Martin reminds me to comment on the legend numbers. I would change them to be "Less than 12%, 12 to 25%, 25 to 43%, More than 46%." Carrying numbers like this out to tenths of a percent implies a false precision, as does compulsiveness about not having categories overlap.
He also makes an excellent point about large parks. Industrial areas can be a little trickier to show, but the parks should be pretty easy. Even if you have to hand sketch them, it paints a false picture to not show the big parks on Staten Island and out near Kennedy, plus Central Park, Prospect Park, Flushing Meadows.
As far as legend manipulation goes, I don't know if you guys regularly use ArcGIS but it is a major pain. As for those labels though, I do know how to change them and I will. Point well taken about false precision.
Actually we had the parks displayed and the client requested they be taken out. Too distracting for them or their imagined audience. As for the poverty chloropleth, in our "focus district" maps (3 individual census tracts) which are the main product, we have taken a higher level of detail/accuracy and done as you both suggest with the parks/industrial areas. We actually control by removing all census tracts with population less than 100. Arbitrary, I know. So these maps I am posting are one of many "quick maps" they ask me to produce for planning meetings, city council meetings, etc... I don't have the ability to spend as much time on them as the main focus maps. I'll post those in a week or two after another pass.
Again appreciate all your comments, even if I can't integrate all of them into this map, the concepts will stick for future mapping endeavors
I will post a modified version this weekend incorporating what I can.