One additional point on the Judge Madden ruling against the city. Recall that EDC has argued that it should be allowed to proceed with its phony Phase I because of its vaunted Technical Memorandum. As we have pointed out this is sheer arrogance because no independent expert has evaluated the memo and given the agency's propensity for deception it would not be wise to do so-and the judge certainly won't.
Madden also addresses WPU's right to request that she vacate the original order dismissing the case-and points to the issue of misrepresentation as a just cause for doing so. As the judge says;
"Here, in the original Article 78 proceeding, the FGEIS assumed the ramps would be approved and did not analyze alternatives if approval was not obtained. Additionally, the City acknowledged that the ramps were an integral part of the plan and that the plan as conceived could not proceed without the ramps, and repeatedly and clearly stated that it would not seek to exercise its power of eminent domain prior to obtaining approval of the ramps. In reaching the decision to dismiss the petition, I relied upon the City’s representations.
As the City has now changed its position and is seeking to exercise its powers of eminent domain without approval of the ramps, indirect contradiction of its prior representations, and based on the significance of the ramps to the plan, I conclude that the integrity of the decision-making process has been impacted and sufficient reasons exist for me to consider vacating my prior judgment...
I conclude that I have the inherent power to entertain petitioners’ concerns regarding the City’s new staged approach to the development of Willets Point and to consider the adequacy of Technical Memorandum, and that it is in the interests of justice to do so."
What the judge is trying to say is that the city is engaged in an illegal segmentation-trying to avoid the ramp review and accomplish the development of Willets Point in piecemeal fashion. Professor Rick Hills lays this out in a blog post: "Judge Madden ruled today against New York City in the Willets Point litigation, holding that the City's changing its position regarding the need for a highway ramp undermined the factual basis for her earlier decision upholding the City's final generic environmental impact statement ("FGEIS"). In effect, she accused the City of playing a game of "bait-and-switch" -- obtaining judicial approval of an FGEIS on the basis of one set of facts and then changing those facts after securing a favorable ruling."
What we have year is an ends justify the means mentality that sacrifices integrity and ethical behavior for unscrupulous representations before the city council as well as the court. Remember living wage? Just another example of the bait and switch philosophy that EDC believes is justified by its vision of the future development of Willets Point-and anyone who gets in the way of that vision better watch out!
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Judge Madden Re-Opens Willets Point Case "In The Interests Of Justice"
In a ruling that will send shock waves throughout the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) corridors down at 110 William Street – not to mention City Hall – New York State Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden has decided to reopen a lawsuit filed by Willets Point United Inc. (WPU) "in the interests of justice". Judge Madden's decision comes roughly three months after hearing oral arguments in which the City urged the judge to deny WPU's motion to reopen the case.
But Judge Madden has rejected the City's arguments that she could not reopen her prior decision that dismissed WPU's lawsuit. Instead, Judge Madden ruled that she has inherent power to reopen this case, and she agrees with WPU that the City attempting to proceed with "Phase One" of the proposed Willets Point development without approval of the Van Wyck Expressway ramps is "in direct contradiction of [the City's] prior representations" to the court – representations on which Judge Madden relied when dismissing the case during 2010. The City had told the court in sworn depositions from Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber and an EDC official that it would not condemn any property at Willets Point until the Van Wyck ramps were approved. Today those ramps remain unapproved, but the city has gone back on its word and commenced condemnation anyway.
A key portion of Judge Madden's decision is the following:
"... the City acknowledged that the [Van Wyck] ramps were an integral part of the plan and that the plan as conceived could not proceed without the ramps, and repeatedly and clearly stated that it would not seek to exercise its power of eminent domain prior to obtaining approval of the ramps. In reaching the decision to dismiss the petition, I relied upon the City’s representations. As the City has now changed its position and is seeking to exercise its powers of eminent domain without approval of the ramps, in direct contradiction of its prior representations, and based on the significance of the ramps to the plan, I conclude that the integrity of the decision-making process has been impacted and sufficient reasons exist for me to consider vacating my prior judgment. The question remains as to whether doing so would be in the interests of justice. ... I conclude that I have the inherent power to entertain petitioners’ concerns regarding the City’s new staged approach to the development of Willets Point and to consider the adequacy of [the] Technical Memorandum, and that it is in the interests of justice to do so."
Attorney Michael Gerrard of the law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, who represents Willets Point United Inc. and presented the case on August 17, 2011 before Judge Madden, said:
"This decision casts a large dark cloud over the Willets Point development. It upholds our claims that the City's breach of its promises not to condemn property without approval of the ramps may have serious legal consequences. Many further proceedings lie ahead but today, at last, a judge has heard us and agreed with us that the City cannot run roughshod over the environmental laws and over the rights of the businesses that are struggling to survive."
WPU is pleased that Judge Madden has recognized that our complaints of wrongdoing by the City are legitimate, and are grounds for additional legal review.
WPU will be back in Judge Madden's courtroom on January 27, 2012 at 10AM.
Judge Madden's Williets Point Preliminary DecisionVideo of portions of the oral arguments before Judge Madden on August 17, 2011; courtesy of the Queens Ledger newspaper:
Friday, December 2, 2011
Bloomberg Shovels it at Willets Point
The NY Daily News reports on the "groundbreaking for the sewer construction project that is the linchpin of the Willets Point development-70 years after the first property owners began to beg the city for primary services:
"Mayor Bloomberg broke ground Thursday on a controversial redevelopment that he vowed will transform gritty Willets Point into “a major engine for economic growth.” Bloomberg unearthed dirt with a slew of elected officials just steps from the mix of auto body shops and junkyards that abuts Citi Field.
“We are that much closer to the vibrant Willets Point of the future,” Bloomberg said at a news conference near the World’s Fair Marina along Flushing Bay."
All we can hear, however, is Paul Simon singing, "Slip Slidin' Away:" "You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away..." WPU's Joe Ardizzone hit back at the faux optimism: "But Willets Point United, a coalition of stakeholders critical of the project, blasted Bloomberg and Pinsky for jumping the gun. “The city is trying to create an impression of a fait accompli when there are serious legal and financial issues unresolved,” said Joe Ardizzone, 78, the lone resident of Willets Point."
In an NY1 story WPU's Antonacci blasts the city's years of neglect: "Business owners point out that it's not their fault the streets look rough. They paid taxes for years, and now they're the ones bearing the brunt of the city's neglect. Jerry Antonacci's family has run a carting business for 35 years.
"It's gotta be over a million dollars over 30 years in taxes, and what do we get for it? We're getting kicked out. I mean, we didn't get no streets, we didn't get no sewers, we didn't get no sidewalks, no street signs, no stop signs, no snow plowing, nothing," said Antonacci."
We did get a chuckle about the comments of EDC's boy president: "Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., said the proposal will turn Willets Point into “one of the great and vibrant neighborhoods of New York City.” In fact we have a great name for the new "vibrant" neighborhood: Gridlock City! The overdeveloped Willets point might better resemble a Roach Motel-where the roaches get in but can't get out.
And what have they been putting in BP Marshall's coffee? Here's her observation about the plight of the existing businesses: "Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said she wants all Willets Point businesses to be re-located to the same spot. “I would like to see them placed somewhere they can work as a team,” she said."
EDC-in usual prevarication mode-chimed in: "As for threatened businesses, officials insist they're offering fair market value and relocation help." This amounts to the usual one way bus ticket out of town.
Of course no one at EDC shares her vision for the displaced workers and their employers-and especially not CM Ferreras who has given up any pretense of advocacy on their behalf in exchange for marionette strings. Here's her inane prattle on NY1: "This was an area that we just didn't walk by. It wasn't safe and I would come by with my dad only," said City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras."
What she was saying, however-inadvertently making a strong counter intuitive point-was that when her dad needed something for his car Willets Point was the destination. As for walking, why would you walk in Willets point when there were no paved roads or sidewalks? It was not, after all, El Malecón.
NY1 did also bring in the living wage issue: "A retail union also alleges there’s double-talk on higher wages for those that will eventually work there. In a 2008 letter, city officials said they will favorably view development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the city's living wage and health benefit. With construction union backing, City Hall officials now say that would jeopardize the project."
So the city is going to put over 200 businesses and 1800 mostly minority workers out of a job-put hundreds of millions of dollars into the development-and they say that a living wage requirement would kill the deal? What that means to us is that the plan calls for box stores and more box stores-another about face from the original Lieber letter to the city council-where the deputy mayor lied about, "suburban box stores being discouraged due to their significant impacts on traffic and vehicular circulation."
Willets Point was created in dishonesty and illegality and that pattern continues to this day. The "beautiful vision" that Marshall sees rests on fraud and deception and, as Max Weber once observed, the use of nefarious means to achieve good ends usually results in the opposite. Willets Point is a case in point.
"Mayor Bloomberg broke ground Thursday on a controversial redevelopment that he vowed will transform gritty Willets Point into “a major engine for economic growth.” Bloomberg unearthed dirt with a slew of elected officials just steps from the mix of auto body shops and junkyards that abuts Citi Field.
“We are that much closer to the vibrant Willets Point of the future,” Bloomberg said at a news conference near the World’s Fair Marina along Flushing Bay."
All we can hear, however, is Paul Simon singing, "Slip Slidin' Away:" "You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away..." WPU's Joe Ardizzone hit back at the faux optimism: "But Willets Point United, a coalition of stakeholders critical of the project, blasted Bloomberg and Pinsky for jumping the gun. “The city is trying to create an impression of a fait accompli when there are serious legal and financial issues unresolved,” said Joe Ardizzone, 78, the lone resident of Willets Point."
In an NY1 story WPU's Antonacci blasts the city's years of neglect: "Business owners point out that it's not their fault the streets look rough. They paid taxes for years, and now they're the ones bearing the brunt of the city's neglect. Jerry Antonacci's family has run a carting business for 35 years.
"It's gotta be over a million dollars over 30 years in taxes, and what do we get for it? We're getting kicked out. I mean, we didn't get no streets, we didn't get no sewers, we didn't get no sidewalks, no street signs, no stop signs, no snow plowing, nothing," said Antonacci."
We did get a chuckle about the comments of EDC's boy president: "Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., said the proposal will turn Willets Point into “one of the great and vibrant neighborhoods of New York City.” In fact we have a great name for the new "vibrant" neighborhood: Gridlock City! The overdeveloped Willets point might better resemble a Roach Motel-where the roaches get in but can't get out.
And what have they been putting in BP Marshall's coffee? Here's her observation about the plight of the existing businesses: "Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said she wants all Willets Point businesses to be re-located to the same spot. “I would like to see them placed somewhere they can work as a team,” she said."
EDC-in usual prevarication mode-chimed in: "As for threatened businesses, officials insist they're offering fair market value and relocation help." This amounts to the usual one way bus ticket out of town.
Of course no one at EDC shares her vision for the displaced workers and their employers-and especially not CM Ferreras who has given up any pretense of advocacy on their behalf in exchange for marionette strings. Here's her inane prattle on NY1: "This was an area that we just didn't walk by. It wasn't safe and I would come by with my dad only," said City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras."
What she was saying, however-inadvertently making a strong counter intuitive point-was that when her dad needed something for his car Willets Point was the destination. As for walking, why would you walk in Willets point when there were no paved roads or sidewalks? It was not, after all, El Malecón.
NY1 did also bring in the living wage issue: "A retail union also alleges there’s double-talk on higher wages for those that will eventually work there. In a 2008 letter, city officials said they will favorably view development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the city's living wage and health benefit. With construction union backing, City Hall officials now say that would jeopardize the project."
So the city is going to put over 200 businesses and 1800 mostly minority workers out of a job-put hundreds of millions of dollars into the development-and they say that a living wage requirement would kill the deal? What that means to us is that the plan calls for box stores and more box stores-another about face from the original Lieber letter to the city council-where the deputy mayor lied about, "suburban box stores being discouraged due to their significant impacts on traffic and vehicular circulation."
Willets Point was created in dishonesty and illegality and that pattern continues to this day. The "beautiful vision" that Marshall sees rests on fraud and deception and, as Max Weber once observed, the use of nefarious means to achieve good ends usually results in the opposite. Willets Point is a case in point.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Bloomberg Sneaks into Willets Point Sewer
Mayor Bloomberg cavorts with employees of Cruz Construction -- the Holmdel, New Jersey firm that was awarded a $40 million contract to install sewer lines at Willets Point.
Earlier today Mayor Bloomberg snuck into Willets Point in order to do a photo op at the site of the sewer construction project-that has yet to be permitted by the DEC! He was so proud of this opportunity that there was no notice of the event last night on his official schedule-and the event took place close to the Flushing River where Willets Point businesses were not likely to take notice.
The photo op was also-with a tip of the hat to Robert Moses-premature since there are numerous legal and financial obstacles that face the city before this development can move forward. It is not surprising, however, that EDC would put the photo op horse before the permit cart-something it also did with the ramps off the Van Wyck. What this all indicates is that the city is desperate to show some progress-three years after the initial approval by the city council.
The permit application may very well run into a serious legal problem since-as our letter to the DEC highlights-EDC is violating the environmental justice guidelines that the agency has promulgated-Willets Point is in an "environmental justice area," which means that care must be taken-along with "enhanced participation"-to include all stakeholders in order to insure that a project doesn't have a disparate impact on minorities.
Since there are around 1800 Hispanic workers set to be displaced if the development goes forward we think there is reason to assume that there will be considerable disparate impact. But the photo op says it all. Take a close look at all the hard hats with the mayor-not a single black or brown face.
This dramatizes how the Bloomberg administration sees environmental justice as, "just us." And the fact that the city couldn't find a local firm to do the work underscores their mind over matter mindset-they don't mind and tax payers don't matter.
DEC Letter from Mike Gerrard
Above is a letter sent by WPU's environmental attorney, Michael Gerrard, of the law firm Arnold and Porter, to DEC.
The gist of the letter is that NYCEDC has failed to comply with the "enhanced public participation" process that is required by DEC Commissioner Policy 29, for NYCEDC's permit application to dump water from the construction site into the Flushing bay. The failures to comply invalidate steps that NYCEDC has taken thus far to attempt to obtain DEC's approval of the permit. Moreover, DEC may not even be entitled to grant NYCEDC's permit application, because the proposed work enables the Willets Point development -- which involves an adverse environmental impact upon an environmental justice area, which is contrary to the concept of "fair treatment" set forth within DEC Commissoner Policy 29. WPU has sent copies of this letter to State Senator Avella, Council Member Ferreras, and State Assemblyman Peralta.
How can you hold a groundbreaking for a project without having the necessary permits to do start the project and no guarantee that you will get them?
It's not just dirt they're shoveling!
Living Wage and Bloomberg Hypocrisy That Won't Die
The living wage controversy that has found its way into the fight over the Willets Point development continues to roil the local political scene. The Times Ledger focuses in on the Willets Point part of the affair:
"The EDC has also been criticized by Willets Point United, a property owners group, over the topic of a living wage requirement for retail employees who might one day work in the planned $3 billion development that will include both commercial and residential space. The group cited a recently leaked letter written in 2008 from the city to Gary LaBarbera, then head of the city Central Labor Council, that said the request for proposals would include language about a living wage.
The letter states: “As we discussed, we will include the following language in the Willets Point RFP .... NYCEDC will view favorably development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the city’s living wage and health benefit standards (‘living wage jobs’).”
This doesn't sit well with the RWDSU-the main proponent of the living wage law: "But the actual request for proposals did not include such language. And the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which touted the redevelopment project as a boon for local workers, is not happy. “They clearly broke the promise and reneged on what they said,” said Dan Morris, a spokesman for the union and for Living Wage NYC Coalition. Morris said a living wage bill, currently being debated in the City Council, would prevent this from happening in the future."
But what about the promise on Willets Point? Doesn't this invalidate the agreement? It certainly should caution the city council about any deals it makes with the mayor on land use applications-their word is simply not credible and stronger measures are needed to prevent the cynical about faces that we have seen on Willets Point.
The mayor, however, continues to stand strong against the living wage concept even though-as the IBO has pointed out-the city has hundreds of living wage provisions in its contracts. Capital explains:
"Still, there was a time when the Bloomberg administration didn't find it all that complicated. Today, Doug Turetsky, chief of staff for the nonpartisan, publicly funded Independent Budget Office, pointed out that the city already has living-wage provisions in place covering the employees of food-service and security firms under contract with the city. In 2002, Bloomberg himself signed into law a bill extending the wage requirements to cover home health care and child care workers under contract with the city. Bloomberg also supported instituting living wage-like provisions at Willets Point.
This new bill under consideration in the Council would apply to only six or seven projects a year, according to the I.B.O. “That’s a small number compared with the 437 contracts the city signed in fiscal year 2011 that are subject to the existing living-wage law,” writes Turetsky."
And where would a living wage argument be without the Kingsbridge Armory straw man? "To bolster his point, Bloomberg pointed to what has been Exhibit A for opponents of the wage mandate: Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx, where developer Related Companies once proposed investing more than $300 million to build a mall. In 2009, the City Council, overriding a mayoral veto, defeated Related's plan, after it refused to comply with wage demands. “You saw up in the Bronx what happened when somebody tried to do that,” said Bloomberg. “Thousands of jobs that would have been created by now just aren’t there and it’s hard to see in the immediate future how we’re ever going to catch up and make up for that.”
CM Fidler picked up the same false argument:
"I think the problem that many of us have with the bill is that we all like it in principle,” he said. “The fact remains that that same principle guided our decision on the Kingsbridge Armory, and it’s still empty."
“Who am I to tell someone that no job is better than a job that doesn’t pay a quote-un-quote living wage,” he continued. “And, what do I say to the person, who says, ‘Wait a second. I would have had one of those jobs. I want one of those jobs.'”
Lost in all of this is the fact that the Armory project-subsidized by millions of public dollars-was a poor economic development investment because it threatened the existing local retail base. So Fidler should ask himself, Should public dollars be invested so that a local store owner would be forced out of business? The Bloomberg model is a zero sum game and Fidler-a strong defender of local stores-should be smart enough to realize that.
Which brings us back to Willets Point. It is unclear whether the current legislation would apply to Willets Point but shouldn't labor and the council be holding Bloomberg to his commitment? Was the Willets Point living wage promise simply a ruse to gain approval of a controversial project? If so, isn't it time for the council to exercise its oversight authority?
"The EDC has also been criticized by Willets Point United, a property owners group, over the topic of a living wage requirement for retail employees who might one day work in the planned $3 billion development that will include both commercial and residential space. The group cited a recently leaked letter written in 2008 from the city to Gary LaBarbera, then head of the city Central Labor Council, that said the request for proposals would include language about a living wage.
The letter states: “As we discussed, we will include the following language in the Willets Point RFP .... NYCEDC will view favorably development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the city’s living wage and health benefit standards (‘living wage jobs’).”
This doesn't sit well with the RWDSU-the main proponent of the living wage law: "But the actual request for proposals did not include such language. And the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which touted the redevelopment project as a boon for local workers, is not happy. “They clearly broke the promise and reneged on what they said,” said Dan Morris, a spokesman for the union and for Living Wage NYC Coalition. Morris said a living wage bill, currently being debated in the City Council, would prevent this from happening in the future."
But what about the promise on Willets Point? Doesn't this invalidate the agreement? It certainly should caution the city council about any deals it makes with the mayor on land use applications-their word is simply not credible and stronger measures are needed to prevent the cynical about faces that we have seen on Willets Point.
The mayor, however, continues to stand strong against the living wage concept even though-as the IBO has pointed out-the city has hundreds of living wage provisions in its contracts. Capital explains:
"Still, there was a time when the Bloomberg administration didn't find it all that complicated. Today, Doug Turetsky, chief of staff for the nonpartisan, publicly funded Independent Budget Office, pointed out that the city already has living-wage provisions in place covering the employees of food-service and security firms under contract with the city. In 2002, Bloomberg himself signed into law a bill extending the wage requirements to cover home health care and child care workers under contract with the city. Bloomberg also supported instituting living wage-like provisions at Willets Point.
This new bill under consideration in the Council would apply to only six or seven projects a year, according to the I.B.O. “That’s a small number compared with the 437 contracts the city signed in fiscal year 2011 that are subject to the existing living-wage law,” writes Turetsky."
And where would a living wage argument be without the Kingsbridge Armory straw man? "To bolster his point, Bloomberg pointed to what has been Exhibit A for opponents of the wage mandate: Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx, where developer Related Companies once proposed investing more than $300 million to build a mall. In 2009, the City Council, overriding a mayoral veto, defeated Related's plan, after it refused to comply with wage demands. “You saw up in the Bronx what happened when somebody tried to do that,” said Bloomberg. “Thousands of jobs that would have been created by now just aren’t there and it’s hard to see in the immediate future how we’re ever going to catch up and make up for that.”
CM Fidler picked up the same false argument:
"I think the problem that many of us have with the bill is that we all like it in principle,” he said. “The fact remains that that same principle guided our decision on the Kingsbridge Armory, and it’s still empty."
“Who am I to tell someone that no job is better than a job that doesn’t pay a quote-un-quote living wage,” he continued. “And, what do I say to the person, who says, ‘Wait a second. I would have had one of those jobs. I want one of those jobs.'”
Lost in all of this is the fact that the Armory project-subsidized by millions of public dollars-was a poor economic development investment because it threatened the existing local retail base. So Fidler should ask himself, Should public dollars be invested so that a local store owner would be forced out of business? The Bloomberg model is a zero sum game and Fidler-a strong defender of local stores-should be smart enough to realize that.
Which brings us back to Willets Point. It is unclear whether the current legislation would apply to Willets Point but shouldn't labor and the council be holding Bloomberg to his commitment? Was the Willets Point living wage promise simply a ruse to gain approval of a controversial project? If so, isn't it time for the council to exercise its oversight authority?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Columbia's CBA: An EDC Progeny is Stillborn
The WSJ is reporting on the disarray in the West Harlem Local Development Corporation-the entity midwifed by EDC to implement a community benefits agreement. The CBA was the sugar that was designed to make the bitter Columbia expansion plan medicine go down smoothly in the local West Harlem neighborhood:
"It was supposed to be a breakthrough victory for Harlem residents and a model on how to settle raging land-use disputes.But more than 2½ years after Columbia University brokered an agreement with community groups—exchanging a lucrative package of benefits for the area's blessing of the university's expansion into West Harlem—local officials and residents are complaining that the fruits of the deal remain a mystery."
This is really nothing new and the seeds of this calamity were reported by the NY Post a year and a half ago: "A $76 million windfall intended to help Harlem residents is in limbo -- and may never be paid -- because the politician-backed nonprofit in charge of distributing the money is in disarray, the Post has learned. Although it formed four years ago, the West Harlem Local Development Corp. lacks a mission statement, has yet to get tax-exempt status from the IRS and doesn't even have a phone number. The group already has received $500,000 from Columbia University -- part of a 16-year payout designed to assuage community fears over the school's expansion -- yet hasn't spent a cent on the neighborhood."
This was why Nick Sprayregen-the property owner who fought the project-walked away from the group. He saw just how fraudulent the whole scheme was: "Concerns about the agreement surfaced even before it was drafted in December 2007. Five West Harlem board members resigned, upset over the heavy-handedness of the politicians involved in negotiating with Columbia. "The LDC sacrificed good development because it wanted to control a slush fund," Tom DeMott, one of the former board members, told The Post. Another former board member, the Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, said the politicians "dominated the LDC." Kooperkamp, the rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Harlem, said the pols "whittled down" the community initiatives, which included better housing and subsidized transportation for seniors."
What is missing from the Journal story today is the extent to which EDC played a significant role in this charade-after all someone brought Jesse Masyr in, pro bono, to negotiate the pact and we don't think it was the residents of the community. Masyr is as smart a land use attorney as you can find in this city but even he would resist the appellation, "community spokesperson."
What this means for us at WPU is that the city will do and say anything once it embarks on a condemnation venture-and the use of a CBA is a neat trick used to beguile the gullible to sign off on a bad deal. This is reminiscent of EDC's promises of living wage at Willets Point. What the latest deceit makes abundantly clear is that Diogenes would not strike pay dirt down at 110 William Street.
"It was supposed to be a breakthrough victory for Harlem residents and a model on how to settle raging land-use disputes.But more than 2½ years after Columbia University brokered an agreement with community groups—exchanging a lucrative package of benefits for the area's blessing of the university's expansion into West Harlem—local officials and residents are complaining that the fruits of the deal remain a mystery."
This is really nothing new and the seeds of this calamity were reported by the NY Post a year and a half ago: "A $76 million windfall intended to help Harlem residents is in limbo -- and may never be paid -- because the politician-backed nonprofit in charge of distributing the money is in disarray, the Post has learned. Although it formed four years ago, the West Harlem Local Development Corp. lacks a mission statement, has yet to get tax-exempt status from the IRS and doesn't even have a phone number. The group already has received $500,000 from Columbia University -- part of a 16-year payout designed to assuage community fears over the school's expansion -- yet hasn't spent a cent on the neighborhood."
This was why Nick Sprayregen-the property owner who fought the project-walked away from the group. He saw just how fraudulent the whole scheme was: "Concerns about the agreement surfaced even before it was drafted in December 2007. Five West Harlem board members resigned, upset over the heavy-handedness of the politicians involved in negotiating with Columbia. "The LDC sacrificed good development because it wanted to control a slush fund," Tom DeMott, one of the former board members, told The Post. Another former board member, the Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, said the politicians "dominated the LDC." Kooperkamp, the rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Harlem, said the pols "whittled down" the community initiatives, which included better housing and subsidized transportation for seniors."
What is missing from the Journal story today is the extent to which EDC played a significant role in this charade-after all someone brought Jesse Masyr in, pro bono, to negotiate the pact and we don't think it was the residents of the community. Masyr is as smart a land use attorney as you can find in this city but even he would resist the appellation, "community spokesperson."
What this means for us at WPU is that the city will do and say anything once it embarks on a condemnation venture-and the use of a CBA is a neat trick used to beguile the gullible to sign off on a bad deal. This is reminiscent of EDC's promises of living wage at Willets Point. What the latest deceit makes abundantly clear is that Diogenes would not strike pay dirt down at 110 William Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
