USTA Robert LoScalzo Testimony

7/28/2019 USTA Robert LoScalzo Testimony

1/5

Testimony of Robert LoScalzoto Queens Borough President Helen Marshall

concerning the proposed expansion of theUnited States Tennis Association National Tennis Center

within Flushing Meadows Corona ParkApril 4, 2013

I am Robert LoScalzo, a resident of Queens. I'm opposed tounnecessarily sacrificing even more parkland to the USTA.

I am very concerned that you may not be aware, that USTA isperfectly capable of renovating its facilities while keeping within its

present footprint, and NOT expanding onto even more parkland.

USTA's EIS for this project (chapter 17) sets forth two options the"Alternative Without Additional Park Land" and the "AlternativeWithout New Park Land Alienation" either of which would rebuildthe USTA stadiums, in place.

So if you're in favor of creating construction and trade jobs, those tworeasonable options would absolutely do so, and would also satisfyUSTA's desire for new, state-of-the-art facilities without furtherencroaching into Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

USTA's self-serving conclusion is that rebuilding within its currentfootprint is not acceptable to USTA.

USTA wants more parkland, for two main reasons:

Number One:To increase the width of a walkway inside the tennis center, to provide

a more luxurious experience for tennis people during just two weeksof the U.S. Open. If that walkway really isn't wide enough, U.S. Openfans would have testified at the public hearings in support of wideningit. They haven't. Solving a non-existent problem two weeks out of theyear does not justify sacrificing sacred parkland.


2/5

Number Two:USTA wants to increase attendance at the U.S. Open by 10,000 morepeople every day. But who says that we want 10,000 more peoplethere, or that it's even reasonable to put them there?

The impacts of those people are very significant.

A very large number of them will travel by car, taxi or limousine. Hereare two photographs showing the effects on Roosevelt Avenue duringthe 2012 U.S. Open. Two entire lanes are coned off one in eachdirection to accommodate drop-off and pick-up of tennis people.

This situation is already very bad but USTA wants to attract another10,000 people here per day? By the way, these conditions on

Roosevelt are right next to the proposed site of the Mets mall in theCiti Field parking lot which would be the largest mall in New YorkCity. How can you reconcile commandeering Roosevelt Avenue likethis, with the simultaneous traffic to be generated by a huge mall,right here?

The prestige of the U.S. Open is already well established. It does notdepend on whether 10,000 more people attend it.

This USTA proposal, like the two others that impinge on our park, areefforts to close deals on parkland while the Bloomberg administrationis still around to sign the papers. Please do right by the people ofQueens: Tell USTA to renovate within its existing space, and reject itsself-serving application to expand its size and its impacts.

Thank you.

Robert LoScalzoWhitestone, New York

718-352-4534


3/5


4/5


5/5

Proposed E X P A N S I O N of United States Tennis Association

National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows Corona Park

IMPACTS UPON TREES

Excerpts from the USTA Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, page 8: "Approximately 422 trees would be removed, which would be

transplanted to the extent practicable" (emphasis added).

Chapter 7, page 2: "Six state-listed endangered willow oak trees located in the walkwaybetween Louis Armstrong Stadium and the Indoor Tennis Center would be displaced as

a result of the proposed project. However, if deemed feasible, these trees may be

relocated to another area of the NTC or onto adjacent DPR property" (emphasis added).

Chapter 7, page 1: "The analysis finds that the proposed project would not result in anysignificant adverse natural resources impacts" despite the likely tree impacts.

____________________________

USTA CAN RENOVATE WITHOUT ENCROACHING ONTO MORE PARKLAND

USTA is perfectly capable of renovating its facilities within its existing footprint, and

rebuilding its stadiums in place, WITHOUT expanding onto any additional parkland. In

fact, USTAs Draft Environmental Impact Statement (chapter 17) analyzes two scenarios

in which renovations are accomplished without additional parkland:

"Alternative Without Additional Park Land"

0.94 acres of park land would NOT be added to the NTC site. USTA stadiums would be rebuilt, in place providing the same construction and

trade jobs as if built elsewhere.

The "opportunity to improve pedestrian circulation" only for patrons of the U.S.Open would be lost. (Thus far, no U.S. Open attendee has testified that the existingpedestrian circulation is insufficient.)

There would be no increase in capacity of the NTC to allow 10,000 more visitorsper day to attend the U.S. Open but there would also be no adverse trafficimpacts arising from the influx of those additional 10,000 visitors.

"Alternative Without New Park Land Alienation"

NO new alienation of park land. Only 0.26 acres of previously alienated park land would be added to the NTC site. USTA stadiums would be rebuilt, in place providing the same construction and

trade jobs as if built elsewhere. This alternative "would result in the same development program as the Alternative

Without Additional Park Land", above.

Either of the above two reasonable alternatives would result in renovated USTA

facilities, but without further compromising Flushing Meadows Corona Park. The

pending USTA ULURP application should be denied, and the USTA told to pursue

either of the above two reasonable alternatives.

Information provided by Save Flushing Meadows Corona Park www.SaveFMCP.org

Documents

USTA Robert LoScalzo Testimony