New ideas to come as Pier 40’s secret deal is scrapped

Downtown Express file photo Pier 40

Downtown Express file photo
Pier 40

BY LINCOLN ANDERSON   |  Attorney Arthur Schwartz said he met with Madelyn Wils, the president of the Hudson River Park Trust, June 6 and she informed him that the secret $100-million memorandum of understanding, or M.O.U., for transfer of Pier 40’s air rights has officially been scrapped.

As reported by downtownexpress.com and The Villager at the end of last month, attorney Arthur Schwartz said he was considering suing if a secret Pier 40 air-rights transfer plan was not put through a lengthy environmental review.

Schwartz was considering a lawsuit to block the air-rights transfer altogether on the grounds that a comprehensive, lengthy environmental impact study would need to be performed.

“Madelyn told me, ‘I read The Villager article. I want to meet with you,’ ” Schwartz said recently.

“She confirmed that the M.O.U. is dead,” he said.

The M.O.U. was signed by a representative of the Empire State Development Corporation; and a representative of Atlas Capital Group, a part owner of the St. John’s Center building, located across the West Side Highway from Pier 40, at W. Houston St.

The language of the M.O.U. — which still has not been seen publicly — refers to a state-run General Project Plan, or G.P.P., for the project — not the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. A ULURP would have a greater level of community review, plus binding votes by the City Planning Department and the City Council, and also normally would take more time than the faster G.P.P.

However, according to Schwartz, Wils described the document’s language as conditional.

“She said the M.O.U. reads, ‘Should the state engage in a G.P.P. …’ not ‘The state would engage in a G.P.P,’ ” he noted. “The M.O.U. was conditioned on there being a decision made to do a G.P.P. But given the reaction, it’s not going to happen….

According to the attorney, who is a longtime Hudson River Park activist, the Trust president said the M.O.U. was circulated in December, but was not actually signed until late February or early March.

In a statement last week, Wils said, “We look forward to working with the city on a ULURP that will save the pier, achieve the Legislature’s vision, and fully engage our community’s stakeholders.”

Schwartz related that, Wils said she couldn’t show him the M.O.U. because the decision to release it is up to E.S.D.C. and the Governor’s Office.

“We’re not the decision makers,” Noreen Doyle, the Trust’s executive vice president, said at a Community Board 1 meeting last week. 

Officials are now looking for the “right mechanism” to sell the air rights, Doyle said.

“This is something that everybody will be told in advance of,” she added.

The area’s politicians have all said they were shocked to have learned only a few weeks ago — and through a New York Times article, no less — that an agreement had been signed concerning a massive air-rights transfer and a G.P.P. They quickly all signed onto a joint letter opposing a G.P.P. process — similar to another letter they had written only a few weeks before, when rumblings of the G.P.P. resurfaced after not having been heard of since last fall.

The idea of the M.O.U. plan subsequently moving forward in the face of such overwhelming political opposition was highly unlikely.

Schwartz said Wils was clearly smarting from criticism she has received in the past few weeks in the wake of the bombshell story. He added that sources close to the governor with whom he is in touch are furious about the fallout, feeling it’s been bad publicity for Governor Cuomo — something he doesn’t need, particularly in an election year.

In Downtown Express’ last UnderCover column, Gale Brewer, the Manhattan borough president, said the fruitless search for the M.O.U. made her feel like she was being treated like a child at a Passover Seder.

Schwartz said Cuomo believed doing a G.P.P. at the St. John’s Center site was something that local politicians and the community actually wanted.

“A lot of people were onboard last year with a G.P.P. — but with a ULURP review,” Schwartz noted.

A source familiar with the project said that what the Bloomberg administration, Cuomo and E.S.D.C. all actually favored was something that could be called a “modified G.P.P.,” which would have had pseudo-ULURP-like elements.

However, in a follow-up article to the initial Times article, the paper reported that Alicia Glen, a deputy mayor for Mayor de Blasio, was now calling for a city review for transferring unused Pier 40 air rights to the St. John’s building.

Finally clarifying things somewhat, last week, an E.S.D.C. spokesperson sent a statement, saying the project would now go through a so-called “expedited ULURP.”

“Pier 40 is a vital community resource and an integral part of Hudson River Park,” the E.S.D.C. statement said. “It, however, is suffering from severe structural issues that, if not quickly addressed, imperil the  pier’s future, and the state and city administrations are committed to finding an appropriate and expeditious remedy. The St. John’s Warehouse [sic] General Project Plan (G.P.P.) provided one potential solution. …

“While the prior city administration supported our approach, the current one has asked us to work with them through an expedited ULURP, which we support fully.”

Under the M.O.U., the three-block-long, four-story-tall building was to have been demolished and rebuilt in phases, with a mix of residential and commercial uses. More particulars about the project have not been forthcoming.

Local politicians recently resorted to filing a Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL, request to view the document. The M.O.U. still has not been produced, but it usually takes some time to get a response to a FOIL request.

A week prior, Brewer convened a meeting of the local politicians, City Planning representatives, of members Community Boards 1, 2 and 4, and other Hudson River Park activists, to discuss the mystery M.O.U. Delores Rubin, chairperson of the Hudson River Park Advisory Council, attended.

Rubin said, “Despite the news reporting on the M.O.U., everyone in the room was moving forward, to work together to find a mechanism, a pre-certification — the process before the process. The G.P.P. would clearly be a shortcut. City Planning did say there are mechanisms to keep ULURP from being overly lengthy.”

The consensus in the room regarding Pier 40 and the St. John’s Center, though, she said, was: “We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

As for the advisory council’s own concerns, she said, “We have questions. But everyone’s asking the same questions. Like, how many square feet are available [for transfer from Pier 40]?

“Everyone is aware of the idea that time is of the essence in bringing money to the park,” she added. “But neither the electeds or anybody else wants anything [to go] too fast. It was a very productive meeting.”

Any money from the sale of Pier 40’s air rights must, under the legislation passed last June, be funneled straight back into the huge but dilapidated 14-acre pier for its sorely needed repair.

The Trust is poised to release a report saying that, without a massive cash infusion, in a worst-case, doomsday scenario, the pier could completely collapse into the Hudson in as little as two years. Pier 40 needs $100 million for full-scale repairs — coincidentally, the same dollar amount as in the M.O.U. — according to the Trust. According to Assemblymember Deborah Glick, however, $44 million is sufficient for the most important repairs for the pier.

State Senator Brad Hoylman was among the group in Brewer’s office.

“The city also discussed instituting a public process for creating a mechanism for evaluating and transferring air rights to the St. John’s building and any other sites,” he said.  “We will be discussing this process further. I’m pleased that the city is taking an inclusive approach that will involve the local community.”

Hoylman added that it’s “an ongoing outrage” that they still haven’t been able to see the M.O.U.

As for Brewer, she said she’s upset too, like the area’s other elected officials, at not having access to the M.O.U. Despite the fact that three of the Trust’s 13 board of directors members are appointed by the borough president, she said she — like all the other local politicians — was unaware of the M.O.U. until only a few weeks ago.

That raises the question of whether the Trust’s own board members even knew what was going on.

As of last week, the local politicians said their understanding — based on what an E.S.D.C. official recently only happened to let slip to them in another meeting — was that the M.O.U. was signed in December, a month before Brewer took office.

Tobi Bergman, a leader of the Lower West Side’s youth sports community and a strong candidate to be the next chairperson of Community Board 2 in November, said the process for Pier 40 and the St. John’s site is now focused on “moving forward with developing a zoning framework for transferring air rights, which means through the city Uniform Land Use Review Process.”

For Downtown families, preserving Pier 40 — with its huge courtyard sports field, in an otherwise park-starved community — is an absolute must.

Meanwhile, Cuomo may be right to have feared political payback for backing a G.P.P. at the St. John’s site. It emerged as a hot-button issue at the Downtown Independent Democrats’  (D.I.D.) recent endorsement meeting.

“Downtown Independent Democrats endorsed all the other Dems for statewide office, except Andrew Cuomo, for whom we took ‘no position’ — basically not endorsing him,” said Sean Sweeney, a leading D.I.D. member. “Particularly glaring for us locals was his recent clandestine approach to the air rights at Pier 40, as well as his support of State Senate Republicans.”

With reporting by Zach Williams

Spread the word:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


2 + five =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>