Avella starts petition to stop mall

Sen. Avella's online PETITION to prevent the Willets West mall is here:

Stop the illegal taking of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park

Press article:

Avella starts petition in bid to halt Willets Point mall

Willets West oral arguments 7/30

Who: Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Respondents/Defendants
in the matter of Sen. Tony Avella v. City of New York
Index number 100161/2014

What: Oral argument in New York State Supreme Court

When: July 30, 2014 at 2:15PM

Where: 71 Thomas Street
New York, New York 10013
Courtroom of Justice Manuel Mendez / Part 13 / Room 210

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.

Urban Planners Critique Willets Point Plan

Last week in the NY Daily News, three urban planners offered a blistering critique of the Bloomberg administration’s efforts to destroy Flushing Meadows Park-and the administration’s entire approach to economic development:

“Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is Queens’ crown jewel. But the busiest park in the borough is threatened on all sides… Recently, the tennis center was given another acre of the park. Then the Related Companies announced they wanted to build a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall and parking garage on the parkland-turned-parking-lot next to Citi Field. (The land is supposed to revert to recreational use now that it’s no longer needed by the Mets.)

Next, Major League Soccer set its sights on 13 acres of the park just past the huge silver globe called the Unisphere. Observers expect they’ll ask for stadium-size tax breaks, too. The plan would bulldoze the famous Fountain of Planets. Ironically, that area already hosts some of the 1,500 soccer games played in the park each summer—but they’re just teams of regular New Yorkers, not leagues owned by well-connected investors.” 

What’s clear is that the immigrant communities who are using the park are not high up on the mayor’s list of important people-and immigrants are only useful to him when he can use them as symbolic props for his vaunted immigration proposals.

But what the three professors take real issue with is how the economic development plan for the mall is emblematic of the way in which the Bloomberg administration approaches job creation in exactly the wrong way:

“These proposals are classic examples of the most troubling legacy of the Bloomberg administration’s approach to economic development. The city has approved dozens of real estate mega-projects on city- or state-owned land, or on property where the city has changed zoning rules to suit developers. They all promised “economic development,” but haven’t increased employment or reduced poverty.”

And, of course, the “historic” deal on living wage is still historic-if being relegated to the dustbin of history can be characterized that way. The original agreement negotiated to gain the city council’s approval in 2008, is now an artifact since the living wage was excluded from the RFP for the current development.

The professors recognize this deficiency-although perhaps not realizing that the living wage was originally included in the Willets Point development:

“If the city decides to continue offering subsidies to big-name deals, the next administration should make sure those subsidies include local hiring and wage requirements. Already, dozens of municipalities, from Los Angeles to Minneapolis to Washington, make sure their tax subsidies support projects that create living-wage jobs for city residents.”

When seen in this light, what’s apparent is that the Bloomberg economic development model is simply the aggrandizement of Big Real Estate-with little apparent benefit for the people who are looking for good jobs:

“The next mayor should also focus on industries that build the middle class. Instead of letting hotels and superstores encroach on manufacturing zones while providing low-wage and part-time jobs, the city should study the success of the Brooklyn Navy Yard and develop partnerships in industrial zones like Hunts Point or the Brooklyn Army Terminal to create better jobs.”

Given all of the deficiencies in the Willets Point economic development model, the three urban planners see little choice as to what the planning commission and the council should do with the proposed plans. They deserve the last word:

“With the next mayoral election just four months away, the candidates and other elected officials should stand up for good public space and smart economic development. That means opposing the projects in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

It looks like community action will head off one of them, telling the soccer league to build their stadium somewhere other than a busy park. The City Planning Commission votes on another plan, the shopping mall and parking garage that targets land next to Citi Field, in just a few weeks. Voting “no” and bringing this land back to Flushing Meadows would mean parkland within walking distance for another 25,000 residents.

If we can’t all spend our summers at garden parties like Gatsby, we at least need the green of a great city park.”

Some Parks are More Equal than Others

As the city’s continuing effort to decimate Flushing Meadows Park winds its way through city planning and on to the city council, the lingering question is what will Speaker Quinn do. We know that one of the developers of the project, Related, has had an unusually close relationship with her. As Capitol New York has pointed out:

"Related Companies, part of whose massive Hudson Yards project was exempted from the Living Wage bill, has donated more money to Christine Quinn's campaign.

The most recent campaign finance disclosures, released today, show that executives from Related Companies donated $6,600 to Quinn's still-undeclared campaign for mayor, between January and July." 

We also are finding out that Quinn has a real affection for at least one park-even though detractors might call it a faux park. City and State has the story:

“The High Line is revered internationally for repurposing a post-industrial wreck into a refreshing aesthetic public experience. The park has also anchored an explosion of billions of dollars of high-end development in the Council-rezoned “Special West Chelsea District,” designed specifically around the High Line.

The organization that built and runs the park, Friends of the High Line, is dominated by a wealthy and politically connected coterie of real estate developers and property owners, which has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars, directly and as intermediaries, into Christine Quinn’s mayoral election campaign. Friends of the High Line, formed in 1999 as a tiny nonprofit by two civic-minded fans of urban decrepitude, has quickly become the richest park conservancy in the city, after the Central Park Conservancy.”

In spite of its ample funds, however, the High Line is treated with great deference by the city council and by Speaker Quinn:

“The City Council, first under Gifford Miller and then Christine Quinn, has doused the High Line with cash. Estimates of city funding for the High Line before it even opened range between $130 and $170 million: This money was only for improvement of an existing structure, because the rail line itself was donated to the city by the CSX Corporation. Since the park opened, despite the largesse of FoHL and its claims that 90 percent of park expenses are raised privately, the Council continues to make allocations to its expansion and maintenance, including a $5 million capital disbursement two years ago.”

What makes this problematic is not only that we have a well funded faux park receiving a great deal of public support when there are ample private funds to support it, but that the funding is inextricably linked with the city council’s “slush fund” scandal:

“When the City Council “slush fund” scandal was revealed five years ago, it turned out that the largest beneficiary of these improper disbursements was the High Line. The scandal, in which the Speaker’s office budgeted Council funds to shell organizations in order to dispense the money later to favored groups, resulted in $290,000 going to FoHL. The group has received yearly allocations of $75,000 to $100,000 from the Council since then.”

This at a time when local parks all over the city are being shafted by the current mayoral regime-raising the question of where the speaker’s priorities lie. Even more so since there appears to be a quid pro quo operating in this slushy environment:

“The real question is, why give money to the FoHL at all? They don’t need it. The organization is awash in cash from its board and corporate sponsors. The High Line floats in the center of billions of dollars of residential real estate that was built specifically around it. One of the highest paid staffers for the FoHL is a person listed officially as “Director of Food,” who makes more than $100,000 per year. It doesn’t seem like they would miss an annual five-figure disbursement if the Council decided to direct the money toward some other park.

Perhaps the Council’s little allocations are more like tribute than funding: annual tokens that the Speaker makes to the real estate and special interests to whom she owes so much. And they accept it because it affirms to them that here, here is someone we can trust, who will continue to do our bidding.”

And these interests in turn support her political aspirations. This brings us to Willets Point/Flushing Meadows, where a real park that is underfunded is being targeted for extinction-and there are no rich real estate interests that can be seen supporting the park and its maintenance. In fact, the rich real estate interests her want to destroy the park.

Speaker Quinn has a choice: to support the survival of Flushing Meadows, or the greed of the Related Company and its partner Sterling Equities. Quite a troubling choice for the champion of the middle class.

Sterling/Related gambled on a casino at Flushing Meadows

Gambling on Park Land.  Related Companies, Sterling Equities and Triple M Development's Willets Point original proposal included building a massive 3.2 million sq. ft casino and entertainment complex adjacent to Citi-Field in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.  (Click on images to enlarge) Photos By Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates

Quite a shocking story in today's NY Post:

The Mets’ owners want to roll the dice on building a Las Vegas-style casino next to Citi Field to recoup some of the $162 million for which team brass are still on the hook following the Bernie Madoff Ponzi-scheme debacle, plans obtained by The Post reveal.

While team owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz are still having trouble opening their tight pockets for high-priced free agents, that didn’t stop their development arm, Sterling Equities, from betting on a proposal that called for bringing a massive casino with gaming tables and slots, a 500-room, full-service hotel, 1.8 million square feet of retail and other amenities to the Willets Point development site in Queens.

The Southampton-based Shinnecock Indian Nation signed on to operate the casino, and the Wilpons and partners even offered the city $100 million for the 62-acre site, according to the development team’s proposal, which was first obtained by project opponents Willets Point United and NYC Park Advocates.

It's amazing what you can learn from a FOIL!

City officials pulled the casino from the Willets Point plan partly because they thought the government-approval process would take too long, sources said. However, a city spokesman declined to comment when asked if the city would push for a casino there if the state Legislature eventually backs it.

The Mets declined to comment, but a spokesman for Sterling-Related said it’s “focused” on the project the mayor endorsed.

Although Sterling Equities wouldn’t directly operate or build the casino, any investment by the Mets’ owners in such a venture would raise eyebrows, considering Major League Baseball’s tough antigambling policies.

The casino proposal of Sterling/Related makes an absolute mockery of the entire public review process for the proposed Willets Point development, and proves where these developers' real priorities are.

It's outrageous, that the joint venture of Sterling/Related responded to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a Willets Point developer, with a proposal that would construct NO housing whatsoever (affordable or otherwise), and that deliberately minimizes remediation of Willets Point property to the greatest possible extent – thus failing to deliver the two key 'benefits' that were said to justify the project's approval during 2008. But most disturbingly, Sterling/Related instead proposed to construct a 450,000 square foot gaming facility/casino – and to do so on 30+ acres of parkland property that is beyond the bounds of Willets Point and that was mentioned nowhere within the RFP. The Willets Point development was never envisioned or presented to decision-makers as a casino-centric project. That the Sterling/Related joint venture proposed to convert it into one, and to expand the project's boundaries to encompass nearly all property surrounding Citi Field (whose New York Mets' owners also own Sterling Equities, Inc.), underscores that the Willets Point development is merely a pretext for the owners of the Mets to consolidate property surrounding the stadium, and exploit it for their maximum profit.

Anyone who questions why prospective developers would have resorted to illegal lobbying, need only consider the tremendous and extraordinary financial gains to be generated by a casino. That the proposals of all other developers, which adhered to the RFP specifications, were rejected in favor of designating Sterling/Related, betrays the cronyism that must be at work here.

More on this story at A Walk in the Park.

Scientist questions development of Flushing Meadows

Blue areas of map show extent of Hurricane Sandy's storm surge.
Site of proposed Willets Point mall project was under water.

Dr. Jason Munshi-South, an assistant professor of Environmental Science and Biology in the Department of Natural Science at Baruch College, penned an op-ed printed recently in the Daily News:

The borough of Queens was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy. Breezy Point, the Rockaways and other neighborhoods were completely devastated and may never be the same. We’d be foolish to think that Sandy was a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Instead, Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Irene are what we can expect more often in our future with climate change a clear and present danger.

[Flushing Meadows-Corona Park] acts as a natural sponge for tidal surges and stormwater runoff. It is a flood protection area — protecting our neighborhood (and basements) from serious flooding during big storms.

Because Bloomberg understands climate change so well, it is baffling that his administration has signed on to development plans for Flushing Meadows that are alarming — the construction of new stadiums, roads, parking lots and a massive mall in the park.

These construction projects will substantially increase the percentage of impervious surface cover (materials that do not absorb water) in the park as green spaces are converted to structures (stadiums and malls) and concrete roads, parking lots and walkways. Any gains against pollution runoff and flooding in the Meadow and Willow Lake watershed will be damaged by these developments, and storm runoff into Flushing Bay will likely increase.

Such development will also further damage Flushing Meadows’ historical role as a marshy buffer against storm surge and coastal flooding, placing residents and businesses located near Flushing Meadows in a more vulnerable position during extreme weather events. Do the developers of the soccer stadium have plans to address the potential damage from flooding to surrounding neighborhoods wrought by their work?

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