“For years, Senator Connor has failed to muster the funds and political will to get [Brooklyn Bridge P]ark built. He has had ample opportunity to display leadership that delivers results and has not done so”        

--State Senate candidate Dan Squadron on Brooklyn Bridge Park 

“Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” 

--Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joe McCarthy 

Two years ago, State Senator Marty Connor survived a difficult primary by 55%-45%; most notable about the race was that Connor lost his home area of Brownstone Brooklyn by a stunning 62%-38% margin, mostly owing to his role in the controversial and misunderstood Brooklyn Bridge park project.

As I’ve noted in the past, this project has a long history, stemming from the desire of the Port Authority to divest itself of Piers 1-5, probably at least since the late seventies. At one time in the not-so-distant past it was the explicit intent of the Port Authority to sell these properties to the highest bidder with the likeliest consequence being the construction of high rise residential buildings and big box retail.

While it was the desire of many in the community to maintain the status quo (lightly used wasteland), it was clear that the only way to stop the worst from occurring was to propose an attractive alternative. Hence, the idea for Brooklyn Bridge Park was born.

However, it soon became clear that the City and State would be unwilling to consider the construction of a park of this size, unless it was self supporting. Hence the creation, by local elected officials (Marty Connor, Eileen Dugan, Abe Gerges, Steve Solarz and Howie Golden) and civic organizations, of "13 Guiding Principles" for a Park which would support itself by including just enough revenue creating activities.

Ironically, a movement driven by NIMBY had produced a vision, not merely to avoid what was not wanted, but to create something better: much needed greenspace for the Downtown Brooklyn communities. 
 
In 1993, the plan for a Park embodying these principles was officially endorsed by City government, largely through the assistance and insistence of Ed Towns, and the large shadow of an impending election.

But, for a while every time the community got the ear of the Mayor and Governor (Eileen Dugan having persuaded Mario Cuomo), democracy intervened and they were back at square one.

But in the mid-nineties, the visionary efforts by Marty Connor and Howie Golden to create the Brooklyn Bridge Park Local Development Corporation resulted in a public process which created a plan for the development of Brooklyn Bridge Park.  

The project got its most important jumpstart when Marty Connor used his muscle as Senate Minority Leader to obtain $2.7 million for a community planning process. The process produced a plan endorsed by most of the area’s civic leadership, although there were some who vigorously opposed the plan.

Then Connor managed to sell the plan to George Pataki, obtaining a whopping $85 million in Port Authority Funds to bring the project to fruition, AS WELL AS THE LAND ITSELF(Ken Fisher then obtained a smaller amount of City funding). Connor expended a considerable amount of political capital, at some considerable political risk.

It was clear to local observers, not all of them friendly, that Connor saw this project as his legacy.

But the poetry of the vision gave way to the hard prose of its implementation. And it would be foolish not to admit that the prose is far less pretty than the poetry.

This park is extremely costly. The environmental movement of the sixties and seventies yielded much needed legislation which has improved the water quality of the East River to such an extent that marine borers (but not their predators) have returned. These tiny worms love pier-wood more than Winnie the Pooh loves honey. Preserving the Piers is extremely costly, and even with such expenditures, the condition of the Piers does put limits on their usage.

As such, some of the wonderful things envisioned for the Park could not be in these plans, because of cost and other factors. More importantly, some of the less than wonderful things not envisioned for the Park had to be included, if there were to be a park at all.

Basically, only two things are capable of generating the necessary revenue, apartment buildings or big box retail. The Plan chose housing, encompassing less than 10% of the total proposed footage. Not such an awful sacrifice to facilitate the creation of a world-class park running from Atlantic Avenue to beyond the Manhattan Bridge.

But, there are those who have been deceived into thinking that further study will show that something else, something which will not attract traffic or otherwise impact upon the quality of life, will generate the necessary revenue. Essentially this is the argument of those whose goal is the perpetuation of the status quo for longer and longer periods of time.

Some, like the Joralelmon Street residents who opposed the original apartment-free plan by hanging banners on their home saying “Don’t tread on me” oppose any park at all, preferring not to play host to outsiders with different demographics.

Others, like the Working Families Party, are perfectly willing to impose a Starett City sized development in a less affluent area of Atlantic Avenue, but not in an area where some of their leaders might have theirs views blocked. Some, not without good reason, feel this is the wrong way to finance a new park, even though there aren’t any park projects of this scale being financed in any other manner these days.  

We won’t even talk about what impact future budget cuts would have on the park’s funding were it to rely on general revenue instead of being self-supporting, but no need to worry, because it ain’t happening.  

The most honest opponents of the plan have laid their cards on the table. Roy Sloane, a former President of the Cobble Hill Association said "There shall be a fair park, or no park at all." Lately they have taken to supporting eliminating the piers from the Park, leaving little  for the public beyond a narrow walkway.

But having gotten a taste of what a grand park would be like, the public is crying for more. Last year, a floating pool in the East River attracted capacity crowds; this year a Reader’s Digest version of what the future will bring on Pier One has attracted even more visitors. People might not want to pay the price for the Park, but they want the Park and they want it now.

Dan Squadron has assimilated both the opposition to the apartments and the yearning for green-space and wants it both ways. He will not join the intellectually honest opponents of development and support a downscaled park, but he also promises to oppose the development necessary to sustain the ambitious plans on the table.

In fact, a high official in the Brooklyn Heights Association told me that Squadron had already assured her he will support the current park plan. Essentially, Squadron has been telling members of the Brooklyn Heights elite, “my position is the same as Marty Connor, but I went to better schools, and Chuck chairs the Banking Committee.”     

This is a par for the course and nothing special; what is special is Squadron’s brazen attempt to use his piles of connection and Schumer driven cash to re-write history. THERE WOULD BE NO BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK WITHOUT MARTY CONNOR.

That is why the opponents of the Park plan hate Marty Connor so. Joan Millman, Nydia Velazquez and David Yassky (since his election) all have the exact same position on the Park as Connor, and surely, if Connor’s efforts are to be deemed inadequate, then their efforts must be deemed virtually non-existent in comparison (even though, in reality, they have all done some worthwhile work in bringing the Park to fruition).  By implication, Squadron must be attacking them as well.

Does Squadron have the cojones to say so? Danny, do you think Millman, Velazquez and Yassky have “failed to muster the funds and political will to get the park built”?  

And please understand, that if the park is not stopped, one day there will be a plaque, and likely a Pier, named in the memory of Marty Connor for his indispensable role in the creation of Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Mr. Squadron, you are low enough to do the limbo under a snake without scratching your belly. Is there no lie you  are incapable of spreading to further your ambition?   

DISCLOSURE: For weeks, Michael Bouldin has screamed bloody murder that I should reveal my "Conflict of Interest" concerning Marty Connor and Shelly Silver. And I actually came clean on Daily Gotham, and in a Rock Hackshaw thread on Room 8, for what it was worth. But, in the interest of heading off an avalanche, I’ll say it again.

The basis of my alleged "Pro-Silver" "conflict" (apparently manifested by my comparison of the Bullfrog to a benign tumor, rather than a malignant one) would seem to be that I once worked for an elected official whose turf overlapped Silver's. In my experience, this is a relationship as likely to lead to conflicts as to conflicts of interest. This was surely true in my case. During that time, I developed such a strong relationship with Silver's office that I am now on a list Judy Rapfogel keeps in her back pocket of people never to be hired by the Assembly Democrats. 

My crime here seems to be that I limit my sometimes quite harsh criticism of Silver to those crimes for which he actually bears guilt and refuse to go any further.

The basis of my Connor "conflict" is that I once worked for  Connor. This puts me in the same category as Kardon "KAS" Stolzman, who in 2006, managed Ken Diamondstone's campaign against Connor. Scott McClellan worked for Dubya and no one seems to think it disqualifies him from commenting. In fact, it is the one and only reason we have for listening to him at all.  

Anyway, the last year I was employed by Connor was 2002. This was back in the era when Steve Harrison was sending checks to the Joe Bruno’s candidates, so one would think Bouldin would deem it ancient history. As far as I know, the last time any member of my family, even broadly defined, drew a check from Connor or his campaign committee was in 2004. If it has happened since, I am not aware of it.

One will notice that in the 2006 election cycle, Gatemouth made only rare references to Connor. Gary Tilzer (I think), blogging anonymously, actually used the fact that such utterances were rare as another example of my perfidy. In his estimation, I was not to be trusted because I refused to comment about my friends. But, it's been a long time since Marty Connor's put money in my purse. Surely, the statute of limitations in politics, which is defined by "What have you done for me, lately", has long since passed. 

But surely, anyone coming to places like Room 8 looking for objectivity deserves whatever they get.