Judge decides WPU's legal claim to reimbursement is valid

Eminent domain legal fee reimbursement decision

New York State Supreme Court judge Jaime A. Rios has denied a motion made by the city to dismiss the claim of Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") seeking reimbursement of legal and expert fees incurred by WPU when defending against the city's failed attempt to use eminent domain to forcibly acquire our properties.

The decision means that WPU's claim against the city in the amount of $1,102,035.41 is valid, and will proceed in court. We are confident that the city will have to pay the fees that we are entitled to recover – adding to the already exorbitant amount of city funds being spent to pursue the proposed Willets Point development.

Tweet

(I)t (R)eally (S)tinks

Word has come down that the IRS has been engaging in a partisan witch hunt against Tea Party and “Patriot” labeled groups - something that we have already spoken about here at length;

“Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.” (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-tea-party-groups)

We commented on this partisan inappropriateness last year because we were concerned that the agency had ignored out request that it investigate the patently illegal political actions of the Claire Shulman LDC;

We have been tracking the lackluster efforts of law enforcement in bringing the illegal lobbying work of Claire Shulman's Flushing/WilletsPoint/Corona Local Development Corporation to some sort of just enforcement conclusion. We have harped on the fact the NYS Attorney General's Office has completely tanked its original investigation of the illegal lobbying (under Section 1411 of the not for profit laws of NY), but haven't dwelled too much on our complaint to the IRS-something that we had written to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about.

Now, however, a disturbing story prompts us to re-visit the federal aspects of Shulman's illegal lobbying scheming-the fact that the IRS is hounding Tea Party groups, forcing them through hoops to qualify for their not for profit status. (http://www.willetspoint.org/2012/04/claire-shulmans-ldc-and-irs.html)

What these new revelations tell us is that the IRS - supposedly an independent agency thoroughly detached from political bias - is actually no such thing. The nature of the inquiries were extensive and intrusive - as Kevin Williamson has pointed out;

“Third, and perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347987/irs%E2%80%99s-tea-party-targeting)

So the IRS, using a political litmus test, was singling out conservative groups in what can only be seen as a tendentious focus on groups that the Obama Administration didn’t like. Ann Althouse has the money quote on the injustice that is involved in selective enforcement;

"We can disagree about what the tax laws should be and how strictly or harshly they should be enforced, but everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong to vary the degree of enforcement, selecting victims by their politics. If government cannot be trusted to avoid that fundamental wrong, it cannot be trusted with any power at all." (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-problem-wasnt-that-irs-was.html)

Even liberals like Joe Klein are outraged;

“The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups is outrageous. Those who did this should be fired immediately. That’s obvious…And now they have violated one of the more sacred rules of our democracy: you do not use the tax code to punish your opponents.” (http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/11/irs-mess/)

Which leaves us with the lawbreaking Ms. Shulman. Her LDC was a nonprofit that engaged in direct lobbying that was expressly illegal under the laws of NY State and she submitted fraudulent documents to the IRS claiming that her not for profit group was not engaged in the very lobbying that her group was formed to do-as she herself told the NY Times;

As the group’s director Claire Shulman told the NY Times in 2009 lobbying was the "primary purpose" of FWPCLDC and "the whole idea." However, when filling out the IRS forms under lobbying the group wrote, “No.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/nyregion/21lobby.html)

We plan to re-write to Senator McConnell and see if we can now get the agency to act on a matter that it should have acted on over a year ago but didn’t because apparently it was too busy violating its charter and targeting the political enemies of the president. We’ll give Williamson the last word:

“The misuse of government resources is subject to civil, misdemeanor, and felony charges under federal and Ohio law. The abuse of IRS resources, including the collection of “confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and [causing], in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,” were cited in the second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon.”

Landslide Committee Vote To Deny Willets West / Willets Point Application

Late Wednesday night, the Building/Zoning Committee of Queens Community Board 7 ("CB7") voted to deny the Willets West / Willets Point Phase One ULURP application of Sterling Equities and Related Companies. The vote tally was 7-2, against the application. Those who voted "No" included committee Chair Chuck Apelian and CB7 Chair Eugene Kelty. We believe that if Queens residents realized what is truly at stake, they would be applauding and supporting this very important decision, and the work of the CB7 committee and leadership.

Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") commends CB7 for finally taking a stand against this inappropriate development proposal of Sterling/Related – which calls for the construction of a huge 1.4 million square foot mall on 30+ acres of public parkland property, and would nearly double the size of the Willets Point development from 62 acres as proposed during 2008, to 108.9 acres as intended, now. The horrendous traffic impacts of such a large project at this Queens location, which will affect residents of surrounding communities as well as anyone who needs to commute efficiently past Willets Point, are just one key reason to deny this harmful application.

While the proposed Sterling/Related project prioritizes construction of an unnecessary, newly-added mall, key "benefits" of the Willets Point development that were touted during 2008 are not guaranteed, and instead are subject to contractual escape clauses. For example, housing and affordable housing were originally said to be linchpins of the development; but the present plan allows Sterling/Related to opt out of building any housing, upon payment of a penalty (which will be a mere cost of doing business). Moreover, Sterling/Related are not permitted to build any housing, unless new access ramps to and from the Van Wyck Expressway are first constructed – but the City has made it crystal clear in its contract with Sterling/Related, "for the avoidance of doubt, in no event shall EDC or the City be required to construct the Ramps as part of the Development". Without those ramps, there can be no housing – and Sterling/Related would not pay any penalty. Thus, it is entirely possible that not much other than a mall on parkland will be constructed if the project proceeds – hardly what was promoted during 2008.

Committee members were also troubled by the prospective abuse of eminent domain to forcibly acquire more property for this project – not for any essential public purpose, but to enrich private developers.

The Building/Zoning Committee convened four separate times during the past month to hear presentations by Sterling/Related and to discuss their application, for a total of roughly 13 hours. The developers had every chance to present thorough information in support of their application, and did so. Having considered everything, the committee voted to deny the application. We hope and expect that the full community board will recognize the wisdom of the committee's decision, and vote similarly after the public hearing on May 13, 2013.

We strongly encourage members of the public to attend and speak during the CB7 public hearing on Monday, May 13, 2013 at 7:00PM, at the Union Plaza Care Center, 33-23 Union Street in Flushing; 9th floor.

Please review the handout materials that we provided to the CB7 committee, reproduced below.

Founding Fathers

Rejected Developers

DENY Application

ABRACADABRA – From Traffic Nightmare To Open Roads

Decision-makers confront Willets West mall developers' questionable traffic mitigation report, whose author has not committed to the "feasibility" or "effectiveness" of the alleged solutions it presents

The proposed Willets Point development was already considered a huge traffic generator back in 2008, when its size was limited to 62 acres of Willets Point property. At the time, traffic experts warned of severe impacts on many of the roadways that pass by and through Willets Point, should the development proceed. One such expert, Bernard Adler (former Traffic Commissioner of the town of White Plains), testified: "I have never seen this level of unmitigated impact, in the forty years I've been practicing."

Concerns about the traffic impacts of that original 62-acre project are well-documented (see http://www.trafficnightmare.org/the-future-with-the-ramps.html), and were intensified by the proposed project's location at the nexus of popular Queens roadways that are routinely used by daily commuters, and that are also the main routes serving both of New York City's airports.

Flash-forward five years – and now Mayor Bloomberg, Sterling Equities and Related Companies have expanded the proposed development from 62 acres to 108.9 acres, and added a 1.4 million square foot mall called "Willets West" to be built on parkland property located west of Citi Field stadium. As intolerable as the traffic resulting from the original 62-acre project would have been, it can only get worse with the addition of a 1.4 million square foot mall (which adds 950,000 square feet of retail space to the development).

The developers' new traffic report prepared for the present project (Chapter 14 of the current Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) describes future conditions if the development is built. The report includes separate analyses of "Non-Game Day" and "Game Day" traffic (naturally, there is more traffic when there is a Mets game at Citi Field). Since Sterling/Related are proposing to construct the Willets West mall and develop "Phase One" of the Willets Point property, let's see what the future traffic conditions will be if they do so and the roadways remain as they are now. Note that this example represents a "Non-Game Day", when traffic is less than when there is a game.

The top circled row in the chart above shows that the travel speed on the westbound Grand Central Parkway, mid-day during the week, will go down to 0.4 miles per hour with the project. In the weekday PM hour, the speed will be just 1.7 miles per hour. Saturday mid-day it will be 0.5 miles per hour. The proposed project would reduce this portion of the Grand Central Parkway to a stand-still. By comparison, without the project, travel speed would be roughly 40 miles per hour.

The circled line toward the middle of the chart shows the southbound Whitestone Expressway, where the travel speed mid-day during the week will go down to just 12.2 miles per hour with the project, versus 34.3 miles per hour without the project. Saturday mid-day it will be just 7.6 miles per hour, down from 33 miles per hour without the project.

The bottom of the chart shows travel speeds on various ramps. The second-to-last row shows speeds going down to 1.1, 0.1, 0.1 and 0.2 miles per hour, depending on time of day, versus an average of 43 miles per hour without the project.

These are just a few examples of significant impacts that result from constructing the Willets West mall and Phase One of Willets Point. Game days will be even worse. And these conditions already presume that new access ramps to and from the Van Wyck Expressway are constructed – as they must be, for all of Phase One to be built.

Another traffic chart marks each significantly impacted local intersection with an "X". The chart is loaded with "X"s.

To this point, we have discussed future traffic conditions if the Willets West mall and "Phase One" of Willets Point are developed, with the roadways remaining as they are now. A project with such severe traffic impacts might not be approved by decision-makers, and would create horrendous conditions. So, the developers devise and propose hypothetical "mitigation" measures that they hope may alleviate the traffic impacts.

It is the more favorable, post-mitigation traffic statistics that the developers then claim represent what the future conditions will be, with their project constructed – no matter how drastic, hypothetical and non-final those proposed mitigation measures happen to be. It is in the developers' interest to produce a traffic mitigation report that claims to eliminate project-related traffic impacts to the greatest extent, to convince decision-makers that traffic impacts are not a reason to disapprove the project.

Enter Babu

The person introduced by the developers during recent committee meetings of Queens Community Board 7 who is said to be responsible for devising mitigation measures for the Willets West / Willets Point Phase One project, is Babu Veeregowda, PE – referred to as "Babu".

Babu Veeregowda, PE; VHB, Inc.

Babu's work apparently consists of simulating combinations of potential traffic mitigation measures, and assessing whether they would improve traffic flow at particular locations, compared with the impacts of the development project without those mitigations; and if so, by how much. Potential mitigation measures – Babu's tools of the trade – include such things as manipulating traffic signal operation; signalizing intersections; installing louvers on traffic signals; lane re-striping; prohibiting parking; prohibiting turns; widening ramps; installing quick-curb channelization; and other more intensive mitigation measures.

Babu's written assessment for the Willets West / Willets Point project is found in the developers' mitigation report (Chapter 21 of the current Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement). Indeed, not every traffic impact can be mitigated; and in our opinion, the remaining unmitigated impacts are collectively so severe as to make this proposed development inappropriate and unworthy of approval. Even with mitigation measures in place, a number of intersections at major entry points to the proposed development will operate at Level of Service "F" (fail), with delays of between 100 seconds and more than 800 seconds (13 minutes!).

Nevertheless, the developers' self-serving mitigation report claims vast improvements in certain other areas when mitigation measures devised by Babu are in place. For example: Remember the chart, above, showing that the travel speed on the westbound Grand Central Parkway, mid-day during the week, would be just 0.4 miles per hour with the project built? Mitigation supposedly increases that travel speed to 42.4 miles per hour – virtually the same speed as if the huge project is not built at all. In the weekday PM hour, when the speed with the project built would be just 1.7 miles per hour, mitigation measures supposedly bring that speed back up to 37.3 miles per hour. Saturday mid-day, when the speed with the project built would be 0.5 miles per hour, mitigation measures supposedly bring that speed back up to 37.4 miles per hour.

The mitigation report contains many other similar instances in which very severe traffic impacts caused by the proposed development are completely reversed by the recommended hypothetical mitigation. We think it is dangerous to trust this mitigation report.

Unsettled "Effectiveness" and "Feasibility" of the Proposed Mitigation Measures

First, the mitigation report quietly states: "The effectiveness and feasibility of proposed mitigation measures will be further assessed between the draft and final SEIS" (page 21-2).

In other words, no one is committing to the effectiveness and feasibility of the specific mitigation measures that are being touted now to decision-makers, and which so miraculously improve traffic conditions. Rather, a future, final version of the mitigation report may conclude that all or some of the recommended mitigation measures are simply not effective, or even "feasible" – in which case improvements in traffic flow shown in the present mitigation report will not occur, and those impacts may instead be unmitigated.

How can anyone rely upon a report whose author is unable to vouch for even the "feasibility" of the alleged solutions that it presents?

How can the report represent that certain mitigations are essential – without knowing if they are even feasible?

NYCDOT and NYSDOT Have Not Reviewed – And May Reject – Proposed Mitigation Measures

Per the mitigation report, some of the recommended mitigations are "measures that may call for detailed review by both NYCDOT and NYSDOT and which represent preferred improvements that would benefit the overall traffic network. As discussed above, if these mitigation measures are modified or rejected by the review agencies, significant adverse impacts identified above would be unmitigated" (emphasis added; page 21-29).

In other words, achieving the vastly improved traffic flows described in the mitigation report requires measures that NYCDOT and NYSDOT have not yet reviewed or approved, and which they may eventually reject. At the present time, no one can guarantee that any such mitigation measure will actually be implemented.

"Cost Intensive Mitigation Measures"

Certain recommendations within the mitigation report are said to be "cost intensive". One example:

• "34th Avenue at 126th Street … To fully mitigate significant impacts during six of the seven time periods, this intersection would require cost intensive mitigation measures including closure of the existing slip ramp from GCP/Astoria Boulevard to 126th Street and combining it with the existing ramp from eastbound Northern Boulevard to 126th Street".

"Combining" two existing ramps, a "cost intensive" mitigation measure – What will this cost? Who will pay for it? No funding is identified. Is there any more commitment to construct this proposed combined ramp, than there is to construct the proposed new Van Wyck Expressway ramps (i.e., the ramps that neither the City nor the developer is obligated to construct)? Moreover, has this mitigation measure been reviewed and approved by NYCDOT and NYSDOT?

Telling Decision-Makers What They Want To Hear?

As discussed above, there are indications that this traffic mitigation report is a smokescreen, and that mitigation measures it recommends may not be implemented: Its author has not committed to the effectiveness or even the "feasibility" of the mitigation measures it describes; NYCDOT and NYSDOT have neither reviewed nor approved – and may even reject – recommended mitigation measures; and "cost intensive" mitigation measures are proposed, with no funding identified.

But there is a larger context for this mitigation report – namely, it is presented by project proponents who have already demonstrated that they will say or write whatever is necessary at any given time to gain the approval of decision-makers and advance this project; then later abandon those same things, after decision-makers have relied on them. NYCEDC and the City administration are the same project proponents who:

• Promised Queens Community Board 7 and the Willets Point Advisory Committee, in writing multiple times, that they would "participate in developer selection" – then blatantly reneged, by shutting them out of developer selection.

• Obtained approval to develop Willets Point property – then selected developers that intend to build primarily on other nearby parkland property that was never mentioned during the 2008 approval process.

• Testified to the New York City Council that remediating and developing Willets Point in phases was impractical, and that the entire 62 acres needed to be taken over – then issued a Request for Proposals to develop "Phase One".

• Agreed in writing with the New York City Central Labor Council to include a "living wage" provision in the Willets Point Request for Proposals – then issued a Request for Proposals that omitted the required provision.

• Submitted an affidavit to New York State Supreme Court, stating that they would not acquire property via eminent domain until the proposed Van Wyck Expressway ramps had first been approved – then commenced eminent domain proceedings, without the Van Wyck ramps being approved.

Considering the foregoing, the traffic mitigation report may be just the latest example of project proponents saying what they believe decision-makers want to hear – regardless of whether or not it will be honored or implemented, later.

Decision-makers need to ask themselves: Do I trust that the severe traffic impacts of the Willets West mall / Willets Point Phase One development can and will certainly be mitigated, as described in the mitigation report?

If the answer is "no", then the traffic impacts to be caused by the development could very well be the unmitigated disasters shown in the two charts above, and elsewhere throughout the traffic report. Tolerating such conditions in order to gain an unnecessary Willets West mall on parkland is not an acceptable bargain.

Or, as our own traffic expert, Brian Ketcham, puts it: "How can you justify so large a project with horrible traffic conditions reported in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement? When faced with breakdown conditions in all directions can you honestly say that this project will not create huge traffic delays along access roads, spilling back onto the surrounding expressway system? Can you not admit that it will have a huge negative effect on this community, imposing greater traffic delays, more traffic injuries and deaths and other costly externalities, borne by the million motorists already passing by Willets Point each day on nearby expressways and arterials?"

Babu Veeregowda, PE describes potential traffic mitigation measure.

Yes, They Really Did Say "Half a Billion Dollars" for Remediation

A contentious point about the proposed Willets Point development has been the alleged need for remediation of the property. Willets Point United Inc. believes that during 2008, the City greatly exaggerated the alleged need for remediation in order to horrify the City Council and provide some basis to approve the land grab involving our property. That the City is now awkwardly backing away from its 2008 claim proves our point.

During a 2008 City Council public hearing, the cost to remediate the entire 62 acres of Willets Point, according to the City, was said to be between $470 million and $570 million – "half a billion dollars", as then-Councilman Hiram Monserrate put it – a large sum that implied a large amount of remediation was required. That a developer would foot such a bill was touted as a benefit of proceeding with the entire proposed project.

Now, five years later, the City's contract with chosen developers Sterling/Related anticipates the cost of remediating one-third of Willets Point (the "Phase One" area) to be just $40 million, or less.
Extrapolated to the full 62 acres of Willets Point, the cost would be $120 million – which is dwarfed by the original $570 million quoted to the City Council during 2008. Moreover, Sterling/Related now won't even pay the $40 million cost – the taxpayers will, by virtue of a grant of taxpayer funds to the developers to cover the remediation. The previously-claimed benefit to the taxpayers – that a developer would pay for and do extensive remediation – has been stood on its head.

A lingering question for the City is: What happened to the $570 million remediation program that was said to be necessary during 2008? What explanation is there, for drastically reducing the cost of remediation from $570 million, to $120 million (or less, per the contract)?

Incredibly, when the issue came up during a committee meeting of Queens Community Board 7 on April 11, 2013, NYCEDC's Tom McKnight tried to create the impression that people are mis-remembering the $570 million figure, and that $570 million somehow was never said. Strange that McKnight would do this now, as he was seated just feet behind then-Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber and NYCEDC President Seth Pinsky at the City Council during 2008 when the discussion of the "half a billion dollars" occurred.

For anyone who doubts this, here is a video clip that shows a portion of the City Council Q&A. At no time does anyone dispute the $570 million remediation cost that is discussed – only how it might be paid.



We emphasize that today, this cost is down to just $40 million for one-third of the site, with the taxpayers – not the developers – paying the bill. The need for remediation is nowhere near what the City Council was told during 2008; and in any case, the cost of paying for it has been shifted from the developers to the taxpayers, and is now a taxpayer liability instead of the benefit we were promised.

See Willets Point United Inc.'s Gerald Antonacci's explanation of this, in our YouTube video ("Willets Point Factual Update") beginning at 9:39 (9 minutes, 39 seconds).

Willets Point Factual Update

Willets Point United's Gerald Antonacci teaches a "master class" concerning the changes to the proposed Willets Point development since 2008, including the free give-aways of tax dollars and properties to developers Sterling Equities and Related Companies, the suspicious delay of the housing component that was previously said to be the linchpin, and the addition of a 1,400,000 square foot "Willets West" mall to be built on mapped parkland. Essential viewing for civic-minded Queens residents.

The Willets Point plan: a bad deal in every way

Queens Chronicle OP-ED:

The Willets Point plan: a bad deal in every way
by Benjamin M. Haber

Good and responsible government does not exist in the absence of transparency, and in particular when it involves land use matters which have been notorious in favoring real estate interests and those with political connections. Years ago Daniel Doctoroff, then Mayor Bloomberg’s economic czar, bragged before a group of real estate moguls that under the Bloomberg administration they received about 90 percent of all zoning requests they wanted.

When it comes to transparency the Bloomberg administration earns a failing grade. A case in point is Willets Point. For decades, and most of Mayor Bloomberg’s term in office, the city collected sewer rent from the owners of property in Willets Point, notwithstanding there were no sewers. It collected real estate and other taxes and did not spend any money on the area’s infrastructure.

A body and fender shop’s operations, which for the most part serve the needs of the poor and the middle class, cannot be as spotless as a Bloomingdale’s department store, which makes it all the more important government take care of the infrastructure.

As a coverup for his failure in doing so, Bloomberg declared the site a blight that must go, even though it would mean removing more than 200 small businesses, terminating employment for their 1,000 employees and causing havoc to their thousands of dependents. Cleanup of the so-called blight, which the city will pay for, for the benefit of a developer, could have been done for Willets Point businesses. But it will not be, since they are not real estate moguls with tentacles in the city treasury.

The cost to correct the area and repair the infrastructure, to alienate parkland, free of charge, and to provide subsidies, will be several hundreds of millions of dollars, all to be paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of a private developer. For Bloomberg to allow this taxpayer ripoff ignores his responsibility to be fair and above-board with the public. It’s unacceptable.

It was Bloomberg’s original plan to develop Willets Point into a huge shopping mall, with yet another convention center; luxury housing with a small portion of affordable housing for the middle class; a small park and a school. Building a school next door to LaGuardia Airport, the Mets’ stadium, the United States Tennis Association and a huge mall would be absurd, a feigned icing on the cake to make it appear the proposal was not a private commercial development, but a needed public undertaking.

Willets Point and its surrounding areas have automobile access only through the Van Wyck Expressway, Grand Central Parkway, Northern Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue, private streets being out of the question. These arteries have been and are choked to capacity. Queens was ranked as having one of the most congested vehicular arteries in the country and there is no way — I repeat, no way — to increase their capacity to absorb the tens of thousands of additional vehicles the Bloomberg plan would bring.

Faced with a vehicular nightmare and unable to come up with a solution, Mayor Bloomberg has devised what can be described as the mother of all lack of transparencies. The original Willets Point plan has suddenly been split into two phases. His much-heralded original Willets Point plan is now relegated to phase two, which for all practical purposes will be on the back burner and probably not accomplished for decades.

The reason for the so-called split is not just the vehicular problem, but Bloomberg’s desire to help out his billionaire friend Fred Wilpon, the owner of the Mets, who have not being doing well financially. Phase one will allow Wilpon to move his parking lots — which are on parkland, as is Citi Field — to Willets Point and to construct a huge mall on the current Mets parking lots. Parking in Willets Point and the mall will not address the vehicular problem, but will destroy the small businesses on Northern Boulevard, Roosevelt Avenue and 108th Street, the malls in Rego Park and on 20th Avenue in Whitestone, and the shops in downtown Flushing. Were I in business in any of those areas, I would hesitate to sign a long-term lease. Unless these merchants and the public make known to the mayor, their City Council members and community boards their opposition, the mayor’s plans will be a fait accompli.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said he wished to be remembered for what he did for the poor and not for the rich. Notwithstanding some laudable philanthropic acts Bloomberg has accomplished as a private individual, as mayor he has viewed his constituents as the wealthy and powerful and not the poor and middle class. I do not believe he will leave a legacy as noteworthy as that of President Roosevelt.

Benjamin M. Haber is a civic activist and retired attorney who lives in Flushing.