Re: RE: AG settlement is unfair!
- Subject: Re: RE: [cg] AG settlement is unfair!
- From: Lenny Librizzi email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:33:29 -0400
Other than on the list serves no one is talking about the housing projects that are being
proposed for the garden sites have no income restrictions. So we are not talking about affordable housing here. There
are usually other vacant lots nearby that could be developed instead of the garden. Although the agreement calls for a
review process which includes possible relocation sites for any of the gardens that will be subject to development in the
future, the 30 gardens set for immediate development have no option for alternate sites. Yes, these sites are in housing
programs that are funded and have gone through a review process that did not mention that a garden existed on the
site. Certain neighborhoods that are short on parkland like Brownsville are particularly hard hit. Trying to save the 100+
gardens that haven't been offered preservation and are still subject to development in the future is the next battle.
Here is a link to a little more enlightened article by Sarah Ferguson but even she does not mention the market rate type
of housing programs and makes it sound like these are new gardens that never existed before.
9/23/02 3:02:05 PM, Gwenne Hayes-Stewart <Gwenne.Hayes-Stewart@mobot.org> wrote:
> From: Gwenne Hayes-Stewart <Gwenne.Hayes-Stewart@mobot.org>
> To: "'David Peterson'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Subject:RE: [cg] AG settlement is unfair!
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:02:05 -0500
> It is extremely helpful to hear these other reports. Out here in the
> Midwest, the NY times is our only access to news stories about these
> gardens. Why were these gardens not a part of the new review procedures?
> Were they already too far along in the process? Gwenne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Peterson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [cg] AG settlement is unfair!
> I am glad to hear from Ms. Helen about the flaws in the settlement
> between Spitzer and the City. Someone has to say it. When I saw that
> there was a settlement, and was overjoyed, but then looked to see that
> nearly all of the 17 gardens I worked with last summer in the South
> Bronx, Brownsville and East New York were slated for "immediate
> development" under the New Foundations Home Ownership Program. The
> program is creating market rate housing (the homes will cost upwards of
> $150,000), and this reality has been hidden by the New York Times. These
> beautiful gardens, including Ms. Mason-Boykin's garden, the Over 50
> garden, will now have to make way for expensive houses in neighborhoods
> with tons of vacant lots (I can think of five or six right by Over 50).
> I'm in Austin, Texas, itching with a feeling of injustice and
> powerlessness, and hope that grassroots activists will work with these
> folks, either helping them build new gardens through the relocation
> process or through any means that they have or can improvise, to ensure
> that Ms. Helen and others like her get to keep their beautiful gardens.
> Good luck out there, and remember that every garden destroyed is
> unacceptable. It may be called unavoidable, but we should always remember
> that it is unacceptable.
> In solidarity,
> David Peterson
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
The American Community Gardening Association listserve is only one of ACGA's services to community gardeners. To learn more about the ACGA and to find out how to join, please go to http://www.communitygarden.org
To post an e-mail to the list: email@example.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription: https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden