Losing Local Parkland
Every year the New York State (NYS) Legislature passes bills to alienate local parkland. Alienation is the technical term for the taking of parkland for non-park use. The process for parkland alienation is outlined in a handbook by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) – not set in state law (unless the park was developed using state or federal funds). The current process involves the locality ask their local state representatives to pass a bill in the state legislature.
In the 2017 legislative session, there were 23 bills relating to parkland alienation, of which 16 passed both houses. Here are a few examples of legislation passed this session. The Town of Smithtown wanted to alienate 3,600 square feet of parkland for a cell phone tower for 25 years. If ever the property no longer has a cellphone tower, the land reverts back to parkland. It may seem minor but every time this happens, we lose another piece of parkland, and the more it happens, the more it adds up.
Another example this year takes place in Amherst, New York. The Town of Amherst wanted to alienate parkland currently part of the Audubon Recreation Complex, which is used as a storm water retention pond, so the town can build a hotel on it. The town board passed a resolution agreeing to work with a developer to build a hotel before the site had been alienated, rezoned or gone through environmental permitting. The Town Supervisor voiced concerns that building a hotel would create problems with the available sanitary sewer capacity. The replacement parkland is a wooded wetland between housing developments and is categorized as “passive parkland,” and public accessibility is suspect. Taking away parkland to push through imprudent development just doesn’t make sense.
Some alienations are controversial, like the pump station in Riverside Park in Schenectady. The current pump station handles up to 70 percent of Schenectady’s sewage and was damaged in 2011 during Hurricane Irene. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has a consent order with the City of Schenectady, to separate runoff water from sanitary sewage overflow, and a new pump station is necessary. Dozens of residents opposed the alienation and new building because of the impact on the nature of the park and views of the river. The City Council finally voted to approve the alienation and new pump station, with the caveat that a public hearing would be necessary before approving any plans and any unused land would be returned to the park. Alienation of parkland is not ideal, but neither is a pump station that can’t handle sewage.
Other parkland alienation threatens in the very near future. Just this past June, the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that the State Legislature must pass specific legislation to authorize development of a mall on 30 acres of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens. PTNY was amongst the organizations submitting an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief. Undeterred, Assemblyman Francisco Moya, who is running for New York City Council, already has plans for parkland alienation legislation, and wants to develop the land into affordable housing, and has also expressed interest in a soccer stadium.
Despite the myriad of reasons, one thing remains constant – localities are alienating parkland, meaning that they have decided to use the parkland for something other than public greenspace. If we don’t protect our greenspace, it will be taken away and developed. To address this problem, Parks & Trails New York has advocated for legislation to put the alienation process in state law, and require localities to meet certain requirements and report on whether they completed all requirements.