SENATOR AVELLA CALLS ON DEC TO DENY WASTEFUL DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR TAX CREDITS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONDAY, November 10, 2014

CONTACT: Heather K. Sager

718-357-3094/917-244-7945

SENATOR AVELLA CALLS ON DEC TO
DENY WASTEFUL DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR TAX CREDITS

(QUEENS, NY) Today, State Senator Tony Avella is calling on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to deny the Queens Development Group’s (QDG) application for Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) tax credits on its Willets Point Phase One property.

Approximately a year ago, QDG entered a contract with the NYC Economic Development Corporation which requires the QDG to clean up the property. As part of this agreement, the QDG received a capital grant commitment of taxpayer funds for $99 million, of which $40 million is intended to pay these cleanup costs. 

However, it was not long after QDG applied to the Brownfield Program, to try to obtain additional tax credits to clean up the property.

The Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) provides substantial tax credits to land developers to encourage the remediation and clean up of Brownfield sites. It was developed by the State in order to offset the costs of clean-up of the sites. An example of the amount of previous awards under the BCP is the $44 million awarded to the developers of the East River Plaza in Manhattan. 

After learning of QDG’s application, Senator Avella, along with advocacy group Willets Point United, immediately contacted the DEC to intervene. In a recent response letter, the DEC stated that the agency believes that, "The public interest is served by allowing these properties to participate in the BCP." The DEC also wrote in its response, "The fact that a property may be redeveloped without the incentives of the BCP does not preclude it from being eligible for the program."

“The Queens Development Group has already been promised $40 million in taxpayer funds to offset the costs of cleaning up Willets Point Phase One. Now, the QDG is attempting to take advantage of the BCP tax credit program by trying to apply for millions in tax credits for costs that will already be paid from the taxpayer’s pocket. It’s absolutely disgraceful,” said Senator Avella. “The DEC’s response is alarming, as it completely disregards the fact that the QDG is already required to clean up the site, and will already be receiving taxpayer funds to do so. Wasting taxpayer money by giving funds to developers who are already receiving clean-up related capital grants is not the intention of the Brownfield Credit Program.”

Read Brian Ketcham's Daily News op ed

Brian Ketcham

The following is an excerpt from Brian Ketcham's recent op-ed in the Daily News:

"The folks at Willets Point United hired me to investigate the traffic and transit implications of this project. I’m a transportation and environmental engineer with decades of experience. What I found was that the project would generate so much traffic that it would gridlock local access roads and surrounding expressways. I also found that the EDC environmental impact statement was replete with erroneous assumptions, bad data, and outright falsehoods.

The project has gone ahead nonetheless, and the EDC handed over the development rights — behind closed doors — to Sterling Equities, a $4.6 billion real estate company and owner of the New York Mets. Sterling Equities teamed with The Related Companies, one of New York’s richest and most powerful developers, to form the Queens Development Group, which became the final recipient of the development rights for Willets Point.

The project has required massive public subsidies: $250 million for 23 acres of land at the site; $35 million for sewer construction; more than $66 million for the construction of new highway ramps; almost $100 million in a grant of taxpayer funds to the Queens Development Group; $42 million in direct financial assistance to the developer-a total of $536 million ponied up by taxpayers.

Today, the threat of redevelopment and eminent domain seizure has already driven out many of the businesses that once thrived in the Willets Point neighborhood. Few of the displaced businesses have successfully relocated.

For this reason 33 owners of Willets Point businesses filed suit in February 2014 against the EDC, Sterling Equities, The Related Companies, and the Queens Development Group. The lawsuit alleges that “there was no lawful relocation plan for current commercial tenants,” that “the relocation assistance has been ineffective,” and that the city’s failure to implement a legitimate relocation plan is a violation of federal law.

Eliminating taxpayer support for a billionaire’s boondoggle like the Willets Point Project will not make much of a dent in the level of extreme inequality in New York City. But it would make a statement that it is time to take a stand and help the working poor defend against the depredations of the rich."

Willets Point Tenants Sue the City, NYCEDC and Developers

Sunrise Cooperative court Petition, cover page;
filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, February 4, 2014.

Thirty-three owners of businesses that are tenants at Willets Point, plus the Sunrise Cooperative umbrella group to which they belong, have sued the City of New York, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA), Sterling Equities, Inc. (Sterling), The Related Companies, Inc. (Related) and Queens Development Group, LLC (QDG).

The tenants' court Petition describes a very disturbing reality that contrasts with the rosy visions that NYCEDC and City Council member Julissa Ferreras have sought to put over on the public. Like the rally held by a different tenant business group on November 20, 2013, this lawsuit should help to set the record straight concerning many unpleasant aspects of QDG's proposed Willets Point / Willets West development.

In their lawsuit, the Sunrise Cooperative tenants state that "there was no lawful relocation plan for current commercial tenants," that "the relocation assistance has been ineffective" and that the City's failure to implement a legitimate relocation plan, including viable relocation properties, is a violation of federal law – specifically, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (the URA).

The lawsuit notes that the New York Daily News reported on September 3, 2013 "that only ten out of the approximately 110 businesses in Willets Point, or only 9 percent, had been successfully relocated." Burnishing the point, the lawsuit continues: "Despite receiving testimony from the Urban Justice Center and others stating that the relocation plan was inadequate, the EDC and Developers have not provided meaningful assistance to the Petitioners."

Here, we remind our readers that NYCEDC hired Cornerstone Group – and paid it taxpayer funds totaling $700,000.00 – to provide five years' worth of relocation services that have turned out to be "ineffective" and not "meaningful", as told to the court. We also remind everyone that State Senator Tony Avella called for a federal investigation of Cornerstone in relation to Willets Point, during a press conference held with another tenant group, the Willets Point Defense Committee, on November 20, 2013. Senator Avella did so again on February 28, 2014, as discussed below.

Event organized by the Sunrise Cooperative, August 2, 2013.
Sunrise Cooperative is now suing the City and developers.

The Sunrise Cooperative lawsuit also attacks the IDA's approval of tax credits in the amount of $43 million for developers Sterling, Related and QDG, alleging that IDA overlooked "the requirement that a project is only eligible for financial assistance from the agency if the assistance is needed to induce the developer into completing the project," which was not the case for these developers and the Willets Point / Willets West project. We remind everyone that then-Comptroller John Liu voted against the $43 million tax credits as a member of the IDA board. Our thoughts on those tax credits – and our list of the other significant project costs that are rarely reported – are here.

The Sunrise Cooperative Petition also argues that NYCEDC and the developers did not disclose to the City Council, prior to the Council's October 9, 2013 vote to approve special permits necessary to the project, that the developers were seeking tax credits totaling $43 from the IDA – and that as a result, the Council's decision to approve the permits "was made before the full cost of the project was apparent", and therefore unlawful.

Finally, the tenants' court papers echo many of the same arguments made by other Petitioners in the separate lawsuit filed on February 10, 2014, concerning the fact that Sterling, Related and QDG intend to construct a 1.4 million square foot shopping mall on 30+ acres of property that is actually parkland, within Flushing Meadows-Corona Park – without obtaining state parkland alienation legislation, without any public review of the sacrifice of parkland for the mall, and without obtaining City approvals of the same.

Considering the significance of all those allegations and what is at stake for the Sunrise Cooperative Petitioners, we have to wonder: Why did they file their lawsuit on February 4, 2014, and then essentially keep it a secret for the past month? As of right now, no newspaper has yet reported on the tenants' lawsuit. It has only been mentioned in an online article published on February 14, 2014, written by Patrick Arden. We know first-hand that at least one big daily newspaper is aware of this lawsuit, but has deliberately backed away from publishing anything about it. Could it be, that the Sunrise Cooperative is merely attempting to leverage its lawsuit, to compel the City, NYCEDC, Sterling, Related and QDG to pony up substantial funds to facilitate relocation?

As if to emphasize the absolute mistreatment of Willets Point tenant businesses at the hands of NYCEDC, last Friday, members of the Willets Point Defense Committee – which is led by Arturo Olaya, and is not a party to either of the two pending lawsuits – held a news conference together with State Senator Tony Avella in his office. There, the press heard more horror stories of evictions, failure to relocate, and Cornerstone Group's continuing involvement at Willets Point. Below is the press release prepared by Senator Avella's office. Taken together with the Sunrise Cooperative's court Petition, it's clear that there is no fair treatment of Willets Point tenant businesses, and that reports of their relocation are greatly exaggerated. Mayor De Blasio, are you listening?

WILLETS POINT BUSINESSES STILL

LEFT IN THE DARK BY THE CITY

Senator Avella stands with Willets Point Tenants
to urge the City to reach an agreement

(Bayside, Queens, Friday, February 28, 2014) Today, Senator Tony Avella joined Willets Point tenant businesses who have not vacated from the premises, at a press conference urging the City of New York to come to an agreement and end their plight once and for all.   

The business owners shared individual stories of being shunned by City agencies involved in the disagreement.  

Many tenant businesses have not agreed to the deal proposed by the Department of Housing and Preservation (HPD) earlier last year due to minimal compensation offered, which does not even begin to cover the high relocation costs.

Since then, the businesses have joined together under the leadership of Arturo Olaya, a business tenant who has lead the fight in trying to come to a mutual agreement to safely relocate, in demanding that the City allocate better funding for the Willets Point tenant re-location. Unfortunately, not only has the City ignored their requests, some businesses continue to be shut down by the City Marshal without compensation or any resolution in sight.

 “Some of my members do not have money to bring home and feed their families,” said Olaya.  “The City promised to relocate every business but many people are getting shut out of the process.  They expect us to move our entire businesses for $12,000 and then $6,000.  That is not enough money. What business can move with such a small amount? Now many businesses have been forced to close their doors, without any money at all.”

“Even though the City promised some money for the relocation, it was insufficient and at times, not forthcoming for these business who are struggling to make ends meet,” said Senator Avella.  “To make matters worse, the City marshal started showing up and padlocking some of these business. This is unacceptable.  The City is planning to give this property over to the developers, who could make a hundred million dollars, but yet they cannot take care of the hard working businesses that have been there for many years.  This really a disgrace.”

Ms. Tana Quillupangui, speaking on behalf of her mother who owns a business “Emanuel Corp” recalled when the City forced them to move out everything on January 1^st despite having no place to go.

“They lied to my mother many times.  They told her that there are a lot of places in Queens where she can go but the reality is, there is no space in Queens for her,” said Quillupangui. “The City said that there is a place available for $1,800 a month.  When we went to see it, we found out that the space was not even for sale.” 

Willets West Mall on Parkland

Memo to Council Members Ferreras, Comrie and Weprin:

Crain's is reporting your last-ditch maneuvers to make the city "guarantee payment of $70 million to erect ramps" to and from the Van Wyck Expressway, without which NO housing may be built at Willets Point.

Apparently, you are DISREGARDING a primary objection of the community to the entire proposed project: the 1.4 million square foot shopping mall that would be built on 30+ acres of Queens parkland. Opposition to that mall on public parkland includes the Queens Civic Congress, which consists of 100+ civic associations throughout Queens; the Roosevelt Avenue Community Alliance, which recognizes that a mall at that location will destroy and displace numerous family-run businesses in Corona and Jackson Heights; and Queens Community Board 3, which voted 30-1 to DENY this application in part because CB3 opposes the mall on parkland; among many other groups that are opposed because of the MALL.

Regardless of whether or not the City provides $70 million for highway ramps, the community DOES NOT WANT THE PROJECT, because of the mall on parkland. Therefore, if you respect the will of the people, you will vote "NO".

But even if you succeed in obtaining an ironclad guarantee from the City of $70 million for highway ramps – and we don't believe an ironclad guarantee is possible now – that alone still does NOTHING to guarantee the housing and affordable housing, which a large sector of project opponents wants to see built. That's because regardless of the
availability of $70 million, the project contract between Sterling/Related and NYCEDC still allows Sterling/Related to pay a cost-of-doing-business penalty of $35 million (in 2025), and build NO housing. Moreover, simply setting aside $70 million for highway ramps does not alter the text of the contract which states: "For the avoidance of doubt, in no event shall EDC or the City be required to construct the Ramps as part of the Development." [Contract Section 3.3.]

As long as those two clear contract provisions remain in effect, there still is NO CLEAR PATH to construct any housing or affordable housing at Willets Point. Thus, if you insist on ignoring the community's outrage over a mall being constructed on 30+ acres of Queens parkland, and want to push for housing, then you must not only obtain $70 million that is necessary for the Van Wyck ramps, but you must also REQUIRE that the project contract be revised so that the City guarantees to construct the Van Wyck ramps, and so that NO option exists for Sterling/Related to buy their way out of constructing the housing by paying a penalty. The construction of the ramps and the housing must
be guaranteed.

We repeat – Obtaining $70 million for highway ramps does not address the overriding problem with this project: the construction of a huge mall on parkland; AND, it alone does not and cannot guarantee that any housing will ever be constructed, because the project contract still contains escape clauses. It is the project contract that will
determine, years from now, what the parties are actually obligated to do.

The pending ULURP application of Sterling/Related has been rushed to coincide with the end of Mayor Bloomberg's final term, and the integrity of the Willets Point project originally approved by the City Council in 2008 – which involved NO mall on parkland – has been sacrificed. None of that is necessary. Denying this ULURP application of Sterling/Related will allow the next City administration to take a fresh look at this project, and to ensure that its goals – including
prioritized affordable housing – are respected, not evaded by a developer.

Sincerely,

The membership of Willets Point United Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park and Deride: City Council Confronted on Parkland Issue

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

Good Afternoon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The corporate welfare must end. 

Thank you

Land Use Policy: Whither Bill de Blasio?

We have been trying to ascertain just where Bill de Blasio actually stands on land use policy questions, and the WSJ does a good job at laying out some of the issues:

“Bill de Blasio has risen to the top of the polls assailing the Bloomberg administration, but if elected he could pursue even more aggressive policies than his predecessor on a crucial issue: creating densely packed new residential towers through land-use decisions.

Mr. de Blasio, the city's public advocate, would push for mandatory affordable housing and fewer tax breaks for developers. But he wouldn't differ from Mr. Bloomberg on a fundamental premise that building significant amounts of new housing is a top way to spur economic growth and control housing costs.”

How to read these tea leaves? Well, at first blush, the affordable housing and fewer tax breaks aspects of his policy makes some sense to us-but de Blasio must be aware of the pitfalls of this given the manner in which the Atlantic Yards promises have gone unmet, and the fact that he based his support of AY on the housing pledge.

That brings us, of course, to Willets Point, where the developers and EDC have baited and switched on the crucial pledge to build affordable housing-with an original 2,00 unit promise now reduced to 825 units, assuming that it ever gets built at all (A reasonable assumption in this dodgy deal.)

De Blasio has also said the following:

“Mr. de Blasio said Friday he would differ from Mr. Bloomberg in taking "a more rigorous approach that focuses on community benefits like creating infrastructure like affordable housing, like local jobs, hiring for local residents. And I think we just need to do a lot better job at driving a hard bargain with the real-estate industry."

EDC really drove a hard bargain with Related/Sterling over at the Iron Triangle. Didn’t they? Must have been tough negotiating with these hard bargain drivers if all you got out of the transfer of $200 million worth of property is a zero cash payment, a mall, and affordable housing to be built later-much later, and with an out clause that says for a paltry $35 million the developers can buy their way out of any housing.

Given the incredibly flim-flam nature of the Willets Point deal-a deal that bears no resemblance to the one that de Blasio signed off on in 2008-isn’t it the right time for the putative next mayor to weigh-in on this travesty? It offers de Blasio a great opportunity to differentiate his policies from those of Mike Bloomberg.

But the WSJ reports that de Blasio’s position on land use means that he is “pro-development.” This is an interesting take, and omits almost every possible nuance-since how development is done lies at the heart of the concept:

“Mr. de Blasio's pro-development policies have helped allay fears in the real-estate industry that perhaps the most liberal Democrat in the race would, as mayor, be a fearsome opponent on big developments.”

There is, however, one area that is a major cause for concern-and that is e Blasio’s view that the ULURP process needs to be truncated:

“In a July economic policy speech, Mr. de Blasio said promoting significant new development while demanding high-paying jobs and affordable housing would create a more equal city, even if it alienates community groups—often pejoratively dubbed NIMBYs.

"We can't afford a process rife with delays, subject to knee-jerk NIMBYism and tangled in bureaucracy," Mr. de Blasio said.

Mr. de Blasio has said he would shorten the timeline for debate on developments before they enter the formal approval process and promote more neighborhood-wide rezonings, as opposed to forcing developers to seek approval for large new projects individually.

Mr. de Blasio, along with others, also supports so-called mandatory inclusionary zoning, requiring affordable units when areas are rezoned.”

This would be a serious mistake since it is precisely the period before a pproject is certified that is crucial to the information gathering and dissemination about a development. What de Blasio is suggesting, is the further  centralization of land use policy and the weakening of any potential opposition-since opponents rely on the period before certification to gain more knowledge about a project and organize against it if deemed inimical to a community’s interest.

If he means this, then de Blasio appears ready to adopt the mantle of corporate liberalism-and a repetition of cronyism seems like a likely scenario under his ULURP formulation. More power would accrue to the mayor and the community-derided as NIMBYists-would be skunked . To a great extent, then, the WSJ is right to see this as “pro-development,” but it is a development of the worst kind and offers little difference with the disastrous nature of the Bloomberg approach.

Process is important, and the efforts by Comptroller Liu to advocate reform of the ULURP process are much more democratic and would prevent the abuse of mayoral power that the de Blasio approach portends-and this includes any concept of communitybenefits as well.

What we are left with, then, is a great deal of trepidation when it comes to the prospects of a Mayor de Blasio. We could have these fears greatly allayed if he would stand up and be fore square opposed to the Willets West deal. That would indicate that he would be a different kind of mayor, one that would be more attuned to the legitimate concerns of neighborhoods and small businesses.

Willets Point as the “new” 42nd Street: EDC Village Has a New Idiot

The mayor keeps finding these guys, and we are hoping that whoever takes his place will start looking for people to head economic development who don’t appear that they just emerged from an extended stay at Creedmoor. The latest genius is Kyle Kimball, EDC’s new leader, who managed to mangle history by the following distortion of the historical record:

“The revitalization of Willets Point — the industrial Queens neighborhood that is set to undergo an extensive renovation — could help transform the neighborhood like the project that helped reclaim 42nd Street two decades ago, the president of the Economic Development Corporation said Tuesday.

While the finished neighborhood will be “very different” from Times Square, the redevelopment is being approached the same way, Kyle Kimball, the EDC president said while speaking at a public hearing at City Hall.”

Unfortunately for the hapless Mr. Kimball, what happened at Times Square bears no relationship to what the city is planning to do to Willets Point-and we were there at the time, but don’t take our word, listen to what William Stern has to say. Who’s he? Well, only the guy who was in charge of the original eminent domain-centered plan for 42^nd Street:

“By popular lore, the revival of Times Square ranks among the most celebrated achievements of New York City in recent years.  In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, Times Square was sleazy, crime-ridden and so physically and economically blighted it represented a threat to public safety—but today it is nearly crime free.  It is filled with tourists, and world-class corporations dwell and prosper within its borders.  It is celebrated as a triumph of “urban planning,” “public-private partnership,” the wise use of the power of eminent domain, an example of the intelligent intervention of government into private real estate markets.

All of it is a myth.” 

Just like what is being planned for Willets Point-the Myth of Mike. But continue to listen to Stern set the record straight:

“In 1983, when I went to work for Governor Mario Cuomo as chairman and chief executive of New York State’s Urban Development Corporation (UDC), I was convinced I knew how government planning could transform the Times Square I saw at that time to what it is today.  The truth is, however, almost none of the grandiose plans my colleagues and I created and aggressively spearheaded ever came to fruition.  Our extravagant plans actually retarded development.  The changes in Times Square occurred despitegovernment, not because of it.  Times Square succeeded for reasons that had little to do with our building and condemnation schemes and everything to do with government policy that allowed the market to do its work, the way development occurs every day nationwide.  By lowering taxes, enforcing the law, and getting out of the way instead of serving as real estate broker, the government incentivized investment and construction and encouraged the rebirth of Times Square to what it is today.”

So, let’s not suffer from delusions being proffered by sleazy government bureaucrats with one eye and a leg out the door into the real estate industry-as did the late unlamented Seth Pinsky did just this year. As the Observer reported:

“The waning months of Mayor Bloomberg’s reign are expected to be marked by a series of high-powered departures, as one official after another jumps ship before the mayor leaves office. The latest is Bloomberg stalwart and Dan Doctoroff protégée Seth Pinsky, who is stepping down from the Economic Development Corporation to take a private sector gig with RXR Realty, as the agency announced today.”

But what the Observer article underscores is just how much the EDC has become a cat’s paw for big finance and big real estate: 

“Mr. Pinsky, who worked as an investment analyst and lawyer, refinancing real estate deals for the big banks as an associate at Cleary Gottlieb before leading the EDC…”

What Kimball is trying to do is pull the wool over the public’s eyes so the sheer level of unethical and criminal behavior by his quasi-public agency will remain unobserved. The fact tha EDC was forced by the NYS AG to completely restructure its corporate structure because of illegal lobbying was somehow unmentioned in his testimony-and no council member had the integrity to hold EDC to account for this.

Here’s what the state’s Urban Development Corporation under Stern had planned for the “deuce:”

“Under my watch, the UDC gained approval to put in place one of the largest urban renewal projects nationwide, in the heart of midtown Manhattan no less.  Mayor Koch—who assumed office on the tail of a traumatic fiscal crisis—and Governor Cuomo enthusiastically supported it.  Although fierce, bitter rivals, both “saw political opportunity in the ragged morality of the notorious boulevard.  Each sensed the chance to create a higher national profile for himself as the moral savior of ‘the Deuce.’” 

And so the tumultuous collaboration began.

The 42^nd Street Development Project would have made the emperors of Rome green with envy.  Its biggest component was to be Times Square Center:  four giant office towers, containing 4.1 million square feet of floor space in all, looming over Times Square’s southern border.  Offered a $240 million tax abatement, relatively unknown George Klein’s Park Tower Realty would develop the site.  

Upon being chosen, Klein had just completed only his third major building in New York City, raising many eyebrows as to why this newcomer would get this potentially (and enormously!) lucrative nod.”

Could it have been a little political insider trading? Heaven forbid-after all, Related and Sterling Equities got the Willets bid fair and square. Right? This couldn’t be part of a time honored NYC tradition of bid rigging?

Stern goes on the point out his growing disillusionment with the sleazy nature of the wielding of government condemnation power-and the self interested role of the NY Times (go figure!):

“It was then that I began to see the negative implications of government-directed projects like this—the influence peddling, cronyism and corruption, especially when eminent domain is involved.  Using eminent domain for private development gives the private sector the opportunity to wield public power—which is more or less for sale—in order to benefit privately.  One of the more prominent yet untold players was The New York Times, a private company that was deeply involved in this public project.  As the newspaper of record in New York, they would naturally cover the project closely—but their involvement transcended journalistic scrutiny.”

What surprised me most was that nobody at the Times seemed to care that they were compromising their journalistic integrity by assuming the dual roles of political reporting and pure politicking when it came to 42^nd Street.  Yes, the Square was named after the paper and the Times was the largest property owner in the project area, so it is understandable they were very interested in the government’s decisions.  Yet being interested and covering the story closely is different than assuming a decision-making role and assigning an editorial page executive to tell government officials what to do.”

Role of Eminent Domain

Here we get to the heart of Kimball’s misrepresentation. Yes, eminent domain was used-and abused-at 42^nd Street, but it played no role in the revitalization:

“In fact, about the only thing the plan accomplished was something it never needed to do in the first place—use eminent domain to take the property of private parties and give it to other private parties for the latter’s use.  From 1984 on, drawing on the UDC’s special condemnation powers, the redevelopment project began taking businesses in a purported attempt to cure “economic blight.”  

This condemnation binge kicked out businesses of all types and sizes.  To implement the project, the plan called for the demolition of 20 buildings and the displacement of 400 existing businesses, only a little more than 40 of which were adult bookstores or peep shows. In other words, although the sex businesses represented an economic drag on the area, our goal was to remove not only these establishments but all businesses that did not fit into the government’s master plan.”

While eminent domain may have made it easier two decades later to build (since the property was already condemned), the city lost far more than what it could ever gain from the lands’ new uses.  It destroyed legitimate local businesses that create the patchwork of unique attractions that bring tourists from across the country to any major city.  It delayed any resurgence of Times Square, as property owners and government officials remained in limbo and tax dollars were lost.  Our efforts ignored the root causes of the problems in Times Square, blinding us to any true cures and setting a dangerous precedent for future projects in New York City.  Property owners who were anticipating massive buy-outs as a result of the West Side’s upzoning were shocked when they learned this simply ushered in a plan that effectively wiped them out, with “fair” market value in place of negotiation.  

This unfair, unjust and unconstitutional treatment led to ten years of legal challenges.  What’s worse, none of the developers we condemned property for ever realized our collective vision.”

What a criminal farce. But here is Stern’s money quote about how the use of eminent domain invites corruption-and his words were prescient given the sleaziness surrounding the Willets Point development:

“When government is given the power to take property from one private owner and give it to another, an inevitable and very ugly political process begins.  Instead of competing in a marketplace where outcomes are determined by who has the best innovative ideas, strong financing, creative marketing and capable management, developers compete for political influence.  In order to be anointed by government or protect their property from being taken, they hire anyone who has political influence or is remotely perceived to have influence:  law firms, public relations firms, lobbyists, political consultants, etc.  They attempt to cultivate the media, knowing that the media influences politicians.  The use of condemnation on 42^nd Street provided a commercial opportunity of enormous proportions for political insiders. “

The Willets West deal is a corrupt example of corporate welfare and crony capitalism-demonstrating in ironic fashion how the development of the deuce mirrors that of Willets Point (although we don’t believe that irony is Kimball’s strong suit). Stern deserves the last word:

“Looking back now at this giant redevelopment, I am glad the area has come back and that children can enjoy Times Squares as I did in my childhood.  But we do these children a disservice if we perpetuate the myth—the lie—that the Times Square of today resulted from the massive government failure my colleagues, the New York Times and I foisted upon the citizens of my city.  The lesson they should learn, indeed the lesson all of our civic leaders should learn, is that the right way for governments to pursue economic development is to fulfill their core responsibilities of protecting safety and freedom and allow the market to work as it did in creating the world’s most famous square in the world’s premier city.”

Hard of Hearing

The City Council, when we last checked, purports to be a deliberative body, but when you get really close to examine how it really functions you come to understand that it is deliberately obtuse when it comes to the interests of small businesses, and communities impacted by mega-development. Take the ULURP application for the slyly named Willets West-a project that emerged like Rosemary’s Baby from the failure of the original Willets Point development that passed under a false flag in 2008. If what we have seen so far is any indication, the council is preparing to roll over because of an inordinate obsequiousness to the interests of Joe Crowley and the Queens County Democrats.

In the first case, the initial hearing is scheduled for September the 3rd, the first business day after the Labor Day holiday. Acting like folks who want to remain inaccessible and perhaps even incognito, the notice for the hearing was posted on Thursday the 29th, leaving a single day before the holiday for the word to get out.

When it comes to the hearing itself, the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is signaing that it really doesn’t want to have a vigorous debate on a project that remains promiscuously controversial considering the illegal lobbying that drove the original council approval five years ago. It is doing so first by shutting down the request from Willets Point United to present a 20 minute power point that deconstructs the numerous erroneous assumptions from EDC - an entity that was forced to reconstruct itself after orchestrating the aforementioned illegal lobbying.

There’s really no excuse for doing this since WPU has been willing to forego the time of five or six of its testifiers so that the power point could be presented. The only conclusion an impartial observer can draw from this is that the committee is trying to tamp down the opposition’s ability to make its case. Will the committee limit the developers to 2 minutes? No, we don’t think so - and Chairman Weprin needs to explain why he needs to act as a homer for the developers.

In addition, the time being allotted to each speaker has been reduced to 2 minutes! - another example of favoritism since the developers, being the prototypical special interests, normally have fewer people coming to testify. Two minutes for some of the folks who stand to lose their businesses and their property if this corrupt deal is approved is the quintessential example of the stacked deck.

The committee is also showing its true colors by disrespecting the expected testimony of many of the Hispanic immigrant workers and business owners. No Spanish translator will be provided at this hearing – despite the ULURP application that is at issue requiring that 100+ businesses vacate the premises that are owned and operated predominantly by people who speak Spanish. The City previously failed to provide any Spanish translator at the eminent domain hearing which was widely criticized at the time. Apparently the City has not learned any lesson and is content to steamroll the 100+ immigrant businesses without hearing them at the Council. And why hasn't Julissa Ferreras, the home rule council member who has been working for years with the tenant businesses, demanded interpretation services for her constituents, or spoken out against the skulduggery being perpetrated by the City against Willets Point land and business owners?

The above points, taken all together, demonstrate the City Council's active contempt for public testimony about the proposed Willets West mall / Willets Point Phase One ULURP application. Speaker Quinn, Land Use Committee Chair Leroy Comrie, and subcommittee Chair Mark Weprin should be ashamed of themselves. These latest examples of bias come a year after the Mayor's Office and NYCEDC selected Sterling Equities and Related Companies, and their plan to expand the development from 62 to 108.9 acres including constructing a shopping mall on parkland, in a private process that shut out the Queens-based Willets Point Advisory Committee from the developer selection process, contrary to multiple written promises. The fix appears to be in; let the Council now show us - and all New Yorkers - otherwise.

The Cornerstone of Deception

As the WSJ is reporting, some significant snags have been developing over alleged relocation plans to help the tenant businesses over at Willets Point:

“A cluster of several hundred auto-body repair shops and junkyards near Citi Field in Queens has proven resilient to changes that have transformed other parts of the city, but that too could soon come to an end.

About 90 tenants in the so-called Iron Triangle have received letters offering them a payment equal to a year's rent at their current location if they leave by the end of November to make way for the first phase of a more than 60-acre redevelopment of Willets Point that will eventually include a school, retail and housing.” 

The deal, however, is fool’s gold and is little more than a bus ticket out of town for these immigrant Hispanic business owners:

“City officials have long said that relocation would be necessary to realize the redevelopment vision. But some tenants have been pushing to relocate in a large group or groups and to recreate elsewhere in the city their unique ecosystem of shops that change tires, reupholster seats and repair mufflers.

Tenants said they fear the money is being offered in lieu of such a plan.”

And they are right, because EDC has retained (with no bidding of course) the Cornerstone Group to aid in the relocation effort:

“The city appointed Cornerstone Group, a real-estate firm, to help with individual and group relocation. The company has shown tenants about 140 sites suitable for one or multiple businesses.

But some tenants complained that those sites have been unsuitable. Many said their current rent is less than $1,500 a month, but rents for typical industrial sites are several times that.

"A $1,250, $1,300 rent—what would it help? Nobody wants to give us a $1,300 place," said Vijay Kumar, the 38-year-old owner E.T. Tires.”

As Yogi Berra might have said, this is déjà vu all over again. Cornerstone was assigned the task of relocating the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market-and in the seven years since the eviction of the businesses very few remain in operation. Why? Because their success was predicated on their synergy-their ability to piggyback on each others’ customer traffic. Left alone, they went under. 

And history is repeating itself-the Willets Pointers should be aware of the tactic to get rid of their nuisance presence:

“To get the full amount, they would need to leave in four months, which they said doesn't give them time to find a site that could accommodate dozens of businesses, much like a large relocation of the Fulton Fish Market.

"In order to actually avail themselves of the funds they need to give up where they are currently operating and move to some fictitious place that does not exist," said Ted De Barbieri, an attorney at the Urban Justice Center who represents 55 businesses that want to relocate together.

Tenants said remaining together is essential to their continued survival because it will help ensure customers continue to frequent the group of businesses, which have become famous for offering below-market-price car repairs to customers that they say come from Queens, Long Island, upstate New York and even Pennsylvania.”

Let’s keep in mind that the city is giving away to the mayor’s cronies (Related and Sterling Equities) the land it had purchased for $200 million! That’s not all. The city is also ponying up an additional $99 million for “remediation”-all of this money was supposed to be put up by the eventual developer when the city council approved this development in 2008. So, once again, Related (and Sterling) get the goldmine, and small minority businesses get the shaft.

Put simply, the relocation is a fiction designed to remove the “eyesore” while pretending otherwise. Even the money is questionable-with CM Julissa Ferreras claiming credit for funds obtained five years ago by her former boss Hiram Monseratte:

“City Council Member Julissa Ferreras, who represents the area and is credited for helping to find the $3.5 million for relocation, has been a vocal advocate for group relocation. A spokeswoman said she remains committed to finding a site for tenants to move in large groups.

"I have always advocated for the EDC to relocate the Willets Point businesses as a group," Ms. Ferreras said. "There are ongoing negotiations to make sure that these businesses are given a fair deal by the EDC and any potential developers."

What does this actually mean? Will CM Ferreras urge her colleagues on the city council to vote down the project-one where affordable housing is a player to be named later? If Julissa really wants to take credit here she needs to show some real backbone and insist that this sham development be laid over for the next mayor and City Council Speaker to decide. Will she?

The plight of the tenant businesses-and at one point there were over 200 such firms and over 2,000 workers at the Iron Triangle-is just one glaring example of the mess that the Bloomberg administration has created at Willets Point.

The use of condemnation, illegal lobbying, fraud about the nature of the deal-the laundry list of deception is a long one. And now, the icing on the cake: the Cornerstone Group brought in- like Kabuki theater-to pretend to help the existing auto businesses when its actual goal is to make these struggling immigrants simply disappear.

Willets Point, Sterling Equities, Related and Patricianage

Yesterday, we posted a commentary on the departure of Seth Pinsky, the leader of the criminal gang down at EDC who led the illegal lobbying effort to remove property owners from Willets Point so their land could be turned over to rich surrogates. We pointed out that EDC under the current mayor has been little more than a cat’s paw for wealthy real estate interests.

Nothing illustrates this fact more than the illegal lobbying scheme first orchestrated by Dan Doctoroff and later implemented by the talented underboss Pinsky. What EDC did-and what the NYS Attorney General cited as lawbreaking-was to fund a local LDC to lobby for the Willets Point project in spite of the fact that the law directly prohibits the LDC from doing any lobbying. As the WSJ reported last year:

“New York City's economic-development agency and two related organizations admitted in a settlement Monday that they illegally lobbied the City Council on behalf of projects at the heart of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's redevelopment agenda.

The concessions came after a three-year probe by the state attorney general's office. Investigators found that the Economic Development Corp. worked behind the scenes with the groups—called local development corporations—to nudge lawmakers to support projects in Willets Point in Queens and Coney Island in Brooklyn."

Just who was this local development group? Well, it was a group headed by an aging figurehead named Shulman, but whose members were mainly large real estate firms that used the LDC to garner $500,000 in city funds to lobby on their own behalf. This is a neat trick. Arguably, it was Sterling Equities that was the leading member of the LDC.

This is some scheme that Pinsky masterminded. He took half a million dollars of tax payers’ money and turned it over to a group of real estate moguls to lobby for a development that would benefit their own private interests-and at the end of the day, Sterling Equities emerged as the big winner when it was designated to build a mall in the CitiField parking lot and receive 23 acres of Willets Point property to build a new parking facility. This was all for the cost of $1.

In the process, all of the public benefits that were originally negotiated were trashed and bashed-leading the NY Business Journal to observe; “…there is also a growing sense among local residents, and not just business owners, that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s actions aren’t just an attempt to reinvigorate the area, but a sweetheart deal for the Mets and their development partner, Related Cos.”

Which is exactly what this deal is-an example of what Newsday’s Dan Janison has called patricianage, the dispensing of public spoils to the rich by an administration that believes that the wealthy deserve our support for they are so supportive of the overall public good.

Except when they aren’t-and in the case of Willets Point that means that there will be no affordable housing as promised and those retail workers at the new mall can forget about a living wage that was also promised. After all, this is Related that is involved, and that company will gorge itself to death with public subsidies before it gives a crumb to any minimum wage store clerk.

It’s worth repeating the comment made to the NY Times by a local church leader about the odious nature of this deal:

“Msgr. Thomas Healy, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows, a thriving church near the stadium, complained that the 1,900 units of affordable housing that were once the centerpiece of the proposed redevelopment are now an afterthought. Many of his Mexican, Ecuadorean and Dominican parishioners are living, he said, in overcrowded and substandard apartments. 

“Bloomberg promised that the big thing in the project would be housing,” Monsignor Healy said. “Now it’s a grandiose mall, and in 20 years, maybe, we’ll get some housing. He doesn’t care about the poor.” 

But this is what EDC does in the name of the public interest. It is why Pinsky is leaving to go back into the real estate industry in a revolving door scenario that has been ever present since the agency was formed to end run political oversight. It is also why the current development proposal needs to be defeated: it is a sweetheart deal for the Mets and a slap in the face to the public.

If you need to better understand what this is all about please take a listen to Jerry Reed’s lament: “She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft.”

Pinsky Leaves EDC: The More Things Change…

The Observer is reporting that Seth Pinsky is leaving as head of EDC to go for greener pastures at a NYC real estate firm:

“The waning months of Mayor Bloomberg’s reign are expected to be marked by a series of high-powered departures, as one official after another jumps ship before the mayor leaves office. The latest is Bloomberg stalwart and Dan Doctoroff protégée Seth Pinsky, who is stepping down from the Economic Development Corporation to take a private sector gig with RXR Realty, as the agency announced today.”

This brings to mind Shakespeare’s observation about a character in Macbeth; “Nothing in his life. Became him like the leaving it.” Pinsky played the loyal foot soldier (or foot stool) for all of the mayor’s fronting for the city’s big real estate developers-and in its valedictory the Observer forgets the role li’l Seth played in the illegal lobbying scheme at Willets Point.

Using illegal methods to advance the Willets Point project is being thrust down the historical memory hole-after all, the city has done so much damage to small business and communities that we shouldn’t get all bent out of shape by lawbreaking. Should we?

But what the Observer article underscores is just how much the EDC has become a cat’s paw fro big finance and big real estate: “Mr. Pinsky, who worked as an investment analyst and lawyer, refinancing real estate deals for the big banks as an associate at Cleary Gottlieb before leading the EDC…”

Sure he did, and who is replacing him? “As for Mr. Kimball, who worked as a vice president at both Goldman, Sachs & Co. and J.P. Morgan before joining the EDC, the next few months will likely be extremely busy.” Detecting a pattern?

Look at all of Bloomberg’s deputy mayors foe economic development-every single one comes out of the world of Wall Street and high finance. Is it any wonder that the little guys have been pummeled by the Bloomberg regime?

NY Times Weighs in on City’s Willets Point Bait and Switch

Charles Bagli over at the NY Times takes a sharp look at the city’s reconfigured Willets Point plan and notices some real big missing pieces:

“Last year, the city suddenly revised the four-year-old plan for Willets Point. It selected a joint venture of the Related Companies and the owners of the Mets — Fred Wilpon and Saul B. Katz — to clean toxic substances from a portion of the land and to build a hotel and some shops on 126th Street and a giant retail and entertainment mall on the other side of the stadium.

Some community and church groups that once supported the project now feel betrayed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, contending that the project is designed to benefit the Mets’ owners and Related more than the surrounding immigrant communities.”

Gee, we wonder why? Could it be that all of the promises used to entice council members have been discarded? The community sure notices bad faith when it sees it:

“Msgr. Thomas Healy, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows, a thriving church near the stadium, complained that the 1,900 units of affordable housing that were once the centerpiece of the proposed redevelopment are now an afterthought. Many of his Mexican, Ecuadorean and Dominican parishioners are living, he said, in overcrowded and substandard apartments. 

“Bloomberg promised that the big thing in the project would be housing,” Monsignor Healy said. “Now it’s a grandiose mall, and in 20 years, maybe, we’ll get some housing. He doesn’t care about the poor.”

And then there is the gigantic mall on the CitiField parking lot-a piece of land zoned as parkland. Parks advocates-already upset by the city’s neglect of parks in the outer boroughs-has threatened to take the administration to court over the taking of parkland without going through alienation-a failure that allows the city to not be forced to find any replacement land for the property taken:

“Despite the criticisms, the local community narrowly approved the revisions to the project plan, and the Bloomberg administration hopes to get formal approval from the City Council by the end of the year. Opponents, including NYC Park Advocates, plan to file a lawsuit challenging the city’s decision to give the developers 30 acres of parkland to build the mall.

The city, however, never runs out of its plentiful supply of bad faith. Asked to explain its bait and switch, it does what it does best-lies through its teeth: “The Bloomberg administration said the plans needed to be adjusted to meet market demand, with a spokesman calling the most recent incarnation “the only way forward.”

Let’s get this straight. This plan was originally approved in the teeth of the worst economic downturn since the great Depression. If the city could promise 5500 units of housing and all of the other ancillary benefits then, it can’t now say, “never mind,” when the economy is showing some signs of life. This kind of duplicity should be slapped down by a shamed fool me once city council.

The Times lays out the terms of the original deal-and demonstrates why the current incarnation doesn’t resemble the original proposal. In doing so, however, the paper points out that, “…over time it became clear, city officials and real estate executives said, that not one developer could or would meet the city’s original requirements.”

If that’s true, and we have our doubts, it means that the original plan was too ambitious and should have been shelved. To replace it with a mall and a parking lot when, “In 2007, Mr. Bloomberg announced plans for New York’s “next great neighborhood,” a $3 billion development at Willets Point, with 5,500 apartments, a convention center and office space,” is bad faith squared.

To do it by gifting the property to two rich developers who have no obligation to ever build a single unit of affordable housing is shameful-if the administration were actually capable of that human emotion.

The Times goes on to capture why we call this a “Wimpy” deal-after the Popeye character who used to say, “I’d gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” The tax payers pay through the nose up front-to the tune of over $400 million-and the public benefits are pushed way back until we believe, The Twelfth of Never:

“First, however, the developer would be required to remediate a 23-acre portion of Willets Point. The plans for affordable housing — now 2,500 units, 875 affordable — have been pushed back until after 2025. But housing advocates fear it may never get built.”

The fear is not groundless given the fact that the city has already reneged on its commitment and has also treated the existing property owners and tenant businesses like skels. The Times tells us that the Bloomberg administration sees Willets Point as one of its major legacy projects. And we couldn’t agree more.

Nothing symbolizes the mayor’s bad faith and hypocrisy, his corporate welfare, his lack of concern for the poor, and his disdain for the property rights of his lessers, than this bait and switch development. It is a monument to arrogance and corporate greed and the mall should be named after the mayor so that if and when it is built and the area around the stadium is gridlocked for hours, the people will know who to credit.