Opponents of a living wage are now trying to use the Willets Point development as a weapon in their efforts to kill the measure in its crib. As Crain's reports:
"Opponents of the measure are promising a fight. They've advertised in local newspapers and a dozen plan to testify at the council hearing. “It's no surprise that the same union which helped kill 2,000 good jobs at the Kingsbridge Armory is back on the bandwagon now,” said a spokesman for a coalition of business groups that oppose the bill. The opponents say it would make it impossible to develop retail projects in the outer boroughs. An insider at one firm that bid for the first phase of the Willets Point redevelopment said the project “would be unleaseable,” and therefore unbuildable, if the living-wage ordinance passes."
Now many of these opponents-looking no doubt at the fundraising opportunity derived from fronting for the big real estate interests-are local chambers of commerce. What strikes us about this is that these chambers are supposed to be representing the neighborhood businesses-you know those small retailers that are the backbone of the NYC economy.
For their edification those 2,000 jobs would have come at the expense of the retailers on Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads-all done courtesy of the subsidizing from Mike Bloomberg's crony capitalism program for economic (aggrandizement) of his billionaire real estate buddies. And that 2,000 number is risible since the Gateway Mall built on the gravesite of the Bronx Terminal Market was supposed to generate over 3,000 jobs but yielded around 900.
But it seems that if the living wage is applied to Willets Point than it would be the death knell of the project-at least according to the vaunted (and self interested) "insider" that Crain's finds to courageously comment on the issue: "Any project that has a large retail component will not be able to get over the burden with national retailers,” the insider said."
Wonder who that was? Perhaps Jesse Masyr the lawyer for the Related Companies whose Armory project was bitch slapped by the RWDSU. In our view if the Willets Point project would be doomed without a ban on living wage than that's just another good reason why the development should be relegated to the dustbin of NYC history. It is, after all, the retail mall on the site that creates most of the unmitigatable traffic for the project.
If NYC is going to squander hundreds of millions-or in the case of Willets Point, billions-of dollars to take away property from the little people to give to the well heeled interests, than the peons working at the site need to be paid a living wage-period! If that can't be done than the entire development needs to be re-thought. It has become an intolerable burden on NYC tax payers in these recessionary times.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Bloomberg Silence: Part II
Earlier we pointed out that the mayor's new found stab at eloquence should be shelved for silence because of the paucity of achievements that the Bloomberg administration can justifyingly point to. In doing so we left at a significant reason-and perhaps the most significant reason-for the mayor to remain mute-especially in the area of fiscal management. In this regard Mike Bloomberg is throwing stones from inside a glass house.
The NY Post highlights the incongruity of the 99 lb weakling trying to Bogart a bully pulpit:
"Sure, when it comes to Washington’s spending, he’s got all the answers. But critics note New York City’s debt has ballooned on Mayor Bloomberg’swatch. Hizzoner said on Tuesday that fixing the federal budget is “just not that difficult to do, if you have courage.” He scolded President Obama and both houses of Congress for their budget gridlock, sketching out a cost cutting, tax raising, entitlement shaving plan that he said would dismantle the deficit and balance the budget in 10 years. “I was reminded of the guy telling his neighbor how to fix his roof while his own is leaking,” Councilman James Oddo (RSI/Brooklyn) said of Bloomberg’s lecture. “Ten years into the mayor’s term, we have large, longterm fiscal problems we have not dealt with.”
The sharp minded Nicole Gelinas adds more ridicule to the mayor's farcical posturing: "Debt above 15 percent of personal income is not a good idea,” said Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute. Worse, the mayor has kicked the can down the road when it comes to the budget busters of the future. “The city continues to take on pension and healthcare benefits for its current and future retirees that it cannot afford,” Gelinas said."
Mike Bloomberg has increased the size and scope of NYC government with little or no evident payoff in terms of better services-pay attention to the education budget if you want the sad truth. In the process of hiring more and more municipal workers he has added to the ballooning debt that is saddling future generations of New Yorkers.
And where is the danger in all of this impecunious behavior? Right in the capitol budget where the city is kicking the debt can down the road: "The expense budget, which by law must be balanced every year, is funded by taxes and fees. Money for the capital budget comes from bonds that the city sells to investors and must pay off, with interest, over many years. The city’s growing debt comes from increases in capital spending, which means higher principal and interest payments."
Which gets us to the issue of the development of Willets Point. Can we afford to develop the site and increase the burgeoning debt for a project that might take decades to come to fruition? In raising this question we are still waiting for the city to put a price tag on all of this silliness. Someone should try to get the answer to this and get the cost/benefit equation before the public in the context of the city's debt crisis.
The NY Post highlights the incongruity of the 99 lb weakling trying to Bogart a bully pulpit:
"Sure, when it comes to Washington’s spending, he’s got all the answers. But critics note New York City’s debt has ballooned on Mayor Bloomberg’swatch. Hizzoner said on Tuesday that fixing the federal budget is “just not that difficult to do, if you have courage.” He scolded President Obama and both houses of Congress for their budget gridlock, sketching out a cost cutting, tax raising, entitlement shaving plan that he said would dismantle the deficit and balance the budget in 10 years. “I was reminded of the guy telling his neighbor how to fix his roof while his own is leaking,” Councilman James Oddo (RSI/Brooklyn) said of Bloomberg’s lecture. “Ten years into the mayor’s term, we have large, longterm fiscal problems we have not dealt with.”
The sharp minded Nicole Gelinas adds more ridicule to the mayor's farcical posturing: "Debt above 15 percent of personal income is not a good idea,” said Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute. Worse, the mayor has kicked the can down the road when it comes to the budget busters of the future. “The city continues to take on pension and healthcare benefits for its current and future retirees that it cannot afford,” Gelinas said."
Mike Bloomberg has increased the size and scope of NYC government with little or no evident payoff in terms of better services-pay attention to the education budget if you want the sad truth. In the process of hiring more and more municipal workers he has added to the ballooning debt that is saddling future generations of New Yorkers.
And where is the danger in all of this impecunious behavior? Right in the capitol budget where the city is kicking the debt can down the road: "The expense budget, which by law must be balanced every year, is funded by taxes and fees. Money for the capital budget comes from bonds that the city sells to investors and must pay off, with interest, over many years. The city’s growing debt comes from increases in capital spending, which means higher principal and interest payments."
Which gets us to the issue of the development of Willets Point. Can we afford to develop the site and increase the burgeoning debt for a project that might take decades to come to fruition? In raising this question we are still waiting for the city to put a price tag on all of this silliness. Someone should try to get the answer to this and get the cost/benefit equation before the public in the context of the city's debt crisis.
Bloomberg: Silence is Golden
The NY Times has a long and seemingly pointless article about the mayor's new penchant for public speaking:
"MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG is not, by his own admission, much of a wordsmith. He is forever mispronouncing names — even those of his own commissioners. He is impatient with speechwriters. And he rarely, if ever, practices his remarks. “His mentality,” concedes his top speechwriter, Francis S. Barry, “is not one of rehearsal.” But despite his rhetorical handicaps and a reputation for perfunctory prose, New York City’s uneasy speaker in chief is doing something unexpected in his third term: embracing grand-scale oratory with fervor."
Puleeze! Why anyone-but particularly Mike Barbaro over at the Times-would want to wax eloquent about a man whose eloquence is, to be charitable, in very short supply is beyond us. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to public dialogue is silence-and when he does reach for grand oratory, as he did with the GZ mosque, the results are more cacophonous than the rhetoric itself.
What Bloomberg is now doing is styling because he no longer has to worry about the backlash from his jarring inability to put a comprehensive and mellifluous sentence together: "Mr. Bloomberg, of course, rarely shies from speaking his mind, a quality that has long grated and gratified New Yorkers in equal measures. But in these lengthy and lofty speeches, even those closest to the mayor sense a new found liberation — from worries about polls (which remain middling), re-election (impossible) or the White House (a dream abandoned). "
What truly funny, however, is that the Times observes that the mayor's newly discovered rhetorical flourishes are designed to distract from what has long been considered-although wrongly in our view-his forte: bureaucratic expertise; "It is a striking shift for Mr. Bloomberg, 69, whose reputation as a bureaucratic maestro has been dented by a series of managerial missteps, leaving the administration eager to burnish his legacy and elevate him above the daily dramas of municipal government."
That Barbaro writes this straight faced is dripping with irony. Now that his bureaucratic expertise has been exposed as a hoax the mayor is going to resort to some kind of rhetorical renaissance to literally talk his way out of the failed paper bag that he finds himself in? Isn't this silly? And why does Barbaro-a first rate political reporter-find himself writing seriously on a topic that should have been relegated to a humor column?
The CitiTime scandal, the exposed failures of the public schools, and the snow storm debacle-not to mention his handling of the Goldsmiith resignation-has left the mayor's reputation for managerial expertise in tatters. That he wants to change the subject by reaching for an eloquence above his considerable pay grade is simply risible.
But back to the putative eloquence surrounding the GZ mosque:
"The intense national debate during the summer of 2010 over the proposed Islamic center, to include a mosque in a building only blocks from ground zero, did much to change that. The mayor, the first major public figure to express forceful support for the project, insisted on giving a rousing speech that he tinkered with and tweaked endlessly, even on the 10-minute ferry ride out to Governors Island, where he delivered it. In an unapologetic tone, he argued that the government had no right to tell a religious group where to pray, and that tolerance was at the core of New York life."
This was an issue that directly was connected to core constitutional values-at least as Bloomberg saw them. That he was at the same time tone deaf about what a majority of New Yorkers saw as an inappropriate siting issue, well, who cares-Mike Bloomberg was never one to consider the feelings of his inferiors. What's ironic for us is that Bloomberg''s defense of Constitutional rights, his faux eloquence, was extremely limited-and never was expanded to, let's say, property rights.
The issue of the mosque never involved freedom of worship-it was a land use matter. The taking of private property, however, is a core Constitutional issue-and that Bloomberg doesn't give a rat's ass about the rights of Jake Bono, Irene Presti and the others at Willets Point speaks volumes about his priorities and values.
The entire discussion of the mayor's bully pulpit is downright farcical-and by focusing on it the Times elides the more serious discussion of the fact that the emperor stands clothesless before history-having failed in better than a decade to distinguish himself in any area of public policy. That he now feels he even has a bully pulpit we find deserving of nothing but scorn. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to the public dialogue would be a merciful silence.
"MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG is not, by his own admission, much of a wordsmith. He is forever mispronouncing names — even those of his own commissioners. He is impatient with speechwriters. And he rarely, if ever, practices his remarks. “His mentality,” concedes his top speechwriter, Francis S. Barry, “is not one of rehearsal.” But despite his rhetorical handicaps and a reputation for perfunctory prose, New York City’s uneasy speaker in chief is doing something unexpected in his third term: embracing grand-scale oratory with fervor."
Puleeze! Why anyone-but particularly Mike Barbaro over at the Times-would want to wax eloquent about a man whose eloquence is, to be charitable, in very short supply is beyond us. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to public dialogue is silence-and when he does reach for grand oratory, as he did with the GZ mosque, the results are more cacophonous than the rhetoric itself.
What Bloomberg is now doing is styling because he no longer has to worry about the backlash from his jarring inability to put a comprehensive and mellifluous sentence together: "Mr. Bloomberg, of course, rarely shies from speaking his mind, a quality that has long grated and gratified New Yorkers in equal measures. But in these lengthy and lofty speeches, even those closest to the mayor sense a new found liberation — from worries about polls (which remain middling), re-election (impossible) or the White House (a dream abandoned). "
What truly funny, however, is that the Times observes that the mayor's newly discovered rhetorical flourishes are designed to distract from what has long been considered-although wrongly in our view-his forte: bureaucratic expertise; "It is a striking shift for Mr. Bloomberg, 69, whose reputation as a bureaucratic maestro has been dented by a series of managerial missteps, leaving the administration eager to burnish his legacy and elevate him above the daily dramas of municipal government."
That Barbaro writes this straight faced is dripping with irony. Now that his bureaucratic expertise has been exposed as a hoax the mayor is going to resort to some kind of rhetorical renaissance to literally talk his way out of the failed paper bag that he finds himself in? Isn't this silly? And why does Barbaro-a first rate political reporter-find himself writing seriously on a topic that should have been relegated to a humor column?
The CitiTime scandal, the exposed failures of the public schools, and the snow storm debacle-not to mention his handling of the Goldsmiith resignation-has left the mayor's reputation for managerial expertise in tatters. That he wants to change the subject by reaching for an eloquence above his considerable pay grade is simply risible.
But back to the putative eloquence surrounding the GZ mosque:
"The intense national debate during the summer of 2010 over the proposed Islamic center, to include a mosque in a building only blocks from ground zero, did much to change that. The mayor, the first major public figure to express forceful support for the project, insisted on giving a rousing speech that he tinkered with and tweaked endlessly, even on the 10-minute ferry ride out to Governors Island, where he delivered it. In an unapologetic tone, he argued that the government had no right to tell a religious group where to pray, and that tolerance was at the core of New York life."
This was an issue that directly was connected to core constitutional values-at least as Bloomberg saw them. That he was at the same time tone deaf about what a majority of New Yorkers saw as an inappropriate siting issue, well, who cares-Mike Bloomberg was never one to consider the feelings of his inferiors. What's ironic for us is that Bloomberg''s defense of Constitutional rights, his faux eloquence, was extremely limited-and never was expanded to, let's say, property rights.
The issue of the mosque never involved freedom of worship-it was a land use matter. The taking of private property, however, is a core Constitutional issue-and that Bloomberg doesn't give a rat's ass about the rights of Jake Bono, Irene Presti and the others at Willets Point speaks volumes about his priorities and values.
The entire discussion of the mayor's bully pulpit is downright farcical-and by focusing on it the Times elides the more serious discussion of the fact that the emperor stands clothesless before history-having failed in better than a decade to distinguish himself in any area of public policy. That he now feels he even has a bully pulpit we find deserving of nothing but scorn. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to the public dialogue would be a merciful silence.
Friday, November 11, 2011
One Mississippi...
Well the supposed rubes and rednecks down in Dixie have a lot more on the ball than New York sophisticates-at least when it comes to the Constitution and the right of private property. This past Tuesday the voters of Mississippi voted overwhelmingly in favor of an eminent domain referendum that severely restricted the government from condemning property:
"WJTV, Channel 1 of Jackson, Mississippi, reports that in yesterday’s election the eminent domain amendment to the state constitution passed by a whoppping 73% to 27% margin, in spite of opposition by Republican Governor Hailey Barbour. The new constitutional provision prohibits the taking of private property for commercial redevelopment. Under its terms the taker must hold the property for at least 10 years before conveying it."
What this indicates is that the people of the state have more sense than their governor-remember that back in 2009 Governor Haley Barbour had vetoed the strong anti-condemnation bill that had passed the legislature:
"Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour vetoed eminent domain reform legislation yesterday after it was passed with strong support from both houses of the state legislature. Today, the Mississippi House voted 101 to 19 to override the veto, but the Senate has yet to weigh in. Mississippi is one of the few states not to have passed eminent domain reform legislation since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision."
Of course enlightened New York has yet to even make a small move in the direction of reform. And Governor Barbour is a role model for Mike Bloomberg in this regard-a front man supreme for crony capitalism:
"But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, "Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project."
That sob story may be true, but it still does nothing to justify the state's forcible seizure of private property for the benefit a rich and powerful corporation. Toyota won't be building bridges or roads or waterways or any other legitimate public project that might permit the use (or threat) of eminent domain. It wants to build a plant to manufacture cars and then sell them for a profit. That's not a legitimate public use."
As Reason Magazine points out: "...if Barbour wants to attract business to his state, he might try pushing for lower corporate taxes or for any number of other pro-business enticements that don't involve stripping citizens of their fundamental rights." And if Bloomberg wants to promote economic development he might try making the NYC business climate just a bit more hospitable-something that tax happy Mike finds inordinately hard to do.
"WJTV, Channel 1 of Jackson, Mississippi, reports that in yesterday’s election the eminent domain amendment to the state constitution passed by a whoppping 73% to 27% margin, in spite of opposition by Republican Governor Hailey Barbour. The new constitutional provision prohibits the taking of private property for commercial redevelopment. Under its terms the taker must hold the property for at least 10 years before conveying it."
What this indicates is that the people of the state have more sense than their governor-remember that back in 2009 Governor Haley Barbour had vetoed the strong anti-condemnation bill that had passed the legislature:
"Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour vetoed eminent domain reform legislation yesterday after it was passed with strong support from both houses of the state legislature. Today, the Mississippi House voted 101 to 19 to override the veto, but the Senate has yet to weigh in. Mississippi is one of the few states not to have passed eminent domain reform legislation since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision."
Of course enlightened New York has yet to even make a small move in the direction of reform. And Governor Barbour is a role model for Mike Bloomberg in this regard-a front man supreme for crony capitalism:
"But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, "Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project."
That sob story may be true, but it still does nothing to justify the state's forcible seizure of private property for the benefit a rich and powerful corporation. Toyota won't be building bridges or roads or waterways or any other legitimate public project that might permit the use (or threat) of eminent domain. It wants to build a plant to manufacture cars and then sell them for a profit. That's not a legitimate public use."
As Reason Magazine points out: "...if Barbour wants to attract business to his state, he might try pushing for lower corporate taxes or for any number of other pro-business enticements that don't involve stripping citizens of their fundamental rights." And if Bloomberg wants to promote economic development he might try making the NYC business climate just a bit more hospitable-something that tax happy Mike finds inordinately hard to do.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mississippi Becomes the 44th State to Reject Kelo v. New London Ruling
Eminent Domain Reform Passes with 73 Percent of Vote
Jackson, Miss. — In a tremendous victory for property rights, 73 percent of Mississippians yesterday overwhelmingly rejected the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London to become the 44th state to pass stronger protections for property owners against eminent domain abuse.
Initiative 31 amends the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit the government from seizing private property by eminent domain and handing it to other private entities. Government agencies that take private property by eminent domain for a public use must own and use that property for 10 years before selling or transferring it to a new, private owner. Restricting the transfer of the property the government acquires by eminent domain discourages the forced transfer of property from one private owner to another private owner under the guise of “economic development” and will protect the vast majority of property owners in Mississippi.
“Mississippians and their property are safer today—their homes, farms or businesses cannot be taken by eminent domain simply to be to be handed over to others for private profit,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner.
Mississippi had been one of only seven states that have not yet enacted any type of eminent domain reform since the Kelo decision which took away the homes of seven New London, Conn., families for private development and sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain for private gain. IJ represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“In 2009, Governor Haley Barbour vetoed a strong eminent domain reform bill that passed overwhelmingly by both houses of the state legislature,” said Christina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions at the Institute for Justice. “Like all typical eminent domain abuse apologists, Barbour claimed that economic growth would screech to a halt if big corporations couldn’t use eminent domain to seize perfectly fine private property. As we demonstrate in Doomsday, No Way: Economic Development and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform, that’s false—and yesterday’s vote demonstrates that Mississippians recognize that, even if Barbour refuses to.”
This was the third attempt to reform Mississippi’s eminent domain laws. A lawsuit was filed earlier this year to keep Mississippians from voting on Initiative 31 but IJ and the Mississippi Farm Bureau worked to keep it on the ballot.
IJ filed an amicus brief in the Mississippi Supreme Court on behalf of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference – Jackson Chapter and the Mississippi Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business. In a September 2011 ruling the Supreme Court allowed the initiative to remain on the ballot but said it could be challenged if enacted.
“Voters in Mississippi spoke loud and clear: The government does not have the power to take their property and give it to a private developer,” said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “Mississippi can finally be added to the list of states that have reformed their laws to provide better protections for property owners against government abuse.”
Friday, October 21, 2011
Shulman's Four Flushing
The Queens Chronicle has a hilarious story on the Claire Shulman-led LDC's attempt to do to the Flushing waterfront what it collaborated to do at Willets Point: take other people's property for the benefit of some of the developer members of her phony not for profit. Make no mistake about it, the "brownfield's grant' is simply a ruse and will lead to the displacement of the existing property owners-in spite of what the dissembling Shulman tell the local press.
Here's Shulman at her prevaricating best: "Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered. “This is not a land grab,” said former borough President Claire Shulman, who heads the LDC. “We are not taking over property." Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered."
Oh boy! Now keep in mind that it was the rancid eClaire that got up before the city council three years ago, and when asked if she was getting any more money from EDC-this was just at the time when it was revealed that she had been illegally lobbying-she simply lied to the council and thereby forestalled any further inquiries into her illegal lobbying scheme.
Now she wants us to believe that she's telling the truth in Flushing-which makes her in our view, a "four flusher." After all, the renderings on her own website tell a different story about this not being a "land grab." But maybe she is like the stopped clock, telling the truth for once. After all, maybe-since TDC owns a swath of land on the waterfront-she is just looking to get OPM to clean up TDC's land so it doesn't have to pay for the clean up itself (and raise the value of the property at the same time). Either way, this has nothing to do with the community.
And just to put the right book ends on this tall tale we find another fabulous fibber in the mix once again: "Lynn Do, one of the consultants from AKRF Inc., said the purpose of the grant is to develop “a flexible master plan” that will be community-based and “will enhance waterfront access.” She noted that Flushing is “bursting at the seams” and “we need to go west to create a place to visit and live.”
AKRF! The same folks who tried to lie their way past State DOT with a traffic study that, let's put it kindly, bent the truth curve. So, of course, they are the perfect consultants for this Shulman production. There was one bright suggestion that was offered by an anonymous person: "No more people." The plans for Willets Point-and now Flushing (don't forget Flushing Commons) will inundate these communities and all of the neighborhoods that surround them.
Not to worry, we will still have AKRF to alleviate your worries by letting one and all know that there will be no traffic congestion because of ramps that will be built-right into the Flushing River.
Here's Shulman at her prevaricating best: "Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered. “This is not a land grab,” said former borough President Claire Shulman, who heads the LDC. “We are not taking over property." Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered."
Oh boy! Now keep in mind that it was the rancid eClaire that got up before the city council three years ago, and when asked if she was getting any more money from EDC-this was just at the time when it was revealed that she had been illegally lobbying-she simply lied to the council and thereby forestalled any further inquiries into her illegal lobbying scheme.
Now she wants us to believe that she's telling the truth in Flushing-which makes her in our view, a "four flusher." After all, the renderings on her own website tell a different story about this not being a "land grab." But maybe she is like the stopped clock, telling the truth for once. After all, maybe-since TDC owns a swath of land on the waterfront-she is just looking to get OPM to clean up TDC's land so it doesn't have to pay for the clean up itself (and raise the value of the property at the same time). Either way, this has nothing to do with the community.
And just to put the right book ends on this tall tale we find another fabulous fibber in the mix once again: "Lynn Do, one of the consultants from AKRF Inc., said the purpose of the grant is to develop “a flexible master plan” that will be community-based and “will enhance waterfront access.” She noted that Flushing is “bursting at the seams” and “we need to go west to create a place to visit and live.”
AKRF! The same folks who tried to lie their way past State DOT with a traffic study that, let's put it kindly, bent the truth curve. So, of course, they are the perfect consultants for this Shulman production. There was one bright suggestion that was offered by an anonymous person: "No more people." The plans for Willets Point-and now Flushing (don't forget Flushing Commons) will inundate these communities and all of the neighborhoods that surround them.
Not to worry, we will still have AKRF to alleviate your worries by letting one and all know that there will be no traffic congestion because of ramps that will be built-right into the Flushing River.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Shulman's Trojan Horse
The local media is covering the Shulman Brownfield's grant-with the Times Ledger provided the most informative coverage. The Ledger gets the extent to which this is a Trojan Horse-with all of the existing Flushing waterfront businesses having a very limited shelf life because of Shulman's plan:
"The controversial plan to redevelop the downtown Flushing waterfront has been cast into the spotlight in recent days. The issue resurfaced after many months of relative dormancy when the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. announced recently that it had applied for and received a $1.5 million grant from the New York Department of State despite an ongoing investigation by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman into alleged state lobbying violations by the group."
The Ledger's Conner Sheets takes a picture of the Flushing waterfront future for his story-and this one is the proverbial 1,000 words because, in depicting the glorious transformation on the river, we notice that all of the existing businesses have been disappeared. This is the Shulman/TDC grand plan-and it is grand theft by Madam Shulman who is acting as the procurer for TDC and other developers. The LDC is certainly not any community-based group.
This reminds us of a ditty that the satirist Tom Lehrer once told about how his brother's dog got run over the other day-but the driver did it with such skill that the bystanders awarded him both ears and the tail. That is how the crafty old Shulman is doing this real estate slight-of-hand; acting as a community group, stealing city and state funds to promote her schemes, and turning the fruits of her labors over to the like of TDC-one of the most community minded citizens of the entire borough.
The Ledger gives WPU an opportunity to vent on this outrage:
"Representatives for Willets Point United, a group of Willets Point property owners opposed to the city’s plan for the 62-acre area, are furious the state is awarding money to the group. “In order to qualify to receive the grant in question, a community-based organization must represent a community having a demonstrated financial need,” wrote Gerald Antonacci, co-owner of Crown Container Co. and president of Willets Point United, in a letter to DiNapoli’s office.
He added later that “we believe that [the office of state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s] dispersal of $1,505,700.00 to the LDC under all of the above described circumstances will materially and negatively impact the state’s reputation.”
Shulman, ever intrepid and forthright, adds that she is looking forward to the AG's investigation coming to a conclusion (does she know something?)-but adds a salient point: "Shulman said Tuesday she is glad Schneiderman is looking into the lobbying claims so that the issue can be put to bed.
“The attorney general has this. Hopefully, he’ll make a decision about what it’s all about. And it’s not just us. It’s the Economic Development Corp., who also lobbied, but they came after us, even though I was told I could lobby, so I finally registered. It’s going to be adjudicated to its final outcome now,” she said Tuesday. “With this project I’ve got to move forward, I’ve got to keep moving, and hopefully we’ll strike oil.” (Emphasis added)
Yes Claire, EDC was your partner in crime and was violating the law along with you. But the difference between the two LDCs is a fine line, but a line nonetheless-only Shulman's LDC was a direct front group for well heeled developers. But we can see why she is so sanguine about the outcome because all of the powers that be are her co-conspirators-and shame on all of them!
"The controversial plan to redevelop the downtown Flushing waterfront has been cast into the spotlight in recent days. The issue resurfaced after many months of relative dormancy when the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. announced recently that it had applied for and received a $1.5 million grant from the New York Department of State despite an ongoing investigation by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman into alleged state lobbying violations by the group."
The Ledger's Conner Sheets takes a picture of the Flushing waterfront future for his story-and this one is the proverbial 1,000 words because, in depicting the glorious transformation on the river, we notice that all of the existing businesses have been disappeared. This is the Shulman/TDC grand plan-and it is grand theft by Madam Shulman who is acting as the procurer for TDC and other developers. The LDC is certainly not any community-based group.
This reminds us of a ditty that the satirist Tom Lehrer once told about how his brother's dog got run over the other day-but the driver did it with such skill that the bystanders awarded him both ears and the tail. That is how the crafty old Shulman is doing this real estate slight-of-hand; acting as a community group, stealing city and state funds to promote her schemes, and turning the fruits of her labors over to the like of TDC-one of the most community minded citizens of the entire borough.
The Ledger gives WPU an opportunity to vent on this outrage:
"Representatives for Willets Point United, a group of Willets Point property owners opposed to the city’s plan for the 62-acre area, are furious the state is awarding money to the group. “In order to qualify to receive the grant in question, a community-based organization must represent a community having a demonstrated financial need,” wrote Gerald Antonacci, co-owner of Crown Container Co. and president of Willets Point United, in a letter to DiNapoli’s office.
He added later that “we believe that [the office of state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s] dispersal of $1,505,700.00 to the LDC under all of the above described circumstances will materially and negatively impact the state’s reputation.”
Shulman, ever intrepid and forthright, adds that she is looking forward to the AG's investigation coming to a conclusion (does she know something?)-but adds a salient point: "Shulman said Tuesday she is glad Schneiderman is looking into the lobbying claims so that the issue can be put to bed.
“The attorney general has this. Hopefully, he’ll make a decision about what it’s all about. And it’s not just us. It’s the Economic Development Corp., who also lobbied, but they came after us, even though I was told I could lobby, so I finally registered. It’s going to be adjudicated to its final outcome now,” she said Tuesday. “With this project I’ve got to move forward, I’ve got to keep moving, and hopefully we’ll strike oil.” (Emphasis added)
Yes Claire, EDC was your partner in crime and was violating the law along with you. But the difference between the two LDCs is a fine line, but a line nonetheless-only Shulman's LDC was a direct front group for well heeled developers. But we can see why she is so sanguine about the outcome because all of the powers that be are her co-conspirators-and shame on all of them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
