| In 1909 and 1910, the BPC resubmitted its $35,000 request. Despite an exhaustive lobbying campaign by commissioners and support by many New York City officials, the NYC-BEA still refused to commit to the parkway.(37) Niles aggressively promoted the parkway, but was rebuffed when Mayor McClellan concluded that he could not initiate a major project on the eve of his retirement.(38) Grant contacted the presidents of the Manhattan and Bronx boroughs as well as the president of the board of aldermen and asked for their support. He reminded these officials that the BPC was exercising its authority based on the 1907 legislation. Grant underscored that the commissioners’ modest salaries were in lieu of traveling expenses, and pointed out that commissioners had already laid out a considerable sum of their own money during the past few years in order begin work on the parkway. Grant stressed that delays in providing funds would make the project more difficult to accomplish in both technical and economic terms. Land values were rapidly rising and buildings were being erected on the proposed reservation. The longer it took to get the project underway, the more buildings would have to be torn down and the higher the price of land acquisition would climb. Secondly, the Bronx River continued to be assailed by pollution. Grant emphasized that approval for the project was inevitable; postponing the work would only make land more expensive and raise the overall costs of the parkway.(39) New York City Comptroller Herman Metz thoroughly studied the parkway proposal again in 1909 and concurred with many of the BPC’s arguments, agreeing that "something must ultimately be done with the Bronx River." Metz pointed out that the river was spoiled throughout its course and told New York City officials that they could not solve the problem by simply addressing the pollution in the Bronx Borough. He concluded that the parkway was the cheapest and most efficient solution to the city's problems, since the parkway would stop the pollution at its source. The parkway "would be a great benefit to the City of New York," he stressed, "in fact, [it is] a necessity." Metz reminded the NYC-BEA that Westchester County was sharing the cost. In his view, the parkway’s annual expenses would be small in comparison to the positive effects a parkway would achieve. He predicted that increased property values and tax revenue adjacent to the parkway would pay for the cost of land acquisition. He advised the NYC-BEA to approve the project and appropriate sufficient funds for it before property values began to rise.(40) BPC efforts to win NYC-BEA approval and funding of the parkway included a letter-writing campaign that targeted the borough presidents. The commissioners elaborated on the threat to public health. When the Bronx River flooded, it spread pollution across the inundated areas. Even at the opposite extreme, when droughts minimized this danger, the reduction in stream flow concentrated the sewage with noxious results, especially in the lower sections of the river in Bronx Park. The BPC highlighted the fact that the City of New York already owned a strip of land along the river between Kensico Reservoir and Woodlawn that carried the aqueduct for the city’s water supply. Using this corridor for the parkway would substantially reduce the costs of land acquisition. Again, commissioners emphasized that the parkway was the cheapest and most attractive solution to the problem. The proposed parkway would require slightly more land than the culvert option, but it would appreciably raise the cost of the project since it would be low-lying river land that was "practically valueless."(41) The BPC tried to gain public support for the project by working with various groups and promoting the parkway in local newspapers. The North Side Board of Trade and the Municipal Art Society of New York petitioned the NYC-BEA to release funds. The BPC reminded the NYC-BEA that the railroad company and property owners had offered substantial donations and/or favorable options on land for parkway purposes, displaying their support of the proposed project. The commission warned the NYC-BEA that these opportunities should not be neglected lest they be withdrawn. Nevertheless, the stalemate continued.(42) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
