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

Rally against the Willets West shopping mall on public parkland

Video of full speakers' statements at last Saturday's rally opposing the "Willets West" mall on parkland. Provided by LoScalzo Media Design LLC; copyright 2014

Read about the rally at the Queens Chronicle's website.

Faith in New York Says No to Willets West

A growing opposition to Willets Point has emerged from the faith community in Queens. In Sunday’s NY Daily News, Msgr. Thomas Healy, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church in Corona and Patrick Young, pastor of First Baptist Church of East Elmhurst, editorialize against the Bloomberg boondoggle. Speaking of the top down, failing to trickle down, development policies of the current mayor, the religious leaders point out:

“Economic development over the past decade in New York City has overwhelmingly benefited those at the top, while leaving the rest of us behind. Today, it has become much more difficult for working people in our congregations and communities to find dignified work, pay for housing, send their children to college and save for retirement. That is not good for families, congregations, or our city.”

As the men of faith go on to point out, this is particularly true of the bait and switch at Willets Point-but first they go on to lay out a statement of principle for development fairness:

“We believe every development in NYC that receives public subsidies should meet an “equity test” — a set of common-sense standards we should expect of developers and city leaders before a single shovel is placed in the ground. To get the go-ahead, a project must provide living-wage jobs, real affordable housing and enhanced open space, and it must be the product of sufficient community input.”

So how does this righteous goal compare to the reality of Willets Point? Not very well:

“While New York could greatly benefit from this brand of equitable development, the proposal to build a massive, 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall inside Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is a poster child for everything that is wrong with development in our city. We strongly oppose the proposal, which would be the largest mall in NYC, for three reasons:

* The Mayor and Economic Development Corp. broke their 2008 promise to build 2,000 units of affordable housing at Willets Point. The project developers have inserted a dangerous clause into their contract, whereby affordable housing will be abandoned if Van Wyck off-ramps are not built.

* The City and developers have not considered the negative impact of the city’s largest mall upon surrounding communities and businesses, including increased car traffic, overcrowded subway trains and poverty-wage jobs.

* The proposal represents another example of public land being exploited for private benefit, without meeting community needs. The Joint Venture, which represents some of the country’s wealthiest corporations, are already enjoying more than $99.9 million in taxpayer subsidies, and being given public parkland worth nearly $1 billion, while not being required to meet real community needs for jobs, housing or open space.”

The current development plan for the Iron Triangle fails at every turn-and it is frankly incredible that the city council is even given this lame duck proposal any serious consideration; especially after EDC has pulled the rug out from under all of the negotiated deals contained in the original 2008 approvals.

And the idea of a massive mall-nowhere seen in the original plan-is particularly galling to the men of faith and those congregations that they represent:

“The development represents a huge opportunity to construct affordable housing, enhance open space and create living-wage jobs — and yet the Economic Development Corp., Mayor Bloomberg and the developers are deciding instead to build a mall. While we believe our city could greatly benefit from responsible development at Willets Point, the current proposal takes us further down the road toward inequality.”

So, what’s the antonym of responsible? Yes, irresponsible it is. This is irresponsible development by an administration that has made these kinds of projects mundane-always a gold mine for developers and a shaft for the community and its small businesses. We’ll give the pastors the final word (Hint it has a resounding No in it):

“Faith and community leaders from across the city strongly urge the City Council to vote “no” this Wednesday if the current proposal isn’t significantly improved, so that our communities and city leaders have more time to create a better development proposal for Willets Point that would deliver real community benefits to the people of New York City.”

Willets West Mall on Parkland

Memo to Council Members Ferreras, Comrie and Weprin:

Crain's is reporting your last-ditch maneuvers to make the city "guarantee payment of $70 million to erect ramps" to and from the Van Wyck Expressway, without which NO housing may be built at Willets Point.

Apparently, you are DISREGARDING a primary objection of the community to the entire proposed project: the 1.4 million square foot shopping mall that would be built on 30+ acres of Queens parkland. Opposition to that mall on public parkland includes the Queens Civic Congress, which consists of 100+ civic associations throughout Queens; the Roosevelt Avenue Community Alliance, which recognizes that a mall at that location will destroy and displace numerous family-run businesses in Corona and Jackson Heights; and Queens Community Board 3, which voted 30-1 to DENY this application in part because CB3 opposes the mall on parkland; among many other groups that are opposed because of the MALL.

Regardless of whether or not the City provides $70 million for highway ramps, the community DOES NOT WANT THE PROJECT, because of the mall on parkland. Therefore, if you respect the will of the people, you will vote "NO".

But even if you succeed in obtaining an ironclad guarantee from the City of $70 million for highway ramps – and we don't believe an ironclad guarantee is possible now – that alone still does NOTHING to guarantee the housing and affordable housing, which a large sector of project opponents wants to see built. That's because regardless of the
availability of $70 million, the project contract between Sterling/Related and NYCEDC still allows Sterling/Related to pay a cost-of-doing-business penalty of $35 million (in 2025), and build NO housing. Moreover, simply setting aside $70 million for highway ramps does not alter the text of the contract which states: "For the avoidance of doubt, in no event shall EDC or the City be required to construct the Ramps as part of the Development." [Contract Section 3.3.]

As long as those two clear contract provisions remain in effect, there still is NO CLEAR PATH to construct any housing or affordable housing at Willets Point. Thus, if you insist on ignoring the community's outrage over a mall being constructed on 30+ acres of Queens parkland, and want to push for housing, then you must not only obtain $70 million that is necessary for the Van Wyck ramps, but you must also REQUIRE that the project contract be revised so that the City guarantees to construct the Van Wyck ramps, and so that NO option exists for Sterling/Related to buy their way out of constructing the housing by paying a penalty. The construction of the ramps and the housing must
be guaranteed.

We repeat – Obtaining $70 million for highway ramps does not address the overriding problem with this project: the construction of a huge mall on parkland; AND, it alone does not and cannot guarantee that any housing will ever be constructed, because the project contract still contains escape clauses. It is the project contract that will
determine, years from now, what the parties are actually obligated to do.

The pending ULURP application of Sterling/Related has been rushed to coincide with the end of Mayor Bloomberg's final term, and the integrity of the Willets Point project originally approved by the City Council in 2008 – which involved NO mall on parkland – has been sacrificed. None of that is necessary. Denying this ULURP application of Sterling/Related will allow the next City administration to take a fresh look at this project, and to ensure that its goals – including
prioritized affordable housing – are respected, not evaded by a developer.

Sincerely,

The membership of Willets Point United Inc.

Malling Crain's

In this week’s Queens Tribune, Len Maniace, First Vice President, Jackson Heights Beautification Group, deconstructs the Willets West development-just another one of those disgruntled and isolated gadflies who happens, unlike the editorialists at Crain’s, to truly understand what the city is trying to do over at the Iron Triangle:

“A s we approach a City Council vote expected for October, give the developers of a massive shopping mall project called Willets Point West credit for this: together they possess a fabulous imagination. They predict their project will lead to a revitalization reminiscent of 42nd Street. The mall proposed for the Citi Field parking lot will transform Willets Point into a destination, a magnet for shoppers who then will provide spillover benefits when they dine at the restaurants of Corona and Jackson Heights.

But how likely is that vision? Not very on either point. That’s because the scheme presented by the developers is an anti-city plan that would result in more cars, congestion, air pollution, and wasted energy.”

Maniace understands just how grotesque a contradiction this development is to the Bloomberg sustainability vision:

“While Brooklyn, other parts of New York City, and indeed cities around the world look to sustainable, smart, transit-oriented growth, Queens is being served up a leftover dish of 1960s auto-dependent development. If a 1.4 million square foot shopping and entertainment center is going to be successful, it’s going to need a lot of people coming and going. That’s truckers transporting goods to be sold, sales people selling them and shoppers buying them – lots of shoppers.

How do the builders plan to move all these people – along with residents of the already approved 5,500 housing unit, also by Sterling Equities and Related Companies?”

As Clark Gable might have said, “Frankly, they don’t give a damn.” Certainly it will not be by mass transit: 

“The nearby No. 7 train that stops at Citi Field is already overcrowded. At a City Hall public hearing earlier this month, the developers didn’t spend much time on transit improvements. Even minor improvements such as additional exits from the elevated station didn’t seem likely. “The Willets Point station is not a priority for the MTA,” one official told members of the City Council.”

And where will all of these shoppers come? We must by now be running out of those shoppers that EDC always claims are going to be diverted from leaving town to shop: “The developers should know better. Malls suck business out of nearby commercial areas, such as downtown Flushing. And it’s highly unlikely that mall shoppers would bypass the food court, cross over the Grand Central Parkway and search out restaurants in Corona and Jackson Heights. This is nothing like patrons at Lincoln Center strolling across Broadway to dine at Upper West Side eateries.”

In other words-much like everything that this administration has done over the past twelve years-this is a neighborhood small business disaster. A disaster that will bring Queens traffic to a gigantic stop: 

“Instead, the developers are counting on road improvements, including new and hugely expensive highway ramps. That means more cars, congestion, air pollution, and wasted energy, not just in the immediate area, but also along nearby highways, which are also overcrowded.”

But Mr. Maniace is wrong here since there are no plans to build these ramps-and there may never be any. So the congestion he foresees is without any ramp mitigation and will be an unholy mess for local roads and highways.

If, as Crain’s alleges, this mall is a genuine linchpin for the future housing and other amenities, how is this future being monetized and assured? Why hasn’t the city forced the developers to put, let’s say, $200 million in escrow-a sum they will forfeit if the ramps and housing don’t get built. Why are all of the risks being borne by the tax payers? Haven’t we seen what has transpired already over at Hudson Yards?

In short, this development does little more than reward the Wilpons for engaging in an illegal lobbying scheme-a multi-billion dollar reward that should have been obviated by an indictment.

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 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 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 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.”

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

A mall to spur housing?

The Times Ledger - (and doesn’t Joe Anuta do a good reporting job on Willets Point?) - has a good story on Tuesday’s City Council hearing; and the report exposes the inanity of the developer’s rationale for the development. Here’s the description of the reason why the mall is precursor to all of the things originally promised for Willets Point:

“The partnership contends this sequencing is essential to ensure the entire vision can be realized. They have repeatedly said the only way to develop Willets Point according to the 2008 plan was to create an economic engine to drive the project, namely the 1.4 million square foot retail and entertainment complex proposed for the west of Citi Field.

“We believe strongly that the project makes economic sense,” said Jesse Masyr, land-use counsel to the partnership.”

Now we have always admired Masyr’s ability to spin a yarn, but let’s deconstruct this particularly tall tale. In order to afford to build housing, there is a need to build the largest mall in NYC so as to create a destination that makes the housing affordable-and not affordable in the way the term is now understood:

“Basically, the joint venture needs to have the mall and a proposed retail strip along 126th Street up and running to not only offset other costs of the project, but to create a destination to make the housing component more attractive.”

Crazy, no? Everyone wants to live in the neighborhood immediately contiguous to the city’s largest retail center? Even if you believe the traffic reports from consultants who have demonstrated a very thin regard for professional accuracy, this rationale is tough to accept. Can you imagine trying to and from work with tens of thousands of daily and weekly car and truck trips clogging the streets and access roads to you home?

WPU’s Jerry Antonacci has more credibility when he points out the likely scenario here:

“But opponents have long contended that the city and developers only want the mall and do not want to build the housing, which includes 875 affordable units. The partnership would be required to pay a $35 million penalty for not building the housing, contracts show, but the city is also not contractually obligated to build the ramps. If the ramps never get built, then the joint venture is off the hook.

By obtaining this current permit, they will have made the parking lot legal, which would not have been permissible under the special zoning written in 2008. According to Iron Triangle property owners, this is all part of the plan.

“Mark my words: No housing is ever going to be built,” said Jerry Antonacci, a member of opposition group Willets Point United, who spoke in an informational video about the project and testified at City Hall Tuesday.”

All of which makes this the Wimpy deal we have described it as-with the developer’s gladly paying Tuesday (for housing years from now), for a mall (the Wimpy hamburger) they get today. And those two thousand units of affordable housing, what happened to them?

“But opponents have long contended that the city and developers only want the mall and do not want to build the housing, which includes 875 affordable units.” So not only do the developers get the land for free-in spite of the fact that the city promised the city council in 2008 that it would be reimbursed by the developer eventually selected-but they also get to put off the linchpin of the original approval to years from now when many of us will n longer be around.

The fact remains-and should be indisputable-an administration that has already lied to get this plan approved in 2008, and won’t be around in the middle of the next decade to be held accountable, should not be believed about any of the assertions it has made concerning the eventual end game at Willets Point. 

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.”

City Planning hearing Covered by Newsday

The City Planning Commission hearing received good coverage from Newsday today:

“A $1 billion retail-and-entertainment mall planned for the site of what is currently a parking lot of the New York Mets' stadium would spearhead a major transformation of a blighted neighborhood, developers testified Wednesday.

But opponents argued that the 1.4 million-square-foot mall and other plans for their Queens neighborhood would simply benefit developers while pushing out local businesses.”

Once again, Irene Presti got the focal point as she rebutted the self serving statements of the developer:

“Richard Browne of Sterling Equities, which is developing the mall complex along with Related Cos., said it will serve the local community because "Queens doesn't have enough retail." At the same time, he said, development promises to bring in more affordable housing.

Not so, said Irene Prestigiacomo, who owns property used by an auto repair business.

"It's all smoke and mirrors," she told commissioners. "They want to take my property and give it to developers. It's a land grab."

The community also came out and noted the impossible infrastructure challenges with the proposed development:

“Other residents who testified said the mall would rise on city-owned land while developers receive tens of millions of dollars in subsidies.

Ed Westley, a member of Community Board 3, noted that traffic to the area will increase and the subway will be so overcrowded "that the No. 7 train will need to be a double-decker."

Unmentioned in all of this is the planned destruction of Flushing Meadows Park-as the city looks to expand the USTA facility and looks to build a soccer stadium: “Other separate proposals for the area include expanding the National Tennis Center and building a 35,000-seat professional soccer stadium.”

There is no possibility that the city would even think of doing such a thing in Central Park or Prospect Park-apparently the immigrant communities adjacent to FMP are not very important to the elitists who make up the current administration.

Lost in the hoo ha, however, is the fact that this entire proposal is based on a foundation of lies. As Irene Presti told the Commission, the unethical bait and switch is alive and well:

“This was a deal, however, that generated a great deal of controversy down at the city council-the legislative body that needed to approve the project. Most of the times the use of condemnation is seen as a drastic act and is used sparingly, and only for a tangible public use. Not seeing any great public use in the city’s proposal, the city council balked-sending EDC scrambling.

Here’s where the deal making began and various interests came into the negotiations and thousands of units of public housing-along with an agreement to provide a so-called living wage to retail workers-was added to give this land grab a public flavor. My mother always told me that if you’re going to bake a lie, you need to frost it with the truth. And so it went. With the land grab being frosted with the adding on of these perceived public benefits.

Fast forward to today. Gone is the housing-pushed way back into the distant future with no guarantee that it will ever get built. Gone also is the pledge to provide the workers with a living wage. The only thing that is left is something that was never there in the first place-a massive, traffic generating nightmare of a retail mall that was never part of the original deal; and would never have passed the smell test with council members concerned with the use of eminent domain to take away property from small owners like myself.”

Willets Point Opposition Grows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ll give Irene Presti the last word:

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

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

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

Reasons why the Mets' 1961 agreement with Robert Moses doesn't allow for the Willets West project

Urban Justice Center letter to EDC

Opposition to the Willets West / Willets Point project continues to increase, in the form of legal arguments that detail why the 1961 agreement made between Robert Moses and the Mets does not permit a shopping mall on the Mets parking lot.

Affordable housing advocates steamed

Council Member Julissa Ferreras at Queens Housing Coalition meeting.  (Queens Chronicle)

The Queens Chronicle last week reported about a meeting in Corona about affordable housing at Willets Point:

The city’s announcement that the burgeoning and long-contested development project at Willets Point would not be proceeding as originally outlined and the lack of sufficient affordable housing for the middle- and lower-income families living in the borough led about 100 distraught residents to pack a Queens Housing Coalition meeting on Nov. 20 in Jackson Heights.

The Willets Point Redevelopment Plan was approved by the City Council in 2008 and included the construction of 5,500 mixed-income residential units, 2,000 of which were to be affordable housing.

This past June, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the affordable housing plan would be delayed until 2025.

“We just want the mayor to remember the promise he made about affordable housing at Willets Point,” said QHC’s coordinator Ivan Contreras. “We feel betrayed.”

The group informed attendees of the revised plans for the area, including neighboring Flushing Meadows Corona Park, which include a 25,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium, additions to the U.S. Tennis Association Billie Jean King National Tennis Center and the construction of the largest shopping mall in the borough. The MLS and USTA projects are separate from the Willets Point plan, but the shopping center is part of it.

When Contreras turned to the crowd and asked, “Do we need another mall?” he was greeted with a resounding “No.”

“We need housing,” he said. “We need the mayor to construct low-cost housing. Affordable housing is not a luxury. It’s a priority. We need it and we need it now,” he said.

Now, WPU would like to remind housing advocates that they can't be sure there'll ever be housing at Willets Point - let alone affordable housing - because the City conveniently slipped an "opt-out" clause in the Willets Point plan. The only thing that can be counted on is the gigantic proposed mall. Housing advocacy groups were persuaded to support the development project on the false pretext that housing will happen in the future. They shouldn't have fallen for it!

City is subsidizing billionaire's project

The following letter to the editor was printed December 2, 2012 in the Times Ledger:

The New York Times reported in its Nov. 12 issue that Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to increase school lunches to $2.50 from $1.50, slash $8.3 million from libraries and increase fees on parking meters.

It is to be noted that Bloomberg has no plans to reduce the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will subsidize his ill-advised Willets Point plan, nor does he plan to reduce subsidies that will benefit New York Mets billionaire owner Fred Wilpon for a shopping mall adjacent to the Mets stadium.

While Bloomberg is to be applauded for his philanthropic contributions as a private citizen, his current plans demonstrate once again that as mayor he has no interest in the poor, the middle class and small businesses in this city.

It should make one recognize the value of term limits.

Benjamin Haber
Flushing