Submitted by nuncio_populi t3_12418wl in jerseycity
nuncio_populi OP t1_jdy6jbi wrote
Preemptive information for those who want to know more about the issues around Liberty State Park:
There has been a long-standing plan to remediate the interior 230+ acre portion of Liberty State Park that was contaminated with chromium and other industrial waste following decades of heavy use by railroads and manufacturers. That area has been fenced off for a long time, largely due to a lack of funding for the environmental remediation.
Last year, the state legislature passed $50 million in funding for Liberty State Park but neglected to pass the companion legislation that would have protected the park from private development and commercialization. As a result, there are two competing visions for the land:
The tentative, original DEP plan (which almost everyone in this sub supports) calls for wetland, woodland, and grassland restoration to create wildlife habitat and scenic, passive recreation for all visitors to the park plus an additional sixty acres of sporting facilities, active recreational fields open, and a cultural center – all open to the public. It would also restore the old train terminal for community use. Since most of the park lies in a flood plain, habitat restoration will actually add a buffer to protect low-lying neighboring communities from storm-surge, particularly parts of Jersey City — Greenville, Bergen-Lafayette, and Downtown. You can see the updated version that was set to be released last Thursday below:
The alternative plan (which is the one most are upset about) is promoted by the People's Park Foundation, which is funded by billionaire golf course owner Paul Fireman. This plan calls for the park to be turned into concert venues, multiple stadiums, hockey rinks, and an olympic-sized pool to be built, destroying the open green space to "generate revenue." Predecessors to the overdevelopment plan have called for a new marina for yachts (conveniently located by Fireman's golf course) and, in the past, an outlandish formula-1 racetrack. Mind you, this would be a multi-million dollar infrastructure investment in a severe flood zone. So instead of a buffer to protect the community, we'd have another expensive mess to clean up.
For context on why the People's Park is pushing their plan, their main funder, Paul Fireman, is a billionaire who owns a neighboring golf course. He has long coveted an environmentally sensitive portion of Liberty State Park called Caven Point to expand his course. His People's Park Foundation has been running a campaign in the op.ed section of NJ.com for the last year either claiming that the first plan does not exist or grossly underselling the state's vision for the park. They try and conflate opposition to their plan with the false idea that the state wants to abandon Liberty State Park. This is an out-right lie.
The development activities that this post is asking the residents of Jersey City to oppose are the ones calling for overdevelopment and commercialization of the park. That said, we are not opposed to all development. Again, there is universal support for the closed-off 230 acres to be turned into restored wildlife habitat with trails throughout for passive recreation and the addition of new areas for active recreation and sport.
Thank you for helping to save Liberty State Park!
International_Pin262 t1_jdycrb4 wrote
Thank you for this info! I saw this come up a lot on this subreddit but I was missing the context
Belindiam t1_jdzzwcw wrote
The funds for remediation actually were there before the bill as did the state plan that includes acres for active recreation. The new bill was said to be to set a taskforce in stone (they added some people to it as well ) It came with a promise of 250 million dollars but came out of committee with 50 million. The bill came out of the blue and was pushed through in about two weeks. Flyers for a "vision for the park" were sent out at the same time. Those turned out to come from this new People's Park Foundation (they stole the name often used by those advocating for the park.) The renderings seen in the foundation's flyers were displayed at the hearing and took over the conversation. It also meant that the protection act was dead in the water.
[deleted] t1_jdysu6m wrote
[removed]
catdog918 t1_je0lf68 wrote
Super interesting, thanks
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments