One focus of the “Open Community Meeting” that the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) will host tonight (Wednesday, March 22), from 6:00 to 8:00 pm, at Six River Terrace (opposite the Irish Hunger Memorial and next to Le Pain Quotidien restaurant) will be the BPCA’s ongoing analysis of local resiliency, in preparation for measures to harden against future extreme weather events. This was the subject of a tense exchange between BPCA spokesman Nick Sbordone and members of the Battery Park City Committee of Community Board 1 (CB1), when that panel met on March 7.
“There will be a full presentation and public discussion at the March 22 Open Community Meeting,” Mr. Sbordone said, “of the ongoing Battery Park City resiliency study, which speaks to and looks at the whole of the community.” He added that this presentation will include an updated version of a separate resiliency study, focused on Wagner Park, “but the overall study is also on the schedule to be discussed.”
Ninfa Segarra, a former Deputy Mayor who chairs CB1’s Battery Park City Committee, said, “so we’re walking again into a meeting where we know nothing about what’s going to be presented. It’s only a week or two away, and I haven’t seen any announcements about the agenda.” This appears to have been a reference to repeated calls by CB1 to be included in the BPCA’s preliminary deliberations about major issues, such as resiliency, so that its members are able to prepare detailed responses in advance of public forums, such as tonight’s meeting.
Ninfa Segarra, chair of Community Board 1’s Battery Park City Committee: “So we’re walking again into a meeting where we know nothing about what’s going to be presented. Are we to expect that the secret resiliency study is going to be released to the public that day?”
Ms. Segarra then asked, “are we to expect that the secret resiliency study is going to be released to the public that day?” This was a reference to the BPCA’s decision to hire a consultant, Parsons Transportation Group, in September, 2014, to undertake, “a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the Battery Park City infrastructure, including assessing the vulnerability of the infrastructure to storm-related events and climate change, getting recommendations for resiliency measures.” The original contract called for Parsons to be paid $1.16 million for this study. In the intervening two-and-a-half years, the results of this study have never been made public.
“I wouldn’t call it a secret study,” Mr. Sbordone replied.
Robin Forst, a public member of CB1’s Battery Park City Committee, then asked, “is it going to be released to the public in advance?”
Mr. Sbordone replied, “it’s going to be presented at the meeting. It’s not a finalized plan. It is the result of an ongoing study.”
“Which we’ve never seen,” Ms. Segarra retorted.
“Because it’s not done,” Mr. Sbordone replied. “When it’s done, you’ll see it.”
Ms. Segarra then recounted that the BPCA presented initial results from a separate study, which focused only on Wagner Park, several months ago. “Presenting the Wagner study without completing the full resiliency report was kind of odd,” she observed.
Mr. Sbordone explained, “we try to present on a specific theme at each Open Community Meeting. Last April, it was about Wagner Park. In July, we talked about the South End Avenue study. In November, we talked about Wagner Park again. And for this meeting, we’ll look at Battery Park City infrastructure and resiliency.”
Committee co-chair Tammy Meltzer (right): “Priorities are my issue: Residential buildings and the ballfields, which affect daily life. We get stuck on how to fix Wagner Park, and lose sight of the fact that people were out of their homes, and one person died in a flooded parking garage, and the ballfields were out for months. This goes back to why residents needs to be on the BPCA board, to drive the conversation.”
Tammy Meltzer, co-chair of CB1’s Battery Park City Committee, observed, “at the past meetings, there was not a Socratic dialog. The BPCA meetings have been an opportunity to stand up for two minutes and ask questions or provide comment, but there’s not a dialog.” She also noted that at several recent Open Community Meetings, “BPCA board members weren’t there to hear the public.”
Mr. Sbordone parried, “I would disagree about the lack of Socratic dialog. People come up and ask questions on any topic they want. And we answer those questions.”
Ms. Meltzer countered, “your answers contain a lot of ‘thanks for your question’ and ‘we’ll get back to you,’ rather than actual dialog.” She then returned to the resiliency study, asking “have your consultants reached out to individual Battery Park City buildings, and the World Trade Center, and the Port Authority?” — all of which have begun to formulate piecemeal resiliency measures on their own. “And will someone at this meeting be able to speak about funding?”
Mr. Sbordone responded, “we are aware of buildings that are undertaking their own efforts. We will have the opportunity with our approach to supplement those efforts, but they are not in lieu of one another. Nor can we mandate those things.” About funding, Mr. Sbordone replied, “these are assessments about Wagner and Battery Park City overall. Once that is complete, there is dialog, and that gets developed into a formal solicitation and request for proposals. At that point, we discuss funding.”
Committee member Tom Goodkind said, “Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the first time we were hit. We went through the same thing the year before, with Hurricane Irene. And with Sandy, we were out of our building for a full week.” This was a reference to the fact that parts of the Gateway Plaza complex, in which electrical machinery was damaged by flooding, were subject to a mandatory evacuation that was not lifted for more than seven days.
BPCA spokesman Nick Sbordone: “We are committed to having this conversation continue.”
“It would be a great idea to protect residents,” Mr. Goodkind observed. “You’re trying to address Wagner Park. But in the 17 years that I’ve been on this Committee, I’ve never heard one complaint or agenda item about Wagner Park and how it needs to be fixed. This is your concept, your idea, it’s where the water came in according to you.”
“Not according to me,” Mr. Sbordone insisted.
“According to some engineer you hired,” Mr. Goodkind shot back. “My family and I were subject to mandatory evacuation that day, and the water in our building did not come from Wagner Park. I have no idea why you’re concentrating on Wagner Park. An equal amount of time, much more time, needs to be spent on protecting the residents.”
Ms. Segarra concurred, “we were out for a week. And that water didn’t come from Wagner Park. It came from the river right outside our windows.” She then added, “we do not believe, based on what we’ve seen to date, that anything is being done to protect the residential buildings — in particular the rental buildings, which don’t have condo boards or a governing structure. We do not see or hear anything that’s going to protect the residents. That’s the issue.”
Mr. Sbordone insisted, “it’s hasn’t been shared with you yet.”
Ms. Forst reflected that, “since we haven’t yet seen anything about overall resiliency, that will be a clean slate. But with regard to Wagner, there was a presentation at our December meeting, and there was a lot of criticism about that work.” This was a reference to a quarrelsome dialog in which the design consultant the BPCA hired to study Wagner Park resiliency referred to neighborhood residents as “ungenerous” when they questioned his preliminary findings. “Will there be any information about those comments in advance of March 22? Or will these be presented as a fait accompli?”
Mr. Sbordone replied, “we are incorporating these concerns into our next round of iterative ideas. We taking feedback and incorporating it into the design process.”
Ms. Forst pressed, “the Wagner presentation in December was only public forum. We have not received a response to our comments. How is that response going to be handled?”
Mr. Sbordone answered, “we are committed to having this conversation continue.”
Ms. Meltzer then interjected, “priorities are my issue: residential buildings and the ballfields, which affect daily life. We get stuck on how to fix Wagner Park, and lose sight of the fact that people were out of their homes, and one person died in a flooded parking garage, and the ballfields were out for months.”
“If a storm rolls through in March and the fields are out for three months, that ruins thousands of hours of programs, athletic leagues, sessions, and events,” she continued. “I’m not as concerned about Wagner Park, which proved that it can flood and rebound. It’s very frustrating to many of us that the BPCA chose to present a study on Wagner Park first, versus how to protect community and its assets. This doesn’t make a lot of sense if you fix Wagner, but it causes cascading issues elsewhere.” She concluded, “this goes back to why residents needs to be on the BPCA board, to drive the conversation.”