At the groundbreaking for the new playground in Van Cortlandt Park’s southeast corner, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said something very interesting. The improvement of Bronx parkland in exchange for alienating a chunk of Van Cortlandt, sets a “precedent.”

“If you’re going to build something in a park, you have to make up for it,” he said.

“Precedent” is a loaded term as far as the filtration controversy is concerned. While Benepe sees the replacement of parkland or the addition of amenities in parks as a positive precedent, park advocates, neighborhood residents, and other foes of the project have long argued that the taking of parkland for a giant industrial facility is itself a terrible precedent.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s just consider Benepe’s point. Sure, it’s a good thing that after being saddled with a project nobody wanted we are at least getting our parks upgraded. But if this trading of new park amenities for those that have been lost is a new precedent or policy, as Benepe says, then what have we already lost?

After all, it was only because of a successful lawsuit by the friends of Van Cortlandt Park in 2001 that the city had to go back to the drawing board and come up with the political deal that rewarded the support of Bronx politicians with the $200 million in mitigation monies. That was 10 times what the city planned to pony up before that first successful lawsuit.

So if this is a new city policy, how many other projects resulted in the diminution of our parks without compensation? The Pelham Bay Landfill is surely an example of this. And going forward, what will Bronxites get in return for the stalled golf course project at Ferry Point Park? Or the Department of Sanitation composting facility in Soundview Park? Or the Department of Transportation vehicle facility along Broadway in Van Cortlandt Park?

We look forward in all these cases to the application of the city’s new policy stemming from the precedent of the filtration plant as defined by Commissioner Benepe.