By h.mani.dia

The problem sounds like a silly problem. The Gateway Bridge—the skyway that connects Newark Penn Station with several office buildings and has an entrance on Mulberry Street—is only open to through traffic between the hours of 6AM and 8PM, a much shorter window than the 5:30AM to midnight before the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Since reopening, not only does the bridge close at an earlier hour, but some of the guards have made residents of the city feel unwelcome, turning them away from doorways or shooing them along from the tables that are allegedly open for us to use. In my experience, it is usually the evening and weekend guards who become the vigilante arbiters of Gateway-access-worthiness.

I call it a silly problem because it is a very “Downtown Newark” problem. If you live in other parts of Newark and are traveling through Penn Station, you are likely taking a connecting bus or light rail from Penn to other neighborhoods; if you live in the Ironbound, you are coming out the East entrance of Penn and have no need to cross McCarter Highway. This skyway bridge provides Downtown and the eastern part of the Central Ward a safe way to cross that highway. It serves as a connection for people on one side of the train tracks to easily get to the other side.

But it also isn’t just a Downtown Newark problem, especially considering the message that Onyx (the new owners of Gateway) keep proffering: meet the new Gateway and the new restaurant row opening in its corridors. If I believe this message, it would seem Gateway is an amenity for both Gateway tenants and for the broader public.

It may very well be that the Gateway Bridge’s intent originally included the broader public. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know how to operate an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request. However, someone in the city knows how to perform an OPRA request, and that someone also knows how to use Reddit, which I do happen to know. Their OPRA request turned up an interesting document. The easement agreement between the City of Newark, Gateway, and United/Penn Central. They were kind enough to post the document in a well populated Newark subreddit.

This document makes the case that the Gateway Bridge is a public way and that closing access to it by Gateway is something that is explicitly prohibited by the easement: 

The parties hereto agree that the pedestrian walkway or bridge, including that portion within the interior of the railroad station building, shall be open and available at all times to pedestrian traffic except at such times as may be necessary for the maintenance or repair of same, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit UNITED and/or PENN CENTRAL from closing the railroad station or any portion thereof, including the portion on which the walkway is located, to the extent required, permitted or provided by law or by any order or regulation of, or by any contract with, any public body or agency having jurisdiction.

But if this is the case, why is the Gateway Bridge closed? Even before the pandemic, Gateway used to close at midnight. As a resident of Downtown Newark, I never thought to question it. At the time, it felt like a benevolent feature a private business offered lowly me, a local resident. Gateway benefited from my naïveté.

Now, while at the moment I would thank all the stars in the skies if it went back to 5:30AM to midnight, having read the easement, I am also ill at ease with that. The agreement seems clear. Gateway shall be open and available at all times to pedestrian traffic unless closure is necessary for maintenance or repair. What maintenance required 5.5 hours then and requires 10 hours now?

If you do not live in the East Ward, or if you are new to the city, the East Ward was previously represented by Councilman Augusto Amador. When he chose not to run again, a four way race for his open position ensued. This race seemed like it would be close, so close that the East Ward candidates finally deigned to campaign in the very small sliver of Downtown Newark that sits in the East Ward. 

I happen to live in that ward. When the candidates made their appearances (including one with the Mayor!) I brought up access to Gateway as an issue. Every candidate assured me this would be a priority, that they would look into it as soon as they were elected.The election came and went, along with a run-off election. Councilman Silva became Amador’s successor.

Like my residence, Gateway also exists in the East Ward. Given the passage of time, it is reasonable to ask if Councilman Silva even remembers the issue. After all, campaign promises have a stigma for a reason. It is even reasonable to question if he knows about the easement.

For these doubts I can say the following: I know that a copy of the easement was emailed to Silva’s office. I know a few emails have been sent to Silva’s office regarding access hours, and I also know a member of his staff has read some of the emails regarding this matter, as she has acted as a perfectly inefficient message forwarding service. The exchange would often go as follows:

Send email to Councilman Silva’s staff member.

She forwards it to a manager at Gateway.

Gateway manager responds.

She forwards the response back to the email sender.

I can also say that I saw no evidence at any point of interest in the actual root of the problem, no deeper consideration that, as a city, we are allowing a business to chip away at an agreement, capitulating to their whims. Maybe Silva’s office had more important things to do, like practicing their email forwarding skills.

I use the Gateway Bridge nearly daily. I have had nothing but great experiences with the daytime guards at Gateway, and respect each of them. I even hold no grudges against the ones who close the center earlier than the posted signs or the ones who stop me when I look sloppy. My suspicion is they are operating under instructions to do so. I just don’t know under whose instruction.

I had a meeting on a recent Monday with the people who manage Gateway about increasing the hours of access and toning down guard hostility to local residents.

My meeting came about rather unexpectedly. Like many residents of Newark, I like using Gateway. Like many, I am irritated by its new hours. With my newfound awareness of the easement, this irritation reached a fevered pitch.

I emailed someone at Gateway for two reasons. One, to report broken air conditioning in the stretch of hallway leading to Penn Station, and two, to complain about the access. The recipient of the email was the same person who Silva’s aide would forward other emails to. She asked if I would be willing to meet.

In her response to me, I noticed she had added quite a few people to the email. I affirmed I would be delighted to meet. I asked a friend to join me and decided against informing Gateway I was bringing said friend. I am glad for it: to meet “just me” they had corralled six people together. How many would they have required if they knew they were meeting two people?

Despite the apparent ambush, I had exited that meeting with some hope for improved hours and improved relationships between the guards and locals. Then, the very next Saturday I was stopped by a guard, demanding to know my business walking through the center. It seems pertinent to mention I was in fact dressed poorly that day. 

Frankly speaking, the meeting was poorly framed, as I am not a member of city council and I hold no official post in this city, beyond “someone who lives here and is chronically around.” I hold no power in this interaction. If anything, I have much to lose by writing this; it is not hard to imagine being banned from the pedestrian walkway—and hence all the new restaurants coming—and it is not likely the city would fight on my behalf to get me unbanned.

In fact, this whole issue stems from the lack of city involvement: without the backing of the City of Newark, the only thing I or my friend could do was explain the importance of the Gateway Bridge to the whole of the city, and the importance of local residents to the success of the businesses within the Gateway Bridge. Our arguments made a case for keeping the hours extended, even ignoring the albatross that is the easement agreement.

The success of the businesses within Gateway requires more than just the Gateway tenant population. It is hard to imagine a restaurant like Serafina happy with 11–7 hours, 6 days a week. For them to stay open until 10 or 11PM, and to be open on Sundays at all, the Gateway Center would have to allow local residents through. And for anyone who doubts Serafina would be much of a draw, ask any of the guards working at Gateway. They will tell you stories of people coming specifically for Serafina, only to be disappointed to find out it hasn’t even opened yet.

And for the existing businesses that currently close at 7 or 8PM? They are not likely to consider expanding their hours without the corresponding foot-traffic. Right now, the closing hours of Gateway directly align with the hours of the latest closing shop. Ask any business owner, hours are determined in-part by demand. People walking in at 7:55 would suggest closing at 8PM is too early. But no one will walk in at 7:55 if the Gateway guards make you feel like a ne’er-do-well for daring to walk through at 7:50.

The tenants of Gateway would also benefit from later hours. As businesses struggle to convince their work forces to return to the office, an exciting and vibrant city life can serve as a perk. But who would want to explore the neighboring restaurants for a happy hour and dinner if getting back to their car is a reverse escape room experience?

And perhaps most importantly, Newark benefits. The sad reputation that Newark is unsafe, and those who commute in or travel through Newark must exercise undue caution will continue to endure for as long as a local institution like Gateway Center continues to actively alienate the local populations, as if we would pollute the experience of the tenants’ workers by merely co-existing with them.

I am not advocating for some long, drawn-out, dramatic showdown regarding access, but to me and to others in the city, it feels very clear. There is an easement agreement between several parties in Newark. The easement seems to state the Gateway Bridge is a pedestrian walkway that Gateway cannot close.

And it makes sense that this easement exists, if I believe the rumblings. As rumors have it, Gateway Bridge was constructed using public funds by the City of Newark. And if that is true, then Gateway, by deciding to close it off, is hoarding a constructed-by-public-funds public site. And the City of Newark is letting them.

So, why is the City of Newark not involved in this? I reject the notion that they are not aware as I started with making sure they were aware. I am left with all the less than savory answers.

So what are we to do?

As I’ve said before, I have no power in this situation. Besides writing emails and overly drawn out articles in soon-to-be-prestige-quarterlies, I have no levers to pull. I can only hope another group will read this and take up the fight, joining their voices with mine.

But the city loses a lot when the City of Newark chooses not to engage in a fight. We get harassed. The businesses who try to come and prosper will ultimately fail. The reputation that there must remain a wall between the workers who commute in and the locals remains. The stigma about Newark will endure.

h.mani.dia is a chronically-around, long-time resident of Newark, recovering mathematician, dog-lover, cat-friendly, and human-tolerant.