Community members rip the City Council a new one

We've come to the end of our coverage of the disastrous Planning Together hearing from 2/23. Now, the public has a chance to speak. Reps of Community Boards, neighborhood organizations and a planning expert weigh in, and they don't hold back. There are allegations of chicanery and racism and it's oh, so enjoyable. A lot of people out there are paying attention, and that's a good thing.

Corey Johnson is fooling absolutely no one

Add CB7 to the list of community boards rejecting "Planning Together"... (love the racism angle)

CB7 response to Planning Together by queenscrapper on Scribd

So, let me remind you that the hearing is Tuesday, February 23rd at 10am. You can sign up to testify in person or submit written testimony here. Choose the following from the dropdown menu:

CB7 tells future lower income tenants of Flushing Creek towers, let them have buckets

Developers and investor consortium looking to supress environmental review of luxury tower development by Flushing Creek

Curbed

Along the banks of the Flushing Creek—one of New York’s most vital and most polluted waterways—dozens of construction cranes loom over the landscape, and half-finished glass towers cast ominous shadows over the water. During heavy rain storms, the waterway regularly swells, flooding pathways in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, the streets of Willets Point, and even portions of the Van Wyck Expressway. And after those storms, the city’s overtaxed sewer system often pours raw sewage into the creek and Flushing Bay, causing a stench to waft from its brackish waters. Dead fish occasionally float upon its surface.

But this chunk of Queens real estate has been targeted for development by a consortium of landowners and stakeholders, including a group called the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation (FWPCLDC) that has long pushed for revamping the waterfront. Last December, the group quietly submitted plans to redevelop a 29-acre stretch of industrial property along the waterfront, which would include rezoning the northernmost section from manufacturing to residential use.

The proposal calls for creating a Special Flushing Waterfront District, which could accommodate a huge mixed-use development with more than 1,700 apartments, retail, a hotel, and publicly accessible open space (including a riverfront promenade that would connect to the recently opened Skyview Flushing Creek Promenade). Developers also want to integrate a publicly accessible road network with the existing street grid, effectively expanding downtown Flushing. The portion of land that would be rezoned could eventually be home to just under 100 below-market-rate apartments.

While proponents say the development will benefit the community, critics are concerned that development will have “immense impacts” on the fragile condition of the Flushing waterfront. 

“Adding significant residential development could overwhelm the Creek’s overburdened infrastructure that already releases over one billion gallons of raw sewage and stormwater runoff into the Creek every year,” the Guardians of Flushing Bay, a group of environmental activists, said in a statement. “Though the plan aims to provide critical access to a virtually inaccessible swath of the waterfront, it is essential that this project, if enacted, be implemented in a way that would enhance coastal resiliency, recreation opportunities, ecological stewardship and equitable access to the waterfront.”

The proposal comes as downtown Flushing experiences a development boom: Between 2009 and 2019, the neighborhood saw the second-largest number of condos constructed in New York City after Williamsburg, Brooklyn, according to Nancy Packes Data Services, a real estate consultancy and database provider. Over the past five years, rents have climbed by a whopping 21 percent. Although historically home to a largely working- and middle-class Chinese immigrant population, many of Flushing’s new developments—such as the massive The Grand at Skyview Parc, which has two-bedrooms selling for around $1.27 million—cater to a new wave of immigrants with deep pockets.

With Flushing booming, the waterfront remains the last frontier for developers. But given the size of the proposal from the FWPCLDC, as well as the fact that the Special Flushing Waterfront District is situated in a coastal flood hazard area, critics have argued that an environmental impact study—which is not required for this particular project—must be conducted before the plan moves forward.

“They’re adding three million square feet along the waterfront,” says Tarry Hum, chair of the Queens College Department of Urban Studies. “Can you imagine the environmental impact?

Update: Community Board 7 approves the rezoning anyway

 At a tense Monday night meeting, Community Board 7 voted 30-8 to approve a development team’s plan to rezone a large section of land by Flushing Creek.

Dozens of protesters showed up to criticize the land-use application filed by FWRA, a consortium of real estate firms behind the project.

The development group wants to rezone a section of the area so it can construct a 13-tower project with 1,725 residential units and 879 hotel rooms–along with retail and office space–by the waterfront.

The 29-acre property is bound to the north by 36th Avenue, to the east by College Point Boulevard and to the south by Roosevelt Avenue.

FWRA seeks the creation of the Special Flushing Waterfront District and a rezoning in order to move ahead with the proposed plan.

The standing-room only meeting was heated. Activists grew frustrated that they were unable to speak until after FWRA presented its lengthy and time-consuming presentation, which continued on until after 9 p.m.

“Let us speak,” some in the crowd pleaded during FWRA’s presentation.

CB 7 Chairman Gene Kelty walked into the crowd and tried to hush some of the unsatisfied people who were waiting for their turn to speak.

In a video of the meeting, one frustrated woman tells Kelty, “Why are you saying this is a public hearing? This is not a public hearing and you know it.”

The footage shows the CB 7 chairman saying, “It is a public hearing,” uttering a few more words that are drowned out by other noise, and then appearing to lunge at the woman to steal her phone before being stopped by police officers and others.

“Let us speak! Let us speak!” the group chanted as Kelty walked away.

Waterpointe is being watched

From the Times Ledger:

DEC released a letter in September entitled “Explanation of Significant Differences” explaining why changes to the soil fill had been allowed in the remediation plan. Cervino said the switch from Track 2 residential soil to Track 4 commercial soil will negatively affect future owners in this development. He pointed out that in order to build a house a chemical citeria must be met that guarantees a safe toxicity level for children to play in the yard and for plants to grow there.

According to Cervino, when the board asked for data about the soil, it was estimated that at least 40,000 tons of soil was recontaminated after the site was cleaned up around 2010. Cervino is asking for proof that the 40,000 tons of soil was cleaned up since then because the board was never given data to prove that it was.

“Now we hear that there was this agreement that this property was recontaminated and now they’re going with commercial standard,” he said. “It is now eligible for Track 4, which means the Brownfield cleanup and consent order was not adhered to. I want to know why they were given lax restriction to original agreement.”

Cervino speculated that most of it was left on site. He thinks DEC only cleaned some of the soil out.

CB7 Chairman Gene Kelty said it is out of the board’s hands and can only be handled at the state level. DEC will be voting in two weeks for a certificate of completion. CB 7 said it wants to stall development from moving forward until the board gets clear answers on why the track was changed and the levels of contamination of the soil. CB7 agreed to write a letter to DEC asking state Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside), state Assemblyman Edward Braunstein (D-Bayside) and Assemblyman David Rosenthal (D-Flushing) to hold a hearing.

December CB7 meeting scheduled

From the Queens Chronicle:

A post from last Tuesday on the blog Queens Crap pointed to how even though December is not listed as an exception to the charter rule, Community Board 7 did not have its regular meeting with a public hearing during that month last year or the one before.

Although the agenda for November’s CB 7 full board meeting said the next one would be in January, the advisory council has set up a meeting for Dec. 18.

Board Chairman Gene Kelty told the Chronicle that though the board did not have a full meeting last December or the one before, the members weren’t ignoring any major issues in the district.

“If we didn’t have a meeting then it meant that we really didn’t have anything on our agenda,” he told the Chronicle.

“All I know is we’re in compliance this year and we’ll be in compliance in the future,” the chairman added.

Now you can put the RKO on your agenda.

CB7 wants seat at the Willets Point table

From the Queens Tribune:

The city has been “delinquent” in its discussions with Community Board 7 on the future of the troubled Willets Point development, according to the board’s First Vice Chairman Chuck Apelian. And at Monday night’s quarterly meeting with the project’s stakeholders, Apelian put the city and developers on notice.

“I want to be very clear,” Apelian said. “We expect to be involved.”

The future of Willets Point has been uncertain since a June ruling by the Court of Appeals halted a major part of the proposed development, a mega mall known as Willets West, because it was planned for a parcel of land connected to nearby Flushing Meadows Corona Park. Building the mall on public parkland would require approval from the state legislature, the court said.

And while Willets West was only part of a larger development plan that included hundreds of affordable housing units and environmental remediation, the developers maintained that the mall was the “economic engine” that would make the project possible. Now, the developers and city are deciding whether to pursue a long campaign for state approval or make changes to their plan. But changes to the project could concern Community Board 7, which approved the most recent proposal in 2013.

“If the original concept has been now modified, that’s not what this board voted on,” CB 7 Chairman Eugene Kelty said on Monday.

Nate Bliss, of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said that, regardless, the city plans on being a partner with the community on the process. Apelian expressed hope that this was true. If the parkland was not alienated by the state legislature and Willets West was abandoned, he expects the project could change “dramatically.”

NYPD recruits hogging up College Point parking

And whose fault is this? Let's see what the papers have to say:

From the Times Ledger:

Before the police academy in College Point opened up, the city had an agreement that residential parking would not be affected. I live on 128th Street between 23rd and 25th avenues. And there were several occasions when NYPD cadets would park on the very block I live on and would hop into their fellow cadets cars to be driven down to the Police Academy.

When I spoke to the sergeant of operations at the new police academy, he admitted, or let’s say he was very frank, that the city had plans for more parking areas, but they don’t have the funds to build them. I would now say that this agreement that the community had with the city was a lie.

So now, this agreement that the community had with the city was not to affect parking three-quarters to half a mile away, I would like an explanation for why we who live that distance from the police academy have to be affected by their parking problem.

Richard Erdey
College Point

Also from the Times Ledger:

Gene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, said the NYPD had promised that parking would not be an issue, saying the board expects the department to tell the recruits to either park onsite or take mass transit.

He said the board has forwarded the parking complaint to its contacts in the Police Department and noted that it is hard to address the parking issue because no one is entitled to a parking spot in a residential area.

“We wanted all parking on site because we didn’t want this to happen,” Kelty said.

He said the Police Academy project got scaled down into phases during former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration, noting that the first phase was building part of the parking lot and the classroom area.

“It’s very nice,” he said. “We were happy that they got a state-of-the-art facility, it’s just that they were not supposed to impact the area.”

In a letter dated Nov. 20 to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton on behalf of Erdey, state Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) asked Bratton to review the parking issue and get back to him with his findings.

Maybe Paul Vallone can work on this one.

CB7 wants Waterpointe property rezoned

From the Times Ledger:

Community Board 7 is looking to rezone the Waterpointe site in Whitestone because it contends the developer did not provide a deed restriction ensuring that only homes are built at the site. The developer maintains that it has provided the board with everything it has requested.

At its monthly board meeting Nov. 9 at the Union Care Plaza Center at 33-23 Union St. in Flushing, the board recommended that the 18-acre site, on which 52 single-family homes will be built, be downzoned specifically for residential family homes.

Gene Kelty, CB 7’s chairman, said the developer, Edgestone Group, did not provide a deed restriction for the site at 151-45 Sixth Road.

“Now that they didn’t do what we asked them to do, which was a deed restriction, and we’re not positive they’re going to build exactly what they said they were going to build, that’s why we want to change the zoning,” Kelty said.

Joseph Sultana, an architect who represented Edgestone Group at the CB 7 board meeting, said that when they met with the board early in October, the board asked them to provide a notarized letter from the property owner stating that the developer will put in place a deed restriction.

He said the board promised to vote on the special permit for the property in return.

The developer sent the letter to the board for approval but did not hear back. The board then decided to table a decision and told Edgestone that it wanted a deed restriction, he said. Sultana said the developer e-mailed the board a copy of the deed restriction it requested Nov. 4 but at the Nov. 9 meeting, they were told that the deed restriction was not good enough.

Flushing Commons runs into parking problem

From the Queens Chronicle:

Parking at the proposed Flushing Commons mixed-use development project seemed to be on the minds of officials Thursday at a meeting of the Community Board 7 District Cabinet meeting.

Michael Meyer, president of TDC Development — which is working with the Rockefeller Group to develop the five-acre project on the site of Municipal Parking Lot 1 — outlined plans at the cabinet’s monthly meeting held at the Queens Botanical Garden.

But those in attendance were more concerned about long-term parking than when the first shovel will go into the ground. Although the entire project is not expected to be completed before 2021, 1,144 parking spaces will be retained during construction.

Meyer explained that the project has been broken up into two phases so as not to disrupt parking during the conversion. The site is bounded by Union and 138th streets and 37th and 39th avenues.

He said the plan will reduce congestion and benefit merchants. But CB 7 Chairman Gene Kelty was less sanguine about the plan, which calls for extended long-term parking on the second level of the existing lot.

“We want to divert commuter parking to Citi Field to open up more parking downtown,” Kelty said. “Instead, commuters will only have to pay $16 for the maximum time.”

The chairman said the announced plan “was not what we were told” and “that’s a big problem.”

He was supported by District Manager Marilyn Bitterman and representatives of the business community.

“If it becomes a problem with commuters hogging spaces, we can control it through pricing,” Meyer said.

The developer explained that rates will be different than the city’s, but that they will be locked in by the city until a year after the project’s completion.

Accidents up 400% on College Point Blvd

From the Queens Chronicle:

Ever since the city started installing traffic islands on College Point Boulevard in Flushing a couple of months ago, accident rates have gone up significantly.

Officers at the 109th Precinct report numerous phone complaints from drivers about the islands because they don’t see them until it’s too late and end up hitting them. Gene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, says the design makes no sense, causing a problem where there wasn’t one before. Crashes are up fourfold.

Although a traffic initiative, the Department of Transportation said the project was in the hands of the Department of Design and Construction. DDC spokesman Craig Chin indicated the “pedestrian refuge islands” project, from 32nd to Fowler avenues, also includes reconstructing that stretch of College Point Boulevard with a resurfaced roadway, pedestrian ramps and upgraded water and sewer mains.

Officers in the highway safety office at the 109th Precinct indicated that there is no specific data for the boulevard, but that year-to-date accidents are up 3 percent. CB 7, however, was informed by police sources that accidents on the boulevard where the islands have been installed have increased by 400 percent in a one-month period. A police source confirmed that figure for the Chronicle.

Also concerned about the situation is the Department of Sanitation. Ignazio Terranova of the DOS said it will be more difficult in the winter for snowplows to maneuver around the islands. “It’s a lot harder to see them with snow,” Terranova said.

CB7's Willets Point cave-in like deja vu all over again

From the Daily News:

A proposed mega-mall next to CitiField might have gone down to defeat Monday night but for a bottom-of-the-ninth set of promises from the developer to skeptical Community Board 7 officials.

The board’s land-use committee had already rejected the city’s plan for a 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall on what is currently the baseball stadium parking lot, but the committee changed its vote — and the full board followed suit hours later — after Deputy Mayor Robert Steel and the developer, the Queens Development Group, promised in writing that the board would get increased oversight over the project.

“I changed my vote because of the papers in front of me,” CB7 Chairman Eugene Kelty said of the promises. “We have people in place that have signed letters and I’m comfortable with it.”

If Kelty and Land Use Chairman Charles Apelian — who voted down the mall at the committee level last week — held their stance, the board would have been deadlocked.

If this sounds like something you heard back in 2008, it is. Back then, CB7 voted "yes" with almost the same set of conditions. The EDC never gave CB7 additional oversight and never came through on any of the other promises.

From 2008:

CB7 bends over backward to approve Flushing Meadows shopping mall

Well, well, well. We suspected it was too good to be true, and it was. CB7's hastily called Buildings Committee voted 10-6 in favor of the Willets Point West project last night. You have to wonder why no one on the board thought it was wrong to take a re-vote when the original vote was cast after giving the developers and the City more than ample opportunity to make convincing arguments. Then, after hours of public testimony, the full board voted 22-18 in favor of it. The vote may have gone the other way if some board members hadn't conveniently left the meeting before the vote was held.

A shameful sham.

Lipstick on a pig

UPDATE: Chuck Apelian has called a CB7 Buildings Committee meeting for 5:30pm tonight.. Also, a multi-agency task force is sweeping through Phase 1 closing down businesses.

Reliable sources say that Queens Community Board 7 – whose Building and Zoning Committee voted last week 7-2 to deny the Willets West mall/Willets Point ULURP application – has contacted members of that committee and instructed them to set aside time beginning at 5:30PM this afternoon, Monday, May 13, in case the committee needs to convene again for an emergency meeting prior to the CB7 public hearing to be held tonight at 7:00PM.

If such an emergency committee meeting occurs, it can only mean one thing: That powers-that-be do not accept last Wednesday's "No" vote to deny the Willets West mall/Willets Point application, and want a last-ditch opportunity to strong-arm the committee into re-voting to approve the application with "conditions" prior to the start of the public hearing. The seeds for this were planted during last Wednesday's committee meeting, when board members who voted in the minority discussed with committee Chair Chuck Apelian the possibility of continuing discussions with the City and the developers, and possibly re-convening the committee prior to Monday's public hearing.

Last Wednesday's vote was duly taken after the committee had convened four separate times for a total of roughly 13 hours, during which the City and the developers had carte blanche to present whatever information they wished in support of the project. Having heard everything, the committee then voted to deny the application. If the committee does convene again on Monday, the application certainly will be unchanged, so there would seem to be no legitimate basis to solicit a re-vote, when a vote has already been taken. Doing so anyway would be just another example of project proponents stopping at nothing, as they have done before, to shamelessly push this Bloomberg legacy project.

With the CB7 committee having done its duty and made its decision, why should there be any interest in facilitating a reversal? Well, you should all know that Harry Giannoulis, a lobbyist for the Parkside Group (as well as former TLC Commissioner), has had private discussions with Chuck Apelian after committee meetings regarding Willets Point. Interestingly, neither Wachtel, Masyr & Missry, LLP nor Parkside have  listed Community Board 7 as a lobbying target as required by law. This document shows that people who lobby community boards must register as lobbyists. And once registered, the requirement is to disclose the "targets" of the lobbying on the periodic reports, which are filed 6 times per year. Check Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC's 2008 reports to see correct disclosure of "targets", including Apelian and Kelty. If Parkside is lobbying CB7, then everyone is entitled to an honest disclosure of that fact -- not more concealment, as Claire Shulman did during 2008. (Shulman's records were audited and corrected after Willets Point United shed light on her shenanigans.)

In addition, I have been informed by multiple CB7 members that there have been a series of clandestine meetings between a lot of them and Parkside lobbyists at the North Flushing Senior Center, a non-profit founded and funded by late State Senator Leonard and current State Senator Toby Stavisky, parents of Parkside co-founder Evan Stavisky. Hello, conflict of interest?

If this isn't enough proof that the EDC, Parkside and the Wilpons are cooking something up behind the scenes, then how about this: The Real Deal posted an accurate story on their website last Friday about the outcome of last Wednesday's CB7 committee vote, and then the next day deleted it and replaced it with a line of B.S. from "a spokesperson for the project" stating that the CB7 committee "voted to not vote" and did not vote on the project itself, which is patently false. A CB7 member rebutted the ridiculous assertion in the article's comments section and now The Real Deal has egg on its face.

I guess the bottom line here is that last week's vote seemed too good to be true...and we'll find out tonight if it was.

Prediction: Either there will be a hastily called committee meeting prior to the full board meeting to discuss conditions for voting yes, or Chuck Apelian will pull a list out of his pocket after the public hearing and make a motion to vote yes on them. The latter would be in blatant violation of the Open Meetings Law, but that never stopped him before.

With all this crap going on it begs the question:

WHERE THE HELL IS THE FBI????

I'll allow the project opponents to have the last word:

CB7 grants hotel variance to another developer

From the Times Ledger:

Community Board 7 held a raucous Monday night meeting where it approved an 18-story hotel in downtown Flushing that will be attached to a nine-story medical center.

The board voted 30-8 to give developer Richard Xia permission to circumvent zoning laws and use his $60 million gleaming glass building, already under construction at 42-31 Union St., as a 161-room hotel.

The existing zoning allows for residential use or long-term hotel uses, but the developer is arguing that he will not be able to get a reasonable return on his money and asked the board for what is known as a variance to house a short-term hotel instead. Technically, a patron of a long-term hotel has to stay for at least a month.

The board’s vote is advisory and the decision is ultimately up to the city Board of Standards and Appeals.

Mitchell Ross, the lawyer who wrote the variance application, outlined several reasons why the developer believes he deserves relief from the laws that regulate the use of the building.

First, the irregular shape of the lot and the subpar soil conditions increased construction costs, and income levels around the building are not high enough to make luxury apartments economically feasible, he said.

He also argues in his variance application that flight noise from LaGuardia Airport would deter long-term renters — an argument that could be applied to nearly every block in the downtown Flushing area.

State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) sent a representative to express his disapproval, citing complaints about the construction at the site. Several neighbors testified about structural damage to their buildings and excessive noise.

But Avella’s testimony ignited shouting from both Sweeney and CB 7 Chairman Gene Kelty.

“I resent the fact he is not the senator from the district,” Sweeney said.

Kelty and Avella’s aide, Dawa Jung, then had a back-and-forth argument about CB 7 protocol and a disagreement the two had years ago.

Urban planner Paul Graziano, who is also running for City Council, testified against granting the variance, saying the builders brought these conditions on themselves.

“I would just build a smaller building,” he said, arguing that would solve many of Xia’s financial hardships.

But according to Joe Sweeney, chairman of the CB 7 Land Use Subcommittee, the short-term hotel would be the least intrusive. The building’s shape will not change, but short-term guests might drive less and instead take hotel-provided shuttles to the airport and downtown Flushing.

Ok, so here we have community board members pissed at a State Senator from outside the district for getting involved in a project at the request of local residents instead of getting peeved about the State Senator for the district staying silent. Then we also have the same members pushing for the variance on behalf of the developer. Interestingly, Chuck Apelian did not show up for this meeting. Paul Vallone was one of the "yes" votes. The soil is subpar because there is a river flowing beneath the property, but no discussion of that by the board.

Why did Chuck and Gene show up at CB4 last month?

Sorry I missed this when it happened, but better late than never. From A Walk in the Park:

The evening [at CB4] started off ominously when it was announced that the public would only be allowed one minute each to make public comments. However that provision apparently only applied to some.

CB 7 Chair Eugene Kelty and 1st Vice Chairperson Chuck Apelian showed up. For weeks they have been pressing for a cash-for-public-parkland-swap vote deal. Their Let's Make a Deal mantra did not fly however, and backfired on the two last night. (The night before CB 7 voted in favor)

CB 4 District Manager Christian Cassagnol violated the rules and invited Mr. Kelty up to speak after the public session was over. Mr. Kelty was eventually shouted down by the crowd.

Many people took great offense at him trying to influence the board.

"He had no right speaking during the board deliberations," said Ben Haber. "He never would have any of that at his own board."

Community Board 4 voted 36-0 against expansion.

What the hell were these 2 doing trying to influence a vote at CB4?

Parking placard perk ends for CB members

From the NY Post:

Community board leaders are fuming that Mayor Bloomberg is about to yank their parking placards.

On Feb. 1, the city is planning to eliminate a precious perk that New York’s 59 community-board chairs have enjoyed for years — a pass that lets them park anywhere for free for three hours.

The board leaders are not ready to give up their treasured passes quietly.

“They got my service for 28 years. I think it’s quite insulting, whoever made this decision,” said Queens Community Board 7 Chair Gene Kelty.

“When the city asks me to come into the city [for a meeting], I’m not coming in,” he said. “You can send a car or I’m not coming in.”

While the passes are being nixed for volunteer board leaders, paid district managers will keep theirs.

Good luck with that

From the Times Ledger:

A city agency rarely disciplines Queens businesses that renege on promises made to the community in exchange for obtaining a zoning variance, according to civic leaders.

When a business wants to operate outside city zoning laws, the owners must apply for what is known as a variance, and often those variances come with legal conditions set by the community.

In Auburndale, for example, a car company wanted to use a lot for employee parking, so the neighborhood requested no commerce be conducted. Similar requests by Auburndale businesses were put into law by the city Board of Standards and Appeals, but a civic association has been trying to get property owners to stick to their word with mixed results.

Technically, the BSA has internal rules in place to deal with businesses who do not conform to the conditions of their variance.

“The board may, at its discretion, and upon due notice of the hearing, revoke or modify variances ... when it finds that the terms or conditions of such grants have been violated,” the board’s own regulations state.

Yet this practice rarely happens. Civic leaders in the area cannot recall the board ever revoking a variance.

Instead, the burden of enforcing the conditions of the variances falls on the city Department of Buildings and local community organizations, according to Gene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, which he said constantly deals with problems relating to variances through limited tools.

USTA plans to gobble up more parkland

From the Daily News:

Not every aspect of the U.S. Tennis Association’s proposed expansion in Queens is an ace right down the middle in the court of public opinion.

Advocates are yelling “fault” at the proposal to build two parking garages in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, saying they have no place in the greenspace.

The garages are included in the $500 million expansion plan for the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center announced last month.

The two garages — two and three stories — to be built on the footprint of current surface-level parking, would add 500 spaces.

But several community board members and parks advocates panned the proposal.

“Queens is getting to be a parking lot. It’s wrong,” Eugene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, said during Wednesday’s hearing. “We’re not building parking garages. I can’t see my board voting that way.”

The park falls under the jurisdiction of Community Boards 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

Even allies think the EDC is full of crap

From the Queens Chronicle:

Although plans for Willets Point, also known as the Iron Triangle, were leaked last month, Bloomberg outlined a timeline at the Laguardia Marriott Hotel in East Elmhurst for development initially along 126th Street and eventually in the Citi Field parking lot. The first phase of the Willets Point development is expected to take up to 15 years.

Following completion, the developers will erect “Willets West” on the existing Citi Field parking lot and turn it into a million- square-foot retail and entertainment center with more than 200 stores, movie theaters, restaurants, a parking structure and surface spaces for 2,500 cars.

This is the part of the project that has some in the community scratching their heads. Gene Kelty, chairman of Community Board 7, who attended the breakfast, said he isn’t sure of the plan’s legality. Citi Field and its parking lot sit on public parkland, and Kelty doesn’t think putting up a commercial shopping center is the proper usage.

Jack Friedman, executive director of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, who organized the breakfast at the mayor’s urging, thinks such a use of the parking lot could be alienation of parkland.

But Seth Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corp., said following the mayor’s speech that a 1961 agreement with the Mets allows for development.

Really? Well then why hasn't it already been done? They waited this whole time to build a mall on the parking lot when they got approval for it more than 50 years ago? As usual, what's coming out of city officials' mouths smells like crap.