Land Use Policy: Whither Bill de Blasio?

We have been trying to ascertain just where Bill de Blasio actually stands on land use policy questions, and the WSJ does a good job at laying out some of the issues:

“Bill de Blasio has risen to the top of the polls assailing the Bloomberg administration, but if elected he could pursue even more aggressive policies than his predecessor on a crucial issue: creating densely packed new residential towers through land-use decisions.

Mr. de Blasio, the city's public advocate, would push for mandatory affordable housing and fewer tax breaks for developers. But he wouldn't differ from Mr. Bloomberg on a fundamental premise that building significant amounts of new housing is a top way to spur economic growth and control housing costs.”

How to read these tea leaves? Well, at first blush, the affordable housing and fewer tax breaks aspects of his policy makes some sense to us-but de Blasio must be aware of the pitfalls of this given the manner in which the Atlantic Yards promises have gone unmet, and the fact that he based his support of AY on the housing pledge.

That brings us, of course, to Willets Point, where the developers and EDC have baited and switched on the crucial pledge to build affordable housing-with an original 2,00 unit promise now reduced to 825 units, assuming that it ever gets built at all (A reasonable assumption in this dodgy deal.)

De Blasio has also said the following:

“Mr. de Blasio said Friday he would differ from Mr. Bloomberg in taking "a more rigorous approach that focuses on community benefits like creating infrastructure like affordable housing, like local jobs, hiring for local residents. And I think we just need to do a lot better job at driving a hard bargain with the real-estate industry."

EDC really drove a hard bargain with Related/Sterling over at the Iron Triangle. Didn’t they? Must have been tough negotiating with these hard bargain drivers if all you got out of the transfer of $200 million worth of property is a zero cash payment, a mall, and affordable housing to be built later-much later, and with an out clause that says for a paltry $35 million the developers can buy their way out of any housing.

Given the incredibly flim-flam nature of the Willets Point deal-a deal that bears no resemblance to the one that de Blasio signed off on in 2008-isn’t it the right time for the putative next mayor to weigh-in on this travesty? It offers de Blasio a great opportunity to differentiate his policies from those of Mike Bloomberg.

But the WSJ reports that de Blasio’s position on land use means that he is “pro-development.” This is an interesting take, and omits almost every possible nuance-since how development is done lies at the heart of the concept:

“Mr. de Blasio's pro-development policies have helped allay fears in the real-estate industry that perhaps the most liberal Democrat in the race would, as mayor, be a fearsome opponent on big developments.”

There is, however, one area that is a major cause for concern-and that is e Blasio’s view that the ULURP process needs to be truncated:

“In a July economic policy speech, Mr. de Blasio said promoting significant new development while demanding high-paying jobs and affordable housing would create a more equal city, even if it alienates community groups—often pejoratively dubbed NIMBYs.

"We can't afford a process rife with delays, subject to knee-jerk NIMBYism and tangled in bureaucracy," Mr. de Blasio said.

Mr. de Blasio has said he would shorten the timeline for debate on developments before they enter the formal approval process and promote more neighborhood-wide rezonings, as opposed to forcing developers to seek approval for large new projects individually.

Mr. de Blasio, along with others, also supports so-called mandatory inclusionary zoning, requiring affordable units when areas are rezoned.”

This would be a serious mistake since it is precisely the period before a pproject is certified that is crucial to the information gathering and dissemination about a development. What de Blasio is suggesting, is the further  centralization of land use policy and the weakening of any potential opposition-since opponents rely on the period before certification to gain more knowledge about a project and organize against it if deemed inimical to a community’s interest.

If he means this, then de Blasio appears ready to adopt the mantle of corporate liberalism-and a repetition of cronyism seems like a likely scenario under his ULURP formulation. More power would accrue to the mayor and the community-derided as NIMBYists-would be skunked . To a great extent, then, the WSJ is right to see this as “pro-development,” but it is a development of the worst kind and offers little difference with the disastrous nature of the Bloomberg approach.

Process is important, and the efforts by Comptroller Liu to advocate reform of the ULURP process are much more democratic and would prevent the abuse of mayoral power that the de Blasio approach portends-and this includes any concept of communitybenefits as well.

What we are left with, then, is a great deal of trepidation when it comes to the prospects of a Mayor de Blasio. We could have these fears greatly allayed if he would stand up and be fore square opposed to the Willets West deal. That would indicate that he would be a different kind of mayor, one that would be more attuned to the legitimate concerns of neighborhoods and small businesses.

Quinn, Willets Point and living wage

Quinn, Willets Point, and Living Wage
A desperate Christine Quinn is staggering around in search of a compelling idea. The latest involves the living wage:

“In a sign that the New York City mayoral primary has lurched to the left, during Tuesday evening's mayoral debate Council Speaker Christine Quinn said that as mayor she would apply a living-wage requirement at all future city-subsidized projects.  

It was a startling revelation, given that Ms. Quinn herself was the main impediment to such a sweeping living-wage law during her tenure as City Council speaker. She eventually negotiated a compromise bill that significantly narrowed the legislation, which had been championed by a retail-workers union that later endorsed her.”

Quinn went on to say:

"I helped lead the effort that got living wage and prevailing wage passed into law in this city and when I'm mayor I will expand living wage requirements to every dollar we spend in our Economic Development Corp...I think that's why I've been endorsed by the RWDSU union, the lead union behind living wage." 

"Let me be clear, when I'm mayor I will expand living wage to include all of EDC," she later added.”

So, does that mean that the deal she is going to negotiate with the city on Willets Point will include a living wage component that is currently absent after it was sh*tcanned by EDC? And what about the retail workers that the RWDSU were supposed to advocate for?

“It was not clear if Ms. Quinn would also require tenants at subsidized projects to pay a living wage; currently tenants are exempted, as Ms. Quinn insisted during negotiations on the bill. So while the developer of a project would have to pay its employees on the site the wage required by the law, a retailer renting space there would not. The retail-workers union nonetheless supported the compromise, which was seen by some as a foot in the door for the living-wage movement.”

We assume that much will depend whether or not the flailing speaker manages to sneak into a run-off. We think that a living wage for retail workers is a great idea-and a likely deal killer for the mayor. Wonder what Bill de Blasio has to say about this?

Melinda Katz to Play Kermit in New Movie

When it comes to politics satire has a rich vein of material to mine. Take Melinda Katz, a candidate for Queens Borough President who is burnishing her green credentials-and getting the support of the always honest and above board League of Conservation Voters:
“Queens borough president candidate Melinda Katz will announce her “Plan for a Green Queens” today, hoping to leverage the limited powers of the BP’s office to help improve environmental quality in Queens.

Katz’s plan, which helped win her the support of the New York City League of Conservation Voters, which will endorse her today, includes weatherizing government buildings with energy-efficient upgrades and using the borough president’s role in the uniform land use review process to increase park space. Katz also wants to expand Queens’ green footprint by encouraging recycling across the borough, as well as helping attract the green tech industry to create jobs.”

But, it ain’t easy being green-as old friend Kermit the Frog found out. Someone who was really interested in showing Queens residents that they were truly concerned with the environment would have by now-as her opponent Peter Vallone has-come out against the Willets Point development. After all, a huge traffic generating mall-and a parking lot-is a far cry from the “next green neighborhood” that the mayor ballyhooed five years ago. Yeah, the project that gained the support of the LCV-after the check cleared, we think.

Also, Katz has described herself as a libertarian. How could a self-described libertarian support the wholesale condemnation of property and its transfer to well-connected developers? And how could someone who wants to preserve and expand parkland not condemn the failure of the city to pursue alienation of the land (zoned for parks) where the Wilpons want to build their mall?

The reality is that Katz has the support of Joe Crowley and that’s green enough for her.

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.