The NY Post is reporting this morning about an investigation into the way in which a NYC DOE official used public workers illegally to lobby for the LIFO law-one of the mayor's main legislative objectives:
"A high-level city education official who had worked on Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election campaign pushed school staffers to engage in political lobbying on behalf of the administration, a city investigation found.
DOE Public Affairs Director Lenny Speiller inserted language into a petition sent out to parent coordinators at 400 schools in March urging state legislators to repeal a law that requires teachers to be laid off in order of reverse seniority, known as last-in, first-out."
What law was broken? Here is where it gets interesting for us at WPU-and there is a direct correlation to the Claire Shulman illegal lobbying claim: "The report by Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon found that Speiller had violated the state constitution by using public resources – in this case, city workers – for a private, political cause.
It also found that Speiller had emailed his proposed edits of the petition to Bloomberg’s director of state legislative affairs in Albany, Micah Lasher, and Lasher's associate, seeking feedback.
While the associate OK'd the language, Lasher did not respond to Speiller's email, according to Condon, but he wasn’t questioned about his involvement either. “I didn’t see any need for it,” said Condon, who explained that his focus was on determining who had written the political language into the petition. But some questioned why the probe didn’t examine whether Lasher or officials higher up the command chain were aware of Speiller's actions."
Was this guy Speiller the lone person responsible? "But some questioned why the probe didn’t examine whether Lasher or officials higher up the command chain were aware of Speiller's actions. “If [Lasher] was involved, we should know about it,” said United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew, who prompted the probe with a complaint to Condon’s office."
Speiller, for his part, won't live up to his name-he's not talking. So what will happen to this culprit (er, scapegoat)?
"Prior to coming to the DOE, Speiller had worked in a variety of political positions -- most recently as the Bloomberg re-election campaign’s get-out-the-vote director.Records show that he committed a similar political lobbying no-no as chief of staff to City Councilmember James Gennaro.
In 2007, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board fined Speiller $1,000 for using city resources and soliciting council staff members to work on Gennaro’s re-election campaign. DOE officials acknowledged Speiller’s “poor judgment” but, despite his second strike, served him solely with a letter of reprimand and required ethics training."
But if a state law was violated should it be left to the Condon to pursue justice-and no district attorney or federal prosecutor? This is the same thing in regards to the Shulman action-"...using public resources...for a private, political cause. " But in the Shulman shenanigans it was actual money and not city workers that were used for the advancement of the private cause of all the developers who funded the Shulman LDC.
In our view, this should be count 2 in the indictment-are you paying attention AG?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wages of Sin: The Unknown Cost of Phase I
The NY Times is weighing in on EDC's illegal end run over proper environmental review at Willets Point-popularly known as Phase I-and buried amidst all of the hoo ha and faux enthusiasm is this elephant in the room nugget:
"Specialists in real estate financing who are not working with any of the Willets Point bidders point out that a project of this scale is likely to require a great deal of public financing at a time when the city and state are slashing their spending.
Scott A. Singer, a principal of the Singer & Bassuk Organization, a New York company that arranges financing for major property owners, said that some construction financing is still available today, but that the hurdles for developers — especially outside Manhattan —are much higher than they used to be.
“It’s not necessarily impossible,” Mr. Singer said, “but it wouldn’t be at all surprising if this moved forward only in fits and starts.”
Undaunted the comedians at EDC drag out their own economic development expert-the renowned fiscal watchdog and EDC's Charlie McCarthy, CM Julissa Ferreras, to insist this is all eminently doable-Bloomberg's version of a stimulus no doubt: "Yet is it realistic to imagine that redevelopment will occur anytime soon on a site that has bedeviled city officials and civil leaders for decades? “I think it’s absolutely realistic,” Ms. Ferreras said, citing the proposals the city has received. “It will kick-start our economy.”
It will kick start the economy? Is there LSD in the Corona water? This project will kick start-if at all-when Ferreras is an abuella. And WPU is fighting hard to make the long road ahead that much harder. As the Times reports, there are a number of legal potholes ahead:
"Though the project has the support of politicians, some business owners are still fighting it. Michael Rikon, one of their lawyers, accused the city of trying to clear the site to make way for additional parking for the ballpark, which is much closer to Willets Point than its predecessor, Shea Stadium.
“It’s just a sham,” Mr. Rikon said, referring to the project. “No developer can build there, and it will cost billions of dollars to correct the conditions that exist. What will happen is that Bloomberg will go out of office, and the project will be forgotten again.”
And then there are the ramps-those mitigating traffic necessities tha the city has decided-kind of like when the school test scores were trumpeted as evidence of Bloomberg's educational miracle-that the ramps were not needed. Honestly, they studied this very carefully and came to this conclusion in an above board and transparent manner. ("City officials say the ramps are included in the overall plan but are not needed for the first phase.")
Here's WPU's Mike Gerrard on this issue:
"Opponents say there are other legal hurdles that could delay or thwart development. They have argued that dividing the project into stages was not permitted under the plan approved by the City Council because cleaning up only one part of the site at a time runs the risk of recontamination.
They also contend that it would violate environmental laws to start building at Willets Point until two ramps are added to connect the new development to the Van Wyck Expressway to ease traffic.
“It is our belief that this project, if built, would put so much traffic on the Van Wyck as to immobilize it,” said Michael B. Gerrard, a Columbia law professor who is also representing the business owners."
When the book and the movie on Willets Point come out there will be an all star cast of villainous characters to headline the event-and when the dust settles it will be clear just who did what to whom-and who kept their mouths shut when they should have spoken out.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is one righteous law enforcement or judicial soul who will say, "This isn't right or fair." We're not holding our breathe and we now know how badly Diogenes felt looking for the one honest man. There is one philosopher whose observation is appropriate for this fiasco-and it was Voltaire who pointed out; "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
"Specialists in real estate financing who are not working with any of the Willets Point bidders point out that a project of this scale is likely to require a great deal of public financing at a time when the city and state are slashing their spending.
Scott A. Singer, a principal of the Singer & Bassuk Organization, a New York company that arranges financing for major property owners, said that some construction financing is still available today, but that the hurdles for developers — especially outside Manhattan —are much higher than they used to be.
“It’s not necessarily impossible,” Mr. Singer said, “but it wouldn’t be at all surprising if this moved forward only in fits and starts.”
Undaunted the comedians at EDC drag out their own economic development expert-the renowned fiscal watchdog and EDC's Charlie McCarthy, CM Julissa Ferreras, to insist this is all eminently doable-Bloomberg's version of a stimulus no doubt: "Yet is it realistic to imagine that redevelopment will occur anytime soon on a site that has bedeviled city officials and civil leaders for decades? “I think it’s absolutely realistic,” Ms. Ferreras said, citing the proposals the city has received. “It will kick-start our economy.”
It will kick start the economy? Is there LSD in the Corona water? This project will kick start-if at all-when Ferreras is an abuella. And WPU is fighting hard to make the long road ahead that much harder. As the Times reports, there are a number of legal potholes ahead:
"Though the project has the support of politicians, some business owners are still fighting it. Michael Rikon, one of their lawyers, accused the city of trying to clear the site to make way for additional parking for the ballpark, which is much closer to Willets Point than its predecessor, Shea Stadium.
“It’s just a sham,” Mr. Rikon said, referring to the project. “No developer can build there, and it will cost billions of dollars to correct the conditions that exist. What will happen is that Bloomberg will go out of office, and the project will be forgotten again.”
And then there are the ramps-those mitigating traffic necessities tha the city has decided-kind of like when the school test scores were trumpeted as evidence of Bloomberg's educational miracle-that the ramps were not needed. Honestly, they studied this very carefully and came to this conclusion in an above board and transparent manner. ("City officials say the ramps are included in the overall plan but are not needed for the first phase.")
Here's WPU's Mike Gerrard on this issue:
"Opponents say there are other legal hurdles that could delay or thwart development. They have argued that dividing the project into stages was not permitted under the plan approved by the City Council because cleaning up only one part of the site at a time runs the risk of recontamination.
They also contend that it would violate environmental laws to start building at Willets Point until two ramps are added to connect the new development to the Van Wyck Expressway to ease traffic.
“It is our belief that this project, if built, would put so much traffic on the Van Wyck as to immobilize it,” said Michael B. Gerrard, a Columbia law professor who is also representing the business owners."
When the book and the movie on Willets Point come out there will be an all star cast of villainous characters to headline the event-and when the dust settles it will be clear just who did what to whom-and who kept their mouths shut when they should have spoken out.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is one righteous law enforcement or judicial soul who will say, "This isn't right or fair." We're not holding our breathe and we now know how badly Diogenes felt looking for the one honest man. There is one philosopher whose observation is appropriate for this fiasco-and it was Voltaire who pointed out; "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What is Eric Schneiderman Up To?
There is something very wrong in the office of the NY State Attorney General-and no we don't mean staff prosecutors offering their services as whipping girls. No it's even more serious than that, with the truth and the protection of state tax payers taking the real life beating because of the AG's lackadaisical approach to investigating wrongdoing.
The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.
Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.
But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in?
Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here. What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State.
As WPU points out in its press brief: "First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls.
DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau): _I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."
And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.
Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that, "The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."
Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.
We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?
The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.
Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.
But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in?
Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here. What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State.
As WPU points out in its press brief: "First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls.
DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau): _I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."
And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.
Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that, "The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."
Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.
We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?
What is Eric Schneiderman Up To?
There is something very wrong in the office of the NY State Attorney General-and no we don't mean staff prosecutors offering their services as whipping girls. No it's even more serious than that, with the truth and the protection of state tax payers taking the real life beating because of the AG's lackadaisical approach to investigating wrongdoing.
The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.
Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.
But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in? Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here.
What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State. As WPU points out in its press brief:
"First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls. DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau):
_I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."
And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.
Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."
Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.
We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?
The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.
Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.
But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in? Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here.
What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State. As WPU points out in its press brief:
"First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls. DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau):
_I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."
And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.
Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."
Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.
We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?
Information for press in advance of community meeting
WPU Brief For Press Re: LDC 10-18-11
If you would like to know, in a fair amount of detail, what's been happening with the state Attorney General's investigation and Shulman's LDC's brownfield program for the Flushing waterfront (the state taxpayer grant of $1,505,700.00), then read the attached PDF. Today, Shulman's LDC is holding a bogus "community meeting" pertaining to its brownfield program for the waterfront properties. The attached PDF has been sent to all press.
If you would like to know, in a fair amount of detail, what's been happening with the state Attorney General's investigation and Shulman's LDC's brownfield program for the Flushing waterfront (the state taxpayer grant of $1,505,700.00), then read the attached PDF. Today, Shulman's LDC is holding a bogus "community meeting" pertaining to its brownfield program for the waterfront properties. The attached PDF has been sent to all press.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Developing a Headache
The Observer is reporting on the uphill development slog at Willets Point and there's one point that we'd like to comment on: the putative investigation being done by the NYS Attorney General. Here's what the paper alleges about our slick friends over at TDC:
"The TDC bid has also elicited howls from opponents of the project, led by the holdout property owners group Willets Point United. It argues that TDC should be barred from participating because it was part of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp., a nonprofit organization partially funded by the city that advocated for the redevelopment. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating whether the LDC illegally lobbied for the project."
How long can a law enforcement office investigate a cold blooded shooting committed in plain day light? We've said this time and time again, the law is clear that an LDC cannot influence legislation-anywhere, anytime. So why is the AG taking so long, and is there really an investigation "ongoing?" Beats us, and we met with the office and heard the party line firsthand.
And if there is an investigation why couldn't the AG confirm as such to the comptroller and the Department of State?-and do so before the state committed over a million and a half dollars to this investigated LDC. Shulman and her developer pals must be laughing their asses off at this phony posturing-all the way to the bank.
So we suggest that Senor Schneiderman give up his Buster Keaton Keystone Kop routine and bring all of this to a head. He's suppose to not be intimidated by the powers that be-not! And as for Related, when is the anti-Wal-Mart crowd going to get its act together and go after this Willets Point charade? At the end of the day it is clear that all of the unions who supported the project were played like fools.
This entire development symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Bloomberg administration-insider trading, speculative development, cooked books, and the shafting of the little guys. The Observer gets the last word: "Numerous challenges remain for the firms, even beyond the challenges of remediating a toxic site F. Scott Fitzgerald once referred to as the Valley of Ashes...As if centuries of pollution weren’t headache enough."
"The TDC bid has also elicited howls from opponents of the project, led by the holdout property owners group Willets Point United. It argues that TDC should be barred from participating because it was part of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp., a nonprofit organization partially funded by the city that advocated for the redevelopment. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating whether the LDC illegally lobbied for the project."
How long can a law enforcement office investigate a cold blooded shooting committed in plain day light? We've said this time and time again, the law is clear that an LDC cannot influence legislation-anywhere, anytime. So why is the AG taking so long, and is there really an investigation "ongoing?" Beats us, and we met with the office and heard the party line firsthand.
And if there is an investigation why couldn't the AG confirm as such to the comptroller and the Department of State?-and do so before the state committed over a million and a half dollars to this investigated LDC. Shulman and her developer pals must be laughing their asses off at this phony posturing-all the way to the bank.
So we suggest that Senor Schneiderman give up his Buster Keaton Keystone Kop routine and bring all of this to a head. He's suppose to not be intimidated by the powers that be-not! And as for Related, when is the anti-Wal-Mart crowd going to get its act together and go after this Willets Point charade? At the end of the day it is clear that all of the unions who supported the project were played like fools.
This entire development symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Bloomberg administration-insider trading, speculative development, cooked books, and the shafting of the little guys. The Observer gets the last word: "Numerous challenges remain for the firms, even beyond the challenges of remediating a toxic site F. Scott Fitzgerald once referred to as the Valley of Ashes...As if centuries of pollution weren’t headache enough."
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Gateway Redux: Wal-Mart and the Need for Willets Point Oversight
Crain's is reporting on the bids that NYC EDC has received for its phony Phase I of the Willets Point development-a phase that simply didn't exist when the plan was approved by the NYC Council three long years ago. And lo and behold, one of the bidders is the Related Companies-the same out fit that has used a bait and switch strategy to site Wal-Mart at its Gateway Mall in East NY:
"Almost five years after Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled a sweeping plan to make over Willets Point, a 61-acre swath of pockmarked streets and auto shops in northeast Queens, the redevelopment is finally springing to life. At least four teams of bidders submitted proposals to build the project's first phase, and off-site infrastructure improvements will begin this fall in an area that has bedeviled politicians and planners since Robert Moses.
Crain's has identified four of the bidders, including The Related Companies and Silverstein Properties, though none of them would comment, citing a gag order imposed by the city."
It was the failure of the City Council to conduct an adequate oversight of the Gateway expansion-with CM Barron relying on the company's "word"-that allowed Related to sneak Wal-Mart into its retail mix. And it is the same lack of oversight that will allow Related-or any of the other developers-to do the same thing at Willets Point because, in giving its approval for the Iron Triangle, the Council gave the city carte blanche to site whatever retail use it wanted on the site.
This isn't sitting well with Local 1500 of the UFCW: "Some of the bids themselves have sparked controversy. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500 said it will vigorously oppose Related's bid because the developer is considering leasing a Brooklyn site to Walmart. The union is trying to prevent the retail giant from entering New York City."
Well, we feel 1500's pain; but a remedy is available to all of the folks in the anti-Wal-Mart coalition. That remedy lies with the fact that this Phase I is arguably an illegal segmentation that was never approved by the city council-and with enough political pressure the entire Phase could-and should-be subjected to a full ULURP review (with another EIS to address the concerns that have been raised by us here at WPU.
The only reason that there is this phased approach is because WPU has stymied the city on the building of ramps off of the Van Wyck-a matter that is now before Judge Madden's court. In pleadings before the judge the city had said that it wouldn't go forward with the project and condemn anyone's property until the ramps were approved: clearly it lied and Phase I is an illegal end around the nettlesome ramp issue.
This all opens up an opportunity for a full oversight review of the development-one that should include an economic impact analysis because no one knows what the real price tag of the development is:
"Even as the project moves forward, questions remain. The redevelopment is complicated, requiring environmental remediation, infrastructure upgrades and land acquisition. The city controls 90% of the phase-one areas, but has not ruled out using eminent domain to secure the remaining parcels, which would create a storm of opposition.
Perhaps more significantly, the division of the project into three stages—intended to get it started faster—has raised doubts that it will work financially for developers. The first phase calls for up to 680,000 square feet of retail space, as many as 400 units of mixed-income housing, up to 387 hotel rooms and about two acres of open space. The city has also asked developers to propose a vision for future stages."
At a time of budgetary cutbacks does this development still make fiscal sense? And then there's a clamor to make the area into the next Silicon Valley:
"To reach the full potential of Applied Science NYC, the city will need to think bigger and more holistically. And to build an educational and robust commercial tech corridor capable of competing with Silicon Valley, the university will need more developable space and to be globally accessible. There is a location, though, that offers accessibility and expandability, and the opportunity to build not just another Silicon Alley or Square, but a Silicon City, and it is right here in our borough’s backyard: Willets Point."
Is that a good idea? Who knows? But what we do know is that this concept wasn't part of the discussion three years ago and the fact that it might be considered highlights how all of the oversight from back then is just so inconsequential-reinforcing the need for the council to finally do its job.
For us the fact that TDC is a bidder adds insult to injury-part of the reason why we have pushed the NYS AG to act:"The TDC bid has also elicited howls from opponents of the project, led by the holdout property owners group Willets Point United. It argues that TDC should be barred from participating because it was part of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp., a nonprofit organization partially funded by the city that advocated for the redevelopment. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating whether the LDC illegally lobbied for the project."
We also can't know whether a phased approach is economical:
"The biggest challenges, though, may lie in the impact that dividing the project into phases may have on the redevelopment's economics. The city won't reveal what the firms have proposed, but observers question whether the first phase has enough housing units to make residential development viable. Responses are likely focused on entertainment, retail and hospitality, they said. Because the project requires substantial remediation, is in a flood plain, and the first phase is just 12.75 acres, it will be hard for its developer to make the finances work."
All of the above makes it imperative for the city council to step into the breach it has created for itself-a refocus on Willets Point, its environmental impact, its economic plan and its fiscal feasibility, all need to be re-examined before the city creates the same kind of empty lot that exists in New London where Suzette Kelo's house used to stand.
"Almost five years after Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled a sweeping plan to make over Willets Point, a 61-acre swath of pockmarked streets and auto shops in northeast Queens, the redevelopment is finally springing to life. At least four teams of bidders submitted proposals to build the project's first phase, and off-site infrastructure improvements will begin this fall in an area that has bedeviled politicians and planners since Robert Moses.
Crain's has identified four of the bidders, including The Related Companies and Silverstein Properties, though none of them would comment, citing a gag order imposed by the city."
It was the failure of the City Council to conduct an adequate oversight of the Gateway expansion-with CM Barron relying on the company's "word"-that allowed Related to sneak Wal-Mart into its retail mix. And it is the same lack of oversight that will allow Related-or any of the other developers-to do the same thing at Willets Point because, in giving its approval for the Iron Triangle, the Council gave the city carte blanche to site whatever retail use it wanted on the site.
This isn't sitting well with Local 1500 of the UFCW: "Some of the bids themselves have sparked controversy. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500 said it will vigorously oppose Related's bid because the developer is considering leasing a Brooklyn site to Walmart. The union is trying to prevent the retail giant from entering New York City."
Well, we feel 1500's pain; but a remedy is available to all of the folks in the anti-Wal-Mart coalition. That remedy lies with the fact that this Phase I is arguably an illegal segmentation that was never approved by the city council-and with enough political pressure the entire Phase could-and should-be subjected to a full ULURP review (with another EIS to address the concerns that have been raised by us here at WPU.
The only reason that there is this phased approach is because WPU has stymied the city on the building of ramps off of the Van Wyck-a matter that is now before Judge Madden's court. In pleadings before the judge the city had said that it wouldn't go forward with the project and condemn anyone's property until the ramps were approved: clearly it lied and Phase I is an illegal end around the nettlesome ramp issue.
This all opens up an opportunity for a full oversight review of the development-one that should include an economic impact analysis because no one knows what the real price tag of the development is:
"Even as the project moves forward, questions remain. The redevelopment is complicated, requiring environmental remediation, infrastructure upgrades and land acquisition. The city controls 90% of the phase-one areas, but has not ruled out using eminent domain to secure the remaining parcels, which would create a storm of opposition.
Perhaps more significantly, the division of the project into three stages—intended to get it started faster—has raised doubts that it will work financially for developers. The first phase calls for up to 680,000 square feet of retail space, as many as 400 units of mixed-income housing, up to 387 hotel rooms and about two acres of open space. The city has also asked developers to propose a vision for future stages."
At a time of budgetary cutbacks does this development still make fiscal sense? And then there's a clamor to make the area into the next Silicon Valley:
"To reach the full potential of Applied Science NYC, the city will need to think bigger and more holistically. And to build an educational and robust commercial tech corridor capable of competing with Silicon Valley, the university will need more developable space and to be globally accessible. There is a location, though, that offers accessibility and expandability, and the opportunity to build not just another Silicon Alley or Square, but a Silicon City, and it is right here in our borough’s backyard: Willets Point."
Is that a good idea? Who knows? But what we do know is that this concept wasn't part of the discussion three years ago and the fact that it might be considered highlights how all of the oversight from back then is just so inconsequential-reinforcing the need for the council to finally do its job.
For us the fact that TDC is a bidder adds insult to injury-part of the reason why we have pushed the NYS AG to act:"The TDC bid has also elicited howls from opponents of the project, led by the holdout property owners group Willets Point United. It argues that TDC should be barred from participating because it was part of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp., a nonprofit organization partially funded by the city that advocated for the redevelopment. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating whether the LDC illegally lobbied for the project."
We also can't know whether a phased approach is economical:
"The biggest challenges, though, may lie in the impact that dividing the project into phases may have on the redevelopment's economics. The city won't reveal what the firms have proposed, but observers question whether the first phase has enough housing units to make residential development viable. Responses are likely focused on entertainment, retail and hospitality, they said. Because the project requires substantial remediation, is in a flood plain, and the first phase is just 12.75 acres, it will be hard for its developer to make the finances work."
All of the above makes it imperative for the city council to step into the breach it has created for itself-a refocus on Willets Point, its environmental impact, its economic plan and its fiscal feasibility, all need to be re-examined before the city creates the same kind of empty lot that exists in New London where Suzette Kelo's house used to stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
