Suit Seeks Plans for Closed Public Plaza as Owner’s Motives Are Questioned
By COLIN MOYNIHAN
Published: July 4, 2012
For months, people walking past Chase Manhattan Plaza in Lower Manhattan
have gazed upon an empty two-acre expanse surrounded by fences and
patrolled by private security guards.
Katie Orlinsky for The New York Times
Although the plaza, located a block from the New York Stock Exchange,
has been open to the public for decades, tall accordion-style fencing
anchored with sandbags was placed around the area in mid-September. The
plaza’s owner, JPMorgan Chase, did not issue a statement about closing
the site, but some wondered if the decision was prompted by the Occupy Wall Street
protests. Organizers had announced plans to hold a meeting in the plaza
on Sept. 17, on the first day of the movement, which eventually
attracted worldwide attention.
Since then, even as the Occupy protests have trailed off, the fences
have remained, and have drawn the attention of critics.
Over the past six months, supporters of open and accessible public space
have accused the bank of keeping people out of the plaza without
justification. After contractors obtained a permit to put up sturdier
fences as part of a renovation plan, one man sued the New York City Department of Buildings
over a refusal to disclose the plans. The suit also challenged an
assertion by the city that the plans should remain secret because the
plaza and the tower next to it are potential terrorism targets.
The legal battle has added to a debate about whether a powerful
institution that traces its roots to historic Lower Manhattan put up a
fence as part of an effort to forestall criticism of the financial
system, then pointed to security concerns to limit speech faulting its
actions.
Michael F. Fusco, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, declined to comment on
any complaints or inquiries about the bank’s actions. He also declined
to explain why the fencing was erected in September.
Paula Z. Segal, the lawyer who drafted the lawsuit against the Buildings
Department, said security guards at Chase Plaza had told her on several
occasions that the fencing was meant to keep protesters from assembling
there.
At a recent hearing in State Supreme Court, Justice Paul Wooten
suggested that the city should take another look at the plans and see
what could be disclosed.
Mark Taylor, a lawyer for Richard Nagan, who sued the Buildings
Department, said that the judge had told the city he would not approve
“blanket immunity” from freedom of information laws, and proposed that
the city redact sensitive information from the plans.
Mr. Nagan, a construction expediter and consultant, said the plans could
show whether the bank was carrying out renovations or simply obtaining a
series of permits while keeping the plaza off limits.
“The Buildings Department said the only way the public could see the
plans would be if the owner gave approval,” he said.
In 1955, when the original plans for Chase Manhattan Plaza were
announced, the city granted zoning changes to allow the project to
proceed and agreed to permanently close part of Cedar Street to create
an uninterrupted site, something that was rarely done to accommodate a
private commercial development.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission, in designating the site a
landmark in 2009, cited the plaza at the base of the 813-foot
glass-and-aluminum tower as “one of the project’s dramatic and distinct
features.”
From the earliest days of its planning, the plaza was described as a
public space. During a dedication in 1961 to celebrate the tower’s
opening, Chase’s president, David Rockefeller, said it had taken
“imagination and a sense of citizenship to clear an open plaza on some
of the city’s most valuable land and throw it open to the light of the
sun — and the public.”
Unlike nearby Zuccotti Park, where the Occupy protesters eventually
camped for two months, Chase Plaza has no agreement with the city to
stay open 24 hours a day. But Ms. Segal said that depriving people of
the use of one of the most significant open areas in Lower Manhattan
appeared to violate at least the spirit of landmark rules.
“The general public should be concerned that there is a pre-emptive
closing of a historically public space just because the bank that owns
it has an inkling that people might want to gather there and talk about
what the bank is doing,” she said. She said she began contacting the
Buildings Department and the landmarks commission last winter to ask
whether the fencing was authorized. City records show that the
department did not issue any violations, and that inspectors noted in
several reports that no construction fencing existed at the plaza at the
time.
The landmarks commission said the fencing did not require the agency’s
permission because it was not physically attached to the plaza.
In February, after an article about Ms. Segal’s inquiries appeared in The Village Voice,
a contractor obtained a permit to do waterproofing work on the plaza,
which the city first approved in 2010. Three days later, another
contractor got a permit to surround the plaza with plywood and
chain-link fencing. Soon after, Ms. Segal said, workers at the plaza
pried up a few pieces of paving but most of the plaza appeared to be
unchanged.
Ms. Segal and Mr. Nagan asked to see the renovation plans, citing state
freedom of information laws. But the Buildings Department denied their
request, and said that sharing the plans “would endanger the life or
safety” of the public.
After a second denial, Ms. Segal and Mr. Nagan filed a lawsuit saying
that the department was violating freedom-of-information laws by
refusing to disclose the plans. The agency replied that Chase Manhattan
Plaza was on a Police Department list of sensitive buildings that could
be vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
In an affidavit, a police lieutenant said the waterproofing plans
contained detailed information about the plaza and the tower beside it
and should be kept secret.
On a recent afternoon, several workers in the financial district ate
lunch near the sealed-off plaza. One of them, Wendy Smith, 47, from
Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, said she remembered the original fencing
going up in September.
“I never hear any machinery back there,” she said. “I wonder what’s going on behind this fence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment