A "Rare" opportunity

Crain’s has been erroneously reporting on the land use process in the run-up to the city council’s vote on the reconfigured Willets Point development. The online version of the magazine is telling its readers that there will be a first hearing on the city’s plan this Monday:

“The ambitious plan to put up a mega-mall next to Citi Field in Willets Point, Queens, will face its first hearing before the City Council on Monday. The session, under the auspices of the council's subcommittee on zoning and franchises which is chaired by Queens Councilman Mark Weprin, will be the first test of the council's willingness to approve the controversial project. Mr. Weprin has himself, publicly supported the project.” 

The reality is that the subcommittee had its first and only hearing September the 3rd. At this hearing, WPU was prohibited from presenting its Power Point critique of the city’s plan-and speakers were restricted from testifying for more than 2 minutes; while the developers were given all the time in the world to misinform the council members about the plan’s benefits. The fairness of restricting property owners who will be displaced and favoring the developers doing the eminent domain-inspired displacement, says all that needs to be said about the fairness of the process.

As WPU’s Jerry Antonacci has written in a letter to the Queens Chronicle, “The Fix is in.”

“The circumstances of the hearing were also newsworthy. With minimal advance notice, it was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on the morning after Labor Day, when many people were away. Less than half of the committee members were present for the Willets Point portion of the hearing. Subcommittee Chairman Mark Weprin only allowed each speaker two minutes, and prohibited Willets Point United from showing its PowerPoint presentation — even though people would have ceded their time for it. In our opinion, all this demonstrates the Council’s contempt for public comment about the proposed development.”

Crain’s goes on to cite unmanned development “experts” who see the plan as a boon to the city:

“Economic development experts and many elected officials insist that the development represents a rare opportunity chance to breathe new life into a run-down area long populated by auto repair shops. The mall will be built by a partnership between the Related Cos. and the owner of the Mets, Sterling Equities.”

C’mon, Crain’s, can’t we get any real reporting on this project? Like an even cursory discussion of the bait and switch that has left tax payers holding the bag for a $200 million gift to Related/Sterling Equities-a gift that should be labeled, “Bloomberg’s Folly.”

Can’t we get any reporting on the fact that the city engaged in an illegal lobbying scheme that was exposed by the NYS AG? And this throwaway line about housing needs to be more fully examined: “Neighborhood advocates have also complained about revelations in recent months that the 2,500 units of housing slated as part of the project won't be constructed until years after the mall opens.”

The fact is that the housing-and the disappearing living wage promise-was the linchpin of the deal that was crafted in 2008; and nowhere in that deal was there any mention of a mall being built on parkland. Keep in mind, that the original plan was premised on the city’s use of condemnation and the promises made in 2008 were in recognition that there needed to be some genuine public benefits in the plan to justify the taking of private property.

If, however, the city had told the council that the plan was for a 1.4 million square foot mall and a parking lot, this would have gone down in flames-even with Speaker Quinn shilling for the mayor. This is a bad deal for the city-and we haven’t even discussed the dishonest city treatment of the hundreds of immigrant businesses owners who are being dispersed into the netherworld by a callous Bloomberg administration that claims a concern for immigrants in theory, only to treat them with disdain in practice.

So, indeed, this is a rare opportunity-but one where the city council gets a chance to tell the Bloomberg administration that we are not going to be played like suckers. We’re not going to allow you to use the tax payers’ dime to gift property-bogarted from little guys-to some of you undeserving rich friends.

What Should a Mayor de Blasio do on Willets Point?

It is looking more and more apparent that Bill de Blasio will be NYC’s next mayor-although we should always be aware of the potential for the chaos of events to intercede. That being said, what should de Blasio do about the development of Willets Point? We have some very good suggestions.

In the first place, the development at Willets Point was intended to be one of Mayor Bloomberg’s signature legacy projects-the “first green neighborhood,” and all that palaver. Instead, owing to the good work of the team assembled by WPU, the original mega-deal was derailed and the current Rosemary’s Baby was given birth. Instead of affordable housing, a living wage and traffic relieving ramps, we have been give the city’s largest retail mall built on parkland. The property taken under the threat of eminent domain is now earmarked for a parking lot!

Put simply, Public Advocate de Blasio, this is not your deal. In fact, when you voted to approve the original deal in 2008 you were played by the Bloomberg administration. Since it isn’t your deal-and the bastardized deal that has replaced the original involves turning over $200 million worth of city owned property to friends of the mayor-you should let the city council know that a mayor de Blasio doesn’t approve of this kind of bait and switch corporate welfare. You should publicly argue that a new council leadership and a new mayor should be given the opportunity to craft a better deal for the city-one that better respects parkland and the rights of property owners and tenant businesses.

This was demonstrate real leadership-especially because we know that it is really tempting to allow the old guard to push this through so you can avoid the entanglements that the reconfigured deal certainly creates. But this would be, in our view, the coward’s way out-and you have demonstrated courage and a real energy for changing the way we do business in NYC.

Shelving a deal that was promoted by an illegal lobbying scheme-and fraudulent environmental studies- and that ends up with a mall replacing 2,000 units of affordable housing, should be an easy call for a change administration. The current Willets West proposal is a bad deal for the citizens of Queens and the tax payers of the entire city. If we are going to use the condemnation process, then the end result should be something that significantly advances the public interest-as this land give away certainly does not.

So, Mayor de Blasio, send a signal to the city that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be done different. We are not going to unceremoniously shunt aside hard working small businesses to aggrandize the interests of the 1%. Say No to Willets West and set the tone for a different kind of politics.

Bidding Adieu to Christine Quinn

As Malcolm said in Macbeth, so we can say about the departing Speaker Quinn: “Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it.” Her departure is most welcome for those of us who have had the distinct displeasure to watch as she has devolved form a somewhat principled community activist into a blatant shill for the real estate industry-from the Bronx Terminal Market to Willets Point, she has never taken a stand for either small businesses or communities under siege from over-development.

Even when Quinn did take a stand in her career-joining opponents of Costco in Hell’s Kitchen and those fighting the Kingsbridge Armory development in the Bronx-she did so by being dragged, almost kicking and screaming, into the ranks of the opposition; compelled to do so be sheer political expediency. Her temperament and intellect were ill suited to any chief executive role, and the more the electorate got to know more about her, the greater the distaste she evinced.

Of course, her signature betrayal of the voters on term limits earned her the sobriquet, Quinnberg-and her actions through eight years simply enforced the perception that she was Bloomberg’s mini-me. It is fitting that the two of them leave office in tandem.

When it comes to the upcoming decision on Willets Point, no one should doubt that she is looking to bequeath one last gift to her patrons at Related-but that doesn’t mean that the other council members are obliged any more to follow her perverted priorities and ratify a deal that is a spit in the face of city council oversight. It is a moment when the council can recapture its independence from a mayor and a speaker that the voters have vehemently rejected. Let’s see if they are up to the task.

A Really Bad Bid

The Daily News is reporting that CM Ferreras is looking to create (expand) a Business Improvement District in Jackson Heights/Corona-and the store owners, as they should be, are not enthralled with the idea:

“An ambitious proposal to create one of the city’s largest business improvement districts in mostly immigrant Jackson Heights and Corona would hasten gentrification and spoil the area’s Mom and Pop character, business owners charge.

The 82nd St. Partnership currently encompasses eight blocks and 125 businesses — but the proposed Jackson Heights Corona BID would cover Roosevelt Ave. from 82nd St. to 114th St. and include roughly 1,000 businesses, said Partrship executive director Seth Taylor.”

These BIDs were the brainchild of former Bronx assemblyman John Dearie, and they were designed to augment the declining city services that were so emblematic of the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. What they do, however, is to tax the store owners for those services that the city itself should be supplying-a double taxation at a time when small stores are under siege. In addition, the merchants are afraid that the effort will eventually lead to their displacement through gentrification:

“That potential expansion has some immigrant merchants concerned they will be priced out of the neighborhood and the area will lose its trademark character.

“They are going to standardize Roosevelt Ave.,” crowed Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7, a bar and jazz club. “They want to clean Roosevelt Ave. of that diversity.”Castiblanco and other local Hispanic entrepreneurs formed the Roosevelt Avenue Community Alliance to block the BID plan.”

But this all goes back to the issue of rising rents and the city’s record high levels of store closings and bankruptcies:

“The group rallied Sunday against the sweeping overhaul — which would require each shop owner to pay a fee for sanitation, security and other services once provided exclusively by the city with regular tax money. “The commercial rents are extremely high,” said Ruben Pena, a liquor store owner and community activist. “The community is going to get hurt. They are fighting to make ends meet.”

CM Ferreras is pushing this deal, but should be careful of alienating those store owners who look to their Hispanic leadership to protect their interests. Her “New Deal” for the area could, like urban renewal, help real estate interests while hurting the store owners who truly represent the immigrant American Dream:

“The BID expansion is a component of Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras’ “New Deal” for Roosevelt Ave., which focused on cleaning up the corridor, which cuts through several Queens neighborhoods. Ferreras cites safety issues, poor lighting and cleanliness as the top complaints among residents.

“The current problems on Roosevelt Ave. hurt everyone,” Ferreras said in a statement. “This is why I believe a business improvement district is a solution to this problem.”

The problems may be real, but the solution offered may be worse than the disease if it leads to the loss of these immigrant businesses. We have just concluded an election where Speaker Quinn got thrashed because she forgot her roots. Ferreras should view that as a cautionary tale.

Willets Point and Living up to the Terms of the Deal

As we have been pointing out, the terms of the original agreement concerning the fate of Willets Point have been shredded by an administration whose word has no weight. One of the key provisions that has been discarded concerns the issue of living wage-an issue that CM Diana Reyna felt was crucial in the casting of her vote in favor of the project.

WPU has now written to Reyna to request that she vote against the newly configured development in order to signal that she won’t be played by dishonest negotiators from the Bloomberg administration. And we will be asking her-along with Public Advocate (and likely next mayor) Bill de Blasio-to stake out a firm position opposing the bait and switch at Willets Point. As we wrote to Reyna:

“When the proposed Willets Point development was first evaluated by the City Council during 2008, labor unions promoted the fact that they had negotiated "historic agreements" with the City administration, specifically to include a living wage provision in the RFP pertaining to the Willets Point development. The living wage provision would affect retail workers at the future development, and is distinct from and in addition to the prevailing wage provision that had also been negotiated, which pertains to construction and other workers.”

And we went on to point out:

“You then led the questioning of a panel of union officials concerning the "historic" project labor agreement. The key hearing excerpts below culminate in the unions guaranteeing you and other Council members that the agreed labor standards – including the required living wage provision – will be "included in the Request for Proposals" and "contractually binding". Moreover, the unions commit to providing a copy of the project labor agreement to the Council for the record…”

On the day of the hearing the president of the Central Labor Council stood on the steps of City Hall with other labor leaders and announced this “historic” agreement:

"Organized labor negotiated several months ago with the City of New York an agreement regarding this project, where prevailing wages were guaranteed in the RFP, living wages are guaranteed, there's issues in there for retail …" – Gary La Barbera, President, New York Central Labor Council

"What is significant about the way that Willets Point will be developed is the assurance that broad labor standards will be met by the chosen developer and contractors. It won't just be thousands of jobs; it will mean thousands of construction and permanent jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages." –
Stuart Applebaum, President, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union

"We are proud to be here today with our brothers and sisters from organized labor. And we're not just proud because we've negotiated an agreement on Willets that provides prevailing wage and living wage jobs. We're proud to be here because the Willets Point project should be a model for economic development going forward." – Kevin Doyle, Executive Vice President, Local 32BJ. “

What this means is that the “historic” agreement is, well, history-or rather relegated to the dustbin of history as just another devious example of how the current mayor is not a man of his word. As we wrote to Reyna-with a copy to de Blasio as well):

“Despite all of the above-quoted clear statements and testimony to the Council concerning the agreed living wage provision, in 2011 NYCEDC issued a Request for Proposals pertaining to Phase One of the proposed Willets Point development that completely omitted the required living wage provision. Consequently, developer firms responding to the RFP were never required to explain how their proposed tenanting plans would maximize the number of jobs that meet living wage criteria. Now we see the final result: The term "living wage" is nowhere to be found within the project contract dated August 1, 2012 between NYCEDC and the selected developers.”

Reyna is not alone in this-the entire city council was played and this indicates once again why negotiated “deals”-just like the phony community benefits agreements-need to be backed by legal sanctions if they are to have any meaning. But the city council-along with the likely new mayor who was also duped when he voted for the deal in 2008 as a member of the council-has been given a second chance.

The disappearance of living wage is only one reason why the deal should be defeated and left to the new administration to reconfigure it after the New Year. No affordable housing-another failed promise-but also illegal lobbying and crony capitalism and corporate welfare. Of all of the development deals put forward by the Bloomberg administration in 12 years this is by far the most dishonest-and the worst for the citizens of the city.

We urge CM Reyna and her colleagues to send a message to the mayor: Your time is up and we will no longer rubber stamp the dishonestly bad deals you have crafted to benefit your rich friends.

NY League of Conservation Voters: It’s worse than what we said

We made a mistake in our original post - and the mistake actually exacerbates our critique of Marcia Bysytryn and LCV. In our original criticism below, we said that, “So, no one should be surprised that two of our city’s leading environmental groups - organizations who were duped into supporting the original Willets Point plan, have nothing to say about the new iteration - a mall built on parkland! Hard to believe this kind of dollars induced lockjaw.”

Not true, as it turns out because it now seems true that when you buy the League, you own it lock, stock, and barrel. We have been told that the League actually testified in favor of the mall and the parking lot to be built on parkland. But even if it didn’t, League president Marcia Bystryn penned an effusive, and misleading, Op-ed in support of the development in the spring:

“The time has come to transform Willets Point from a toxic wasteland into an environmentally conscious, 21st century community.

In an area that is clamoring for open space and recreational opportunities, the cleanup and redevelopment of Willets Point means that the waterfront on Flushing Creek and Flushing Bay will finally become safe and accessible to the community.”

Bystryn said this by way of a critique of housing advocates who denied that there was widespread contamination-apparently avoiding their concerns that the promise of affordable housing has been shelved for, chorus please, a huge mall and a parking lot. There is no other certainty here other than that the Mets and partners will receive a windfall courtesy of the tax payers.

As for the contamination, shouldn’t we rely on science rather than the developer driven hyperbole that is being passed off as such? After all, we are giving Related/Sterling Equities upwards of $400 million without really knowing the levels of contamination at the Iron Triangle. If those levels are lower than asserted by EDC, than the idea of handing over property for nothing loses a bit of luster, doesn’t it?

Bystryn goes to great mendacious lengths in her shilling on behalf of her patron-and no one should take a single word she says seriously until she returns every single dime that the mayor has given her organization.  And she should publicly state how much she has been given by her generous benefactor. This is what is known in the bribery business as a quid pro quo.

What is truly disgusting, however, is her use of mayoral talking points to eviscerate any pretense that her organization has to speak on behalf of the environment. Her are the Orwellian comments:

“This is also a great opportunity to redesign Willets Point in a smarter and more holistic manner. Willets Point is close to the No. 7 train, so people can leave their cars at home more often. And it’s near major highways, meaning that people can get in and out of the neighborhood quickly without further straining traffic in downtown Flushing. The development will also create approximately 12,000 construction jobs and 7,100 permanent jobs, as well as lead to a $3 billion private investment.”

Is Bystryn really serious? Does she not know that the 7 Line is already at overcrowding and that the mall-sans the Van Wyck ramps-will crush the daily commute with tens of thousands of car and truck trips a week? This will definitely not mean that, “people can get in and out of the neighborhood quickly without further straining traffic in downtown Flushing.”

Getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments apparently makes the idea of any real environmental due diligence a silly and quaint notion. The reality here is that the “holistic” planning that the League applauds is being done at the expense of actual property owners who don’t want the city to steal their land from under them. That it also is being done at the expense of the environment is something that a truly independent environmental organization would have little trouble recognizing.

Where are the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Fund?

Five years ago, the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Fund came out swinging on behalf of the city’s mega-plan to transform Willets Point into the New York’s “first green neighborhood.” In fact, Andrew Darrell, VP, Regional Director, Environmental Defense Fund and Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director, New York League of Conservation Voters both signed on to a letter of support for the Willets Point project that was circulated by "non-lobbyist" Claire Shulman and her bogus grass roots LDC. In part, the letter claimed, "This project offers perhaps the greatest return: the rehabilitation of a 60-acre brownfield which has been abused for decades into a sustainable 21st century LEED community."

As far as the NYLCV is concerned it is, as the Marxists say, no accident. In May 2010, the mayor was the League's keynote speaker-a reward for the group's supine response to the assault of the Bloomberg economic development team on the city's air quality-and we could find no public comment from League director Marcia Bystryn about the alarming DOH air quality study from the previous year.  

But the League has been played by Bloomberg for awhile, and it would be interesting for the press to track the money trail from the mayor's sources. This is still a, "not for nothing," city-and there are enough things that the Bloombergistas have done for an independent environmental group to criticize.

As for EDF, who was more outspoken than this group about the mayor’s congestion pricing tax? All of a sudden the group had a $500,000 budget to lobby and do ads for the plan. If anyone else but the mayor had done this, a criminal investigation would have been launched. Instead, the DAs and the US Attorneys cringe with fright when it comes to tackling the really rich and powerful.

So, no one should be surprised that two of our city’s leading environmental groups-organizations who were duped into supporting the original Willets Point plan, have nothing to say about the new iteration-a mall built on parkland! Hard to believe this kind of dollars induced lockjaw.

In response, we have Henry Euler’s testimony at last week’s city council hearing-where the august body spent roughly three minutes on the parks issue. Euler is vice president of the  Auburndale Improvement Association, a Queens civic with over 600 families. As Euler told the council:

“Today you are considering the proposal dealing with the 1.4 million square foot mall to be constructed on the parking lot to the west of Citi Field.  This land is parkland and should be off limits to any private development. Parkland is sacrosanct.  It belongs to the people, not private developers. With the rate of intense development in Queens, we need all of the green space we can spare.

The asphalt on the unused part of the parking lot to the west of Citi Field should be removed and trees and other vegetation should be planted on the site in order to make it look more like a park once again.  There is no shortage of people living in close proximity to the park, or even further away, who could use that refurbished parkland.

Have you seen how many people use Flushing Meadows Corona Park?  It is staggering.  How could anyone think of usurping land for private gain when people living in overcrowded neighborhoods look to the park as their backyard and a source of relaxation, exercise and tranquility?  This park should be a New York City landmark, just as Central Park is in Manhattan and Prospect Park is in Brooklyn.  Queens is tired of being ignored!”

This should inspire public outrage and the leading mayoral candidates should be on this like the proverbial white on rice. Instead we get silence - aided and abetted by the kept menagerie of subsidized environmental groups - and we can add the Sierra Club that received a huge influx of funds from the mayor for its anti-coal campaign. 

We’ll give Euler the last word-although we believe that the real last words will be heard in court:

“There are so many questions to consider in this case, and so many concerns.  We stand with the coalition known as Save Flushing Meadows Corona Park and our neighbors in western Flushing and Corona.  No mall in this location!  Just preserve the parkland and find additional funds to sustain and maintain our precious park. Thank you!”