Coney Island People Sending Emails to Sen. Kruger
I was disappointed by your decision to crash the information session scheduled for the evening of Monday, November 19 and am confused by your opposition. You have indicated that proposal to designate private property as parkland is “backdoor eminent domain” but that does not appear to be the truth. As I am sure you are aware, there is private property that is owned and managed within the boundaries of the Adirondack State Park and a number of our National Parks and that seems to work for everyone involved. While property in this situation is encumbered by the designation, the owners still own, maintain, and operate their property, and are able to pass it along through their families. In many cases, the property could be sold to the government at a pre-agreed on price when the owners decide to sell. This is an accepted way of facilitating the increase in park space throughout the country...It is going to get a lot more interesting as time goes on.
But I am especially disappointed because while I was in the Bronx, fighting to keep the Yankees out of Macombs Dam Park (another potential example of “backdoor eminent domain”) your office was unfortunately silent. Why is this issue important to you now, when it was not before? I am also somewhat confused by your “three questions” of “What will it cost,” “Who will develop it,” and “How long will it take?”.
It seems to me that the city’s proposal needs constructive criticisms at this point. I have a number of concerns myself, including: the issue of working with private owners in a public park; the issue of local retail taking the place of entertainment retail; and the issue that the proposal does not respect Coney Island’s history in a tangible sense. If you could clarify your opposition, I would be happy to make your position known on the Coney Island Message board and perhaps there are issues that we could work on together...
Labels: coney island