What did they expect? This is a board that is supposed to represent the community's interest. The Gotham Gazette (link below) say's that one of the biggest issues in the neighborhood according to the community board is the under developed amount of land held by private developers. For the board to vote down the largest private investment in the Bronx in history shows that they are voting against the stadium for political reasons rather than the betterment of their community.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/community/16

This is not the wrath of the borough president or any type of payback. It is necessary to move the Bronx forward from a borough of burnt out buildings to one that is inclusive of new economic development opportunities including new jobs for the people living in the district (THE POOREST CONGRESIONAL DISTRICT IN THE NATION) The ex board members must like living in a place strewn with garbage and poverty. It is apparent with the borough presidents decision that he disagrees with the board and has decided to take the board in a new direction.

We in the Bronx stand to GAIN parkland from this project with relatively few government subsidies offered to the developer. Community involvement was a large part of this process unlike Bloombergs Jets Stadium this project went though U.L.E.R.P. (the city's land use review process) if we don't think the processes is fair we should talk about how to improve it rather than slinging mud at an institution or an elected official that is making the Bronx better as well as community board 4.

Where are the burned out buildings? Why pave a park? Simply to satisfy Carrion's fatally low self esteem about his borough? And will you puhleeze stop trotting out that dead dog of "jobs"! Boring! We do NOT stand to gain parkland with this proposal, we stand to LOSE parkland and there was extremely LITTLE community involvement. In fact, you can say NONE. Stop the lies!

For the record, Bronx officials I spoke to were all very clear that this was payback for the stadium vote (though some defended Carrion's right to do so).

Also, the BP's office finally got back to me last night with numbers: Of nine members who were up for reappointment, four were bounced. Still working on getting names.

The Carrion Four were: Ade Rasul (board chair), Gertrude Lane, Louise Williams and Marie Stroud. Lane and Williams both voted with the anti-stadium majority last fall; no one, including the board's recording secretary, seems to remember how Stroud voted. (And as it was a vote by raise of hands, not roll call, there's no official record.)

That's right. Hey, BX, you said "under developed" land -- not parkland. And do the math: the new parkland is *smaller* (please don't count that plot a mile away by the river; that will serve as a private tennis concession, where you'll have to pay $65 an hour to play). And don't forget: the Yankees will still be using the space underneath the new parkland for parking. Let's call it was it is -- a land grab.

While it is disappointing to consider that the team of the Boro President may have carried out a vendetta against Board Members opposed to the ludicrous proposal to destroy an existing park, Board turnover is something that needs to be achievd in many Boards in the City.

This comes from a former member of Board # 1 in the Bronx who was also not reappointed, despite support form local Council members, si ilarly mentioend in the article above.

Experience and wisdom are great, but some Boards have entrenched interests that are about authoritarian control, thwarting local and decentralized apporaches and just holding place until a vote comes down that the powers that be really want.

I will conmsider reapplying again next year, after setting an example of term limits that should be more prolific. And Mr. Carrion and all the Boro Presidents should review and consoder Scott Stringer's Board Reform proposals on gothamgazette.com.