Monday, March 22, 2010

Flushing really pissed about TDC project



The current development plan for Municipal Parking Lot 1 in Flushing replaces an equitable, popular and affordable public parking amenity – one owned by New York City taxpayers and heavily relied on by local businesses – with an expensive, private, for-profit system that:

a) Will likely cause major small-business closings and job losses;
b) Violates a signed Letter of Agreement between the Mayor’s Office and the City Council;
c) Offers the public inadequate safeguards in case of developer or bank default.

  • Flushing is a major transit hub consisting of three principal modes: municipal parking, bus lines, and subway service.
  • As a direct result of its excellent parking amenity and ample transportation, Flushing is thriving as a commercial center for a great many small businesses in northern Queens.
  • Municipal Lot 1 (“Lot 1”) is a 5-acre, 1,101-space parking facility in downtown Flushing that was built in 1954 as a public amenity, owned and operated by the City of New York.
  • Lot 1 is priced well below market rates specifically to encourage commercial activity; rates currently are 25 cents per 15 minutes, and $4 for daily parkers. Flushing’s businesses are dependent on this kind of plentiful, affordable public parking.
  • There is no preferential parking or ‘validation’ available – all visitors pay the same for parking, regardless of the purpose of their trip or which business they patronize.

  • The City of New York has agreed to sell Lot 1 to a developer who intends to build a mixed-use development (‘Flushing Commons’) -- and privatize the parking concession.
  • The developer’s stated plan is to increase parking rates substantially (after a temporary ‘cap’ period).
  • The City is deeding the land to the developer, meaning that there will no longer be any guarantee of public access to that parking lot, let alone any guarantees on rates.
  • The developer will introduce a ‘validation’ system – under which local businesses will likely be forced to pay for at least part of their patrons’ parking fees or lose business to other business areas.
  • The developer has recently reduced the number of planned parking spaces by 400 spaces (25%) from the original plan proposed to the community.

  • In 2005, then-Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff of the Bloomberg administration signed a Letter of Agreement regarding Lot 1 with John Liu, then-Councilman for Flushing.
  • The Letter specified that any City-sanctioned development of Lot 1 must include:
  1. At least 2000 publicly-available parking spaces.
  2. A cap on parking rates at agreed prices in perpetuity, adjusted for inflation.
  • The current developer’s plan for Flushing Commons is clearly in violation of the Letter of Agreement, and the NYC Economic Development Corporation has admitted this.

  • It is impossible to miss the substantial number of idled building sites across the City of New York OR the recent foreclosure of Stuyvesant Town.
  • The common ingredient is the difficult financing environment and/or the failure of banks and other financing entities.
  • The City has failed to build in assurances that – should Flushing Commons lose financing or fail to complete construction on time – taxpayers can get back their land.
  • Loss of adequate, competitively-priced parking will very likely lead to serious job losses and small-business closings in Downtown Flushing.
  • A ‘validation’ system will amount to a new tax imposed on small business in Flushing,as they will be compelled to subsidize customer/client parking to remain competitive.
  • After the sale, as things stand now the developer will legally be entitled to deny parking to local businesses in favor of his own tenants, or charge non-tenants higher rates.
  • Under the current very loose agreement, financing issues or a default once construction has begun could result in Flushing’s businesses losing access to Lot 1 indefinitely.


The following steps are the minimum necessary to safeguard the commercial viability of Flushing:
  1. Parking rates should be limited to current municipal rates, adjusted for inflation, or no more than the rates originally negotiated with the Deputy Mayor.
  2. The developer should be required to provide at least 2,000 publicly-available parking spaces, as originally negotiated with the community
  3. There should be no preferential parking rates for tenants or clients of tenants in the new development.
  4. The above should be strictly enforced (such as by the DOT or Comptroller) including an easement on the land transfer and significant sanctions if there is non-compliance.
  5. There should be substantial penalties for failure to complete the project in a timely fashion, up to and including forfeiture of the land.
This Fact Sheet was prepared by OPEN FLUSHING (in formation), a coalition of merchants, individuals, property owners and groups, including REDO and many others.

Click here for a position paper from REDO.


Anonymous said...

Isn't it a little too late to "open Flushing" now?

The only thing we can offer it is a decent burial with (proper) honors bestowed.

Bring on the white horse driven hearse or should that be the Herce (LOL)?

Where were you guys & gals 26 years ago when the town was being sized up (very quietly) by the "little duke of" Wellington Chen and his Taiwanese connections who were busy laying the groundwork for the taking of Flushing?

After all, wasn't "It was ripe for the taking", as Chen was once heard saying?

Being a diminutive little shrimp (a wannabee Napoleon) he just loves his military metaphors. His public comments are peppered with them.

Forget about Tommy Huang...he was just playing the "Flushing's Bad Boy" role...drawing attention away from the real pallbearers...Manes, Herce, CB7, Chen (?) and the whole "F"-ing" gang who handed over the store to Asian developers.

CB#7 is just going through the motions of disliking the parking impact.

Councilman Koo will approve this project then it's off to the borough board for the final pass to the city council.

Bloomberg wants this so it'll pass there too like shit through a goose!

Glad I moved away 18 years ago.

Good luck or shall it be good ruck?

Anonymous said...

There's too much parking as it is. Get rid of more.

Anonymous said...

"This Fact Sheet was prepared by OPEN FLUSHING (in formation), a coalition of merchants, individuals, property owners and groups, including REDO and many others."

JUST WHAT FLUSHING NEEDS - another "community" group. All leaders without any followers in an already fragmented community.

Forget about it Jake - IT'S WELLINGTOWN!

Anonymous said... went from "Huang Kong" to "Wellingtown"!

Funny how Myra Baird Herce is still kicking around (barely) but still sopping up the gravy from whoever she currently claims to be "representing".

Who's that "angel" in the wings...Richard Gellman?

Anonymous said...

Flushing, the vibrant and bustling place that it is needs more Klass (with a capital K) - It's WELLINGTOWNE.

Willets Point will soon become the WELLINGTON POINTE section of WELLINGTOWNE.

Anonymous said...

Just read the Daily News.

Thanks Councilman Halloran for supporting the over development of Flushing by approving the Flushing Commons project.

Now please allow my surgeon to carefully remove your knife from my back

Just another typical two faced pol giving more loyalty to your party (you heathen) than to your constituents.

You won't get my vote the second time around even if an ape runs against you.

The way I figure it an animal won't commit blood sacrifice of his own species like your coreligionists do!