At Wednesday’s meeting of the board of the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), the agenda was interrupted by the arrival of State Senator Daniel Squadron, who was there to do something that is prohibited for people who live in Battery Park City: speak at meetings where the Authority’s directors make decisions that affect the community.
Before giving the floor to Senator Squadron, BPCA chair Dennis Mehiel explained, “we had a request from all the elected officials who represent the residents of Battery Park City, a suggestion that board meetings be open for general comment from members of the public.” This was a reference to an April 4 letter in which Senator Squadron, State Assembly member Deborah Glick, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, City Council member Margaret Chin, and U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler wrote to, “urge the BPCA Board to include a public comment session during its meetings,” adding that, “allowing public comment is an important part of public engagement.”
Mr. Mehiel continued, “we thought about it, talked among ourselves, and looked at practices of other authorities, and concluded that we’re not inclined to do that for a variety of reasons. What we did say in response was if members of the public want to communicate with the board through their elected officials, we’re more than happy to accommodate that.”
This policy, announced on June 8, ruled that elected officials were welcome to speak at BPCA board meetings, while residents (and other members of the public) would be permitted to submit comments in writing. One rationale for the decision was that residents are already welcome to speak in a separate forum, the quarterly Open Community Meetings hosted by the BPCA, at which senior staff and some board members make presentations and field questions from the public. But these meetings (which began last December, and the third of which was on Wednesday evening) are not attended by the BPCA’s full board, and are not the venue in which actual decisions about the community’s future are made by the board.
Mr. Squadron began, “I wrote that letter because hearing directly from residents during board meetings is one important way to break the ongoing cycle of board decisions, followed by public outcry, followed by the promise of better communication from the board.” This was a reference to a series of controversial decisions by the BPCA during the last two years that have inspired bitter criticism and condemnation from residents, community leaders and elected officials.
“In response to the letter,” Senator Squadron continued, “the board discussed the matter of public comment at its last meeting on June 8. The ‘solution’ — restricting local residents to submit written comments for the minutes and allowing elected officials to speak on their behalf — is woefully inadequate. This was never about elected officials’ opportunity to be heard. We have many opportunities to be heard. It is the public who does not. Especially in light of the fact that this board is comprised primarily of members who do not reside in Battery Park City, it is especially important that local residents be allowed to share their local perspective directly with the board at these meetings.”
Senator Squadron added, “we appreciate the quarterly feedback sessions that have been created. But we don’t believe that replaces this forum. Since residents are not allowed to speak, I would like to take this opportunity to speak for them. Here is a sample of what residents would like to tell the board, had they been given the opportunity to speak.”
The Senator then read from a series of comments submitted to him by Battery Park City residents. While he did not name the authors of these passages, multiple sources directly familiar with the process say that they came from local leaders, members of Community Board 1, and the organizers of grassroots organizations seeking greater transparency and democratic representation in Battery Park City.
One resident said, “both the financial structure that will make this community affordable for decades to come and the physical infrastructure that will protect it from flood waters and rising sea levels are crucial questions that speak directly to the continued survival and success of Battery Park City. And the people that live and work here must be part of the dialogue and decision-making process from the earliest stages — before consultants are awarded contracts, for example — and not at the end of the process or after the fact.”
Another Battery Park City resident urged that, “the BPCA should acknowledge their constituent’s needs for fair housing: housing that would allow their constituents to best remain in place instead of housing that simply favors outside owner/operators.”
A third local asked, “if the new mandate of the BPCA is to focus on the needs of tourism for New Yorkers and visitors, how does that balance with the needs of the existing residential and small business community?”
A fourth Battery Park City inhabitant observed that, “no significant changes to infrastructure or policy should be made without a lengthy period of public comment that must include multiple opportunities for the Authority to hear from its constituents and act upon the opinions expressed at such forums.”
The fifth anonymous resident reflected, “in a time of increased transparency and open government, the barrier for taxpayers to speak at a public forum is contrary to our democratic process.”
Senator Squadron noted that, “these are the kinds of comments that public bodies across the state, both large and small, hear at their meetings.” He then cited more than 20 agencies and authorities that allow public comment at their meetings, including the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Trust for Governor’s Island, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (a close analogue to the BPCA), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Empire State Development Corporation, and the New York State Thruway Authority.
He added that, “given the Battery Park City Authority’s unique role in local governance, I want to highlight the public comment policies of a number of local governments throughout the State,” including the New York City Council, where, “since no bill can be voted on without a public hearing, the public’s opinion can be heard on every bill.” He further cited several other legislative bodies around New York State.
“The operations of these organizations are not diminished by greater public participation; they are enhanced,” Senator Squadron concluded. “I strongly urge the board to follow these examples, reconsider its previous decision, and allow the public the opportunity to directly address the Board at Authority meetings.”