Answer To A Question

So I asked a stupid question last week and an emailer followed up with quickly with a wise reply.

What the hell does the mayor have to do with developing the NRA lots anyway?

The friendly email directed me to an article in The Daily News that I should have recalled. Within the article I found an answer, but I can't say I liked it. (You can also read a bit more on this in today's Daily News, which gave a nice preview to the NRA meeting tomorrow. I always appreciate when previews are run the day before, rather than the day of, an event.)

So, what influence does the mayor and city have on the lots since they waterfront seems to be tightly controlled by the NRA and the Waterfront Trust?

As far as the mayor's impact on the future of the central waterfront, [NRA Chairman Nat] Norton said the city does play an important role. He said there is a standing invitation to the mayor and the city's planning office to weigh in on the future of the waterfront.

"We welcome that contribution and insight the city's planning office can contribute," Norton said. "We are hoping for that to happen with whoever is mayor."

One important aspect for the waterfront is for action on parking in the downtown district, Norton said. He said "there hasn't been any activity in that area" even though it is "something that will influence" what the NRA can do on the waterfront.

"The one component of this that the city - the mayor, the Planning Office, the City Council - can influence is some sort of parking management plan for the city and replacing the parking that is going to be displaced on the waterfront," Norton said. "If that parking is truly needed in the downtown, the NRA doesn't have other property to move that displaced parking to, and that is something the city government can do: move some initiative forward."

"That is a very important component to the park," Norton said.

So that's it. I knew parking was an issue, but I always assumed that was just part of the puzzle, and that the city had more pull over what goes on along the waterfront. But I didn't realize--and I should have--that parking was THE crucial tie between the city and, what the News affectionately calls, the "dirt lots."

Nat Norton makes a valid point about parking. If the NRA is going to remove spaces--and we actually need the same number of spots (see letter in Monday's paper)--then those spots need to go somewhere. But is that really the NRA's problem?

If it wants to be a good neighbor, yes. But if it wants to fulfill the potential of the lots it now possesses then perhaps not. The idea that a portion of the waterfront space needs to be sacrificed for parking doesn't seen logical.

It's difficult to get a lock on what percentage of the waterfront would go toward parking. Tomorrow's hearing might give some ballpark estimates but unfortunately I don't think it will present anything firm.

The NRA sits on a piece of property that--if developed properly--could attract more visitors and business to the downtown. But some want to use some of that very same property to accomodate the parking those visitors would require.

I've been trying to come up with an apt analogy but I really can't. I guess it would be akin to Disney World tearing down Space Mountain to build a parking lot for the visitors looking to go on rides.

To be sure, the mayor and the planning office should have some advisory role in what ultimately happens. But the NRA should really make this decision based on the merits of the project.

More on parking in a future post.