Showing posts with label community board 7. Show all posts
Showing posts with label community board 7. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Support letters and CB7 resolution
Ben Haber had a lengthy letter published in a Queens weekly, regarding the status of the lawsuit challenging the Willets West mall. The following week, another letter-writer agreed with Haber. Attached are both of the letters.
These were distributed at the Borough Board meeting this past Monday.
CB7 Parkland Resolution 140908
During its meeting on Sept. 8, Queens Community Board 7 adopted the attached resolution pertaining to parkland alienation, with minor
corrections (mostly typo fixes) made before the vote. Manhattan CB6 had previously adopted a similar resolution.
Monday, April 28, 2014
2nd meeting set for CB7 and Queens Development Group
WPU Information for CB7 QDG Meeting 140428
The second quarterly meeting between Queens Community Board 7 ("CB7") and Queens Development Group ("QDG," the designated developer of Willets Point Phase One and the Willets West mega-mall on parkland) will take place on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 7:30PM at the Union Plaza Care Center, 33-23 Union Street, 9th Floor, Flushing.
At the prior quarterly meeting last October, Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") exposed that QDG had already filed a brownfield application with NYSDEC on August 8, 2013, without informing CB7 that it had done so – a direct violation of CB7's first condition to its May 13, 2013 approval of the Willets Point special permit sought by QDG: "The Joint Venture [QDG] agreed to alert CB#7 when all applications are made to NYS DEC."
WPU also exposed that QDG had deliberately omitted from its brownfield application numerous Willets Point properties that, by QDG's own definition, should be most in need of remediation via the brownfield program. Following intervention by WPU and State Senator Tony Avella, QDG recently amended its brownfield application to include the previously omitted properties.
QDG's project is challenged by two pending lawsuits, one of which was filed by Senator Avella, City Club of New York, Queens Civic Congress, Inc., NYC Park Advocates, and interested residents and business owners. A rally held on March 22, 2014 in support of the lawsuit and against QDG's proposed Willets West mall was attended by Petitioners as well as members of the Bay Terrace Community Alliance, Bellerose Commonwealth Civic Association, Bellerose Hillside Civic Association, Communities of Maspeth and Elmhurst Together (COMET), Flushing Meadows Corona Park Conservancy, Flushing on the Hill Civic Association, Greater Whitestone Taxpayers Civic Association, Hillcrest Estates Civic Association, Holly Civic Association, Jackson Heights Beautification Group, Juniper Park Civic Association, Kew Garden Hills Tenant Association, Kissena Park Civic Association, Queens Civic Congress, Queens Community Board 3, Queens Community Board 7, Queens Community Board 8, Queens Community Board 13 and WPU.
Despite such community opposition to QDG's project, elected officials and agencies continue to look the other way. For his part, new Mayor Bill de Blasio has shown no sign that he will prevent QDG from constructing a 1.4 million square foot shopping mall on Flushing Meadows Corona Park property.
Please see the attached information prepared by WPU in advance of Wednesday night's meeting.
Yours truly,
Willets Point United Inc.
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).
Friday, July 16, 2010
CB 7 has done much disservice to the neighborhood of Flushing
Letter to the editor of the Times Ledger:
The editorial page of a newspaper is where its publisher and editors express their opinions on a wide variety of subjects, as is their right. Letters to the editor are where a responsible company, like TimesLedger Newspapers, give readers an opportunity to express their views on articles, including editorials.
A case in point is the Flushing Times editorial “CB 7 Deserves A ‘Well Done’” that appeared in the July 1-7, 2010, edition. CB 7 and Chairman Eugene Kelty, glowingly described, are not the ones I know.
The ones I know thought it was fine to destroy more than 100 trees in Flushing Meadows Corona Park and build a grand prix race track in an urban park — an absurdity that was finally brought down by public outrage and the criminal exposure of a discredited and now-deceased Queens borough president, the prime backer for the track.
The ones I know thought it was fine to double the space in Flushing Meadows for the United States Tennis Association, notwithstanding when they were first given intrusion in our park they promised never to ask for more parkland, but once given more land moved their head offices out of Manhattan to Harrison, N.Y. — a cuckolding of taxpayers if their ever was one.
The ones I know over the years have shown no or little interest in protecting the integrity of the park as an important and non-renewable urban space.
The ones I know think it fine to destroy more than 200 small businesses and the lives of thousands of workers and their families in Willets Point for the benefit of fat cat real estate moguls.
I note in passing there are members of CB 7 who may have disagreed with Kelty, but of course majority rules. While I believe there is more to urban living than fat cat real estate developments, with much evidence in downtown Flushing, others may disagree.
In the end, it will be for the public to decide the merits.
Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing
The editorial page of a newspaper is where its publisher and editors express their opinions on a wide variety of subjects, as is their right. Letters to the editor are where a responsible company, like TimesLedger Newspapers, give readers an opportunity to express their views on articles, including editorials.
A case in point is the Flushing Times editorial “CB 7 Deserves A ‘Well Done’” that appeared in the July 1-7, 2010, edition. CB 7 and Chairman Eugene Kelty, glowingly described, are not the ones I know.
The ones I know thought it was fine to destroy more than 100 trees in Flushing Meadows Corona Park and build a grand prix race track in an urban park — an absurdity that was finally brought down by public outrage and the criminal exposure of a discredited and now-deceased Queens borough president, the prime backer for the track.
The ones I know thought it was fine to double the space in Flushing Meadows for the United States Tennis Association, notwithstanding when they were first given intrusion in our park they promised never to ask for more parkland, but once given more land moved their head offices out of Manhattan to Harrison, N.Y. — a cuckolding of taxpayers if their ever was one.
The ones I know over the years have shown no or little interest in protecting the integrity of the park as an important and non-renewable urban space.
The ones I know think it fine to destroy more than 200 small businesses and the lives of thousands of workers and their families in Willets Point for the benefit of fat cat real estate moguls.
I note in passing there are members of CB 7 who may have disagreed with Kelty, but of course majority rules. While I believe there is more to urban living than fat cat real estate developments, with much evidence in downtown Flushing, others may disagree.
In the end, it will be for the public to decide the merits.
Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing
Friday, May 28, 2010
Ben Haber calls out Gene Kelty
Let Kelty explain Willets Pt. stand
Thursday, May 27, 2010, Times Ledger
Eugene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, was only “75 percent happy” with the city’s plan to relocate three large Willets Point businesses to College Point (“Willets Pt. relocation OK’d,” Flushing Times, May 13-19).
Presumably the missing 25 percent is related to Kelty’s need to have greater recourse in the manner in which the businesses are run to ensure they do not become “bad neighbors.” Under Kelty’s management, CB 7 had no trouble supporting the city’s Willets Point plan to destroy hundreds of small businesses and throw to the winds their thousands of employees and families for the benefit of a private, for-profit real estate developer that made him 100 percent happy.
That Kelty had no concern about the 100 percent unhappiness caused by the destruction of hundreds of small, Willets Point businesses and the loss of a livelihood by their thousands of employees and their families qualifies Kelty, Borough President Helen Marshall and Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his lackeys at the city Economic Development Corp. the true bad neighbors.
Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing
Thursday, May 27, 2010, Times Ledger
Eugene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, was only “75 percent happy” with the city’s plan to relocate three large Willets Point businesses to College Point (“Willets Pt. relocation OK’d,” Flushing Times, May 13-19).
Presumably the missing 25 percent is related to Kelty’s need to have greater recourse in the manner in which the businesses are run to ensure they do not become “bad neighbors.” Under Kelty’s management, CB 7 had no trouble supporting the city’s Willets Point plan to destroy hundreds of small businesses and throw to the winds their thousands of employees and families for the benefit of a private, for-profit real estate developer that made him 100 percent happy.
That Kelty had no concern about the 100 percent unhappiness caused by the destruction of hundreds of small, Willets Point businesses and the loss of a livelihood by their thousands of employees and their families qualifies Kelty, Borough President Helen Marshall and Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his lackeys at the city Economic Development Corp. the true bad neighbors.
Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Report on Thursday's CB7 meeting
Thursday night, a hastily arranged meeting between a CB7 committee and NYCEDC occurred inside the College Point Corporate Park office trailer. The purpose was to again review NYCEDC's plans to relocate 3 businesses from Willets Point to the College Point Corporate Park, prior to the votes that will be held on Monday by the Queens Borough Board. If the Borough Board approves on Monday, then NYCEDC will be legally permitted to transfer the titles of the College Point properties to the 3 Willets Point businesses to enable their relocation.The 3 businesses represented at the night's meeting and which will be the subject of Monday's Borough Board votes are Feinstein Ironworks, Sambucci Bros. Auto Salvage and T. Mina Supply.
Those who have followed the Willets Point story may recall that last year, a total of 5 Willets Point businesses were approved by CB7, the Queens Borough President, the City Planning Commission and the City Council to relocate to property within the College Point Corporate Park. Tonight's meeting and Monday's Borough Board vote account for only 3 of those total 5 businesses. The 2 businesses that are being denied relocation at present are Flushing Towing and Mets Metals. Although the proprietor of Flushing Towing had been invited to attend tonight's meeting, earlier today he was again contacted by NYCEDC and told that the meeting was "canceled". This outright lie seems concocted to discourage this business owner from showing up at Thursday night's meeting, and thereby eliminate any questions about why all 5 businesses whose relocations were approved last year by CB7, the Queens Borough President, the City Planning Commission and the City Council, are not in fact being relocated.
Apparently, the proprietor of Flushing Towing did not believe NYCEDC's lie that the meeting had been canceled, and he decided to show up at the trailer. Half an hour prior to the start of the meeting, he was seen conversing at length with NYCEDC lackeys outside of the trailer. Eventually, he left prior to the meeting without entering the trailer. During the meeting, no one present even bothered to ask what had happened to the other 2 businesses of the total 5 whose relocations to the College Point Corporate Park had been approved last year.
The 3 businesses provided "Cooperation Letters" to CB7, containing representations such as: Acknowledging the adequacy of the space available at the College Point site; business will not park any vehicles or trucks on any of the adjacent or adjoining streets or business lots; main access to the site will be on College Point Boulevard, and main egress exiting the site will be on 31st Avenue.
Committee Chair Chuck Apelian stated: "My sole desire is to have these 3 businesses come into College Point, as owners; and become model citizens of the College Point Corporate Park. And the biggest intent we have, is that we never hear of any problems or any issues from them at all. ... And that's the purpose of the memorialization of these letters."
However, CB7 Chair Gene Kelty wondered what recourse there would be if the terms of the letters are violated in the future. Kelty asked, "Those letters that we now have -- If they don't abide by them, what enforcement action is there and what agency is going to enforce it?" When told by NYCEDC that NYPD would be responsible for enforcement, that did not sit well with Kelty. "See, now we have a problem. ... You're not going to dump that on the PD because they're not going to enforce it. They haven't enforced anything in 25 years that I've been here."
Kelty insisted that instead, NYCEDC's legal department should commit in writing to "sue" any of the 3 relocated businesses that fails to comply with any provision of their Cooperation Letter, to force their compliance. Kelty concluded: "Unless EDC gives me a commitment, in a letter in writing, by next week, saying that their legal department will take legal action to back these letters up, this is as useless as Mayor Bloomberg's promises."
NYCEDC diplomatically pointed out that NYCEDC may not be legally entitled to compel relocated businesses – by suing them – to comply with provisions of the Cooperation Letters. And the business owners appeared insulted, that Kelty is envisioning future circumstances in which NYCEDC must sue the businesses.
After further discussion, Kelty ultimately requested that NYCEDC provide a letter signed by NYCEDC President Seth Pinsky, assuring CB7 that NYCEDC will be responsible for contacting enforcement agencies in the event that relocated businesses do not abide by the terms of the Cooperation Letters that they have signed.
The Queens Borough Board reportedly is scheduled to vote on this matter during its meeting on Monday at 5:30P.M. If the Borough Board approves, the 3 businesses still will not take title to the College Point properties until their closing dates with NYCEDC, which have not yet been scheduled and are not expected to occur until several months from now.
Meanwhile, why the relocation of 2 other approved businesses is not proceeding is unknown. And above all, there is no plan whatsoever to relocate the overwhelming majority of 250 additional Willets Point businesses.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Businesses being "fast tracked" to College Point
From Queens Crap:
There's going to be a meeting about 3 of the 5 Willets Point businesses being fast tracked into College Point. The meeting will be held Thursday May 6 @7:30 PM. Meeting will be at College Point Corp Park Office (Out house) On Ulmer and 26 Ave. This has been called by CB7 as an emergency meeting. It's going to be crowded.
By the way, why rush to sacrifice City-owned CPCP properties to relocate businesses, when there is no assurance that the development for which they need to relocate can proceed?"
There's going to be a meeting about 3 of the 5 Willets Point businesses being fast tracked into College Point. The meeting will be held Thursday May 6 @7:30 PM. Meeting will be at College Point Corp Park Office (Out house) On Ulmer and 26 Ave. This has been called by CB7 as an emergency meeting. It's going to be crowded.
By the way, why rush to sacrifice City-owned CPCP properties to relocate businesses, when there is no assurance that the development for which they need to relocate can proceed?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
