AC Hotel proposed in Brooklyn seeks DDRB approval

[jaxlongtimer]

Are those private payments perpetual?   How are these payments calculated vs. the estimated costs of caring for the parks?  Is there a proforma budget? Are the payments adjusted for inflation?

For the critics of the City's upkeep, are we saying the private parties are going to not just fund the parks, but maintain them?  If the payments are just reimbursing City efforts, the City is still running the parks for those who lack confidence in their ability to properly do so.

What if there are differences of opinions on how the park is used, managed or maintained?  Who controls?

What if the private payer fails to deliver, goes out of business, changes the use of their property, sells to another party that fails to comply?  Can the City lien these payers for nonpayment?

What if the parks, over time, require more to maintain/replace/upgrade/modify than the private payers are obligated to pay, willing to support or if such changes increase future maintenance beyond the initial amount?

How about requiring these payments to be paid into a perpetual maintenance fund like cemeteries do so the funding isn't dependent on the future of the private payer?

How much of this is just developers boosting their incentive requests to enable these payments and to give cover to politicos for approving the incentives?  Effectively, just giving taxpayers back their own money.

In the end, we sacrifice riverfront to get some drop-in-the-bucket dollars that aren't going to move the needle very much.  And, no one can tell me we can't "activate" the parks and riverfront with buildings set back a block.  I have seen too many successful parks with buildings set back to believe that can't be done.

I don't see most of these questions answered in the public domain.  Maybe those who think this is the way to go can answer them  .

[Tacachale]

Pretty happy to see retail being added. This is why you plan to leave room for the  future.

[jaxoNOLE]

JLT, all really excellent questions that should be thoughtfully applied to both options. Similar due diligence on the other side of the argument would lead to a well-informed pro/con assessment of each path:

----------------------------

Is public funding perpetual?   How is that funding going to be allocated vs. the actual required costs of caring for the parks?  Is there a proforma budget? Will funding keep pace with inflation?

For the critics of the private funding, are we saying the City is going to not just adequately fund the parks, but adequately maintain them with those funds? 

What if there are differences of opinions from one administration or council to the next on how the park is used, managed or maintained? 

What if the City fails to deliver or encounters a funding crisis? Will the City raise taxes to fund an expansive park system when times are tight?

What if the parks, over time, require more to maintain/replace/upgrade/modify than the City initially obligated, is willing to support or if such changes increase future maintenance beyond the initial projections?

How about requiring dedicated tax revenues to be paid into a perpetual maintenance fund like cemeteries do so the funding isn't dependent on the future political whims of the party in power? Where do these incremental dedicated revenues come from absent a private development tie-in?

How much of this is just fancy renderings produced by expensive studies funded by politicos to generate excitement about amenities that will ultimately underwhelm once the lack of funding takes its toll? Effectively, just stringing taxpayers along.

In the end, we sacrifice any type of private investment and development to install a park the City underfunds from the get-go, potentially never gets completed, and is poorly maintained. 

[jaxlongtimer]

^ The answer maybe is a hybrid...  a portion of property taxes or other City revenue stream should be dedicated to parks just like we do for schools. Taxpayers would mostly be glad to pay up if they knew 100% went for parks and they could see the associated improvements and expansions.

And, there should be nonprofit "friends of the parks" to collect private monies and/or donate labor and time to supplement, enhance or take parks to a higher level of maintenance and engagement.  Friends adopting parks should be partners with the City in designing and managing them so everyone feels a connection and is invested in the best outcome for the community just like we ask families to support their kid's schools.  This is done in many cities but we just keep repeating the same thing over and over here.

Lastly, we should have a dedicated team from JSO, or otherwise, that is a "park police/ranger" force to provide security and to prevent vandalism and abuses such as littering, unauthorized activities, etc.  The savings in maintenance alone would go a long way to paying for such a force while greatly increasing public uses of the park system.  Imagine national parks without rangers... how bad that would be.  We need to learn such lessons.

[acme54321]

If the city wants to have world class parks they are going to need to be funded as such.  As of right now, COJ following up with that is laughable.  If they can work some sort of partnership with whoever develops that pad to specifically fund the park through taxes or whatever vehicle I'm all ears.

[marcuscnelson]

Imagine national parks without rangers... how bad that would be.  We need to learn such lessons.

Won't have to imagine for long.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/05/thousands-layoffs-hit-interior-national-parks-imminently/405145/

[thelakelander]

I guess we need access to NPS trees so we won't need lumber from Canada anymore!

[ChrisG]

Did the DDRB approve the plan and is the project proceeding?

[thelakelander]

Yes, they did get DDRB approval.

[ChrisG]

Thank you. I like the idea of the Liddy's Garage name. It was my families business for 91 years.

[Jankelope]

Regarding the funding on a recurring basis, there does need to be a guaranteed minimum standard of upkeep that is extremely high. I think the selling liquor/beer in those special cups is a really great start and has a lot of potential to help bridge the gap from "Standard upkeep" to world class.

I think another possible thing that could help is a half cent sales tax on food/beverage across the entire city limits of downtown specifically where 100% of the funds go to security, maintenance, upkeep of just the signature parks. (Riverfront Plaza, St. Johns River Park, Music Heritage Gardens, Shipyards West Park, RiversEdge Parks, Metropolitan Park. This could also apply to four seasons revenue for food & beverage.

[Tacachale]

Thank you. I like the idea of the Liddy's Garage name. It was my families business for 91 years.

That's so cool!