Dear Editor:
On Aug. 15, the City Council may approve changes to Church Square Park (CSP) which will significantly change what green and natural areas remain. In public meetings where several concept plans for major changes to CSP were presented, the majority of citizens commenting made clear that they were not in favor of transforming green and natural trees, grass, and open space to recreational zones, covered with artificial surfaces, caged in by high fences, and illuminated by numerous bright lights. Thanks to public protest, plans to cut down five trees within and around the basketball courts appear to have been abandoned. But the real problem is that it is still not clear what the final plan will be, due to conflicting descriptions given on the city website, by the Hoboken Reporter, and by involved City Council members.
Thus, as under the Roberts Administration, there is the possibility that citizens may in the near future enter CSP to find changes that they never heard of or had any opportunity to oppose.
This would be particularly tragic since, in proper response to the devastation of the northeast sector of CSP under the Roberts Administration (cutting down several large, old, and beautiful trees and elimination of grassy areas that were replaced with Astroturf and rubber surfaces), Councilpersons Cunningham and Zimmer sponsored, and the council passed, an ordinance requiring that no changes be made to parks without a proper public process requiring that (1.) the final plan be made available to citizens at least 30 days prior to a hearing on the final plan, and (2.) the hearing be held at least 30 days prior to a City Council hearing and resolution approving the changes.
Various concept plans were presented and public input solicited at several public meetings, but no final plan has been made available 30 days before a public hearing and 60 days before the Council hearing and approval resolution, as the law requires. Director Pellegrini has claimed that no such hearings and timeframe are necessary because their proposed changes do not fall within the law’s definition: “Any change in the recreation and conservation purpose or use of parkland”, and so may be done without following the law.
Several changes in the plan posted on the city’s website do fall within this definition, including transformation of grassland to a paved “reading area”, expansion of play areas, additional benches, recreational equipment, fencing, and lights, which cage in many areas eliminating the open and green feel of CSP.
I hope that Mayor Zimmer, Councilman Cunningham, and a majority of the council vote against changes to CSP unless and until complete and consistent information about the final plan is made available and the required public hearing and 60-day time period for public consideration and discourse occurs.
We need to not only respect what little green and natural park space we have, we also need to respect the legal process established to guarantee citizens their democratic right to have a say in the transformation of their green and historic parkland.
Dan Tumpson