At a meeting organized by a recently formed Red Hook park advocacy group, freshman City Councilmember Carlos Menchaca sped the community toward a quick resolution of the Valentino Pier bathroom controversy.
Menchaca first became known to Red Hookers two years ago, when he was sent to the community by his then-employer, Council Speaker Christine Quinn. His job was to convey information to the Speaker and help coordinate emergency services to our ravaged neighborhood. He quickly became well known, especially to residents of the Red Hook Houses during their month long struggle without heat, hot water and electricity. He was a presence at every community meeting and saw both the strong and weak points of the council. Seeing a huge gap, he personally put in long days and nights doing whatever he could to help the suffering.
Shortly thereafter, he decided to run for City Council himself. He put in the same long hours, and with help won a surprise victory in the September primary. In the space of less than a year he went from worker to manager.
There is no specific coursework to prepare for a City Council position. In the space of a few short months one goes from running a campaign to actually assuming power. It is a trial by fire. Menchaca’s campaign was based upon the perception that his opponent, incumbent Sara Gonzalez, was missing in action. During the first few month’s after the hurricane, it became said that Carlos was everywhere. Once in office, he made himself a presence throughout the district, which includes Sunset Park and parts of Windsor Terrace and Bay Ridge. He moved to Red Hook during the campaign, and eschewing cars and even public transportation, he has become a familiar figure getting around on his bicycle.
Menchaca has tread slowly during his on-the-job training. He first worked to make his mark among his fellow Councilmembers, becoming an important part of the Progressive Caucus, becoming head of the Immigration Committee, heading a citywide initiative for municipal ID cards. He marched in parades with his mentors Nydia Velazquez and Brad Lander – especially ones that highlighted his advocacy of LGBT and Mexican-American rights.
It happened that Menchaca came into office with a legacy of projects funded by his predecessor. The first was the Participatory Budgeting initiative. This is a voluntary program that morean more members of the Council are taking part in. A councilmember can set aside a portion of their discretionary budget for programs chosen by the community in a democratic process that includes voting. Gonzalez had set aside $2 million of her 2013/14 budget. Carlos took this over and has made this an important part of his governing agenda. This past year, the local projects funded include a community garden behind the library and computer and air conditioning upgrades for PS 15.
The next legacy project was the Coffey Park renovation. Park users woke up one day last April to find the northern portion of the park fenced off. Close observers might have noticed a few sheets of paper explaining that the park would be under renovation and closed for a year. Sara Gonzelez had funded this a few years ago, but Sandy had delayed its implementation.
At a subsequent meeting of the Parks Committee of Community Board 6, Marty Mahr from Parks made a quick presentation of the renovation plans. The only Red Hook representatives at the meeting were Allison Reeves and a Star-Revue reporter. When it was pointed out that the community might have wanted to have some say in the renovation plans, Mahr called the lack of communication something that must have “slipped through the cracks.” Reeves made a few comments as to the positioning of proposed new barbecue pits, and Mahr made a few quick scribbles on the poster he brought to the presentation and said no problem.
The park remains closed, and except for the change in location of a few pits, the renovation proceeds according to the Parks Department plans. These plans include the removal of the paving stones that were in the park paths, to be replaced with cheaper asphalt.
A repeat of the Coffey Park surprise occurred in August. Without any notice, fencing was put up around Valentino Pier Park. This time, the outrage reached Menchaca’s office, and he quickly arranged for a town meeting at the library. He brought together principals of the Park Department, the Community Board and concerned local residents. Parks apologized for once again acting unilaterally, and then proceeded with a lengthy explanation of their plans. Repaving the gravel paths and preventation maintenance of the retaining wall had somehow out of a desire to fix the water fountain. Brooklyn Parks Commissioner Kevin Jeffrey patiently answered all questions as Marty Mahr looked on, uttering not a word.
At a subsequent meeting, publicized only on Menchaca’s web page and not attended by the Star-Revue, Menchaca explained that he heard both the community and the Parks Department, and had given his approval to Parks for this park work. Many agreed that the preventive work was not a bad idea, but some in the community still feel that the park is perfect and needs no change at all.
At the library meeting, Parks announced that another project involving the park was at the beginning stages. Some residents had written to Councilwoman Gonzalez requesting bathrooms for the park. In her last budget, she followed through and allocated $1.7 for a comfort station to be built and manned by the Parks Department. Upgraded FEMA requirements following Sandy raised the cost a half million more, which was quickly provided by the Councilman and the Borough President. It should be pointed out that this newspaper, nor evidently many in the community, were notified at the time, of the increased funding regarding the bathroom project. It seemed to come as a complete surprise to most everyone.
In any case, the bathrooms were on the agenda of a September 17 CB 6 Parks meeting, held in the basement of the Miccio Center. This time many Red Hookers showed up. What they saw was a presentation by the Parks architect Kevin Quinn and another architect who had won a design competition of some sort and prepared slides showing the proposed comfort station. The community did not react well to an oversized $2.4 million building to be created on a raised platform at the head of the park entrance on the Coffey Street side.
A petition was immediately circulated objecting to any reduction in green space. At a community meeting closed to local press, alternatives and a strategy were discussed. Finally, the local parks group announced the October 9th meeting to be held at PS 15.
Menchaca pointedly started the meeting precisely at 7 pm, and said it would end promptly at 8:30. The meeting began with a presentation of a revised plan, again presented by architect Quinn. By moving the park back towards Ferris Street, the need for such a large platform was reduced, and the park retains more contiguous space. Menchaca asked the audience for questions specific to this new proposal.
There was no shortage of questions. The residents who showed up filled about half the auditorium – about 75 in all including a decent sized press contingent, as well as Dan Wiley from Nydia Velazquez’s office, and Craig Hammerman and Leroy Branch, observing from CB 6. People were curious about cost, size and the necessity of building such a full featured facility, as opposed to simply a toilet or two. John McGettrick mentioned that he had spoken to Max of Estate4, who expressed a willingness to rent some bathroom space to the city in his building across the street.
Menchaca, limiting comments to two minutes each in order to hear from the greatest number of people, had some comments as well. He said that he had arranged for the money allocated to the comfort station to remain in Red Hook whether it was built or not. He would fold the money back into his Participatory Budget, restricted to use within Red Hook. He also announced at one point that he has the power to kill the project outright, which is true. After more than an hour discussing the parks plan, Menchaca allowed general comments, which were mostly people denouncing the whole idea of a comfort station. These populist statements were met with general applause. While most everyone seemed amenable to the idea of a bathroom or two, people were outraged by the scale and cost of what is, in effect, NYC Parks Department bathroom procedures.
Near the end of the meeting, Van Brunt Street resident Ann Griepenburg brought forward what perhaps was the most favored alternative – something called the Portland Loo. This is a fully functional toilet that costs under $100,000 and fits in a parking spot. According to Griepenburg, the loo offers the following features:
- Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
- Exterior handwashing stations serve pedestrians
- Cleaned twice daily in Portland to maintain cleanliness
- ADA-accessible; A bicycle or stroller easily fits inside
With such a small footprint, this could take the bathroom isue away from the domain of the parks department and into the domain of DOT, as it could easily sit in the little traveled foot of Coffey Street.
As the meeting ended, Menchaca announced that based upon what he saw as a clear consensus, he would make a decision within a week which he would email to all who filled out the sign-in sheet.
Afterwards, we emailed his office some questions. The answers are printed just below.
Q. You mentioned that there was a clear consensus coming out of last night’s meeting. Can you elaborate?
Last night’s meeting accomplished several things:
1. An open—and very telling—dialogue between community members and representatives of The Parks Department.
2. Some members of the community are actually open to a comfort station but have major concerns around size and cost of the original proposal. Many residents responded positively to the new location of the comfort station closer to Ferris Street.
3. The meeting proved that there is the possibility to have a respectful and productive community dialogue around an emotional issue, and that there is a real commitment to have a concurrent community process alongside the process that is legally mandated in relation to all Parks projects.
Q. What are the choices that you see the community has in regards to the park?
1. The first option would completely abandon the Parks Department’s currently drafted plan for a comfort station at Valentino Pier Park. As an addition to the termination option, I have made the commitment that the City Council dollars that were intended to be invested in this project would remain in Red Hook as part of our communities’ Participatory Budgeting Process and would be focused on open space projects that include—but are not limited to—parks.
2. The second option is that the project move forward taking into account the suggestions made by the community to decrease the size and costs associated of the project. I will continue to follow-up with the Parks Department to ensure that if indeed this option moves forward, they are taking seriously the communities’ questions/concerns, and making further changes to the plan.
Q. Do you expect the Parks Department to remain part of the eventual solution?
I expect that all stakeholders present last night, including the Parks Department, People for Red Hook Parks, the Community Board and residents will be part of this solution. This model of collaboratively moving toward solutions is what I hope to replicate as these conversations continue around this, and future projects, in the community
9 Comments
Hi George, my perception of the communities opinion regarding pavement in V. is very different from yours. At the first meeting in the Library, there was so much concern and so many questions that a second meeting was scheduled to continue the discussion.
45 plus people came to discuss pavement at Miccio.. instead we were told that the meeting was not a forum regarding pavement, instead a meeting to introduce a Comfort Station for the Park. Slides were projected, and the response to this building was overwhelmingly negative.
During the last meeting at the PS 15 – covered in this article, the community asked if changes in the size, design, location, etc could be considered to which all answers from the park’s department chief engineer were ‘no’.
Then a final vote with hands, out of a room of 75 people only three people raised their hands pro comfort station.
You, John Mc Gettric and Allison Reeves.
Myself, John McGettrick and George were the only three who raised our hands to SPEAK in support of a comfort station. There were many others who raised their hands in support of it when Carlos asked for a show of hands. I looked around during that vote and there were many raised hands, Paige Tooker’s included. She also later raised her hand against the station in another vote.
And just to clarify, no one, including myself, supports the comfort station as it is currently proposed: it’s still way too big and too expensive. If Parks comes back and says they can’t reduce the size, then I don’t want it either. But I do think that some sort of bathroom facility in the park would be an asset. The idea of having a bathroom facitlity in a nearby building or paid for by a developer is also worth considering.
In light of the current discussions, it seems appropriate to view recent experiences in Rockaway regarding Parks Dept. bathrooms and community resistance: $4 million pod structures and their precise beach locations created perhaps the most contentious post Sandy meeting that actually caused the Parks Dept. to hold back the installation of two of the thirty five pods. (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140304/rockaway-beach/price-tag-for-controversial-beach-shacks-increased-by-85m) The last two pods were just installed (last month), quietly whilst other boardwalk rebuilding work lumbers on. In my understanding from experiences interacting with the parks department, it seems that bathrooms/lifeguard stations are their instrument of bureaucratic, colonial imperialism where they invest enough money into structures that provide parks jobs allowing the parks department to increase its budget and employment base. From contact with Parks Department administrators, i have learned that the operation of public bathrooms and their maintenance is a high percentage of the “grade” they receive for their work. I have been told that the Parks Department earns a fee (a percentage as high as 30%) of all construction contracts/investments made on Parks Department property; this last detail, if fact, would suggest that the Parks Department benefits from the highest bidder on a contract?! The Parks Department’s manual is outdated and convoluted by its history of formation under Robert Moses and the back-lash that has been installed as an overlay covering the outdated logic. This Valentino Pier/ bathroom discussion seems very familiar after witnessing the Rockaway discussions and actions. I would suggest that the Parks Department is not concerned with popularity but mostly with growing their bureaucracy and balancing their books. Red Hook’s community of strong voices should push for a new process of interaction between community and Parks Department with the premise that our goal of making Valentino Pier better for everyone is shared rather than a point of contention.
As far as the DOT: they have managed to stay out of the public bathroom business for decades, i do not think they want that responsibility!
The idea of installing the bathrooms in the EST4TE FOUR property would not allow the Parks Department its fee (if that is fact).
Sadly, the Parks Department of NYC is in the bathroom business! In other words, their mandate is to build a bathroom so why don’t we push for an innovative outcome such as the beautiful and context sensitive bathrooms built at 30th Street on Rockaway Beach by WXY Architects (image at http://www.pinterest.com/pin/295337688037756786/)? If we are adding architecture and function into our park, and paying dearly, we should be proud of the end product (no pun intended!).
Thanks Aluson! Actually I voted firmly against this monstrosity .
Later people raised their hands and said in so many words that they might have voted for a small bathroom NOT a Comfort Station, but at that point it was clear that the Parks Department would not compromise.
Seems to me the Parks Department has certain guidelines which they must conform to, other than those things, they seem quite conciliatory. They have already shown a willingness to compromise by working up another plan for that meeting.
Thank Allison!
Actually I voted firmly against this monstrosity!
Well they did move the entire design 50 ‘ . The whole thing is laughable.
we posted the comment from David Selig on our Facebook page and got this interesting comment on it.
Ian Marvy While I am incredibly excited about the level of care and concern raised about this project and the activism in the community I find the letter from this reader incredibly off base, off putting and and frankly unproductive.
While the Parks Department could and should improve it’s community input process, as could all government agencies (a fact i believe most residents of Red Hook would agree too) we as residents of this community could and should improve our proactive engagement with our built environment, our natural environment, the government agencies that govern those spaces and the economy that supports or distorts our relationships to each other and the world. There are some facts that should be considered that might help motivate a more proactive approach.
First, per capita, Red Hook has more green space and more parks space than almost any other community in New York. Use by residents of the community is an issue that is complicated by many factors including but not limited to licensing of the parks to recreational leagues, lack of resources within the community, the nature of programming and others. We have the power to address these issues creatively and constructively.
Second, New York City Parks and Recreation is one of the most, if not most underfunded Parks department in the nation. Less than one percent of the City’s budget is allocated to support 5,000 parks properties. This fact encourages the development of public/private partnerships, the licensing of parks to leagues and the creation of private parks (which we have a number of). It also contributes to decay in the Parks. At one point there was a citywide campaign advocate for a change in this. Maybe this concept should be revived.
Third, the parks we have are incredible and by working together with Parks and Rec the citizens of Red Hook have helped improve and maintain them. Who remembers when all the green space in Coffey Park was inaccessible to the comity because of the iron fencing? Who remembers the positive and productive meetings that helped bring about the redesign that opened up all of the space. By working together with Parks this open space became the site for some of the first Red Hook Movies, off leash hours, and countless bbq’s and birthday parties and holiday celebrations. This is just one example of many others of how by working together we can create wins for our community and wins for the Parks department. Another powerful example of this kind of partnership is Red Hook Community Farm
Since being opened in the fall of 2003 the Farm has served as the platform for important social, economic, environmental. Health and wellness programs were developed, educational programs were created, and festival were had. Food grown on the Farm has been sold to market customers, CSA shareholders, and many of our local restaurants (and even bodega’s back in the day). Food has always been donated to those in need.
The Farm is Parks property. It is a place where a generation of students a PS 15 participated in a year round intensive science based program. It is a place where delicious, nutritious food is grown shared and consumed. It is a place where social, economic and environmental sustainable practices are demonstrated. The Farm is a place where seasons are celebrated and community is woven together.
As the founder and former Executive Director of Added Value I can say that none of joy you have felt there, none of the wonderful meals consumed, none of the important educational moments (nor the rebuilding of the farm) would have been possible without direct proactive engagement with the Parks department and their incredible support for the project.
I want to thank the current Borough Commissioner (and former City Wide Deputy Commisioner) Keven Jeffery, former Commissioner Adrian Benepe, former Borough Julius Speigel, the district managers past and present, the gardeners, and grounds crews and seasonal staff for all that they did to help make Red Hook Community Farm a reality and for all that they do each day to make our parks so wonderful.
A healthy balance, a tension must exist between the people and our government. When challenges exist we must react and there has been a growing discourse about the comfort station at Valentino (and I am grateful to those of you who have helped make that happen as I love the space just as it is). Our elected and appointed government has been responsive about the issue.
However in order to get the Parks we want, in order to increase access and use of the Parks by our friends and neighbors we will need to move from reaction and response. We will need to be more proactive and productive. We will need to seek out structural change, advocate for our Parks and those who work for them.
Unfortunately this article does note push us in that direction.
“However in order to get the Parks we want, in order to increase access and use of the Parks by our friends and neighbors we will need to move from reaction and response. We will need to be more proactive and productive. We will need to seek out structural change, advocate for our Parks and those who work for them.”
TO ME SOUNDS SIMILAR TO:
“Red Hook’s community of strong voices should push for a new process of interaction between community and Parks Department with the premise that our goal of making Valentino Pier better for everyone is shared rather than a point of contention.
If we are adding architecture and function into our park, and paying dearly, we should be proud of the end product”
to: Ian Marvy
We are on the same side of the discussion with a shared expectation of change; my view is less eloquent and lacking diplomacy.