood is privately owned. Local buildings and organizations pay fees for membership, and keys are provided to individuals who are lucky enough, and wealthy enough, to live there. It is not open to the general public. Why, in time and with a pliable board of directors, couldn’t a conservation land trust start to impose private fees and benefits.
As Little Italy gradually gentrifies, there will be another similarity between Gramercy Park and a possible future Elizabeth Street Garden. Presently, both parks have clientele who are overwhelming white, with some Asian representation, and little African-American and Hispanic involvement. This was true on Elizabeth Street (see Westview News, August 2017, “Kill the Zombie Park Already III: The Hidden Problem”) and it is true in the neighborhood surrounding Gramercy Park (see the Wikipedia article on Gramercy Park and look under Demographics).
The people who run or support the present garden are honorable people in spite of opposing desperately needed housing, but what happens when you grant absolute power? According to Lord Acton years ago, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And what about future guardians of the garden? Once public property is privatized it will be very difficult to return it to public ownership. When you give people control, then they have control; don’t expect them to use it only in beneficial ways.
Build housing on Elizabeth Street already.
Really questioning this authors intention with writing this article. Considering this “MD” hasn’t even taken the time to fact check his work. Either this is real estate propaganda or the author seems tied with Margaret Chin… either wayyyy… please see below…
FACT CHECK:
1)FALSE: Prudchnicki states that the Conservation Land Trust proposal “as far as I know, is unprecedented in New York City”.
TRUE: There are many existing organizations like NYRP, Trust For Public Land, Manhattan Bronx Community Land Trust, and Brooklyn Queens Community Land Trust that act as umbrella land trust organizations that own and operate public community gardens. ESG addresses this in the report, which clearly Prudchnicki didnt read.
2) Prudchnicki references a bunch of mapped parkland, but Elizabeth Street Garden is a community garden run by volunteers from the neighborhood and city. This is closer to the NYRP gardens and GreenThumb gardens under Parks department.
3) Prudchnicki references Gramercy park which people need a key to get in as a similar place.
– ESG specifically describes in the report, again which clearly wasnt read, how different legal instruments can be used to ensure 100% public access forever.
4) Prudchnicki attacks the rental program when the garden itself is very strict about not over doing it with private events. The Garden also talks about how 100% of the money goes to the nonprofit to save the garden and provide free public programs.
5)FALSE: Prudchnicki states “presently both parks have clientele who are overwhelmingly white”
TRUE: The garden is in the corner of little Italy with a large Chinese community who uses the garden just as much. This is a garden that just opens the gates for everyone! Stop with the petty attempts to make fake race issues over this.
6) Prudchnicki mentions how the garden is “opposing desperately needed housing.”
Again, False. The community board is actually offering an alternative solution to build housing on 388 Hudson, which could provide 5x the amount of affordable housing and also save a green space that is valued by the already existing community.
Read the report and it’ll be obvious that this article is just another one of Prudchnicki‘s attempts to slander a beautiful community oasis.
Also, as a side note, I find it pretty strategic that he included a picture of the garden taken from the side walk during a cloudy winter day, whilst including a previous article mentioning “Zombies”. Meanwhile… its spring time and the garden is in bloom. Guess this “MD” doesnt really understand how plants work either.
http://www.elizabethstreetgarden.com/clt
I hope Alec is a better MD than he is a journalist! Green space in the Nolita community and in the city itself is extremely important. He obviously hasn’t spent much time in the garden cause everyday there is a diverse rage of guests enjoying the garden from all ethnicities. Also, he fails to mention that alternative sites for housing were suggested that would house more people without destroying the neighborhoods beloved garden. Perhaps Alec was paid off to write this gross and uninformed article. I never heard of West views news and with horrible articles like this I understand why. SAVE ELIZABETH STREET GARDEN!!!!!
If anything this article is just laughable considering the author hasnt even taken his time to gather actual facts and instead has once again, written an unsolicited attack article against the garden. Either this is real estate propaganda, or Prudchnicki has ties with Margaret Chin… anywayss… see below for the facts.
FACT CHECK:
1)FALSE: Prudchnicki states that the Conservation Land Trust proposal “as far as I know, is unprecedented in New York City”.
TRUE: There are many existing organizations like NYRP, Trust For Public Land, Manhattan Bronx Community Land Trust, and Brooklyn Queens Community Land Trust that act as umbrella land trust organizations that own and operate public community gardens. ESG addresses this in the report, which clearly Prudchnicki has not read…
2) Prudchnicki references a bunch of mapped parkland, but Elizabeth Street Garden is a community garden run by volunteers from the neighborhood and city. This is closer to the NYRP gardens and GreenThumb gardens under Parks department.
3) Prudchnicki references Gramercy park which people need a key to get in as a similar place.
– ESG specifically describes in the report, again, which obviously wasn’t read, how different legal instruments can be used to ensure 100% public access forever. This isnt about “privatizing” a public green space. Its about ensuring that it remains, forever, a PUBLIC green space.
4) Prudchnicki attacks the rental program when the garden itself is very strict about not over doing it with private or semi private events. The garden also talks about how 100% of the money goes into the nonprofit to save the garden and provide free public programs.
5)FALSE: Prudchnicki states “presently both parks have clientele who are overwhelmingly white”
TRUE: The garden is in the corner of little Italy with a large Chinese community who uses the garden just as much. This is a garden that just opens the gates for everyone! Stop with the petty attempts to make fake race issues over this.
6)Prudchnicki states how garden “opposes desperately needed housing”. This is also false. The garden has countless times recommended housing be built on 388 Hudson, which is a vacant lot that can house 5x the amount of housing at no cost to “desperately needed” green space. But this has been ignored.
As a side note, I find it pretty strategic that a photo of the garden was included that was taken on the sidewalk during a winter day, whilst also using a reference to “Zombie Park” for an issue in April. When in actuality its spring and the garden is in full bloom. Guess this self appointed ‘MD’ doesn’t know how seasons work either.
Read the report and it’ll be obvious that this article is just another one of Prudchnicki‘s attempts to slander a beautiful community oasis.
http://www.elizabethstreetgarden.com/clt
Why clutter up a West Village news outlet with articles about things not in the West Village?