The Real Face of Political Corruption

There has been a great deal of attention paid to the efforts of the US Attorney for the Southern District to root out political corruption-and a spate of elected officials have been convicted and imprisoned pursuant to his efforts.

Governor Cuomo, last seen punting on the Willets Point illegal lobbying issue while he was Attorney General, has now jumped into the fray using the Moreland Act commission to root out corruption as well. The NY Post’s Fred Dicker reports:

“Despite Cuomo’s high-profile announcement last week that he had assembled “the best minds in law enforcement and public policy . . . to address weaknesses in the state’s public corruption, election and campaign-finance laws’’ to serve on the 25-member commission, he failed to name a single specific area of corruption or individual to be probed.” 

As Jimmy Durante used to say, “Everybody’s getting into the act.” But as helpful - or not - as the current efforts are, they overlook the systemic nature of political corruption-a variant of what Plunkitt of Tammany Hall used to describe as “honest graft.” In a recent issue of City Limits, one such variant is on display in the form of the role political consultants play as both consultants and lobbyists:

“The firms that both consult and lobby turn the typical pay-to-play concerns of government watchdogs on their head. The issue here is not who's giving money to a campaign, but who's receiving candidates' money—in exchange for valuable help.

Consultants are, according to political observers, vital components of any operation: They are in many instances the quarterbacks of campaigns, plotting get-out-the-vote efforts, crafting media strategy and exploiting the weaknesses of the opposition. By accepting or rejecting a client, skilled consultants can significantly affect the odds of a campaign succeeding.

"When a firm helps someone get elected to office, that firm may have an easier time getting access to that office when they're trying to influence how they're going to vote on a particular issue," says Bill Mahoney, the New York Public Interest Group's legislative research coordinator.”

This incestuousness has a particular resonance when it comes to the development of Willets Point where the predations of the Parkside Group are skewing the political debate and skirting the bounds of legality:

“Remaking the cratered world of Willets Point, Queens has been a developer's dream since the imperious and seemingly everlasting reign of Robert Moses. A veritable galaxy of auto repair shops in the shadow of Citi Field, Willets Point is without sewers or paved roads, but its land, long eyed hungrily by developers, may undergo seismic change over the next decade. According to the glowing blueprints, a shopping mall, affordable housing and glittering office buildings will replace the greasy repair shops that tourists eye warily from the expressways.

Actually making this development—controversial, among other reasons, because it will displace many property owners and immigrant laborers—a reality is partially the job of the Parkside Group, perhaps the most dominant political force in the borough that is not elected by anyone. Since last May, they have represented the Queens Development Group LLC, the name for the duo of real estate companies that have won the bid for phase one of the Willets Point development, Sterling Equities and Related Companies. That's one of many lobbying clients Parkside claims. Last year alone, according to the city's lobbying database, the firm billed $1.8 million for its work with city officials on behalf of clients.”

Parkside is the engine that has been driving the Willets Point project from the get-go-and it was this consulting group that was one of the originators of the illegal lobbying scheme that was finally exposed by the NY State AG. Parkside was the official lobbyist when Claire Shulman’s LDC was fined by the NYC Clerk’s Office a record $59,000 for failing to register as a lobbying entity-something that Parkside should have been aware was the law.

Parkside should have also been aware that it was per se illegal for the LDC to lobby at all-and therefore illegal for Parkside to represent the group in a lobbying campaign to re-develop the Iron Triangle. If it wasn’t the actual originator of the illegal scheme, Parkside was, and is, its major aider and abettor. In this capacity, it should have been sanctioned and removed from any effort to further assist in the city’s corrupt deal to hand over Willets Point property to Related and Sterling Equities.

In fact, no such sanctioning took place-neither EDC nor the Shulman LDC were punished; and the Parkside enablers were allowed to escape punishment as well. But the group not only escaped punishment, it was also allowed (as was Sterling) to profit from its questionable actions:

“The battle over Willets Point illustrates how a consultant like Parkside manages to occupy almost every pivotal sphere of the issue. Besides its work for the Queens Development Group, Parkside also lobbies for labor unions that are in support of the Willets Point development, like Local 1500 UFCW and 32BJ SEIU. Meanwhile, Parkside often works side-by-side with the Queens County Democratic Party to ensure, in most instances, their handpicked candidates gain or retain their offices. Four of the elected officials with districts that include or border the Willets Point development—Assemblyman Michael Simanowitz, State Sen. Jose Peralta, Congressman Joe Crowley and State Sen. Toby Stavisky—have employed Parkside for their political campaigns, funneling the firm many thousands of dollars.”

So Parkside-just as Sterling Equities was able to-turned running an illegal scheme into a hugely profitable reward: the representation of the partnership that seeks to redevelop the Iron Triangle at the expense of the existing property owners. Making the situation even more dicey-if that were possible-is the fact that the development’s chief booster, State Senator Toby Stavisky is the mother of Parkside principle Evan Stavisky.

So what we can see at Willets Point is how honest graft operates-and does so at the expense of democracy and the property rights of the Willets Point business owners. In the case of Willets Point, however, the line between honest graft and its more familiar cousin-graft per se-is a thin one indeed.

The US Attorney and the governor are busy fighting corruption-all the while letting a systematic corruption grow and fester under their vigilant noses. As the old aphorism goes:

“The law in all of its majesty, punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the Commons, but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the common from the goose”

(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.”

WPU members interviewed on WHCR radio

Photographs of Willets Point United members Irene Prestigiacomo and Joseph Ardizzone during the live community affairs radio program on 90.3FM, hosted by Leroy Baylor; Sunday, October 28, 2012.
Prestigiacomo and Ardizzone, together with documentary video producer Robert LoScalzo, recounted the City's illegal tactics in attempting to implement Mayor Bloomberg's plan to take over Willets Point and give it to the Wilpons and Related Companies -- including lobbying by NYCEDC and Claire Shulman's LDC in violation of state law which the NYS Attorney General has confirmed. The wide-ranging conversation lasted nearly one hour, and included topics such as the shameful refusals of many area elected officials to do anything to help end the City's withholding of municipal services and purposeful neglect of Willets Point; the abuse of eminent domain for the aggrandizement of private interests; the failures of AG Schneiderman and the state Inspector General to hold anyone to account; and other topics raised by listeners who called in.

Information for press in advance of community meeting

WPU Brief For Press Re: LDC 10-18-11
If you would like to know, in a fair amount of detail, what's been happening with the state Attorney General's investigation and Shulman's LDC's brownfield program for the Flushing waterfront (the state taxpayer grant of $1,505,700.00), then read the attached PDF. Today, Shulman's LDC is holding a bogus "community meeting" pertaining to its brownfield program for the waterfront properties. The attached PDF has been sent to all press.

WPU Questions Eligibility of Claire Shulman’s Funding Lackeys

Given the fact that EDC has now issued its RFP for the illegal Phase 1 development of Willets Point, WPU is raising the issue of the legality of developers who are members of Shulman's LDC, and who financed illegal lobbying, participating in the RFP announced by NYCEDC.

This is not a minor point be any means. The NYS Attorney general is investigating the legality of using LDCs to lobby on behalf of city projects and if the office decides to chastise EDC for its funding efforts it would raise serious issues as to whether those firms who have partnered with Shulman’s group should be allowed to munch on fruit from their poisonous tree.

During testimony on October 17, 2008 before the New York City Council Subcommittee on the potential disqualification of LDC Members Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber could not rule out the possibility that "members of the board of the LDC" – presumably Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation ("FWPCLDC"), which unlawfully lobbied to influence legislation contrary to § 1411, and which also unlawfully concealed its lobbying activities – would be prohibited from bidding to become developers of the proposed Willets Point development, when NYCEDC would eventually issue its Request For Proposals ("RFP") pertaining to that development.
Hearing Transcript - Planning 101708


All of this was deliciously captured on video as a visibly perturbed Lieber answered the question from CM Monserrate. As those board members in part financed FWPCLDC activities which have been shown to be unlawful, the board members now must not be permitted to profit from any ill-gotten gains, especially by being awarded the developer contract for a project on behalf of which FWPCLDC unlawfully attempted to influence legislation which embodies the project's approval.

Of the 29 respondents to NYCEDC's prior RFQ concerning the Willets Point development -- which was a precursor to today's RFP, and from which NYCEDC was to select firm to receive the RFP -- the following respondents were full-fledged "Members" of Shulman's LDC:
(1) Ciampa Organization
(2) Muss Development LLC
(3) Sterling Equities (Mets)
(4) TDC Development (F&T Group)

In addition, the following RFQ respondents are identified as "Supporters" of Shulman's LDC, at the web site of Shulman's LDC:
(1) Albanese Organization, Inc.
(2) CPC Resources, Inc.
(3) Douglaston Development
(4)Triangle Equities

The press needs to ask EDC who its select group of bidders may be, and if these colluders with the development corporation have been made eligible to bid in spite of their collusion. Our exit question: What would happen if all of this was subject to a RICO indictment?

Claire Shulman and the Attorney General

Crain's Insider (subsc.) focuses in on the stalled investigation of the illegal lobbying of Claire Shulman on the Willets Point development. Shulman's efforts were arguably critical in the city's successful navigation of the ULURP process for the project: "Willets Point property owners are still waiting for the results of an investigation by the state attorney general's office of whether former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman's local development corporation lobbied illegally for the project that will displace them."

Readers might excuse us for being conspiratorial since it has been almost two years since we brought this matter to the attention of then AG Cuomo: "The lack of a resolution when Andrew Cuomo was attorney general prompted a conspiracy theory among owners that he had backed off as a favor to Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who supports the LDC and endorsed Cuomo for governor."

And our conspiracy theory is abetted by the fact that, contrary to Crain's observation, this is a relatively simple matter: "But perhaps the case is just time-consuming: It remains unresolved under Cuomo's successor, Eric Schneiderman, whose election opponent was endorsed by Bloomberg. Schneiderman's spokesman said: “We cannot comment on an active investigation.”

Well, we are glad that the AG acknowledges the investigation's ongoing nature, but it would behoove him to move this thing along since the city-as well as Shulman-is chugging along and operating as if there has been nothing untoward happening here. And the issue at hand is not a complex one.

Section 1411 of the NYS not for profit law makes it prima facie illegal for any LDC to lobby-no ifs ands or buts. If this is true, however, what does that say for the entire lobbying effort organized by EDC-itself incorporated under the same statute?

Making matters worse, Shulman continues to meddle in the affairs of Flushing and Willets Point. In the latest manifestation of her meddling, her group-which, in our view, should have been disbanded a long time ago for violating the law-is now advocating the renovation of the Flushing LIRR station.

Talk about adding insult to injury! But first,here's the Queens Courier's report: "Flushing • Willets Point • Corona Local Development Corporation (LDC) believes the time is now to invest in downtown Flushing’s public transportation infrastructure to provide access to what is arguably the city’s most rapidly developing neighborhood. A massive overhaul project introduced by the LDC known as the Flushing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) plan addresses what the LDC calls an overburdened No. 7 subway line while significantly redeveloping and modernizing the Flushing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Station."

Sure is timely Claire, especially since your pet development project will cause intolerable-and unmitigatable-burdens on the very mass transit infrastructure that you now gallantly propose to mitigate. This is real chutzpah!

We have already shown just how the Willets Point project will overwhelm local roads and highways. But it is also important to point out that the same slippery consultants that have played fast and loose with the transit data, have done even worse with the mass transit projections.

You see, in order to lower the projected road impacts the consultants arbitrarily have assigned huge proportions of the project trip generation to mass transit (diminishing the actual traffic impacts by low balling the car usage). And these same gonifs have done the same thing with the nearby Flushing Commons development. It's one huge unmitigated mess.

Which gets us back to the open AG investigation. The Willets Point development was conceived and midwifed in illegality-and the Shulman operation should be shut down as a first step. But the AG should not stop there.

The Bloomberg administration has used illegal tactics to bully WPU property owners off their land, and the entire process should be shut down-and this doesn't even touch on the ramp issues, where false data and illegal maneuvering has made the original illegalities of the Shulman effort appear to be almost quaint.

AG Schneiderman has a rare opportunity to tackle malfeasance at the highest and most powerful levels-going after the pet project of not only the mayor, but much of the Queens political establishment as well. By doing so, he would set himself up as a courageous crusader who operates without fear or favor. He should go for it.

Full text from Crain's Insider:

Willets Point Conspiracy Theory

Willets Point property owners are still waiting for the results of an investigation by the state attorney general's office of whether former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman's local development corporation lobbied illegally for the project that will displace them. The lack of a resolution when Andrew Cuomo was attorney general prompted a conspiracy theory among owners that he had backed off as a favor to Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who supports the LDC and endorsed Cuomo for governor. But perhaps the case is just time-consuming: It remains unresolved under Cuomo's successor, Eric Schneiderman, whose election opponent was endorsed by Bloomberg. Schneiderman's spokesman said: “We cannot comment on an active investigation.”

Crain's Insider Focuses on WPU Eminent Domain Challenge

In this morning's Crain's Insider (subsc.), the newsletter reports on the WPU eminent domain lawsuit that will be filed soon against the city:

"Mike Rikon, the lawyer handling Willets Point businesses' lawsuit fighting eminent-domain condemnations, says a handful of such suits have succeeded in New York, usually on environmental grounds. That's his primary argument in the Queens case, but he's also asserting that City Council approval of the city's action resulted from illegal lobbying by a city-funded local development corporation and from “special deals” the Bloomberg administration made in buying out property owners favored by the council. Rikon said the city erred by not making formal offers and not giving hearing notices to all owners and tenants."

As we have pointed out before, there are proper procedures for treating potential condemnees-and Rikon has highlighted just how far EDC has strayed from following these legal parameters. So the skirting of the legal niceties continues apace in this development.

From the mayor's, "they do it all the time," excuse for the illegal Shulman role in lobbying for the plan, to the end run of proper environmental review of the Van Wyck ramps, EDC does not ever feel constrained by the law-or certainly by what is ethical and proper. We will now see if the courts will constrain this rogue agency and restore the rule of law on Willets Point. The city's illegal bullying tactics need to be stopped.

Lawsuit Filed

As expected, WPU filed its lawsuit against the city for its bait and switch tactics over the formerly essential Van Wyck ramps. The NY Daily News has the story:

"Willets Point property and business owners filed a lawsuit yesterday accusing the city of beginning eminent domain proceedings before meeting key environmental mileposts.

It's the first of two legal salvos expected to be launched by Willets Point United in a bid to keep its land and businesses in the gritty industrial zone.

At the center of the suit, filed in Queens Supreme Court, are traffic ramps that were to be built off the Van Wyck Expressway. The ramps were supposed to ease traffic congestion expected with the sweeping redevelopment of the so-called Iron Triangle, near Citi Field."

We say formerly essentially because EDC had argued to anyone who would listen-and in a sworn court affidavit-that the development could not proceed without the ramps to mitigate the traffic: "EDC officials said the first phase of the development would not require the ramps to be built. "We were shocked that the city went back on its promise to the court and to the community that it would not condemn property without approval of the ramps," said Michael Gerrard, one of the lawyers representing Willets Point United. "This project would generate a colossal amount of traffic, and there would be no place to go," he said."

Indeed it will, but the EDC sleight of hand known as a Technical Memo, is making the unsubstantiated case that Phase I will be hunky dory even without ramps-and wants everyone to simply take it at its word without any concomitant review. That calls for the suspension of a whole lot of disbelief.

The city for its part, however, remains confident: "Julie Wood, a spokeswoman for the EDC, said the city expects to win the legal challenge."We feel confident that we are on strong legal footing and look forward to resolving this matter as quickly as possible so that this project can move forward without further delays," Wood said."

We wonder how strong that footing is-given the public record and the published reports over EDC and NYC DOT's frustration over the regulatory delay on the approval of the formerly essential ramps: "Jerry Antonacci, a property owner and leader of Willets Point United, said the city must follow protocol."They still have to jump through their hoops, and they don't want to do it. If you need approval, you need approval," he said."

What this legal case will dramatize is the extent to which EDC has continued to pursue extra-legal methods in its pursuit of the Willets Point development. This is a Bloomberg legacy project, and some legacy it will be. Conceived in illegality through the hiring of Claire Shulman's LDC, this ends justifies the means agency now seeks to end run the regulations that it itself claimed were necessary preconditions for any eminent domain use.

We should conclude with the comments of Mayor Bloomberg when confronted by the exposure of the illegality of the Shulman hiring. In an interview with the Times Ledger, Emperor Bloomberg famously told his subjects: "These groups are designed to lobby,” Bloomberg continued. “I don’t know if they technically broke the law.”

That friends was the lie on which Mike Bloomberg wants to establish his legacy-and a fitting one it would be considering all of the other fables that have been propagated about his less than stellar accomplishments. But first he has to come through us. And like any good lead off hitter, WPU is going to prove to be one tough out.

Willets Point Eminent Domain Hearing: And the Dog that Didn’t Bark

The local media did a nice job of covering the Willets Point eminent domain hearing the other week, but we all were struck by a glaring omission. As the Queens Tribune reported, a number of elected officials came out to cheer lead for the project: “Among the redevelopment’s supporters were various elected officials who represent the area, including U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Jackson Heights), State Sen. Toby Stavisky (D-Flushing) and Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn (D-Flushing). “Willets Point is a gem of a resource that has gone underutilized even as more than 4 million people annually visit the attractions immediately surrounding Willets Point,” Crowley wrote in submitted testimony.”

The glaring omission? None other than the Grand Dame of Queens politics, the venerable Claire Shulman. And surely she should have been there to bless the project that, without her illegal lobbying help, might never have gotten off the ground.

But we were not surprised to see Senator Stavisky step up-after all, her son Evan the lobbyist has been making some nice money representing the Shulman illegal lobbying scheme. “These advocates included U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Jackson Heights), state Sen. Toby Stavisky (D-Whitestone) and state Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn (D-Flushing), all of whom submitted written testimony that was read aloud by staffers. “It’s time to put Willets Point on track to become the economic hub it’s destined to be,” Stavisky said in her testimony.”

Didn’t the state senator think that she should recuse herself because of a conflict of interest? In Queens, we guess that everything is relative-including ethics.

As for the hearing itself, WPU came out in force: “Attorneys Michael Rikon and Michael Gerrard laid out a legal case against the City’s plan, promising to file a petition in an appellate-level State court shortly after the EDC’s response to the public hearing. Their clients approached the microphones after them, clutching papers with written testimony. They introduced themselves by name, then block and lot numbers. It gave a jarring, self-dehumanizing effect to their testimony, but was largely done for legal purposes.”

What’s also interesting from the Tribune’s report is that it isn’t only the Phase I property owners who are in jeopardy: “Jake Bono and Jerry Antonacci, of Bono Sawdust Supply and Crown Container respectively, drew attention to EDPL Section 401, Subset 3 Subset c. The 93-word, one-sentence paragraph gives the EDC a potential 10-year window to condemn all the remaining unsold property within Willets Point, like Antonacci and Bono’s, without subsequent public hearings.

The option becomes available if the EDC successfully sees through the condemnation of Phase 1’s still-unsold properties within three years after all legal challenges have been settled. In essence, Antonacci and Bono argued their land, though outside of Phase 1, was part of the evening’s discussion. The EDC never told them. “I was not notified the hearing would also include future condemnation of my property,” Bono said.”

But even if the state and federal regulators don’t approve the ramps, the city can still condemn all of the other properties. Does this make any sense? This entire scheme is badly in need of unraveling-something that will hopefully happen when the WPU court challenge comes down.

However, as we have said before, law enforcement should be involved because the entire development scheme has devolved from the illegal Shulman advocacy. That dog wasn’t heard at the hearing the other night, but the echoes of her previous barking nonetheless reverberated through the Flushing Library halls.

Crain’s Corrects

In the Tuesday edition of the Crain’s Insider, the newsletter had alleged that the cause of Willets Point United lacked any community based support. After WPU contacted Crain’s, the following was reported: “Property owners fighting a proposed redevelopment in Willets Point dispute yesterday's Insider report that “no community groups stand against the project.” Six Queens groups sent letters in early 2010 objecting to elements of the development. They called for an independent review of the Van Wyck Expressway ramps proposed for the project. Several letters oppose the ramps and call for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain, which may be necessary to clear the project site.”

In addition, the newsletter had also alleged that no council member was supporting the property owners. Certainly, if CM Halloran’s comments at the eminent domain hearing from the other week, he most assuredly can be placed squarely in the corner of WPU in its effort. But what of the other elected officials?

It is quite true that Halloran, and to some extent CM Ferreras for the WP workers, has been a lone voice. But is this a result of the inability of the lobbyist? Or is it something other than that? After all, to see so many elected officials remain silent in the face of injustice is their shame, one that can’t be shared with anyone else.

Whither Claire?

Speaking of injustice, why is no one pursuing the “open” investigation of the former borough president? After all, it was the former Attorney General that allegedly opened it, but allowed it to languish all the way up and through the endorsement of Mayor Mike Bloomberg-and beyond into the new administration of AG Schneiderman.
The investigation of corruption apparently is a quite selective process. We read this morning that the new attorney general is on the corruption beat-going after one of his former state senate colleagues. As Daily Politics points out: “Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has slapped subpoenas on education outfits with ties to Queens state Sen. Shirley Huntley, the Daily News has learned. Our Ken Lovett brings us this exclusive report in today's editions: One subpoena seeking the nonprofit's paperwork went to Huntley's daughter, Pamela Corley, who heads the Parent Information Network, said a source familiar with the probe. A second went to Vanessa Sparks, president of the Parent Workshop, which Huntley created before becoming a senator, the source said.The subpoenas are said to seek information on how the groups used state grants.”

There is, however, no more obvious an illegality than the one committed by Claire Shulman-committed in the name of EDC as it happens. To review: Claire Shulman has admitted to the NY Times: "That was the whole idea. We lobbied the City for the City." (Rivera, Ray. 2009. New York Paid To Lobby Itself, Group Claims. New York Times, August 21, Sec. A.)

Mayor Bloomberg has admitted to the TimesLedger newspapers: "These groups [local development corporations] are designed to lobby. I don't know if they technically broke the law." (Duke, Nathan and Gustafson, Anna. 2009. Bloomberg defends Shulman in Willets Point flap, TimesLedger, August, 27.)

Notwithstanding the clear admissions of Shulman and Bloomberg: The attempt by Shulman's local development corporation ("LDC") to influence the City Council's legislative adoption of Resolutions approving the Willets Point development (including authorization to use eminent domain to acquire property) is contrary to both §1411 of the NYS Not-For-Profit Corporation Law under which all LDCs are organized as well as the Certificate of Incorporation of Shulman's LDC. NYCEDC is likewise an LDC which is subject to the absolute prohibition of attempting to influence legislation that is imposed by §1411, and that is also reiterated within NYCEDC's Certificate of Incorporation.

And there’s strong evidence that not only was Shulman was successful, but that she was the linchpin of the ULURP application being approved. Now, we can’t say for certain what would have happened if EDC hadn’t illegally hire her, but her impact was undeniable-as Juan Gonzales reported at the time.

Claire organized the unions to support the Willets Point development, and their support proved to be a turning point-something that then CM Monseratte has admitted. The bottom line here is that Shulman’s LDC was set up almost exclusively as a lobbying entity, and this crass violation of the law is being allowed to stand-although it could soon become an integral thread in upcoming lawsuits brought against the city.

However, it shouldn’t be up to small property owners like ourselves to bring this issue before the court. Our message to AG Schniederman is a simple one: Please enforce the law without fear or favor.

Statement regarding Dr. Richard Lipsky

Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") is very surprised to learn of unexpected allegations against Dr. Richard Lipsky.

We emphasize that the allegations have nothing whatsoever to do with Willets Point, and we consider that Dr. Lipsky has done a most effective job on behalf of WPU to expose the severe negative impacts of the proposed Willets Point development, plus the fraud and illegal tactics to which the City has resorted as it attempts to proceed with its project at any price.

All information that Dr. Lipsky has disseminated regarding the proposed Willets Point development is accurate, and is verifiable by reviewing publicly available records.

For nearly two years, Dr. Lipsky has been a spokesman for WPU and has communicated with news media on WPU's behalf, providing key information which has benefited the public, and which Dr. Lipsky was the first person to disseminate. To his credit, Dr. Lipsky has personally done the laborious type of investigative journalism which has all but disappeared from mainstream news reporting. We commend him for that effort.

Although WPU deeply appreciates Dr. Lipsky's expertise and friendship, and hopes that he will be vindicated, WPU's opposition to the proposed Willets Point development will continue most forcefully, regardless of any news concerning Dr. Lipsky. WPU has directly established the necessary contacts and credibility with elected officials, regulatory agencies and news media; and the capability exists within WPU and among its numerous expert consultants and attorneys, to carry out WPU's program with or without Dr. Lipsky.

Significantly, whatever the allegations may be against Dr. Lipsky, they must absolutely pale in comparison to the scale of the wrongdoing perpetrated by the City and its cohorts in their attempt to seize Willets Point property to facilitate a development that is valued in excess of $4,000,000,000.00. There has yet been no prosecution of this wrongdoing, but we aim to change that.

And while both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ironically have recently taken a keen interest in Dr. Richard Lipsky for absolutely unrelated reasons, we are confident that those federal enforcement agencies are not going to allow the fraud and corruption which underpins the proposed Willets Point development to persist and succeed. Where there is enforcement against one, there should be enforcement against all – especially against those who would conspire to abuse power to facilitate a corrupt land grab plan which stretches back decades.

WPU is motivated, indefatigable, and inspired by Dr. Lipsky's contact with federal enforcement agencies.

Politics as usual

Reporting on the mixed record of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the NY Times writes the following:

...an investigation into whether the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some public officials violated lobbying laws in their redevelopment efforts is still unresolved after two years. (Mr. Bloomberg last month endorsed Mr. Cuomo’s campaign for governor.)

They are referring to our request for an investigation into Claire Shulman's illegal lobbying efforts as well as a request submitted by Atlantic Yards reporter Norman Oder.

Bloomberg endorsed Cuomo for governor.

Neighborhood Retail Alliance has more.

Photo from the Daily News

Willets Point United Inc. Exposes Shulman Grant Ineligibility; DiNapoli Involved After Cuomo's Failure to Act

The following is a letter from Willets Point United attorney Michael Gerrard of Arnold and Porter to State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli about the disbursal of $1.5M+ state grant money to ineligible applicant, Flushing-Willets Point-Corona Local Development Corporation. How can he betray the trust of the taxpayers of New York and allow this to go on?

Letter to Tom DiNapoli

Is Cuomo protecting Shulman?

Willets Point Group Claims Cuomo Delay
by Michael Howard Saul
Wall Street Journal, 6/22/10

Queens property owners battling Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to redevelop the area near Citi Field are accusing Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of dragging his feet in a yearlong investigation into whether a city-funded corporation broke state law by lobbying for the plan.

The controversy surrounding the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. has exposed friction between aides to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo over how quickly the city handed over documents to state investigators.

In a June 17 letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the Willets Point property owners demanded Mr. Cuomo, who is running for governor, respond to their allegation that the corporation, led by former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman, conducted an extensive lobbying effort in violation of state law. Ms. Shulman denied any wrongdoing in an interview.

"We're getting a little frustrated on what's taking so long and why he's not acting more quickly," said Jerry Antonacci, president of Willets Point United Inc., the group that filed the complaint against Ms. Shulman's corporation.

"There is no reason for a delay in this."

Mr. Antonacci said he believes politics might be at play because, in his view, it's an open-shut case. "I do feel there's some behind-the-door politicking going on," he said. "That's what I feel in my gut."

Richard Bamberger, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said, "It's an ongoing investigation and therefore it would be inappropriate to comment."

The attorney general's office has complained about the speed with which the city has responded to requests for information.

The final batch of requested documents from the city arrived at Mr. Cuomo's office last week, a person familiar with the probe said. And Mr. Cuomo's office still needs to interview additional witnesses, the person said.

Terri Sasanow, senior counsel at the city's law department, said, "The city has fully compiled with all document requests from the attorney general."

Willets Point, a 62-acre site that is adjacent to Flushing Meadows Park and Citi Field, is filled with scrap yards and auto- repair shops. The mayor's plan, approved by the City Council in 2008, calls for a massive cleanup and the creation of 5,500 housing units and eight acres of parks and playgrounds. The business owners in Mr. Antonacci's group don't want to sell their properties to the city.

Ms. Shulman's corporation received hundreds of thousands of dollars in both public and private money to build support for Mr. Bloomberg's plan. State law prohibits local development corporations, such as the Ms. Shulman's, from attempting to "influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise."

"We did everything in good faith and we continue to believe that," Ms. Shulman said. "It's a good project," she added, referring to the mayor's plans for the area. Ms. Shulman admitted she and her group engaged in lobbying.

"Did we go to speak to members of the City Council? Yes, we did," she said. "We hired lobbyists."

Bob Bishop, an attorney for Ms. Shulman's corporation, said that he believes state law prohibits lobbying of the Legislature. Since Ms. Shulman lobbied the City Council, he said, "the activity is not illegal."

"We are waiting for guidance from the attorney general," he said.

Last year, the City Clerk imposed a $59,090 fine against the corporation because Ms. Shulman failed to register as a lobbyist.

At the time, it was the largest fine issued by the City Clerk for lobbying activity.

Another great letter courtesy of Ben Haber

Letter to the Times Ledger:

City Comptroller John Liu is to be commended for his audit of the city Economic Development Corp. and, if he is correct, the EDC has been shortchanging the city to the tune of millions of dollars (“Liu finds EDC owes city more than $125M,” Flushing Times, May 6-12).

Lest the public be confused, it must be noted that while the EDC is a city agency, funds improperly withheld by it belong to the city’s general fund and would be available for general city purposes. Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a similar argument recently in connection to funds collected by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Bloomberg will, of course, make no complaint about the EDC because he approves, if not dictates, what it pursues. The purpose of the EDC as it has operated under the Bloomberg administration is not to create economic growth for the benefit of city residents, but for Bloomberg’s fat cat real estate friends.

The EDC has no interest in the poor, the middle class and the small business owner. A case in point is the EDC’s grant to former Borough President Claire Shulman’s group of $450,000, which has raised questions as to whether it was improperly being used to lobby City Council members to support the mayor’s and the EDC’s plan to destroy the many small Willets Point businesses for the benefit of a private real estate interest.

The time has come to recognize the EDC does not exist as a city agency charged with pursuing that which benefits all city residents, but as a group endowed with taxpayer funds which it uses for the benefit of real estate interests. The EDC must be overhauled with the public having a meaningful say in its operations.

If that cannot be accomplished, the agency should be abolished.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Ben Haber strikes again!

Gov't must study Willets Point plan traffic effects
Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:11 AM EDT
Times Ledger

One will recall Borough President Helen Marshall thought it was a grand idea to build a New York Jets football stadium in the middle of Flushing Meadows Corona Park — a no-brainer if there ever was one and one that would have destroyed Flushing Meadows as a viable urban park.

That Marshall has approved the city’s study of the Willets Point development’s traffic impact, as mentioned in TimesLedger Newspapers’ April 8-14 editorial “Delaying Tactics at Willets Point,” is another no-brainer and all the more reason to have the issue reviewed by a state and federal traffic study.

Marshall’s constituency as well as that of the Bloomberg administration and its appointees are the fat cat real estate moguls, not the hundreds of small Willets Point businesses and their thousands of employees and families that will be thrown to the wind.

While TimesLedger seems unhappy Willets Point businesses have engaged Richard Lipsky to lobby on their behalf, it should be noted TimesLedger seems to have no problem with former Borough President Claire Shulman, who has been lobbying on behalf of the proposed development amid claims she has been doing so with city money.

Traffic on the Grand Central Parkway and Van Wyck Expressway is often backed up and worse when the New York Mets are in play and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center is open. To add to that congestion, what would flow from the proposed development would make it even more impossible. Traffic on these highways is not an issue limited to the city and Willets Point businesses, but all city residents.

Having an independent study by the state and federal governments, both of which have not been engaged by either the proponents or opposition, makes sense and TimesLedger should as a matter of public interest support it.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

SHULMAN'S LDC BLOWS US OFF, BUT ANSWERS OTHERS' QUESTIONS

The Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation recently solicited questions from the public via its web site, concerning the LDC's pending Request for Proposals in connection with a state grant which the LDC claims to have received via the Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program. The work to be performed using the grant funds is a step toward "area-wide" and "large scale" development of 60 acres of privately-owned downtown Flushing property which the LDC is anxious to achieve, regardless of its injurious effects on surrounding neighborhoods and roadways.

Given the far-reaching implications of such a project, the LDC's dubious track record (which includes a record financial penalty of $59,090.00 levied by the Office of the City Clerk due to the LDC's unlawful lobbying activities), and the involvement of taxpayers funds, Willets Point United Inc. thought it appropriate to submit 5 questions to the LDC.

The LDC has since posted 8 questions and the LDC's answers, at the LDC's web site (http://www.queensalive.org/csnm/templates/?a=62&z=11). However, the LDC has omitted all of the questions posed by Willets Point United Inc., the answers to which would be of great interest to New York City residents, as well as New York State taxpayers whose funds are reportedly being given away to the LDC as a grant award.

The questions posed by Willets Point United Inc. which are being ignored by the LDC are:

(1.) The property within the proposed BOA area is presently owned by a variety of private owners. However, FWPCLDC's BOA application contemplates "area-wide" and "large scale" development. To accomplish FWPCLDC's long-term objectives for the proposed BOA area, is there any possibility that property within the proposed BOA area may eventually be acquired via eminent domain?

(2.) FWPCLDC's BOA application contains a list of 25 sites located on privately-owned property within the proposed BOA area, which FWPCLDC has already designated brownfield sites. Has any scientific testing been conducted, to determine whether or not each of those 25 sites meets the definition of brownfield?

(3.) Pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 970-r, an application for New York State assistance for brownfield opportunity areas requires that an eligible CBO applicant must have "twenty-five percent or more of its board of directors residing in the community" in which the CBO is located. As FWPCLDC is located in Flushing and pertains to Flushing, Willets Point and Corona, does FWPCLDC have twenty-five percent or more of its board of directors residing in those areas?

(4.) Pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 970-r, an application for New York State assistance for brownfield opportunity areas requires that an eligible CBO applicant must represent "a community with a demonstrated financial need." BOAP application form Part B.7.5 specifies that "a demonstrated financial need" is "indicated by high unemployment, low resident incomes, depressed property values, or high commercial vacancy rates." However, the community in which FWPCLDC operates is not characterized by any indicator of "demonstrated financial need". Moreover, the community which FWPCLDC truly represents – the member firms of FWPCLDC – is composed of prosperous and well-funded businesses, which not only have no "demonstrated financial need," but which are surely themselves jointly capable of funding planned activities of FWPCLDC, without receiving any BOA grant award. How exactly has FWPCLDC demonstrated "financial need," which is a prerequisite to receive a BOA grant award of scarce taxpayer funds?

(5.) We understand that FWPCLDC's lobbying during 2007, 2008 and 2009 in violation of Section 1411 of the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law has resulted in legal complaints to the Office of the New York State Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, among many other city, state and federal enforcement agencies. Given that the consequences of FWPCLDC's past lobbying may include the revocation of FWPCLDC's status as a not-for-profit tax exempt corporation, the outright dissolution of FWPCLDC, and other sanctions, what assurance do RFP respondents have that FWPCLDC will be able to carry out the proposed BOA program?

-- Willets Point United Inc.

Premature exuberance by developers

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

According to the Observer, EDC has a list of potential bidders for property at Willets Point that is currently owned by other folks: "World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein, Queens developer Jeff Levine and Related Cos. chairman Stephen Ross are among those seeking to develop Willets Point, the polluted, 62-acre auto repair district next to Citi Field, according to city records."

A little premature exuberance perhaps, since there are still some unresolved outstanding issues-especially over traffic and certain ramps to nowhere, an issue that the Observer neglects to emphasize in its story-but does mention, along with the illegal machinations of one Claire Shulman: "Since, the opposition from the main landowners has died down—many of them cut their own deals with the city—while the smaller business owners have tried to raise concerns about traffic issues and the legality of a local development corporation that was established to lobby for the project. That organization, the Flushing/Willets Point/Corona LDC, was funded in part by the Bloomberg administration, which effectively directed funds to lobby the City Council and community board. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began investigating this issue last summer after the business owners questioned its legality, although he has yet to issue any findings."

As more and more community folks begin to see just how fraudulent the city's traffic studies really are-and that includes Flushing Commons as well-they're beginning to understand that Kermit the Mayor is more like the Wizard of Oz on the issue of greening the city; he's full of bluster but, like Oakland, there's not much there there.

The pushback is just beginning for our city's richest man. Stay tuned.

Convention center questionable (aka more lies from EDC)

From the Queens Courier:

In an effort to connect with small businesses in the area, newly-elected Queens City Councilmembers recently met with members of the Queens Chamber of Commerce at the organization’s Jackson Heights headquarters.

Some of the issues they discussed included the loss of area hospitals, the Aqueduct Racino project and the possible altering of the original Willets Point revitalization project.

When the meeting touched on the Economic Development Corporation’s possible abandoning of the proposed Willets Point convention center, Councilmember Karen Koslowitz, of District 29, said that dropping that aspect in particular would be disastrous to the local economy.

“To abandon the original plan would be terrible,” said Koslowitz. “What they are doing is taking away jobs and money from us.”

As Queens Crap points out:

The entire project was based on

a) the site being too polluted to stay that way (therefore the entire thing needed to be remediated at once)
b) jobs, jobs, jobs anchored by the convention center.

Part a) was tossed out the window when they went to a phased approach and part b) is on its way out, probably because TDC doesn't think they can build a convention center or it won't be profitable enough for them.

Amazing how the city can approve one plan and then replace it with something entirely different without any elected official raising hell or an investigation being commenced. And the best part is that the City, via Claire Shulman, continues to lobby itself (as well as the state and feds which need to sign off on their disastrous Van Wyck ramp plan) with our tax money even now that we are broke with the electorate begging for crumbs.

Gotta love this city! Developers are ALWAYS the priority!

We couldn't have said it better ourselves!

What are DOT & EDC hiding?

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

In a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post, David Vines examines the proposed project, and some of the key issues that continue to vex the progress of the development:

"Willets Point sprawls across sixty-two acres between the Flushing River and the New York Mets' Citi Field in Queens. It is filled almost exclusively with small auto repair shops and junkyards--although it would be excusable for one to mistake the entire area for a junkyard. Almost all of the shops in Willets Point are family owned. There is not an AutoZone in sight...In May of 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for urban renewal in Willets Point. Two years later, the New York City Economic Development Corporation announced that it would invest $100 million into infrastructure projects in Queens, including development in Willets Point. The NYCEDC aims to create more than 5,300 permanent jobs and 18,000 construction jobs with this project."

Vines goes on to cite our critique of the process: ""Any time you have eminent domain on the table, you're really negotiating with a gun to your head," says Richard Lipsky. Lipsky is a lobbyist for Willets Point United and the spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, where he fights for small businesses and against large-scale developments in New York. "The Willets Point businesses don't deserve to be thrown out on their behinds in a process that has been corrupted by political favoritism and the type of shenanigans that we've seen," Lipsky claims."

We were, of course, referring to the situation involving the phony Claire Shulman-led not-for-profit-and just where does that Cuomo investigation into the shenannigans stand today? Shulman, for her part, continues to lobby illegally while the AG drags his feet (while movinbg full speed ahead it seems in the case of Pedro Espada). As we told Vines: "The "shenanigans" of which he speaks involve the Flushing-Willets Point-Corona LDC (Local Development Corporation) whose acting President and CEO, Claire Shulman, registered her corporation with the IRS as one prohibited from lobbying. After Willets Point business owners complained, she was fined a record $59,000 last July for failing to register as a lobbyist."

The political weight behind this project may be weighing heavily on the AG's mind-and our dealings with the NYSDOT underscores this since the agency has been getting real skittish about meeting with us to discuss the inadequacy of the EDC-sponsored traffic study for ramps that are proposed off of ther Van Wyck (ramps that are, according to the original EIS, essential for the project to go forward). DOT has been trying to whittle down who should attend our meeting for Friday-after it was cancelled last week because the agency didn't want reps from various state senate offices to attend.

In our view, this means that the folks at EDC are throwing their weight around-trying to dictate who can, or cannot, come to a meeting. Which is truly curious since the meeting was requested by Willets Point United and it was DOT that decided to bring EDC into the picture. The cancellation of last week's meeting was based it appears on the fact that DOT was concerned that it was becoming too political! As if the presence of EDC represented only good government and the public interest.

You have to wonder about the government being offended by the presence of other members of the government at a meeting to discuss a public project...