Niagara City Council tables resolution to authorize $4 million written offer for Centennial Park parcel amid calls for feasibility and transparency

The Niagara City Council on the evening meeting voted to table a resolution authorizing the presentation of a written offer to acquire real property under eminent-domain procedure (procedural law 303 and 304). The resolution as presented would have authorized an offer in the amount of $4,000,000 for property identified in the resolution; after public comment and discussion the council voted to table the item by a roll call that resulted in three yes votes and two no votes.

Residents and community speakers sharply questioned the proposal and requested documents and analysis before the council moved forward. "Tonight, you're being asked to authorize a $4,000,000 offer just for a land acquisition... with no feasibility study made public, no state funding secured, no committed partnerships, and no anchor tenant for the so called Centennial Park," resident Silvana Rahman said during public comment. Several other speakers echoed that demand for transparency: "If we're being asked to make decisions based on that document, then the vote should be tabled until every council member has the opportunity to study it," said Sean Mapp.

Multiple speakers raised questions about title and prior park status for parts of the parcel. Tanya Barone (spelled Burrow in parts of the record) asked whether the Tenth Street Park had been legally transferred and noted the length of time since a feasibility consultant was first engaged. Council members and city counsel explained the legal history: an eminent-domain proceeding and subsequent appeals have run through the Supreme Court and Appellate Division, and the court of appeals denied further review; as a result the city said it has exhausted court review and the next procedural step is to present an offer. The acting corporation counsel told the council, "No no money, no check is being written tomorrow morning as a result of a vote for this item." He explained that if the parties cannot agree on price the matter could still be decided later by a court and that offering is a required step in the condemnation process.

Speakers also asked about the feasibility study and state support. A resident asked, "Is the feasibility study completed?" The council and administration replied that the feasibility study for the proposed Centennial Park is not completed and that the state has not committed money; administration representatives said the state typically discusses funding only after the city demonstrates clear title to property.

Opponents described the proposal as premature and financially risky. "The city does not need a Centennial Park," Anita Harutunian said. Janine Gallo summarized a line of criticism succinctly: "A park's a park. You're gonna buy a park that you said you have." Other speakers focused on competing local needs such as roads, housing, and maintenance of existing facilities.

Council action: A motion to table the resolution was made and seconded; a roll-call vote recorded three votes in favor of tabling and two opposed. The council chair announced the motion to table carried. No funds were disbursed and no final acquisition decision was made at the meeting.

Ending: Council members who supported tabling said they wanted time to review the appraisal, the incomplete feasibility study, and potential funding paths so they could explain any vote to constituents. The administration said it would continue litigation and title work and would provide further details to the council upon request.