Letter to Rosie Mendez

Savitri D.,
Director of the Church of Stop Shopping
June 5, 2008

Council Member Rosie Mendez,

I am writing in direct response to the statement you read and distributed at the rally at Union Square one week ago. We appreciate your willingness to speak in such a democratic setting and with so little notice. We do hope you can continue the dialogue by clarifying a few of your statements.

We understand that you have taken a position that favors the privatization of the restaurant in the Pavilion but are still unsure on whose behalf you do so. Your descriptions of your participation would lead some to believe that you are directly responsible for the modifications to the initial plan when it is more accurate to say that those modifications were made in response to the demands of a community fighting for years that was itself far from satisfied with the plan that you finally approved. Key to our opposition is the fact that no community ever requested or approved a restaurant in the pavilion. In more than 4 years of public discourse and testimonial not a single person has come forward in support of the plan who was not directly associated with the Union Square Partnership or the City.

Your estimate of the size and scope of the restaurant is incorrect. According to documents obtained through a Freedom Of Information Act request by litigants the restaurant will use at least 4000 square feet including indoor dining area (1500), kitchen (1900), and bathrooms (600) and that does not include the outdoor dining and patio areas, which are the centerpiece of the expansion into the park and are clearly visible in architectural renderings. Regardless of the error in numbers the majority of the space you claim will be “returned” to public use is actually just space the Luna park restaurant took away from children and the public when it opened its seasonal concession in 1992. The fact remains that even with the increase of playground space this community will still be severely under served. Taking way thousands of square feet of potential play-space is obviously not the solution.

You state that the original Parks Department proposal was for a year round restaurant, but that they agreed to a half time split with the community. We think it is more accurate to say that you settled for a half time split with the community and that you did so in direct opposition to the wishes of the people. Without you as a champion the pavilion’s restaurant would not be on the table today.

We are happy you have acknowledged the community's wishes for other uses for the pavilion such as book readings, film series, and cultural enrichment and other kinds of programming. However your support prevents the public from enjoying this year round, as well as using it as a covered play space for all New York City Children. That is what the community needs and wants. No one asked for a new take out restaurant in Union Square, an area with the highest density of restaurants and the lowest density of public space in the entire city. There are already more than 150 restaurants and markets within in a two block radius, most of these have takeaway service. The community did not demand a “side window” for takeout or a few seats for the “public at large” to accommodate this use. The community did ask that the City properly fund and maintain the facilities of one of its most crucial public spaces and we persist in that request.

We also request that the assignment of curatorial and dministrative responsibilities be given to an adequately funded and fully mandated Parks department, not a non-profit or subcontractor. Keep public parks public.

You claim to be serious about free speech and we appreciate your defense of our civil liberties in the past but we don’t understand how you can so vigorously defend a project that so seriously threatens one of our last remaining assembly areas and in the same breath promise to fight strenuously for our right to assemble. Sound permits are already being denied on both the north and south side of the park. You say you have received assurances that our public political expression will not be impacted by a commercial concern but we know it is highly unlikely the parks department will grant sound or assembly permits when people are dining just yards away. Unfortunately the imperative for Free Assembly does not just come between lunch and dinner nor does the imperative for Free Speech occur only in the winter months. We want year round free
speech and assembly.

Re: The Greenmarket. Many individual farmers do not like the plan and feel the current set-up pits them against artist vendors, performers and activists and creates a nearly untenable environment in the park. The crowding of the Western edge and Southern end of the park is severely impairing regular park use. Had the Parks department agreed to do the construction project in stages the Farmers market , artist vendors would have had time to adjust. As it is some of them feel their business are already impacted just one month into an estimated two year construction
process.

We applaud The Parks Departments step towards accessibility an are glad children with special needs will be able to enter the play area though we regret that the actual play opportunities for children with special needs have not been revealed to the public. What percentage of the play features will they be able to use? We understand it is now common practice to build playgrounds that are truly accessible, with specially designed jungle gyms and activities but New York City is still resisting this. It is imperative that all opportunities for play be provided in truly state of the art equipment.

Contrary to your statement the Elm trees removed were not all sick, and even the single tree that was sick could probably have lived many more years. Many trees have gotten much sicker only to make full recoveries with proper attention. The elm trees provided much needed shade cover that will not be seen in that park for many decades. 53 saplings have very little in common with the 14 mature trees they will replace. Sadly the trees are gone forever and it is a moot point to argue whether they deserved to die. We do feel this is an opportunity for your office, and the city council generally to take a good look at your funding of the public parks to ensure that trees are properly tended to before they reach a critical phase. Mayor Mike Bloomberg is planting millions of trees while allowing our treasured giants to perish through neglect.

The now $ 7 million dollar anonymous donation has always been predicated on a restaurant concession. Anonymous donors should not be able to dictate land use policies one what are supposed to be public lands. I hope you will publicly demand that the Union Square Partnership and the Parks Department cease to protect the anonymity of the donor. It seems clear to us that conditional donations of this nature threaten the democratic process.

Finally, your rationale for accepting the restaurant plan as it relates to the possibility of losing funds is misguided. We hope you will illustrate more thoroughly, more logically, your fear that the 1.9 million dollars in funding first allocated by Margarita Lopez for the playground would disappear if not used in a certain time frame. What time frame are you referring to? Your comparing the situation in Union Sq. with your early memories of McCarren Park is misleading. The situation in Brooklyn almost twenty years ago is not relevant for many reasons. While the Mayor can, theoretically, pull the city's allocation for the renovation of the North-end he can not take away your earmarking for the playground. Since these are the funds and the project the community is most interested in, ultimately this is what you should have been concentrating on and fighting for. While it would be unfortunate if the Mayor pulled "his" funds, it is important to remind you that the playground has been held hostage all these years while the BID has maneuvered its plans. It is the Bid who has been pushing the renovation of the North End, not the community at large.

Council Member we simply ask you to honor your bold campaign promise to protect public space, privatization is a tide that swells and is rarely appeased. Please don't leave the strenuous fight to us alone.

Thank you
Savitri D