Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has revised her position since saying that condominiums should not be in Brooklyn Bridge Park. Photo by Ted Levin

In an Aug. 16 letter to Wendy Leventer, president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp., Clinton said that she supported development to maintain the self-sustaining park, and agreed that "there had been an unprecedented community-based process."

A week earlier she said parkland should not be used for a luxury condominium project.

"I don't know who is whispering in her ear," said Judi Francis, president of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund. "I think when she was first asked the question she spoke from her heart."

The Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund has sued to stop 1,240 luxury condos from being built in the proposed 85-acre park.

The senator's letter said she is not behind the lawsuit.

"Throughout the planning of the park, I am aware that public officials and the community as a whole participated in a thoughtful and inclusive process. Therefore, I do not support legal action to oppose the park," Clinton wrote.
Roy Sloane, of the Cobble Hill Association, took issue with Clinton's statement concerning the public process, saying that even Marianna Koval, co-executive director of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy, a strong proponent of the park as presently proposed, had written to Leventer blasting a "take it or leave it attitude" by the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation. The letter criticized the corporation for "working behind closed doors" before announcing its "final plan" through the press in Dec. 2004.

"It does not speak well about her belief in the public process and community-based initiatives," said Sloane.

When commenting to reporters on the Brooklyn Bridge Park, Clinton had appeared a lot cooler to the idea of housing development to support the park: "I think it's a little disingenuous to say, 'Oh, we're going to make this self-sustaining by essentially taking parkland which was given to the city for a specific purpose and turning it into yet another luxury condominium project.'"

Her comments were widely reported in both daily and weekly papers.

But the former First Lady also said she hoped that the development is "limited to the degree necessary to make park maintenance self-sustaining."

"This letter shows that like the other elected officials the senator supports this park and would like to see only those revenue-generating activities that are needed to support the park," said Koval.

The recent letter was circulated to a number of public officials and Koval.

Spokespeople for Assemblymember Joan Millman and State Senator Martin Connor said the elected officials had reached out to Clinton to express support for the park after reading newspaper reports. Councilmember Bill de Blasio said that he also had conveyed his support.

Efforts to reach Borough President Marty Markowitz were not successful in time for publication.

Evan Thies, a spokesperson from Councilmember David Yassky's office said that the senator's most recent statements reflect the councilmember's beliefs.

"It's not his number one choice but it is still the best way to get park the done," said Thies. "Now we have to make sure there will be as much park as possible."

Thies said the decision makers have to "start listening to the public."

"We have to get this done as quickly as possible but there are still unanswered questions that should be answered before the first shovel is put to the ground, so we can have the park that Brooklyn deserves."

Marty Algaze, a spokesperson for Connor, said he thought that Clinton had been caught off guard by the reporter's question and her comments were probably a "slip of the tongue."

Koval said she believes that the senator's earlier comments were taken out of context by reporters.

In her letter, Clinton said that she understood that cities have to "struggle to find dedicated revenue sources to fund park maintenance," but that she generally believes that public revenues should support the maintenance costs of public parks.

Clinton's office indicated that the letter was a clarification of the senator's stance on the park following the meeting last week.

"We are very pleased that the senator has come out in support of the park," said Deborah Wetzel, a spokesperson for the Empire State Development Corp.

Last week gubernatorial frontrunner, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said that he supported the park, describing the design as "awfully appealing" and saying that a prohibition on any revenue-generating usage, "may not be feasible." A spokesperson said that he does not necessarily support self-sustaining parks in general.

Q: The development of the Brooklyn Bridge Park has became a big issue and critics recently filed a lawsuit opposing the plan as proposed, including 1,200 luxury condo units inside the park itself. What are your thoughts on this?

A: That's a very good point. I think that has to be sorted out because public land should be public land, and I have followed the story but I have no direct role or authority in it.

It has to battled out locally now within the court system, but I am concerned that this be done in an appropriate, environmentally sufficient way to protect public property and to realize the primary goal, which was to have a beautiful park. I think its going to be one of the biggest parks in the city.

We need more parkland in the city. We need more usable public space in the city.

We also need affordable housing with the pressure on middle-class families, and working people, and poor people to be pushed out of the city because they have no place to live. I think we ought to be doing more to erect and rehabilitate affordable housing.

Again, I have no authority over this but I hope the people who do will really look at this carefully.

So this was the land deeded, part from the state and part from the city, to become Brooklyn Bridge Park. Then they came up with this plan to build condos in there to make it self-sustaining, for the people to pay $15 million a year in maintenance.

Q: I have two parts to this question. One, do you believe in parks having to be self-sustaining and two, your thoughts on condos being built on land that was given over to the idea of being a park?

A: Both of those concern me. If parks have to be self-sustaining would anybody have ever started a park? By definition a park is to be enjoyed for recreation.

Now there can be concessions in a park. There can be attractions in a park. There can be all kinds of ways of trying to underwrite the costs of maintaining the park, but I think it's a little disingenuous to say, "Oh, we're going to make this self-sustaining, by essentially taking parkland which was given to the city for a specific purpose and turning it into yet another luxury condominium project.' I just think we can do better than that.

Judi Francis holds copies of court papers filed to block housing in the Brooklyn Bridge Park. Photo by Paul Martinka

Now opponents of the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park plan will have to face two Goliaths.

A State Supreme Court judge agreed to allow the city to join the state to fight off a lawsuit to stop the waterfront park plan that includes some 1,200 luxury condominiums.

"It was a David and Goliath situation to begin with," said Robert Chira, the attorney acting for the community-based Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, which brought the suit. "We don't need two Goliaths."

The Defense Fund, which brought the case, only sued the state's Empire State Development Corporation and its subsidiaries.

The state decided to include housing in the park, and commissioned a faulty Environmental Impact Statement that did not take into account the looming downtown Atlantic Yards project, Chira said.

"The suit does not seek to annul any decision by New York City," Chira said. "What are they going to add?"

The lawyer for the city, Susan Amron, said her client had requested to be added to the lawsuit as an 'interested party,' partly because the decision could affect future plans for the city's waterfront revitalization program.

Judge Lawrence Knipel agreed to add the city as a co-defendant, saying it has its "fingerprints all over the park."

In his decision, Knipel cited the city's contribution of $65 million and that fact that the mayor signed the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and state. "The city very much supports the park," said Amron. "We want to see it built."

Chira, wearing a green ribbon saying "A Real Park," said that this would be a test case that could change the face of how parks are run in the future.

"This is a test case and a very important test case," Chira said. "It is going to shape the future."

Chira took the opportunity to tell the judge that the park, as proposed, violates "the public trust doctrine" by including private housing to subsidize the estimated $15.2 million annual operations and maintenance costs. He also contented that the project would include private parking and a private marina.

The plan includes 1,240 condominiums and 225 hotel rooms near either end of the 1.3-mile park.

The Defense Fund wants to reinstate the 2002 Illustrative Master Plan, referred to in the MOU, which did not include housing.

Chira asked the judge to order the Empire State Development Corporation to hand over documents, including the budget relating to maintenance and operations, which were used to justify the housing in, or abutting, the park.

He said the documents would reveal if the state officials made any deals with developers.

"If there are documents, we are entitled to them," Chira said. "Suppose there is a smoking gun."

David Paget, attorney for Empire State Development Corporation, said that case law precludes the plaintiffs from obtaining such documents. But Chira said after the meeting that there are several cases that support his request.

Knipel said he would have to consider the evidence further before making a decision.

The Empire State's lawyer stunned a number of supporters who showed up to support the Defense Fund, by declaring there was no development in the park.

"There will not be any housing in the park," said Paget. "It's a deliberate obfuscation."

Paget justified this statement by claiming that the park and the housing were separate parts of the same project.

"The project includes a park plus development. You cannot confuse the two," said Paget.