On January 8, 2009, Bronx Parks Commissioner Hector Aponte and designers for the Parks Department presented plans for the first phase of their plan to improve the parkland around the Jerome Park Reservoir. (This is being done with money given the Parks Department in compensation for the theft of parkland in Van Cortlandt for the filtration plant.)
What follows, from my limited notes of the meeting and my memory a day later, is my best effort to explain what they presented. Others who were present who read this are invited to correct or fill out this story by commenting on it. Other readers should feel free to use the comment function to ask questions or state opinions about any of it.
At the meeting, we encouraged the Parks Department to post the designs they showed us. If they do that, we will let you know. We may also be able to post some PDFs of it here, so check back.
Aponte and Faisal Choudury, who heads the design unit, first explained why they are focusing first on the north and west sections of the park. The DEP is planning some significant work on Goulden Avenue over the next 3-4 years, and they do not want to make improvements there that will be destroyed by the DEP. Negotiations with Lehman College over access to the areas around their parking lot have been lengthy, and the Parks people felt that other work could be finished while those conversations proceed. On the southern edge of the reservoir, the area between the fence and the street is so narrow that there seemed little room to make a jogging path, and so that didn’t seem the best place to start.
The overall plan is to make a jogging path around the reservoir and through Fort Independence Park (actually restoring the one that exists there), to address erosion, and to otherwise beautify the area. The designers showed us how, in the grassy area between the reservoir and the sidewalk on Sedgwick Avenue, they would build a 4-5 foot wide jogging path of stone screening. (I do not know exactly what stone screening is, but I am told it is a water permeable surface that is better for runners to run on). It meanders away from the sidewalk in certain areas to allow existing trees to continue growing. Along the way, they would plant shrubs (drought and shade resistant shrubs) and plant trees where there are gaps in the pattern of street trees.
In Fort Indy, the plan is for the path to make two loops around the area that is now a large dog run (more on this in a minute), and then go to the entrance near 95, and loop around again. This would allow someone who wanted to run a shorter loop to run a ¼ mile within Fort Indy itself.
About the dog run: the designers set out to make the dog run smaller, and make some of that large area available for other uses. Hence, on the eastern half of what is now the large dog run, there will be two dog runs, one for small to medium dogs, and one for medium to large dogs. The rest of the area will be a lawn and sitting area (including the hill where the bench is). As I said before, the design we saw has this area cut up by a looping running track. (There was quite a lot of discussion at the meeting as to whether this was really the best way to use this space).
To deal with the very serious erosion in Fort Independence Park, the designers plan to use a “vegetative swale” to plant in that area and create root systems that will hold the soil.
Also, the plan includes 8-10 pieces of exercise equipment, to be placed near the basketball courts.
DEP also attended the meeting. Nicole Torres announced that the DEP would engage in a 9 month study to “reconsider public access to the reservoir.” A designer contracted by DEP then showed their plans to restore the 5 gatehouses around the reservoir.
Some of the comments raised by people at the meeting:
Ann Marie Garti suggested not building the jogging path, and instead using that money to beautify the area on Goulden Avenue. (Garti and Parks discussed at some length where exactly DEP would be working, and whether it would be practical to do improvements there before DEP was finished).
Joe Cohen said designers hadn’t taken into account the people living next to the park, and asked that the dog run be moved. (Aponte pointed out that if the dog run were not in the park, dogs would be allowed throughout the park, and could be off leash in the park between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.)
Lynn Schwartz reminded Aponte of the need to replace the temporary double chain link fence next to the handball courts with a taller single fence at the park border (the extra fence was hastily installed to prevent knuckleheads from throwing bricks into the parking lot below the park). (Aponte said they would do that).
In response to a question, Aponte said most of the park would be open throughout construction, since only parts of the park would be under construction.
In response to a question from someone from the Bronx Science PTA, Aponte said DEP would have to restore the area near Gatehouse 5 when they are finished with their construction, and he hoped to be able to get them to continue the path around the reservoir.
Dart Westphal pointed out that the field which became the dog run was originally won back from the DEP for a field for kids, not for a dog run. The new proposal does not create a flat space large enough for a casual ball game, and Dart argued that it should be redesigned to allow that, as there is no nearby field.
Assemblyman Dinowitz asked whether Bronx parks are getting any capital money other than the filtration money. (Here Aponte’s answer requires some follow-up. He noted that there is $40 million for Soundview Park, and $60 million for the High Bridge. He also said Parks does not have a capital budget, they have the money that they get from council members. When the MOU was signed in 2004, I remember looking at a few years of Parks capital expenses and wondering whether the money from DEP would be used to supplement or replace the amount Parks usually spent on Bronx parks, however it was obtained. Wonder how those numbers look now?)
In response to a question from me, Hector Aponte said that Parks personnel would clean and maintain the things they build – so they would clean the jogging path, but would not therefore take responsibility for cleaning all the DEP property along Sedgwick Avenue between the reservoir fence and the street. (I probably don’t have to tell anyone who’d be looking at this site, but DEP does not frequently clean its property).
The designers may amend their plans because of things we said. The Design Commission will consider the proposal at its February 12th meeting, which is open to the public. This meeting is open to the public, and we will post info on it on this site.
This is an accurate description of the meeting. I did add that the request for a running path around the reservoir is one of CB8’s priorities for 20-30 years back. The discussion with the CB and the DEP about cleaning the perimeter dates back as far and was the first time we were instructed about the importance of the Leventhal Memorandum (an explanation of who does what in a multi-agency task such as Sanitation cleaning the area, Parks cutting the grass, and the DEP, well doing what they do best ………………..).
[…] Community Board 8 Parks Committee held a meeting on January 8. Details of this meeting are at the Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Improvement Association (FIPNA) site at: http://www.fipna.org/2009/01/10/park-improvements-at-fort-independence-park-and-around-the-reservoir… […]
some members of the bedford park community are still upset at how after 25 years, they still cant get it right
jerome park resevior should be a clean and open space for ALL communities-not some
it is a misjustice if i am reading this right that;
1- there are NO capital Park monies to help?
2- no baseball field for children
3- how can you make a plan to improve when the Parks & DEP are still exploring “open space” for the community.
i am a 30 year community board 7 resident who jogs jerome park daily. while i am happy that there will be improvements on 2 sides of the resevior, i am sad that the other 2 sides will be destroyed. so, its a neighborhood vs neighborhood fight? hmmmmmmmmm
i remember many enviosing this years ago
Anthony ….. this is just the recreational pathway that the Parks Department is proposing. They stated that they would maintain the new areas along Sedgwick that they are creating (in addition to upgrading the existing jogging path in FIP). They do proposed to expand the field like area for children (as there is no real place for a full field). The plan is for the full perimeter of the reservoir, it is just not enough money. As you know, the $200 million had to go to other places so they could get the vote, and so our community lost again!
Parks said they will do more for the eastern side of the reservoir when the DEP finishes up making a mess (which makes sense) on other projects. Not only is the DEP working on the valves and chambers across from Bronx Science, but they have to upgrade the five gate houses! No one knows how long this work with take (but there sure is time for planning meetings with the community in the mean time, right?) “Open space” inside the fence is still under discussion by the DEP.
However, it is not neighborhood vs neighborhood as you stated. It is just a limited amount of money that is already four years late on getting started, and when they finish up doing all the DEP work underground, above ground and demolishing, then new ideas can come forward … including green open space and the Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab (OUEL) on the public side of the fence.
Stay Tuned!
No matter what …. the DEP knows that WE ARE HERE and WE ARE WATCHING ….
The $4.5 million for the Jerome Park Pathway could be allocated more equitable right now. That would mean that the western half of the reservoir would have to give up some of its improvements and share the money.
Parks will not have more money to spend on the eastern side of the reservoir when the DEP is done with its construction because Parks is spending all $4.5 million on the western side of the reservoir in the current plan.
Regarding the eastern edge of the reservoir: the DEP is only working in the southern half of Harris Park Annex, and Parks could improve the 2-3 acres north of where the DEP is working. This improvement will not be destroyed by DEP construction because the DEP has already completed the tunnel from the filter plant to the reservoir.
However this would mean the western half of the reservoir would get a little less improvement, so that the eastern half would get some improvement. Apparently the Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association doesn’t want to share the money.
I, as president of the Jerome Park Conservancy, got this money allocated through then Assemblyman Jeff Klein. It was meant for the Conservancy, not FIPNA.
The Jerome Park Conservancy’s plan has always had the running track inside of the DEP’s security fence, and the Conservancy agreed as a group to these designs.
Some people are simply promoting their own plans now, to serve certain neighborhoods. It’s just not fair.
Good Afternoon Karen
I will not comment much further as I sadly was not at the scheduled meeting this week at CB8. Sce then however, i have received a number of reports. I will just go by this thread as informational.
Firstly, I am glad your well and active and secondly, the neighborhood misses you.
Secondly, let me give a big shout out to Margret for posting her report and to everyone involved in the association for doing what they do best-staying active!
I do have some thoughts though!
1-As you say, is there any “allocated monies already in place” for the re-doing of the eastern side” of the reservior or is all of the filtration money going to Fort Indep Park? could you clarify? I get the sense from the comments above that there is not?
2- I am glad that there will be an expansion of a children playing ground. With birth rates in the area so high, Dart is right, as it only makes sense!
3- Of course as you may know, I write a community column for The Bronx News newspaper. I intend on getting the minutes to the meeting and provide Bronx Readers with additional info. Can I use your website as a neighborhood resource?
Anne Marie, the Parks Commissioner was clear that the DEP would have to do work along the eastern side when their permit expires — in about three years.
Stop trying to make this one neighborhood against the other. The plan is for the WHOLE reservoir. Schematics will be uploaded.
Anthony, Thanks for your comments. You are welcome to link FIPNA as a neighborhood resource.
There was no budget presented on the cost of the work. Since you are a runner, you know the area. The jogging trail will start at Sedgwick Avenue at Reservoir Avenue and continue through the Fort Independence Park to Sedgwick until Goulden Avenue. You may have missed the old jogging trail in FIP as it was eroded away as you go toward 95, but it was there since 1987.
Anyone who runs or walks around the reservoir, uses the blacktop path in Fort Independence Park to get to Sedgwick at Giles Place. It is a well-known fact. Another well known fact is that the community has been asking for a running pathway around Jerome Park Reservoir since the time I was the Chair of Community Board 7 — and that was in the early 1980s.
While there is no budget for the other side, there are avenues available for funding, including the statement by the Parks Commissioner that the permit requires the DEP to restore the parkland. As far as I can remember, that permit was originally given in the 80’s, so they have a lot to make up.
Finally, this project is four years in the waiting. Continued discord will only delay any progress and the original $5 million will become less and less as the years go on.
/Karen
I agree that the DEP has had a construction permit for Harris Park Annex since the mid 1980s. But that does not mean that they still need the whole strip for the work that remains to be done.
The Parks Department is talking about the DEP’s current permit, not their construction plans. Since Parks spoke to DEP (1 1/2 to 2 years ago?), the DEP has completed the tunnel work.
I agree that there is a plan for the whole reservoir but the ONLY PART THAT IS BEING FUNDED adjoins Sedgwick Ave, along the western edge. There is no more money for any other projects in the future.
The plan by the Parks Department is only for the area outside of the DEP’s security fence, while the Conservancy’s plan is for the whole reservoir, inside and out of the fence.
Since the DEP is currently reconsidering public access, and has hired a consultant to study it, it would seem that the Conservancy’s plan may be more current than the one done for the Parks Department.
Anne Marie,
Some of these are questions for the DEP at the next FMC meeting. They are NOT finished with the tunnel work as they are building a Valve and Meter Chamber across from Bronx Science and, no one asked them what kind of work space they need for the Gate House rehabilitation.
But there should be room where the Demo Plant is to create the OUEL, and that is a park that was on the permit since the early 1980’s.
As for the DEP allowing access inside the park, I was thinking that the extension they asked for was in the end of May and nine months would bring us to February, Now that will not be resolved until another nine months, which means September. More than likely it will be postponed again until after the election so December …….and so it goes on and on………..
We don’t want to loose our funding …….to some other project that will be needing more money.
I’m not proposing that we wait to spend the money. I’m just suggesting that since the DEP’s work is now focused in the few acres north and south of gatehouse 5, near 205th Street, that the northern portion of Harris Park Annex could be improved with the current funds.
I also have an idea about how we could do some minor improvements at the south end of the reservoir as well – without a jogging path.
The DEP’s construction permit only requires that they restore Harris Park Annex when they are done. They are not required to improve it. That means they’ll spread some seed and plant a few trees.
And as you know, the $4.5 million was allocated by legislation for a recreational pathway at the Jerome Park Reservoir and cannot be used for other projects. We will not lose the money.
We should do it right.
Anthony,
For a look at the full project, go to http://www.waterblogged.org where you will find a jpg of the schematic and the pdf. I will post more later.
I forgot – The tunnel is completed.
The valve chamber and shaft that are now under construction are part of an entirely separate project.
i could not find the schmantics karen but i did find the mou and courtesy of the website, the 2004 allocations of the water filtration monies (when i see it in its entity i get sick), it says than $5million should be used as a recrentational pathway. I do not know if Anne is right or wrong when she says she got it allocated for “inside” the reservior but whether inside or not-it should benefit the whole parkway.If this plan does not include western side improvements then this plan is not neighborhood friendly. If it is about doing one side first, before the other, to start improvements TODAY, then take the $5million, divide by the 4 sides, for at least, a foundation of both equity and improvements. The $2.5 million should be held in some “Parks escrow” account to ensure future funding NOW. if we wait 3 years, it will never be there and the divisions of the neighborhood greater (just one man’s opinion)
“Anne Marie”,
You said “The Jerome Park Conservancy’s plan has always had the running track inside of the DEP’s security fence, and the Conservancy agreed as a group to these designs.”
I would like to know how many community residents agree with this plan?
Will the DEP allow everyone access “inside the fence” 24 hours a day?
Do we have to go through security checks just to get “inside the fence” and go jogging?
What good is giving the community as a whole a recreational pathway that will not have totally free access?
It seems to me that you have one goal and only one goal which is the “inside the fence” design that you keep mentioning over and over again. If this takes years to come to fruition or maybe doesn’t even happen, what’s the point? If there is money there now and the Parks Department is willing to make a pathway for everyone to use why wait for a plan that may never happen?
Also as a community we have been burned by DEP so many times that to wait for a consultant of theirs to tell us that the plan is not feasible, well it’s just not to the benefit of ALL involved.
These are just my thoughts on this subject and do not represent FIPNA as a group.
-Phil
Good points Anthony. You can find a PDF of the schematics here: Parks Master Plan
You can also see the smaller image of it here: Parks Master Plan – Image
I am attaching the image here as well:
-Phil
Anthony,
We did not design the park.
The Parks Department said they could not work on the north area to the east because the DEP has a permit for this area and their work may end up ruining whatever Parks did.
Parks could not work on the south area to the east because they could not get Lehman College to remove their Parking lots (and I guess relocate the school?).
Parks could not plan to work on the south side along Reservoir Avenue because the NYC DOT said the sidewalk is not big enough for a pathway.
So there you have it. Why would we disagree with a plan to do something?
As Phil, I am not representing the point of view of any organization, only my own.
Thank You Phil
the map is invaluable!
and again, if i read some of these comments right, it sounds like, for many other reasons, 9some good some bad) that the only feasible place to work now is on the Ft Ind side because the other sites are either too small, too much construction or that a parking lot is already in the way.
Even if this is true, the $5million allocated to the pathway, which should be in its entity, should be partically earmarked NOW, to ensure FULL improvments. If we do not, only more neighborhood fighting will begin.
Sad, what came about in 1984 as a Federal Mandate worked!. Confuse & Divide the neighborhoods!. With Norwood & Woodlawn partially destoyed, now it is time to pit Bedfor Park Vs ft indep, once again, for the sake of public policy. Sadder is that 100 year old communities now fighting against each other in the last 20 years while trying to represent their neighborhoods. Most noteably, $5million is only 2%. 2%? we are fighting over 2%? OK, maybe I should follow Karen’s lead. Although I love this neighborhood so much, it might be time to move, before i do not recogize the one i fell in love with in 1979.
Phil, These are good questions and I will do my best to answer them.
1. Q. “I would like to know how many community residents agree with this plan?”
A. When the JPC was developing its plan for a park at JPR, it intentionally included leaders from most of the organizations, housing complexes, schools, etc. from around the reservoir. These people were supposed to gather input from their respective constituents. In addition we, and our designer, Gail wittwer, held a series of small and large public meetings to discuss the plan. We took this process very seriously, raised money, and developed consensus over a few years before we agreed upon the basic design principles (which includes a running track at the edge of the water). So, the majority of the community agreed via their leaders. No one ever wrote to the Conservancy in disagreement, and thousands of people were involved in these meetings. (FYI – Karen Argenti represented FIPNA on the board, and she too agreed.)
2. Q. “Will the DEP allow everyone access “inside the fence” 24 hours a day?”
A. I do not know the answer until the DEP completes its review. If a lot of people feel that this is an important issue, then we can negotiate for it.
3. Q “Do we have to go through security checks just to get “inside the fence” and go jogging?”
same answer as 2. I do not know how much the DEP is reconsidering.
3. Q. “What good is giving the community as a whole a recreational pathway that will not have totally free access?”
A. Clearly you have never been inside the fence. It is MAGNIFICENT in there. You are next to 96 acres of blue water, all sparkling with light. It is inspirational.
4. Q “It seems to me that you have one goal and only one goal …If there is money there now and the Parks Department is willing to make a pathway for everyone to use why wait for a plan that may never happen?
A. This is not my goal, but the Conservancy’s goal. I am just trying to achieve what we all agreed to. I too think we should spend the money now outside the fence, but just not for a running track. The Conservancy never agreed to a running track outside the fence.
In design it is always good to have a master plan. We have a master plan and should build it in increments according to the guiding principles. The reservoir was probably first designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, and his work deserves the utmost respect.
I hope this helped answer your questions.
Anne Marie
Karen, This is in response to post #17 to Anthony.
The City knew, or should have known, all of these constraints in 2004 when they allocated the $5 million for the pathway. That’s why it has to be inside the fence to work.
Anne Marie
Anne Marie, In #20, you give the City too much credit. While someone told you it was going inside the fence, it never ever dawned on any one else. We all thought it was going outside since it was not enough money.
Karen
Karen, I think you’ve got it backwards.
There is enough money for a recreational pathway inside the fence because there are no obstructions there.
$4.5 million is not enough money for outside the fence because you have to move the Lehman facilities.
Nor is there a way to have a view of the water from outside the fence because the berm (the dam), and the parking lot are in the way.
Besides, we never had the pathway outside the fence, so when they agreed to a pathway based on the Conservancy’s plan, they were agreeing to inside the fence.
As you know, both the DEP and Parks actively participated in the Conservancy’s development, and sat on the board. They had seen the park plan countless times. Why, the DEP had even agreed to transfer all the land, from the water out, to the Parks Department.
Anne Marie
Anne Marie, As you know, the JPC Design Elements state that we would strive to create two paths around the reservoir: 1. a soft path that hugs the edge of the water – for running and walking, and 2. an asphalt path that will meander between the sidewalk and the water – for “wheels” (bicycles, roller blades, wheelchairs, baby carriages, etc.). We also referred to it as a “work in progress” knowing that some of the design elements would never come to fruition.
This current debate is only on the issue of which part of the design plan comes first.
We can not wait for a fence to come down. As you now know, the DEP wrote a secret memo to themselves stating that we were not going to be able to have access. They did this on the SAME day that they APPROVED the LIST OF PROJECTS! Therefore, they never intended to do, whatever you think they promised you.
I am going to upload some old JPC files for people to read.
/K
At an FMC meeting that I attended DEP would not allow public questions. They have never been open and upfront with any of us. If you actually believe that the DEP will be removing the outer security fence you have been mislead.
As far as running inside the fence, I am sure the water is beautiful at times, at others it is not so nice. This summer there was no water in the south side of the reservoir and all that was there was a low lying body of water that was murky and green. This same body of water brought millions of tiny bugs to our neighborhood. The DEP denied all of this and said there was nothing they could do about it.
Again, running inside might be nice as you say, however will it really be that nice running between 2 high fences? One is 8′ and the other 10′, won’t it feel like running in a jail yard?
Again these are just my thoughts!
/Phil
first Karen re #23, The Conservancy does not have a document called “work in progress.” We have a brochure called “Design For A New Urban Park – Jerome Park Reservoir – Jerome Park Conservancy.”
The DEP posted a lot of the Conservancy’s documents after I presented to them in June 2008. They are at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/croton.shtml
I never said we have to wait for the fence to come down.
I’d like to remind you of some of your comments to the CFMC in the past year. More than once you have said that the DEP has a direct connection from the aqueduct to the filter plant, and they could take the reservoir completely offline, and turn it all into a park.
It seems starnge that you were promoting a complete park at the CFMC meetings, and are obstructing it now that the DEP has said they are reconsidering public access.
and now Phil re # 24
The DEP did not set the rules for the CFMC, the whole committee did. The DEP is just one member.
I know their traits.
I never said we have to wait for the outer fence to come down. But it could.
The DEP is doing a lot of work on the Croton system, including the restorion of the “New Croton Aqueduct.” That’s why there’s no water in the reservoir. Once they are done with this work the water will be back.
As for the 2 fences. I think the inner fence can be replaced by a much lower, more aesthetic fence. That’s why I was asked to get a bid back in 2004.
Anne Marie
JPC materials can be found in the minutes of 6/19/08 meeting of the CFMC. The links are below.
The Conservancy’s materials start on page 46 of part 1. They include our postcard, brochure, newsletter.
The Conservancy’s Preservation Report is in Part 2 and 3.
The files are large and take a while to load.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton-6-19-08-part-1.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton-6-19-08-part-2.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton-6-19-08-part-3.pdf
Anne Marie
Anne Marie, The form was up on the internet from my old web page for Jerome Park. It was labeled a working document, because that is what it was. No one ever thought every detail of every word was going to happen. It was Design Elements; things could change.
There is also no disagreement between us on the park issue and on getting the DEP to give up on JPR. I have never changed my mind as to what I would like to see in the long run, but for now, it is time to let the city DO SOMETHING for Jerome Park Reservoir!
I am sure that a delay will just mean nothing for us. They do not have to spend the money on JPR; the city can do whatever they want. Just look at the list of projects: one of them is Macombs Dam Park — and they are not going to spend that money because that is Yankee Stadium! Or who knows, maybe they will put in a waterfall.
The point is that there was never any order as to what should go first, so as long as something is proposed and it is not a bad design, let’s fight bigger battles that loom before us.
I don’t know why you say I am obstructing something — I am only stating my point of view. I already explained discussing the access question in #10 — they are not going anyplace fast.
/Karen
well obviously everyone needs to be commended for their activity on this site it is even more impressive that there is now linkage to information on this site. while it will take time to read all this information (and I will) , in laymans terms, i ask the same question (but this time a different way)
*what was the jpr allocation of the water filtration money?
*What is it supposed to be used for?
*was fort indy park part of this allocation process?
then the arguement(s) should flow from these questions:
my own view; firstly, the fact that jpr only received 2% of the allocation is inexcusible. secondly, i love jpr for so many reasons; the jogging, the view, the semantics, etc. if there are allocations for jpr and different sides (4) of the fences all need help in their areas then the money should be divided by 4.
While a parks eschow account is not best, a solution should be created for putting the money in their to ensure safekeeping. So with available monies and available grounding to be fixed now;
Yes, 25% of the monies should go to the fixing of ft indy park. a park i also love almost as much as jpr. while i live on mosholu and do not enjoy it as much as you guys do im sure, i enjoy running through it 3times a week, and yes, in short, it needs help, now!
i would truly hope one day we can achieve the regoins of a open space water plane-that i enjoyed so much hanging out in 30 years ago
Be sure to check out the newer link on FIPNA: http://www.fipna.org/2009/01/11/jerome-park-conservancy-jpc-for-the-jerome-park-reservoir/
And most of the schematics (not including the existing condition maps) are located here on WATERBLOGGED: http://www.waterblogged.org/schematic-8-9-the-southside-along-reservoir-avenue/
[…] In addition to reading our blog with photo’s and attachments, you will find a very interesting dialogue on FIPNA at: http://www.fipna.org/2009/01/10/park-improvements-at-fort-independence-park-and-around-the-reservoir… […]
I’d like to thank Jeff Klein for allocating these funds to the Jerome Park community, and I hope he can help us get the reservoir opened up to the public again.
…
Riverdale Press
January 15, 2009
Jerome Park redux
Nick Judd
State Sen. Jeff Klein may revisit the fight over Jerome Park Reservoir.
Local advocates are engaged in a vigorous debate over what to do now that the city Department of Parks and Recreation has announced it’s ready to go forward with a plan to clean up the park.
Longtime Fort Independence Park leader Karen Argenti and fellow Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association leader Phil McDonnell want to take Parks’ proposed $4.5-million plan for a public pathway around the Jerome Park Reservoir before inflation lowers the allocation’s worth.
But Anne Marie Garti of Jerome Park Conservancy wants to keep pushing for more money. She says the allocation was supposed to pay for a pathway around the entire reservoir, but Parks officials say they can only realistically work on the northern and western edges. The proposed plan also puts the pathway outside the reservoir fence, another thing Ms. Garti doesn’t like.
When Mr. Klein held the Assembly seat Naomi Rivera now sits in, he was the chief procurer of that $4.5 million for the reservoir.
“I mean first of all the Jerome Park Reservoir is a beautiful park, and it should be used by the community just the same way Central Park is used as a running track,” Mr. Klein said when asked to weigh in on the issue.
He said he would review the memorandum of understanding that outlines what the money should be used for, and may reach out to DEP.
http://www.riverdalepress.com/printfull.php?sid=7271¤t_edition=2009-01-15
i was at the FMC yesterday and in my opinion many crazy (some wonderful) happened:
1- Karen & Lynn-DEP Parking Lot.you guys were scheduled to make a report-and neither of you were there. there was no explanation nor no substitute. i hope everything is ok.
2- JPR was not even on their agenda. anne marie requested, and was appoved, to have a discussion about it.
3- One of THE DEP reps, “Mark” (a board member) was , in short, abomable!. we are residents here-some of us long term-but mark wants us to stay in our homes and be quiet as our discussions or particapation in these meetings disrupts the progress they are making ( I told Lyn Pyle who was at the meeting “At least you cant blame him for being honest about his stupidity”
4-In regards to Jobs and Commerce-the total effect is around 33% (in my view a lousy job)
5- There was representation from High School of Science & Lehman College. It was expressed that Lehman wants to help with the inclusion of the pathway and Science is concerned about both the current construction and future beautification
6- According to the construction report, it sounds like the beginning of the worst is starting in 3-5 weeks.
and other things
but i will say this in short, especially because of the posting above. it really might be best to discuss this issue with assemblyman klein and to wait to see if it is possible to have inclusion into the resevior. This way we might have a “people plan” with “political power”. as you might know, Senator Klein now is also 2nd in command of The Senate.
Fort Indepence Park needs priority attention. but so do all the surrounding residents! As a member of CB8 said a few times, it is 2.5 miles!
Anthony, Sorry we missed the meeting, but it did not seem to be anything on the agenda. Certainly if we knew we were on the agenda, we would have attended. I received a notice, but no agenda, so it would be impossible to know — and I can not believe I am going to say this — it would be impossible to know what the DEP is thinking. LOL
Anthony, why are you surprised by this “3- One of THE DEP reps, “Mark” (a board member) was , in short, abomable!. we are residents here-some of us long term-but mark wants us to stay in our homes and be quiet as our discussions or particapation in these meetings disrupts the progress they are making.”?
This is the way the DEP representatives have treated us always. There is nothing new here. I have not attended many of the FMC meetings but the ones I have attended where the DEP was there, we were not allowed to speak to them. It was like we were in class and had to raise our hand to speak but the teacher never called on us.
********************************
I READ THE NUMEROUS,COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE WITH IMPROVEMENTS FOR JEROME PARK…….AS YOU KNOW, TINA ARGENTI AND I FOUGHT LONG AND HARD FOR MANY YEARS TO GET IMPROVEMENTS IN JEROME PARK [PIGEONPARK] AND AROUND THE RESERVOIR…..EVERYONE SHOULD JUST STEP BACK AND TAKE A BREATH….. FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS WE FOUGHT WITH THE DEP TO STOP TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY…DEP HAS ONE THOUGHT IN MIND AND THAT IS TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE DEP AND SCREW THE COMMUNITY.THAT HAS BEEN THEIR MANTRA FOR YEARS…..YOU’VE BEEN THERE..YOU FOUGHT MANY OF THE FIGHTS WITH US…DID WE NOT HAVE ‘HANDS AROUND THE RESERVOIR’??? IF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS WILLING TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY WITH A JOGGING PATH AROUND THE RESERVOIR AND HAS THE MONEY.,GO FOR IT…I DO NOT TRUST THE DEP AS FAR AS I CAN SPIT……OUR ULTIMATE GOAL YEARS AGO WAS ALWAYS TO GET THAT PATHWAY AROUND THE RESERVOIR FIXED AND MAINTAINED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD UTILIZE IT. THE DEP NEVER DID ONE THING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO OR EVER DID MANY OF THE THINGS THEY WERE MANDATED TO DO…..IF THERE IS A CHOICE ON WHO DOES THE PROJECT AND WHO WILL FOLLOW THROUGH…GO WITH PARKS …THEY ALWAYS DID WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO SEE THE LIGHT ….DEP STINKS AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED AND IF IT WAS PUT TO A VOTE BY FORMER FIPNA BOARD MEMBERS.IT WOULD BE PARKS DEPARTMENT HANDS DOWN…..YOU NEED 2 DOG RUNS????? PEOPLE JOG, KIDS RIDE BIKES, PEOPLE ROLLERBLADE YOU NEED A VIABLE USABLE MAINTAINED PATHWAY AND IF PARKS WILL DO IT….AND THEY HAVE THE MONEY ..I SAY GO FOR IT.. GET IT IN WRITING AND STOP ALL THE BS ALREADY…..THIS IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED FOR YEARS…..AND THE OLD ADAGE REALLY DOES WORK HERE.. ” A BIRD IN THE HAND, IS WORTH TWO IN THE BUSH”…
Phil
I , like yourself, have been fighting with The DEP (in Norwood) since the transfer in 2002. While i have seen the DEP as non responsive before, this is the 1st time I saw high disregard for community respect. Even The Chairman had to remind DEP, “we must listen to all concerns, even if we do not like them”.
I thik the next and last step should be to get now Senator Klein activly involved . Also, i think it is time to highly publish this sad controversy (like The riverdale Press). In a few days, i will be picking up information (mostly from this blog) to do a story on the Bronx news newspaper. if anyone has any thoughts, please feel free to contact me. If anyone needs any help during the wonderful season we call Income Tax season, just go to the website linked here
Do you have a Financial Dream:
[EDITOR’S NOTE: No direct advertising allowed in comments, please see our posting rules]