Willets Point Opposition Grows

On Monday night a rally was held at Willets Point and affordable housing advocates joined with the property owners to voice their opposition to the current “bait and switch” deal the city has come up with to redevelop the Iron Triangle. Yesterday, opponents of the plan came down to the City Planning Commission hearing on the project to forcefully voice their concerns. As property owner Irene Presti told the Commission:

“This unneeded and unnecessary mall will be built on the site of the current CitiField parking lot. So where will the Mets fans park? They will park on the land that the city has purchased from Willets Point property owners for $200 million! So the city used the threat of eminent domain to grab land that will now be used for a parking lot.

Back when the mayor extolled the virtues of this deal he called Willets Point the “city’s first green neighborhood.” Not in our lifetime. What the city is getting for its overall investment of around $500 million dollars is a mall and a parking lot. Everything else is simply smoke and mirrors with no guarantees whatsoever.

Making all of this so much worse is that the city administration told the city council that it would recoup its investment when the selected developer was chosen. Instead, the city has decided to gift the property to Related and Sterling Equities for $1!”

On the heels of the rally and hearing political opposition is also growing-and the NY Daily News has the story:

“Two City Councilmen — who happen to both be running for Queens borough president — are trying to block the plate against a proposed mega-mall next to CitiField. The lawmakers, Leroy Comrie and Peter Vallone Jr., announced Monday they oppose the current plan, which includes a 1.4-million-square-foot mall and is currently rounding third and headed for home in the city’s land-use review process.

“The community has responded negatively,” Comrie said. “They don’t feel their needs are being kept in the forefront.” Comrie heads the powerful Council Land Use committee, and said changes may be needed before it gets the Council’s rubber stamp.”

In addition to Vallone and Comrie, WPU’s old ally Tony Avella has also weighed in on the plan and has found it wanting: “Shame on any politician who votes for this,” said state Sen. Tony Avella, a third candidate opposed to the proposal.

All of this took place at a Queens BP candidates’ forum. Vallone also made the strong point that the current plan was not the plan that the council approved in 2008: “That’s not what we approved,” said Vallone (D-Astoria).

“You can’t change it after we approve it.”

The one candidate who voiced support of the project was Melinda Katz who has decided to forego her self-described libertarian philosophy (and her stated uneasiness with eminent domain) and go all-in with the Queens Democratic Party that is supporting her:

“But former Councilwoman Melinda Katz appeared more bullish on the Iron Triangle overhaul. She said there weren’t any aspects of the current plan she would change. “It’s an urban renewal plan.” said Katz. “It’s so easy to talk about amending. We have to look at how to make it happen and move it forward.”

Shame on her, but we’re not surprised because Katz was one of the council members who publicly expressed bewilderment over the ramp issue back in 2008-and has done little since then to educate herself on the project. But then again, ignorance is bliss when the Party’s big guns and the entire real estate and you’re making big bucks as a land use lawyer.

What we now can see that if Katz is elected borough president, the communities of Queens will have been abandoned for the special interests and the small businesses of the borough be damned as well. Keep this in mind Queens Civic Congress when, in the future, a developer comes into your neighborhood.

Comrie, for his part, understands the foolishness of the housing and ramps issue:

“Comrie (D-St. Albans) blasted a “ridiculous” provision that hinges the construction of the affordable housing to connecting ramps to the Van Wyck Expwy.”

We’ll give Irene Presti the last word:

“When the city came for my property and the rest of the land owned by small owners like me, they claimed it was for the purpose of cleaning up Willets Point-alleging that it was essentially a toxic waste dump. Ladies and gentlemen the only thing toxic here is the deal for Willets Point-a spectacular example of crony capitalism and bad faith.

For the citizens of New York and the property owners of Willets Point, the current development proposal should be relegated to the dustbin of history-and a planning commission that lived up to its name would unceremoniously send this proposal back to the city. Do the right thing. Don’t be a rubber stamp for the mayor. Say no to Willets West.”

Sweetheart Deals and Cannon Fodder

Knowledgeable observers were surprised that the original Willets Point business coalition, the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, hired Peter Vallone Sr. to lobby on its behalf. Vallone had no record of engaging in adversarial battles against the political establishment-quite the opposite. Vallone's entire political carer was spent in cutting deals, and if WPU's lawyer Mike Rikon is correct in his submissions to the city, many of the larger members of this original group knew exactly what they were doing by engaging Mr. Vallone.

For a select few, the Vallone representation resulted in sweetheart deals cut for their benefit; agreements that were not available to any of the smaller property owners who were not part of the WPIRA inner circle. According to attorney Rikon, this violates the essence of the state's Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). Once the city council passed its ULURP application for the Willlets Point project, all of the proper protocols under the EDPL should have been triggered and observed. This is not anywhere near what happened.

As Rikon points out: "There has been a violation of the entire process set forth in the Eminent Domain Procedure Law at Section 303 thereof which requires independent appraisals of the properties to be condemned with a written offer of 100% of the highest approved appraised value. This was not done for all condemnees or even for a single condemnee. Rather, what followed were individual oral offers and negotiations to select individuals but not to all of the property owners. This is a violation of the statute. It is also a violation of equal protection of the law. See EDPL Section 101.

And Rikon goes on to say:"What was done in the Willets Point Development Project was to make deals with prominent owners of property who had garnered political opposition to the project’s approval. But the deals did not follow compliance with EDPL Section 303. The deals, containing extraordinary provisions, were made only to appease the opposition from the members of the City Council supported by the select property owners."

What this also means is that the entire opposition to the Willets Point development was Kabuki theater-a staged production designed to enhance the bargaining position of the larger members of the WPIRA coalition. The corollary to this observation is that the little guys-property owners, tenant owners, and workers-were simply used as cannon fodder. They were sold out in the end, but in reality, their disposal was planned for from the beginning.

In some ways, we can appreciate the skill in which this was done-and kudos to those businesses that, as a result, made out like bandits. That, however, doesn't excuse the city's violation of the EDPL which, if true, adds to the growing list of illegal and unethical behaviors we have seen in this entire process.

But let's put a face on the sweetness of the deals we are talking about-as Rikon does in his discussion of the deal made with Part Authority:

"The NYCEDC also entered into a contract with Parts Authority Partners Real Estate, LLC on September 26, 2008...The NYCEDC contract agreed to pay the seller $18,150,000 for a 24,739 square foot site.

In addition, the contract provided the seller with numerous extraordinary benefits. The contract was conditioned upon the seller receiving $1.5 million dollars in relocation assistance. The seller and its multiple tenants (Hunt Construction, Mets Stadium Auto Glass, Anjo Realty and CBS Outdoor) were permitted to remain on the property for at least, but possibly more than, 24 months.

During that time, the seller was only required to pay rent in the amount of $1 per month. The NYCEDC would pay all real estate taxes. In addition, despite the fact that NYCEDC would be the owner and landlord, the seller was permitted to collect all rents from its tenants/subtenants on the property. The NYCEDC also agreed to pay New York City Transfer Taxes and any title insurance premiums."

Sweet indeed-and a justification for the Vallone hiring if there ever was one. Rikon summarizes: "In light of the above, it is clear that a select group of property owners, but not all, received preferential treatment from the City of New York including “sweetheart deals,” relocation assistance, a significant loan at a discount rate, rent free accommodations, option contracts at preferential values, agreements by the City to purchase land on the owner’s behalf, the entitlement to collect rent from subtenants but without having to pay any rent to the City, and title to newly constructed City facilities and buildings. This selective preferential treatment is clearly a violation of the statute and a violation of equal protection of the law."

How below board and corrupt was this? Recall Fernanda Santos' City Room article that revealed nicely the EDC scheme: "Whenever the city pursues a development project that involves buying land from private parties, it usually keeps details of the negotiations with property owners under wraps. Sale prices are rarely disclosed to avoid influencing other owners into asking more for their property.That has been the case in Willets Point, a 62-acre section of Queens next to Citi Field that is the target of one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s most ambitious development plans."

Except, as Rikon points out, the invocation of the EDPL protocols legally requires the city not to do this: "When asked which parcels the city had bought and how much it had paid for them, David Lombino, a spokesman for the Economic Development Corporation, said he could not disclose that information “because it would impede negotiations with other landlords going forward.”

The scheme was so important to EDC that it screamed bloody murder at the City Room expose-calling Santos to have her correct some of the property sale details. But in the end, there was one thing that EDC refused to do-comply with the terms of EDPL: "Mr. Lombino still declined to disclose how much the city paid per square foot of land — or building — it has acquired in Willets Point."

What about the rest of the "holdouts?" To this day they have yet to receive any written offer as required by law-and the city has commenced condemnation of their property. So, a process that began with the illegal lobbying work of Claire Shulman has continued along the same tawdry vein-with EDC acting outside of the law because it believes that it can, after paying off the larger property owners, simply beat up on the little guys.