 |
| Legal challenge letter from our counsel Michael Hiller |
In one respect, what the NYPL is doing is an example the incremental creep by which the NYPL is trying to implement the much reviled Central Library Plan we previously sued to stop and caused to be derailed.
In one respect, our new legal challenge here is, in ways, a legal challenge version of testimony we not long ago delivered to the New York City Council pointing out many of the same things. For that testimony, text and video versions, See: Defending Libraries Testimony To City Council Regarding NYC Library Budget, The Sale of Libraries, Privatization of Libraries, Short Library Hours, And The Elimination of Books.
The legal challenge letter, which is eleven pages, goes into a lot of detail that is probably mostly not that easy for the layman to quickly absorb. It concerns how a state agency (under Governor Andrew Cuomo), SHIPO, the State Historic Preservation Office, and a city commission, the Landmarks Commission (dominated by Mayor Bill de Blasio who appoints the commissioners) were both not doing their respective jobs to make sure that a library granted the use of the public park space in which it sits (part of Bryant) is continued to be used and properly treated in landmark terms as the library is is supposed to be. However, we particularly like this part of the letter starting on page 2, which we think clearly makes points we can all appreciate:
Second, as shown below, the Proposed Work includes, in particular, a twin-elevator bank abutting the landmarked South Court and the non-designated, but equally-as-important North-South Gallery directly adjacent to one already-existing larger elevator, resulting in a redundancy that the Applicant has never explained or justified. A closer examination of the Application and the circumstances surrounding its preparation confirms that the requested CofA is designed to streamline the Applicant's catering business for large special events and receptions (weddings, bar mitzvahs, corporate parties, etc.) that have become the new priority at the Main Branch ("Reception Hall Business"). See the Applicant's Special Events Brochure (Ex. 2). However, as reflected below, the Applicant's Reception Hall Business, which caters to the wealthy and privileged (id.) at the expense of public access to this publicly-owned building sited in a public park, violates: (i) a certain Agreement of Consolidation, dated May 23, 1895, entered into between the three trusts that established the Applicant more than 120 years ago ("Consolidation Agreement") (Ex. 3); (ii) a certain lease between the City of New York and the Applicant, entered into in 1897 (the "Lease") (Ex. 4); (iii) the City Charter (Ex. 5); (iv) a certain Library Construction and Enabling Act of 1897; and (v) the public trust doctrine, which limits use of park spaces to "park uses." Accordingly, the requested CofA would constitute clear violation oflaw, empowering the Commission under §25- 307(b)(3) of the Landmarks Law to deny the Application.Our counsel in this case is being paid for by our partner in this effort, the non-profit Committee to save the New York Public Library. This effort can use your support. You can help. Good legal counsel like this, essential to a muscular protection of the libraries, and it is only available when we pay them. Please go to web site of our non-profit partner Committee to save the New York Public Library and make a donation toward these costs.
Third, the proposed work, which, we emphasize, is designed solely to enhance an illegal Reception Hall Business in the iconic Main Branch, would destroy architectural and cultural resources (both those which are protected by designation and those certain interiors which have not yet been recognized but which are nevertheless uniquely important spaces), critical to maintaining the integrity of this designated landmark. And the affected interior spaces, although not yet designated, have been the subject of three Requests for Evaluation ("RFEs"), the first of which was filed nearly six (6) years ago ("First RFE"), and as to which, the Commission has not yet taken action (First RFE, Ex. 6). Thus, the Research Department of the Commission has implemented a virtual pocket veto with respect to important cultural and architectural resources, preventing their preservation. Regardless, in the absence of a compelling justification, the Commission should reject the Application as a needless demolition and renovation that would result in permanent disfigurement of the Main Branch.