NY League of Conservation Voters: It’s worse than what we said

We made a mistake in our original post - and the mistake actually exacerbates our critique of Marcia Bysytryn and LCV. In our original criticism below, we said that, “So, no one should be surprised that two of our city’s leading environmental groups - organizations who were duped into supporting the original Willets Point plan, have nothing to say about the new iteration - a mall built on parkland! Hard to believe this kind of dollars induced lockjaw.”

Not true, as it turns out because it now seems true that when you buy the League, you own it lock, stock, and barrel. We have been told that the League actually testified in favor of the mall and the parking lot to be built on parkland. But even if it didn’t, League president Marcia Bystryn penned an effusive, and misleading, Op-ed in support of the development in the spring:

“The time has come to transform Willets Point from a toxic wasteland into an environmentally conscious, 21st century community.

In an area that is clamoring for open space and recreational opportunities, the cleanup and redevelopment of Willets Point means that the waterfront on Flushing Creek and Flushing Bay will finally become safe and accessible to the community.”

Bystryn said this by way of a critique of housing advocates who denied that there was widespread contamination-apparently avoiding their concerns that the promise of affordable housing has been shelved for, chorus please, a huge mall and a parking lot. There is no other certainty here other than that the Mets and partners will receive a windfall courtesy of the tax payers.

As for the contamination, shouldn’t we rely on science rather than the developer driven hyperbole that is being passed off as such? After all, we are giving Related/Sterling Equities upwards of $400 million without really knowing the levels of contamination at the Iron Triangle. If those levels are lower than asserted by EDC, than the idea of handing over property for nothing loses a bit of luster, doesn’t it?

Bystryn goes to great mendacious lengths in her shilling on behalf of her patron-and no one should take a single word she says seriously until she returns every single dime that the mayor has given her organization.  And she should publicly state how much she has been given by her generous benefactor. This is what is known in the bribery business as a quid pro quo.

What is truly disgusting, however, is her use of mayoral talking points to eviscerate any pretense that her organization has to speak on behalf of the environment. Her are the Orwellian comments:

“This is also a great opportunity to redesign Willets Point in a smarter and more holistic manner. Willets Point is close to the No. 7 train, so people can leave their cars at home more often. And it’s near major highways, meaning that people can get in and out of the neighborhood quickly without further straining traffic in downtown Flushing. The development will also create approximately 12,000 construction jobs and 7,100 permanent jobs, as well as lead to a $3 billion private investment.”

Is Bystryn really serious? Does she not know that the 7 Line is already at overcrowding and that the mall-sans the Van Wyck ramps-will crush the daily commute with tens of thousands of car and truck trips a week? This will definitely not mean that, “people can get in and out of the neighborhood quickly without further straining traffic in downtown Flushing.”

Getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments apparently makes the idea of any real environmental due diligence a silly and quaint notion. The reality here is that the “holistic” planning that the League applauds is being done at the expense of actual property owners who don’t want the city to steal their land from under them. That it also is being done at the expense of the environment is something that a truly independent environmental organization would have little trouble recognizing.

Where are the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Fund?

Five years ago, the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Fund came out swinging on behalf of the city’s mega-plan to transform Willets Point into the New York’s “first green neighborhood.” In fact, Andrew Darrell, VP, Regional Director, Environmental Defense Fund and Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director, New York League of Conservation Voters both signed on to a letter of support for the Willets Point project that was circulated by "non-lobbyist" Claire Shulman and her bogus grass roots LDC. In part, the letter claimed, "This project offers perhaps the greatest return: the rehabilitation of a 60-acre brownfield which has been abused for decades into a sustainable 21st century LEED community."

As far as the NYLCV is concerned it is, as the Marxists say, no accident. In May 2010, the mayor was the League's keynote speaker-a reward for the group's supine response to the assault of the Bloomberg economic development team on the city's air quality-and we could find no public comment from League director Marcia Bystryn about the alarming DOH air quality study from the previous year.  

But the League has been played by Bloomberg for awhile, and it would be interesting for the press to track the money trail from the mayor's sources. This is still a, "not for nothing," city-and there are enough things that the Bloombergistas have done for an independent environmental group to criticize.

As for EDF, who was more outspoken than this group about the mayor’s congestion pricing tax? All of a sudden the group had a $500,000 budget to lobby and do ads for the plan. If anyone else but the mayor had done this, a criminal investigation would have been launched. Instead, the DAs and the US Attorneys cringe with fright when it comes to tackling the really rich and powerful.

So, no one should be surprised that two of our city’s leading environmental groups-organizations who were duped into supporting the original Willets Point plan, have nothing to say about the new iteration-a mall built on parkland! Hard to believe this kind of dollars induced lockjaw.

In response, we have Henry Euler’s testimony at last week’s city council hearing-where the august body spent roughly three minutes on the parks issue. Euler is vice president of the  Auburndale Improvement Association, a Queens civic with over 600 families. As Euler told the council:

“Today you are considering the proposal dealing with the 1.4 million square foot mall to be constructed on the parking lot to the west of Citi Field.  This land is parkland and should be off limits to any private development. Parkland is sacrosanct.  It belongs to the people, not private developers. With the rate of intense development in Queens, we need all of the green space we can spare.

The asphalt on the unused part of the parking lot to the west of Citi Field should be removed and trees and other vegetation should be planted on the site in order to make it look more like a park once again.  There is no shortage of people living in close proximity to the park, or even further away, who could use that refurbished parkland.

Have you seen how many people use Flushing Meadows Corona Park?  It is staggering.  How could anyone think of usurping land for private gain when people living in overcrowded neighborhoods look to the park as their backyard and a source of relaxation, exercise and tranquility?  This park should be a New York City landmark, just as Central Park is in Manhattan and Prospect Park is in Brooklyn.  Queens is tired of being ignored!”

This should inspire public outrage and the leading mayoral candidates should be on this like the proverbial white on rice. Instead we get silence - aided and abetted by the kept menagerie of subsidized environmental groups - and we can add the Sierra Club that received a huge influx of funds from the mayor for its anti-coal campaign. 

We’ll give Euler the last word-although we believe that the real last words will be heard in court:

“There are so many questions to consider in this case, and so many concerns.  We stand with the coalition known as Save Flushing Meadows Corona Park and our neighbors in western Flushing and Corona.  No mall in this location!  Just preserve the parkland and find additional funds to sustain and maintain our precious park. Thank you!”

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

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.

Unequal Treatment at City Planning Commission

The City Planning Commission has bent its rules to accommodate immediate proxy testimony in favor of the proposed Willets Point development, while enforcing its rules and delaying proxy testimony in opposition to the proposed development.

At the public hearing pertaining to the proposed Willets Point development held on August 13, 2008 – during a section of that hearing dedicated to testimony in opposition to the proposed project – the name "Kevin Loyst" was called to testify. In place of Kevin Loyst, a person named Kevin Phillips came to the podium, identified himself, and stated that he was "here to speak on behalf of Kevin Loyst, who's a colleague" who had to depart the hearing after several hours.

Commission Chair Amanda Burden prohibited Kevin Phillips from testifying at that time as a proxy for Kevin Loyst, telling Phillips in no uncertain terms: "You have to sign up on your own. It's a rule, we have to do – You can't substitute for somebody else. Sorry. So if you just sign up on your own. … Just sign up on a new card. You have to sign up for yourself. You can't substitute for somebody else. … We will definitely call you, later."

Kevin Phillips then left the podium, and the Commission called a different speaker.

We would have expected consistent enforcement of the Commission's rules at the public hearing recently held on July 10, 2013, when – during a section of the hearing dedicated to testimony in favor of the application – the name "Dan Hendrick" was called to testify, and an unidentified person who was not Dan Hendrick came to the podium. The unidentified person stated that he was "actually here on behalf of Dan Hendrick, who is the V.P. for the New York League of Conservation Voters".

Neither Commission Chair Amanda Burden nor any other Commission member stopped this unidentified person from testifying "on behalf of Dan Hendrick", or enforced the Commission's strict rules that "you have to sign up for yourself" and "you can't substitute for somebody else". The unidentified person proceeded to deliver testimony as a proxy for the absent Dan Hendrick, in favor of the application.



The Commission has treated unequally those who would provide proxy testimony opposed to the Willets Point development, versus those who would provide proxy testimony in favor of the Willets Point development. Kevin Phillips, who was opposed, was relegated to filling out a new speaker's card and beginning the long wait to testify, again; whereas the unidentified person who appeared on July 10, 2013, who was in favor of the application, was welcomed and testified immediately.

The land use ULURP process must be neutral and devoid of any such bias. It is no less appropriate that a proxy speaker in favor of the Willets Point development be given a special privilege, than it is that the City should fund an unlawful lobbying scheme to influence decision-makers to approve the project. Both of those tactics, and many others, have been leveraged by powers-that-be against Willets Point property and business owners – and the WPU membership will not tolerate it.

Notice of City Planning Commission hearing on Willets Point project

Notice of DSEIS Hearing Final

Borough President's ULURP hearing about Willets West/Willets Point development this Thursday

Helen Marshall's public hearing concerning the proposed Willets West mall on parkland and the Willets Point development is set for Thursday, June 6 at 10:30AM at Queens Borough Hall, second floor conference room.

This matter is item 2 on the agenda.

Testifiers are encouraged to tell Helen Marshall how they feel about a 1.4 million square foot mall being constructed on parkland; ruination of Corona/Jackson Heights businesses as a result of such a mall, a concern stated by Queens Community Board 3; unavoidable nightmare traffic and gridlock conditions on local streets and the affected highways; housing delayed until at least 2025, and perhaps permanently because it can't be built unless new Van Wyck ramps are built first (and the project contract specifies that the city is NOT obligated to build any ramps); eminent domain to be used for a non-essential purpose: to give property to Mets' owners; and so on.

Hearing notice:
http://www.queensbp.org/clients/queens_events/queens_calendardetails.asp?id=6071

EDC Phase I Completely Contradicts ULURP Application

We have been discussing why the partial, segmented development of Willets Point is illegal. What we haven't yet discussed, however, is the extent to which city officials-and other supporters of the project-have made the full, comprehensive and complete development of the 62 acres of the Iron Triangle an absolute necessity.

In the following embedded video you will get to see just how strenuously the city argued against any partial development of the Willets Point area-with serial prevaricator Robert Lieber leading the charge claiming that, because of the flood plain nature of the land, the "high water table," and the years of soil contamination, the project could not be developed in a piece meal fashion. Lieber told the city council that developing Willets Point was a, "transformative exercise," that must be dealt with, "in its totality."

Not to be outdone, EDC's Senior Vice President Thomas McKnight told CB #7 that because of the extensive nature of the environmental clean up, "those kinds of comprehensive things can't really happen with the businesses there...We want to redevelop the entire Willets Point district."

Queens BP Helen Marshall, reading from the EDC script given to her, told the City Planning Commission that Willets Point, "must proceed comprehensively, and Not be phased in." Finally there's UpChuck Apelian, the chair of CB#7, who told his board that, "the site Must be remediated as one complete site."

Well what has changed, and why is EDC proceeding in a manner that it said was environmentally proscribed three years ago? The only possible answer to this is the fact that WPU's intervention on the ramps introduced a high level of uncertainty for the city's crack development team-and the new Phase I was and is a desperate attempt to end run, not only proper traffic reviews,but EDC's own prescriptions for an environmentally sound development plan.

It is hard to conceive of how this will all pass a legal challenge from WPU. In the end the city and EDC's own words will serve to convict them of a fraudulent attempt to rewrite history in order to promote an environmentally unsound development at the expense of small property owners.

WPU Questions Eligibility of Claire Shulman’s Funding Lackeys

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

More EDPL hearing coverage

Hearing Testimony Establishes Platform For Future Legal Fight Queens Tribune

Willets meeting gets heated Times Ledger

Fighting for a future beyond Willets Point Times Ledger

Willets owners dispute "underutilized" tag Queens Chronicle

Willets Point Reality Queens Crap

What Support? Queens Tribune

Iron Will at Forum Daily News

Statement of Michael B. Gerrard at EDPL Public Hearing

Statement of Michael B. Gerrard
Arnold & Porter LLP
On Behalf of Willets Point United and Individual Property Owners
EDPL Public Hearing on Willets Point Development Plan
March 2, 2011

The City’s proposed actions violate the law in at least four separate ways:
1. The City’s proposed actions violate binding pledges that the City previously made to the New York Supreme Court, on which the Court relied.
2. The City’s proposed actions amount to segmentation, which is impermissible under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR).
3. The City’s failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement violates SEQRA and CEQR.
4. The City’s proposed actions are a violation of federal law -- the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As a result of these numerous violations of law, my clients Willets Point United and individual property owners who are members of WPU plan to institute legal action against the City in New York Supreme Court.

Violations of Pledges to Court
In the Ardizzone v. Bloomberg litigation, Robert Lieber, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, submitted an affidavit dated June 29, 2009 in which he stated in Paragraph 20, "The City will not acquire title to any property through Article 4 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) until after ramps for the Van Wyck Expressway are approved by FHWA."

In her decision of August 16, 2010 deciding the case, Justice Madden stated (on pp. 18-19), "At oral argument [for WPU's Article 78], counsel for respondent [City] stated that if the ramps are not approved, the respondents cannot 'proceed with the plan as conceived and approved.' Transcript at 33. For the purposes of this review, this court assumes that if the ramps are not approved, additional review under SEQRA will be required."

Thus the City represented to the court, in a sworn affidavit, that it would not take my clients’ property by eminent domain until the FHWA has approved the ramps. Counsel to the City told the court at oral argument that the project cannot proceed unless the ramps are approved. The court relied on these representations. They are binding on the City.

Moreover, the attempt to condemn properties prior to approval of the ramps violates several statements made in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement:
“The City will not take possession of property acquired by eminent domain before the NEPA process is complete and the ramps are approved.” – Willets Point FGEIS, Chapter 29, General Comments, Response G-8, September 12, 2008.

“The City has maintained communication and close coordination with NYSDOT from the inception of the project, outlining a range of conceptual design options and working with options that NYSDOT determined were preferable. It is fully expected that such approvals will be obtained and the design will be progressed in light of design suggestions to be made by both NYSDOT and the FHWA. Furthermore, the proposed ramps are an integral part of the Willets Point Development Plan. The developer’s agreement would stipulate that following approval of the Van Wyck Expressway ramps but prior to completion of ramp construction, no buildings would be occupied unless the developer demonstrates that earlier occupancy of such buildings would not result in significant adverse impacts that have not already been described in this GEIS.” – Willets Point FGEIS, Chapter 29, Section 17 (Traffic and Parking), Response 17-6, September 12, 2008.

The FHWA has not approved the ramps. Nor has the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), whose approval is also needed.

Segmentation
The City’s Technical Memorandum for the Willets Point Development Plan FGEIS, Updated Plan, February 10, 2011 (“TM004”), makes clear that the City intends to proceed with the full plan for Willets Point, and that the construction of ramps connecting with the Van Wyck Expressway is an essential part of this plan. (E.g., -- “the City remains committed to the new Van Wyck connections,” TM004 p. 5; “Like the Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would include new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway,” TM004 p. 7.) The City has been pledging for years that this approval was imminent, but it has not arrived, and it is obviously nowhere in sight. Thus the City has violated its pledges to the Court and its representations in the FGEIS, and in desperation is attempting to start the project without this essential approval.

It is also attempting to start the project with no one having any clear idea what impacts the project would have with the ramps. There are two prior analyses by the City of traffic conditions with the ramps -- the FGEIS and the Access Modification Report (AMR). As we have previously shown in detail, the results of these two studies were radically different. No further illumination is supplied in TM004, yet the City wants to go forward with the condemnation.

The SEQRA regulations prohibit considering only a part or segment of an action. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.3(g)(1). The City’s current attempt is remarkably similar to a situation that the New York Court of Appeals found to be impermissible segmentation, where the reconstruction of a highway interchange was closely linked to the widening of the one of the highways connecting there, but the two efforts were not considered together. Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation, 75 N.Y.2d 62 (1989). Numerous subsequent decisions have likewise struck down the comparable segmentation of intimately linked undertakings. E.g., AC 1 Shore Road, LLC v. Incorporated Village of Great Neck, 43 A.D.3d 439 (2d Dept. 2007); Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Town Board of Riverhead, 290 A.D.2d 448 (2d Dept. 2002); City of Buffalo v. New York State Department of Transportation, 184 Misc.2d 243 (Sup.Ct. Erie Co. 2000).

The Appellate Division has previously endorsed the consideration of modifications to a highway access ramp as part of the underlying project. Coalition Against Lincoln West Inc. v. Weinshall, 21 A.D.2d 215 (1st Dept. 2005), leave to appeal denied, 5 N.Y.3d 715 (2005). That was not done here, as it should have been.

Failure to Prepare Supplemental EIS
SEQRA requires a supplemental EIS whenever there are significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from changes proposed for the project, newly discovered information, or a change in circumstances related to the project. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.9(a)(7)(i).

All of these situations are present here. The attempt to institute condemnation without the essential approvals for the Van Wyck ramps is a change to the project, and a change in circumstances; the inability to obtain the essential approvals by now, despite the City’s promises that they would be in hand, is newly discovered information. A supplemental EIS is required.

The need for a supplemental EIS is especially compelling where, as here, there have been substantial unexplained discrepancies between the City’s two prior studies of the traffic implications of the ramps -- the FGEIS and the AMR -- and the public should have a full opportunity to comment. That opportunity has not been provided under SEQRA. Making matters worse, TM004 does not provide the information necessary to understand these discrepancies, and the City has failed to fully answer numerous Freedom of Information Law requests aimed at obtaining the documents that would
illuminate this and other questions. This hearing is premature in the absence of full compliance with FOIL.

Further enhancing the need for a supplemental EIS are the admissions in TM004 that many of the significant traffic impacts of the revised project are unmitigatable (Appx. C p. 13), and that there would be numerous significant adverse impacts on the Van Wyck mainline and existing ramps (Appx. D p. 31).

Violations of NEPA
Since the Van Wyck ramps are an essential part of the project, and they require federal approval, the project is subject to NEPA. The City has long acknowledged the applicability of NEPA. See, e.g., TM004 p. 4.

NEPA, like SEQRA, prohibits segmentation. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. That prohibition has been violated here.

We will submit more detailed comments during the written comment period.

Op-ed by State Senator Tony Avella

New York City scraps word on Willets Point redevelopment project land grab
by 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.

Traffic hearing must be rescheduled

Letter in this week's Times Ledger:

In addition to the loss of hundreds of small businesses and the jobs of thousands of employees and their dependents, the proposed Willets Point project also involves the general public, whose daily lives will be affected by the huge increase in the volume of vehicular traffic on the Grand Central Parkway and the Van Wyck Expressway.

Suffice it to say, the Willets Point businesses and their employees and the general public are entitled to a full and fair discussion of the issues, something the Bloomberg administration and the city Economic Development Corp. have sought to avoid. They are now joined by state Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Martin Dilan (D-Brooklyn), who announced the cancellation of a much-awaited and -needed meeting to consider the traffic concerns the proposed project will generate (“State cancels Willets meet,” TimesLedger Newspapers, April 12).

Dilan’s claim that the meeting was cancelled because of an “unavoidable scheduling conflict” without even describing the claimed conflict and rescheduling an early date is patent political nonsense. An investigation is called for to determine the real reason and at whose request the meeting was cancelled. The public is entitled to no less.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

NYS Senate Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Public Hearing - 1/5/10

This is the video of the entire eminent domain hearing held on January 5th by Senator Bill Perkins.