Friday, October 17, 2008

Willets Point City Council hearing today


Willets Point Business Owners Fight City Plan to Seize Private Property

Urge City Council to Reject Reckless Plan

(New York, NY) October 17, 2008 – Members of the Willets Points Industry & Realty Association (WPIRA) today called on the City Council to reject the Bloomberg Administration's reckless plan to spend more than $1 billion of taxpayer money to seize their private property through a massive abuse of eminent domain and hand it over to a politically-connected developer, while destroying thousands of jobs in the process.

The WPIRA, which represents more than 50 percent of the privately held land that the administration wants to seize, staged a truck rally on Friday to highlight its opposition prior to the Land Use Subcommittee Planning, Dispositions and Concessions hearing on the controversial Willets Point plan. More than a dozen trucks from member businesses circled City Hall to proclaim their opposition to the city's seizure plan.

Jack Bono, owner of Bono Sawdust Supply, said, "I served my country in the armed forces during the Vietnam War and I now find myself waging a personal battle to prevent my business and land from being seized by eminent domain, which would enable a private developer to steal my family's legacy and profit handsomely. The use of eminent domain in this instance is unjustified and my family and I intend to continue this battle until we win. It is our ardent hope that the Council Members will support the businesses of Willets Point and will vote NO to Mayor Bloomberg's plan to seize my land and my business."

The City's plan currently appears to rely significantly on the use of eminent domain to take private property for its foolhardy development plan, raising concerns from Council Member Hiram Monserrate and other members of the City Council.

More than 30 members have voiced opposition to the land grab, and as recently as Oct. 7, Councilman John Liu in a letter to Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber, said, "Good public policy sometimes necessitates invoking eminent domain to make progress. Coming to agreement for the acquisition of 90% of the land for this redevelopment and condemning the remaining holdouts probably makes sense. Seizing 90% of the land would be wrong and inexcusable, and I cannot in good conscience support a plan that amounts to that."

The abuse of eminent domain is just one area of concern, which will require a massive infusion of taxpayer money at a time that the city is looking to cut spending for education, public safety and environmental protection, while raising property taxes and personal income taxes.

In addition, noted environmental lawyer Michael Gerrard offered a compelling critique of the city's Final Environmental Impact Statement, which fails to address many of fatal flaws in the plan or support the city's case for seizing private property through eminent domain.

Gerrard's analysis found the city had failed to provide any meaningful evidence that the soil contamination in the area is so significant as to warrant a city takeover of the property and failed to adequately address problems with the massive increase in traffic jams that would result from the City plan, while attempting to duck a host of issues related to the cost and timing of the project.

"The City is adopting a 'we must destroy the community in order to save it' approach. This is both unprecedented and unwarranted," Gerrard said in his written testimony. Gerrard's testimony is available at the WPIRA's website,
www.wpira.com.

67 comments:

Alan said...

The WPIRA site is very informative and easy to navigate. I hope other readers take some time to review the material. Good job on an eye opening perspective to this issue.

Anonymous said...

with the real estate industry taking a nosedive, why would the city even take this on now?

Alan said...

I would imagine that the simplest answer to that question is so that Bumberg, Bovine Shulman, and other cronies can help themselves to our tax dollars. Is anyone going to actually press charges against Shulman for illegally receiving lobbying $$$?

Anonymous said...

but creating more housing in this market will make for a disaster, no?

Anonymous said...

three more landowners sell to the city.. The City now controls 36% of the Willets POint land.

It is only a matter of time until the other landowners sell. Bono will be the last man standing without a chair.

Anonymous said...

So they have made deals with what? 11 or 12% of the property owners? Long way to go, bud!

Anonymous said...

They only came up with 3 more deals? Are they serious? They were supposed to announce multiple sizeable deals at this hearing. Sounds like things are not going as planned. They are finding out that when you turn developers loose on manufacturing property, you run out of room to place thriving businesses when you are planning billions of dollars in boondogglery!

Anonymous said...

As a taxpayer, I am disgusted that in this time of crisis, the city plans to push forward with this waste of taxpayer money, this rich man's folly, instead of spending it on the services we need to remain a livable city.

Anonymous said...

As an American, I am outraged that my tax dollars are being used to force people off of their property.

Queens Crapper said...

Hey, look, Mr. Combined Sewage Overflow is back! I hope you've completed your reading assignment. It's kind of like what comes out of your fingertips when the words "Willets Point" are mentioned as opposed to when it's not.

Anonymous said...

36% of the land under EDC control is VERY Significant.

YOu cant gloss over the progress that has been made by the EDC in reaching fair settlements with landowners

T Mina, Part Authority, Sambucci, who is next to sell out? I say Sonia and Fodera

Anonymous said...

They had most of that land under their control before they started negotiations because it's city-owned property.

Nice try with the semantics and playing with numbers.

Anonymous said...

it's called basic math bro'.

learned it in the third grade.

facts are facts.

Anonymous said...

How is it a "Billion Dollar Plan"?
Land acquisition cost and remediation costs will be recouped from the developer.


WPIRA is really grasping at straws at this point.

Anonymous said...

Maybe because after reading about the ever-inflating costs of building Citifield and Yankee Stadium on the taxpayer dime, they know what will happen down the line with this project.

Anonymous said...

If these successful established businesses fail, then that will be more tax money lost by the City - resulting in more burden placed on the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

"Land acquisition cost and remediation costs will be recouped from the developer."

How about the cost of fighting the lawsuits that will no doubt be forthcoming? Is Bloomie bankrolling that? How about Claire? Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

ever-inflating costs of building Citifield and Yankee Stadium on the taxpayer dime

where do you get this? I know at least CitiField is on time and on budget. New Yankee Stadium I believe is over budget but I think thats more a function of raw material costs than anything else.
Both stadiums are funded by bond issuances that will be paid back bu the stadium owners.

where do you all come up with this?

Anonymous said...

Um it's like in the papers every other day.

Taxpayer said...

To all those who believe that seizing PRIVATE property for transfer to a wealthy PRIVATE developer for the profit of that developer:

Demonstrate your conviction: Hand over your home and property to a developer so that the developer can make more profitable use of that property than you or your family. Do not negotiate for a price. Let the developer name a price - far less than the value of your property and you must accept it and leave. You will have no say at all as to what use the developer puts to your former property. You lose all claims.

No excuses. No name calling. Just do it!

Anonymous said...

thats a silly irrelevant comment

My land is NOT blighted.


If a private developer want my land I will listen to him. If the Govt want to buy my land and all the land around him fine. I will at least negotiate and discuss it.

I will not completely ignore the effort and try to circumvent any attempt to negotiate a fair price/

Anonymous said...

What if you don't want to sell but would rather stay?

Anonymous said...

Who caused the land to remain "blighted" ?

I just heard from an insider at the table that the WP biz owners once begged Shulman, when she was boro prez, for sewers and services.

She refused of course
citing the usual "lack of money"!

Funny how the city has plenty of dollars now to spend on this boondoggle land grab but not a cent
15 or 20 years ago!

This bogus "blight"situation was deliberately manufactured by various components which include the power hungry clubhouse pols and their real estate pals along with some choice scum buns from city planning!

So blow it out your ample ass
Evan and the rest of you "Parkside" phonies!

Anonymous said...

This "done" deal will wind up collapsing just like the economy.

Both situations ain't over yet!

The stock market is still
a rockin' and a rollin'
with no real sustained stability in sight yet!

And granny over-sized dentures Shulman can keep grinding her uppers in anger until her lower plate drops from her mouth.

Maybe she'll just wind up before a Congressional committee yet!

Anonymous said...

how ignorant a statement that the City caused blight.

The landowners and their tenants have ruined the land to the point that it will take millions to clean up their mess.

And you blame the city for dumping toxic contaminants into the land for 50 some years.

I dont know how you can really believe that drivel.

Anonymous said...

It is very convenient and simple to blame the city for the actions of individuals on land they have occupied, raped and spoiled for decades.

Taxpayer said...

"It is very convenient and simple to blame the city for the actions of individuals on land they have occupied, raped and spoiled for decades."

Wow! Harsh words. Any evidence?

Did these people occupy the property by force? Were they an invading army who just seized the land from the previous private property owners?

Is there any chance they just simply purchased the land from the previous owners after normal real estate negotiations?

Is there some little chance that over the last 50 or more years these "occupiers" paid their property taxes faithfully? And developed thriving business that employed many (many, many union workers)? Producing goods and services wanted and needed by many? If the goods and services were not wanted or needed, these business would have failed. Many government agencies and officials produce nothing of any value to anybody, and nobody wants these agencies to continue, but, they persist - operating not under the rules of commerce: Produce usefully or fail!

Is there some chance that the city, through the BP (Killer) Manes and then Shulman, and now Bloomberg and Marshall, just REFUSED to supply the ordinary city services to the "occupiers" of Willets Point for many, many years because they had their eye on the prize of seizing the land for personal enrichment - throwing bones to the Commissar?

Or, was it that the private property owners and taxpayers in Willets Point refused to supply the city services to themselves after having paid for them?

As challenged earlier, if you honestly believe that government seizure of private property to transfer that same property to PRIVATE, profit making developers is a great thing to do, demonstrate your belief by surrendering ALL your possessions to the city to be transferred to whomsoever Bloomberg desires, without any say so from you. Forever surrender all claims (and your heirs' claims) to any ownership or control of those former possessions.

No excuses. No talk. Just do it!

I bet you won't even consider the idea. Making you a hypocrite!

I bet you'll write some other snarky comment having no point except to be sarcastic.

Taxpayer said...

God bless Diana Reyna.

There are some elected officials with the courage of their convictions!

Anonymous said...

I DID NOT SAY THE CITY CAUSED THE BLIGHT....GO TO AN OPTOMETRIST AND HAVE YOUR PRESCRIPTION UPDATED!

I SAID THE CITY ALLOWED THE AREA TO REMAIN BLIGHTED BY DENYING PROPER SERVICES LIKE SEWERS ETC. TO THE AREA.....YOU IGNORAMUS!

Anonymous said...

I saw Shulman on today's news and besides looking uglier than ever, why is she still advocating when she is not a registered lobbyist?

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that if the land owners had sewers they would not have dumped toxic chemicals and pollutants onto the ground?? That fir some reason petroleum and solvents and paint products and hydraulic fluid would not saturate the land??

So they would have what?? Flushed all these things down their toilets into their nice new sewers?? Purely ridiculous ?

There was a time early in the 20th century when industries polluted the land with the excuse that they had a greater good..

Of course today we know better yet the landowners of willets point seem to be stuck in the 1910s when it was ok to dump toxic chemicals right on the ground and cover it in sawdust and continue with the day. Dam the environment and dam the workers forced to stand in this filth as the business owners were creating product people wanted to buy

Anonymous said...

if these willets point landowners were Exxon Mobil or Dow chemical I can guarantee there would be more outrage from this audience foe the way these businesses have conducted their affairs and treated their employees

Pure hypocricy

Anonymous said...

Since the reports of Shulman's failure to register as a lobbyist became public, she has since admitted that she is in fact, as lobbyist, and within the last couple of days she has registered as a lobbyist with the Office of the City Clerk (see the registration online at the Clerk's web site). Therefore, all of Shulman's lobbying activities up until the date of her registration were illegal at the time they occured.

Shulman probably only registered now because if she did not, then Council members would be unwilling to schedule meetings with her to discuss the Willets Point matter, as she wants to do prior to the Council vote.

But the failure to register is yet another example of how project proponents have played fast and loose with the rules, to their benefit.

Anonymous said...

what you are suggesting - surremdering all my posswssions to the state - has no basis on reality Or parallel to the current situation and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the process

It's simple hysteria and a desperate attempt to warp the process in the publics eye

Alan said...

Thank you for that info. Apparently, Shulman has been registered for the entire year of 2008 and not just since this month. The filing date is not evident. Does this mean no harm, no foul? Here is the link to the search page:
http://www.nyc.gov/lobbyistsearch/search

I see that in 2006, she was paid $10,000 by the Heskel Group. In 2007, she received $20,000 from the Heskel Group and 3 payments of $43,333.33 for a total of $129,999.99 from Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation.

Here's the interesting part. In 2008, Shulman has 2 filings dated 1/01/2008-12/31/2008 which indicates 4 payments of $21,666,66 or a total of $86,666.64 each. Is this a mistake or is the actual amount 2 X 86,666.64? Will she be fined for not filing in a timely way. Any legal eagles have any thoughts?

Does this mean I can ignore a parking ticket I received for accidentally leaving my muni-meter ticket upside down, even though I legally paid for the spot? I was offered a fine reduction if I pay the fine early instead of waiting for a hearing and decision by an administrator. Why do elected officials and billionaires break the law and get away with it while the poor shnooks like us have to pay for honest mistakes? I know. Because they can (because we let them!).

Alan said...

Some other interesting observations? Well, in 2008 the Parkside Group received $30,000 from Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation and $30,000 from the Queens Theater in the Park, amongst their varied client base.
Also this:

Introduction
2008 Lobbying Calendar
2009 Lobbying Calendar

Introduction

The Lobbying Reform Act of 2006 mandates the City utilize the same reporting periods as the state lobbying commission to make the lobbying process easier.
The new reporting periods take effect on January 1, 2008.
The reporting periods for 2008 will conform to the state's six reporting periods as mandated in the law.
2008 Lobbying Calendar

January 1, 2008
Statement of Registration due for 2008.

Lobbyists
Q. Do all lobbyists need to file a Statement of Registration?
A. A lobbyist needs to file a Statement of Registration if the lobbyist expects to expend, incur or receive more than $2,000 in compensation and expenses from its clients during a given calendar year. NYC Administrative Code 3-213(a)(1)

Q. I am unsure of the amount I will expend or incur this year as a lobbyist. Do I file a Statement of Registration?
A. If on December 15th of a given year you anticipate that in the upcoming calendar year you will expend, incur, or receive more than $2,000 in compensation and expenses from lobbying, you must file a Statement of Registration no later than January 1 of the upcoming calendar year for each client. If you were retained, employed, or designated after December 15, your filing(s) must be completed within 15 days after the date of retention but in no event later than 10 days after incurring or receiving the reportable compensation or expenses. NYC Administrative Code 2-213(a)(2)

Q. Are there penalties for late filing?
A. Yes. A first-time filer will be charged a late filing fee of $10 per day for each day the filing is late. The fee is multiplied by the number of late filings. All other late filers will be charged a late filing fee of $25 per day for each day the filing is late and the fee will be multiplied by the number of late filings. In addition to late fees, civil and criminal penalties may be assessed by the City Clerk. NYC Administrative Code 3-223

Q. If I am found to be in non-compliance and either fined or suspended, can I challenge the finding?
A. The City Clerk institutes proceedings by serving a petition on the lobbyist or client that requires them to appear and file an answer with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) if they wish to challenge the findings. If there is a criminal violation, the City Clerk will report the suspected violation to the Department of Investigation. Rules of the City of New York, Title 51, Section 1-06

So if Shulman registered recently, then it was long overdue and certainly in violation of the law!

Anonymous said...

with the real estate industry taking a nosedive, why would the city even take this on now?

It a land grab - it free and the pols will make money in the future when money is not tight. Again it's a land grab - next your house or apartment.

The Mayor has run amok - stop this crazed monarch!

Taxpayer said...

"what you are suggesting - surremdering all my posswssions to the state - has no basis on reality Or parallel to the current situation and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the process

It's simple hysteria and a desperate attempt to warp the process in the publics eye"

Actually, the surrender suggestion is reality. My family lost property to eminent domain quite a few years ago. The only way any of us heirs can use the property today is to drive on it. It is a highway.

Now, that use of eminent domain, was legal, though deeply flawed (the state informed crony insiders of the highway plan to allow them to make purchases of the land from the owners for a reasonable price. The state paid the insiders vast multiples of those amounts and the kickbacks circulated. We never sold to the insiders - not out of any wisdom, but, because we simply had no interest in selling. Later, after the seizure and the lawsuits, we discovered all the inside dealings. By the way, there were NO negotiations. The state OFFERED us nothing. The state TOLD us what amount we would be paid.).

So, you see, the seizure is real, and permanent. And nearly always part of a dirty deal - beneficial to the pockets of the politicians.

In any event, I predicted that you would balk. All yak. No Sack!

Just another hypocrite. Who pays you? Can you tell the truth? How much for sale are you?

Just noticing. I cannot compel you. I don't have the power of eminent domain. You didn't address any of my questions.

Any explanation? Just can't. Or, the lies would be so transparent?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the above comment, "Apparently, Shulman has been registered for the entire year of 2008 and not just since this month. The filing date is not evident." --

Incorrect. As of last week, Shulman had not registered for 2007 and 2008, which corresponds to the period of time she's had her LDC up and running. She may have dumped her client Heskel Group after 2006 specifically in the hope of avoiding registration of the LDC and the related disclosures.

According to the lobbying rules, it appears that Shulman is eligible for monetary penalties for multiple late filings of annual registrations and periodic reports. She would be fined at the higher rate because she was previously registered and knows the rules.

If you don't want Shulman to get away with this, then contact the Lobbying Bureau of the Office of the City Clerk and tell them to add your name to the list of complainants against Shulman.

Dialing 311 will connect you.

Anonymous said...

If you or your family were paid fair market value for your property I dont see what complaint you have.

Anonymous said...

How about a moratorium on all growth an development in NYC? The money saved can be used for a massive overhaul of seedy subway stations and turning McMansions into commercial real estate which can be rented out to grocery stores, barbers, pharmacies...

Taxpayer said...

"If you or your family were paid fair market value for your property I dont see what complaint you have."

(A) Take a reading comprehension class. Stay until you succeed.

(B) You continue to avoid answering the questions. Are you terrified to answer? Are you one of those sissy cowards who takes pleasure in watching others suffer, believing that such suffering will never befall you? Perhaps it's that reading comprehension problem of yours.

Anonymous said...

If you feel you were not paid fair market value for your land there are things you could have done to ensure you received a fair price.

That you did not do that means you received a fair price.

Your continued insistence on resorting to petty insults shows me you have lost the argument.

Ill say again, if any government entity wants to pay me for my land they are welcome to negotiate with me and I will listen. I will not ignore their overtures and stick my head in the polluted soil like the WP landowners are obviously doing.

Anonymous said...

you continue to mischarecterize the process. Your claim of no negotiations and being "told the amount you would be paid" is simply not the way these things are handled. It sounds like the ramblings of a disgruntled heir who had no real party in the actual negotiations or process.

Eminent Domain proceedings are a last resort. First there are negotiations between the govt entity and the landowners.

After an extended period of negotiations with the landowner if no agreement can be reached an ED case is brought. The govt entity has to prove an attempt to negotiate a fair price and justify the use based on blight and the greater good of the community. The use of ED has to be approved and if approved both parties submit independent appraisals of the property which acts as the basis of an arbiters decision on the final price. The landowner has the right to appeal the decision and the final dollar amount of the purchase.

The last thing the city wants is an ED proceeding. THe City is negotiating and reaching fair agreement (the sellers words) with a growing percentage of landowners.

In some cases (Bono and a few other WP Landowners) the landowner are refusing to negotiate which is unfortunate.

As has been repeated in testimony, the end of the ULURP process and the approval of the site plan does not mean the end of fair negotiations with landowners.

Anonymous said...

Dear UnAmerican EDC shill,

If this goes through, it means the government can take any of our properties so long as it can make a case that more money can be made off of it if it were in the hands of someone else.

We are headed down a very slippery slope.

Anonymous said...

no. The government has to prove that the new use would serve the community better than the old use.

If has nothing to do with whether more money can made by another party on the land.

You should understand the process before you bash a process that has been sparing used for hundreds of years to vastly improve services and the lives of citizens.

Anonymous said...

You're full of shit, Mr. EDC shill. How does that land in New London provide better services for the town now that it's vacant, which is how Willets Point will end up?

Anonymous said...

So you agree, the government can come along and decide that anyone's property can be taken so long as there is a perceived "improvement" for the rest of the community. So if a community wants an amusement park and pledge to patronize it, they can bulldoze people's modest homes.

This is great public policy!

Anonymous said...

The New London plan was proven to be a valid improvement for the greater public good.. That it hasn't come to fruition yet does not invalidate the original plan.

For hundreds of years the law has allowed the government to purchase private land for fair market value if the new use better serves the public . This has led to vast improvements in services and quality of life .

Anonymous said...

it is hardly unAmerican.

Eminent Domain has been a part of this country and many others for hundreds of years. Despite your hysteria it is used sparingly and has worked to improve this country and the livesof it's citizens

Anonymous said...

It is being used sparingly? What a crock of shit. It has been used more frequently in NYS than in any other state since the Kelo decision. Most states passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain for PUBLIC use. In NYC, if you are a rich developer and come along with a boondoggle plan, the City will bend over backwards to help you mug private citizens for your own gain.

There will not be anything built at the Kelo site. It's finished. The developer chosen by the government ran out of money and the City can't afford to build anything there now. So what benefit do the city and the residents get out of this? NOTHING!!!

$78 million taxpayer money down the toilet. Anyone who signs onto this at Willets Point believes corruption is a good thing.

Anonymous said...

a small percentage of all development is the result of eminent domain proceedings. Even in those cases where ED is used it is for an even smaller percentage of the entire development.

The willetspoibt development has nothing todo with corruption. That is just another irrational statement not based on any facts

Anonymous said...

And, as expected, the EDC shill paid for by the taxpayers has decided to ignore the results of the Kelo decision and how they mirror what is going to happen at Willets Point. TDC will run out of money and it will be vacant land that generates ZERO just like in New London.

Anonymous said...

you fail to separate the viability of the plan from the failings of the developer.

The plan in New London is valid. A competant developer has to be chosen to execute it.

Kelo had held up as a valid use.

Anonymous said...

Learn to spell hypocrisy
correctly....idiot!

It's not "hypocricy"!

"Parkside" is getting sloppy these days and doesn't even bother using "spell check".

Anonymous said...

No you ass-wipe!!

If there were sewers and services the area would have transformed itself
from a junkyard into something else.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are just generally stupid?

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg is hungry for a third term so he can railroad through ill thought projects like this and the Atlantic Yards so as to enable his wealthy asshole buddies to make some additional millions off us taxpayers!

I hope the faltering economy puts the kibosh on these plans!

It looks like it already has begun to judging from the desperation of the W.P. pro posters!

They're just whistling past the graveyard with false bravado.

Anonymous said...

Learn to spell hypocrisy

I take your focus on spelling and grammar as a lack of an answer for the points brought up in the post.

Anonymous said...

If there were sewers and services the area would have transformed itself from a junkyard into something else


It would help if you'd actually read some of the material before commenting.

That is not even what the WPIRA says. Their best hope for the area with added sewers is an M3 industrial park with storage yards and the like.

Their own estimates on their out of date website show a new pittance of jobs created and very little in the way of additional revenue created over the next 30 years.

What "something else" do you refer to?

Anonymous said...

I spelt "for wring in the post by accident as well.

Why dont you focus that rather than my statement


if these willets point landowners were Exxon Mobil or Dow chemical I can guarantee there would be more outrage from this audience for the way these businesses have conducted their affairs and treated their employees

Anonymous said...

"The plan in New London is valid. A competant developer has to be chosen to execute it."

So it's ok to spend $78 million taxpayer money and not have a competent developer?

"That is not even what the WPIRA says. Their best hope for the area with added sewers is an M3 industrial park with storage yards and the like."

Yes, and the previous poster said "not junkyards" which is exactly what you just described. Oh I know, there just HAS TO be retail and residential there because the Mets want it. We know.

Anonymous said...

"if these willets point landowners were Exxon Mobil or Dow chemical I can guarantee there would be more outrage from this audience for the way these businesses have conducted their affairs and treated their employees"

If these Willets Point landowners were Exxon mobil or Dow Chemical, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the administration wouldn't even think of touching their land.

Anonymous said...

So it's ok to spend $78 million taxpayer money and not have a competent developer?

what is NOT ok is for a handful of greedy landowners backed by liberal organizations to hold up a development for 7 years because they for some unknown reason cannot accept an offer to move to a better more appropriate neighborhood. Like someone was asking for their first son. ITS A PIECE OF PROPERTY. Accept a reasonable price and MOVE ON.

Kelo JUST RECENTLY had her house physically MOVED to another location which is just plain ridiculous and excessive in terms of holding up a worthwhile development that EVERYONE but these few people think is good for the community.

Anonymous said...

To waste that much of her Time and effort on a run down house in a dilapidated area of town is beyond stupidity. I bet if she had just accepted a reasonable offer in 2000 she would now be happily living in her new home rather than spending SEVEN YEARS fighting in court.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and the previous poster said "not junkyards"

Storage yards provide NO economic gain for the community. A storage yard is just a nice term for junk yard.

By WPRIA's own estimates investing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a remediation of the iron triangle and installing sewers there will add only 1,000 jobs and a few million in added revenue over 30 years.

Anonymous said...

If these Willets Point landowners were Exxon mobil or Dow Chemical, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the administration wouldn't even think of touching their land

what does that have to do with the outrage from this audience that I refer to? That is just deflecting the point.

Anonymous said...

Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical are not the ones in question here. Queens based businesses are.

And I love the stance that a "run down house in a dilapidated area of town" (and it's not, by the way) is somehow worse than a $78 million barren wasteland.

It's not WPIRA's fault that the cost of putting in sewers is atronomical. The city had plenty of time to do so when the land was still vacant and costs were cheap.