The city’s environmental review method overlooks the residential displacement impact of development on New York neighborhoods, where socio-economic demographics are rapidly shifting through private and public rezonings, a new report finds.
During a city-initiated rezoning or project, the city must do an environmental review to understand and assess the impact a proposed project may have in the neighborhood. The review follows a Technical Manual as a guide—and the new report from Pratt Center for Community Development raises important questions about the manual.
The Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination is charged assisting city agencies to carry out environmental reviews in accordance with state and federal law and advises the mayor on environmental policies, according to its website. The City Environmental Quality Review or CEQR is mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. According to the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination website, CEQR is a disclosure process and not an approval process. It helps support decisions made by agencies such as approvals of rezoning or variance applications, funding, or issuance of discretionary permits.
The Pratt report says, “Despite community groups vocalizing concerns and despite quantifying large numbers of vulnerable residents, recent Environmental Impact Statements have concluded that rezonings will not displace residents at a significant level.”
It refers to four problematic points in the CEQR Technical Manual. First, the technical manual dismisses the potential for inequitable impacts by race and ethnicity by not making a review of the impacts on race/ethnicity a requirement. Second, only low-income tenants living in one- to four-unit buildings are considered vulnerable to displacement because the technical manual does not consider rent-regulated units as vulnerable. Third, the potential for displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods is dismissed because, the Pratt report says, “…if rents are increasing in an area and presumably displacement is occurring, Environmental Impact Statement authors are to conclude it is not possible that a proposed action could make the situation any worse…”
And fourth, Environmental Impact Statement authors use their own discretion in determining a finding of significant impact. Says Pratt: “The Technical Manual provides specific guidance to analysts in some areas but when it comes to the most important aspect—the final determination—the manual is noticeably open to analysts’ subjective conclusions.”
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) have determined that changes to the proposed Willets Point development – including the recent addition of a 1.4 million square foot “Willets West” mega-mall on parkland, and the expansion of the total size of the project from 62 acres to 108.9 acres – may require a “Re-evaluation” of the Environmental Assessment prepared in 2011 by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) in support of new access ramps to and from the Van Wyck Expressway to enable the project. Such a re-evaluation by the FHWA and NYSDOT could necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, and spur new legal challenges by project opponents who have always called the ramps the project’s Achilles heel.
For its part, NYCEDC has long asserted that new Van Wyck access ramps are necessary precursors to the full development of the 62 acre Willets Point site – including the 5,000+ units of housing that were touted as the project’s linchpin. But other expert analyses have shown that the proposed new ramps can never adequately address the very severe traffic congestion that a developed Willets Point will impose on the Van Wyck Expressway, the Whitestone Expressway and other nearby highways and local roads.
Back in 2010, the New York Times exposed state officials’ “frustration with the city’s inability to provide reliable information and the pressure it was placing on them to expedite their analysis” of the proposed Van Wyck ramps.
In 2011, NYCEDC submitted a draft Environmental Assessment for the ramps to NYSDOT and FHWA. A very contentious public hearing was held, at which numerous Queens civic associations expressed opposition to the ramps and the questionable traffic analyses, and called for an independent expert review of the future traffic impacts. However, NYSDOT and FHWA arranged no such review.
Instead, in early 2012, NYSDOT and FHWA affirmed the Environmental Assessment, which then became the basis of a “Finding Of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) issued by the FHWA, concluding that constructing the Van Wyck ramps will have “no significant effect on the human environment.” Issuing the FONSI means that no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will ever be prepared for the proposed ramps.
But the Environmental Assessment and the FONSI are based upon analyses of traffic associated with the 62 acre Willets Point development that NYCEDC had promoted up until mid-2012. Just weeks after the FHWA issued the FONSI, then-Mayor Bloomberg announced the expansion of the Willets Point project to include a 1.4 million square foot “Willets West” mega-mall on parkland located west of Citi Field stadium. Adding the mega-mall nearly doubles the total size of the project from 62 acres as originally promoted, to 108.9 acres as NYCEDC now intends. It also increases the total amount of retail space at the site from 1,700,000 square feet, to 2,650,000 square feet. NYSDOT and FHWA never considered the traffic impacts of any such mega-mall, when evaluating the proposed Van Wyck ramps which enable the development.
When Mayor Bloomberg announced the vastly expanded project, Willets Point United, a coalition of area property and business owners, wrote to the FHWA:
“FHWA’s approval of the Van Wyck ramps and the FONSI is explicitly based on an Environmental Assessment for the prior project. That approval and FONSI, and the Environmental Assessment on which they are based, are no longer applicable because they were for a different project than is now being planned, and they should be withdrawn. The FHWA must do a new environmental review for the same reasons that the City is now doing a supplemental EIS.”
FHWA and NYSDOT emails recently obtained by documentary video producer Robert LoScalzo show that beginning in late 2012, NYSDOT required that NYCEDC explain the ways in which the revised Willets Point development (including the “Willets West” mega-mall) differs from the development as originally proposed and that was the basis of the ramps’ Environmental Assessment and FONSI. NYCEDC responded by directing NYSDOT to the project’s full Supplemental EIS, and later by providing a four page “Summary of changes in the Willets Point Development Plan and the Willets Point FSEIS.” The FHWA then requested that NYCEDC “prepare a table illustrating the current changes to the Willets Point Development Plan Project versus what was approved in the March 2012 NEPA Environmental Assessment,” and NYCEDC provided such a table on September 23, 2014.
A week later, on September 30, 2014, Uchenna Madu, NYSDOT Director of Planning and Project Development, wrote to Thomas McKnight, NYCEDC Executive Vice President:
“We have reviewed the summary of changes to the Willets Point Development Plan SEIS compared to the March 2012 EA FONSI issued by the FHWA. Our initial assessment is that a Re-evaluation of the 2012 Environmental Assessment would be required. We will follow up with you for an in-person meeting in the coming week with FHWA staff, NYSDOT and if you wish to bring in your Environmental Consultants (I believe AKRF).”
All of this begs the questions:
If the FHWA and NYSDOT are “Re-evaluating” the Environmental Assessment because its data is no longer accurate due to the project’s expansion, has the FONSI issued in 2012 been rescinded?
Will the FHWA and NYSDOT finally require a full Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Van Wyck ramps?
And, are the ramps now considered unapproved – meaning there is no clear path at the moment to develop all of Willets Point?
A coalition of civic groups in Queens seeking to stop a project to upgrade and modify a Kennedy Airport runway has filed a lawsuit asking a federal court in Manhattan to order the airport operator to conduct a full environmental impact study.
The Eastern Queens Alliance, representing residents of southeast Queens, said the Port Authority's proposal to widen Runway 4L/22R and construct 728 feet of new pavement on the north end would put departing and arriving airplanes closer to homes, schools, churches and businesses.
Jets taking off and landing nearer to where children study and people live, work and worship would undoubtedly bring more noise and air pollution to neighborhoods that are already inundated with them, said the coalition's chairwoman, Barbara E. Brown of Brookville, Queens.
"The noise pollution is already bad, and to tell me a little more noise is not going to impact me is ludicrous," Brown said Tuesday in an interview.
The Port Authority declined to comment Tuesday, but in its reply to the lawsuit filed in September, the agency said its plan to extend Runway 4L/22R to 12,079 feet from its current 11,351 feet and widen it to 200 feet from 150 feet is necessary to meet design standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration. The wider runway would accommodate larger aircraft such as the Airbus A380, a double-decker widebody jet that is currently the world's largest passenger airliner.
The FAA requires runways to have a buffer zone, referred to as runway safety area, to lessen the risk of damage to property and injury to passengers in the event an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or is forced to leave the runway. The Port Authority has until Dec. 31, 2015, to bring Runway 4L/22R into compliance.
A coalition of fuming community activists opposed to the city’s plan to place a homeless shelter in Glendale has raised more than $25,000 over the last month to help them mount a legal battle.
“We have been meeting weekly since the middle of August,” said group member Robert Holden, who is also part of the Juniper Park Civic Association. “We feel this is not an appropriate site. It’s an industrial site.”
The city’s Department of Homeless Services is poised to sign off on a contract with Samaritan Village to operate a shelter for more than 100 families at the location of an old factory at 78-16 Cooper Ave.
City officials say they are pressed to find places for the growing number of homeless families who need shelter.
But Holden and others say the location would be bad for both shelter residents and local homeowners.
They also questioned the city’s environmental review of the site, saying it was not thorough.
And queen tweeder Christine Quinn's spokesman is heading to REBNY, so I guess he'll be saying nasty things about preservation and preservationists, which I suppose isn't all that different from working for the City Council.
Developer, State Must Compensate Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn,
Other Community Groups
NEW YORK, NY — A judge today ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation ("ESDC") is liable for legal fees incurred by community groups that sued successfully to compel a supplemental environmental impact study (SEIS) for the second phase of Forest City's controversial Atlantic Yards project. She referred the parties to a referee to determine the amount of the award, which under an agreement with ESDC, Forest City Ratner will then have to pay.
The ruling was issued by New York State Supreme Court Justice Marcy S. Friedman, who in July of 2011 held that the second phase of the Atlantic Yards project must undergo re-analysis because of significant changes in the originally claimed 10-year construction timeline. Justice Friedman noted that this review "should lead to ‘consideration of alternatives [to the currently proposed project] that may more effectively meet the ostensible goal of the project to alleviate blight and create affordable and market-rate housing with less adverse environmental impacts.'" ESDC and Forest City Ratner lost their appeal of Justice Friedman's ruling at the Appellate Division, and the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, refused to hear the case. The ESDC, the quasi-governmental entity overseeing the project, has yet to issue the draft SEIS required by the courts.
In reaching her decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to their attorneys fees as the prevailing party, Justice Friedman expressly denounced ESDC's claim that it was justified in continuing to use a ten year timeline when its own Development Agreement with Forest City Ratner reflected a buildout of up to 30 years, calling the claim "no small audacity, in light of the court's prior findings . . [including] the ESDC's ‘deplorable lack of transparency.'"
"Justice Friedman's ruling today is another reminder of the sordid 10-year history of the Atlantic Yards project, which to this day has largely failed to deliver on the promises that were used to sell it to the people of New York," said Candace Carponter, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's legal director. "We're gratified by today's decision, but the fact remains that, as Justice Friedman suggests, had the ESDC and Forest City Ratner not knowingly misrepresented the facts to the court, the entire Atlantic Yards project, including the heavily subsidized Barclays Center, would never have gotten off the drawing board."
"Justice Friedman has rendered a strong decision that vindicates what the community has been saying for a long time. One can only wonder whether this project would have ever moved forward if, as Justice Friedman noted, ESDC had disclosed the project's true timeline", said Jeffrey S. Baker, lead attorney for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and a partner in Young, Sommer LLC. "It is time for ESDC to finally engage in an open and honest process that considers the full range of alternatives for Phase II of this project, not just the interests of Forest City Ratner."
Queens elected officials are urging the FAA to redesign flight patterns to curb aircraft noise around its two airports.
The Federal Aviation Administration changed flight patterns at LaGuardia and JFK Airports about a year ago, prompting a new round of complaints among neighbors.
Reps. Grace Meng (D-Queens) and Steve Israel (D-Queens, Long Island) sent a letter to the FAA this week requesting a meeting with the head of the agency to discuss the concerns.
“The noise is a very serious problem. It is disruptive,” Israel told the Daily News on Wednesday. “The FAA must take into consideration vital community feedback and consider redesigning new flight patterns.”
State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) said the FAA is in for the fight of its life.
“Giving the FAA almost carte blanche is simply wrong,” said Avella, who would also like to see an environmental impact statement done on the flight pattern changes. “We’re not going to let this go.”
His office is in the process of setting up a community meeting with FAA officials for March 14.
Grand plans to transform a shuttered Rockaway firehouse into a cultural
and environmental center have been stymied by bureaucratic red tape,
according to the group selected by the city to purchase the site.
The Rockaway Waterfront Alliance beat out other groups in 2009 for the
right to purchase the decommissioned Engine Co. 265 Ladder 121 firehouse
at Beach 59th St.
It seemed like a sweet deal. The purchase price for the 7,200-square-foot building was $1.
But the nonprofit group said they never expected the approvals and
paperwork needed to seal the deal would move at such a glacial pace.
“We thought we would go through ULURP and be on our way,” said Jeanne
DuPont, executive director of the Rockaway Waterfront Alliance,
referring to the Uniform Land Use Review Process.
DuPont said the group laid out about $200,000 for architectural
drawings, site surveys, construction documents and environmental
reviews.
They are hoping to be reimbursed with promised grants.
“The grants won’t be released until we own the building,” she said. “We’re building debt and going into dangerous waters.”
Plans to revamp the gritty industrial landscape of Willets Point must remain on hold until the city can produce an “appropriate” environmental review, a court has ruled.
In an Aug. 14 decision, the city was ordered to double its efforts in evaluating toxic soil, hazardous roads and chronic flooding before moving forward with plans to overhaul the 62-acre Iron Triangle.
“The City will not proceed with development in Willets Point,” the court order states. “The appropriate environmental review will be prepared and any additional approvals that are necessary will be sought for future development in Willets Point.”
Willets Point United, the group of business and land owners battling the re-development, said hailed the ruling.
“You still have land that is contaminated, that doesn’t have any infrastructure,” said attorney Mike Rikon, who represents the group. “There are no sewers — sanitary or storm — in that area. So they would have an enormous undertaking.”
Ok, so basically the entire Willets Point project has been stripped down to a parking garage/mall on the Citifield parking lot for the Wilpons and a collection of temporary sports facilities, including stickball courts, on condemned land where the convention center and affordable housing was supposed to be built. The whole idea of stickball is that you play it in the street, but in Bloombergland it requires a project that costs billions of dollars...
The City Council didn't vote for this, but they'll look the other way while this gets pushed through.
Bruce Ratner has lost his fourth court decision in a row. Today NY State's high court, the Court of Appeals, rejected the developer's (and the Empire State State Development Corporation's) request to appeal the lower court's unanimous upholding of the Supreme Court order that Atlantic Yards must undergo a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
The suit, originally brought by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and other community organizations, has had a long and winding path. At the core the case is about the State's bogus claims (and subsequent impact study) that the project build out would be 10 years, when in actuality it will likely be 25 years at minimum, and thus the attendant impacts will be substantially different then the ones studied.
The ruling today and the previous ones show, thankfully, that NY courts can actually be a check against public agencies running amok on behalf of private interests.
The ruling also means that the bulk of the Atlantic Yards project will undergo an SEIS, which will include a public hearing.
The time is now for ESDC and Governor Cuomo to intervene to ensure that Forest City Ratner doesn't hold a huge chunk of Prospect Heights hostage for the next generation.
Critics of the $1.5-billion redevelopment of the former Domino Sugar factory into 2,200 units housing sued last week to reverse the rezoning of the waterfront site.
The suit, filed in State Supreme Court by the Williamsburg Community Preservation Coalition, argues that the City Council, Department of City Planning, and the project’s developer, Community Preservation Resources Corporation, failed to conduct the required thorough environmental review of the project.
The 34-page lawsuit contends that the review “failed to take a hard look at the adverse environmental impacts of the project,” including its deliterious effect on traffic, nearby schools and subway lines, and publicly accessible open space.
As the controversial Flushing Commons development inches closer to a vote in the City Council, shopkeepers and elected officials alike are waiting for the city to reveal the details of a business assistance program that could make or break local retailers.
The available information is in the city's Environmental Impact Statement, required for any large land-use project. It states Flushing Commons will not directly displace businesses nor will many be pushed out by competition with Flushing Commons' stores.
A group of skeptical locals - the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development - recently commissioned its own study to fact check the city's Environmental Impact Statement.
"We wanted to do an economic study so we could determine what made sense for a business assistance program," said coalition member Jim Gerson.
The main discrepancy between the two analyses is that the city counted 970 storefronts within a 1/2-mile radius of the project and the other, prepared by Hunter College, tallied 2,100 businesses.
"If you use the 2,100 figure, that $2 million would amount to only $26 a month for each business over the construction period," said Brian Paul, a fellow at the Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development.
EDC officials discounted the Hunter College study.
"Our EIS was conducted by experienced consultants over the course of several years and followed a rigorous and approved methodology," said David Lombino, an agency spokesman.
The Hunter College report "was written by a group of graduate students in a matter of weeks, and significantly misrepresents aspects of the EIS," he said.
Oh yeah?
"The City's Economic Development Corporation as represented by Mr. Lombino apparently has not consulted the Hunter College report which they dismiss. The title page notes that it was prepared not by a bunch of students but by myself (Professor of Urban Planning at Hunter College) and Hunter College Fellow Brian Paul, who did most of the work under my direction. The fact that EDC consultants spent years and couldn't even get the number of local businesses right raises the question about who the amateurs are. Those of us familiar with the work of EDC's consultant, AKRF, are not surprised at the size of their mistakes and the equally inflated size of their bills to the taxpayers. The fact that we could turn up such a basic error in such a short time with limited resources should be disturbing. The number of businesses affects so much of the rest of AKRF's conclusions in the EIS and thus calls into question the entire study."
- Tom Angotti, Director, Hunter College Center for Community Planning
QUEENS CRAP ROVING REPORTER #2 -- DATELINE APRIL 1, 2010 FINAL CB7 LAND USE COMMITTEE & VOTE ON FLUSHING COMMONS
Unfortunately, it was not an April Fool’s Day gag. CB 7’s Land Use Committee wasted a whole evening to, in the end, approve every single one of the many exceptions to land use policy requested by Rockefeller/TDC (Michael Lee) and Bloomberg’s EDC. Some committee members apparently think that total capitulation gives them leverage in further negotiation with the BEEP’s office (she thinks it’s wonderful, boys) and the city (which has already shown how much it gives a crap). Yeah, like capitulation gave Czechoslovakia so much leverage with Hitler.
On the other hand, when has this community board ever voted against ANY development in downtown Flushing? Some of them complained it was too big-- a total of 69 stories and 1 million square feet-- and a couple thought the Macedonia Church affordable housing project should have been a separate vote (aaaand actually, it is! Keep reading...), but mostly they were your average lemmings.
A great deal of time was spent creating stipulations to be added to the city’s agreement with Michael Lee & Rockefeller, which recapitulated the terms of the letter by then-Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and then-Councilman Liu. Even those had some trouble being approved. One of the key conditions added in by CB7 was putting the capped parking rates back in. Rob Goldrich of the Deputy Mayor’s office assiduously took notes (or at least scribbled a lot) but of course, once he gets back to City Hall, they’ll just tear it all up, and why not, since anything a community board says is just advisory anyway.
Flushing BID chair Jim Gerson is a member of the CB7 land use committee. When Gerson raised the issue of the number of parking spaces (1,600) being less than previously agreed by John Liu and Dan Doctoroff (2,000), and also said that he had personally spoken to Liu to confirm this, committee chair Chuck Apelian told Gerson, "Liu did not tell you that", insisting that nowhere within the Liu-Doctoroff agreement are 2,000 parking spaces explicitly required for the project as presently contemplated. Apelian repeatedly insisted "that is mistaken".
Also, when Gerson later pointed out that the DEIS is predicated upon a proposed one-way Flushing traffic pattern which NYCDOT has recently decided not to implement, and that the DEIS therefore does not accurately depict the traffic conditions that will result from the Flushing Commons development, Apelian said "I don't care what an EIS says. I don't care about it. I go by my gut." So, per Apelian, it is acceptable to approve a project which generates significant adverse traffic impacts, even though there is no EIS on the record which relates to the actual conditions that relate to the proposed project.
Also, as currently proposed, rates to park will become market rates after 5 years. They are not capped in perpetuity as was to be the case under the aforementioned agreement.
And, although CitiField is to become a detour location for long term MuniLot parking, and the City's EDC representative mentioned that the rate there is $4.00/day, the fact that parking there on game days costs $19.00 was never mentioned. Drivers who divert from MuniLot 1 to CitiField are going to be in for a very rude awakening, when they discover that they will pay $19.00 to park at CitiField on game days (already an increase of more than 5% in less than a year).
Here's the real deal about the parking:
During the RFP process, the developers kept raising the # of parking spaces that they would provide, with the winner, TDC, and two others bringing it to 2,000.
Part of the reason that it was 2,000 spaces is that the original proposal that was won by TDC had less apartments and more retail/commercial, which would have generated more required parking.
When they changed the mix - added over 100 apartments but removed several hundred thousand square feet of retail - the net loss of parking spaces correlates closely.
The problem is that they can't arbitrarily change the mix without rewriting that pesky contract.
One more thing: The topic of converting the existing YMCA into a school came up. A letter from Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber apparently addresses this, by making vague reference to a different school that is to be built as an element of another "nearby development" which the letter does not identify. During last week's committee meeting, when the letter was discussed, someone asked Bob Goldrich, representing the Deputy Mayor's office, if this different school to which the letter refers is the school that will be built at Willets Point. Goldrich appeared disturbed, as if the site of the school was not supposed to be identified at this time. He may not have explicitly answered the question, but said "A school in a development that will be nearby". I was left with the impression that EDC is saying that you don't need to convert the YMCA building into a school, because residents of Flushing Commons/Macedonia will be able to attend the school in Willets Point.
Perhaps, they will walk across the pedestrian bridge connecting downtown Flushing with Willets Point, to do this...
However, with the Willets Point project in limbo (and with the school possibly not being in "Phase One" anyway), is it prudent to rely on Flushing students attending a Willets Point school? It is likely that development of the MuniLot site will be complete (and the YMCA ready to be repurposed) long before a Willets Point school is available, if it ever is?
And what will happen when the Wilpons build on the Citifield Municipal Parking Lot, which everyone seems to forget is part of the Willets Point Redevelopment plan? Apparently the CB7 land use committee forgot to ask about that little detail.
THE VOTE
The only three who consistently showed some spine among the jellyfish, consistently voting NO, were Yang-Hee (Sunny) Hahn, Jim Gerson and Ikwhan Rim.
Voting YES, over and over again, were Land Use chair Chuck Apelian, Arthur Barragan, Tyler Cassell, Bob LoPinto, Kim Ohanion, Millicent O’Meally, Terence Park, Lynda Spielman, Linna Yu, Raymond Chen and Gene Kelty. John Byas’s and Pablo Hernandez’ YES votes are pending legal approval, since they are with the church and the Y respectively, which might be conflicts of interest (ya think?).
Basically, just like every other moronic development decision they have made, they voted yes when they meant to vote no so as not to piss off the City. However, they are supposed to be watching out for the community, not for the government or developers. Clearly, it is time to flush the crap out of CB7 of Flushing!
CB 7 Chair Kelty vented some after the vote, complaining that once more, the city had given the board no time before the ULURP clock started counting down. Rob Goldrich gave him the classic civil servant's impassive, "screw-you" look. TDC’s Michael Meyer spent the whole evening with a shit-eating grin on his face, diddling with his...cell phone.
James McClelland, Councilman Peter Koo’s chief-of-staff, made two revealing comments. Early, he asked that the evening be short, as he had to get to confession before Holy Thursday mass: “I have a lot to confess.” When the discussion went to whether DOT Queens Borough Commissioner Maura McCarthy would try CB 7’s one-way plan if her traffic test failed, someone commented that she took her orders, after all, from Manhattan. Said McClelland, “Now she takes her orders from us.” Meaning McClelland, Dennis Gallagher, and Councilman Koo... If the EIS is uncorrected by the time this gets to the Council, that fact alone may be a fatal flaw. But why is the City promulgating a project using an EIS that does not contain a proper traffic study? And why is CB7 not calling them out on the carpet for that? Just because the board feels the outcome is inevitable doesn't mean they can't take a stand against a bad project in their district.
- CB7 will make a long list of demands for approval...Check - TDC will add the extra parking deck and that will be enough to placate CB7...Damn, I was wrong here. (That's how lame Chuck is as a land use chair, he couldn't even find the balls to ask for this.) - CB7 will approve it...Check!
Now, look closely at the application status report for CB7. The Flushing Commons/Macedonia developments have a number of applications for actions that must be taken in order for this project to proceed. CB7 could vote only for Macedonia's plan by voting yes on application C100207 ZMQ (last item on page 3) for the rezone of the entire block but no on all the rest of the items before them.
Will they do that? Certainly not. They will do what they are told in order to keep their pathetic status as the "voices of Flushing". And TDC will laugh all the way to the bank.
Being psychic, this reporter predicts that on Monday, April 5, the community board as a whole will approve every detail of Flushing Commons, down the line. Usher them into the Invertebrates’ Hall of Fame.
Ah, excellent reporting by #2! This type of B.S. coming from Apelian and CB7 is nothing new, as readers of this blog know full well.
Pointy shoes, oyster shells, clay pipes and other detritus of the Dutch who founded New Amsterdam, the British who followed and the early New Yorkers were among the 65,000 artifacts uncovered during construction of the $400 million South Ferry subway terminal.
A sampling of the remnants, including segments of the 18th-century battery wall that gave Battery Park its name, are now on display at the New York Transit Museum’s annex at Grand Central Terminal.
Diane Dallal, archaeology director for AKRF, a firm that analyzed the artifacts, was excited to find yellow Dutch bricks that once lined walkways.
“A lot of times you see these black-and-white drawings of New York,” she said. “But it must have been very colorful.”
Her attitude is interesting considering Dallal works for AKRF, the firm the city and state hires whenever it wants to do something particularly dastardly, such as Columbia University expansion, Atlantic Yards, etc. She is the one who probably gave the green light to the MTA to start digging despite the fact that it was an archaeologically sensitive area, just like she did at the St. Saviour's site in spite of the LPC stating that there was a strong likelihood of finding similar archeologically sensitive material and graves at the site. This gal really gets around!
The city’s Design Commission today opted to hold off a key vote for Coney Island’s $64 million amphitheater project after irate opponents gave commissioners an earful over the controversial plan.
The taxpayer-funded, 8,000-seat amphitheater plan for Asser Levy Park is a pet project of Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and also includes the relocation of the park’s playground.
Many opponents expected the commission to sign off on the new playground design today and the amphitheater design at a later date. But after hearing testimony from opponents, commissioners opted to table the vote until they could review both parts of the plan simultaneously. This, because, the amphitheater can’t be built unless the playground is relocated.
"I feel we should see the whole thing together," Commission President Jim Stuckey told opponents, who started cheering. He tabled the vote until at least next month.
Commissioners also raised legal issues about whether they should vote on the project when it has yet to complete its mandated environmental assessment.
The Bloomberg administration is using a slowdown in construction starts as an opportunity to solicit input about the environmental review component of the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure of development projects. An online questionnaire about the environmental review process was launched Thursday and will be posted at nyc.gov until Friday, May 22.
According to a release, the survey is intended to help the city improve and expedite environmental review by identifying inefficiencies and proposing ways to improve the process. Mayor Michael Bloomberg says in a statement that "identifying opportunities to reduce costs and delays in the environmental review procedure will bring greater predictability to the process. By gathering information from stakeholders--from consultants to community boards--we will be positioned to improve the process without compromising environmental protection standards or public participation."
Italicized passages and many of the photos come from other websites. The links to these websites are provided within the posts.
Why your neighborhood is full of Queens Crap
"The difference between dishonest and honest graft: for dishonest graft one worked solely for one's own interests, while for honest graft one pursued the interests of one's party, one's state, and one's personal interests all together." - George Washington Plunkitt
The above organizations are recognized by Queens Crap as being beneficial to the city as a whole, by fighting to preserve the history and character of our neighborhoods. They are not connected to this website and the opinions presented here do not necessarily represent the positions of these organizations.
The comments left by posters to this site do not necessarily represent the views of the blogger or webmaster.
