The controversy surrounding the closure of the Jackie Robinson Park tennis courts in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, highlights the tension between community access to public resources and the city’s management of those resources. Residents and tennis enthusiasts are protesting the Parks Department’s decision to lock the courts during the winter months, arguing that the closure is unfair, discriminatory, and contradicts the city’s own park accessibility rules. The courts, which underwent a $1 million renovation in 2023 following community advocacy, were reopened only to be shuttered again in December, leaving local players without access to a valuable recreational facility. This has spurred a petition, organized by community members, demanding the courts’ reopening and emphasizing the importance of equal access to recreational spaces across different neighborhoods.
The Parks Department justifies the closure citing “repeated vandalism and misuse” during the previous season. They claim the vandalism refers to broken locks and the misuse to unauthorized tennis lessons being conducted on the courts. However, residents and tennis players dispute these reasons, arguing that the broken locks are a consequence of the courts being locked in the first place, and that penalizing the entire community for the actions of a few individuals is unjust. They further point out that other public tennis courts across the borough remain open throughout the winter, highlighting the seemingly targeted nature of the Jackie Robinson Park closure. This discrepancy fuels suspicions that the closure is retaliatory, particularly given a recent dispute over concession rights for tennis instruction at the park.
Longtime tennis coach Frances Ferdinand, who had previously offered free and low-cost lessons at the park, lost a bidding war for exclusive teaching rights to a new concession holder. She alleges that her subsequent ban from the park, which occurred during a community event she was hosting, and the subsequent winter closure of the courts are connected. Ferdinand argues that the city’s prioritization of revenue generation over community benefit in awarding concession contracts is unfair and detrimental to local residents. She believes that the decision to award the contract based on the highest bid, rather than community impact, disregards the valuable service she provided to the community for years.
The closure of the courts not only restricts access for local players but also exacerbates the demand for court time at other public facilities in Brooklyn. Players report having to pay for court time or arrive as early as 7 a.m. to secure a spot at other locations. This underscores the importance of the Jackie Robinson Park courts to the local community and the impact of their closure on residents’ ability to engage in recreational activities. With the courts locked, a valuable community asset sits unused, depriving residents of a space for exercise, socialization, and skill development. This is particularly concerning given the potential for these courts to nurture young talent, as expressed by residents who believe the next generation of tennis stars could emerge from their community.
The community’s fight to reopen the courts has involved reaching out to various elected officials, including City Council Member Chi Osse, Parks Commissioner Sue Donogue, Senator Jabari Brisport, and the New York City Public Advocate. They hope that by raising awareness of the issue and applying political pressure, they can compel the Parks Department to reverse its decision and restore access to the courts. The community’s efforts demonstrate their commitment to reclaiming this public space and ensuring equitable access to recreational opportunities for all residents. Their advocacy underscores the importance of community involvement in shaping the use and management of public resources.
The ongoing dispute over the Jackie Robinson Park tennis courts reflects a larger conversation about the allocation and accessibility of public resources. It raises questions about the balance between revenue generation and community benefit, and the role of local voices in decision-making processes concerning public spaces. The community’s mobilization to reopen the courts highlights the significance of these spaces as hubs for recreation, social interaction, and potential talent development. Ultimately, the outcome of this dispute will have implications for how public parks are managed and accessed in New York City and could serve as a precedent for similar situations in other communities.
