Planning Commission Rubber Stamps Willets West: Morphs into the Board of Health

In what is really not a news story - when was the last time the City Planning Commission turned down a mayoral initiative? (Answer: Never) - the CPC approved the bastardized Willets West development with a lone dissenting vote. As the NY Daily News reports:“The City Planning Commission approved a plan to build a mega mall near Citi Field as part of a larger redevelopment of the gritty stretch of auto body shops.”

We got a big kick out of New York’s Burden - the chair of CPC - who remarked: “Willets Point is on its way to becoming remediated and ultimately becoming an active and inviting destination.”

From a woman famous for her own extreme makeovers, we weren’t surprised by the comment. Amanda Burden has had this sinecure for twelve years and the only thing that would bring more fresh air to the city than the mayor’s departure would be the removal of this toady from her sinecure. Burden gives a certain class comfort to the rubber stamp nature of the CPC - perhaps there will be a spot for her on the Board of Health in a new mayoral administration. After all, she has shown great skill in simply following orders.

There was, however, one dissenting opinion in this charade: “Board member Michelle de la Uz was the lone dissenting voice during the meeting. She argued that there are a glut of malls already in Queens and said “questionable and weak” efforts have been made to relocate the immigrant shop owners working in the auto body shops.”


De la Uz was appointed by Public Advocate de Blasio and it raises questions about what a mayor de Blaio would do if he were asked to review this horrible crony capitalist bait and switch adventure. After all, the litany of the false promises and illegalities pave the road along the way to this mega mall project-and a new mayor is under no obligation to pony up $200 million worth of property and close to $100 million for “remediation” just to aggrandize Steve Ross and Jeff Wilpon’s fortunes.

The measure now goes to the city council where Speaker Quinn will have the opportunity to demonstrate her total obeisance to the agenda of Big Real Estate. There can be no other explanation-the absence of a public good here is blindingly glaring.

Unequal Treatment at City Planning Commission

The City Planning Commission has bent its rules to accommodate immediate proxy testimony in favor of the proposed Willets Point development, while enforcing its rules and delaying proxy testimony in opposition to the proposed development.

At the public hearing pertaining to the proposed Willets Point development held on August 13, 2008 – during a section of that hearing dedicated to testimony in opposition to the proposed project – the name "Kevin Loyst" was called to testify. In place of Kevin Loyst, a person named Kevin Phillips came to the podium, identified himself, and stated that he was "here to speak on behalf of Kevin Loyst, who's a colleague" who had to depart the hearing after several hours.

Commission Chair Amanda Burden prohibited Kevin Phillips from testifying at that time as a proxy for Kevin Loyst, telling Phillips in no uncertain terms: "You have to sign up on your own. It's a rule, we have to do – You can't substitute for somebody else. Sorry. So if you just sign up on your own. … Just sign up on a new card. You have to sign up for yourself. You can't substitute for somebody else. … We will definitely call you, later."

Kevin Phillips then left the podium, and the Commission called a different speaker.

We would have expected consistent enforcement of the Commission's rules at the public hearing recently held on July 10, 2013, when – during a section of the hearing dedicated to testimony in favor of the application – the name "Dan Hendrick" was called to testify, and an unidentified person who was not Dan Hendrick came to the podium. The unidentified person stated that he was "actually here on behalf of Dan Hendrick, who is the V.P. for the New York League of Conservation Voters".

Neither Commission Chair Amanda Burden nor any other Commission member stopped this unidentified person from testifying "on behalf of Dan Hendrick", or enforced the Commission's strict rules that "you have to sign up for yourself" and "you can't substitute for somebody else". The unidentified person proceeded to deliver testimony as a proxy for the absent Dan Hendrick, in favor of the application.



The Commission has treated unequally those who would provide proxy testimony opposed to the Willets Point development, versus those who would provide proxy testimony in favor of the Willets Point development. Kevin Phillips, who was opposed, was relegated to filling out a new speaker's card and beginning the long wait to testify, again; whereas the unidentified person who appeared on July 10, 2013, who was in favor of the application, was welcomed and testified immediately.

The land use ULURP process must be neutral and devoid of any such bias. It is no less appropriate that a proxy speaker in favor of the Willets Point development be given a special privilege, than it is that the City should fund an unlawful lobbying scheme to influence decision-makers to approve the project. Both of those tactics, and many others, have been leveraged by powers-that-be against Willets Point property and business owners – and the WPU membership will not tolerate it.

City Planning hearing Covered by Newsday

The City Planning Commission hearing received good coverage from Newsday today:

“A $1 billion retail-and-entertainment mall planned for the site of what is currently a parking lot of the New York Mets' stadium would spearhead a major transformation of a blighted neighborhood, developers testified Wednesday.

But opponents argued that the 1.4 million-square-foot mall and other plans for their Queens neighborhood would simply benefit developers while pushing out local businesses.”

Once again, Irene Presti got the focal point as she rebutted the self serving statements of the developer:

“Richard Browne of Sterling Equities, which is developing the mall complex along with Related Cos., said it will serve the local community because "Queens doesn't have enough retail." At the same time, he said, development promises to bring in more affordable housing.

Not so, said Irene Prestigiacomo, who owns property used by an auto repair business.

"It's all smoke and mirrors," she told commissioners. "They want to take my property and give it to developers. It's a land grab."

The community also came out and noted the impossible infrastructure challenges with the proposed development:

“Other residents who testified said the mall would rise on city-owned land while developers receive tens of millions of dollars in subsidies.

Ed Westley, a member of Community Board 3, noted that traffic to the area will increase and the subway will be so overcrowded "that the No. 7 train will need to be a double-decker."

Unmentioned in all of this is the planned destruction of Flushing Meadows Park-as the city looks to expand the USTA facility and looks to build a soccer stadium: “Other separate proposals for the area include expanding the National Tennis Center and building a 35,000-seat professional soccer stadium.”

There is no possibility that the city would even think of doing such a thing in Central Park or Prospect Park-apparently the immigrant communities adjacent to FMP are not very important to the elitists who make up the current administration.

Lost in the hoo ha, however, is the fact that this entire proposal is based on a foundation of lies. As Irene Presti told the Commission, the unethical bait and switch is alive and well:

“This was a deal, however, that generated a great deal of controversy down at the city council-the legislative body that needed to approve the project. Most of the times the use of condemnation is seen as a drastic act and is used sparingly, and only for a tangible public use. Not seeing any great public use in the city’s proposal, the city council balked-sending EDC scrambling.

Here’s where the deal making began and various interests came into the negotiations and thousands of units of public housing-along with an agreement to provide a so-called living wage to retail workers-was added to give this land grab a public flavor. My mother always told me that if you’re going to bake a lie, you need to frost it with the truth. And so it went. With the land grab being frosted with the adding on of these perceived public benefits.

Fast forward to today. Gone is the housing-pushed way back into the distant future with no guarantee that it will ever get built. Gone also is the pledge to provide the workers with a living wage. The only thing that is left is something that was never there in the first place-a massive, traffic generating nightmare of a retail mall that was never part of the original deal; and would never have passed the smell test with council members concerned with the use of eminent domain to take away property from small owners like myself.”

Willets Point Opposition Grows

On Monday night a rally was held at Willets Point and affordable housing advocates joined with the property owners to voice their opposition to the current “bait and switch” deal the city has come up with to redevelop the Iron Triangle. Yesterday, opponents of the plan came down to the City Planning Commission hearing on the project to forcefully voice their concerns. As property owner Irene Presti told the Commission:

“This unneeded and unnecessary mall will be built on the site of the current CitiField parking lot. So where will the Mets fans park? They will park on the land that the city has purchased from Willets Point property owners for $200 million! So the city used the threat of eminent domain to grab land that will now be used for a parking lot.

Back when the mayor extolled the virtues of this deal he called Willets Point the “city’s first green neighborhood.” Not in our lifetime. What the city is getting for its overall investment of around $500 million dollars is a mall and a parking lot. Everything else is simply smoke and mirrors with no guarantees whatsoever.

Making all of this so much worse is that the city administration told the city council that it would recoup its investment when the selected developer was chosen. Instead, the city has decided to gift the property to Related and Sterling Equities for $1!”

On the heels of the rally and hearing political opposition is also growing-and the NY Daily News has the story:

“Two City Councilmen — who happen to both be running for Queens borough president — are trying to block the plate against a proposed mega-mall next to CitiField. The lawmakers, Leroy Comrie and Peter Vallone Jr., announced Monday they oppose the current plan, which includes a 1.4-million-square-foot mall and is currently rounding third and headed for home in the city’s land-use review process.

“The community has responded negatively,” Comrie said. “They don’t feel their needs are being kept in the forefront.” Comrie heads the powerful Council Land Use committee, and said changes may be needed before it gets the Council’s rubber stamp.”

In addition to Vallone and Comrie, WPU’s old ally Tony Avella has also weighed in on the plan and has found it wanting: “Shame on any politician who votes for this,” said state Sen. Tony Avella, a third candidate opposed to the proposal.

All of this took place at a Queens BP candidates’ forum. Vallone also made the strong point that the current plan was not the plan that the council approved in 2008: “That’s not what we approved,” said Vallone (D-Astoria).

“You can’t change it after we approve it.”

The one candidate who voiced support of the project was Melinda Katz who has decided to forego her self-described libertarian philosophy (and her stated uneasiness with eminent domain) and go all-in with the Queens Democratic Party that is supporting her:

“But former Councilwoman Melinda Katz appeared more bullish on the Iron Triangle overhaul. She said there weren’t any aspects of the current plan she would change. “It’s an urban renewal plan.” said Katz. “It’s so easy to talk about amending. We have to look at how to make it happen and move it forward.”

Shame on her, but we’re not surprised because Katz was one of the council members who publicly expressed bewilderment over the ramp issue back in 2008-and has done little since then to educate herself on the project. But then again, ignorance is bliss when the Party’s big guns and the entire real estate and you’re making big bucks as a land use lawyer.

What we now can see that if Katz is elected borough president, the communities of Queens will have been abandoned for the special interests and the small businesses of the borough be damned as well. Keep this in mind Queens Civic Congress when, in the future, a developer comes into your neighborhood.

Comrie, for his part, understands the foolishness of the housing and ramps issue:

“Comrie (D-St. Albans) blasted a “ridiculous” provision that hinges the construction of the affordable housing to connecting ramps to the Van Wyck Expwy.”

We’ll give Irene Presti the last word:

“When the city came for my property and the rest of the land owned by small owners like me, they claimed it was for the purpose of cleaning up Willets Point-alleging that it was essentially a toxic waste dump. Ladies and gentlemen the only thing toxic here is the deal for Willets Point-a spectacular example of crony capitalism and bad faith.

For the citizens of New York and the property owners of Willets Point, the current development proposal should be relegated to the dustbin of history-and a planning commission that lived up to its name would unceremoniously send this proposal back to the city. Do the right thing. Don’t be a rubber stamp for the mayor. Say no to Willets West.”

Notice of City Planning Commission hearing on Willets Point project

Notice of DSEIS Hearing Final

Statement on the city planning commission's certification of the Willets Point project

Yesterday, the City Planning Commission certified the Willets Point/Willets West project. This does not represent an endorsement of the project. It simply means that the applicant has submitted all the required paperwork to start the public review process. There are many controversial aspects of the proposal as submitted, not the least of which that it hinges on the alienation of public parkland for commercial for-profit purposes. We will be exposing a myriad of issues with the plan throughout the public review process, and we encourage all members of the public who are concerned about maintaining quality of life to come out and speak at the public hearings.