REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

OF TEN CITIZENS OF BROOKLYN APPOINTED AT THE SUGGESTION
OF WILLIAM A. PRENDERGAST, COMPTROLLER
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

Since the appointment of this committee on the 30th day of April, 1913, it has had frequent meetings, conferences and hearings. Conferences have been had with representatives from organizations that have given time and study to the subjects within the scope of this committee. Several public hearings were held, notice of which was given in the public press. Written communications have been invited from all persons interested. Architects have been employed to advise and we have had the help of competent engineers.

At the outset the committee has been compelled to recognize the situation of Brooklyn and its relation to Manhattan and Greater New York. Brooklyn has always labored under the disadvantage that, although its residents have helped create the great assessed valuations in lower Manhattan, it did not before consolidation receive any benefit from the taxation of those values. In this respect Brooklyn was not and even now is not like independent cities such as Buffalo, Cleveland or Chicago, where both residences and office buildings contribute alike to support the same municipal government. Prior to consolidation on January 1st, 1898, Brooklyn had reached the limit of her constitutional borrowing capacity. The city needed many new schools and more bridges and tunnels across the East River. Along with many disadvantages that flowed from consolidation, there came the great advantage that Brooklyn at last received a portion of the tax money raised on the real estate in lower Manhattan, to which Brooklyn people had helped to give a high value. It must, however, be recognized that Manhattan is the central borough, and that as the business and municipal center of Greater New York she is entitled to pre-eminence in buildings to transact the city's business. Now that the boroughs constitute one city, Manhattan must help to give the outlying boroughs those utilities that their growth reasonably requires, and the outlying boroughs must recognize Manhattan as the business and official center.

For the last twenty years the industrial population in Brooklyn has been greatly increasing. Officials and loyal citizens who desire that the historic character of Brooklyn should be preserved cannot afford to wait ten years before a beginning is made to brighten up the downtown district. Continued migrations of home owners from Brooklyn to New Jersey and to counties outside of Greater New York may weaken the ability of the borough to preserve its entity and character. If it should once become a somewhat neglected industrial annex of Manhattan, the result would be injurious both to Brooklyn and Manhattan. No greater calamity could happen to every part of Brooklyn than to have the borough lose its civic pride.

When we add to the foregoing considerations the fact that Greater New York has nearly reached the constitutional limit of its borrowing capacity, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that persistent and long-continued demand will bring indefinite millions of dollars to Brooklyn in the near future. The vast contemplated expenditure for rapid transit railroads brings a share to Brooklyn, but even to validate the dual rapid transit contracts it was necessary to dedicate to subways $50,000,000 out of the $65,000,000 of self-supporting dock bonds exempted under the recent constitutional amendment, while we in Brooklyn know that more than $15,000,000 are needed for dock improvements in Brooklyn alone during the next ten years. In order to obtain a sufficient margin within the debt limit, assessed valuations have been placed at full value, and in some cases beyond prices that property will bring in the open market. Until the comprehensive rapid transit plan is completed in the course of four to six years, it cannot be expected that there will be a substantial increase in assessed valuations, taking the city as a whole.

With all of these considerations before us we have concluded that the strictest economy must be observed in improving the downtown district of Brooklyn, and that every dollar expended should be not only of the greatest use for the special purpose to which it is put, but also that every dollar expended should give co-ordinated results. Therefore we consider that such lands as are taken for public buildings should also contribute toward the opening up and improvement of the central business locality.

Outside of money for rapid transit lines, docks, schoolhouses and street improvements, it is not likely that the Borough of Brooklyn will within the next eight years receive any substantial sums except for the new municipal building and a new court house. If these buildings are placed in isolated locations where they have no relation to one another nor to the borough center, it will be most unfortunate. Like the Academy of Music, which is surrounded by narrow streets, they would confer only a partial benefit. Therefore the question of their location is more than finding a good spot for a court house or municipal building. The problem is to find locations that will be convenient for the public business, have a relation to each other and other public improvements, and contribute to the acquirement of more open space where it will do the most good.