Petition Drive in Chinatown - LMDC funding for Chatham Square must stop now

CCRC has started its petition drive today, Sunday April 19th. The LMDC must understand that the DOT and Mayor's plan for the reconstruction of Chatham Square has no support in Chinatown.
Business leaders, community leaders and organizations will be canvassing the Chinatown area to gather signatures on the petitions shown here.
These petitions may be printed, signed and mailed back to the addresses shown at the top, or dropped off at Lin Sing association at # 49 Mott St. 2nd floor - Attention Eddie Chiu.

B.I.D.S = BAD

New York Post March 29 09

By ANGELA MONTEFINISE, KATHIANNE BONIELLO and SARAH RYLEY
PreviousPauseNext
TODAY'S HOT TOPICS

Last updated: 3:21 am
March 29, 2009
Posted: 3:07 am
March 29, 2009

Shop owners in Washington Heights are wondering who's minding the store at their Business Improvement District.

As the stalling economy hammers mom-and-pop businesses, the efficacy and oversight of the city's 60 mostly taxpayer-funded BIDs, including those with limited budgets like the one in Washington Heights, are being questioned.

Merchants on 181st Street say they don't know what their BID does with its more-than-half-million-dollar budget, especially when 10 shops on one block have gone out of business recently.

"They don't do anything for the community," said Silvia Smith, president of the Inwood Chamber of Commerce, who recently shuttered her longtime travel business. "Most businesses don't know that it's even there. I was trying to organize two events for the community with them. I called and called. They just never called back."

A Post investigation of the Washington Heights and other BIDs -- which pull down tens of millions in taxpayer dollars every year -- found:

* Exaggerated or false claims by the Washington Heights BID about its activities. In a 2005-06 annual report, the BID said it co-hosted a networking dinner with the Latino Restaurant Association, which denied it was a joint event.

* Washington Heights BID Executive Director George Sanchez -- who took over in 1999 after the previous head was arrested for misappropriating funds -- lives in the Poconos and is rarely in the office, despite being paid $92,000 in 2007 and $117,000 in 2006. "I went to the BID almost 80 times in three years, and I never saw him even once," said Joanna Garcia, who ran a BID social-services program. "I couldn't pick him out of a lineup." Sanchez declined to immediately comment.

* At the East Brooklyn BID, retail businesses complain they're forgotten and have to sweep their own sidewalks -- a service often provided by BIDs -- or pay homeless people to do it.

* The 125th Street BID in Harlem spent $7,393 on "travel," with no further explanation in 2007 tax documents. The BID -- whose executive director is paid $127,000 -- did not return Post calls.

* Salaries for leaders of some of the city's large BIDs included $671,000 for Grand Central Partnership President Alfred Cerullo, $201,000 for Daniel Biederman of the 34th Street and Bryant Park BIDs, $202,000 for Tom Cusick of the Fifth Avenue BID, and $197,000 for Tim Tompkins of Times Square, according to 2007 tax documents.

* The Department of Small Business Services asks for annual reports from the BIDs but does not do regular audits.

BIDs collect special taxes from property owners based on real-estate assessments of their property, often based on square footage. Property owners often pass that down to the businesses that rent their buildings.

City Councilman Tony Avella says small BIDs should be overseen by community boards.

While he praised the concept of BIDs and the work of the larger ones, he sees problems with smaller BIDs spending more on overhead than actual programs.

"We need to strengthen our mom-and-pop commercial strips," Avella told The Post. "As they go, so goes the neighborhood. But it is absolutely essential that [BIDs] be monitored properly."

angela.montefinise@nypost.com

What we need is more green - if only the Parks Department did their job....

At virtually every presentation about Chatham Square's reconstruction the Mayor's office, D.O.T. and now the Parks Department lead off the "conversation" with "this area is in dire need of more green space...." followed by "this is why we've designed this plaza to include trees".


Anyone who uses Columbus Park, and there are thousands in the community who do, knows that the promise of trees goes unfulfilled. Since Columbus park underwent a major renovation several years ago the promise of trees has never materialized as evidenced from these photos. The only hints that trees were supposed to be planted are the sad asphalt squares carved out of the sidewalk, complete with iron grating in a few.


Perhaps other neighborhoods in the City get the trees that were promised to them. In Chinatown we only get square cut outs filled with asphalt instead of greenery.
As testament to exactly how the Community is treated AFTER a promise is made, white concrete planters which never get repainted stand as sorry substitutes for the trees that are supposed to be there. As if that's not enough of a message to our community , they don't even plant bushes in them, they're just empty containers filled with dirt and garbage. We get it, you put them there, we're listening.


As if the absence of trees once promised wasn't enough the Parks Department sees it fit to back their garbage truck onto the sidewalk, only feet from the entrance to the park where children enter and exit so they don't have to walk the extra ten feet with a garbage bag. Ironically they drive over the asphalt squares in doing so.
Perhaps THAT is the reason why we don't have trees, convenient parking for Parks Department employees . The area where the trees SHOULD have been is used daily by the Parks Department employees to park their pickup trucks and to pick up garbage.



"No parking", "No Standing", and "no parking on sidewalks near the entrance to a children's playground" are rules that exist for reasons of safety to the greater community. Why then, has the City foresaken these rules in virtually every aspect of its government?

We consider ourselves lucky that no child or senior has been seriously injured, that we know of, as a result of parks employees driving their vehicles onto the sidewalks at Columbus park every day. It's hard enough for an able bodied person to dodge a truck that is backing up, our seniors and children (slower moving and often under the sight line of the driver) may not be so lucky in the future.

Residents in Chinatown have legitimate apprehensions about the parks department when they say "this is going to be a beautiful plaza, in an area in dire need of more green space" when they refer to Chatham Square. The parks department does a lousy job of following up in a park that already exists. So why should we believe that they'd maintain 27,000 square ft. of additional park space in the middle of Chatham Square.

Case in point are these sad and dangerous white concrete planters. Now damaged, they were left lying on their sides after being hit (possibly by a parks department vehicle backing up) for three months at the corner of Worth and Mulberry St. After numerous calls to 311, they were finally righted, but left in their upright but damaged condition. Even more outrageous the empty vessels were left empty and now serve as garbage receptacles. The promise of more greenery is as empty as these planters. We don't believe the hype. Wny should we?


If the City of New York and the parks department is SO damn concerned about Chinatown's "dire need for more green" then they should STOP driving on our park sidewalks and start fulfilling the promises they made a decade ago by planting the trees that are supposed to be there right now. We know that the maintenance of Columbus park is dismal, we know that dangerous conditions are allowed to flourish, and are exacerbated by the parks department's own vehicles and we have a right to put a stop to MORE of this in our objection to the Chatham Square plan and proposed plaza.


Supporters of the D.O.T. and the Mayor's plan for Chatham Square offer their BLIND support (you'd have to be blind not to notice what's going on at Columbus Park and James Madison Park). It's much easier to side with the City with blinders on.

Feng Shui - City says to Chinatown "Feng PHOOOEY!"

Last night Community Board 3 hosted a presentation by Stantec, the firm hired by the City of NY and D.O.T. to design the plaza and Park Row promenade for the reconstruction of Chatham Square. Part of the reconstruction plan involves a totally new plaza, 27,000 sq. ft. of space, surrounding the Kim Lau Memorial arch already in the center of the square.
The presentation was accompanied by beautifully rendered computer generated images of what was to come once the Chatham Square reconstruction was complete. The drawings were obviously painstaking in their detail and scope and represented the City's vision for Chatham Square with precise detail.

What was missing is what has always been missing, the sensitivity to the community in which the plaza (remarkably similar to a skateboard park) would reside. Except for the color red, there were no indicators that this plaza, over scaled and expansive in size, was in the middle of the largest Chinese population on the East Coast of America. It could have been in Atlanta, or Boise, or Washington D.C. In fact, in showing the hand outs to a variety of people without telling them this plaza was to reside in Chinatown no one thought it was particularly Asian in any sense. No one has guessed it was designed for Chinatown.

CCRC members asked the folks at Stantec, who went through the trouble of bringing full color large format renderings to hand out with versions in English and in Chinese, why Feng Shui was never considered for this plaza. A culture that is five thousand years old, who has to this day a deep rooted belief system based on energy flow, wind and water and its relationship to prosperity and health, would surely benefit from the CONSIDERATION of this belief system in the design of a 27,000 sq. ft. plaza being plopped in their neighborhood for generations. This consideration was absent from the presentation because it was absent from the minds of all involved. There was no defense to the criticism that this plan was culturally insensitive, just blank stares. It was as though someone just called out the elephant in the room.

At no point in fact, at any presentation on planning, roadways, landscaping, or park space was Feng Shui even mentioned. In all fairness there was a mention of a fountain in the middle of the plaza, whose shape was that of a donut, as being "culturally significant" to the Chinese. Convenient that the one item in the plan that was pointed out as being a "nod" to Chinese culture was also innocuous enough to be insignificant to the non-Chinese who would inherit Chinatown after the Chinese have been displaced entirely.

Given the resources that we have in the 21st century, the internet being one of them, jet travel being another and $8 milion being spent on the plaza yet another, The City could have and should have expressed an "overabundance" (a very favorable Chinese concept) of cultural sensitivity for a plaza that no one approved in the first place.

Sadly, what could be an opportunity for America's best Asian American talent has degraded into a political bulldozer project that ultimately looks like a skate board park in a suburban cul de sac, but then again, didn't Guiliani want all of NYC to look like that - Good Work on the Guiliani-Follow-Through Mike.

City to Chinatown: "Feng PHOOOEY to you!"

CB3 Chatham Square resolutions 1,2 and 3

Time to revisit the Verrazano Bridge toll debate......

Here is a very timely story about the traffic downtown and the link to the Verrazano Bridge toll. The story was published in 1998, but it is still very relevant.

JAMMING; The Traffic Downtown Seems Worse Than Ever. Is the Verrazano the Villain?
By BERNARD STAMLER
Published: December 13, 1998
New York Times


IT'S another weekday afternoon rush hour in lower Manhattan, and Canal Street is gridlocked. Eastbound lanes are clogged with cars, trucks and buses headed for the Manhattan Bridge. Westbound lanes are choked with vehicles aiming for the Holland Tunnel. On northbound and southbound arteries -- Hudson and Varick Streets, the West Side Highway, even Broadway -- traffic has congealed into a horn-honking, sputtering mass. It's no better on the narrow side streets that lead to the tunnel, like Broome, Watts and Spring.

Every so often when there is a break in the jam, motorists hurtle through the intersections, ignoring pedestrians trying to cross. They scurry for safety even when they have the light.

''I've almost been hit twice,'' said Fred Parvin, who lives in the neighborhood. His wife, Mary Parvin, said she closed her eyes and prayed before crossing Canal Street. ''It was probably easier getting across the Berlin Wall,'' she said.

But drivers in the Canal Street corridor rarely get to speed for long. Many of them will spend as much as an hour trying to get out of Manhattan. Many of them will curse and whine. So what else is new?

Plenty. Traffic in both directions through the Holland Tunnel increased by 25 percent between 1986 and 1996, the most recent city figures show, while declining slightly at Manhattan's other Hudson River crossings. Downtown, the traffic situation has gotten so bad that the Transit Authority is planning to change the M-10 bus route to avoid Canal Street, much to the dismay of residents and local officials.

And things are likely to get worse. A state plan to add six lanes to the existing eight at Canal Street's intersection with the West Side Highway would dump even more cars on the street. This month, furious residents filed suit in an effort to block the plan.

Others in the neighborhood think the timing is right for another approach to ending the downtown traffic nightmare. For there is something else that is new: Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato will soon be out of office.

Traffic in this city is as much about politics as it is about cars, buses and trucks, and memories can be long and unforgiving. To this day, many people in Brooklyn and Manhattan argue that some of their worst traffic woes stem from the so-called one-way toll over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. That toll was a result of Federal legislation championed in 1986 by Guy V. Molinari, then a Republican member of Congress from Staten Island, a G.O.P. stronghold, and Senator D'Amato, who is also a Republican.

Devised to appease Staten Island residents who complained about long lines at the toll plazas on the way to Brooklyn, the one-way toll into Staten Island at a round-trip price alleviated traffic congestion there. But Brooklyn and Manhattan residents claimed that it encouraged New Jersey-bound drivers, especially truckers, to use their streets and the westbound Holland Tunnel, where there is no toll, in order to avoid paying the Verrazano toll.

For 12 years, they have been stewing as one-way-toll supporters, especially Senator D'Amato, have outmaneuvered them in maintaining what was originally supposed to be a six-month experiment. Now that he has been defeated by Charles Schumer, it looks like the battle of the Verrazano is about to be waged once again.

''I am certainly going to make an attempt to repeal that law,'' said Representative Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes parts of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. He said the toll should not be a Federal matter.

City Councilwoman Kathryn Freed, who represents TriBeCa and SoHo, also maintains that it's time to get rid of the one-way toll, which she says has led to increased traffic on Canal Street. And that traffic, she said, poses a danger to residents.

''Most of us downtown date the decline in the quality of life in lower Manhattan from the moment the one-way Verrazano toll was instituted,'' Ms. Freed said. ''From that day forward, we've been inundated with fumes and traffic. We can't cross the street, breathe the air or even sleep at night.''

There are still powerful supporters of the one-way toll, like Mayor Giuliani and Mr. Molinari, the Staten Island Borough President, who maintains that a return to the two-way toll would create ''a real mess on Staten Island without much of an effect on Manhattan.'' But with Mr. D'Amato's defeat last month by Mr. Schumer, the Representative from Brooklyn, who has opposed the one-way toll, the balance of power on this issue among New York politicians may have shifted.

Or maybe not. At this point, it is not clear where Senator-elect Schumer stands on the issue of the one-way toll. An article in The Staten Island Advance just after the election reported that he had promised not to roll it back. But Mr. Schumer did not return numerous calls seeking comment on the matter. Neither did Mr. D'Amato.

Whatever position Mr. Schumer does take, the numbers clearly point to more traffic and more congestion downtown. An average of 96,798 vehicles a day passed through the Holland Tunnel in one or the other direction in 1996, compared with 77,300 a decade earlier, according to the latest figures from the city.

More vehicles left Manhattan by the Holland Tunnel (50,110 a day) than entered by it (46,688 a day). And there were more motorists taking a free ride out of Staten Island on the Verrazano bridge (96,523 a day) than paying the toll to cross over the Narrows (88,034 a day).

But is all, or any, of that because of the one-way toll? Nobody knows for sure. Yet for many, the one-way Verrazano toll remains the villain.

The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, conceived by Robert Moses as a tunnel crossing to allow users of his highway and parkway system to bypass Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn in their travels between New England and New Jersey, also helped promote growth on Staten Island. Since the bridge opened in 1964, the borough's population has increased from around 250,000 in the mid-1960's to more than 400,000 in 1997, when the most recent census estimates were done.

And as the number of people living on Staten Island increased so did the number of vehicles that crossed the bridge, which amounted to more than 150,000 by 1984.

To address the problem of large-scale traffic jams on the Staten Island side of the bridge, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority considered one-way-toll collection in 1984. But that plan was abandoned after an agency study concluded that the change would result in the diversion of 7,000 cars and trucks a day to the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels in Manhattan, causing traffic jams there as well as increases in air pollution and an annual toll revenue loss of nearly $8 million.

The reason? Motorists traveling from Brooklyn to New Jersey would have to pay a double toll under the one-way system if they traveled through Staten Island. But if instead they used one of the free, lower Manhattan East River crossings and then took the Holland Tunnel, they would pay nothing, since Holland Tunnel tolls were, then as now, collected only in the New York-bound direction.

Undaunted, then-Representative Molinari, a member of the House Transportation Committee, took the idea of a one-way toll to Washington. In 1985 he had a measure tacked on to an appropriations bill that would deny New York highway financing if it did not try the one-way toll for six months. After that, the Governor of New York would be free to petition the Federal Government for relief on environmental or revenue grounds.

Despite strong opposition from state and city officials, who complained about Federal meddling in local affairs, the bill was shepherded through the Senate by Senator D'Amato and signed into law in December 1985.

The reaction outside Staten Island was swift. A week after the toll was made one-way, the Brooklyn Borough President, Howard Golden, sued the M.T.A., arguing that the toll change should not have been made without an environmental impact study. Members of the SoHo Alliance, a downtown Manhattan group, joined the suit.

In June 1986, a State Supreme Court Justice in Brooklyn, Franklin W. Morton Jr., ordered an environmental study. But he did not stop the toll collection.

Brian Ketcham, an engineer who analyzes traffic for civic groups and government agencies, said the impact on Canal Street was immediately obvious. At the time, he recalled earlier this month, he was surveying traffic for the proposed SoHo Grand Hotel, which was later built on the corner of West Broadway and Grand Street, a block north of Canal Street.

''We saw all these trucks that we had not seen before, stopped on Canal Street,'' he said. ''So we went and asked them what they were doing, and they told us that they had decided to save the toll and come into Manhattan.'' At the time, one-way truck tolls on the Verrazano ranged from about $20 to $25. Now they start at around $30. For cars, the regular toll is now $7 but there are discounts for Staten Island residents and for people who use the E-Z Pass electronic toll collection system.

Under pressure from local Democrats -- including Mr. Schumer, who was in Congress then -- the House of Representatives voted in 1986 to rescind the one-way toll. All the members of the New York delegation, except for Mr. Molinari, supported the measure. But Senator D'Amato threatened to block an appropriations bill in the Senate, and the repeal was abandoned.

Six months passed, and the one-way toll law lapsed. But no change could be made because of the court ruling that required an environmental impact study first.

Finally, in 1987, the state finished the study. Like the earlier one by the M.T.A., it found that the one-way toll would lead to increases in traffic and pollution in Brooklyn and Manhattan and a drop in toll revenues. Mario Cuomo, then the Governor, petitioned for the lifting of the one-way toll, and in 1988 the Federal Government agreed.

Still, the toll remained. The M.T.A. said it needed to do yet another environmental impact study before deciding what kind of toll to impose instead. That took until 1993, when an inconclusive report -- widely criticized by one-way-toll opponents -- was issued after contentious hearings on both sides of the Narrows.

Meanwhile, New York's political climate was changing. In 1993, Mayor David Dinkins, an avowed foe of the one-way toll, was defeated by Rudolph Giuliani, a one-way-toll fan who won the election with the benefit of an overwhelming majority of Staten Island voters. Governor Cuomo had his own re-election bid to consider, one in which Staten Island's votes would prove to be crucial. (He lost the borough, and the election, to George Pataki, whose New York City campaign chairman was Mr. Molinari.)

By then, Susan Molinari, who succeeded her father as Staten Island's Representative in Congress, had begun sponsoring measures that kept the one-way toll going a year at a time. Despite the opposition of other members of the city's Congressional delegation, these passed as riders or amendments to larger bills with the assistance of Senator D'Amato.

After five years of this, Congress in 1995 passed a permanent extension of the one-way-toll law as part of the National Highway System Designation Act, which also eliminated the mandatory 55 mile per hour speed limit and provided money for public transit and redevelopment of Penn Station.

Only an act of Congress can get rid of the one-way toll. And in arming themselves for their next battle, both sides will have one problem in common: traffic data. Among the facts, there are many variables and inconsistencies.

Over the last decade, for example, the economy has gone up and down and up again. Tolls all over the metropolitan region have been raised, and, starting in 1995, E-Z-Pass was introduced. Highways and bridges have closed for repairs, requiring detours. And national driving trends suggest that people are pushing pedal to the metal like never before. All of these factors have surely had an effect on traffic in New York. But how? And where?

Huge amounts of data are collected about traffic, much of it under the aegis of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, the main planning body for the region, whose members include the State Department of Transportation, the City Department of Transportation, the Port Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. But these agencies, which gather various types of information, often don't measure things the same way.

''We need a much more comprehensive and cohesive data collection process in this area,'' said Mr. Ketcham, the traffic engineer. ''Until we do, we won't have a full understanding about how traffic moves.''

But one thing is clear from the data. Notwithstanding the recent highly touted increases in public transit ridership, people are driving into New York City at least as much today as ever before.

According to the city's Department of Transportation, 1,768,742 vehicles traveled between Manhattan, the other boroughs and New Jersey on an average weekday in 1996, roughly as many as in 1986, when the all-time record was set.

More recent figures point to a sharp increase in that number. In 1997, the Metropolitan Transportation Council reported that 100,000 additional vehicles a day were using the bridges and tunnels of the metropolitan area, most of them in New York City, compared with the previous year. There was more traffic on the George Washington Bridge, the 59th Street Bridge and the Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, as well as through the Lincoln Tunnel, the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, and, yes, the Holland Tunnel.

How many of the vehicles using the Holland Tunnel are trucks, the nemesis of many downtown Manhattan residents? The Transportation Council counted a total of 5,287 for 1997, but it got that number by simply doubling average truck volume in the Manhattan-bound, toll direction. Trucks heading west, to New Jersey, aren't counted, said Greg Trevor, a spokesman for the Port Authority, which operates the tunnel.

And what of technology? Haven't toll-booth lines been noticeably shortened since the EZ-Pass was introduced? Is it possible that motorists on the Verrazano could glide through two-way tolls in a way that was unimaginable back in 1986?

The answer is maybe. Although the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority keeps track of how many vehicles use EZ-Pass -- nearly two-thirds of those going over the Verrazano Bridge in September did, for example -- it has no figures on the typical lengths of lines or waiting times at the toll booths.

''We do know anecdotally that the queues are much shorter'' at all toll booths, said a spokesman for the Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Frank Pascual, but that's about it.

Back on Canal Street, the horns honk, the pedestrians dodge, the drivers curse. City police officers divide the area's streets into bus lanes, tunnel access lanes and through lanes, although this helps only a little, said Peter Pennicka, the chief of planning for the city's Transportation Department. Meanwhile, traffic-weary residents and their representatives demand that something be done.

Regardless of what happens with the one-way Verrazano toll, some are skeptical about ever relieving the horrors of Canal Street. ''Traffic will rebalance a bit'' if the Verrazano gets a two-way toll, Mr. Ketcham said, ''but Canal Street will still be a nightmare.''

Mr. Pennicka of the City Transportation Department agreed. ''I don't think a two-way toll would matter,'' he said. ''There's nothing more you can do to improve Canal Street.''

You Can't See It, But It's Bad For You

As any New Yorker will tell you, it's not just the traffic that drives people in this city to distraction. There's the noise, too, and the wear and tear on the streets. Not to mention the pollution.

Richard Kassel, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Manhattan, said New York has two major air quality problems, both related to vehicle exhaust. One of them, excess ozone, is common in cities nationwide. But the other, particulate pollution -- pollution caused by microscopic particles of dirt in the air -- is pretty much a New York phenomenon, Mr. Kassel said.

''Manhattan has the highest particulate levels of any place east of the Mississippi,'' he said, ''and it's almost entirely due to diesel trucks and buses and the tall buildings that trap their fumes.'' Particulates are not the soot that people can see on windowsills, he said, but smaller bits of dirt that are invisible to the eye.

They are by far the more dangerous, he said, because the human body has no defenses to keep them from entering the respiratory tract. New Federal standards regulate emissions of particles smaller than 2.5 microns: one-seventieth the diameter of a human hair. But 90 percent of diesel particulates, which can contain as many as 40 known human carcinogens, are actually under one micron in size, Mr. Kassel said.

To address the problem, New York State recently announced plans to add 268 clean-fuel buses to the city's fleet. It will also begin emission testing for diesel trucks and buses next June. But the tests will not necessarily detect particulates smaller than one micron, said Jim Ralston, director of air quality planning for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Ralston said that newer, more sensitive tests were being developed.

In the meantime, Mr. Kassel said, unacceptable levels of diesel particulates will continue to be found in New York's air, especially at ''hot spots'' like Madison Avenue, a major bus route, and Canal Street, where air quality frequently fails to meet Federal standards. BERNARD STAMLER

Cause for celebration - really? - REPOSTED

The building of the Manhattan Bridge a century ago.

THIS WAS ORIGN. POSTED in March

Tipsters inform CCRC that Sam Schwartz, better known as "Gridlock Sam" is scrounging for dough on the Chinatown side of the Manhattan Bridge. He's looking for funds to support the centennial celebrations for the Manhattan Bridge scheduled for Summer of 2009.
The news has already angered families of the victims of vehicular fatalities at the entrance of the Manhattan Bridge at Canal St. and Bowery. Celebrations are premature despite the bridge's birthday they say, so long as the extremely dangerous intersection at Canal and Bowery remains a death trap. So far in the past 10 months at least 5 deaths have resulted from car accidents at the entrance to the Bridge.
Where was Sam when Chinatown advocates were screaming at the DOT for signage, and added measures to slow traffic coming off the Bridge, in the last several years? It's a slap in the face of the victims and the pedestrian safety advocates in Chinatown.
News media in Chinatown have been reporting on grassroots pedestrian advocacy spawned from within Chinatown for years, yet there is no additional signage and no traffic calming measures for the intersection. As of yet there are NO PLANS TO ADDRESS this very dangerous intersection, just celebration.

Participants who wish to celebrate at the location of the deaths of five Chinatown individuals can contact Sam Schwartz who is currently soliciting funds from Chinatown. The Chinatown Community Benevolent Association, with president Justin Yu at the helm, may also be contacted. Be sure to wear your party hat.
Let them know that you would like to participate in the celebrations while families in Chinatown continue to mourn the violent deaths of their family members. Let Sam and CCBA know that you will be sipping champagne and posing for photos along with them, while you ignore the danger that persists at the entrance of the Bridge.

Guidelines for funds disbursements from LMDC - Compensation for construction projects below Canal St.

Funding for the Program is being made available from an appropriation to New York State by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
I. General Grant Information
A. Eligible Firms
Assistance will be provided to any “Eligible Firm” that is still in business at the “Eligible Premises” at the time of application and grant payment, and complies with the terms of these Guidelines, and meets the following criteria (see Definitions of terms in Section II below):
(i) is a for-profit Retail Business; and is
(ii) located in the Eligible Area; and is
(iii) located on an Eligible Block; and is
(iv) an Eligible Premises; and
(v) submits an application that shows a Demonstrated Impact on net income, revenues, or operating expenses, net of any proceeds from business interruption insurance or other Federal assistance, during the period of the street or sidewalk closure; and
(vi) submits a Grant Request Form (included with the application); and is
(vii) current on all taxes and other municipal charges.
B. Grant Amounts
Subject to the requirements set forth in these Guidelines, Eligible Firms may be awarded grants computed as follows:
(i) $2.50 per square foot of owned, leased or rented space at Eligible Premises; OR
(ii) the amount of realized economic loss as shown in the applicant’s Demonstrated Impact statement, whichever is less.
Program grants will be capped at $25,000 in the aggregate for each Eligible Firm.
Small Firm Assistance Program Guidelines as of 02/2008 Page 2
II. Definitions
A. Eligibility Period
The Eligibility Period for the Program will begin on July 1, 2007 and includes construction projects underway on this date and projects commencing thereafter until all funds are disbursed or until the Program concludes on December 31, 2010. It is highly recommended that you apply as soon as you are eligible because funds are limited.
B. Retail Business
A Retail Business is defined as a business that sells or provides a good or service. To be eligible, neither the owner of the business nor the business itself may employ more than 50 people. For the avoidance of doubt, an applicant will not be eligible if it employs more than 50 people at its location on the Eligible Block. Similarly, an applicant will not be eligible if it employs less than 50 people at its location on the Eligible Block, but the applicant has more than 50 employees in the aggregate.
C. Eligible Area
The Eligible Area is that area within the Borough of Manhattan bounded on the north by Canal Street (including both sides of Canal Street), from the Hudson River to Rutgers Street (including both sides of Rutgers Street), then southeast along Rutgers Street and continuing along Rutgers Slip (including both sides of Rutgers Slip), to the East River.
D. Eligible Block
An Eligible Block is a block on which the street or sidewalk has been closed or partially closed for at least fifteen days within any thirty consecutive day period due to a publicly-funded construction project as determined by LMDC. The street or sidewalk closure must occur during the Eligibility Period. Publicly-funded construction projects include all projects supported by Federal, State and/or City funds. Each month LMDC will post a list of Eligible Blocks on its website: www.renewnyc.com.
E. Eligible Premises
Eligible Premises shall mean business premises (non-residential) located at street level or below-grade with street level access within the Eligible Area on an Eligible Block at which the Eligible Firm operates its business. The Eligible Premises must have been open for business for at least the entire calendar month prior to the temporary street or sidewalk closure along the Eligible Block and still be in business at that location when the grant is paid.
F. Demonstrated Impact
To be eligible for a grant under this program a firm must demonstrate an impact on its business due to the street or sidewalk closure. Impact may be demonstrated through the submission of financial statements, including monthly operating statements, profit and loss statements or cash flow statements. Such statements must show the sales or revenue for the period of the street or sidewalk closure as compared to the same period of the year prior. For new businesses, the sales or
Small Firm Assistance Program Guidelines as of 02/2008 Page 3
revenue for the period of the street or sidewalk closure should be compared to the prior month’s statements. All financial statements submitted with the application must be certified by an officer of the firm.
III. Application Information
A. Application Timing
Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis but funds are limited. Therefore, applications should be submitted within three months of when the firm is eligible.
For applications covering street or sidewalk closures that occurred between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007, one application may be submitted for the entire six month period. If you will be submitting an application for a grant covering street closures that occurred between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 it is highly recommended that you apply immediately. Eligible Firms must file a completed application for Program assistance. As noted on the application, each completed application must include:
(i) a completely filled out and signed application form; and
(ii) a completely filled out and signed Small Firm Assistance Program Grant Request Form; and
(iii) a completely filled out and signed City of New York Substitute Form W-9; and
(iv) a copy of the written lease, deed or permit for the Eligible Premises at which the applicant is engaged in business, including any amendments; and
(v) an original utility bill for the Eligible Premises covering the period of the street or sidewalk closure for which the applicant is applying for assistance; and
(vi) verification by the Eligible Firm of the number of its employees (current payroll summary or NYS-45-MN); and
(vii) additional categorical information regarding the salary levels of the applicant’s employees; and
(viii) monthly operating, profit and loss, or cash flow statements verifying the applicant’s estimate of Demonstrated Impact.
LMDC, SBS or EDC may require additional or alternative documentation, in their sole discretion.
B. Separate Applications for Multiple Locations
Applicants are required to file separate applications for each Eligible Premises.
C. Application Submission
Applications for Program assistance will be accepted through the earlier of April 30, 2011 or the distribution of available funds. Applications will be processed in order of receipt of completed applications. Applications must be mailed to:
Small Firm Assistance Program Guidelines as of 02/2008 Page 4
Small Firm Assistance Program
c/o Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10006
IV. Grant Payments
A. Grant Disbursements
Grants will be disbursed on a rolling basis, subject to the availability of Program funds, as well as continued eligibility by the Eligible Firm under the Program and compliance with all terms, conditions and requirements set forth in these Guidelines.
B. Grant Recapture
Grant recipients may be required to repay any or all money received under this Program if any of the following circumstances occur:
(i) if grant recipient’s application, including any information provided therewith or thereafter, contains any material misrepresentation; or
(ii) if the grant was made in error; or
(iii) if the grant recipient is not entitled to assistance under these Guidelines.
V. Processes
A. Determination Process
Applications will be reviewed for completeness and eligibility on a rolling basis in the order that they are received. Applicants who submit an incomplete application will be notified in writing that their application is incomplete and what needs to be submitted in order to complete their application. Applicants will then have twenty business days from the date the notice is postmarked to submit whatever is necessary to complete the application. Complete applications will be further reviewed for eligibility. LMDC, SBS and EDC will use reasonable efforts to evaluate and process all applications in a timely fashion. Background reviews will be performed on all firms before they are approved for a grant. In the event an application is denied, written notification will be provided with the reason for denial. Eligible firms will be notified in writing once they are approved for the grant.
B. Appeal Process
LMDC will notify applicants in writing if their application has been denied. If the applicant believes that its application was incorrectly denied (in whole or in part), the applicant may appeal such decisions within twenty business days from the date the denial notification is postmarked. Such appeal must be made in writing to LMDC and include such information as the applicant would like to be considered. An Appeal Committee will consider and decide all appeals. All decisions by the Appeal Committee shall be final. The Appeal Committee will be the sole arbiter in interpreting the intent and implementation of the Program and these Guidelines.
Small Firm Assistance Program Guidelines as of 02/2008 Page 5
VI. Legal Requirements
A. Audit and Control
LMDC and HUD may audit applications on a random or specified basis covering a period extending to three years after the Program concludes. LMDC and HUD reserve the right to contact at any time federal, state and local government agencies to confirm information included in any application.
B. Non-Discrimination
To be eligible for assistance under the Program, applicants must agree not to discriminate against any qualified person based on race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap.
C. Fraud Detection Prevention
Background reviews will be performed on all Eligible Firms; additionally, site visits and/or audits may be performed on either an announced or unannounced basis by LMDC and HUD or their auditors.
VII. Additional Information
A. Disclosure of Information
Except as required under law, LMDC, SBS and EDC will endeavor to maintain the confidentiality of tax, financial and rent information submitted as part of the application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such information may be made available to LMDC, SBS and EDC staff and designated individuals that are processing the application and to Federal, State or local officials or auditors evaluating the Program.
B. Amendments to Guidelines
These Guidelines may be amended as needed. Any amendments to these Guidelines will only be available through the LMDC website: www.renewnyc.com.
C. Information on LMDC Website
The application form, these Guidelines and additional information about the Program can be accessed at LMDC’s website: www.renewnyc.com.

Have the terrorists already won?

Not so long ago a prominent NY'er said "I'm a big believer that if you keep people from moving around reasonably freely, if you take away people's personal rights in the interest of security, the terrorists win without firing a shot,"
Mayor Michael Bloomberg Aug 2003

Comedian Bill Maher had something to say that is very relevant to what is happening in Chinatown today, and for its future, IF we allow City Hall to bulldoze over this neighborhood in the name of "security".

Fire in Chinatown - Community Finds refuge around the corner.

Although the buildings look relatively in good shape, only hours earlier flames were leaping out of the windows at the corner building at James St. (white building). NY Times photos shot from neighboring buildings show that the back of the building is in very bad shape.

A fire killed at least one person in Chinatown last night in an early morning blaze that ripped through a six story tenement building on James St. one block from Chatham Square.

Hamilton Madison House, one of NYC's oldest settlement houses located at 50 Madison Street on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, around the corner from the scene of the fire is acting as the disaster center for this tragedy. As of 4:pm displaced residents are still there waiting to hear the news about where they will end up tonight.

At about 7:15am Frank Modica, Executive Director of Hamilton Madison House was already at work when he was summoned to the entrance of the "house". First responders from the Office of Emergency Management told Frank that they needed to get about two hundred people off the street and into a warm safe place immediately. Frank instructed his two maintenance personnel, the only two other people in the building at the time, to start setting up tables and chairs in the auditorium inside Hamilton Madison House.

At about 7:45am the families from the scene of the fire started to come in escorted by O.E.M. and Red Cross personnel. Ricardo Elías Morales, Chairman of the NYC Housing Authority was also on hand to speak with Mr. Modica and insure that everything was going smoothly.

Within minutes a nearby classroom was commandeered to become an impromptu processing and command center.

As Hamilton Madison House staff and personnel started to roll in they immediately got to work translating in both Spanish and English. Frank greeted elected officials who came streaming in all morning.

At 12:pm around 150 or so people were waiting calmly and patiently as CCBA Chairman Justin Yu and his assistant Gary passed out blankets and food, and helped to keep order in an otherwise surreal environment. A faint smell of smoke could be detected in the room. Justin Yu's daughter Pauline was at Madison St. directing families to the Red Cross processing area. Reports say that at least 60 families are temporarily displaced.

Also on hand were Borough President Scott Stringer and his staff members, as well as staff from Senator Daniel Squadron, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Council member Alan Gerson who, like the Borough President was personally on hand to assist.

Jimmy Yan of the Borough President's office was sure to reach out to community leaders as events unfolded to ensure that their office was available to assist in any way. In fact every single elected official representing Chinatown including the Mayor himself was present to offer their help and suppport. Some were seen with the families for hours on end.

Hamilton Madison House staff was sure to respect the privacy of the families who had just been displaced by keeping photographers and press at bay, while allowing for anyone the opportunity to speak to the press, outside of the gym.

Hamilton House reports that approx. 25 young children ages 2 - 18 were waiting in the auditorium, as well as some 20 seniors. One four year old girl was still in stocking feet while she waited to learn the news of where she would be that evening. The Red Cross provided her with shoes and someone brought her a toy bunny.

Some students actually made it to school as the smoke was still rising from the burned out building. I.S. 131, knowing that Hamilton Madison House was the holding center for the displaced families, called there to check on other students. Parents knew that as long as their kids were in school they were safe. In some ways it was more familiar and less traumatizing for the children than being sequestered in the auditorium for hours. A steady stream of individuals and families were moved from the auditorium to the makeshift processing center by Red Cross volunteers.

As of 3:pm Hamilton Madison House says that several van loads of people have been taken to the Red Cross headquarters at 49th street for final processing to determine where they will be spending the next few days. The condition of the buildings next to the scene of the fire is still being assessed, however it looks as though at least some families will be able to return to their apartments tonight.

Hamilton Madison House will remain open for as long as it takes to process every single individual. The care that Hamilton Madison House provides will continue long after today, however, as their newly appointed Dr. Paul Wong will be on hand for counseling. Dr. Wong is a specialist in child psychology. Peter Yee, Hamilton-Madison House’s Assistant Executive Director for Behavioral health Services will also be on hand for counseling and support.

Hamiton Madison House made sure each family received a flyer so they could contact HMH's Chinatown Resource Center to help them process the paper work in the days and weeks to follow this disaster.

As the families, about 90% of whom are Chinese and 10% are Hispanic, wait patiently Hamilton Madison House is already planning for their needs and support for the coming days, weeks and even years. As Frank Modica puts it "this is what we're here for".

Hamilton Madison House will be accepting donations of clothing and blankets as well as towels for the families in the coming days, please contact them at Hamilton-Madison House: 50 Madison Street, New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 349-3724
Fax: (212) 791-7540
Website: www.hmh100.com

The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association
Chinese Community Center, Inc
62 Mott Street, New York, NY 10013
Tel: (212)226-6280 Email: ccbany@yahoo.com Fax: (212)431-5883


In addition Wellington Chen, Executive Director of the Chinatown Partnership which is located across the street from the fire is also accepting donations of clothing and supplies, they can be reached at The Chinatown Partnership 60 St. James Place
New York, NY 10038
Tel/Fax: 212-346-9288

Limousines line up at City's wedding Chapel - more traffic on Worth

A stretch limo, one of many on any given day, on already crowded Worth St. in front of the newly opened NYC Wedding mill expected to rival Las Vegas in number of weddings performed annually.

What -- wedding traffic? Despite the Chinatown community's strong opposition to the city's proposal to reduce Chatham Square's moving traffic lanes to two, the wedding vehicles to Worth Street's new Marriage Bureau/chapels (that Mayor Bloomberg has been trumpeting as a rival to Las Vegas' marriage chapels) will certainly cram this narrow street and increase travel time for all crosstown traffic. With Fulton Street under reconstruction, Pearl Street and parts of Duane Street permanently closed, Worth Street is one of the few crosstown streets in Lower Manhattan. Ever see a bride wearing a wedding gown on mass transit? Wake up DOT or soon, you won't be able to get to your own offices on Worth Street.

The question is where were all the pedestrian and bike advocacy groups when the City announced the opening of this wedding depot? Bloomie says he wants this wedding factory to "rival Las Vegas" in the number of weddings performed, many of these weddings will be accompanied by limousines like the one pictured. I guess limos streaming past Columbus park where kids play and elderly visit is just fine with these so called pedestrian advocacy org's.

The change of this building's use from the dept. of motor vehicles to a wedding chapel that will rival Las Vegas in the number of weddings performed annually should have been a red flag for pedestrian and bike advocates since this change SURELY brings more vehicles (limousines no less) into the already congested Worth Street corridor. Thanks to the City and Mayor Bloomberg we now have more cars taxis and limousines in Chinatown, we could have used the help of pedestrian and bike advocates to STOP this insanity.

The closure of the Brooklyn Bridge during its construction will bring 4000- 5000 cars per hour into Chinatown over the Manhattan Bridge, over 700 of those cars will be diverted through Chatham Square (while it is under construction) and onto Worth St. now crowded with Judge's cars, Government employee's cars, taxis and limousines.
What would you do if the City decided to plop the Catskills on your street???

Chinatown is left with the task of balancing the commercial and residential needs of the community while trying to cope with an accelerated time frame forced upon us by the City's own slash and burn agenda. What the community doesn't need are special interest groups who claim to have the best interests of safety at hand, while they promote untested, unproven plans in neighborhoods they don't live in , don't work in, and don't pay property taxes in.

If there was EVER something to protest in the name of safer streets it should have been the placement and opening of the city's wedding factory on Worth St.
The pedestrian and bike advocates were strangely silent on this issue and have instead chosen to openly support the DOT's plan for Chatham Square even before it was put through vigorous traffic simulations by an unbiased professional (someone who works with Trans. Alt. almost daily).

Much in the same way that the D.O.T. has ignored all the construction going on in Brooklyn, the new condos on Flatbush, DUMBO, Battery Park City, Chinatown, and now the wedding chapel on Worth in its plan for Chatham Square, Transportation Alternatives has just as blindly signed on to the D.O.T.'s agenda. They've chosen to do this even though no one in Chinatown wants the D.O.T.'s plan to move ahead. If you can't be a part of the solution FOR CHINATOWN, then don't be a part of the problem.

Chatham Square design challenges over the years

A NY Times photo of Chatham Square in 1964


A 2005 D.O.T. and A.A.F.E./ R.C.I. - Rebuild Chinatown Initiative produced proposal for Chatham Square. Note the placement of the American Legion War Veteran's memorial arch. This plan was in place before the D.O.T. and the community realized that the memorial arch sits on federally regulated NY State parkland. The parkland designation means the arch and the land it sits on cannot be moved or altered without State legislation. In subsequent renderings the memorial arch is no longer moved, but the land it sits on grows into a 22,000 sq. ft. blockade to Park Row which effectively makes permanent the elimination of Park Row as a public thoroughfare.

This rendering of the Chatham Square plan is similar to the one produced for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Park Row Closure. This is the DOT produced plan that is being pushed through, despite a lack of pedestrian safety studies to accompany the plan, and despite virtually no public outreach by DOT and NYPD. (see CCRC blog posts relating to lack of outreach)

CCRC proposal #1 - This and the plan below are alternatives to the DOT produced plan which will allow for the full reopening of Park Row in the future.

Government workers have a day off from commuting - Chinatown breaths again.

Monday - President's Day Feb 16th 09

What if 85 % - 90% of all government workers, NYPD, and court officers used mass transit?
What if it was illegal for government employees to use a personal car to drive to work and park for free?
What if any car a government worker needed to use was able to be tracked and monitored?
What if City Hall got SERIOUS about traffic congestion and defied unions and political pressure in favor of clear air and free flowing safe streets and sidewalks free of cars parked on them?
What if Chinatown's largest park WASN'T ringed bumper to bumper with Government sanctioned personal cars used for commuting?
What if NYC led that NATION in putting an end to what Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler calls "a necessary perk we feel balances out moderate salaries paid to our employees"?
What if NYC traffic agents could carry out their job free of intimidation from Police?
What if bullies with dashboard placards didn't exist?

We'd have what you see in these photos. This photo was taken on Mulberry St where NYC has designated this stretch of what used to be public land "for Government parking only".On this public holiday there are no government or court officers cars commuting, and therefore the street is blissfully clear at 12:30pm.
On any given weekday government cars that are parked here stay here for the entire day because the cars that park on this stretch of Mulberry St. are used for commuting and commuting only.
Until Mayor Bloomberg REMOVES this unnecessary PERK from City employees and NYPD our streets will continue to be overrun with traffic, and pollution and our streets, PARTICULARLY Chinatown's streets will continue to be unsafe.

It's time to eliminate the Government Parking Perk.
We don't need congestion pricing to make this City better, we need BETTER GOVERNMENT to make this City better !!!

Chatham Square Oversight Hearing - Chinatown D.O.T. Supporters: zero

Council Members Alan J. Gerson and John Liu asked the NYC D.O.T. and the Mayor's office "who in Chinatown supports this plan?" Simple enough question, it had to be asked a couple of times though.
Answer from The Mayor's office and D.O.T? "We'll get back to you."
Council member Liu: "I can answer that right now, you don't have any supporters for this plan in Chinatown, my staff checked".

Chinatown and Downtown Brooklyn in for a traffic nightmare - CB3 Traffic Engineer has determined

Community Board 3 will hold its penultimate
Chatham Square Task Force meeting

Thomas Yu, committee Chair
thomas_yu@aafe.org for questions

on Feb. 18th 6:15pm Confucius Plaza meeting room (entrance on Bowery)

PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND
Areas affected by this construction taking place over the next 5 years:
Entire Chinatown area
Two Bridges communities
Lower East Side
Southbridge
Tribeca
SoHo
Flatbush Brooklyn
DUMBO Brooklyn


At the next Chatham Square Task Force meeting Brian Ketcham, CB3's traffic Engineer will elaborate on his findings based on his research of D.O.T's proposed plans to :
begin construction at Chatham Square , under ground utility work in preparation for Chatham Square's total reconstruction
refurbishment of The Brooklyn Bridge and adjacent roadways
roadwork on Tillary St. , Brooklyn (immediately on the other side of manhattan Bridge)
roadwork on Flatbush Ave. Brooklyn (also immediately on other side of manhattan bridge)

an excerpt from Brian's memo :
"The City must return to the drawing board, prepare a proper micro-assignment traffic model that will make a convincing case for diversions, and provide backup that otherwise does not exist. This can be done quickly. The models exist from other projects. And the work can be completed before the Brooklyn Bridge reconstruction gets underway. The analysis must take into account that, for much of the programmed reconstruction schedule, Chatham Square will not really be available as a diversion route and that alternative routes must be found to accommodate this traffic."
Brian Ketcham - Traffic Engineer, CB3

Jan Lee
CCRC
Chatham Square Task Force CB3 public member
CB3 OUTREACH COMMITTEE Public member

Fines issued to Washington D.C. and NYC Government workers and NYPD go unpaid

The FBI and U.S. Armed Forces are institutions in which following the rules is supposed to be a given.

Except when it comes to paying their parking tickets.

According to a congressional report scheduled to be released Oct. 24th 08, federal workers in the District and New York City failed to pay $176,000 in fines for 1,147 tickets issued last year to their U.S. government vehicles.

Leading the way in the District were the Army, Navy and Air Force, whose employees ignored 158 tickets for $28,000 in 2007. Most were racked up by recruiters working at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center near 13th and L streets NW.

In New York, FBI agents set the worst example, accumulating $35,000 in fines and comfortably besting the Department of State ($28,000) and the Marine Corps ($20,000) in unpaid violations.

Almost half of the citations were issued during morning and evening rushes, increasing congestion and creating safety hazards, the report concludes. Other violations included parking on sidewalks, in handicapped zones and in front of fire hydrants and bus stops. Only 6 percent were for expired meters.

The report was done by the majority staff of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the request of the panel's chairman, Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) It faults "lax fleet management practices" that enable many workers to ignore fines.

Here's the link to the document.

On Page 21 the Committee recommends a searchable database of vehicles used by Government employees. We stand behind this recommendation and many others by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and hope that NYC's government is listening. NYC is leagues away from curtailing its parking abuse problem.
At least Washington D.C. is looking into tracking technology similar to the existing ZipCar method. Bloomberg's administration has not even entertained such a logical step in the right direction.

The recommendation reads as follows:

"Establish capability to search U.S. Government-issued license plates in online ticket search engines. Many State DMVs have an online search capability where drivers can search for outstanding tickets by entering their license plate numbers. DC has such a system, but it does not recognize U.S. Government plates. DC should modify its search software to enable Government plates to be searched. Fleet managers should periodically query vehicle plate numbers in all jurisdictions where the fleet operates to assess employee compliance with local parking laws; and whether fines were paid timely and supervisor reporting requirements met."
page 21

Downtown Express covers the Chatham Oversight Hearing

Council pokes holes in Chatham Sq. plan

By Josh Rogers

The City Council peppered officials with questions on the Chatham Square traffic plan last week, exposing contradictions in the effort to lessen the problems caused by the security closures near Police Plaza.

The city will begin looking for contractors for the $50 million project in a week, but local politicians and the community boards are pressing for a halt to the planning in order to make changes. The plan would increase the sidewalk and plaza space in the dangerous square, and line the streets leading into Chatham in an effort to make it less confusing, but many Chinatown residents say the proposal has many problems.

Officials from the mayor’s office and the city Dept. of Transportation evaded many questions from Councilmembers Alan Gerson and John Liu during a three-hour hearing filled with tense moments Feb. 5.

Liu, chairperson of the Council’s Transportation Committee, started things off by insisting that the city panelists not spend an hour reading their statement. He asked them to condense it down to 15 minutes since some of the information has been discussed for years.

“We’re not starting off in kindergarten here,” he said, according the Council’s official recording of the hearing.

Later on, city officials reluctantly acknowledged the plan had differences from the Environmental Impact Statement they are using to go forward with the Chatham Square project, but said it was similar enough to proceed. It was a difficult assertion to check since the E.I.S. is no longer available on the N.Y.P.D.’s Web site. Spokespersons for relevant city agencies did not explain why the E.I.S. is unavailable.

Panelists also said last week that the E.I.S. was an important part of the public review process.

Luis Sanchez, the Lower Manhattan borough commissioner for transportation, said the community still has time to propose minor changes to the sidewalk configuration, which would not have to be finalized for another year, but later, Susan Stetzer, Community Board 3’s district manager, testified that city officials told her the board needed to make its final recommendations this month, before the city takes the work out to bid.

Brian Ketcham, C.B. 3’s traffic consultant, told Downtown Express Wednesday that he is scrambling to finish his final report to the board so it has enough time to recommend at least some changes. He said the city has not done the thorough traffic analysis needed to evaluate the proposal, and it has been hard getting information.

“They’ve been stonewalling me for two months,” he said. “I give them long lists of things I need, and they give me dribs and drabs.”

Ketcham said when the final plan was released last November, his initial assessment was it would improve an unsafe intersection, but as he has gathered more information, it’s clear to him that it will be a traffic nightmare, particularly when you factor in nearby projects expected to be proceeding at the same time — major work shoring up the Brooklyn Bridge, reconstruction work on Chambers St., and street work activity near the bridge in Downtown Brooklyn.

Scott Gastel, a D.O.T. spokesperson, said they’ve given Ketcham “substantial data” on the project and will continue to do so.

But the city did not have answers last week to basic questions that are typically part of environmental statements. On Wednesday the city still did not know or would not say how much traffic would increase on St. James Pl., one of 10 streets that currently lead into or right near the square.

“They did a very rudimentary analysis of it,” Ketcham said of the overall traffic study.

The environmental report was a study of the police-ordered closure of Park Row, which was the main connection between Chinatown and the Financial District/Civic Center area before 9/11. The reconfiguration of Chatham Sq. was proposed as a mitigation measure in the Park Row environmental study, so it was not the focus of the E.I.S.

Officials at first suggested that the entire plan was studied in the E.I.S.

“This Chatham Square Park Row project was approved through an E.I.S. process — that’s your testimony,” Gerson asked Andrew Winters, director of the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects

“Yes,” Winters replied. But later officials acknowledged the plan was “similar” but not identical.

Winters first began working on the Chatham Square plan about five years ago when he was chief of planning for the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which is putting up nearly $31 million of the $50 million needed for the project. About three years ago, the project’s estimated costs were $25 million and the city has not explained the reasons why it has doubled since. It hopes to get some of the shortfall from Con-Ed and has not identified any other sources of money yet.

Gerson has alerted the L.M.D.C. that he plans to ask the corporation to cancel its agreement with the city on the grounds that the city has not lived up to all of its terms, including providing the E.I.S. to local libraries, like the eponymous Chatham Square branch.

Mike Murphy, the development corporation’s spokesperson, said the agency believes the city has met its commitments so far, but it will continue to monitor the plan.

City officials presented the Chatham plan two weeks ago to a very receptive L.M.D.C. board, which praised the city’s efforts. The board might have walked away unfamiliar with the opposition had not Judy Rapfogel, chief of staff to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, pointed out that Community Boards 1 and 3 had opposed the project nearly unanimously.

City officials expressed frustration at the Council hearing because some aspects of the plan have been discussed at community meetings for years. Long ago, the L.M.D.C. suggested removing lanes on Park Row in favor of plaza space since police made it clear they were not going to reopen the street to traffic anytime soon. The street runs under police headquarters.

Assistant chief James Waters of the N.Y.P.D.’s counter-terrorism unit testified last week that “the threat is real, it’s clear and the only way to mitigate that threat is the closure of Park Row.”

But some neighborhood advocates say police headquarters should move to a place in the city that police could secure without disrupting residents and businesses.

Jan Lee, a Chinatown business owner and resident who has sued the city over the street closure, said Police Plaza is still unprotected because subways run under it, there is a gas station right near it, and one of the bridge exit ramps is very close.

“They’re vulnerable now,” Lee said. “The back door is open and underneath them as well. Clearly the security issue is a moot point. If someone wants to hurt them they can.”

The city wants to begin Chatham Square work this summer, so that the utility work is done by the middle of next year, when the repair work on the Brooklyn Bridge will begin. The bridge work will no doubt divert traffic to the Manhattan Bridge, which feeds into Chatham.

Lee, Gerson and others have suggested suspending tolls on the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel during bridge construction weekends in order to prevent the deluge on Chatham from the Manhattan Bridge, thus relieving the pressure to begin the Chatham work as soon as possible.

D.O.T.’s Sanchez told the Council that they were considering that very option but later officials admitted that they had not even asked the Metropolitan Transportation Authority about it. A toll suspension would have to be approved by the M.T.A.

Gerson was incredulous that the city was about to go to bid on a contract yet at the same time they were claiming to consider an option that could avoid the need to rush into the construction contract.

“You’re reaching a conclusion before you’ve completed the study you need to reach the conclusion,” he said raising his voice.
He also wants the city to hold off on narrowing Park Row, particularly since D.O.T., acknowledged there were no logistical problems to delaying that part of the plan.

Winters from the mayor’s office also said even if Park Row narrows, it could still reopen someday if the security situation changed.

“It would be a side street, but it would be perfectly functional,” he said.

That part of the plan has raised the most anger in the community because many residents want to retain the possibility of restoring Park Row as a major connection.

“The Berlin Wall came down,” Gerson said. “Things can happen.”


Josh@DowntownExpress.com