Question: How many residents were evicted because of imminent domain in 1857?
About the article "Central Park", section "1857–1900".

Candidate passages:
As the campaign to create Central Park moved forward park advocates and the media began to describe Seneca Village and other communities in this area as "shantytowns" and the residents there as "squatters".
The village was razed for park construction.
Residents were offered $2,335 for their property.
Members of the community fought to retain their land.
For two years, residents resisted the police as they petitioned the courts to save their homes, churches, and schools.
Some villagers were violently evicted in 1855.
However, in the summer of 1856, Mayor Fernando Wood prevailed and residents of Seneca Village were given final notice.
In 1857, the city government acquired all private property within Seneca Village through eminent domain.
On October 1, 1857, city officials in New York reported that the last holdouts living on land that was to become Central Park had been removed.
A newspaper account at the time suggested that Seneca Village would “not be forgotten… many a brilliant and stirring fight was had during the campaign.
But the supremacy of the law was upheld by the policeman’s bludgeons.” There are few records of where residents went after their eviction and the community was destroyed.
After its destruction, public memory of Seneca Village disappeared for over a century.  
Blikkiesdorp has been instrumental in relocating residents evicted from elsewhere in the City.
Many evicted residents of Salt River and Woodstock have found themselves in the relocation camp almost 30 kilometers away from town.
It has been called a dumping ground for unwanted and or homeless people from all over Cape Town.
The evicted Symphony Way Pavement Dwellers were moved to Blikkiesdorp in October 2009 after occupying Symphony Way for almost two years. 
Although forced evictions occur throughout China in both rural and urban environments, there are several notable examples in which hundreds of thousands of people were evicted.
From 1993 to 2003, 2.5 million people were evicted in the city of Shanghai.
In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, many of Beijing's densely populated neighborhoods were torn down in order to make way for new developments and infrastructure projects.
The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions estimated that 1.5 million people in and around Beijing were forced from their homes, often with inadequate compensation.
Chinese authorities maintained only 6,000 families were relocated, and that all received proper compensation.
From 1995 to 2005, an average of 86,754 people were evicted annually in connection to the Three Gorges Dam, totaling an estimated 1.4 million people.
Recalcitrant residents in the city of Chongqing had their water and electricity turned off in order to force them to move; the residents said they had not yet left because proper resettlement hadn't been arranged. 
The ban has left many of the "phandis" jobless and homeless.
Prohibited from earning a living with their specialized skills, they had to work odd jobs, such as becoming daily wage earners.
The government settled 1000 families in 13 villages near the Assam-Arunachal border.
In 2006, the residents were evicted, their houses were bulldozed or burnt down, and some residents were physically assaulted.
Since that time, the jungle has reclaimed the villages. 
Reactions to the Rostami case in the public.
Reactions from engaged individuals.
The xenophobia expressed by some persons in the village of Skrolsvik on Senjafelt when the asylum center was established was turned to a concern for the welfare or the residents of Senjehesten reception center.
Following the first Brennpunkt program UDI ordered the center to arrange a public information meeting, where the strong local concerns for the conditions at the center were expressed.
The local reactions after the deportation of Rostami have also been strong.
After the case became national news, mainly through the articles of the weekly magazine Ny Tid, social media have been used extensively in the engagement for Rostami's case, both on Facebook and in the more serious Norwegian internet discussion forums such as NyeMeninger.no and Verdidebatt.no:  "Roaring silence on Rahim Rostami"   "Regime criticism in Norway"   "The research competence of Faremo"   "Immigration authorities need quality assurance!"
"Evicted by force to prison in Iran - demand for imminent action"   "UNE a human rights organization!"
"Confidence is dependent on fair treatment"   "Monitoring at deportations is the law"   "UNE claims without basis – sim sala bim!"
Characteristic for the engagement amongst those who know Rostami is the letter 9-year old Torgeir sent to the King: ""We have been told that his life is in danger and I am very afraid that they will hurt him in the prison"".
In a note on her blog, author and former paperless and evicted Maria Amelie describes how the situation of the paperless has become visible in an entirely new way, referring amongst other to Rahim Rostami:"Less than a year ago there were no organizations, Facebook groups, very few that followed up asylum cases such as with Rahim Rostami where they remembered his birthday while he was in a prison.
There was little knowledge to the paperless subclass.
Today so much is different.
on the paperless are in the media and on the streets - Palestinians, Iranians and Ethiopians.
People that regardless of nationality has a strong association to Norway.
People that regardless of the quality of their papers do not want to leave a country that they have become fond of.
That gives me hope.
Because one thing is when the paperless and their opinions become visible and they dear to come forward with their stories.
Another thing is when the people of Norway become engaged on their behalf and also no longer wants to be invisible."