Submitted by Sharon Woolums, CB2 Parks Committee Public Member, Jul 30, 2007 02:47

Is everybody aware (especially the Parks Department) that there is a law suit, an Environmental lawsuit, as a result of the Park's Departments' lies re the size of the park to avoid an EIS? The Environmental Impact Statement was created to protect us from irreversible damage to the environment due to destructive, expensive and time consuming redesigns, in this case, of a beautifully functioning park. The ECO lawsuit is asking for these protections granted us in our State and City Environmental Laws. This forces the Parks Department to consider alternatives, one of which is to do nothing. The legal process must run its course before we wrangle about details, as purpose and need has not yet been established according to these laws. We do know of one such purpose and need for the redesign. 2 5th Ave. coop members were informed in writing that where there's a renovation of a park, there is substantial increase in property values surrounding it. Coop owners were thus urged to go to the meeting to support the plan. And is everybody ok with bypassing the Community Board to gain approval from a task force set up by elected officials regardless of how competent and reasonable the members may be? I'm not. Oh, and does it bother anybody that by law the restrooms are to be done first to comply with disability standards, which is not in phase 1 (never mind that's the universal #1 complaint about the park!)? We must ward against being sheparded into premature approval of an agreement that could prove unfair to all Villagers. This untimely meeting, which appears to call for unanimous approval of some compromises, could make our community appear to be unaware and unappreciative of the Environmental laws offered to parks and people and the environment in general. Our concerns are now subject to a judge's ruling. The timing of the task force meeting, before Judge Maddox's decision, serves to confuse these important issues. Keen Berger and Brad Hoylman represent the people, not the Parks Department or Christine Quinn or Alan Gerson. And as our elected representatives, I am hoping our Democratic District leaders will make sure that our community is not stampeded into compromises or agreements not yet proven to be legal, so that the Parks Department can go ahead and put out their BID contracts next week. We understand the urgency of some whose names may be on the plaque of a redesigned park. There will be no such plaque for simple repairs. There appears to be no urgency, except for park's bureaucracy, to speed past the judicial process, by pass the Community Board and force a politically appointed task force into a precipitous approval that will affect our park for decades. Due to my Father's illness, I cannot return for these meetings. So here is my input into this grave concern. Oh, did I forget to mention disturbance of the 20,000 graves in the park? Thank you. Sharon Woolums

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.