Politics and the Park [ 141 ] city would have to purchase in any event. Thus, it could be viewed as a more economical purchase. To further rationalize the cost differential, it was argued that a greater benefit assessment could be levied. In addition, the long six-mile border of the central site would create many more attractive building sites that in time might be sold off to help pay for the improvement of the park.28 The committee was unanimous in its conclusion that the central site was preferable on all counts. It therefore recommended that the Jones's Wood bill be repealed and that the legislature pass a similar act authorizing the acquisition of the central park lands. This committee's long and thorough report is of critical importance to any history of the New York park, for it is here that the present central site was first identified and ably defended. It is also the basic statement of the arguments that ultimately prevailed on the question of location. Furthermore, the report had in no sense been equivocal. As accepted by the council, it was first a very strong reaffirmation of the need for a park, and secondly a conclusive endorsement that there was only one proper location for it. Despite these facts, the council stalled, for strong and obstinate opposition was still very evident. During the entire year of 1852, the council refused to take positive action to finally settle the issue.29 As the issue was carried into the spring of 1853, the various interested parties intensified their campaigns as it became certain that by the summer the state legislature would be asked to give approval to one of the sites. The basic positions remained fixed, even if the individual arguments seemed to be constantly shifting. One group wanted no park at all, another felt Jones's Wood should be taken, and the last saw the central park as the obvious and only reasonable choice. Those who opposed any park were often from the business community, which objected to surrendering any of the island's shoreline to a public pleasure use and, in general, did not approve of the costs it would involve. One writer explained the position in these terms: "Many men of wealth and influence—who through ignorance and lack of mature reflection on the subject, were unable to anticipate any personal advantage from the construction of a park—feared that it would 2SIbid. 29 New York Times, May 2,1852,2.