BY LINCOLN ANDERSON | For the first time in eight years, there is a contested election for Community Board 2 chairperson. Three board members are running to succeed David Gruber as head of C.B. 2.
Following the board’s self-imposed term limits, Gruber will be stepping down after serving two one-year terms in a row. However, this year, extending Gruber’s last term by five months, the election was pushed back from June to November, which is when the board will hold its elections from now on.
C.B. 2 covers between W. 14th and Canal Sts., west of the Bowery / Fourth Ave. The area encompasses one of the city’s largest landmark districts, and sports among the city’s densest concentrations of nightlife and sidewalk cafes, plus includes some critical sites for the community’s future, namely, Pier 40, the St. John’s Center and the New York University superblocks.
The three chairperson candidates include Tobi Bergman, Bo Riccobono and Richard Stewart. The 50 volunteer members of C.B. 2 will vote at their full-board meeting on the evening of Thurs., Nov. 20, in the Scholastic Building, at 557 Broadway. The meeting starts at 6 p.m.
The board’s last contested chairperson race was back in 2006, when David Reck unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Maria Passannante Derr, who was re-elected to a second one-year term.
In something new for C.B. 2, Gruber decided on having a question-and-answer session at last month’s full-board meeting, during which the candidates responded to board members’ pre-written questions.
Bergman, though, had to answer a series of additional questions, posed only to him, about his special and unique relationship to Pier 40.
Bergman, who has served on C.B. 2 the longest of the three, is a leading Greenwich Village-area youth sports advocate. A former president of P3 (Pier Park & Playground Association), he has worked for years, first, to get athletic fields installed on Pier 40, then, once the fields were in place, to ensure that the crumbling pier itself is repaired, to preserve it as a youth sports mecca into the future.
Last year, Bergman led a new group called Pier 40 Champions — a coalition of Lower West Side youth sports leagues — in their pitch of a concept plan for building luxury residential towers in Hudson River Park at the foot of Pier 40, whose revenue would fund the pier’s repairs. But the plan failed for lack of political support.
Bergman has previously served as chairperson of the C.B. 2 Parks Committee, and currently chairs its Land Use and Business Development Committee. In his professional life, he previously worked for the city Parks Department.
Riccobono, the board’s first vice chairperson, is a leading member of N.Y.U. Faculty Against the Sexton Plan, the group spearheading the legal fight against the university’s South Village superblocks mega-development plan. He teaches as an adjunct at N.Y.U. and also owns some property, though not in C.B. 2.
Stewart co-chaired the board’s S.L.A. Licensing Committee for years before stepping down after announcing his plan to run for board chairperson. A fine-art collector, Stewart is also the Village’s Republican district leader — the lowest-level political elected office, which is unpaid. He is a former board president of One Fifth Ave.
Chairperson Q&A
During the Q&A on Oct. 23, the three candidates sat amicably, shoulder to shoulder at a table at the front of the meeting room as board member Shirley Smith moderated.
The first question was on business improvement districts, or BIDs.
“Some residential members of the community say BIDs exploit their position, and use their influence for businesses, not for residents,” Smith read from her question sheet.
Bergman, who lives in Hudson Square, noted that he sits on the Hudson Square Connections BID board as the C.B. 2 representative.
“I think we have had good experiences with BIDs in C.B. 2,” he said. “There are overly powerful and arrogant BIDs in some parts of the city. But the Village Alliance and Hudson Square BID, they’ve really worked well with us.” But he added, “The devil’s in the details. You have to stay on top of it.”
Stewart said, “I do believe BIDs have a place in the city, as they do around the U.S.” The key, he said, is to “just have a fair dialogue.”
For his part, Riccobono answered, “BIDs can be very effective. But the Soho BID, we were not very happy on how that turned out; it’s really a very small area on Broadway — but there is fear that they will try to expand. You do have to make residents feel represented — or it’s a very, very bad experience.”
On what basis would the candidates appoint the chairpersons of the board’s various committees? Smith asked.
Riccobono said it’s up to board members to make the case for why they should chair specific committees, and that he would look at their experience.
Stewart said he’d “watch out for conflict of interests.”
“Can they commit the time? We all know that the S.L.A. Committee is a lot of work,” Stewart said, referring to the committee that reviews liquor-license applications. “I think a committee chairperson has to have some proven leadership component.”
Bergman answered succinctly: “Length of service, expertise, willingness to put in the time…demonstrated collegiality and leadership.”
Smith’s next question: What would you, as board chairperson, decide on your own and what would you consult your fellow board members on?
Stewart said he didn’t think he’d ever be comfortable making decisions without input.
Riccobono referred to his novel “board restructuring” idea, under which, if elected, he would rely on the help of his first and second vice chairpersons “on a regular basis.”
“I think the chairperson should consult on all decisions, all issues,” Bergman stated.
A question of vision
Next came the “vision question”: Why are you running for election and how will your being chairperson benefit C.B. 2 and the community?
“I’ve been on the board 17 years,” Bergman answered. “It’s something I’ve enjoyed very much. I feel we accomplish a lot. I’m very, very optimistic about doing what we do. I would bring that optimism to issues.”
Stewart said that, during his 10 years on C.B. 2, he’s enjoyed feeling that he was always learning.
“There’s always some new issue to learn about,” he said. “My vision: three key words — consensus, collaboration and transparency.”
Riccobono said, “I’ve been first or second vice chairperson for the past 10 years and sort of in the shadows. I felt I gave good counsel. A key thing to do would be to open up paths to new leadership on the board.”
Next question: What do you think are the most important issues C.B. 2 will face in the next two years, and what will you do about them?
Riccobono mentioned gentrification, and said he supports state Senator Brad Hoylman’s proposal for a special tax on wealthy foreigners who own residential property in New York City.
“It alters the character of the Village,” he said, lamenting the loss of most of the area’s “quirky stores.”
Bergman said his priorities would include affordable housing in C.B. 2, supporting Hudson River Park and Pier 40, and parks in general.
“Parks are the place that community happens,” he noted.
Stewart said the big issues, in his view, would be Pier 40, the N.Y.U. 2031 mega-development plan, affordable housing, preserving the Elizabeth St. Garden as open space, and making the jobs of the board’s paid office-support staff easier.
Bergman and Pier 40
Then followed a series of questions specifically for Bergman concerning his relationship to Pier 40 over the years. He was asked to reveal how much money the nonprofit he formerly helmed, P3, received from C&K Partners, which previously ran the parking operation on Pier 40, and how long these payments went on for. Bergman answered that it was $5,000 a month, and spanned from 1997 to 2003, totaling $360,000.
As a result of these payments to P3, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board had ruled that Bergman had a conflict of interest when he voted on a redevelopment plan for Pier 40 proposed by C&K Partners, and thus should have recused himself from voting.
“I’m not going to challenge what the [COIB] ruling was,” Bergman told C.B. 2 during last month’s Q&A. “I paid the fine. …
“It was based on a court settlement,” he added of the monthly money funneled to P3. “C&K had to make the payments.”
He added that the cash “didn’t affect” how he voted on the competing Pier 40 plans back then “because essentially the vote was locked-in. … The vote involved was a unanimous vote.”
Air-rights transfers
In another question for Bergman, he was asked: As board chairperson, what would be your position on the transfer of air rights from Pier 40 to the St. John’s Building?
“I don’t know what my position would be yet,” he said, though adding, “I do think our elected officials provided a very good way to fund the park.”
(Under Hudson River Park legislation passed last year in Albany, profits from any development rights sold from Pier 40 would specifically have to be used for that pier’s renovation and maintenance. Earlier this year, the St. John’s Center’s owners signed a secret agreement with the state and the Hudson River Park Trust, pledging to buy $100 million worth of Pier 40’s unused development rights. The St. John’s project would have been done under a General Project Plan, or G.P.P., as opposed to a city-run Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. But the secret agreement — after finally coming to the attention of local politicians, who were outraged at the idea of a G.P.P. — was subsequently scrapped, and any project there will now be done under ULURP, which gives the City Council binding power to modify any development proposal.)
Bergman said that, in figuring out the mechanism of how the park development-rights transfers will actually be done, “there’s going to be a balance worked out of three things: the park, preservation and affordable housing.”
There were still more questions for Bergman regarding the massive, 14-acre W. Houston St. pier, including: As chairperson, would you be able to step away from your personal history with Pier 40 and do what’s best for the community?
“The board chairperson position is not to be an advocate for anything but the community,” he responded.
Another questioner — while calling Bergman’s advocacy for Pier 40 “admirable” — queried: Would it maybe be better to remain an advocate, and run for board chairperson later?
“No, that’s not the only issue I care about,” said Bergman. He has been active, for example, on other parks around the district and liquor-license applications, such as Greenhouse, among other things, in addition to his responsibilities as Land Use Committee chairperson.
’03 conflicts ruling
In a follow-up interview with The Villager, Bergman said he was fine with the extra questions on Oct. 23.
“I thought it was great,” he said.
As for the vote on Pier 40 that the Conflicts of Interest Board said he should have recused himself on, Bergman said it was actually two votes he cast — one as a then-member of the board’s Waterfront Committee and then one subsequently at the full-board meeting, approving the Waterfront Committee’s resolution.
This was all back in 2003. The Park Trust had put out a Request for Proposals, or R.F.P., for private developers’ proposals for Pier 40. The Trust was pushing for a plan that featured what would have been the world’s largest oceanarium — basically a supersized aquarium sporting a whale. But many park advocates were coalescing behind the C&K plan, which featured a rooftop “art garden” and a marine FedEx operation involving barges.
However, in hindsight, Bergman said, both rival plans were for “shopping malls at Pier 40. … We ended up supporting C&K because it wasn’t as bad.”
Bergman wouldn’t reveal to The Villager the amount of the fine he paid to COIB.
“Funds were mixed,” he said of the C&K payments to P3, along with its other monies. “We did extensive renovations of all our spaces on Pier 40. At the time, we managed the picnic house [on the finger pier at Pier 40’s southwest corner], which was open to the public for most of the year. We renovated the picnic house. We got $5,000 a month from C&K. We put a lot more into the spaces.”
Bergman stressed that he didn’t have a “business relationship” with C&K because the payments were court-ordered, and that he never stood to make money based on his votes.
Going back to how it all began, then-Governor Pataki had promised waterfront park advocates a 70,000-square-foot athletic field on Pier 40. It was expected this field would be located on one half of the pier’s huge indoor courtyard.
But the field that was ultimately provided in the late 1990s — on the southeast corner of Pier 40’s rooftop — was only 40,000 square feet. As part of a legal settlement, a 20,000-square-foot indoor soccer field on the pier was also subsequently “kicked in,” created in a refurbished space that formerly housed jail cells for the Department of Probation. Also part of the settlement were the payments to P3.
Air France Pier 40
In addition, separately, Bergman was flown to Paris on C&K’s dime so that he could offer advice to the architect working on the plan on how best to incorporate sports fields into it. Bergman explained to The Villager that he had “offered to be a resource” to any of the three developers who were proposing competing Pier 40 plans back then.
“The only one that took us up on that was Ben Korman [of C&K],” he said.
“This idea that I went there on a junket,” Bergman scoffed. “I arrived there on a Friday night, and I left there on a Sunday. P3 agreed Ben would pay for airfare and P3 would pay for the hotel and everything else. It’s not like I received something from this. All I received was going to Paris and meeting with an architect, which led to adding a ball field to the design.”
Ultimately, then-C.B. 2 Chairperson Aubrey Lees — alarmed that a big-box Lowe’s hardware store would be plopped down on Pier 40 as part of the C&K plan — abruptly slammed the brakes on the whole process, purged the Waterfront Committee and filled it with new members, and had the board redo its review of the competing plans for the pier.
In the end, the R.F.P. process sank. But in the aftermath, the Trust did create what it then called an “interim” sports field in Pier 40’s courtyard, which has since become a beloved family-friendly amenity that the community can’t conceive of losing.
As for how many of the 50 C.B. 2 members were actually on the board when all this happened back in 2003, it might be less than a dozen, or about one-quarter of the current board.
