With a strong possibility of funding and the ease of design made possible by the SecondLife modeling tools, there is a probability that many different park designs will be put forward. This section addresses the decision making process that will help decide: WHICH PARK?

 

Defining Democracy

 

Democracy has many meanings. And when the most despotic governments refer to themselves as democratic, it can verge on the meaningless. We need to know more about democracy and the decision making process we'll follow in designing and selecting the park's future.

 

For starters, a U.S. government definition, as summarized in The Pillars of Democracy, has the following elements:

 

• Sovereignty of the people.
• Government based upon consent of the governed.
• Majority rule.
• Minority rights.
• Guarantee of basic human rights.
• Free and fair elections.
• Equality before the law.
• Due process of law.
• Constitutional limits on government.
• Social, economic, and political pluralism.
• Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

 

But this is a U.S. State Department definition, designed to serve the government's foreign policy goals. We need to refine this definition before designing the processes and tools the "local" community will use to decide upon Landing Lights Park's future. For this discussion on democracy and the decision making process, see Democracy.

 

While that discussion takes place, we are learning more about the dimensions and concerns of the park's neighborhood and neighbors.

 

The Neighbors

 

Those who will eventually become involved in the decision making process will be from the following community and government segments.

 

• Community

 

• Residents – The most important group is the adjacent 97 homeowners and residents who live there. (Since some homes border on more than one parcel, simple addition of the following fails. Research: How many owners, renters, households? Demographics? Youth? Interests?)
  • parcel 1 - 22 homes
  • parcel 2 - 7 homes
  • parcel 3 - 32 homes
  • parcel 4 - 19 homes
  • parcel 5 - 6 homes
  • parcel 6(F) - 5 homes
  • parcel 7(G) - 5 homes
  • parcel 8(H) - 8 homes
• 4 Retail (Deli, Cleaners, Real Estate, Indian Restaurant)
• 3 Commercial (Enterprise Rent-A-Car, LaGuardia Airport, Long Island Box Company)
• Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Church with its grade school. (parcel 2)
• Rosary Senior Residence (parcel 1)
• Vaughn College of Technology & Aeronautics (adjacent to park)
• North Queens Homeowners Association
• Jackson Heights Civic Association
• Local Youth

 

• Government

 

• Community Board 3
• Community Board 3’s Youth Services Planning Committee
• Community Board 3’s Parks Committee
• City Council Member
• Queens Borough President
• NYC Parks Department
• Mayor
• Port Authority

 

Neighborhood Concerns

 

Landing Lights Park's 97 neighbors, particularly those living in the adjacent 91 residential properties, suffer from the noise, vehicle traffic, and fumes caused by the operation of nearby LaGuardia Airport. This has resulted in a universal and understandable negative view of the Airport, and a belief that they shoulder more than a fair share of the urban burden, that they've suffered enough abuse from the airport, and that any future park use should not add to the area's already high noise, air, and congestion problems.

 

The neighbors are protective of the current configuration and operation of Landing Lights Park. Talk of a swimming pool in the 1970s was frowned upon. A roller hockey rink proposal in the 1990s was roundly rejected. When recent immigrants started using parcel B for soccer games, the neighbors persuaded the city to disrupt play by dumping boulders on the playing area.

 

The recent transfer of the baseball field to the NYC Department of Parks necessitated a community board review. When a board member inquired of resident leaders about neighborhood desires, stories of jets dumping their fuel, of falling plane parts, of crash landings were tossed in the path of any proposal. One civic leader wrote the local council member advising that she not entertain any new developments on the unsafe property. There’s pressure to demolish the baseball field.

 

The adjacent 97 residences are a vital part of the democratic process. They have the most to gain or loose from any change. Barring any extraordinary regional benefit from a particular park use (and none has been suggested), the 97 residents' opinion will rule. Their opposition would kill any project. However, if they desire, they have a primary call on the $100,000,000 Airport Lease Community Development Fund that could be lavished on a park that meets their approval.

 

Early discussion with local civic leaders revealed the following:

 

• Passive park uses such as gardens, would likely be received positively.
• Active uses, e.g., ball fields, will be opposed, especially in the more residential southern sections.
• This is one of those rare areas of the city where parking spots are readily available. Nothing should be done to diminish the convenient local parking.

 

===April 28, 2006===

 

Tom Lowenhaupt distributed Landing Lights Update flyers to the homes surrounding the park on a Friday evening.

 

In the process he discussed the park with perhaps 15 residents. Upon comcluding the review he was left with the questions - Which park? How will we get consensus?

 

Consensus Development

 

To properly engage the public in a design process, we must define the geographic area of impact and the interested parties by answering the following.

 

• Who is interested in changes to Landing Lights Park?
• What are the boundaries of the community: Is it the 97 neighbors; the 1/4 mile walk community; the community district, borough, or city?
• Is there a regional need for a grand park, one that would attract crowds from afar?
• Are the neighbors interested in a grand park?
• How do you achieve a balance between quality local amenities and not attracting the noise, mess, crowds, and cars that come with a grand park?
• What park features can be added that will improve local living conditions without attracting noise, mess, crowds, and cars?
• What's the balance between local appeal and attracting outsiders?
• Finally, having answered these questions, what geographic area will be affected by Landing Lights Park? And who should be invited and encouraged to participate in the decision making process?

 

Whatever the answer to these questions, it is essential that we engage the neighbors in the planning and design process. Preliminarily, let’s imagine the neighboring community agrees to participate in a planning process with the stipulation that it be provided with a veto of any proposed design. And that the community is defined as the 97 neighbors.

 

• What steps can be taken to engage the 97 neighbors in a planning process?
• Who should approach the neighbors?
• When?
• What communication channels and processes should be used to facilitate a comprehensive review of the possibilities?
• What assurances can be given to the 97 that their limited peace and quiet will not be harmed?
• Can a binding agreement be made giving the local community the power to reject an unsatisfactory plan?
• Can a binding agreement be reached giving the local community the power to reject an unsatisfactory plan?
• If there is such an agreement, what form should it take?
• What form might this assurance take?
• Must it be a formal agreement?
• Is it enforceable?
• By whom?
• Who will draft the agreement?
• What is the organizational form that represents the community: ad hoc, existing civic, other?
• Who can sign this agreement for the local community?
• Who can sign this agreement for the community board?
• How are information, deliberation, and decision making brought into the initial agreement formation process?
• How are they implemented?
• How are information, deliberation, and decision making brought into the online park design selection process?

 

Public Engagement

 

We need to get the neighborhood thinking about the park's design and provide an opportunity to participate in the visioning of the park’s long term development.

 

Recruitment will initially focus on the adult population. We need to activate that fundamental civic culture that makes residents responsible to assume the behaviors, practices, and norms that define self governance. An early step involves compiling a list of the advantages. The list will include:

 

• The existance and operation of a community designed park will improve the residents' quality of life.
• It will increase the value of their homes.
• It will engage and provide valuable experience about the governance process to the community.
• It will engage area youth in the governance process.
• Through a training program, it will provide technical skills to the neighbors - youth and adults.

 

With a key goal being to engage youth in all aspects of park planning, design, and development, with adult approval, local youth will be recruited and trained in the use of SecondLife tools and coached to be active and contributing participants in the planning and governance processes.

 

Youth Recruitment

 

A key project goal is to engage local youth in the project’s design, development, and governance processes. Since adults will be part of the planning process on SecondLife's Landing Lights Island (as trainers and visitors), a minimum participation age of 18 will be set to avoid the improper interactions that sometimes mar Internet intercourse.

 

Local youth will be (partially) responsible for creating park models acceptable to the adjacent community and will bring this model to the Community Board for approval. The youth will be assisted in this by the Board’s Parks & Youth Services Planning Committees.

 

If approved by the neighbors and Community Board, the Park Plan will move through a review process that includes the local council member, borough president, mayor, and Airport Development Fund. Youth will shepherd the approved plan through this process, learning important lessons about governance.

 

Youth engagement will begin by sending invitations to the following organizations.

 

• Queens College
• LaGuardia Community College
• Vaughn College of Technology & Aeronautics
• Lexington School for the Deaf
• Monsignor McClancy High School
• The Renaissance Charter School
• Local Public High School (Bryant/LIC/Newtown)
• Our Lady of Lourdes parishiners.

 

Additionally, signs will be posted in the surrounding community, around the park, and in nearby retail establishments.

 

An introductory meeting and training session will be held at Vaughn College on April 29 under the auspices of the Juggernaut Club.

 

 

 

Designing The Park

 

Once we’ve engaged the community, provided training, software tools, and the platform (SecondLife) to enable neighbors to participate in the 3D Wiki, we need a mechanism for selecting from amongst the many likely designs. In preparation for that decision we need to record:

 

• The number of visitors to the SecondLife model and the Landing Lights / Democracy Island Wiki.
• Plans offered for the Landing Lights Park area.
• Community opinion as to desirable features and locations.
• Community opinion as to the desired park plan.

 

Additionally, the park design must include a plan for its maintenance.

 

Consensus Building – Brings the diverse interests of the community together to reach a consensus on the future, avoiding outside agenda setting.

 

Education – Teach neighbors about the planning process and the advantages and costs of park possibilities.

 

Public Policy Development – Establish community priorities and recommendations.

 

Community Development – Empower neighbors to direct park funds to a consensus project.

 

The Decision Making Process

 

Unsolicited, several suggestions have been made to date for the park features.

 

• Do Nothing
• Bee Farm
• Butterfly Nursery
• Children’s Gardens
• Running Track
• Permaculture
• Wheelchair Pathway - From Rosary Senior Housing through park.
• Move Baseball Field
• Refurbish Baseball Field

 

With the design tools available (e.g., doodads), it's likely that many designs with different features and locations will be presented. We need a decision making process to select a consensus park. That process will have several elements:

 

• A method for participants on SecondLife to review various proposals and arrive at a consensus park design. This will include a determination of whose votes count.
• We need a method to weigh the value of the virtual park participants.
• At the community level, we need a method of selecting a consensus park, and bringng this to the traditional review process.

 

Traditional Review Process

 

Abraham Lincoln called for a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." In NYC, the city charter vests grassroots governance in the 59 community boards. The charter provids no limit to their scope, directing them to “Consider the needs of the district they serve.” Some boards take up foreign policy issues. However, on power scale, with board opinions advisory, their influence varies widely. So if Lord Acton's dictum "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true, what of the opposite? Does powerlessness promote the honorable?

 

As governed by the city charter and the by-laws of the Queens Community Board 3, here are the steps in the formal review process:

 

• When issues arise, the Community Board, acting through the board’s chair, who is elected annually by the members, assigns them to an appropriate committee. Board 3 currently has 16 committees.
• The committee reviews the issue – which might include research, site visits, meetings, and a formal public hearing – and decides on a recommended course of action. The decision is made by majority vote at a quorum meeting.
• The committee’s chair presents the conclusions, including a minority report, if any, to the board's executive committee.
• The executive committee, consisting of board officers and committee chairs, meets monthly to set the agenda for the full board’s monthly meeting.
• In most instances a committee meeting report results in a presentation being delivered at the monthly meetings. Occasionally it is referred back to the committee for further review or put aside for a less congested agenda.
• At the monthly meeting, after presentation, discussion, and any amendments, the measure (if approved), is passed on to the designated agency(s), organization(s), or individual(s) for further action.

 

New Governance

 

We need to set up a method to integrate to Landing Lights Island decision making process with the traditional governance process. This will be defined early on in the agreement phase, wherein the veto is given to the local community.