Willets Point as the “new” 42nd Street: EDC Village Has a New Idiot

The mayor keeps finding these guys, and we are hoping that whoever takes his place will start looking for people to head economic development who don’t appear that they just emerged from an extended stay at Creedmoor. The latest genius is Kyle Kimball, EDC’s new leader, who managed to mangle history by the following distortion of the historical record:

“The revitalization of Willets Point — the industrial Queens neighborhood that is set to undergo an extensive renovation — could help transform the neighborhood like the project that helped reclaim 42nd Street two decades ago, the president of the Economic Development Corporation said Tuesday.

While the finished neighborhood will be “very different” from Times Square, the redevelopment is being approached the same way, Kyle Kimball, the EDC president said while speaking at a public hearing at City Hall.”

Unfortunately for the hapless Mr. Kimball, what happened at Times Square bears no relationship to what the city is planning to do to Willets Point-and we were there at the time, but don’t take our word, listen to what William Stern has to say. Who’s he? Well, only the guy who was in charge of the original eminent domain-centered plan for 42^nd Street:

“By popular lore, the revival of Times Square ranks among the most celebrated achievements of New York City in recent years.  In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, Times Square was sleazy, crime-ridden and so physically and economically blighted it represented a threat to public safety—but today it is nearly crime free.  It is filled with tourists, and world-class corporations dwell and prosper within its borders.  It is celebrated as a triumph of “urban planning,” “public-private partnership,” the wise use of the power of eminent domain, an example of the intelligent intervention of government into private real estate markets.

All of it is a myth.” 

Just like what is being planned for Willets Point-the Myth of Mike. But continue to listen to Stern set the record straight:

“In 1983, when I went to work for Governor Mario Cuomo as chairman and chief executive of New York State’s Urban Development Corporation (UDC), I was convinced I knew how government planning could transform the Times Square I saw at that time to what it is today.  The truth is, however, almost none of the grandiose plans my colleagues and I created and aggressively spearheaded ever came to fruition.  Our extravagant plans actually retarded development.  The changes in Times Square occurred despitegovernment, not because of it.  Times Square succeeded for reasons that had little to do with our building and condemnation schemes and everything to do with government policy that allowed the market to do its work, the way development occurs every day nationwide.  By lowering taxes, enforcing the law, and getting out of the way instead of serving as real estate broker, the government incentivized investment and construction and encouraged the rebirth of Times Square to what it is today.”

So, let’s not suffer from delusions being proffered by sleazy government bureaucrats with one eye and a leg out the door into the real estate industry-as did the late unlamented Seth Pinsky did just this year. As the Observer reported:

“The waning months of Mayor Bloomberg’s reign are expected to be marked by a series of high-powered departures, as one official after another jumps ship before the mayor leaves office. The latest is Bloomberg stalwart and Dan Doctoroff protégée Seth Pinsky, who is stepping down from the Economic Development Corporation to take a private sector gig with RXR Realty, as the agency announced today.”

But what the Observer article underscores is just how much the EDC has become a cat’s paw for big finance and big real estate: 

“Mr. Pinsky, who worked as an investment analyst and lawyer, refinancing real estate deals for the big banks as an associate at Cleary Gottlieb before leading the EDC…”

What Kimball is trying to do is pull the wool over the public’s eyes so the sheer level of unethical and criminal behavior by his quasi-public agency will remain unobserved. The fact tha EDC was forced by the NYS AG to completely restructure its corporate structure because of illegal lobbying was somehow unmentioned in his testimony-and no council member had the integrity to hold EDC to account for this.

Here’s what the state’s Urban Development Corporation under Stern had planned for the “deuce:”

“Under my watch, the UDC gained approval to put in place one of the largest urban renewal projects nationwide, in the heart of midtown Manhattan no less.  Mayor Koch—who assumed office on the tail of a traumatic fiscal crisis—and Governor Cuomo enthusiastically supported it.  Although fierce, bitter rivals, both “saw political opportunity in the ragged morality of the notorious boulevard.  Each sensed the chance to create a higher national profile for himself as the moral savior of ‘the Deuce.’” 

And so the tumultuous collaboration began.

The 42^nd Street Development Project would have made the emperors of Rome green with envy.  Its biggest component was to be Times Square Center:  four giant office towers, containing 4.1 million square feet of floor space in all, looming over Times Square’s southern border.  Offered a $240 million tax abatement, relatively unknown George Klein’s Park Tower Realty would develop the site.  

Upon being chosen, Klein had just completed only his third major building in New York City, raising many eyebrows as to why this newcomer would get this potentially (and enormously!) lucrative nod.”

Could it have been a little political insider trading? Heaven forbid-after all, Related and Sterling Equities got the Willets bid fair and square. Right? This couldn’t be part of a time honored NYC tradition of bid rigging?

Stern goes on the point out his growing disillusionment with the sleazy nature of the wielding of government condemnation power-and the self interested role of the NY Times (go figure!):

“It was then that I began to see the negative implications of government-directed projects like this—the influence peddling, cronyism and corruption, especially when eminent domain is involved.  Using eminent domain for private development gives the private sector the opportunity to wield public power—which is more or less for sale—in order to benefit privately.  One of the more prominent yet untold players was The New York Times, a private company that was deeply involved in this public project.  As the newspaper of record in New York, they would naturally cover the project closely—but their involvement transcended journalistic scrutiny.”

What surprised me most was that nobody at the Times seemed to care that they were compromising their journalistic integrity by assuming the dual roles of political reporting and pure politicking when it came to 42^nd Street.  Yes, the Square was named after the paper and the Times was the largest property owner in the project area, so it is understandable they were very interested in the government’s decisions.  Yet being interested and covering the story closely is different than assuming a decision-making role and assigning an editorial page executive to tell government officials what to do.”

Role of Eminent Domain

Here we get to the heart of Kimball’s misrepresentation. Yes, eminent domain was used-and abused-at 42^nd Street, but it played no role in the revitalization:

“In fact, about the only thing the plan accomplished was something it never needed to do in the first place—use eminent domain to take the property of private parties and give it to other private parties for the latter’s use.  From 1984 on, drawing on the UDC’s special condemnation powers, the redevelopment project began taking businesses in a purported attempt to cure “economic blight.”  

This condemnation binge kicked out businesses of all types and sizes.  To implement the project, the plan called for the demolition of 20 buildings and the displacement of 400 existing businesses, only a little more than 40 of which were adult bookstores or peep shows. In other words, although the sex businesses represented an economic drag on the area, our goal was to remove not only these establishments but all businesses that did not fit into the government’s master plan.”

While eminent domain may have made it easier two decades later to build (since the property was already condemned), the city lost far more than what it could ever gain from the lands’ new uses.  It destroyed legitimate local businesses that create the patchwork of unique attractions that bring tourists from across the country to any major city.  It delayed any resurgence of Times Square, as property owners and government officials remained in limbo and tax dollars were lost.  Our efforts ignored the root causes of the problems in Times Square, blinding us to any true cures and setting a dangerous precedent for future projects in New York City.  Property owners who were anticipating massive buy-outs as a result of the West Side’s upzoning were shocked when they learned this simply ushered in a plan that effectively wiped them out, with “fair” market value in place of negotiation.  

This unfair, unjust and unconstitutional treatment led to ten years of legal challenges.  What’s worse, none of the developers we condemned property for ever realized our collective vision.”

What a criminal farce. But here is Stern’s money quote about how the use of eminent domain invites corruption-and his words were prescient given the sleaziness surrounding the Willets Point development:

“When government is given the power to take property from one private owner and give it to another, an inevitable and very ugly political process begins.  Instead of competing in a marketplace where outcomes are determined by who has the best innovative ideas, strong financing, creative marketing and capable management, developers compete for political influence.  In order to be anointed by government or protect their property from being taken, they hire anyone who has political influence or is remotely perceived to have influence:  law firms, public relations firms, lobbyists, political consultants, etc.  They attempt to cultivate the media, knowing that the media influences politicians.  The use of condemnation on 42^nd Street provided a commercial opportunity of enormous proportions for political insiders. “

The Willets West deal is a corrupt example of corporate welfare and crony capitalism-demonstrating in ironic fashion how the development of the deuce mirrors that of Willets Point (although we don’t believe that irony is Kimball’s strong suit). Stern deserves the last word:

“Looking back now at this giant redevelopment, I am glad the area has come back and that children can enjoy Times Squares as I did in my childhood.  But we do these children a disservice if we perpetuate the myth—the lie—that the Times Square of today resulted from the massive government failure my colleagues, the New York Times and I foisted upon the citizens of my city.  The lesson they should learn, indeed the lesson all of our civic leaders should learn, is that the right way for governments to pursue economic development is to fulfill their core responsibilities of protecting safety and freedom and allow the market to work as it did in creating the world’s most famous square in the world’s premier city.”

Willets Point: Wither Bill de Blasio?

Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio has positioned himself as the progressive alternative to Christine Quinn and the other aspirants for Gracie Mansion. But what exactly does this really mean? We know that de Blasio has little problem railing against such liberal shibboleths like Citizens United and, of course, stop and frisk-the issue that has catapulted de Blasio to front runner status one week prior to the pivotal primary. All very well and good, but in NYC the ultimate special interest is real estate-and de Blasio’s stand on the proclivity of the political class to hand the keys to city hall over to Related, Vornado and Forest City Ratner is, well, quite murky.

Dana Rubinstein has underscored some of this in Capital New York:

“In fact, de Blasio’s record as a councilman demonstrated a willingness to work with developers to spur economic development and tackle the city's affordable housing crisis, using an approach to land use that at times bore a strong resemblance to Bloomberg's own. For instance, de Blasio, like Bloomberg, was a staunch backer of the Atlantic Yards project, on the basis of the developer's promise to provide union construction jobs and more than 2,000 units of below-market housing.”

Gee, how did that work out Bill?

“Residents took issue with the project’s reliance on eminent domain, the developer’s evasion of the city’s onerous public review process, the development’s sheer scope (8.6 million square feet), and its implications for traffic, parking, schools, sewage. Some even worried about the shadows it would cast. After several members of Park Slope's Community Board 6 voted against the project, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and de Blasio “purged” them.

“I support the project because I believe that we're at a crisis in New York City when it comes to affordable housing. ... And I think we're in a crisis when it comes to economic development and providing real jobs for the community,” said de Blasio at a hearing in 2006. “But I also want to stress as much as I believe this project will help move us forward in terms of economic development and especially affordable housing.”

I guess we will have to wait until 2035:

“In the meantime, the developer has yet to create nearly as many jobs as anticipated, has yet to appoint an independent compliance monitor as required by the agreement, and has also pushed back the completion of all 16 skyscrapers to 2035 and softened its affordable housing commitments.

“I think he was too quick to believe that there would be affordable housing that would be generated in that deal,” said Ronald Shiffman, a Pratt Institute planning professor, of de Blasio. (He is not, overall, a de Blasio critic — he told me he thought de Blasio would make an excellent mayor.)

Does all of this sound familiar? It should if you’ve been following the Willets Point debacle. Remember, we got the same promise for affordable housing in 2008 (and the same 2,000 unit promise) that Ratner had made to tamp down criticism of Atlantic Yards. In the end, the bait and switch worked for Forest City, and the arena was built with housing as the proverbial player to be named later.

So now we have the Willets Point development wending its way towards approval at the city council with Christine Quinn, the ultimate fixer and real estate darling, poised to take care of her friends in Queens and the good old boys at Related. This gives progressive Bill the opportunity to really distinguish himself from the Quinnberg administration.

What de Blasio needs to do is to let the world know that he will not rubber stamp a toxic deal that has been built on illegal lobbying and has failed to deliver on the promises that were the linchpin of the development’s approval in 2008. He needs to send a strong signal to his allies on the city council that they need to buck the speaker and let his administration-if elected, of course, handle the reconfiguration of a deal that is currently the epitome of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

WPU, the NYC Parks Advocates, the affordable housing coalition, and the immigrant businesses awaiting eviction, stand ready to stand with de Blasio if and when he want to stand up for integrity in government, small business and against corrupt insider politics. We all await your call Bill.

Hard of Hearing

The City Council, when we last checked, purports to be a deliberative body, but when you get really close to examine how it really functions you come to understand that it is deliberately obtuse when it comes to the interests of small businesses, and communities impacted by mega-development. Take the ULURP application for the slyly named Willets West-a project that emerged like Rosemary’s Baby from the failure of the original Willets Point development that passed under a false flag in 2008. If what we have seen so far is any indication, the council is preparing to roll over because of an inordinate obsequiousness to the interests of Joe Crowley and the Queens County Democrats.

In the first case, the initial hearing is scheduled for September the 3rd, the first business day after the Labor Day holiday. Acting like folks who want to remain inaccessible and perhaps even incognito, the notice for the hearing was posted on Thursday the 29th, leaving a single day before the holiday for the word to get out.

When it comes to the hearing itself, the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is signaing that it really doesn’t want to have a vigorous debate on a project that remains promiscuously controversial considering the illegal lobbying that drove the original council approval five years ago. It is doing so first by shutting down the request from Willets Point United to present a 20 minute power point that deconstructs the numerous erroneous assumptions from EDC - an entity that was forced to reconstruct itself after orchestrating the aforementioned illegal lobbying.

There’s really no excuse for doing this since WPU has been willing to forego the time of five or six of its testifiers so that the power point could be presented. The only conclusion an impartial observer can draw from this is that the committee is trying to tamp down the opposition’s ability to make its case. Will the committee limit the developers to 2 minutes? No, we don’t think so - and Chairman Weprin needs to explain why he needs to act as a homer for the developers.

In addition, the time being allotted to each speaker has been reduced to 2 minutes! - another example of favoritism since the developers, being the prototypical special interests, normally have fewer people coming to testify. Two minutes for some of the folks who stand to lose their businesses and their property if this corrupt deal is approved is the quintessential example of the stacked deck.

The committee is also showing its true colors by disrespecting the expected testimony of many of the Hispanic immigrant workers and business owners. No Spanish translator will be provided at this hearing – despite the ULURP application that is at issue requiring that 100+ businesses vacate the premises that are owned and operated predominantly by people who speak Spanish. The City previously failed to provide any Spanish translator at the eminent domain hearing which was widely criticized at the time. Apparently the City has not learned any lesson and is content to steamroll the 100+ immigrant businesses without hearing them at the Council. And why hasn't Julissa Ferreras, the home rule council member who has been working for years with the tenant businesses, demanded interpretation services for her constituents, or spoken out against the skulduggery being perpetrated by the City against Willets Point land and business owners?

The above points, taken all together, demonstrate the City Council's active contempt for public testimony about the proposed Willets West mall / Willets Point Phase One ULURP application. Speaker Quinn, Land Use Committee Chair Leroy Comrie, and subcommittee Chair Mark Weprin should be ashamed of themselves. These latest examples of bias come a year after the Mayor's Office and NYCEDC selected Sterling Equities and Related Companies, and their plan to expand the development from 62 to 108.9 acres including constructing a shopping mall on parkland, in a private process that shut out the Queens-based Willets Point Advisory Committee from the developer selection process, contrary to multiple written promises. The fix appears to be in; let the Council now show us - and all New Yorkers - otherwise.

Political Corruption and Willets Point: The Christine Quinn Story

Wayne Barrett-as per usual-has a riveting expose of the unlikely rise of Christine Quinn to the Speakership of the City Council in 2005. The rise of this former community activist and neighborhood scourge was predicated on some good old fashioned insider trading-relying on the quid pro quo support of three of the city’s Democratic County bosses: Joe Crowley, Jose Rivera and the now disgraced Vito Lopez.

As Barrett points out:

“It was December 2005 and 39-year-old Christine Quinn, an obscure one-term Chelsea councilwoman, was on her way to the Westchester Square headquarters of the Bronx Democratic County Committee to close the deal that would make her speaker, second only to the mayor in the power she would wield in City Hall. Her path to the Council leadership—positioning her to shape the city’s fiscal and development policies for the next four, and ultimately eight years—was, by city charter design, an inside game.”

And it was a game she played well-and continued to play well as certain special interests feasted on their special relationship with the former enfant terrible of community organizing. This was seen right off the bat in 2006 when Quinn took over and rolled over for the Bronx Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium deals midwived by the Bronx political bosses:

“Just a couple of months into her speakership, in February 2006, Quinn was embroiled in the Council’s consideration of the two projects that meant more to Jose Rivera than any others in his reign as Bronx Democratic leader: the redevelopment of Yankee Stadium and the construction of the nearby Gateway Center Mall. They were giant projects – and, hence, opportunities to gather campaign contributions and political sway. (One measure of the value: between 2004 and the end of 2008, when Rivera was ousted as leader, his varied campaign committees collected $58,625 from the Yankees and the Related Companies, which built the mall).”

When both deals were concluded, the developers of the BTM and the Yankees got the goldmine and the tax payers got the shaft-a trend that was to characterize Quinn’s entire tenure as council speaker:

“The Yankees wanted a new Metro North train stop at the stadium and didn’t want to contribute a cent to the project, even though there was no money in the MTA budget to pay for it. In the final 24 hours of pre-vote negotiations at the Council, they got it, outraging The New York Times editorial board.

The size of the project meant that new parks would need to be built near the stadium, replacing old community parks. At the Yankees’ urging, the Council agreed to pay the entire cost of these parks, which would escalate from $116 million to $190 million over the life of the project. The Yankees also made it a condition of the deal that the city would pick up the cost of a 9,300-space parking garage, which totaled $100 million in direct subsidies and $278 million in tax-exempt bonds.”

The Terminal market became terminal for the 23 mostly minority wholesalers who were evicted in the ultimate sweetheart deal-these entrepreneurs were scattered to the four winds and most have gone out of business after losing the synergy of the market and its location. The developer Related, however, did a tad better owing to the close friendship between Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and Related boss Steve Ross:

“The Related Companies’ no-bid contract for the mall, approved by the Council a few weeks before the Yankees’ deal in early 2006, did not require any percentage payments to the city geared to mall revenues, unlike many projects on city-owned land. Instead, while Related earns $27 million a year from its current mall tenants, it is only paying the city $800,000 as compensation for the project. The justification is that it generates jobs – a point that Yankees President Randy Levine has made repeatedly, at one point saying critics “should be encouraging us to create jobs instead of engaging in political grandstanding.” But the pay averages $8 an hour, a thin reed on which to justify such a huge subsidy. The Council rubber-stamped these terms, and Related became one of Quinn’s biggest financial supporters, having bundled or donated $58,254 to her campaigns since 2006.”

This, as we shall see, was a harbinger of the Willets Point deal that came later.

”Roll the calendar forward to 2009. That’s when Queens leader Joe Crowley surfaced at the Council with a project of his own to champion. A member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Crowley rarely gets involved in Queens controversies. But he interjected himself into the debate over another Related Companies project: the $3 billion redevelopment of Willets Point.”

Here’s where insider trading gave way to outright corruption-with Quinn paddling along with the tide:

“It didn’t help appearances that the project was a bit of an ethical mess. Claire Shulman, the 83-year-old former Queens borough president, had set up a nonprofit local development corporation, Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC, to build grassroots support for the project. The LDC was underwritten by a $250,000 city grant and real estate interests, including Related’s co-developer on the project, Sterling Equities, the real estate arm of Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. But Shulman had failed to register the group as a lobbyist with the city clerk and was fined $52,000 for the omission. Then she registered it, and a storm ensued, since LDCs are barred by law from lobbying the Council. The Times quoted her saying that “we lobbied the city for the city,” a statement that eventually resulted in a state attorney general’s finding that the LDC had “flouted the law” and a settlement that barred it from lobbying the Council. Quinn did not criticize the grandmotherly Shulman at the time - indeed, she shared stages with her, beaming about Willets Point – and remains silent on the lobbying gaffe.”

A true partner in crime-and Quinn made sure that the council did not do any real over sight of the Willets Point development even though it became obvious that the illegal and unethical actions of the city and its consultants were polluting the development process:

“As quickly as the cheering died down, the angry Willets Point businesses sued the city to block the project. The case dragged on until May 2012, when on the eve of an appellate review of elements of it, the Bloomberg administration suddenly withdrew its plan. The winning lawyer said: “The city knew it was going to lose.” Among other things, the city had presented two conflicting environmental impact statements, one saying that traffic on a new expressway ramp to be built for the project would boom by 50 percent, the other estimating a 15 percent increase. It held a public hearing on the project without a Spanish interpreter, though the room was filled with clamoring Hispanic businessmen.”

At every corrupt step of the way, Quinn shot down any oversight or council review-she was all in for Joe Crowley from the beginning and was not going to abandon him in his hour of need; and the EDC’s fraudulent environmental/traffic review could not garner a council oversight hearing with Quinn’s thumb on the scale.

This is depressingly similar to the deal making in the Bronx-even more so now that Related has been injected into the Willets Point deal with predictable conclusions: gone is the affoirdabkle housing, replaced by-what else?-another mall:

“Now, a revised project is back before Quinn, slated to come to a Council vote in October. Critics note that it cuts the affordable housing units in half, and that the developers may not have to build any if they delay the housing project for a decade, which they are permitted to do under the deal. The emphasis now is on a huge mall, an echo of Related’s Gateway development in the Bronx.”

This brings us to the present and the City Council’s first hearing on Willets Point scheduled for Tuesday. The signs are indeed ominous with Quinn still at the helm-but with a great deal of hope that current mayoral frontrunner will put the kibosh on this corporate welfare deal when and if he gets into office in January (Or that Bill Thompson will also set it aside when he finds out all that went into this toxic farrago).

Making things even more foreboding is that the land use subcommittee is balking at letting WPU do a 20 minute power point presentation at Tuesday’s hearing. The power point is a devastating takedown of the city’s proposal and we can understand why proponents of the project would balk at its use. But why would the council committee not want it shown? After all, the city gets unlimited time for all of its phony dog and pony shows.

Our main concern goes back to Barrett’s original thesis: the unseemly role of the county leaders in the selection of the speaker. That hasn’t really changed, and Joe Crowley still wields enormous power and he definitely doesn’t want a public exposure of all the unethical and illegal maneuvers that he has spawned and continues to sanction.

Exit question: are the aspirants for speaker blocking the Willets Point presentation for tawdry political reasons and not simply housekeeping logistics? If so, they are putting their own political ambitions before the needs of the residents of Queens, the businesses of Willets Point, and the tax payers of NYC-just like Christine Quinn has done for 8 years.

Planning Commission Rubber Stamps Willets West: Morphs into the Board of Health

In what is really not a news story - when was the last time the City Planning Commission turned down a mayoral initiative? (Answer: Never) - the CPC approved the bastardized Willets West development with a lone dissenting vote. As the NY Daily News reports:“The City Planning Commission approved a plan to build a mega mall near Citi Field as part of a larger redevelopment of the gritty stretch of auto body shops.”

We got a big kick out of New York’s Burden - the chair of CPC - who remarked: “Willets Point is on its way to becoming remediated and ultimately becoming an active and inviting destination.”

From a woman famous for her own extreme makeovers, we weren’t surprised by the comment. Amanda Burden has had this sinecure for twelve years and the only thing that would bring more fresh air to the city than the mayor’s departure would be the removal of this toady from her sinecure. Burden gives a certain class comfort to the rubber stamp nature of the CPC - perhaps there will be a spot for her on the Board of Health in a new mayoral administration. After all, she has shown great skill in simply following orders.

There was, however, one dissenting opinion in this charade: “Board member Michelle de la Uz was the lone dissenting voice during the meeting. She argued that there are a glut of malls already in Queens and said “questionable and weak” efforts have been made to relocate the immigrant shop owners working in the auto body shops.”


De la Uz was appointed by Public Advocate de Blasio and it raises questions about what a mayor de Blaio would do if he were asked to review this horrible crony capitalist bait and switch adventure. After all, the litany of the false promises and illegalities pave the road along the way to this mega mall project-and a new mayor is under no obligation to pony up $200 million worth of property and close to $100 million for “remediation” just to aggrandize Steve Ross and Jeff Wilpon’s fortunes.

The measure now goes to the city council where Speaker Quinn will have the opportunity to demonstrate her total obeisance to the agenda of Big Real Estate. There can be no other explanation-the absence of a public good here is blindingly glaring.

The Cornerstone of Deception

As the WSJ is reporting, some significant snags have been developing over alleged relocation plans to help the tenant businesses over at Willets Point:

“A cluster of several hundred auto-body repair shops and junkyards near Citi Field in Queens has proven resilient to changes that have transformed other parts of the city, but that too could soon come to an end.

About 90 tenants in the so-called Iron Triangle have received letters offering them a payment equal to a year's rent at their current location if they leave by the end of November to make way for the first phase of a more than 60-acre redevelopment of Willets Point that will eventually include a school, retail and housing.” 

The deal, however, is fool’s gold and is little more than a bus ticket out of town for these immigrant Hispanic business owners:

“City officials have long said that relocation would be necessary to realize the redevelopment vision. But some tenants have been pushing to relocate in a large group or groups and to recreate elsewhere in the city their unique ecosystem of shops that change tires, reupholster seats and repair mufflers.

Tenants said they fear the money is being offered in lieu of such a plan.”

And they are right, because EDC has retained (with no bidding of course) the Cornerstone Group to aid in the relocation effort:

“The city appointed Cornerstone Group, a real-estate firm, to help with individual and group relocation. The company has shown tenants about 140 sites suitable for one or multiple businesses.

But some tenants complained that those sites have been unsuitable. Many said their current rent is less than $1,500 a month, but rents for typical industrial sites are several times that.

"A $1,250, $1,300 rent—what would it help? Nobody wants to give us a $1,300 place," said Vijay Kumar, the 38-year-old owner E.T. Tires.”

As Yogi Berra might have said, this is déjà vu all over again. Cornerstone was assigned the task of relocating the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market-and in the seven years since the eviction of the businesses very few remain in operation. Why? Because their success was predicated on their synergy-their ability to piggyback on each others’ customer traffic. Left alone, they went under. 

And history is repeating itself-the Willets Pointers should be aware of the tactic to get rid of their nuisance presence:

“To get the full amount, they would need to leave in four months, which they said doesn't give them time to find a site that could accommodate dozens of businesses, much like a large relocation of the Fulton Fish Market.

"In order to actually avail themselves of the funds they need to give up where they are currently operating and move to some fictitious place that does not exist," said Ted De Barbieri, an attorney at the Urban Justice Center who represents 55 businesses that want to relocate together.

Tenants said remaining together is essential to their continued survival because it will help ensure customers continue to frequent the group of businesses, which have become famous for offering below-market-price car repairs to customers that they say come from Queens, Long Island, upstate New York and even Pennsylvania.”

Let’s keep in mind that the city is giving away to the mayor’s cronies (Related and Sterling Equities) the land it had purchased for $200 million! That’s not all. The city is also ponying up an additional $99 million for “remediation”-all of this money was supposed to be put up by the eventual developer when the city council approved this development in 2008. So, once again, Related (and Sterling) get the goldmine, and small minority businesses get the shaft.

Put simply, the relocation is a fiction designed to remove the “eyesore” while pretending otherwise. Even the money is questionable-with CM Julissa Ferreras claiming credit for funds obtained five years ago by her former boss Hiram Monseratte:

“City Council Member Julissa Ferreras, who represents the area and is credited for helping to find the $3.5 million for relocation, has been a vocal advocate for group relocation. A spokeswoman said she remains committed to finding a site for tenants to move in large groups.

"I have always advocated for the EDC to relocate the Willets Point businesses as a group," Ms. Ferreras said. "There are ongoing negotiations to make sure that these businesses are given a fair deal by the EDC and any potential developers."

What does this actually mean? Will CM Ferreras urge her colleagues on the city council to vote down the project-one where affordable housing is a player to be named later? If Julissa really wants to take credit here she needs to show some real backbone and insist that this sham development be laid over for the next mayor and City Council Speaker to decide. Will she?

The plight of the tenant businesses-and at one point there were over 200 such firms and over 2,000 workers at the Iron Triangle-is just one glaring example of the mess that the Bloomberg administration has created at Willets Point.

The use of condemnation, illegal lobbying, fraud about the nature of the deal-the laundry list of deception is a long one. And now, the icing on the cake: the Cornerstone Group brought in- like Kabuki theater-to pretend to help the existing auto businesses when its actual goal is to make these struggling immigrants simply disappear.

Pratt Center’s Joan Byron Nails Willets Point Development Defects

Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development testified last year about the glaring defects of the city’s newly reconfigured re-development of Willets Point. Her comments should be heeded by a city council that was snookered by the EDC when it approved the deal in 2008.

As Byron pointed out, the city is looking at developing Flushing Meadows Park in a way that makes little planning sense and, by the way, will destroy the park for any recreational use by the nearby communities:

“We join with community representatives in calling for a full new Environmental Impact Study that will allow a comprehensive approach to this and other transformative projects now proposed within Flushing Meadows Corona Park. 

These projects represent both a threat and an opportunity for the communities of northern Queens, and for the City as a whole. Neither the threat nor the opportunity can be understood without a new, comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement that takes into account the City’s current understanding of economic and environmental reality – including the costs and challenges of remediating sites within the established Willets Point Special District, and the degree to which these conditions make it unrealistic to develop the project as proposed in the original EIS, and defers the construction of the promised housing units until at least 2028.”

Ah yes, the housing that was promised-a promise that all of a sudden has become uneconomical today when it apparently wasn’t in the midst of the economic catastrophe in 2008:

“The development of that housing, along with the schools, retail space, etc. that would create “a lively, mixed use district” – was presented in 2008 as a public benefit that justified the taking of private property, the disposition of public land, and enormous public investment in property acquisition, remediation, and infrastructure.

The City agencies who administer our laws, programs and regulations, the legislators who represent us, and above all, the people who live and work in the impacted communities, and the taxpayers of New York City, all deserve a full and up-to-date set of facts in which to ground our thinking about the development not only of the proposed “Willets West” addition to the district, but about the full set of projects being proposed within and around the borough’s flagship park.”

Or, in other words, the people of New York deserve the truth-something that the ethically challenged EDC is seemingly incapable of providing.  And Byron makes a strong case that the mall can’t be built without alienating the land as parkland:

“We do not accept the premise that a mall falls within the definition of “edification” or other activities permitted on this site without new alienation legislation. Even if that were the case, a decision about the future of a major site, in the heart of an area undergoing profound change, and facing serious shortages of open space, housing, schools, and community facilities, should not be made solely on the basis of administrative expediency. If this site is to be put into play, ALL potential uses, including housing, should be considered.”

Well, yes they should-but they won’t under this mayor and what passes for oversight under the present city council. That means that it is imperative for those council members to realize that they have an opportunity to act independently, and in the public interest, by sending Willets West back to a more intelligent drawing board.

Remember, the mayor called Willets Point the city’s first green neighborhood-and instead we have a mall that makes little public policy sense: “Less than a mile away another large mall, Sky View opened in 2010 and remains only partially leased up.”

The mall’s traffic generation would further mock the city’s efforts at sustainability-as Byron strongly demonstrates:

“A mall of this size generates thousands of car trips per day – tens of thousands on peak shopping weekends. And peak traffic to this mall would inevitably coincide with peak days for other destinations, including game days at CitiField and at the proposed soccer stadium, if it is built.

Though the Number 7 train is accessible, the 7 will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of crowding, even if new technologies allow for more frequent service. Mall shopping trips differ drastically from trips to traditional retail streets, and skew heavily toward driving. The proposed project contravenes the laudable goals of PlaNYC 2030, and the good work of the Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, to reduce car trips and the concomitant greenhouse gas emissions.”

Can we imagine a lesser public interest than a mall and a parking lot? And a mall and a parking lot combined with a gift of $200 million and an additional $99 million in subsidies-partly and allegedly for remediation. Willets West is a catastrophe built on a scandal-and the city council should afford it the euthanasia it deserves.