Introduction

This memorandum is in reference to the NYC Parks Concession located at the Dyckman Marina, 348 Dyckman Street, Fort Washington Park, Manhattan. The concession has been operated since July 2012 under the name “La Marina” by the entity Manhattan River Group LLC.

When the troublesome prior concession at Dyckman Marina was terminated in 2006 after a major NYPD drug bust, the community worked with the Parks Department to identify two uses that would be acceptable for the context of the site and provide opportunity for public enjoyment of the parkland in a manner that would attract investment and provide revenue. The two uses identified were for a restaurant and a marina. In 2007 the Parks Department issued a detailed RFP to this effect. After evaluating bids, a License Agreement was signed with Manhattan River Group in 2009 and reconstruction of the site was begun.

However, since its opening in 2012 the Parks Department has allowed the concession to operate dramatically differently from what was initially presented to the public and subsequently approved by the Community Board.

Furthermore the concession has consistently operated in violation of its License Agreement. In plain language, what was intended to be a public access restaurant, cafe and marina has become a private access nightclub and concert venue open until 1 am every summer night (even Sundays). In doing so, it has caused serious quality­of­life issues for the surrounding residential neighborhood of Inwood, most notably but not limited to traffic and noise.

For three summers, residents of Inwood have brought the numerous issues relating to the operation of this concession to the attention of the Parks Department, Community Board 12, other city agencies (notably DOT and NYPD), the borough president’s office, the mayor’s office, local city councillors, state assembly members and state senators, and other officials. To date there have been no meaningful changes in the operations of the concession.

Residents are frustrated by this situation, which seems to represent inequitable application of the law in their uptown neighborhood. Such a situation would never be tolerated south of 96th Street, and in fact has not been (see last year’s cancelled concert series in Tribeca). The solution being sought is to abide by the legally binding concession agreement contract documents that define this license, namely:

1) The License Agreement between Manhattan River Group, LLC and the City of New York Department of Parks & Recreation, dated June 25, 2009 (and its two minor infrastructure amendments of August 26, 2010 and March 27, 2013)

2) The Site Plan filed with the Public Design Commission dated June 28, 2011 and approved October 3, 2011.

3) The Construction Drawings filed with Small Business Services dated July 29, 2011, which received a Temporary Certificate of Completion on February 5, 2010 and a Public Assembly Certificate on March 26, 2012.

These documents, developed as noted above after a long process of consultation following the closure of the previous concession in 2007, did a good job of balancing the needs of the community and the desire to operate a successful concession that would bring new investment, jobs and revenue to the area and to the city. They were all approved through the appropriate processes and should have been binding. However, the end result has in fact been grossly different.

Since the signing of the original contract, Parks officials have made many verbal, undocumented, unilateral changes to the License Agreement, without input or approvals from the community or other city agencies. Other changes made by the concessionaire were simply ignored by the Parks Department. This approach by Parks led to other city agencies (NYPD, DOT, SBS, DCA, etc.) neglecting their roles and obligations in turn, thereby creating the current situation.

Residents are not demanding anything more than what was originally agreed to and what the laws, rules and regulations of the City of New York allow.

Many of the problems with Parks’ management of the concession are related, but they can be specifically documented as relating to the Use, Capacity, Operating Hours, Noise, Parking/Traffic, Access, Revenues, Other City Policies and Community Impact.

A. Use as a Nightclub and Concert Venue

The License Agreement allows for the construction, operation and maintenance of a "full­service restaurant and a lounge for the accommodation of and use by the public". The aproved Site Plans expand on this by making reference to the “Costera Restaurant” (now La Marina) and the “315 Outdoor Cafe” (now La Marina Beach). There is no mention of a nightclub or discotheque, with all of the late hours, amplified music and controlled access that such a use entails. The Use Group on the occupancy documents (related to the drawings as filed) is Use Group 6, which does not even allow for large nightclub use (Large venues with entertainment should be filed under Use Group 12, which itself is incompatible with the residential R7 zoning adjacent to the site).

As per the approved Site Plans, there should be a full­service restaurant building and an outdoor cafe area with toilets. There is no depiction on the plans of a stage, modular outbuildings (for nightlife staff locker rooms), multiple barriers, or “bottle service” seating areas, and yet all of these components have existed every weekend night for three summers.

Not only is a concert venue not mentioned in the approved uses, the License Agreement actually states in section 10.18 that "concerts are strictly prohibited at the Licensed Premises". And yet the Outdoor Cafe area shown on the approved Site Plan became a “beach” entertainment event venue that requires a separate admission fee. This area has since opening contained a large stage and elaborate sound system that hosts not only prominent DJ acts but live music acts from a broad selection of genres. The beach area events are ticketed and heavily promoted as concerts.

Because the beach concert venue did not appear on the Site Plan, there was no Certificate of Public Assembly originally issued for the beach area in 2012 when the concession opened. In violation of FDNY regulations, with no certificate, dozens of concerts with thousands of attendees were held in the beach area that summer anyway. (A PA certificate for the beach was finally obtained in May 2013).

The added nightlife uses are also reflected in the liquor licenses issued by the State Liquor Authority, which were obtained including multiple standing­service bars. This is in direct violation of the License Agreement’s requirement for only sit­down alcohol service. The fact that the concession operator received approval from the SLA for standing bars should not override the language of the license agreement, as this condition was specifically included in the License Agreement to ensure a restaurant/cafe/lounge seated use (similar to, for example, Boat Basin Cafe) and not a packed nightclub use. The increased consumption of alcohol at standing bars also contributes to the overall quality­of­life problems when patrons exit the concession.

This nightclub and concert venue is not a Parks use. These uses are also incompatible with the immediate area which is zoned Residential and has extremely limited street access. These uses draw from a wide area across the tri­state region, not a local audience, exacerbating the below noted traffic issues in an area already burdened with extremely high asthma rates. There is a reason why only a Restaurant and Marina were identified as desired uses in the consultations between Parks and the community and why a Restaurant and Lounge were the only allowed uses in the License Agreement for the land part of the concession.

And yet somehow a concession that was described only as a restaurant all through the RFP and construction stages has been operating with nightclub and concert uses since opening, possibly the largest such nightclub in Manhattan. (A frequent promoter of events at the concession, Pacha Nightclub, has a capacity of only 2,150 persons compared to La Marina’s claimed 3,000 person capacity.) Name­brand DJs and live music concerts occur up to four times per week during the summer, including each and every Sunday night until 1 am, with tickets available from nightlife promoters from $25 to $60 officially (and unofficially much more). The following headline appeared on wire services in July, 2014:

“Rapper Fabolous was caught up in a terrifying shooting on Sunday night when a bouncer was shot at a New York City nightclub where he was partying.”

It is beyond question at this point that the concession is now well­established as one of Manhattan’s most popular and infamous nightclub and concert venues. This should not be; the concession should be limited to its allowed uses and no others.

B. Massive Capacity Increase

The capacity of the concession is described on the filed drawings and approved Site Plan. Representatives from the Parks Department stated publicly during construction that the total capacity of the facility was 500 seats, even going as far as to announce in May 2012 that they had cut the requested capacity from the operator’s liquor license application from 1,000 seats to 500.

The 2012 Public Assembly certificate for the restaurant allows for 294 patrons indoors. This is consistent with the restaurant use and the filed plans. The 2013 PA certificate for the outdoor terrace around the restaurant allows for 300 additional patrons. This is a total of 594 seats, not 500, but reasonably close to the stated capacity. However, the 2013 PA certificate for the beach concert area allows for a stunning 1,500 additional patrons, giving the facility a total capacity of 2,094 patrons. This was only first disclosed in September, 2013 after multiple community meetings and public complaints.

Furthermore, the concession operator claims a capacity of 3,000 on their website and made a similar claim at a community meeting in 2014. According to the operator, this capacity is permissable under “special events permits” issued by the Parks Department, but the legality of this has never been clarified. (Usually the PA certificate from the FDNY and Buildings Department is definitive for any given space).

Capacity is a critical point as the many traffic and other quality­of­life issues in the area are a direct result of Parks' unilateral and unannounced decision during construction to allow an increase in capacity of six hundred percent. Many of the problematic community issues noted on these pages will be greatly reduced when the original capacity (and use) is restored. For example, when 3,000 nightclub patrons exit at one time, there are obvious traffic and crowd noise issues that spill out into the community as a result.

One example illustrating the above dates from fall, 2013. The concession had planned to host the well­known European House­genre DJ known as Boris on September 14, 2013. A few days before the concert, the event was suddenly cancelled due to pressure from Parks (see Noise section below). With no time to re­book an acceptable act, there was no concert that evening. As a result, the facility operated soley as a ~500 seat restaurant and not as a nightclub/concert venue with thousands of ticketed attendees (as had been the case at previous Boris concerts). There were no documented traffic issues that evening.

The original capacity as per the approved documents is not a problem for the community and should be restored and enforced.

C. Extension of Operating Hours

The operating hours are defined in the License Agreement: “in regulating the hours, the Commissioner may consider the hours of operation of similar facilities, the nature of the community and the environs of the concession, Parks Rules and Regulations of operations, the public health and safety, and other similar considerations.” The original hours stated in Exhibit C were until 11 pm Sun­Wed, and until 12:30 am on Thurs, Fri, and Sat (any deviations requiring specific approval by Parks). Furthermore the concession was only supposed to operate from May 1 to October 31. These hours were consistent with the intended use and made the common­sense distinction between weeknights and weekend evenings (with Sunday evening being unequivocally a weeknight).

But since opening, the concession has operated until 1 am every night of the week during summer, and the restaurant is now open year­round. Parks Department officials have in the past stated that they reserve the right to “adjust” the operating hours of a concession as a minor change that does not require an amended agreement. The extension of the season to year­round is not contentious, since only the restaurant operates in the off season. And since this change does not impact the use or other factors it does seem reasonably within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Division of Parks.

However, the change in hours is absolutely critical to the use, since the surest way to avoid a concession illicitly operating as a nightclub would be to ensure it is not open late at night. The change in hours that was allowed by Parks caused untold havoc by bringing all of the other problems with noise, traffic, etc. to 1 am instead of 11 pm. Especially on Sundays, this has made a major impact on the area. Now, instead of being a quiet street after 11 pm, the western end of Dyckman is a sea of honking cars and well­refreshed patrons making their way to their next nightlife stop (many of which advertise as “La Marina afterparties”). It is also notable that the July 13, 2014 shooting on the premises too place at 11:45 pm on a Sunday, after the concession should have closed.

A cursory review of peer establishments such as the Boat Basin, New Leaf Cafe and Battery Gardens shows that their hours are nearly identical to their original license agreements, with deviations no more than closing 30 minutes later or an hour earlier. Why was the Dyckman Marina concession allowed such a gross and significant change in hours, especially when it clearly was attempting to change its use?

It should also be noted with regard to hours that the concession does not open until 4 pm on weekdays and 12 pm on weekends. Citizens wanting to access the boat dock or walk along the waterfront on a sunny weekday afternoon are barred by large gates from even entering the premises. While the License Agreement did not mandate any opening times it seems against the spirit of the License Agreement and Site Plan not to be open at earlier hours. Again, similar facilities such as the Boat Basin Cafe or New Leaf Cafe open at noon, and were not similar facilities supposed to be a factor in establishing the operating hours?

The original hours in the License Agreement were reasonable and appropriate for a restaurant and lounge use in terms of closing time and should be restored, along with earlier opening times similar to peer facilities.

D. Amplified Music and Other Elevated Noise Levels

Various testimony by Parks officials in 2007­2008, made it very clear that Parks was aware of past problems with late­night noise at the site and would take steps to correct it with the new concessionaire. As the Director of Concessions stated to the Franchise and Concession Review Committee Hearing on September 8, 2008, “We are very conscious of the fact that no one creates a disturbance.” And so License Agreement stipulated that amplified music of any kind would require the Commissioner's prior approval. Non­amplified music “to enhance the atmosphere of the cafe” would be permitted, but all amplified music must cease at 10 pm. These limits were very consistent with restaurant use and indeed with any kind of use on parkland near a residential community. In fact, the City of New York Noise Code effectively requires outdoor music to cease at 10 pm due to a low decibel limit for noise escaping the propert that begins at that hour. And so, Central Park Summerstage concerts end by 10 pm. Astoria Park Lawn concerts end by 10 pm. Rockaway Beach Park concerts end by 10 pm. RiverRocks concerts on various piers in Hudson River Park end by 10 pm.

And yet, since opening, DJ’s and live music would play at La Marina until 1 am or even later. Every night. Many complaints were raised with the Parks Department, always with the promise of enforcement that never happened. On December 20, 2012, a Parks representative sent out a letter to concerned residents stating that “La Marina’s contract requires all amplified sound to terminate by 10 p.m. We have informed them of the complaints we have received and their need to comply.” The next season, the DJs and live music continued each night to play to 1 am.

And so on September 12, 2013 Parks again sent out a letter to concerned residents stating “The operators of La Marina have been advised that all outdoor amplified sound must end by 10:00pm, and they have agreed to comply with this restriction in the future.” For the following weekend, this was for the first time in two years enforced, and two planned music events cancelled as a result. But the summer had already ended and the impact was minimal. By the spring of 2014 the concession operator claimed at a public meeting that they had a new understanding with Parks (undocumented) that would reinterpret the agreement to only mean that acts using their own sound systems must end at 10 pm, while any music played on the permanent speaker system, which now had a sound governor, could continue until closing time. This has been the practice in 2014, with DJ’s for the third year in a row playing until 1 am, even on Sunday nights.

This lack of enforcement by Parks and utter disregard for the License Agreement and community complaints is outrageous and grossly inequitable. Beyond the question of whether formal approvals were ever sought for amplified music, and beyond the question of permitting concerts at premises where concerts were strictly prohibited, there is nothing in the agreement about sound governors. Amplified music is amplified music, and must cease at 10 pm to avoid forcing a number of noise and related issues upon the adjacent host community. This is not just common sense, it is New York City ordinance per the Noise Code. And it is being ignored.

Also note that elevated noise levels originating from other sources have been an issue. Much harder to document, the chief complaint has been the very persistent and disturbing issue of honking cars. Because so many patrons drive to the concession and because the road network can, by geography, never be adequate for their numbers, there is severe gridlock at late hours when the concession closes. (See Traffic section). Gridlock leads to honking, and honking leads to residents who cannot sleep when they have to get up for work five hours later. This is New York City, some traffic is always to be expected. But to force gridlock past midnight, night after summer night on a residential community because of a use that should not be happening in the first place is not the role of city parkland.

There are also elevated noise levels associated with the sheer number of patrons and the inebriation level of patrons exiting a nightclub. Again, complete silence is neither expected nor realistic; Dyckman Street has many active nightlife establishments that would generate foot traffic regardless of La Marina. But as currently operated with the enormous capacity and unapproved nightlife uses, the concession is being allowed to elevate noise throughout its immediate area. This impact will cease when the License Agreement is enforced as written.

E. On­ and Off­site Parking and Traffic Gridlock

Early site plans for the concession included a small, on­site parking lot. All parking was later removed from the final Site Plan due to a reconfiguration to suit a sewer easement. As a result, the facility opened with no dedicated parking. This is not unusual, as many Parks restaurants operate without on­site parking (Boat Basin Cafe, Tavern on the Green). Many public on­street parking spaces are adjacent to the concession along Dyckman Street, but prior to 2012 these were normal street parking spaces often used by residents and visitors for long periods, with regular street cleaning movements only. The location is also extremely difficult for accommodating any sizable number of vehicles, given the lack of any kind of surrounding street grid and the adjacent presence of highway on and off ramps.

For all of these reasons early discussions about the proposed concession focused as much on patrons arriving at the cafe by kayak as by car, and indeed the architect stated upon opening that:

“We think La Marina will emerge as an alternative to getting in the car and going to the beach. By boat, bike or mass transit, visitors can quickly reach an urban oasis – a destination with a quiet sense of old New Amsterdam, right in the big city. Where else in New York City can you jump on your bike, spend the afternoon on the water, and then enjoy an idyllic riverside dinner?”

The Director of Concessions gave testimony to the Franchise and Concession Review Committee on September 8, 2008 that ‘we don’t think there is going to be a particular traffic impact based on the concession.” In fact, the Parks Department did not even do an Environmental Review to measure the traffic impact because the footprint of the new concession would be the same as the prior Dyckman Marina, so there would be no change.

How false that statement would prove to be, given that the prior concession operated a restaurant and not a 3,000 person nightclub/concert venue. Traffic immediately made a “particular” impact in terms of parking and gridlock. This led to a number of actions by the Parks Department to annex neighborhood parking spaces for their concession. A month after the concession opened, around August 24, 2012, “NO STANDING 6PM ­ 6 AM” signs were added to all of the street parking on the western end of Dyckman Street. DOT representatives have stated that this was done at the request of the Parks Department to clear the area of residents at night. For the concession had already begun using a valet parking operation to barricade the street and was now acting physically to bar residents or visitors to the park from parking their vehicles in the street parking spaces. (Multiple spaces are typically coned off by the valet parking staff as early as 7 am on weekdays in an attempt to clear the spots for later valet use). The NYPD did not enforce against this valet operation because they understood that it was given permission from the Parks Department to operate. But regardless of what the Parks Department desires and the NYPD interprets, Dyckman Street is per the city tax lot maps a public street, not parkland, and cannot be simply given away. City DOT has no record of any agreement that would allow this valet parking; indeed, the very concept of operating a parking lot in a “no standing” zone is illogical. DOT representatives have simply stated that NYPD should enforce the parking regulations as posted.

And yet this valet operates every single night and on busy weekends during large concerts even expands to include all of Staff Street and all of Dyckman Street west of Henshaw. The taking of four blocks of public street every summer weekend for a private nightclub/concert hall valet parking operation is unheard of. And even if it were legal, it would not excuse the parking of cars on sidewalks, on parkland, on state highway lands ­­ all documented over and over again and discussed at multiple public meetings. The only conclusion is that the parking rules and regulations of the City of New York appear to be inequitably suspended whenever this concession is operating.

Furthermore, the concession began operating a small on­site parking lot that is not shown on their Site Plan and which has no Department of Consumer Affairs approval (as all parking lots must). This is used for VIP parking (high value sports cars, etc.) and has been permanent since the facility opened. The practice of using public land to park Lamborghinis instead of kayaks on the site seems to be against the intent of the License Agreement.

Finally, regardless of the parking arrangements, the nightclub and concert use and massive capacity of the concession have attracted a very high volume of automobiles from across a very wide region. The license plates in the valet lot verify this statement, along with multiple media reports. Taking mass transit to a station a third of a mile away is simply incompatible with going to a nightclub, and although after public complaints the A train is now mentioned in fine print by the operator on their website it remains an unrealistic option so long as the current use and capacity continue.

The result of the valet parking street closures and of attracting many drivers from the tri­state area to the concession is extremely disruptive to the wider community. The large neighborhood of Inwood has only a few access points for its more than 40,000 residents: the Henry Hudson Parkway exit, Broadway, the Harlem River Drive terminus, and the 207th St and Broadway bridges. The traffic congestion resulting expressly from La Marina is so monumental, and unsolvable, on summer nights when the concession is hosting concerts or nightclub events that the Henry Hudson and Broadway approaches to the area become gridlocked; 45 minute waits to exit the highway and move the few blocks to Broadway are not uncommon. Taxis, buses and emergency responders often become snared in the traffic along with private vehicles. On a Sunday nights from 5 pm to 1 am, when residents are trying to return to their homes to prepare for the workweek, such traffic is nearly unbearable. Indeed, traffic has been one of the most public and frequent of the complaints against the facility, but each public meeting has always resulted in either the promise of a task force or blaming DOT rather than addressing the root cause of uses, capacity, hours and parking. Other than adding a bike rack (which is primarily used to park motorcycles) and consuming ever increase traffic police resources, no other changes have been made over three summers. An area that was deemed so residential and quiet that it was included by DOT in the Inwood Slow Zone in spring 2012 (just before the concession opened) is now a regular traffic nightmare that is regularly avoided by residents whenever possible.

Traffic must be seen as the symptom of problems at this concession and not the cause; returning the concession to its agreed­upon uses and terms will return traffic issues to a navigable level.

F. Private Access to Public Land

Section 10.25 of the License Agreement makes it very clear that while private use of the Premises is allowed it must only be on five days’ notice to the Parks Commissioner. When such private uses take place during normal operating hours, the closure must be announced to the public two weeks in advance. In plain language, private parties are only allowed when specifically approved by Parks; the intent is to keep the facility accessible. This restriction is entirely in keeping with the restaurant use and with other Parks concession restaurants, which are meant to be generally open to the public but as a practical matter can occasionally close to generate lucrative revenue from weddings, etc.

Since opening in July 2012, the concession has hosted approximately 100 large private parties of 500 to 3,000 people, mainly in the beach concert area. Parks has never clarified if each one has been specifically approved ­­ some have claimed to be, others occurred on dates when Parks representatives said no permits were isssues. Even if they all have been approved it raises serious questions as to why Parks would consider it appropriate to be allowing 30 to 40 massive private parties each summer.

In addition to the private parties, there is an ID check and invasive security pat­downs at the gate in the evening. (Some dinner patrons arriving during concert hours have reported security guards reaching into their clothing as part of the searches. For a dinner reservation.) Anyone under 21 cannot access the Premises because nightclubs require absolute access control. Some events are advertised as “the door has the right to be selective”, i.e. a nightclub bouncer’s velvet rope. The approved Site Plans do show the existing fence around the Premises, but no ID check or internal divisions or barriers. Which they should not, being a parkland site.

Finally, at all times in the evening, the concession operates bottle service in order to access certain parts of the site or to sit down. Costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars, this fee­based access has been specifically noted by representatives of the Parks Department since 2012 as not being approved. And yet it continues, every weekend night. How can Parks tell the public on multiple occasions for three years that bottle service is not approved and yet take no action to curb its use?

The renderings released during construction ­­ of kayakers pulling up to the shoreline, of the public strolling through the site and sitting on the grass ­­ have proven to be utterly misleading. State and Federal programs such as B.I.G. (Boating Infrastructure Grants) and an EcoDock are now being pursued for the site, but such grants require “reasonable public access”, “being open for reasonable periods" and may not be for "Projects that do not provide public benefits or are not open to the public". These grants and programs could be at risk given the manner in which the concession is being operated, which frequently places many barriers to the public accessing the docks.

On July 13th, 2014 there was a shooting on the patio terrace at La Marina. It was followed by silence from the NYPD and concession operator, although new cameras and enhanced security procedures appeared shortly afterwards that made it even more difficult to access public parkland. At what point does this violate the license agreement and public access? Shouldn’t patrons of a parks concession be more concerned with wearing life jackets than bulletproof vests?

In sum total, the method of access control, combined with the aforementioned hours, has severely limited public access to the site. Public access should now be restored by the elimination of all bottle service, ticketed events, and physical barriers except for rare occasions. A cap on the total number of private events consistent with other Parks’ restaurants should be established, consistent with the terms of the License Agreement.

G. Rent and the Tracking of Revenues

The Dyckman Marina concession pays an extremely low rent. The dollar minimums are below most hot­dog carts ­­ for example $8,551 in 2012, $40,827 in 2013, $59,927 in 2014. The percentage rent is clearly the governing rent, but these are also low ­­ 5% for 2012­2014, rising to 8%­10% in the ensuing 12 years of the License Agreement. Understandably these rents were set low partially because of the significant $850,000 capital investment that the RFP required of bidders to renovate the site. However, they were also set low because they are restaurant rents meant to be collected from a business whose primary revenue was the sale of food.

A few other Parks restaurant concessions have similar low percentage rent structures, such as New Leaf Cafe (4.1%). Most have much higher rents, such as the Boat Basin Cafe (14%). And even those concessions with low percentage rents pay much more for revenue from private events ­­ the rent jumps to 12.1% in the case of New Leaf for private­event revenues.

As documented above, the Parks Department seemingly allowed the additional major uses of nightclub and concert venue to the concession, uses that are essentially private events that occur multiple times each week. And yet they did not amend the agreement to adjust the rent typically collected from such events. Every time La Marina brings in millions in revenue from these uses, hundreds of thousands that could have gone to city revenues are not collected, because the concession is running a concert hall on a restaurant rent. Why this was allowed to happen should be thoroughly investigated.

Furthermore, what rent is collected (5% of revenues) is supposed to come from all sources, according to the License Agreement. This is straightforward enough for restaurant food and alcohol sales made through registers, but the large valet parking operation charges $20­30 in cash for hundreds of vehicles nightly. The thousands of tickets for the concerts are bought from promoters in small batches over the phone for unknown sums (some tickets have a price of $0 on them to accomodate demand pricing) and from a multitude of nightlife ticket websites (some owned by the concession operators themselves). Tickets are sold one at a time or as part of elaborate packages. For example, on the night of July 4th, one website offered a number of ticket packages for the beach area, with the simplest being a $30 admission and the most costly being $5,450 for 10 people, a cabana, 5 bottles of vodka and 10 bottles of champagne. The packages supposedly included sales tax but not the mandatory 20% bottle service gratuity. How has Parks managed to track all of this revenue accurately?

Is the concert area rented out to a third party at a different fee, who then sells the tickets? What is the revenue from the multiple professional music video shoots that have been done on the site? There are also numerous concerts or DJ events each year which are stated, in fine print on the promotional posters, to be “benefits” for causes such as Halloween Pumpkin Carving or holiday toy drives or local arts groups. What does this mean, and how does it impact revenues?

The result seems to be mass confusion. The September 2013 annual concession report of the City Chief Procurement Officer reports revenue to the city of $70,078 for July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. This is 5% of a gross revenue of $1.4M. A June 18, 2013 New York Times article on the concession operations reported a revenue to the city of $250,000 for the summer of 2012 alone (5% of $5M in revenue). A December 23, 2013 reported the concession had annual revenues of $7M (which would produce a 5% rent of $350,000). Just to use one example, the tickets for concerts alone during a given season would run well over a million dollars (30 events x $40 ticket average x 1000 ticket sales, to be conservative). What is the actual revenue of the concession, from which sources and is the city receiving its rent due? The concession operator claimed in 2014 that an audit was done and that other than minor corrections all was in order. That audit should be made public in the interest of transparency to ensure that the License Agreement is being followed.

H. Other City Policies

The Parks Department has established many rules and regulations to govern its stewardship of public land ­­ indeed, it is the largest landowner in all of New York. And so concession agreements contain multiple pages detailing boilerplate policies on smoking bans and permitted vending machine types. There are problems with the Dyckman Marina concession on these smaller matters as well; minor perhaps individually, but collectively they contribute to the wider issues. They should be enforced as any other concession would expect them to be equitably enforced:

i. New York City has very strict no smoking rules in parks, and this License Agreement is no exception. Under no circumstances may tobacco products be sold. And they are not, but each night many patrons do smoke using a legal workaround. Hookahs (a staple of nightclubs) are widely used at the concession, but they are claimed to be legal because they use a tobacco­less shisha. While this is technically not a violation of the License Agreement it certainly encourages a culture of smoking and is of questionable health risk ­­ several North American jurisdictions are now banning hookah smoking of any kind. Beyond the technical arguments, hookahs of any type are not consistent with a non­nightclub restaurant use and should never be allowed on New York City parkland at a restaurant concession.

ii. The License Agreement forbids advertisements of product brands without Parks’ prior approval. But the concession has operated since opening with multiple promotions of alcoholic brands such as Ciroc, Johnny Walker, Corona, D’usse, Ace of Spades, Heineken and Bacardi. As recently as July 10th, 2014 the facility hosted a Bacardi­sponsored event that included banners and advertisements mounted on the site. Were these brand promotions approved by Parks? Alcohol brand promotions are de rigeur for nightclubs but poor public policy for city parkland; another reason why the nightclub use should be removed and the original approved uses of restaurant and lounge restored.

iii. The License Agreement also forbids obscene advertising. During 2013 at least five separate events at the concession featured widely­advertised “cash prizes for best bikini”. Promotions for private nightlife parties, such as #BrunchBounce, would occasionally feature sexist imagery in their advertising for events at the concession. While a violation of the License Agreement and yet another nightlife­related issue, it was odd that this was the only item that Parks recognized as being a problem with the concession operations and the only one they actually managed to curb (the issue of obscene advertisements has not arisen in 2014).

iv. Several music videos have been shot on the premises that feature extensive nudity and extensivobscenities. (Fabolous, Movado, Nicki Minaj, 2Chainz, French Montana) These are essentially advertisements for the concession and for the artists, and often for specific brands of alcoho. Are they governed by the restrictions on brand promotions and content per the License Agreement? Were they approved by Parks, and if so, why?

I. Impacts on the Wider Community

Dyckman Street was a growing nightlife destination before the Dyckman Marina concession opened in 2012, but its growth since that time has been exponential. It is not difficult to note the economic math:

❏ New York bars and clubs are typically open to 4 am, including Sundays. ❏ La Marina closes at 1 am seven days a week, sending up to 3,000 club goers on major event nights into the streets looking for somewhere to go for the next three hours. ❏ Alcohol sales are very profitable.

Clearly it is now economically attractive in Inwood to open (or convert to) a nightlife spot to take advantage of the ecosystem that has been created by three summers’ worth of La Marina patronage. Occasionally these links can be seen directly when other nearby nightlife establishments promote themselves explicitly as “La Marina afterparties”. The issues related to the concession resulting from decisions (and nondecisions) by the Parks Department are clearly spilling over far beyond Parks property.

There are environmental issues regarding the pollution from the traffic gridlock and from the many jet­skiiers attracted to do stunts in front of the clubgoers. It is not clear that the toilets installed per the construction drawing and site plan were sized for 3,000 person events. The City also recently constructed new public toilets next to the concession, but these are so heavily used by the massive crowds drawn to the concerts that their condition is regularly in shambles.

There are also wider community impacts via the use public resources that are sorely needed elsewhere but are regularly diverted to provide cleanup, security and traffic to control to what is essentially a private nightclub and concert venue. For example, the resources of the 34th Precinct, a geographically large precinct, are limited and strained. It is known that in addition to the 34th, officers from DOT, Manhattan North, Impact Officers and Transit PD can be seen in the area around La Marina on big event nights. This is inappropriate and inequitable in itself, by the time the concession closes at 1 am many of the officers have left, creating further congestion and crowd control issues.

The marina function of the site has always been an important part of the city’s waterfront policies; the renovation of the concession was prominently mentioned in the Vision2020 official plan. However, the marina docks did not open until late 2013 and the promised sailing school and snack bar have never materialized. A $700,000 EcoDock for public programming has been promised for the site since 2012 but has yet to be constructed. The issue is not what impact these concession marina functions have had on the wider neighborhood but what impact they have not had, because they have not been delivered. While the community has dealt with all of the aforementioned problems on land, Parks allowed the supposed water­based waterfront program to sink out of sight.

The concession hosts several community events that are indeed beneficial ­­ pumpkin carving, easter egg hunts, etc. But these do not make up for the large­scale impact on the greater area caused by the inappropriate and unapproved nightlife uses and the absent waterfront uses. The fact that there has now even been gun violence on city parkland has put the safety of the greater Inwood community at risk and is not acceptable. Enforcing the License Agreement and approved Site Plan as written will greatly reduce negative impacts on the wider community.

Summary

There has always been support within the community for the concept of a renewed waterfront concession providing food service, waterfront access and attractive environs to the neighborhood. This was true in 2007 and it is true today. It is what the community was led to believe was drawn up and agreed to by Parks and its selected concessionaire, but it was clearly and demonstrably not ultimately delivered.

The fact that the concession has been an enormous success in terms of attendance and revenue generated for the City’s general fund should not be an excuse for the repeated and gross violations of the various approvals and agreed­to documents. After all, one could hand out a concession license with a 5% rent for a nightclub and concert venue in the Sheep’s Meadow in Central Park and turn the entire 65th Street Transverse into a valet parking lot, and it would be extremely profitable and even popular (for patrons, not nearby residents). But this would never happen for various reasons of legality, context, equity and public policy. Why did it happen to Dyckman Marina?

The concession operator has done an outstanding job with the physical renovation of the Premises and the operation of the restaurant proper. Many of the benefits credited to the concession ­­ infrstructure reinvestment, economic job creation, tremendous local pride of place ­­ are attributable to the restaurant and will certainly remain in place as its continues its operation under the current concession operator or any other.

But the nightclub and concert venue uses, the capacity increases and other changes, the disastrous parking and traffic problems, the resulting noise and quality of life issues ­­ these can and must be immediately and severely curtailed by enforcing the original agreements and plans as they were written and approved. This will allow all to access and enjoy this parkland equitably and as was originally intended, without undue and disruptive effects. It is the fair and legally appropriate outcome, the outcome that should have been present for the past three summers in Inwood.