Please see following letter from Willets Point United to entire City Council, which will vote on the Willets Point plan this Wednesday. As the letter notes, a legitimate reason why some of the properties that are within "Phase One" are NOT included in the Brownfield Cleanup Program application, is that they are not owned by the City. It is important to note, however, that even discounting those properties, there are still numerous properties that the City DOES own, that Sterling/Related have excluded from their BCP application and thus from the program. Why don't Sterling/Related want a BCP Certificate of Completion pertaining to those properties? Do they not want NYSDEC looking so closely over their shoulders to scrutinize the remediation (if any) that they perform on those particular properties? How is the pubic interest served by deliberately excluding properties from the BCP -- when remediation is a top selling point of the whole project?
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Willets Point on the Brink: Vote NO on A Billionaire Land Grab in Queens, NY
Quotation of the clergyman at the end: "Julissa -- We are your people.
This will destroy our neighborhoods; change our lives. Council members,
listen to us: Vote "NO" on October 9."
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Haber’s Sound Advice: Ignore Julissa Ferreras
In this week’s Times Ledger Ben Haber issues some sound advice to the city council: Ignore Julissa Ferreras because the violation of law involved in the current city proposal to build a mall on CitiField’s parking lot is too egregious to allow one council member’s lack of intelligence to prevail:
“For too long there has been an unwritten law that in connection with legislation pending before the New York City Council, the Council member whose district encompasses the area on which there may be an impact has the say on whether the legislation should be enacted or rejected. Not only does this not comport with legitimate democratic processes, but it ignores the fact that a single Council member does not speak for all the residents of a district and ignores the fact there may be an impact upon an entire borough as well as the city.”The question of whom Ferreras actually speaks for is an open one, but we can discount any notion that she speaks for the public interest. Her apparent support of a mall on parkland is a case in point:
“To allow this deception is to sanction the taking of a huge section of Flushing Meadows Corona Park land on which the current lot sits and to sanction a significant land use change without the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. All Council members, guardians of the public’s interests, must protect the integrity of ULURP and land use change for the entire city. To ignore that duty is to lay the groundwork for further intrusions in the future in other Council districts.”Haber goes on to underscore why Ferreras is wrong about Willets West:
“While I am uncertain as to where Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) stands on the issue, from what I have heard her say, she supports the mall. If she does, I urge all Council members to make an independent judgment and not accord Ferreras any greater weight. Not only should they give great weight to the attempt to bypass a mall ULURP and land use change requirements, they should consider the effect a shopping mall will have on the hundreds of small merchants and existing malls throughout Queens and the city and the traffic congestion it will cause on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, Northern Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue.”Her lack of sensibility on this issue is highlighted by her support of a BID in the contiguous commercial areas around the proposed mall-a proposal that has drawn the fire of local merchants:
“Some business owners are saying no to the expansion that would bring a business improvement district (BID) to the Jackson Heights and Corona area for fear of losing what makes the community diverse.The crackpot idea that promoting a BID will mitigate the impact of a 1.4 million square foot mall as a neighbor gives a god indication of the lucidity of the council member’s thinking process. In fact, the BID-by raising the rents of store owners-will only exacerbate a bad situation and make it that much worse:
The 82nd Street Partnership, a non-profit group promoting the current local BID covering four blocks and over 160 businesses, announced in March it would be extending all the way through 114th Street as part of Councilmember Julissa Ferreras’ New Deal for Roosevelt Avenue to form the Jackson Heights-Corona BID.”
“The commercial rents are extremely high,” said Ruben Pena, a liquor store owner and community activist. “The community is going to get hurt. They are fighting to make ends meet.” The BID expansion is a component of Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras’ “New Deal” for Roosevelt Ave., which focused on cleaning up the corridor, which cuts through several Queens neighborhoods. Ferreras cites safety issues, poor lighting and cleanliness as the top complaints among residents.
“The current problems on Roosevelt Ave. hurt everyone,” Ferreras said in a statement. “This is why I believe a business improvement district is a solution to this problem.”Ferreras is, unfortunately, going nowhere for the next four years. But that doesn’t prevent more intelligent members of the council from interceding in an intervention to promote good government. Haber is right, and he deserves the final word:
“If great weight is to be given to a particular area, the Council should take note that Ferreras’ district contains Community Board 3, which, after conducting a ULURP on the amendment to allow a parking lot at Willets Point, rejected the application with a vote of 30-1 with 1 abstention. That rejection made clear the board was not going to allow a phony amendment to the 2008 plan as a cover-up for a 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall.
It is CB 3 that speaks for the community and not Ferreras. I believe all of the above are good reasons why allowing a single Council member to decide if a bill should or should not be enacted has no place in our Council.”
Julissa Ferreras, Honor, and the Dereliction of Responsibility
We are winding down towards the final City Council determination of the fate of the city’s bastardized Willets Point development, and the whereabouts of the local accidental council member, Julissa Ferreras are unknown. Ferreras has flown the coop-at least as far as the property owners from the area are concerned-and has refused to meet with the representatives of Willets Point United. Even her staff has stonewalled the meeting. Not only that, but it seems that Ferreras has encouraged other council members to do the same because WPU has found it hard to get meetings with her colleagues.
Frankly, we’re not really surprised since we have known that Julissa is simply over her head, and the less frequently she meets with principled opponents of the project, the less likely the world will be apprised of her inadequacies. Here is someone who owes her job to the since departed Hiram Monserrate and at the first sign of trouble for her former boss, simply threw him under the bus, Character she doesn’t have. But what about those Hispanic businesses that she is “championing?”
Ferreras makes a great deal about these immigrant workers and entrepreneurs-posturing mightily at the recent land use hearing about their plight, and excoriating city officials for their failure to do what they said they would for the relocation of the businesses and their employees. But no one really takes the scarecrow seriously and we wouldn’t be surprised if they break down in guffaws when they repair back to their offices. Ferreras isn’t someone that they have any regard for, and her threats are little more than meaningless woof tickets.
That is why the community came out so strongly on Sunday to give Ferreras an ultimatum on the Willets Point bait and switch giveaway. El Diario has the story:
“Community leaders and residents of Corona, Queens, marched yesterday to protest the planned construction of a large shopping center in Willets Point, who say it would not consider the needs of this largely Latino community. The demonstrators claimed not to protest because they are opposed to urban development, but by the lack of assurance that the promoters keep the promises they had made initially to improve conditions in the area.”
The protest was about the removal of the affordable housing component of the development plan-and the negative impact of yet another mall:
“One of the biggest complaints is that it ensures that it will build over 2,000 units of affordable housing, as stated initially, and also that the City has not taken into account the possible negative impact this construction will have for the small businesses in the area. "Right now I'm not doing business, and if they build the mall would be my death," said Luis Gonzalez, who runs a bodega on Avenue 41, a few blocks from Willets Point. "They said that if they build it would create jobs, but I do not trust anything."
Other residents complain that there are enough malls in the area and that another would not create the kind of jobs that are needed.”
What the residents realize-and what the original city council approval recognized-was that minimum wage retail is not real economic development-and that was why the council included an “historic” living wage provision in the original approval. That provision is now truly historic because it has been relegated to the dustbin of history-eliminated as another aspect of the city’s bait and switch. Listen to the wisdom of the residents-some of whom would make a better elected official than the current cero a la izquiereda:
“I know from my own experience that the mall jobs are not good for families," said Maria Alvarez, who works as a clerk at JC Penney in Queens Mall shopping center and took part in the march as a member of Make the Road."Most workers only earn minimum wage and have to have two or three jobs to live.”
Ferreras knows all of this but has no backbone-or the wherewithal to actually lead a real opposition that would extract significant concessions. Hiram Monserrate did any number of things that deserve our scorn-and putting Julissa Ferreras in as his replacement ranks right up there at the top of his many failings.
Frankly, we’re not really surprised since we have known that Julissa is simply over her head, and the less frequently she meets with principled opponents of the project, the less likely the world will be apprised of her inadequacies. Here is someone who owes her job to the since departed Hiram Monserrate and at the first sign of trouble for her former boss, simply threw him under the bus, Character she doesn’t have. But what about those Hispanic businesses that she is “championing?”
Ferreras makes a great deal about these immigrant workers and entrepreneurs-posturing mightily at the recent land use hearing about their plight, and excoriating city officials for their failure to do what they said they would for the relocation of the businesses and their employees. But no one really takes the scarecrow seriously and we wouldn’t be surprised if they break down in guffaws when they repair back to their offices. Ferreras isn’t someone that they have any regard for, and her threats are little more than meaningless woof tickets.
That is why the community came out so strongly on Sunday to give Ferreras an ultimatum on the Willets Point bait and switch giveaway. El Diario has the story:
“Community leaders and residents of Corona, Queens, marched yesterday to protest the planned construction of a large shopping center in Willets Point, who say it would not consider the needs of this largely Latino community. The demonstrators claimed not to protest because they are opposed to urban development, but by the lack of assurance that the promoters keep the promises they had made initially to improve conditions in the area.”
The protest was about the removal of the affordable housing component of the development plan-and the negative impact of yet another mall:
“One of the biggest complaints is that it ensures that it will build over 2,000 units of affordable housing, as stated initially, and also that the City has not taken into account the possible negative impact this construction will have for the small businesses in the area. "Right now I'm not doing business, and if they build the mall would be my death," said Luis Gonzalez, who runs a bodega on Avenue 41, a few blocks from Willets Point. "They said that if they build it would create jobs, but I do not trust anything."
Other residents complain that there are enough malls in the area and that another would not create the kind of jobs that are needed.”
What the residents realize-and what the original city council approval recognized-was that minimum wage retail is not real economic development-and that was why the council included an “historic” living wage provision in the original approval. That provision is now truly historic because it has been relegated to the dustbin of history-eliminated as another aspect of the city’s bait and switch. Listen to the wisdom of the residents-some of whom would make a better elected official than the current cero a la izquiereda:
“I know from my own experience that the mall jobs are not good for families," said Maria Alvarez, who works as a clerk at JC Penney in Queens Mall shopping center and took part in the march as a member of Make the Road."Most workers only earn minimum wage and have to have two or three jobs to live.”
Ferreras knows all of this but has no backbone-or the wherewithal to actually lead a real opposition that would extract significant concessions. Hiram Monserrate did any number of things that deserve our scorn-and putting Julissa Ferreras in as his replacement ranks right up there at the top of his many failings.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Crony Capitalism as Economic Development
Ben Haber, the Socrates of Queens County, has penned a prescient letter to the Ledger calling on the City Council to vote the current Willets Point project down. As Haber points out, the bait and switch has yielded a huge mall that will feather the nest of the mayor’s rich friends while causing heartache to the residents of Corona, Jackson Heights and Flushing:
“The amendment that seeks to build a parking lot at Willets Point is a ploy to sneak through the back door a transfer of the Citi Field parking lots to allow construction on the vacated lots a 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall. This is without a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure and replacing parkland, since Citi Field is on land that is part of Flushing Meadows Corona Park. Affordable housing will not be built until 2015, if ever.”Now we think that Ben means 2025, because there will be no housing without the Van Wyck ramps that will be built on the 12th of Never. But Haber gets to the root of the sham when he ridicules the idea that the billionaire owners, and mayoral BFFs, of Related and Sterling Equities couldn’t afford to develop the rest of Willets Point with the affordable housing and the other goodies unless they got to build their mall:
“At the top of the list of deceptions that have accompanied the application is the claim for requiring a prioritized Citi Field shopping mall as a financial engine to generate enough funds with which to construct the original Willets Point plan, suggesting that without it the original plan cannot be accomplished.
Ignoring its speculation, it is untrue and a ploy to have the mall, which is what the application is all about. Related Cos. are the developers of the $20 billion development underway over the Hudson Yards in Manhattan. The claim that these multibillion-dollar companies — which are being given the Willets Point land the city has acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars and more in the future for $1 and a subsidy of $99 million — do not have the financial wherewithal to build Willets Point without a huge shopping mall is an in insult unworthy of belief and a reason to reject the application.”Haber goes on to question whether the city council represents the people-a rather droll inquiry that has an unfortunate answer:
“The original Willets Point plan approved by the Council in 2008 is one thing. A deceptive huge shopping mall is something different and unacceptable. It remains to be seen if the word from the Council is that its constituents are not just billionaire real estate moguls but the little people, the poor, the middle class and small businesses, which are the backbone of an urban society and reject the application.”We know where the formerly Mighty Quinn stands, but what about the supposed progressives on the city council? And what about the Public Advocate? When it comes to real estate it seems that the pols represent the 1%-unless we see a radical departure from the Permanent Government script.
Friday, September 13, 2013
A "Rare" opportunity
Crain’s has been erroneously reporting on the land use process in the run-up to the city council’s vote on the reconfigured Willets Point development. The online version of the magazine is telling its readers that there will be a first hearing on the city’s plan this Monday:
As WPU’s Jerry Antonacci has written in a letter to the Queens Chronicle, “The Fix is in.”
“Economic development experts and many elected officials insist that the development represents a rare opportunity chance to breathe new life into a run-down area long populated by auto repair shops. The mall will be built by a partnership between the Related Cos. and the owner of the Mets, Sterling Equities.”
C’mon, Crain’s, can’t we get any real reporting on this project? Like an even cursory discussion of the bait and switch that has left tax payers holding the bag for a $200 million gift to Related/Sterling Equities-a gift that should be labeled, “Bloomberg’s Folly.”
Can’t we get any reporting on the fact that the city engaged in an illegal lobbying scheme that was exposed by the NYS AG? And this throwaway line about housing needs to be more fully examined: “Neighborhood advocates have also complained about revelations in recent months that the 2,500 units of housing slated as part of the project won't be constructed until years after the mall opens.”
The fact is that the housing-and the disappearing living wage promise-was the linchpin of the deal that was crafted in 2008; and nowhere in that deal was there any mention of a mall being built on parkland. Keep in mind, that the original plan was premised on the city’s use of condemnation and the promises made in 2008 were in recognition that there needed to be some genuine public benefits in the plan to justify the taking of private property.
If, however, the city had told the council that the plan was for a 1.4 million square foot mall and a parking lot, this would have gone down in flames-even with Speaker Quinn shilling for the mayor. This is a bad deal for the city-and we haven’t even discussed the dishonest city treatment of the hundreds of immigrant businesses owners who are being dispersed into the netherworld by a callous Bloomberg administration that claims a concern for immigrants in theory, only to treat them with disdain in practice.
So, indeed, this is a rare opportunity-but one where the city council gets a chance to tell the Bloomberg administration that we are not going to be played like suckers. We’re not going to allow you to use the tax payers’ dime to gift property-bogarted from little guys-to some of you undeserving rich friends.
“The ambitious plan to put up a mega-mall next to Citi Field in Willets Point, Queens, will face its first hearing before the City Council on Monday. The session, under the auspices of the council's subcommittee on zoning and franchises which is chaired by Queens Councilman Mark Weprin, will be the first test of the council's willingness to approve the controversial project. Mr. Weprin has himself, publicly supported the project.”The reality is that the subcommittee had its first and only hearing September the 3rd. At this hearing, WPU was prohibited from presenting its Power Point critique of the city’s plan-and speakers were restricted from testifying for more than 2 minutes; while the developers were given all the time in the world to misinform the council members about the plan’s benefits. The fairness of restricting property owners who will be displaced and favoring the developers doing the eminent domain-inspired displacement, says all that needs to be said about the fairness of the process.
As WPU’s Jerry Antonacci has written in a letter to the Queens Chronicle, “The Fix is in.”
“The circumstances of the hearing were also newsworthy. With minimal advance notice, it was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on the morning after Labor Day, when many people were away. Less than half of the committee members were present for the Willets Point portion of the hearing. Subcommittee Chairman Mark Weprin only allowed each speaker two minutes, and prohibited Willets Point United from showing its PowerPoint presentation — even though people would have ceded their time for it. In our opinion, all this demonstrates the Council’s contempt for public comment about the proposed development.”Crain’s goes on to cite unmanned development “experts” who see the plan as a boon to the city:
“Economic development experts and many elected officials insist that the development represents a rare opportunity chance to breathe new life into a run-down area long populated by auto repair shops. The mall will be built by a partnership between the Related Cos. and the owner of the Mets, Sterling Equities.”
C’mon, Crain’s, can’t we get any real reporting on this project? Like an even cursory discussion of the bait and switch that has left tax payers holding the bag for a $200 million gift to Related/Sterling Equities-a gift that should be labeled, “Bloomberg’s Folly.”
Can’t we get any reporting on the fact that the city engaged in an illegal lobbying scheme that was exposed by the NYS AG? And this throwaway line about housing needs to be more fully examined: “Neighborhood advocates have also complained about revelations in recent months that the 2,500 units of housing slated as part of the project won't be constructed until years after the mall opens.”
The fact is that the housing-and the disappearing living wage promise-was the linchpin of the deal that was crafted in 2008; and nowhere in that deal was there any mention of a mall being built on parkland. Keep in mind, that the original plan was premised on the city’s use of condemnation and the promises made in 2008 were in recognition that there needed to be some genuine public benefits in the plan to justify the taking of private property.
If, however, the city had told the council that the plan was for a 1.4 million square foot mall and a parking lot, this would have gone down in flames-even with Speaker Quinn shilling for the mayor. This is a bad deal for the city-and we haven’t even discussed the dishonest city treatment of the hundreds of immigrant businesses owners who are being dispersed into the netherworld by a callous Bloomberg administration that claims a concern for immigrants in theory, only to treat them with disdain in practice.
So, indeed, this is a rare opportunity-but one where the city council gets a chance to tell the Bloomberg administration that we are not going to be played like suckers. We’re not going to allow you to use the tax payers’ dime to gift property-bogarted from little guys-to some of you undeserving rich friends.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Park and Deride: City Council Confronted on Parkland Issue
One of the more powerful moments in last Tuesday’s hearing - no, it didn’t come from CM Ferreras’s desultory and confused questions designed to cover up her intentions to throw all of the opponents under the EDC bus - came when Geoffrey Croft testified about the parkland issue. His testimony seemed to capture the attention of Chairman Comrie-and underscores the importance of the letter WPU has sent to Council legal eagle Elizabeth Fine asking that she render a legal opinion on the assertion by Corporation Counsel that a Robert Moses-inspired 1961 memorandum obviates the need for the land in question to go through the alienation process. Here is Croft’s testimony:
Good Afternoon,
My name is Geoffrey Croft, president and founder of NYC Park Advocates.
It is truly a sad day when we are talking about a plan that seizes 48 acres of public parkland in Flushing Meadow-Corona Park to allow one of the country's largest developers to build the largest mall New York City.
Sounds inconceivable right? Just when you thought this administration couldn't get any lower here we are today.
The 48 acres of public parkland was NEVER part of the original plan in anyway. In any way and it certainly was never approved by the City Council. This is nothing but an end run around the law and City Council will be complicit when you/if you rubber stamp its approval.
If the 48 acres of public park land they are attempting to seize for the project are no longer needed for parking than it should revert back to its original use. This is what our elected officials should be pushing for instead allowing our public spaces to be given away to politically connected developers.
The City Council has a legal obligation to protect public parkland and that certainly includes not giving it away to private developers. There are a number of legal issues surrounding the attempted disposition of this public land. Last week we were signatures on a letter, along with Willets Point United, which was sent to City Council lawyers Elizabeth Fine and Gary Altman requesting a legal opinion from the Council on these issues, a copy of which I have provided today.
The City Council has a legal obligation to do its due diligence on this important issue before any decisions are made. It's telling that less than three minutes have been spent talking about the parkland during this hearing.
Let's be very clear: The 1961 statute that the city and the applicants are so desperately trying to rely on in order to justify being allowed to develop the public parkland for non-park purposes does not permit a shopping mall, much less a 1.4 million square foot mall.
Administrative Code 18-118 explicitly states that any monies gained from a temporary lease on the property must go back into the property. Back Into The Property not line the pockets of Related or Sterling Equity.
To quote the law directly, the revenue must aid "in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities, and any additions, alterations or improvements thereto, or to the equipment thereof."
Clearly this is not the case unless the applicant is representing that this is being done to off-set unfortunate investments made by the Wilpons. Is that the plan?
Clearly the intention of the law was not to allow any project to make a permanent claim on the parkland or its facilities, because the revenue was supposed to fund the property.
The law simply does not authorize the Willets West project. It does not enable use of the parking lot or authorize retail stores - and certainly something that is primarily a shopping mall.
The bill does say trade and commerce, but that obviously refers to conventions, not stores. Obviously a shopping mall was never intended as the bill language states.
The park land we are talking about here today for this irresponsible project was never alienated as required under state law nor are they planning to nor are they planning to replace it if approved.
By law PARKS ARE NOT allowed to be used for such non-park purposes. In fact State law -which our elected officials have taken an oath to uphold - prohibit such commercial development.
If ever there was a poster child for non-park purposes-building the city's largest mall would be it.
This is public park land and it does NOT belong to Mayor Bloomberg or to Seth Pinsky, the Related Companies or the Wilpons - it belongs to the people of the city of New York.
The proposed giveaway of public park is being done simply to sweeten the deal for Related so they have a guaranteed revenue stream "up front" in order to help them off-set their investments in building the rest of the Willets Point.
This is disgraceful. This plan is about greed pure and simple. It is a nightmare for the residents of Queens in so many ways and for the city's taxpayers at large who are greatly subsidizing this project.
The corporate welfare must end.
Thank you
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Hard of Hearing
The City Council, when we last checked, purports to be a deliberative body, but when you get really close to examine how it really functions you come to understand that it is deliberately obtuse when it comes to the interests of small businesses, and communities impacted by mega-development. Take the ULURP application for the slyly named Willets West-a project that emerged like Rosemary’s Baby from the failure of the original Willets Point development that passed under a false flag in 2008. If what we have seen so far is any indication, the council is preparing to roll over because of an inordinate obsequiousness to the interests of Joe Crowley and the Queens County Democrats.
In the first case, the initial hearing is scheduled for September the 3rd, the first business day after the Labor Day holiday. Acting like folks who want to remain inaccessible and perhaps even incognito, the notice for the hearing was posted on Thursday the 29th, leaving a single day before the holiday for the word to get out.
When it comes to the hearing itself, the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is signaing that it really doesn’t want to have a vigorous debate on a project that remains promiscuously controversial considering the illegal lobbying that drove the original council approval five years ago. It is doing so first by shutting down the request from Willets Point United to present a 20 minute power point that deconstructs the numerous erroneous assumptions from EDC - an entity that was forced to reconstruct itself after orchestrating the aforementioned illegal lobbying.
There’s really no excuse for doing this since WPU has been willing to forego the time of five or six of its testifiers so that the power point could be presented. The only conclusion an impartial observer can draw from this is that the committee is trying to tamp down the opposition’s ability to make its case. Will the committee limit the developers to 2 minutes? No, we don’t think so - and Chairman Weprin needs to explain why he needs to act as a homer for the developers.
In addition, the time being allotted to each speaker has been reduced to 2 minutes! - another example of favoritism since the developers, being the prototypical special interests, normally have fewer people coming to testify. Two minutes for some of the folks who stand to lose their businesses and their property if this corrupt deal is approved is the quintessential example of the stacked deck.
The committee is also showing its true colors by disrespecting the expected testimony of many of the Hispanic immigrant workers and business owners. No Spanish translator will be provided at this hearing – despite the ULURP application that is at issue requiring that 100+ businesses vacate the premises that are owned and operated predominantly by people who speak Spanish. The City previously failed to provide any Spanish translator at the eminent domain hearing which was widely criticized at the time. Apparently the City has not learned any lesson and is content to steamroll the 100+ immigrant businesses without hearing them at the Council. And why hasn't Julissa Ferreras, the home rule council member who has been working for years with the tenant businesses, demanded interpretation services for her constituents, or spoken out against the skulduggery being perpetrated by the City against Willets Point land and business owners?
The above points, taken all together, demonstrate the City Council's active contempt for public testimony about the proposed Willets West mall / Willets Point Phase One ULURP application. Speaker Quinn, Land Use Committee Chair Leroy Comrie, and subcommittee Chair Mark Weprin should be ashamed of themselves. These latest examples of bias come a year after the Mayor's Office and NYCEDC selected Sterling Equities and Related Companies, and their plan to expand the development from 62 to 108.9 acres including constructing a shopping mall on parkland, in a private process that shut out the Queens-based Willets Point Advisory Committee from the developer selection process, contrary to multiple written promises. The fix appears to be in; let the Council now show us - and all New Yorkers - otherwise.
In the first case, the initial hearing is scheduled for September the 3rd, the first business day after the Labor Day holiday. Acting like folks who want to remain inaccessible and perhaps even incognito, the notice for the hearing was posted on Thursday the 29th, leaving a single day before the holiday for the word to get out.
When it comes to the hearing itself, the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is signaing that it really doesn’t want to have a vigorous debate on a project that remains promiscuously controversial considering the illegal lobbying that drove the original council approval five years ago. It is doing so first by shutting down the request from Willets Point United to present a 20 minute power point that deconstructs the numerous erroneous assumptions from EDC - an entity that was forced to reconstruct itself after orchestrating the aforementioned illegal lobbying.
There’s really no excuse for doing this since WPU has been willing to forego the time of five or six of its testifiers so that the power point could be presented. The only conclusion an impartial observer can draw from this is that the committee is trying to tamp down the opposition’s ability to make its case. Will the committee limit the developers to 2 minutes? No, we don’t think so - and Chairman Weprin needs to explain why he needs to act as a homer for the developers.
In addition, the time being allotted to each speaker has been reduced to 2 minutes! - another example of favoritism since the developers, being the prototypical special interests, normally have fewer people coming to testify. Two minutes for some of the folks who stand to lose their businesses and their property if this corrupt deal is approved is the quintessential example of the stacked deck.
The committee is also showing its true colors by disrespecting the expected testimony of many of the Hispanic immigrant workers and business owners. No Spanish translator will be provided at this hearing – despite the ULURP application that is at issue requiring that 100+ businesses vacate the premises that are owned and operated predominantly by people who speak Spanish. The City previously failed to provide any Spanish translator at the eminent domain hearing which was widely criticized at the time. Apparently the City has not learned any lesson and is content to steamroll the 100+ immigrant businesses without hearing them at the Council. And why hasn't Julissa Ferreras, the home rule council member who has been working for years with the tenant businesses, demanded interpretation services for her constituents, or spoken out against the skulduggery being perpetrated by the City against Willets Point land and business owners?
The above points, taken all together, demonstrate the City Council's active contempt for public testimony about the proposed Willets West mall / Willets Point Phase One ULURP application. Speaker Quinn, Land Use Committee Chair Leroy Comrie, and subcommittee Chair Mark Weprin should be ashamed of themselves. These latest examples of bias come a year after the Mayor's Office and NYCEDC selected Sterling Equities and Related Companies, and their plan to expand the development from 62 to 108.9 acres including constructing a shopping mall on parkland, in a private process that shut out the Queens-based Willets Point Advisory Committee from the developer selection process, contrary to multiple written promises. The fix appears to be in; let the Council now show us - and all New Yorkers - otherwise.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
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).
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).
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Living Wage: What Unions & the City Council said in 2008
The New York City Economic Development Corporation has solicited developer firms to implement the Willets Point development, on the basis of a Request for Proposals ("RFP") that contains NO living wage provision. However, that plainly contradicts the announcements and testimony of union officials during 2008.
This 4-minute video compilation shows union officials during 2008 announcing, and testifying to the New York City Council on the record regarding, an agreement that requires a living wage provision to be included in the Request for Proposals seeking developer firms to implement the Willets Point development.
No matter what the unions may now have us believe, it is quite clear from this video that:
(1.) The unions unequivocally state that a living wage provision is "guaranteed" and "required" to be included in the Willets Point RFP, and that this has been memorialized in a written and signed agreement (i.e., there is no wiggle room);
(2.) The agreement to include a living wage provision in the Willets Point RFP was "critical to labor's support on this [Willets Point] project";
(3.) The agreement was consistent with the ideology of the local City Council member (Hiram Monserrate), without whose consent approval of the proposed Willets Point development would have been unlikely;
(4.) The local City Council member forewarned that in the future, the City of New York might attempt to avoid implementing agreed labor provisions, but that the City must honor its commitments to labor and to the City Council;
(5.) The City Council requested, and union officials agreed to provide to the City Council, a copy of the written agreement pertaining to the the inclusion of a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP. Therefore, that agreement is part of the record on which the City Council based its decision to approve the proposed Willets Point development.
Now that the City has reneged on its commitment to include a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP, who will challenge this? Will the unions -- whose agreement apparently has been violated by the City -- bring a lawsuit to require a new RFP that includes a living wage provision? Will the City Council act? Will law enforcement?
Or, were union officials exaggerating, or perhaps deceiving themselves, during 2008?
This 4-minute video compilation shows union officials during 2008 announcing, and testifying to the New York City Council on the record regarding, an agreement that requires a living wage provision to be included in the Request for Proposals seeking developer firms to implement the Willets Point development.
No matter what the unions may now have us believe, it is quite clear from this video that:
(1.) The unions unequivocally state that a living wage provision is "guaranteed" and "required" to be included in the Willets Point RFP, and that this has been memorialized in a written and signed agreement (i.e., there is no wiggle room);
(2.) The agreement to include a living wage provision in the Willets Point RFP was "critical to labor's support on this [Willets Point] project";
(3.) The agreement was consistent with the ideology of the local City Council member (Hiram Monserrate), without whose consent approval of the proposed Willets Point development would have been unlikely;
(4.) The local City Council member forewarned that in the future, the City of New York might attempt to avoid implementing agreed labor provisions, but that the City must honor its commitments to labor and to the City Council;
(5.) The City Council requested, and union officials agreed to provide to the City Council, a copy of the written agreement pertaining to the the inclusion of a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP. Therefore, that agreement is part of the record on which the City Council based its decision to approve the proposed Willets Point development.
Now that the City has reneged on its commitment to include a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP, who will challenge this? Will the unions -- whose agreement apparently has been violated by the City -- bring a lawsuit to require a new RFP that includes a living wage provision? Will the City Council act? Will law enforcement?
Or, were union officials exaggerating, or perhaps deceiving themselves, during 2008?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
EDeceit
At the eminent domain hearing of the other week, EDC reached new heights in deception-or, perhaps, depths is a better turn of phrase. Somehow the agency is trying to find a way to make its totally new Phase I segmentation of the Willets Point development pass muster- even though there has never been any portion of the project that has been conceived that doesn’t include ramps.
Here’s what the agency’s crack spokesperson told the hearing:
Read the first two sentences with great care. Somehow, the decision to leave the building of ramps to a later phase of development is a result of needing to, “prioritize among the multiple infrastructure and site improvements...” Oh, please! The reason for leaving out the ramps is because WPU has traffic jammed EDC with the regulators.
But the real nugget in the EDC statement is the assertion that the new phase of development will go forward to completion “even if” the ramps are not approved. Really? What does this mean?
If the ramps are never approved, then only the small Phase 1 can proceed. That is a major departure from what the City Council reviewed and approved, because ALL scenarios considered by the Council included at least the possibility and promise that the entire 62 acre site would eventually be developed.
It was that goal that the Council deemed worthy of supporting, and (rightly or wrongly) worthy of the use of eminent domain. ("… it is a transformation exercise on all 62 acres" -- Bob Lieber testimony to Council, November 29, 2007.) Had the Council been asked to approve just a mini-development to complement the Wilpons' CitiField, and to authorize eminent domain to achieve it, the outcome might have been very different.
But there is another real sticking point in the EDC strategy-segmentation. As WPU’s lawyer Mike Gerrard told the Daily News: “All of their documentation shows it's a single project for which the ramps are needed." If it now turns out that it isn’t a seamless development, EDC must submit a supplemental EIS for a land use review.
Here’s what the agency’s crack spokesperson told the hearing:
“The plan does not anticipate completion of new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway during Phase 1, as was previously contemplated. This is primarily attributed to the need to prioritize among the multiple infrastructure and site improvements that will be provided by the City as part of the district's redevelopment. The completion of the new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway is not necessary for the initial development phase, and thus may be deferred until after the completion of Phase 1. We are continuing to work towards the necessary regulatory approvals for the ramps, and anticipate approval in the coming months. Phase 1 will be completed and the substantial Phase 1 benefits will be realized, even – even if the connections are not approved by the Federal Highway Administration and the New York State Department of Transportation."
Read the first two sentences with great care. Somehow, the decision to leave the building of ramps to a later phase of development is a result of needing to, “prioritize among the multiple infrastructure and site improvements...” Oh, please! The reason for leaving out the ramps is because WPU has traffic jammed EDC with the regulators.
But the real nugget in the EDC statement is the assertion that the new phase of development will go forward to completion “even if” the ramps are not approved. Really? What does this mean?
If the ramps are never approved, then only the small Phase 1 can proceed. That is a major departure from what the City Council reviewed and approved, because ALL scenarios considered by the Council included at least the possibility and promise that the entire 62 acre site would eventually be developed.
It was that goal that the Council deemed worthy of supporting, and (rightly or wrongly) worthy of the use of eminent domain. ("… it is a transformation exercise on all 62 acres" -- Bob Lieber testimony to Council, November 29, 2007.) Had the Council been asked to approve just a mini-development to complement the Wilpons' CitiField, and to authorize eminent domain to achieve it, the outcome might have been very different.
But there is another real sticking point in the EDC strategy-segmentation. As WPU’s lawyer Mike Gerrard told the Daily News: “All of their documentation shows it's a single project for which the ramps are needed." If it now turns out that it isn’t a seamless development, EDC must submit a supplemental EIS for a land use review.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Alexander Hamilton was a “Holdout”
Alexander Hamilton was a “Holdout”By Michael Rikon
According to an article published February 20, 2011, in Crain’s internet magazine, NewYorkbusiness.com, “Holdouts dig in at Willets Point”, the local business owners are fighting City efforts to turn the 62 acre area into a mixed-use development.
Crain’s isn’t the first to use the pejorative term “holdouts”. In an internet article dated February 13, 2011, WNYC News issued an article titled “City warns Holdouts in Queens of Eminent Domain proceedings.”
This is truly remarkable. What makes it truly remarkable is the concept that a property owner or business owner would be considered a “holdout” for refusing to sell to the City of New York.
Can the reporters who write these articles be so naïve as to the power of eminent domain inherent in the City? Has anyone taken the time to explore the facts and circumstances of the history of this disgraceful proceeding?
Let us set forth the facts of this abusive use of the power of eminent domain. The Council of the City of New York adopted Resolution No. 1759 on December 18, 2008.
This Resolution with other related Resolutions adopted the Willets Point Urban Renewal Area. The Resolution approved the Urban Renewal Plan, the Resolution states, “the Plan requires the acquisition and subsequent disposition of property within the Willets Point Urban Renewal Area.” This is the predicate authorization to condemn.
Although the City is holding a statutorily required public hearing under Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, make no mistake, the authorization for the proposed condemnation is the City Council’s Resolution adopted in 2008.
When the City Council authorizes acquisition of private property, the City is required to comply with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law. That law requires the appraisal of the properties to be acquired and the written offer of an amount that represents 100% of the highest approved appraisal.
This was not done in Willets Point. What was accomplished was the purchase of the properties of the largest owners on extraordinary terms including land to relocate to. And, the ability to stay put even after the condemnation. The City has not made good faith offers to the small owners.
The Eminent Domain Procedure Law requires equal treatment to all property owners. So why does the largest condemning authority in the country chose to ignore the law? Because it is politically convenient. It is no secret that those owners who obtained favorable deals were also those that supported members of the City Council that wrote an “adamant opposition” letter signed by 29 members to prevent the project’s approval. But the Project was approved after the negotiated agreements were made.
The City’s improper conduct in ignoring the law’s requirement of written offers based on fair market appraisals and equal treatment to all property owners is inexcusable. The law was adopted to prevent corruption and special deals.
Indeed, the very scheduling of the Eminent Domain Hearing when the City knows it cannot proceed because it cannot build without ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway is just another improper move to force deals.
Condemnation is a very significant power. It enables a condemnor to forcibly take title to someone’s land or business.
If this awesome power is to be used by the government, it must be used carefully, legally and only when necessary.
Americans have property rights which are guaranteed by out constitutions.
And, remember what Alexander Hamilton said at the Philadelphia Convention, “the security of property” is one of the “great obj(ects) of Gov(ernment)” 1 Record of the Federal Convention of 1787, P. 302. Perhaps Alexander Hamilton was also a “holdout”.
For further information contact Michael Rikon at 212-422-4000 Ext. 23.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Op-ed by State Senator Tony Avella
New York City scraps word on Willets Point redevelopment project land grabby State Senator Tony Avella
Recently, the city announced that it would commence eminent domain proceedings against nine Willets Point businesses in what has been described as Phase I of the overall plan to redevelop the 62 acres known as the Iron Triangle.
What is particularly distressing about that announcement is that the city, through the Economic Development Corporation, is once again going back on its word.
As a former member of the City Council, I - along with many of my colleagues - was concerned that the use of eminent domain in this instance was an abuse of the process. Eminent domain should only be used to take private property for a specific public benefit not, as in the case of Willets Point, to turn the property over to a private developer who will make millions. Where is the public benefit?
I voted against the project for this reason and other deficiencies in the proposal. Unfortunately, the Council sided with the mayor and approved this land grab.
Following the city's approval, Willets Point United, a group organized by area business owners, hired a traffic consultant, Brian Ketcham, to review the city's environmental review of the impact this massive project would create. It was discovered that the city, in order to mitigate very serious traffic congestion issues, had proposed the creation of several ramps off the Van Wyck Expressway.
The city had argued in the environmental review that the ramps were the linchpin of the project, primarily because the development was estimated to generate 80,000 car trips a day. Without the ramps, the Willets Point development would overwhelm local streets and would be environmentally unmanageable. Nowhere in any of the environmental documents was there a scenario whereby the project in whole or in part could proceed without these crucial ramps.
However, the ramp design is faulty, and necessary approval from the state Department of Transportation has not been forthcoming.
As part of public comments, EDC had promised that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort, and it would not be used prior to the approval of the ramps. Well, despite the unresolved ramp issue, EDC is moving to condemn family-owned businesses.
In essence, EDC, stymied by a difficult state and federal approval process, is looking to make an end run around this impasse and create an entirely new project - one that has never been properly reviewed by the Council.
In my view, this is a complete violation of the land use review process and requisites that the Council approved in 2008. EDC alleges that the ramps are not necessary for the first phase of the project, a phase that encompasses 20 acres and will include, according to EDC, a retail corridor, hotel and housing. But since no study was done on this partial development, the assertions of EDC are without merit or credibility.
There is simply no way that the city can argue that the first phase does not need these ramps. As a result, the only credible alternative is for the Council to demand a new environmental review and a completely new land use application to determine if what EDC is arguing has any validity. The public must have an opportunity to comment on this new plan.
The city is facing a severe fiscal crisis, with huge budget cuts and layoffs that appear to be unavoidable. In this fiscal environment, putting aside all the contradictions and bad faith coming out of EDC, can the city now afford to spend billions of dollars to buy out local businesses? Even if the city is successful in this land grab, development is years off and will probably take decades. In the interim, jobs will be lost and the city will lose the tax revenue from all the businesses that it will have forced to close.
The entire Willets Point development has taken a turn for the worse. It now needs to be reevaluated in light of the city's current fiscal situation and the questionable nature of the ability of the project to mitigate huge and potentially disastrous environmental impacts.
If this reevaluation doesn't occur, the city is in grave danger of bequeathing to future generations an empty field and significant loss of business/sales tax revenue.
Tony Avella, a Democrat, represents the 11th District in the New York State Senate.
Printed in the Daily News today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
