Washington Sq.: Fact vs. fiction

To The Editor:
Re “Balancing interests in Washington Sq.’s renovation” (talking point, by Michael Haberman and Aubrey Lees, Feb. 9):

We are amused, but somewhat confused, by the recent talking point in The Villager regarding plans for the renovation of Washington Sq. Park. For one thing, until the design was unveiled at the Community Board 2 Parks Committee meeting on Feb. 2, Ms. Lees and Mr. Haberman had carefully referred to the project as a “refurbishment.” Now with “the cat out of the bag,” they are suddenly calling it a “renovation,” which is exactly what the community has suspected was in the works all along.

Did we attend the same meeting? Statements in the talking point, such as, “…virtually everyone agreed that the fountain should be restored, centered with the Arch and raised to ground level” and others, like the one claiming that “the removal of paths met with general approval,” are nothing but fiction. In fact, after the design presentation, the many dog owners in attendance were given the floor and one by one they expressed disapproval with plans for the dog runs. The remaining time allowed concerned questions about playgrounds, the mounds, the proposed fencing that will enclose the park, etc. These were abruptly disrupted when Ms. Lees shut the meeting down.

Kudos to The Villager for putting the results of Jonathan Greenberg’s survey on the same page as the inaccurate characterization. How hard it is to understand that in a community board district with less recreation space than any other in the New York, residents do not want the only park in the Central Village turned into a viewing garden surrounded by a fence. The survey concludes that the majority of community members “…would rather simply repave the park and fix restrooms than fix what isn’t broken.”

We have urged Manhattan Borough Parks Commissioner Castro on a number of occasions to consider correcting drainage problems in the fountain area, to repave the park, provide new lighting and continue to add to the landscaping that has recently been done. Having heard the community speak, we support the retention of the very things that local residents have fought for over the years, including playgrounds and dog runs (in either their current locations or other areas of the park that are acceptable to those who use them).

What we object to is the closing of whole sections of the park for extended periods of time that will result in the alteration of the park’s entire landscape, and at great expense. Moreover, we believe it is imprudent to spend these funds when adequate funding for long-term maintenance is uncertain.

We urge people in the community who, unlike the dog run users, lack the advantage of a place to post meeting notices in a space they use daily, to follow this issue closely and carefully through Community Board 2 and the landmarks process. Without your participation, you may head for a walk in our historic park one of these days and discover you have been locked out and can only “enjoy” it by walking its perimeter.

Howard Negrin
Susan Goren
Negrin and Goren are members, Washington Pl. Block Association