CB 7 should vote no on USTA

TimesLedger Newspapers
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Community Board 7 is entitled to whatever information and conditions it deems necessary to aid it in making a decision on the United States Tennis Association’s current application that involves a significant structural expansion of its facilities in Flushing Meadows Corona Park (“CB 7 wants more info on USTA expansion,” TimesLedger Newspapers Feb. 22-28, 2013).

With all due respect to the members of CB 7, their emphasis on how much money the USTA would pump into park improvements is misplaced. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Making approval conditional upon a fund for the park is nothing more than a sale of parkland in sheep’s clothing.

A park is the lifeblood of an urban city and a civilized society does not sell, barter or otherwise alienate parkland, a non-renewable resource. There is a difference between a philanthropic contribution by a civic-minded person who seeks nothing more from the park than name recognition and commercial entities who want parkland just to make money.

Like the vast majority of businesses, the USTA should buy property in the open market and not expect subsides from taxpayers. The USTA left Forest Hills to make more money in Flushing Meadows, and thereafter extorted more parkland to make more money and now seeks a gross expansion to make more money. The application should be rejected as unwarranted, and the USTA can easily make do with what it currently has.

CB 7 need have no fear that if it rejects the application, the USTA will leave. Greedy it is, but it is not stupid. It will not give up the land it got free and the otherwise fantastic deal in which it operates. Last year, the USTA earned $270 million and paid the city a paltry sum of $2.5 million, an amount that qualifies it as a cruel joke upon New York City taxpayers.

The time has come to recognize FMCP is an important and much-needed park and not real estate for sale and to stop the incessant dumping on the park and the public be damned.

Benjamin Haber


Posted 12:00 am, March 18, 2013
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reader feedback

TC from Flushing says:
CB 7 did not vote NO on USTA because the land they want is not "parkland" where there are soccer fields, ball fields, or play area, it is "roadwayland", a narrow stip of land that abuts the parkway. Currently, there is only a pathway there, and it is in disrepair. CB 7 would definely vote NO if the land was being taken from play or recreation area...In this case, it is not.
Secondly, CB 7 added some recommendations to the approval, one of which was to get $300,000 a year to maintain the rest of the park. That is good.
A NO vote would have got us nothing. Hopefully, the YES will get us some money.
March 20, 2013, 12:50 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.


Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: