DEP Environmental Protection Invoices, 1999-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

IL) 71 ierooc' i NOU-30-2000 t3:56 FROM DEP LEGAL

Federal District Court agreed complete. In a carefully reasoned opinion (copy attached), the Circuit was taken. The with the City; an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second scheduling oral argument, has Second Circuit, after initially accepting briefs on the issue and New York State Court of Appeals. recently certified both of the above-listed questions to the

The Importance of This Case Warrants Your Support treasures the importance of its The City of New York, along with all other municipalities, be used for placement of parks. The land beneath parks can serve as valuable property that can important recreational important public works, without depriving the public of an equally sites, as well as water, resource. In New York City, for example, roads, subway tunnels, shaft other New York State sewer and cable lines run underneath parks. We understand that many such projects in the Municipalities have sited similar facilities under parkland or contemplate underneath parks would future. Requiring state legislative approval for placing such facilities unpredictable political process. subject important projects to an unwieldy, time consuming and is restored to its former Where a project is carefully designed so that parkland, upon construction, state legislative approval park use, the City does not believe that the State Constitution requires use during construction of a to proceed. Moreover, the argument that mere disruption of park suggest that nothing project amounts to alienation of parkland, would (in its broadest reading) approval. Therefore, we could ever he built in, on or under a park without State legislative why both certified respectfully urge you to join the City in briefing the Court of Appeals on consequences of an affirmative questions should be answered in the negative, and the serious ruling.

NYC-WTC 000137831