I think the Post is mistaken. The plan was to build the park atop the High Line, but if the right of way is demolished, where will the park go?

I think you're right. If the mayor decides to demolish it, he doesn't need approval from the Council.

The Post reporter seems to think that Bloomberg wants to demolish the el and put a park in its place, but in reality proponents of the park want to build the park atop the el. Opponents of the park/el want to demolish it and reclaim the air rights, presumably for high-rise office space and residential units.

Now, Bloomberg supports the park, so demolishing the High Line probably isn't an immediate worry, and that means there's still a chance he can put a park up there. But if he doesn't get the ball rolling in his administration, his successor now has the right to knock the High Line down.

copied from Friends of the Highline email:
FHL LEGAL UPDATE
January 16, 2004

Dear High Line supporters,

We'd like to give you an important legal update. Yesterday an appeals court overturned a FHL victory that two years ago stopped a High Line demolition proposal from going forward. But since the Bloomberg administration now endorses the High Line project—and the administration reaffirmed its commitment to High Line reuse when responding to yesterday's news—we're confident that the ruling will not hinder our efforts to create a great new public space on the High Line.

Some news reports have made it sound like the High Line is imminent danger of being torn down because of this ruling. This is not the case. A statement from the City Law Department yesterday makes this quite clear. "The decision does not change the City's efforts to preserve the High Line as a public amenity," said Jeffrey D. Friedlander, First Assistant Corporation Counsel.

The ruling grows out of legal challenge FHL filed to stop a demolition proposal developed during the previous mayoral administration. Since that time the Bloomberg administration has changed the City's policy to one that favors preservation of the High Line for reuse as public open space and has been working actively alongside Friends of the High Line to move the project forward.

The Appellate Division's ruling does not pose an immediate threat to the High Line, given the City's strong support for the project. If, however, the City's policy were to change, this ruling might allow it to commit to demolish the structure without going through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), which requires review by the City Council, the Borough President, and the Community Boards.

FHL is reviewing the appeals court ruling and considering possible recourse. Meanwhile FHL will continue to work with the City of New York to create a legal structure and a design master plan for the High Line's conversion to public open space.

FoHL
430 West 14th Street, Suite 304
New York, NY 10014
(212) 206-9922
(212) 206-9118 fax
info@thehighline.org
http://www.thehighline.org

I don't support any park that requires people to pay for its upkeep regardless if they use it. Many taxpayers won't use the park, but every taxpayer has to pay for it. My idea of leisure is going to a rock concert or movie, but I don't ask every taxpayer to help pay for my ticket.

I don't oppose parks. I only oppose parks paid for with blood money. Fortunately, my neighors don't force me to physically clean the park. I just have to pay other people to clean it. That's an improvement compared to other slave states that require direct participation.

Government is not supposed to engage in "false" charity. It's supposed to defend our right to our life, liberty and property. Mandatory park fees infringe on our right to our property.

Do you think that we created a government so that our neighbors could use our money for their leisure activities? No, we created it to help secure our rights to life, liberty and property.

I'm completely in favor of government. But only benign and moral forms of government.