Park and Deride: City Council Confronted on Parkland Issue

One of the more powerful moments in last Tuesday’s hearing - no, it didn’t come from CM Ferreras’s desultory and confused questions designed to cover up her intentions to throw all of the opponents under the EDC bus - came when Geoffrey Croft testified about the parkland issue. His testimony seemed to capture the attention of Chairman Comrie-and underscores the importance of the letter WPU has sent to Council legal eagle Elizabeth Fine asking that she render a legal opinion on the assertion by Corporation Counsel that a Robert Moses-inspired 1961 memorandum obviates the need for the land in question to go through the alienation process. Here is Croft’s testimony:

Good Afternoon,

My name is Geoffrey Croft, president and founder of NYC Park Advocates.

It is truly a sad day when we are talking about a plan that seizes 48 acres of public parkland in Flushing Meadow-Corona Park to allow one of the country's largest developers to build the largest mall New York City. 

Sounds inconceivable right?  Just when you thought this administration couldn't get any lower here we are today. 

The 48 acres of public parkland was NEVER part of the original plan in anyway. In any way and it certainly was never approved by the City Council.  This is nothing but an end run around the law and City Council will be complicit when you/if you rubber stamp its approval.   

If the 48 acres of public park land they are attempting to seize for the project are no longer needed for parking than it should revert back to its original use. This is what our elected officials should be pushing for instead allowing our public spaces to be given away to politically connected developers. 

The City Council has a legal obligation to protect public parkland and that certainly includes not giving it away to private developers.   There are a number of legal issues surrounding the attempted disposition of this public land.  Last week we were signatures on a letter, along with Willets Point United, which was sent to City Council lawyers Elizabeth Fine and Gary Altman requesting a legal opinion from the Council on these issues, a copy of which I have provided today.  

The City Council has a legal obligation to do its due diligence on this important issue before any decisions are made. It's telling that less than three minutes have been spent talking about the parkland during this hearing.  

Let's be very clear:  The 1961 statute that the city and the applicants are so desperately trying to rely on in order to justify being allowed to develop the public parkland for non-park purposes does not permit a shopping mall, much less a 1.4 million square foot mall.    

Administrative Code 18-118 explicitly states that any monies gained from a temporary lease on the property must go back into the property. Back Into The Property not line the pockets of Related or Sterling Equity. 

To quote the law directly, the revenue must aid "in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities, and any additions, alterations or improvements thereto, or to the equipment thereof." 

Clearly this is not the case unless the applicant is representing that this is being done to off-set unfortunate investments made by the Wilpons.  Is that the plan?

Clearly the intention of the law was not to allow any project to make a permanent claim on the parkland or its facilities, because the revenue was supposed to fund the property.

The law simply does not authorize the Willets West project. It does not enable use of the parking lot or authorize retail stores - and certainly something that is primarily a shopping mall.

The bill does say trade and commerce, but that obviously refers to conventions, not stores. Obviously a shopping mall was never intended as the bill language states.

The park land we are talking about here today for this irresponsible project was never alienated as required under state law nor are they planning to nor are they planning to replace it if approved. 

By law PARKS ARE NOT allowed to be used for such non-park purposes. In fact State law -which our elected officials have taken an oath to uphold - prohibit such commercial development.

If ever there was a poster child for non-park purposes-building the city's largest mall would be it. 

This is public park land and it does NOT belong to Mayor Bloomberg or to Seth Pinsky, the Related Companies or the Wilpons - it belongs to the people of the city of New York. 

The proposed giveaway of public park is being done simply to sweeten the deal for Related so they have a guaranteed revenue stream "up front" in order to help them off-set their investments in building the rest of the Willets Point.  

This is disgraceful.   This plan is about greed pure and simple. It is a nightmare for the residents of Queens in so many ways and for the city's taxpayers at large who are greatly subsidizing this project. 

The corporate welfare must end. 

Thank you

A mall to spur housing?

The Times Ledger - (and doesn’t Joe Anuta do a good reporting job on Willets Point?) - has a good story on Tuesday’s City Council hearing; and the report exposes the inanity of the developer’s rationale for the development. Here’s the description of the reason why the mall is precursor to all of the things originally promised for Willets Point:

“The partnership contends this sequencing is essential to ensure the entire vision can be realized. They have repeatedly said the only way to develop Willets Point according to the 2008 plan was to create an economic engine to drive the project, namely the 1.4 million square foot retail and entertainment complex proposed for the west of Citi Field.

“We believe strongly that the project makes economic sense,” said Jesse Masyr, land-use counsel to the partnership.”

Now we have always admired Masyr’s ability to spin a yarn, but let’s deconstruct this particularly tall tale. In order to afford to build housing, there is a need to build the largest mall in NYC so as to create a destination that makes the housing affordable-and not affordable in the way the term is now understood:

“Basically, the joint venture needs to have the mall and a proposed retail strip along 126th Street up and running to not only offset other costs of the project, but to create a destination to make the housing component more attractive.”

Crazy, no? Everyone wants to live in the neighborhood immediately contiguous to the city’s largest retail center? Even if you believe the traffic reports from consultants who have demonstrated a very thin regard for professional accuracy, this rationale is tough to accept. Can you imagine trying to and from work with tens of thousands of daily and weekly car and truck trips clogging the streets and access roads to you home?

WPU’s Jerry Antonacci has more credibility when he points out the likely scenario here:

“But opponents have long contended that the city and developers only want the mall and do not want to build the housing, which includes 875 affordable units. The partnership would be required to pay a $35 million penalty for not building the housing, contracts show, but the city is also not contractually obligated to build the ramps. If the ramps never get built, then the joint venture is off the hook.

By obtaining this current permit, they will have made the parking lot legal, which would not have been permissible under the special zoning written in 2008. According to Iron Triangle property owners, this is all part of the plan.

“Mark my words: No housing is ever going to be built,” said Jerry Antonacci, a member of opposition group Willets Point United, who spoke in an informational video about the project and testified at City Hall Tuesday.”

All of which makes this the Wimpy deal we have described it as-with the developer’s gladly paying Tuesday (for housing years from now), for a mall (the Wimpy hamburger) they get today. And those two thousand units of affordable housing, what happened to them?

“But opponents have long contended that the city and developers only want the mall and do not want to build the housing, which includes 875 affordable units.” So not only do the developers get the land for free-in spite of the fact that the city promised the city council in 2008 that it would be reimbursed by the developer eventually selected-but they also get to put off the linchpin of the original approval to years from now when many of us will n longer be around.

The fact remains-and should be indisputable-an administration that has already lied to get this plan approved in 2008, and won’t be around in the middle of the next decade to be held accountable, should not be believed about any of the assertions it has made concerning the eventual end game at Willets Point. 

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.