The Flushing Times has a nice report on the panicked exodus of small businesses from Union Street-the merchant corridor in the path of the huge Flushing Commons boondoggle:
"Small business owners on Union Street have slowly been making an exodus as dealings between the city and the developer of Flushing Commons continue behind closed doors, a business leader said.Ikhwan Rim, president of the Union Street Merchants Association said that out of about 100 businesses located on the west side of the street, between Northern Boulevard and 37th Avenue — just a block — about 15 longtime tenants have moved their offices elsewhere.“The fortunate ones are the ones who already left,” Rim said."
Nothing speaks to the insensitive and boneheaded mentality of the Bloomberg administration than the Flushing Commons development-a project in the middle of a thriving Asian-American small business mecca. Why was this project even considered when the current businesses of Flushing attract Asian commerce from all over the metropolitan area? Usually the consultant liars for hire talk about the need for large scale development in order to stem the outbound shoppers from the city.
The inimitable Ben Haber hits the nail on the head-linking Willets Point with the Flushing Bloomsanity:
"Merchants leaving Union Street because Flushing Commons will be bad for business is just the tip of the iceberg...The Willets Point proposal with luxury high rises, upscale shopping and a convention center, together with traffic nightmares on the Van Wyck Expressway, Grand Central Parkway and Northern Boulevard, will spell the end of all small businesses in the downtown Flushing area, as well as an extremely congested residential area beyond the congestion that currently exists."
Whose fault is this? Haber rightly lays it at the mayor's feet-and goes after him for malling the city on behalf of his rich friends: "The fault for this abomination rests with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Borough President Helen Marshall and the myopic City Council members whose primary constituents are the real estate moguls and not the poor, middle class and small business owners."
The mayor has bamboozled NYC for over ten years with the myth that he is above the dreaded special interests. Now we know who those special interests really are-the small businesses and immigrant entrepreneurs that have made the city so interesting and economically innovative.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
EDeceit
The Queens Tribune has an excellent story on the refusal of EDC to release the names of all the developers who have bid on the phony Phase I on the Willets Point development:
"New York City’s Economic Development Corporation has not yet disclosed the names of developers seeking to transform the auto repair shop oasis that is Willets Point, infuriating its opposition, Willets Point United. This year EDC will reward a contract to a private developer to turn the 62-acre Iron Triangle into what some hope will be a hub of commercial activity; the most ardent supporters of the development dream that the cratered streets that wend among the dizzying number of repair shops, scrap yards and waste processing sites will be swapped for retail outlets, hotels and perhaps a convention center. EDC denied WPU’s Freedom of Information Law request for names of the developers, though the deadline for proposals to be submitted was Sept. 9, 2011."
Does the agency have just cause? Not according to the Committee on Open Government: "EDC, however, will not confirm any of the names, and since the deadline has passed for applicants to respond, there is no good reason for the names to be kept from the public, said Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. “The developers are on equal footing if the deadline is reached,” Freeman said. “I don’t see any conceivable basis for withholding these names.”
This is par for the EDC course-always with a sharp dogleg away from transparency and the truth. As WPU points out: "An exasperated Jake Bono, a Willets Point property owner and member of WPU, agrees with Freeman. He said EDC’s lack of disclosure perplexes him. “We shouldn’t even have to ask for the names,” Bono said. “They should be there on the website instead of a bio of how great they are. It should say what they’re doing.”
Transparency is important here because EDC can't be trysted to tell the truth and will alter its public plans if it suits the needs of its crony capitalist clientele: "It’s important to disclose the names of the developers because EDC clearly cannot be held to its word,” a spokesperson for WPU said. “The need for transparency is paramount.”
The Tribune also reports on the eminent domain legislation that has recently passed the House and is headed on to the senate: "In the case of eminent domain, a bill just passed in the House of Representatives may present a future obstacle for EDC. The “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011” would curtail the powers of eminent domain nationally. Its ultimate passage is still far from assured, however, and any curtailing of eminent domain would require the overturning of a Supreme Court decision."
Of course if the Senate does pass the bill and the president signs it the Supreme Court Kelo decision will be nullified-and that would be a great day for property rights and a blow to those like Mike Bloomberg who is a zealous protector of those rights only if he himself owns the land in question.
"New York City’s Economic Development Corporation has not yet disclosed the names of developers seeking to transform the auto repair shop oasis that is Willets Point, infuriating its opposition, Willets Point United. This year EDC will reward a contract to a private developer to turn the 62-acre Iron Triangle into what some hope will be a hub of commercial activity; the most ardent supporters of the development dream that the cratered streets that wend among the dizzying number of repair shops, scrap yards and waste processing sites will be swapped for retail outlets, hotels and perhaps a convention center. EDC denied WPU’s Freedom of Information Law request for names of the developers, though the deadline for proposals to be submitted was Sept. 9, 2011."
Does the agency have just cause? Not according to the Committee on Open Government: "EDC, however, will not confirm any of the names, and since the deadline has passed for applicants to respond, there is no good reason for the names to be kept from the public, said Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. “The developers are on equal footing if the deadline is reached,” Freeman said. “I don’t see any conceivable basis for withholding these names.”
This is par for the EDC course-always with a sharp dogleg away from transparency and the truth. As WPU points out: "An exasperated Jake Bono, a Willets Point property owner and member of WPU, agrees with Freeman. He said EDC’s lack of disclosure perplexes him. “We shouldn’t even have to ask for the names,” Bono said. “They should be there on the website instead of a bio of how great they are. It should say what they’re doing.”
Transparency is important here because EDC can't be trysted to tell the truth and will alter its public plans if it suits the needs of its crony capitalist clientele: "It’s important to disclose the names of the developers because EDC clearly cannot be held to its word,” a spokesperson for WPU said. “The need for transparency is paramount.”
The Tribune also reports on the eminent domain legislation that has recently passed the House and is headed on to the senate: "In the case of eminent domain, a bill just passed in the House of Representatives may present a future obstacle for EDC. The “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011” would curtail the powers of eminent domain nationally. Its ultimate passage is still far from assured, however, and any curtailing of eminent domain would require the overturning of a Supreme Court decision."
Of course if the Senate does pass the bill and the president signs it the Supreme Court Kelo decision will be nullified-and that would be a great day for property rights and a blow to those like Mike Bloomberg who is a zealous protector of those rights only if he himself owns the land in question.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Turner vs. Gillibrand
Word has come down that newly elected Congressman Bob Turner is planning to challenge Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the upcoming November election:
"Representative Bob Turner, a Republican who unexpectedly won a House seat in a closely watched special election last year, has decided to run for the United States Senate in New York, seeking to oust Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat.
Mr. Turner came to the decision after it became clear that his Congressional district, which includes portions of Queens and Brooklyn, is one of two districts that will likely be eliminated this year in New York as part of the decennial redistricting process. New York must cut the size of its congressional delegation, to 27 from 29, to reflect slow population growth identified in the 2010 Census."
We at Willets Point United welcome Turner's challenge and are hoping that the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 will be come a key issue in the campaign. The bill which passed the House last month has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee where its fate is uncertain.
We are sending letters to both Gillibrand and Turner asking that they join with WPU at a press conference in support of the legislation. Here is the letter that we are sending:
We are writing to request that you publicly stand with the property owners of Willets Point United in support of H. R. 1433-the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012. The bill passed with an overwhelming voice vote on February 28th and was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee where its fate is uncertain.
The impetus behind the legislation comes from the fact that, while 44 states reformed their own eminent domain statutes after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, the remaining states-including New York-have held firm. New York is a particularly egregious example and should be seen as the poster child for the need to prevent eminent domain abuse-nowhere else in the country is condemnation used, on behalf of rich real estate interests, with such disregard for the rights of smaller property owners.
We at Willets Point are particularly sensitive to the issue because the City of New York has run roughshod over our property rights with countless examples of abuse-ranging from an illegal lobbying scheme to the use of fraudulent and deceptive traffic date in order to promote car and truck traffic that will jam local roads and highways.
In our fight to preserve our constitutionally protected rights to property we have reached out to local area civic groups and five of these organizations-representing approximately 10,000 Queens’ homeowners and tenants-have signed resolutions that essentially support the mandate of H. R. 1433. (Juniper Civic; Malba Gardens Civic; COMET; Bay Terrace; John Bowne Civic)
We would like to hold a news conference in support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 and we would love for you to be one of the keynote speakers for the event. Please let us know if you would be available and at what convenient date so we can plan the event with the greatest amount of community, business and labor participation.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation
"Representative Bob Turner, a Republican who unexpectedly won a House seat in a closely watched special election last year, has decided to run for the United States Senate in New York, seeking to oust Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat.
Mr. Turner came to the decision after it became clear that his Congressional district, which includes portions of Queens and Brooklyn, is one of two districts that will likely be eliminated this year in New York as part of the decennial redistricting process. New York must cut the size of its congressional delegation, to 27 from 29, to reflect slow population growth identified in the 2010 Census."
We at Willets Point United welcome Turner's challenge and are hoping that the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 will be come a key issue in the campaign. The bill which passed the House last month has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee where its fate is uncertain.
We are sending letters to both Gillibrand and Turner asking that they join with WPU at a press conference in support of the legislation. Here is the letter that we are sending:
We are writing to request that you publicly stand with the property owners of Willets Point United in support of H. R. 1433-the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012. The bill passed with an overwhelming voice vote on February 28th and was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee where its fate is uncertain.
The impetus behind the legislation comes from the fact that, while 44 states reformed their own eminent domain statutes after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, the remaining states-including New York-have held firm. New York is a particularly egregious example and should be seen as the poster child for the need to prevent eminent domain abuse-nowhere else in the country is condemnation used, on behalf of rich real estate interests, with such disregard for the rights of smaller property owners.
We at Willets Point are particularly sensitive to the issue because the City of New York has run roughshod over our property rights with countless examples of abuse-ranging from an illegal lobbying scheme to the use of fraudulent and deceptive traffic date in order to promote car and truck traffic that will jam local roads and highways.
In our fight to preserve our constitutionally protected rights to property we have reached out to local area civic groups and five of these organizations-representing approximately 10,000 Queens’ homeowners and tenants-have signed resolutions that essentially support the mandate of H. R. 1433. (Juniper Civic; Malba Gardens Civic; COMET; Bay Terrace; John Bowne Civic)
We would like to hold a news conference in support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 and we would love for you to be one of the keynote speakers for the event. Please let us know if you would be available and at what convenient date so we can plan the event with the greatest amount of community, business and labor participation.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation
Monday, March 12, 2012
Lobbying with Taxpayer Money
A controversy has arisen on the federal level that might be familiar to those of you who have followed the fight at Willets Point: lobbying with tax payer money. As the Daily Caller has reported the federal government has allocated stimulus grants to groups for the purpose of lobbying local governments to enact anti-obesity programs:
"The idea of government money going toward efforts to lobby the government sounds like some type of joke, but it’s not. Since March 2010, 30 states and Washington, D.C. have received $230 million in obesity prevention grants under the Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative (CPPW), a program established in the massive 2009 stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
HHS Secretary Sebelius defends the practice by claiming that the money isn't being used to lobby the federal government. But other law makers say that this is still not Kosher:
"According to Kentucky Republican Reps. Ed Whitfield and Brett Guthrie, lobbying with taxpayer money is illegal regardless of the level of government. In a letter the pair sent to Sebelius last week they cited multiple federal laws which prohibit the use of tax dollars to lobby any level of government. For instance, they referenced Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 1913, which states:
“No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”
This of course makes sense since lobbying is by definition a partisan activity that benefits some at the expense of others-which is precisely why Section 1411 of the NY State not for profit law expressly prohibits the lobbying use of tax payer funds by these publicly supported groups. It's a no brainer!
Apparently, however, no brains is exactly the problem suffered by the last two occupants of the NYS AG's Office:Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman. Neither man can take the investigation of the illegal lobbying done by Claire Shulman's LDC to its proper conclusion: the disbanding of a group that was improperly set up by NYC EDC to lobby in contravention of the law.
Shulman's operation was extraordinarily successful-she was the linchpin of the approval process in 2008. So what the AGs have through their nonfeasance is to approve of the illegal use of tax payer money to deprive small land owners of their property-an indication that the rule of law is a selective process in this state; and will not be applied to those deemed too important by the political sensitive law enforcement officers. What a travesty of justice!
"The idea of government money going toward efforts to lobby the government sounds like some type of joke, but it’s not. Since March 2010, 30 states and Washington, D.C. have received $230 million in obesity prevention grants under the Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative (CPPW), a program established in the massive 2009 stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
HHS Secretary Sebelius defends the practice by claiming that the money isn't being used to lobby the federal government. But other law makers say that this is still not Kosher:
"According to Kentucky Republican Reps. Ed Whitfield and Brett Guthrie, lobbying with taxpayer money is illegal regardless of the level of government. In a letter the pair sent to Sebelius last week they cited multiple federal laws which prohibit the use of tax dollars to lobby any level of government. For instance, they referenced Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 1913, which states:
“No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”
This of course makes sense since lobbying is by definition a partisan activity that benefits some at the expense of others-which is precisely why Section 1411 of the NY State not for profit law expressly prohibits the lobbying use of tax payer funds by these publicly supported groups. It's a no brainer!
Apparently, however, no brains is exactly the problem suffered by the last two occupants of the NYS AG's Office:Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman. Neither man can take the investigation of the illegal lobbying done by Claire Shulman's LDC to its proper conclusion: the disbanding of a group that was improperly set up by NYC EDC to lobby in contravention of the law.
Shulman's operation was extraordinarily successful-she was the linchpin of the approval process in 2008. So what the AGs have through their nonfeasance is to approve of the illegal use of tax payer money to deprive small land owners of their property-an indication that the rule of law is a selective process in this state; and will not be applied to those deemed too important by the political sensitive law enforcement officers. What a travesty of justice!
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Wilpon and Willets Point
We all know that the drive to redevelop Willets Point on the graves of small property owners was spurred on by the Wilpons who were looking to redevelop the area around their new stadium and increase the value of their own property in the process. Given the poor financial performance of the Mets it is clear that they need all the help they can get.
Now we find out, however, that their financial situation could very well be catastrophic-as it was revealed yesterday in Federal Court; "A federal judge ordered the owners of the New York Mets baseball team and their business partners to return as much as $83 million they withdrew from Bernard Madoff's firm and said a jury will decide whether they need to return more."
This is potentially a death blow to the Wilpons-particularly if a jury eventually decides that the Wilpons knew about the Madoff scam: "Any verdict that awards more money to Mr. Picard could have a potentially devastating impact on the team's owners. The total amount Mr. Picard is seeking isn't one that the team's owners are in a position to pay, according to people familiar with team's and the family's finances."
Which brings us to the phony Phase I of the Willets Point development-the one that the NYC EDC has refused to disclose the bidders for. It is believed that Sterling Equities-the financial arm of the Wilpons-is a bidder for the development rights. If so, this is another compelling reason why EDC should let the public in on who has made bids-since it is certainly possible that Wilpon and his partner Saul Katz will be found liable for knowingly participating in a fraud.
For too long EDC has acted with impunity-keeping the public and local elected officials in the dark about its plans. After all, the Phase I development violates all of the approvals that the project received four years ago-the last one from a clueless city council. The least the city can do is to establish an open vetting process-because we might also find that the Wal-Mart loving Related is also being short listed. And we know whenever Related gets short listed the public will be short changed.
So let's let the sun shine in on this white elephant of the mayor's-a project that will cost too much and deliver too little for the tax payers of the city.
Now we find out, however, that their financial situation could very well be catastrophic-as it was revealed yesterday in Federal Court; "A federal judge ordered the owners of the New York Mets baseball team and their business partners to return as much as $83 million they withdrew from Bernard Madoff's firm and said a jury will decide whether they need to return more."
This is potentially a death blow to the Wilpons-particularly if a jury eventually decides that the Wilpons knew about the Madoff scam: "Any verdict that awards more money to Mr. Picard could have a potentially devastating impact on the team's owners. The total amount Mr. Picard is seeking isn't one that the team's owners are in a position to pay, according to people familiar with team's and the family's finances."
Which brings us to the phony Phase I of the Willets Point development-the one that the NYC EDC has refused to disclose the bidders for. It is believed that Sterling Equities-the financial arm of the Wilpons-is a bidder for the development rights. If so, this is another compelling reason why EDC should let the public in on who has made bids-since it is certainly possible that Wilpon and his partner Saul Katz will be found liable for knowingly participating in a fraud.
For too long EDC has acted with impunity-keeping the public and local elected officials in the dark about its plans. After all, the Phase I development violates all of the approvals that the project received four years ago-the last one from a clueless city council. The least the city can do is to establish an open vetting process-because we might also find that the Wal-Mart loving Related is also being short listed. And we know whenever Related gets short listed the public will be short changed.
So let's let the sun shine in on this white elephant of the mayor's-a project that will cost too much and deliver too little for the tax payers of the city.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
EDC: Hide and Sneak
NYCEDC Response
NYCEDC's FOIL Response: Access Denied
Agency refuses to disclose just the names of the developer firms that responded to the Willets Point Phase One Request for Proposals
Wpu Foil Request
NYCEDC's FOIL Response: Access Denied
Agency refuses to disclose just the names of the developer firms that responded to the Willets Point Phase One Request for Proposals
Decision is contrary to a legal advisory opinion of the New York State Committee on Open Government
Willets Point United to appeal
* * *
As the deadline for developer firms to respond to the New York City Economic Development Corporation's ("NYCEDC") Request for Proposals ("RFP") seeking a developer for "Phase One" of the proposed Willets Point development was September 9, 2011, and NYCEDC has stated that it intends to select the developer this spring, there is interest in knowing the identities of all of the respondent firms, and how many there are.
The press has speculated about the identities of the RFP respondent firms, but NYCEDC has not confirmed any specific information. Given that elected officials have allocated $410 million taxpayer dollars to this project, the public has every right to expect transparency from NYCEDC, especially concerning the availability of non-sensitive information regarding interested developer firms.
This is particularly true since questions have been raised about a certain developer in this town and its affinity for one particular box store. In addition, there is the other question about how this developer seems to always get favored nation status. Crony capitalism anyone? Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") routinely makes Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") requests of NYCEDC and other agencies, to obtain information that is not otherwise published. One such Request, sent by WPU to NYCEDC on January 14, 2012, sought records that would reveal just the names of the firms that responded to the Phase One RFP.
WPU deliberately limited the scope of the Request so that it excluded the creative content and other sensitive items of respondent firms' proposals. NYCEDC's response, dated February 22, 2012, acknowledges that NYCEDC possesses records that are responsive to the Request; but denies access to all of them. NYCEDC claims that disclosing the records – that is, just the names of the RFP respondent firms – "would impair present or imminent contract awards".
WPU disagrees, and considers NYCEDC's denial of access to be especially outrageous, because it conflicts with a published legal advisory opinion of the New York State Committee on Open Government ("COG"), the Albany-based agency that administrates both New York State's Freedom of Information Law and its Open Meetings Law.
Indeed, prior to sending this FOIL Request to NYCEDC, WPU consulted with COG, whose Executive Director and counsel confirmed that under the circumstances of this Request, it is unlikely that NYCEDC can justify withholding the requested records. That is, disclosing only the names of the RFP respondents would not impair any contract award.
In a prior case that is strikingly similar to WPU's present Request – involving a FOIL Request seeking RFP records that only identify respondent firms, at a time after the RFP response deadline has passed but prior to the award of a contract pertaining to the RFP – COG's legal advisory opinion concludes: "I do not believe that the policy of withholding the names of submitters of proposals, or bids, until a contract is awarded is consistent with the Freedom of Information Law." (The entire advisory opinion is accessible online at: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f8937.htm)
WPU included an excerpt of that COG advisory opinion within the FOIL Request. NYCEDC's Records Access Officer, Annette Shannon, was aware of the advisory opinion when she decided to deny access to the requested records. WPU believes that it is unlawful for NYCEDC to deny access to the requested records, which would reveal just the identities of the Phase One RFP respondent firms.
WPU is appealing from NYCEDC's denial of access, and if NYCEDC's FOIL Appeals Officer does not grant the Request within 10 business days, then WPU will have no choice but to commence a court proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to compel NYCEDC to produce the requested records.
Everyone in NYC should be concerned about the secrecy at NYCEDC – an unaccountable agency that operates beyond the reach of any oversight. NYCEDC needs to give up the names of the developers ASAP: Let the sun shine in!
The press has speculated about the identities of the RFP respondent firms, but NYCEDC has not confirmed any specific information. Given that elected officials have allocated $410 million taxpayer dollars to this project, the public has every right to expect transparency from NYCEDC, especially concerning the availability of non-sensitive information regarding interested developer firms.
This is particularly true since questions have been raised about a certain developer in this town and its affinity for one particular box store. In addition, there is the other question about how this developer seems to always get favored nation status. Crony capitalism anyone? Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") routinely makes Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") requests of NYCEDC and other agencies, to obtain information that is not otherwise published. One such Request, sent by WPU to NYCEDC on January 14, 2012, sought records that would reveal just the names of the firms that responded to the Phase One RFP.
WPU deliberately limited the scope of the Request so that it excluded the creative content and other sensitive items of respondent firms' proposals. NYCEDC's response, dated February 22, 2012, acknowledges that NYCEDC possesses records that are responsive to the Request; but denies access to all of them. NYCEDC claims that disclosing the records – that is, just the names of the RFP respondent firms – "would impair present or imminent contract awards".
WPU disagrees, and considers NYCEDC's denial of access to be especially outrageous, because it conflicts with a published legal advisory opinion of the New York State Committee on Open Government ("COG"), the Albany-based agency that administrates both New York State's Freedom of Information Law and its Open Meetings Law.
Indeed, prior to sending this FOIL Request to NYCEDC, WPU consulted with COG, whose Executive Director and counsel confirmed that under the circumstances of this Request, it is unlikely that NYCEDC can justify withholding the requested records. That is, disclosing only the names of the RFP respondents would not impair any contract award.
In a prior case that is strikingly similar to WPU's present Request – involving a FOIL Request seeking RFP records that only identify respondent firms, at a time after the RFP response deadline has passed but prior to the award of a contract pertaining to the RFP – COG's legal advisory opinion concludes: "I do not believe that the policy of withholding the names of submitters of proposals, or bids, until a contract is awarded is consistent with the Freedom of Information Law." (The entire advisory opinion is accessible online at: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f8937.htm)
WPU included an excerpt of that COG advisory opinion within the FOIL Request. NYCEDC's Records Access Officer, Annette Shannon, was aware of the advisory opinion when she decided to deny access to the requested records. WPU believes that it is unlawful for NYCEDC to deny access to the requested records, which would reveal just the identities of the Phase One RFP respondent firms.
WPU is appealing from NYCEDC's denial of access, and if NYCEDC's FOIL Appeals Officer does not grant the Request within 10 business days, then WPU will have no choice but to commence a court proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to compel NYCEDC to produce the requested records.
Everyone in NYC should be concerned about the secrecy at NYCEDC – an unaccountable agency that operates beyond the reach of any oversight. NYCEDC needs to give up the names of the developers ASAP: Let the sun shine in!
Wpu Foil Request
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Unconventional Wisdom
The NY Times focuses today on the fact that we now have two areas of Queens-Willets Point and Aqueduct-looking at a possible convention center when experts believe we really don't even need one. This is what passes for economic development wisdom from the governor and the mayor-dumb and dumber:
"Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is writing a book on convention centers, said attendance had been declining for more than a decade, and started to drop even before the current economic downturn. He said the trend was a result of tighter spending by businesses and the Internet’s ability to let clients examine new products and communicate with far-flung peers."
So, how about two centers? "Thus, building two centers in Queens, or even one, “makes no sense whatsoever,” Professor Sanders said. “You’re talking about building more space in a market that’s oversupplied,” he continued." That brings us to the original convention idea at Willets Point-the so-called linchpin of the redevelopment of that area:
"In December, when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg broke ground for sewer mains and storm drains for Willets Point to open the way for the neighborhood’s transformation, the city’s Web site trumpeted a convention center, citing it as helping to create “New York’s next great neighborhood.”
Oh well, never mind the experts are at work so let's not disturb them. But WPU's Jake Bono is disturbed by all of this sleight of hand:
"Jake Bono of Bono Sawdust Supply, which for almost 80 years has sold sawdust to circuses and horse farms, said that if the Aqueduct convention center was built, “that point-blank means there’s not even a need for a convention center at Willets Point.” As Mr. Bono sees it, local politicians have been staging a “charade,” wielding a convention center at Willets Point as a politically palatable enticement to justify the destruction of what is, to some eyes, an unsightly warren of car-repair shops that now greets fans patronizing the nearby Citi Field."
Now remember that the entire basis for the use of eminent domain is that there be a sensible economic development plan in place-but it seems that as far as Willets Point plan is concerned there is only this: get these little guys out of there because they're stinking up the joint. Jack Friedman represents this view-after all, it's not his property the city is looking to take: "Willets Point right now looks like something in a third-world nation, and if we’re going to be able to maximize economic opportunities it’s going to require full redevelopment,” said Jack Friedman, the chamber’s executive director." Which makes him something of a chamber pot, no?
Folks there is no economic plan for Willets Point apart from the land grab-the city will figure out what to do with the area when it gets around to giving Related or Vornado the keys to the abandoned property. What the Bloomberg administration has been doing for ten years is little more than crony capitalism-and his friends in the real estate industry are really proud of their billionaire brother for sticking up for them in these hard times.
Will Helen Marshal voice an objection-after all, the convention center was the rationale for her support? Don't hold your breathe: "Queens officials have also regarded the city’s redevelopment plan as intimately intertwined with a convention center. Helen M. Marshall, the borough president, was reportedly taken aback when she heard of the governor’s Aqueduct proposal. “What happened to Willets Point?” was the way Dan Andrews, her spokesman, described her reaction. “Oh my God, there’s going to be two!”
The BP Is, however, like Gumby-flexible to the extreme:
"...Ms. Marshall had since embraced the idea that there could indeed be two convention centers, the one at Aqueduct and a smaller space of fewer than 400,000 square feet at Willets Point for smaller trade shows and for local and regional conferences of, say, the Queens medical and dental societies. Events at such a center may be too big to fit into a hotel ballroom but not big enough for the proposed Aqueduct center. And the Queens Chamber of Commerce emphasizes that “an exhibition hall or conference center” was only a single feature in the overall plan."
Marshall, who hasn't taken a courageous stand in a thirty year political career would have accepted a partridge in a pear tree-the quintessential go along to get along kinda gal. But this mess simply highlights what we at WPU have said all along. The Willets Point development is a charade and there is nothing worthwhile going on here aside from the taking of property for its own sake-and for whoever the rich player to be named later the mayor designates.
"Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is writing a book on convention centers, said attendance had been declining for more than a decade, and started to drop even before the current economic downturn. He said the trend was a result of tighter spending by businesses and the Internet’s ability to let clients examine new products and communicate with far-flung peers."
So, how about two centers? "Thus, building two centers in Queens, or even one, “makes no sense whatsoever,” Professor Sanders said. “You’re talking about building more space in a market that’s oversupplied,” he continued." That brings us to the original convention idea at Willets Point-the so-called linchpin of the redevelopment of that area:
"In December, when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg broke ground for sewer mains and storm drains for Willets Point to open the way for the neighborhood’s transformation, the city’s Web site trumpeted a convention center, citing it as helping to create “New York’s next great neighborhood.”
Oh well, never mind the experts are at work so let's not disturb them. But WPU's Jake Bono is disturbed by all of this sleight of hand:
"Jake Bono of Bono Sawdust Supply, which for almost 80 years has sold sawdust to circuses and horse farms, said that if the Aqueduct convention center was built, “that point-blank means there’s not even a need for a convention center at Willets Point.” As Mr. Bono sees it, local politicians have been staging a “charade,” wielding a convention center at Willets Point as a politically palatable enticement to justify the destruction of what is, to some eyes, an unsightly warren of car-repair shops that now greets fans patronizing the nearby Citi Field."
Now remember that the entire basis for the use of eminent domain is that there be a sensible economic development plan in place-but it seems that as far as Willets Point plan is concerned there is only this: get these little guys out of there because they're stinking up the joint. Jack Friedman represents this view-after all, it's not his property the city is looking to take: "Willets Point right now looks like something in a third-world nation, and if we’re going to be able to maximize economic opportunities it’s going to require full redevelopment,” said Jack Friedman, the chamber’s executive director." Which makes him something of a chamber pot, no?
Folks there is no economic plan for Willets Point apart from the land grab-the city will figure out what to do with the area when it gets around to giving Related or Vornado the keys to the abandoned property. What the Bloomberg administration has been doing for ten years is little more than crony capitalism-and his friends in the real estate industry are really proud of their billionaire brother for sticking up for them in these hard times.
Will Helen Marshal voice an objection-after all, the convention center was the rationale for her support? Don't hold your breathe: "Queens officials have also regarded the city’s redevelopment plan as intimately intertwined with a convention center. Helen M. Marshall, the borough president, was reportedly taken aback when she heard of the governor’s Aqueduct proposal. “What happened to Willets Point?” was the way Dan Andrews, her spokesman, described her reaction. “Oh my God, there’s going to be two!”
The BP Is, however, like Gumby-flexible to the extreme:
"...Ms. Marshall had since embraced the idea that there could indeed be two convention centers, the one at Aqueduct and a smaller space of fewer than 400,000 square feet at Willets Point for smaller trade shows and for local and regional conferences of, say, the Queens medical and dental societies. Events at such a center may be too big to fit into a hotel ballroom but not big enough for the proposed Aqueduct center. And the Queens Chamber of Commerce emphasizes that “an exhibition hall or conference center” was only a single feature in the overall plan."
Marshall, who hasn't taken a courageous stand in a thirty year political career would have accepted a partridge in a pear tree-the quintessential go along to get along kinda gal. But this mess simply highlights what we at WPU have said all along. The Willets Point development is a charade and there is nothing worthwhile going on here aside from the taking of property for its own sake-and for whoever the rich player to be named later the mayor designates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
