As many of you are aware, the City of New York recently made the costly decision to erect a fence that is nine feet high on both sides of the Martling Avenue Bridge.
As many of you know, the fence stood for nearly three months until being removed earlier this week.
What had been a popular and picturesque view of Clove Lakes Park for more than a century was visually damaged by that fence.
All Staten Islanders and their elected representatives can learn valuable lessons about governance from the narrative of that fence and its eventual dismantling.
The residents who would be most impacted were not consulted when the decision to erect the fence was made. Some city employees who don’t reside on Staten Island just told us what we were going to get, without taking into account the opinions of the community.
Therefore, it was decided to build a 9-foot-tall fence over the existing brickwork, similar to the barriers found around jails.
The opening line of Robert Frost’s poem, “Something there that doesn’t love a wall,” sprang to me when I saw the ugly fence. I considered the sage advice given by the poem’s narrator: I wanted to know what I was walling in or walling out and to whom I was likely to offend before I built a wall.
However, those questions were never posed by the city.
They informed us what we were going to get without asking us what we wanted, if anything. We would have informed them if they had inquired about what they were fencing in or out and who they may offend.
We can fully immerse ourselves in nature in our public parks, which are natural sanctuaries. The city’s fence, on the contrary, was a repulsive eyesore that kept us from enjoying nature. The purpose of parks is just the reverse of this. What if any of the beautiful stone bridges and crossings in Central Park had nine-foot barriers installed by the city? The clamor would be overwhelming.
In order to voice our concerns about the barrier, City Council Members David Carr, Kamillah Hanks, Joseph Borelli, and I asked to meet with City Hall. We were given permission to speak with a deputy mayor. We all agreed that there was not enough notice given about the fence. However, it was highly likely that the barrier would remain. As a compromise, I believe someone proposed that we place a planter close to the barrier or, alternatively, paint street art on the fence.
We tried to refocus the discussion by asking, “What is the purpose of the fence?” At first, we were informed that the barrier was necessary because, according to New York state regulations, pedestrian bridges over railroads or highways must have this kind of fence. We then proposed that the bridge is neither over a train or a roadway, and that they are only recommendations rather than requirements. We were offered a different explanation when that reasoning failed.
We were informed that because the Martling Avenue Bridge crossed navigable waters, federal regulations mandate this kind of fencing.
The Daniel Ball, a 19th-century ruling by the US Supreme Court, introduced the term “navigable waters” into the legal vernacular. In that document, navigable waters were defined as those that are actually navigable when they are used—or have the potential to be used—as commercial highways that are used for trade and travel.
Unless one is a popsicle stick floating in water, it is obvious that the waters beneath the Martling Avenue Bridge are not navigable in this sense.
Actually, the city was unable to provide a single, well-reasoned justification for the fence.
We intended to sue the city for constructing the barrier after our appeal to the municipal was unsuccessful. Mayor Adams reversed the decision at the last minute, which was the right and sensible thing to do. The fence would fall.
So it did.
The adage “Good fences make good neighbors” is also highlighted in the poem “Mending Wall.” It’s also true that nasty neighbors are caused by bad fences. Regretfully, the latter was one of them.
The actual needs and wants of the people are frequently not reflected in these government decisions, which are decided by anonymous, nameless, and occasionally imperial officials. Such choices may result in policies that are not in the best interests of the community and cause a rift between the government and its constituents.
As a result, the populace feels caged in.
The people of Staten Island and our local community organizations, who organized and protested the destruction of their natural and scenic environment, ultimately won this hard-fought triumph. I want to thank and congratulate everyone who took part in this battle.
In this Borough of Parks, let’s hope that our neighbors respect our wishes and desire to keep the grandeur of our natural vistas unhindered by barriers.
+ There are no comments
Add yours