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.”

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.

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.

Sweetheart Deals and Cannon Fodder

Knowledgeable observers were surprised that the original Willets Point business coalition, the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, hired Peter Vallone Sr. to lobby on its behalf. Vallone had no record of engaging in adversarial battles against the political establishment-quite the opposite. Vallone's entire political carer was spent in cutting deals, and if WPU's lawyer Mike Rikon is correct in his submissions to the city, many of the larger members of this original group knew exactly what they were doing by engaging Mr. Vallone.

For a select few, the Vallone representation resulted in sweetheart deals cut for their benefit; agreements that were not available to any of the smaller property owners who were not part of the WPIRA inner circle. According to attorney Rikon, this violates the essence of the state's Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). Once the city council passed its ULURP application for the Willlets Point project, all of the proper protocols under the EDPL should have been triggered and observed. This is not anywhere near what happened.

As Rikon points out: "There has been a violation of the entire process set forth in the Eminent Domain Procedure Law at Section 303 thereof which requires independent appraisals of the properties to be condemned with a written offer of 100% of the highest approved appraised value. This was not done for all condemnees or even for a single condemnee. Rather, what followed were individual oral offers and negotiations to select individuals but not to all of the property owners. This is a violation of the statute. It is also a violation of equal protection of the law. See EDPL Section 101.

And Rikon goes on to say:"What was done in the Willets Point Development Project was to make deals with prominent owners of property who had garnered political opposition to the project’s approval. But the deals did not follow compliance with EDPL Section 303. The deals, containing extraordinary provisions, were made only to appease the opposition from the members of the City Council supported by the select property owners."

What this also means is that the entire opposition to the Willets Point development was Kabuki theater-a staged production designed to enhance the bargaining position of the larger members of the WPIRA coalition. The corollary to this observation is that the little guys-property owners, tenant owners, and workers-were simply used as cannon fodder. They were sold out in the end, but in reality, their disposal was planned for from the beginning.

In some ways, we can appreciate the skill in which this was done-and kudos to those businesses that, as a result, made out like bandits. That, however, doesn't excuse the city's violation of the EDPL which, if true, adds to the growing list of illegal and unethical behaviors we have seen in this entire process.

But let's put a face on the sweetness of the deals we are talking about-as Rikon does in his discussion of the deal made with Part Authority:

"The NYCEDC also entered into a contract with Parts Authority Partners Real Estate, LLC on September 26, 2008...The NYCEDC contract agreed to pay the seller $18,150,000 for a 24,739 square foot site.

In addition, the contract provided the seller with numerous extraordinary benefits. The contract was conditioned upon the seller receiving $1.5 million dollars in relocation assistance. The seller and its multiple tenants (Hunt Construction, Mets Stadium Auto Glass, Anjo Realty and CBS Outdoor) were permitted to remain on the property for at least, but possibly more than, 24 months.

During that time, the seller was only required to pay rent in the amount of $1 per month. The NYCEDC would pay all real estate taxes. In addition, despite the fact that NYCEDC would be the owner and landlord, the seller was permitted to collect all rents from its tenants/subtenants on the property. The NYCEDC also agreed to pay New York City Transfer Taxes and any title insurance premiums."

Sweet indeed-and a justification for the Vallone hiring if there ever was one. Rikon summarizes: "In light of the above, it is clear that a select group of property owners, but not all, received preferential treatment from the City of New York including “sweetheart deals,” relocation assistance, a significant loan at a discount rate, rent free accommodations, option contracts at preferential values, agreements by the City to purchase land on the owner’s behalf, the entitlement to collect rent from subtenants but without having to pay any rent to the City, and title to newly constructed City facilities and buildings. This selective preferential treatment is clearly a violation of the statute and a violation of equal protection of the law."

How below board and corrupt was this? Recall Fernanda Santos' City Room article that revealed nicely the EDC scheme: "Whenever the city pursues a development project that involves buying land from private parties, it usually keeps details of the negotiations with property owners under wraps. Sale prices are rarely disclosed to avoid influencing other owners into asking more for their property.That has been the case in Willets Point, a 62-acre section of Queens next to Citi Field that is the target of one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s most ambitious development plans."

Except, as Rikon points out, the invocation of the EDPL protocols legally requires the city not to do this: "When asked which parcels the city had bought and how much it had paid for them, David Lombino, a spokesman for the Economic Development Corporation, said he could not disclose that information “because it would impede negotiations with other landlords going forward.”

The scheme was so important to EDC that it screamed bloody murder at the City Room expose-calling Santos to have her correct some of the property sale details. But in the end, there was one thing that EDC refused to do-comply with the terms of EDPL: "Mr. Lombino still declined to disclose how much the city paid per square foot of land — or building — it has acquired in Willets Point."

What about the rest of the "holdouts?" To this day they have yet to receive any written offer as required by law-and the city has commenced condemnation of their property. So, a process that began with the illegal lobbying work of Claire Shulman has continued along the same tawdry vein-with EDC acting outside of the law because it believes that it can, after paying off the larger property owners, simply beat up on the little guys.

Development costs hidden from public

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

The question of whether or not the Willets Point development will ever get off the ground is much more an imponderable today than it was-pre recession-two years ago. In the first place, with the city out of funds, services being cut, and lay-offs looming, the cost of the development would appear to be prohibitive, and in any case hard to justify. The fact that the city's lap dog EDC has yet to lay out these costs honestly, indicates that it fears sticker shock in the citizenry.

In addition, the issue of traffic-one that wasn’t really raised with any precision during the ULURP process-has become crucial. In the first place, the development, according to the city’s own court papers, cannot be built without the approvals for ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway. That approval process, conducted by both NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, has revealed that there are serious problems with the data submitted by traffic consultants hired by EDC. The process is so tainted that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has written to the regulatory authorities calling for an independent traffic study under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.

What is totally, clear, however, is that-now that Willets Point United has become engaged-is that the process will be drawn out and thorough, with an independent review of the traffic a very real possibility. This call for transparency and independence is being seconded by a variety of local civic groups, organizations concerned with the cumulative impact of, not only the Willets Point traffic, by all of the traffic generated by scores of projects in the vicinity of the Iron Triangle.

The more that the folks become aware of the true costs of developing Willets Point-and this includes the massive traffic that it, and other local projects, will generate, the less likelihood that the project will ever get off the ground. But given all of the serious questions raised above, it should be incumbent on all elected officials to endorse a moratorium on Willets Point development-particularly the use of eminent domain-and a call for a comprehensive and independent traffic study that will underscore the real impacts that all of the communities of Queens will be facing in the future.