Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Ricatto's apparently always been a jerk

Here's a nice little blast from the past from the Queens Tribune:

These usually tranquil residential streets in Forest Hills are being transformed three nights a week into a nightclub parking lot, attracting thousands of guests, hundreds of cars, and nerve-racking noise until as late as 5:30 a.m.

The parties are held at the Forest Hills Country Club, on 70th Road and Sybilla Street, which by day is populated by women playing mahjong by the pool, swimmers, sunbathers, and a summer camp. Every Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and sometimes Monday night, the club is rented out to various party promoters and transformed into an after hours bar and discotheque.

The owner of the club, Michael Ricatto, says that they have been renting the facilities out for parties for nearly two decades. The only difference, he says, is that the patrons of the recent events were black and not white.

"The real problem isn’t noise, it’s racism. We want to get along with the community, but we do not want to stop doing black parties."

Ricatto added that if he could he would have parties every night, but if "we are unable to continue with the parties and have to close the place down, then we will build low-income housing on the site and have the last laugh on the neighborhood."


Amazing. Not only did Ricatto pull an O'Neill's, but he threatened to turn the area into a ghetto. You folks in the 32nd Council District should keep this in mind on February 24th when you head to the polls (in case his unlicensed driver's "accident" and then lying about suspending his campaign weren't enough to sway you).

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like the carpetbagger arrived with a soiled carpet...

Forest Bill said...

If it looks like a schmuck,
owns a swim club like a schmuck
and quacks like a schmuck,
then it probably is a Ricatto.

Anonymous said...

The carpetbagger should pack up his kid killing RV and move on to somewhere out there in la la land where there are no neighbors to bother or to flimflam.

Taxpayer said...

Register your opinion on Killer Republican Ricatto on election day: DUMP HIM!

Anonymous said...

This is typical of the new leadership of Queens today.

They are not from the neighborhood.

They want to take as much as they can.

And if the community will not go along, they have the politican, the press, and other big institutions and movers and shakers (like hospitals, developers and the like) who will gang up against the community and go along with the threats.

Got to keep the locals on a close leash.

Miles Mullin said...

In Queens you can sream in plain sight, in full view of people, and no one will notice.

Anonymous said...

All local candidates should be limited to just signs in the windows or lawns of registered voters and limited to no more than 2 mailers in which they will have to say something more than generic bullet points.

Taxpayer said...

Anon said:
"All local candidates should be limited to just signs in the windows or lawns of registered voters and limited to no more than 2 mailers in which they will have to say something more than generic bullet points."

What clause in the First Amendment would justify such a rule, regulation, law or even demand?

If nothing else, the Free Speech clause (and the Free Press) are all about political speech and publication. We are supposed to thrive as free people with a government having limited power.

Why would any government official, elected, appointed, or a civil servant, in any branch or level of government, be any more trustworthy of screening what candidates for office have to say or how candidates say it, or the frequency of saying it?

Does this anonymous writer actually believe that we citizens are not as smart as the people we pay to function as servants?

And we wonder how the corrupt, like Commissar Death and Taxes, obtain power to abuse.

Anonymous said...

This is one of those rare moments when a candidate's true colors get exposed. And in this case, they're damn ugly.

Who could possibly vote for a man who shows such blatant contempt for decent people trying to live peacefully in their homes. What a selfish pig.. time to flush.

Anonymous said...

Not a first amendment violation to limit what public funds can be spent on if a candidate opts into Campaign Finance. The point being made was that candidates should say something substantive and get beyond bullet points and sound bites. Free speech does not guarantee that what's said by a fool is worth listening to.

Taxpayer said...

"Not a first amendment violation to limit what public funds can be spent on if a candidate opts into Campaign Finance. The point being made was that candidates should say something substantive and get beyond bullet points and sound bites. Free speech does not guarantee that what's said by a fool is worth listening to."

Anon, read your history. Spending money IS an implementation of free speech. I can spend money on this or that movie, but refuse to pay to see some other move I detest. I never need to explain that spending decision (choice) to any person on the planet. Certainly not to any official in government.
Same is true for spending on a political candidate or party. The entire public financing is unconstitutional. Even when a candidate agrees.

What official do you believe is smarter than you or whose judgment is more informed than yours, and therefore, who should be authorized to make political decisions on your behalf? Why? How do you know and trust this official's motives and political preferences? Why are the official's motives and political preferences superior to your own? I'll just bet that I you decided to give a speech on a public sidewalk and a cop came along to silence you, you would screech all about your rights to free speech.

Just because you don't trust yourself doesn't require that I may not trust myself.

And, here's an irrefutable fact: I am far more trustworthy and capable of caring for my own interests than some official who is hidden.

Finally, would you still trust some official's motives and judgment if you knew that I was the official making judgments on your behalf?

Didn't think so. So, why should I trust you or your preferred official?

By the way, the First Amendment has nothing at all to say about the WORTH of the speech. If speech is foolish, then we are free (also by First Amendment rights) to ignore it, or to judge it any way we desire. That is the very beauty and essence of Democracy.

The government is not, and cannot be a religion. So, we have no doctrinal requirement to have any use at all for any official or what any official thinks or says.

In a Democracy, we the people can do the whole thing without the assistance (interference) of government officials who are automatically not to be trusted. Politics is all about controlling officials who desire to control us.

Anonymous said...

I say as a black member of the community THANK YOU MIKE RICATTO for making sure that everyone was able to go to your place of business. I guess you wound-up the white Rosa Parks of Queens. I'll make sure word gets out!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

That's the funniest comment ever left on this site!

Anonymous said...

Funny to you because you were never discriminated against! I think that it's funny that you don't think it's terrific for a businessman to face down the people of a racist community. I applaud Ricatto. And I'm going to find out where his office is and help him. Can anybody here tell me where his office is?

Anonymous said...

So the disruption of the peace and quiet of a neighborhood is okay as long as the ones doing it are black? Are you for real? You sound like someone who should work for Ricatto. The neighborhood was only called racist by Ricatto, not the people attending his parties.

Anonymous said...

I'm a former member of the Forest Hills Country Club and a life long resident of the community. The accounts described about wild parties are exaggerated-- I've never had issues with club patrons. I enjoyed the time I spent at the club using its facilities and never saw any reason why those facilities should be limited for use by any particular group. I especially loved t5he pool--The club was one of my favorite places to go so I don't see how the owner of the club could be considered a jerk. Guessing some of our community is still into its old fashoined ways and thinking.

Queens Crapper said...

"I don't see how the owner of the club could be considered a jerk."

I take it you didn't read the last part where he said he would replace the club with low income housing and have the last laugh on your community. Or you conveniently forgot to defend that comment.

Anonymous said...

I doubt he ever said that he would put low income income on that spot I think that the author of the article was trying to make more of an issue than it really was. I remember Mike he was a good guy always fair and extremely honest.

Anonymous said...

If we had candidates who actually say something worth listening to maybe we wouldn't end up with the bozos we have in office. Like it of lump it, Ricatto is just another bozo.

Anonymous said...

I think Ricatto is a businessman he does things which are profit oriented! He would never turn good land into a slum nor would he say that and turn public opinion against himself. He built houses on the property rather than have neighborhood problems and at the exact top of the market I might add! Imagine what he could do with cuts at City Hall. Unfortunately he has written off this blog just like a businessman would. I think we need guys like him to get this city,state,country out of the mess we are in.

Anonymous said...

Mike Ricatto only does things to benefit Mike Ricatto (and Serf Maltese for some reason). Why do you think he would never say what he was quoted as saying? That reporter now works for a major daily newspaper. Don't think he got there by misquoting sources.

Anonymous said...

That reporter was not quoting a source. He was quoting Ricotta the same guy who showed up at the Ozone Park Community Board tonight and talked in favor of a cabaret license some ex-cop pal of Serf's was trying to push for. They voted it down.

Anonymous said...

Ricatto did have ALL his licenses I worked for him. The reporter is full of beans Mike is much too smart to say something like that, whether he was thinking it or not. I know he had his Cabaret license because he guarded that and all his liquor licenses. You don't give him enough credit. Mike is a very smart guy. And that reporter is just a mediocre occasional contributor to several papers. I think a certain former, discraced City Councilman is behind this as he has been trying to malign Mike in all his little tirades, too bad he’s not man enough to say things in Mikes presence. I have no respect for that. If he didn’t get caught trying to extort a crooked building inspector perhaps I would listen.