TRO issued to prevent alienation of Theodore Roosevelt Park

From Curbed:

The American Museum of Natural History’s expansion plans have been put on hold following the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) by New York State Supreme Court justice Lynn Kotler. The TRO against the Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation stems from a lawsuit filed by a group known as Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park, which has been opposed to the expansion for quite some time now.

The museum filed plans for its five-story, Studio Gang-designed expansion in August 2017, and began pre-construction work on the building last month. This further angered the community group opposed to the development, who were waiting on the October 2 hearing date for the lawsuit they had filed against the museum earlier this year.

For now, construction work, and any planned removal of trees from the park will have to be halted until a court hearing that’s been scheduled for December 11, 2018. Community United has been opposed to the project on the grounds that it will destroy the park, lead to the removal of trees, and that construction work will pose a safety and environmental hazard to the surrounding community.

AirTrain will chip away more land from FMCP

From NBC:

Residents in northern Queens are crying foul over a plan to create an AirTrain to LaGuardia Airport. Roseanne Colletti reports.

City's war on parks continues

From the NY Times:

The latest battle between New York’s preservationists and developers is being waged over a 1.5-acre parcel of jungle gym and soccer and baseball fields, known as the Marx Brothers Playground.

Preservationists say there is no question that the space is a park. The city parks department has maintained the lot, wedged between 96th and 97th Streets on Second Avenue, since 1947. The department’s leaf symbol adorns a plaque affixed to the gate.

But city officials, who plan to partner with the developer AvalonBay to turn the site into a 68-story tower with school facilities, retail space and a mix of market-rate and affordable housing, insist the space is a playground.

That seemingly minor quibble of semantics is crucial. Parks require the State Legislature’s and the governor’s approval before they can be modified. Playgrounds do not.

Funny thing is that the Parks Dept's own website calls it a PARK.

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.”

Dueling Willets Point press conferences are revealing

Hiram: “But he does call for the alienation of parkland. So what I’m doing is, I’m helping connect the dots. Trojan horse. This is the Trojan horse plan. He comes out here, he talks about affordable housing, he talks about a new plan, 100 percent affordable – well, 100 percent affordable of what? Is it 100 units? Is it 200 units? I’m saying 5,500 units, right? Point blank. Secondly, he’s already on the record supporting the building of a soccer stadium. In fact, if I recall correctly, I believe he was supportive of the Jets building another football stadium in this park. That’s even a few more years back. Probably around 2008, 2007. The fact of the matter is, that he is very stadium-friendly, and he is very developer-friendly. He is the candidate of political insiders and the rich corporate developers. That’s who he is. That’s not me saying it. I think that if we bother to look even at his campaign filings, both with the State and the City, we’ll see the trail of money that indicates clearly who’s pulling the strings on his back.”

Moya: [On campaign’s prior press release pledging to work with colleagues in Albany to alienate parkland as plan requires] “I’m not in support of any mall being built here. The parkland alienation will always have to go to the State. So we are following what the court has ruled, but I’ve never been in support of a mall. I’m on record for that. So what we have right now is what a court has ruled, saying that we will now have to vote for it in the State, for any type of parkland alienation which is the law.” [After follow-up question concerning campaign’s prior press release, pledging to support, as councilman, alienation legislation by State legislature:] “The alienation will have to go through Albany. We need to make sure that – What we are doing now is proposing a plan that is a plan that is about making sure that we are not bringing in retail here; that is a plan about making sure we’re building affordable housing; that we are building plan that is talking about public and open space; that we’re building a plan that has to do with the remediation and decontamination of this area. That’s what we’re talking about here.”

Moya completely misstated who's paying for remediation of Willets Point land. Speaking about his (Moya's) Willets Plan, he says: "This plan will continue the proposed remediation efforts for Willets Point at the original plan, which included $40 million put forward by the developers to remediate and decontaminate this area." However, the $40 million is merely included in the City's capital grant of $99+ million to Queens Development Group – In other words, QDG would only be "putting forward" taxpayer money given to them and earmarked for this purpose. There is no private $40 million from the developer, contrary to Moya's misleading statement.

The person who spoke at Moya's presser for Make The Road NY was Marta Gualotuna. Googling her name, one finds an article published by Make the Road, which begins: "After learning the Supreme Court deadlocked on an immigration plan that would protect her from being deported, Marta Gualotuna could barely speak through her tears." The implication from Make the Road's own article is that Marta Gualotuna is an illegal alien subject to potential deportation. And of all people, SHE is the sole "community" voice who speaks at Moya's press conference, advocating that everyone support Moya in the election? She cannot even vote! Gualotuna is standing on the left in blue MTR shirt in the photo of the Moya presser.

Queens politics. Just when you thought it couldn't get any dumber, it does.

Moya to publicly pledge his allegiance to the Queens Machine today

CORONA, N.Y. - On the heels of an appellate court rejection of a prior development project, Assemblymember and Council candidate Francisco Moya has issued a community-minded high bar for negotiations on the future of the redevelopment of Willets Point. These essential guidelines come in the face of a failed attempt to bring affordable housing to the area by scandal-tarred Hiram Monserrate, the former Councilmember whose deals with Mayor Bloomberg led to a decade of inaction and stagnation.

Moya's proposal comes shortly after a decision last month by the New York State Court of Appeals striking down the Willets West phase of the proposed redevelopment. The plan, which would have brought a shopping center and movie theater to the 30-acre site immediately west of Citi Field, was intended to be the first phase in the two-part redevelopment of the Willets Point Site. However, the Court of Appeals struck the plan down on the grounds that the land, which is technically parkland pertaining to the adjacent Flushing-Meadows Park, would first require state lawmakers' approval. Moya has pledged to work with colleagues in the legislature to secure the required parkland alienation provisions if his proposal moves forward.

...the leading City Council candidate will join Make the Road Action, Jackson Heights Green Alliance, Fairness Coalition of Queens, and local community leaders to rally in support of Moya's plan, and urge Mayor Bill de Blasio to join in support. The press conference and rally will coincide with the Mayor's week-long stint in Queens, working out of Queens Borough Hall.

Who: New York State Assemblymember Francisco Moya (D - Corona), Make the Road Action, members of Jackson Heights Green Alliance and the Fairness Coalition of Queens, as well as local community leaders.

What: Rally and press conference in support of Moya's Willets Point proposal

Where: Willets Point, 126th Street and Willets Point Blvd., Corona, N.Y. 11368.

When: Tomorrow, Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.

Nice collection of tweeder groups, Francisco! He also wants a soccer stadium in the park.

I'm kind of hoping Hiram shows up...

City, Wilpons suffer devastating court defeat

From the Village Voice:

After eight years, two lawsuits, countless delays, & three city reversals, the plan for a mall at Willets Point has finally been defeated. And much like the Mets these days, it lost badly.

In a 5-1 decision, the Appeals Court upheld a lower court ruling that held the owners of the Mets could not build a mall on city-owned parkland. The land in question, the former site of Shea Stadium, which was demolished in 2008, is currently the Mets parking lot. A 1961 law allowed that parkland to be used for stadium purposes, a cut-out that a mall would not have satisfied, the court found.

“There is no dispute that the Willets West development is proposed to be constructed entirely on city parkland,” the judges wrote, continuing that the “public trust doctrine,” which dictates the uses for public lands “is ancient and firmly established in our precedent.” Nowhere in the Mets owners arguments, was a mall found to be in line with the public trust doctrine, the court found.

The Mets owners were arguing that by using the mall to fund the remediation of Willets Point (a parcel of land on the other side of their current stadium), and eventually the construction of both affordable housing and a school, the mall was fulfilling the public trust doctrine. The court found that too to be unconvincing, and also didn’t believe the Mets owners were actually going to build the housing or schools.

But wait...these tweeders may not yet be finished! From NY1:

Although the ruling does block the developer from moving forward, the legislature can still step in and intervene.

The legislature would have to vote to use the land for Willets West for non-park purposes. It would also have to find a replacement property to designate as parkland.

City Council desperate to have mall built on parkland

From Capital New York:

The New York City Council, which often sides with Mayor Bill de Blasio, is breaking ranks over a planned development at Willets Point in Queens.

The Council plans to vote on Wednesday on a resolution that would authorize it to file an amicus brief defending the plans, which were initially approved by the Council, as land-use applications must be.

The amicus brief itself has yet to be written, and the resolution gives the Council six months to file it in court, but the legislative body will side with the developer in arguing that a mall should be built on existing parkland outside Citi Field.

The Queens Development Group, a partnership of the Related Companies and Sterling Equities, is appealing a decision from earlier this year that would have banned the construction of the mall. The state Court of Appeals last month decided to consider the developer's case.

The Council seems to have no problem disregarding clear public sentiment since 2012, exemplified by Queens Civic Congress being a plaintiff in litigation opposing the Willets West mega-mall on parkland. The Council may be soliciting this vote of its members based on a misrepresentation, as council never considered or voted to approve the mega-mall. (All the council did approve was a special permit to temporarily use Willets Point as a parking lot.) Council must solicit this vote based upon the facts, not upon Queens Development Group's inaccurate revisionist history.

I guess we should be checking campaign contributions in a few months?

What happened to Forest Park's lake?

I came across this photo labelled "Forest Park Lake, Queens, 1936" and figured this must have been a mistake, because there's no place in Forest Park that looks like this. A sailboat pond with a walkway around it? No way.

So I started sleuthing via old maps. This 1951 aerial shot of the park does seem to show a body of water with a sidewalk around it just east of Woodhaven Blvd. So what happened to it?

Buildings. Lots of buildings.

DeBlasio defends green space-to-housing plan

From the Observer:

Speaking at a press conference celebrating the start of an $87 million roof repair project at the Queensbridge Houses—the largest public housing project in the nation, according to the administration—the mayor pushed back on attacks on his housing authority Chairwoman Shola Olatoye and the “NextGeneration NYCHA” plan she commissioned for him. Critics, including Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., have argued that NextGeneration’s development provisions could cost NYCHA residents precious green space and badly strain city resources and infrastructure.

Mr. de Blasio repeatedly emphasized that 13,500 of the new apartments would rent for below-market-rate, and that the city would plan construction in concert with residents—two things he said were missing from former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal for “infill,” which would have focused mostly upscale development on NYCHA space. The liberal mayor also stressed that new construction would create revenues that would other wise be unavailable to the authority, which currently runs deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and has a $17 billion backlog in repair work.

The mayor even promised that any parking or recreational space sacrificed to new construction would be restored in some form to residents.

“We’re going to make sure any facilities that people have, whether it’s parking, playground, whatever a development, are made whole, even if it means someplace else in the same development. We’ll make sure people have the same amenities,” he said. “We obviously will account for any infrastructure needs.”

He did not elaborate on the details of how such adjustments would work.

Of course he didn't because there's no place to put that stuff.

A wolf in sheep's clothing?

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
Ali Najmi to Announce Parkland Protection Act

Who:
Ali Najmi, Candidate for New York City Council, 23rd District
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road Action Fund
Dr. Donovan Finn, SUNY Stony Brook Professor of Environmental Studies
Edwin Westley, Queens Parks Advocate
Park Advocates and Community Leaders

When:
Monday, July 27th, 12:00pm

Where: Cunningham Park, Queens, NY
(Enter at 196th St & Union Turnpike); parking is available at site

What: Ali Najmi will stand with park advocates, community leaders, and local activists to introduce plans for legislation entitled the “Parkland Protection Act,” which will amend the City Charter to prohibit the sale of, or construction on, any inch of parkland without a supermajority approval of the City Council. Najmi and other Queens residents want to prevent any future attempts to give away parkland, like the attempted 2013 plan for a Major League Soccer stadium at Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and the ill-fated “Willets West Mall,” which the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division unanimously deemed illegal last month.
________________________________________

Alrighty...so this fellow, who is a candidate for the 23rd district of the City Council, plans to introduce legislation to protect parkland, however...

Make the Road and Dr. Donovan Finn (of the fictional Queens Fairness Coalition which stopped being active 2 years ago) helped Council Member Julissa Ferreras strike a deal with the USTA to gobble up more Flushing Meadows parkland in return for cold, hard cash. And neither of these organizations signed on to be a plaintiff for the successful lawsuit that stopped development of a shopping mall on FMCP property.

How can this Najmi character be trusted considering the company he keeps?

Telling it like it is on Willets Point

Letter to the Editor of the Queens Chronicle:

An apathetic public is a hack politician’s best friend. That cannot be said of a group of concerned citizens who took on former Mayor Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission, former Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, the Wilpons of the Mets ballclub and their affiliates Sterling Equities and Related Companies, who are for all practical purposes a cabal trying to usurp a large portion of Flushing Meadows Corona parkland that houses a parking field so private developers can construct a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall. The Appellate Division: First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in a unanimous decision, hit a home run in holding the proposed development was not sanctioned by law.

In heralding the court’s decision, the Queens Chronicle’s July 9 editorial, “A major victory, just outside Citi Field,” pointed out the developers’ claim that the 1961 law that allowed the construction of Shea Stadium also authorized the mega-mall was nonsense, as indeed it was.

Equally nonsensical were the claims by the developers that they could not proceed with the 2008 Willets Point plan without the mega-mall to generate the necessary money. The developers are billionaires, and the claim they needed a mall to make money is the height of absurdity. While accepting the 2008 plan, it is evident they never had any intention to pursue it, but only to use it as a wedge for other purposes.

Not only did Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission and Marshall approve this charade, but they rewarded the developers with the property for $1, millions in taxpayer subsidies and the right to forfeit $34 million and walk away from any obligation to construct affordable housing, which was the lynchpin in the 2008 plan to begin with. $34 million dollars for these billionaire developers is tantamount to the tip one gives the youngster who delivers your groceries. Make no mistake once they had a mega mall, they would walk. Equally outrageous was Bloomberg’s saying Willets Point was a blight and had to go, when it was the city that caused the blight, collecting sewer rent when there were no sewers and letting the infrastructure fail.

These officials’ complicity in this sordid municipal episode would cause the infamous Boss Tweed to tip his hat in admiration. Mayor de Blasio has remained silent on the subject. There now exists a good opportunity for him to demonstrate to the public whether there be any real difference between himself and Bloomberg.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

What will Bill do at Flushing-Meadows?

From the NY Times:

The court’s decision brings a halt — at least temporarily — to what has seemed like the relentless commercial appropriation of public land in New York City, often under the rationale that private profit is the only way the people can have nice things.

It also puts Mayor Bill de Blasio in a tough spot.

Will Mr. de Blasio join the developers’ intended appeal and ally himself publicly with a Bloomberg administration initiative that has been deemed an illegal giveaway of parkland?

Or will he disavow the mall, even though supporters say it is financially critical to the overall rebirth of the Willets Point neighborhood, including the possible construction of 875 units of affordable housing?

Appeals court rules that mall on FMCP parkland violates law

(QUEENS, NY) Today, State Senator Tony Avella, along with the City Club of New York, Queens Civic Congress, members of Willets Point United Inc., and nearby residents/business owners opposed to the “Willets West” mega-mall proposal, announced that the Appellate Division of the First Department issued a historic decision in their favor which will keep parkland public.

The lawsuit filed by State Senator Tony Avella, City Club of New York, Queens Civic Congress, members of Willets Point United Inc., and nearby residents/business owners against the “Willets West” mega-mall proposal, challenged the give-away of 47 acres of Queens parkland worth an estimated $ 1 Billion to build the "Willets West" mega-mall adjacent to CitiField.

The suit sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate approvals already granted to the project, as well as a permanent injunction to prevent the construction of a megamall on City parkland without the proper State legislative authorization or proper zoning. The Supreme Court of New York had ruled against Senator Avella and Petitioners, and the group appealed last August.

Today, Senator Avella, along with appellants, declared that the appellate court had announced its ruling in favor of Petitioners. In a unanimous decision, the appellate court granted injunctive relief and declared that the development can go no further without state legislative approval.

“Today’s decision sends a message loud and clear – our parks are not for sale. The fact of the matter is, this land was intended to be parkland, not the development of a shopping mall. In a city where public land is in short supply, simply handing parkland over is a betrayal of the public trust. The court has affirmed what we have been fighting for all along, and I am thrilled to see this decision come down on the side of justice,” said Senator Tony Avella.

“I am very pleased that the Appellate Division, in blocking the development of a shopping mall on parkland next to Citifield, has upheld the ancient common law doctrine that requires any government agency to obtain the approval of the State Legislature before disposing of parkland. This extra layer of protection for parkland has evolved in recognition of the fact that parkland is a scarce and precious resource. It makes it a little bit more difficult for our government to give such land away. It makes sure that we think twice before doing so, no matter how worthy or expedient the proposed project may be,” said John Low-Beer, Attorney for the Petitioners.

“We’d like to thank Senator Avella for being part of this important suit. This decision confirms first that our parks are for our people, and second that city government must comply with the law, just like the rest of us. There are many people who have contributed enormously to this effort. The City Club of New York is delighted to have been instrumental in launching this case, together with Senator Avella, Save Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens Civic Congress, Willets Point United, and many other civic organizations and local residents, and in particular, the wonderful group of Plaintiffs” said Michael Gruen of the City Club of New York.

“Since 2007, we have battled the City at all times over its plans for Willets Point, which expanded in 2012 against the community’s wishes to include the gigantic proposed ‘Willets West’ mall on public parkland,” “Today the Appellate Division agrees with what we’ve said all along: The City and developers failed to follow lawful procedure and now as a result their whole project cannot proceed. If Queens residents knew as much as we do about the horrendous traffic gridlock and other negative impacts of this Willets West/Willets Point Phase One project, they would be celebrating this court victory together with us. Today’s court decision absolutely vindicates all of our efforts and strengthens our resolve to continue challenging and opposing bad development propositions for our area. We’re especially thankful to Senator Avella, who has always done right by his constituents, City Club of New York which spearheaded the lawsuit, and stellar attorney John Low-Beer,” said Gerald Antonacci, leader of Willets Point United.

"We are very pleased with the decision case. It is disgraceful that these developers are attempting to seize 48 acres of public parkland and the Mayor and City Council supported it,” said Geoffrey Croft, President of NYC Park Advocates, Plaintiff.

“The Queens Civic Congress is thrilled that justice has finally been served and Flushing Meadows Corona park will remain available for use by the people of Queens. QCC, as a party to this action is deeply indebted to Senator TonyAvella, our fellow parks advocates and especially to the City Club and its attorneys for their diligent hard work in making this happen,” said Richard Hellenbrecht, Vice President of Queens Civic Congress.

“The entire premise of this parkland having to be developed in order for the rest of the Willets Point development to be completed was proven wrong in this decision. This shows that the taking of public land cannot be used for private gain,” Paul Graziano, Plaintiff and Urban Planner.

Judge questions developers' sweetheart Willets Point deal

From the Daily News:

A judge for a state appeals court questioned the city’s plan to build a mega-mall on parkland in Queens, raising a concern that developers were getting an overly sweet deal.

Officials helped win over the City Council for the $3 billion Willets Point development in 2013 — which is slated to include a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall and a hotel near Citi Field — by upping the amount of affordable housing included in the project.

But one of the appellate panel’s judges said Wednesday she feared the relatively modest $35 million penalty that developers would incur if they don’t build the housing isn’t enough to see it through.

She said she was concerned that the deal could be a “win-win for developers and owners of malls.”

“We have a lot of those,” the judge said.

What we allow these days is a crime

From Gawker:

In Brooklyn, there is a nice park under the Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn Bridge Park. Nice fun place. If you stand on the promenade, a public walkway in Brooklyn Heights, you look out over the park. You see the nice park. You see Manhattan. You see the Brooklyn Bridge. It's nice. A nice, free, democratic public view for everyone to enjoy.

Except: there is a now a condo being built in Brooklyn Bridge Park. (Technically, it is "adjacent" to the park, due to the fact that there cannot be a park where a condo stands.) The city approved this condo, called Pierhouse, with the idea that the taxes on it would help fund the park. Pierhouse (which will also feature a hotel) has proven to be so popular that, in its first ten weeks on the market last year, the developer, Toll Brothers, raised prices six times. Pierhouse is selling for $1,800 per square foot, the highest price in all of Brooklyn. This project, built on what used to be public land, has been great for private interests: "The developer, which is investing nearly $39 million in the project, is projecting revenues of at least $250 million from the development." It's easy to see why the ultrawealthy rushed in to snap up the multimillion-dollar condos. It's not just the 18-foot ceilings and wood floors from 600-year-old heartwood pine and Ruscello Fosso Picollo marble tile bathroom floors and locally sourced 18-bottle undercounter wine storage; it's the view. The view is spectacular. As you would expect, since the building is located in a waterfront park.

If you walk through Brooklyn Bridge Park now, you will see the hulking concrete shell of Pierhouse rising up. If you stand at the end of the promenade now, in order to gaze out at the beautiful view of the Brooklyn Bridge, you will see that that view is now partially blocked by the Pierhouse condo. No longer does the promenade offer a view of a park, an iconic skyline, and the Brooklyn Bridge; it now offers a view of a park, an iconic skyline, and part of a bridge obscured by an enormous glass fortress full of people far richer than those forced to stand outside in order to enjoy the view. In a very real way, the public's park, the public's air, and the public's view have been packaged and sold off to millionaires. The public can no longer even stroll through a public park without being confronted by a gleaming glass Gorgon of multimillion-dollar apartments.

Many people, including those with a direct interest in this project, will tell you that the Pierhouse project provides a public benefit by generating tax revenues that will pay for the rest of the park. Can't argue with that. Those who espouse this view should look forward to the day when the city of New York sells off half of Central Park to developers. To fund the other half. After all, there is no sin greater than leaving money on the table.

Construction alienates public parkland in LIC

The following 2 shots were taken in September 2013, from Google Street View:

"Hello, next time you're in LIC, take a look at Rafferty Triangle park at Jackson Ave/44 Dr/ and Hunter St. About 2 months ago, the massive construction site next to it put up a construction fence around its site, 43-25 Hunter St, and extended the fence into a large part of Rafferty Triange including an area with several benches. My gripe: Why can this private company (Rockrose) take away a relatively brand new park and sitting area? I notified 311 and got nowhere. Thanks for the help!" - Dan

So, I took the bait and headed over there. This is what I found:

And then I looked through the construction fence:

This is all bad, but hopefully temporary. The saddest sight of all was the monument to Capt. Malcolm A. Rafferty, which has been vandalized.

It apparently has been left in this condition for a long time, as it is pictured this exact same way on Parks' website.

In Queens, nothing is sacred except the rights of developers. Not parkland. Not memorials to our dead soldiers.

Parkland alienation case: Judge rules in favor of City

From Willets Point United:

Justice Manuel Mendez, NYS Supreme Court, NY District, has issued his decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Sen. Tony Avella, City Club of New York, Queens Civic Congress and others, challenging the plan of Queens Development Group LLC to construct a 1.4 million square foot mega-mall on 40+ acres of Queens parkland.

Justice Mendez concludes that the 1961 authorization to construct Shea Stadium also allows construction of the mega-mall on parkland.

Below is the official statement of John Low-Beer, attorney for plaintiffs, concerning the decision of Justice Manuel Mendez to dismiss the case:

"Plaintiffs believe that the decision misunderstands the common law doctrine that prohibits any nonpark use of parkland without the specific and explicit approval of the State Legislature. The State Legislature, when it passed the 1961 law permitting the construction of Shea Stadium, did not intend to allow construction of a shopping mall. That law did not allow the construction of anything except a stadium and related facilities on the site. Plaintiffs will appeal, and believe that this decision will be reversed on appeal."

From Crains:

The next step in the process is for the de Blasio administration to transfer all of the city-owned properties to the control of the joint venture, which then plans to begin cleaning contaminated soil on the site before eventually constructing the mall and part of the residential component to the east of the home of the New York Mets. However, the development group said the timeline is being kept fluid since the court’s ruling was likely not the final chapter in the legal dispute.

Oral arguments heard in megamall lawsuit

From WPIX:

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez will rule shortly on a coalition of Queens community group’s lawsuit to block the development of the Willets West Mega Mall.

“We don’t want another mall. We need parks for kids,” Darryl Steckler, a Holliswood resident told PIX 11.

Many Met fans going into the game say they’ve heard enough about the proposed Willets West megamall in the shadow of Citifield to know they don’t like it.

“There are enough malls around here. We don’t need another place to buy shoes,” Jennifer Quinn said.

The proposed 1.4 million square-foot mall to be developed by Sterling Equities, the owner of the New York Mets and the Related companies would replace the auto-body shops and build on more than 47 acres of Queens Parkland, currently part of Citifield parking lot. The area has been the scene of numerous protests over the last seven years.

Opponents of the proposed mega-mall argued in New York State Supreme Court against what they called the “give-away” of parkland without the required approval of both the New York state legislature and the city’s uniform land use review commission.

“You have five malls already in Queens and they are not doing well,” State Senator Tony Avella told PIX11. “Why do we need another one?”

Outside the courthouse after oral argument. Visible (left to right): Harbachan Singh, Queens Civic Congress; Irene Prestigiacomo, Willets Point United; NYS Senator Tony Avella; Joseph Ardizzone, Willets Point United; Michael Gruen, City Club of New York; John Low-Beer, plaintiffs' attorney; Phil Konigsberg, Queens Community Board 7; Ben Haber, activist/plaintiff; Len Maniace, Jackson Heights Beautification Group. Copyright 2014 LoScalzo Media Design LLC.

Mega mall on parkland being defended by former top judge

From Willets Point United:

The court case, Sen. Tony Avella v. City of New York, is pending before Justice Manuel Mendez in New York State Supreme Court. Oral argument will take place on July 30, 2014 at 2:15PM at 71 Thomas Street, Room 210.

QDG must be so nervous about the prospect of an adverse court decision, that it has resorted to bringing in the ultimate New York judicial juggernaut – former Chief Judge Judith Kaye – to attempt to persuade the court to see things QDG’s way. Frankly, we think this is also a not-so-subtle attempt to intimidate Justice Mendez into siding with QDG, and to make it uncomfortable for him to do otherwise. After all, the legal issues raised by this case are clear-cut, and could be very well presented by any competent attorney who doesn’t happen to be a former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals. What, then, does QDG gain by retaining former Chief Judge Judith Kaye for this case?

Well, for Justice Mendez to rule in favor of Plaintiffs/Petitioners (against QDG and Willets West), he would have to disagree with not just any QDG lawyer, but with Judith Kaye, former Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals. It is as if the former Chief Judge is telling Justice Mendez on behalf of QDG: “I find that this mega-mall is legal and may proceed. Who are you to disagree with me, the former Chief Judge at this state’s highest court, two levels above yours?”

With all due respect, it should be noted that Justice Mendez is at the Supreme Court – the lowest level of trial court in New York State. Above that is the Appellate Division. And above that is the Court of Appeals, where Judith Kaye was an Associate Judge from 1983 through 1993, and then Chief Judge for 15 years from 1993 through 2008, when she retired because of age restrictions. She is now of counsel, and apparently for hire, at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

We also note that Judith Kaye was first appointed to the Court of Appeals, and later designated its Chief Judge, by then-Governor Mario Cuomo – the same Mario Cuomo who, in 2012, brokered settlement talks on behalf of Mets owners including Fred Wilpon who were involved in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard had sued the Wilpons to recover $386 million in swindle profits. Cuomo not only reduced the amount the Wilpons owe to $162 million, but also got Picard to drop his claim that the Wilpons were willfully blind to Madoff’s fraud. Now, Cuomo friend Judith Kaye is assisting the Wilpons’ Sterling Equities to lay claim to 40+ acres of Queens park land, to supplant it with a mega-mall.

We pray that Justice Manuel Mendez sees right through QDG’s attempt to strong-arm his decision in the Willets West matter by inserting former Chief Judge Judith Kaye into the case – and that Justice Mendez will have the fortitude to disregard undue pressure and render a decision that is based, as it should be, on the relevant facts and law.