Thursday, February 24, 2011

Avella calls for Willets Point oversight hearing

From Tony Avella's op-ed in the Daily News:

As a former member of the City Council, I - along with many of my colleagues - was concerned that the use of eminent domain in this instance was an abuse of the process. Eminent domain should only be used to take private property for a specific public benefit not, as in the case of Willets Point, to turn the property over to a private developer who will make millions. Where is the public benefit?

I voted against the project for this reason and other deficiencies in the proposal. Unfortunately, the Council sided with the mayor and approved this land grab.

Following the city's approval, Willets Point United, a group organized by area business owners, hired a traffic consultant, Brian Ketcham, to review the city's environmental review of the impact this massive project would create. It was discovered that the city, in order to mitigate very serious traffic congestion issues, had proposed the creation of several ramps off the Van Wyck Expressway.

The city had argued in the environmental review that the ramps were the linchpin of the project, primarily because the development was estimated to generate 80,000 car trips a day. Without the ramps, the Willets Point development would overwhelm local streets and would be environmentally unmanageable. Nowhere in any of the environmental documents was there a scenario whereby the project in whole or in part could proceed without these crucial ramps.

However, the ramp design is faulty, and necessary approval from the state Department of Transportation has not been forthcoming.

As part of public comments, EDC had promised that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort, and it would not be used prior to the approval of the ramps. Well, despite the unresolved ramp issue, EDC is moving to condemn family-owned businesses.

In essence, EDC, stymied by a difficult state and federal approval process, is looking to make an end run around this impasse and create an entirely new project - one that has never been properly reviewed by the Council.

In my view, this is a complete violation of the land use review process and requisites that the Council approved in 2008. EDC alleges that the ramps are not necessary for the first phase of the project, a phase that encompasses 20 acres and will include, according to EDC, a retail corridor, hotel and housing. But since no study was done on this partial development, the assertions of EDC are without merit or credibility.

There is simply no way that the city can argue that the first phase does not need these ramps. As a result, the only credible alternative is for the Council to demand a new environmental review and a completely new land use application to determine if what EDC is arguing has any validity. The public must have an opportunity to comment on this new plan.

The city is facing a severe fiscal crisis, with huge budget cuts and layoffs that appear to be unavoidable. In this fiscal environment, putting aside all the contradictions and bad faith coming out of EDC, can the city now afford to spend billions of dollars to buy out local businesses? Even if the city is successful in this land grab, development is years off and will probably take decades. In the interim, jobs will be lost and the city will lose the tax revenue from all the businesses that it will have forced to close.

20 comments:

Babs said...

well said Avella!!

FlooshingRezident said...

Love, love, love Tony! Finally - a rational politician!

Tony for mayor!

Anonymous said...

Begin with a financial forensics team looking into Claire Shulman's books (both sets)...the ones that she's been hiding under her bed for all these years!

Maybe some Donald Manes, Tommy Huang and Gary Ackerman money has been co-mingled in her account ledgers.

Didn't Ackerman leave a certain student union in his Queens College days shortly therafter some of their funds "took a walk"?

Might that have been seed money for starting up the Queens Tribune?

Uh...look for Nussbaum under Claire's bed too...seeking a "happy ending" perhaps?

Ugh-h-h...I think I'll give up sex on that disgusting note!

Malba Gardener said...

People had a lot to say about Tony when he was City Councilman. We did some investigation and found that when said he was against something he actualy did try to do something about it. In Several cases Tony immediately drafted laws to address the issues he was working against. As was the case regarding overdevelopment in Whitestone (zoning downsizing) as well as the traffic problem on 5th avenue in Whitestone.

Tony immediately drafted a bill that would take the city off of Federal Guidlines which call for 500 cars per hour for a residential street to be granted a stop sign (500 cars per hour would be worse than Northern Blvd). Albiet the bill was killed by the Council at the time, particularly John Liu (Transportation Committee Chair at the time, and neighbor of Chuck Apelian of CB 7). We obtained a copy of that proposed legislation and presented it to Current Councilman Halloran who said it is impossible and did not propose any alternative.

500 cars per hour? The city can impose more restrictive "guidelines" than the Federal Government and not be denied Federal monies. It is only when they loosen the "guidelines" that they risk loosing money. Hence the term "guidelines".

Tony also had the option of running for another term in the council but stuck to his scruples and chose not to. He voted for term limits, against extending them and when push came to shove did not seek re-election as was his right. No one is perfect, this much is true. Tony may buck the boys club and yes we have heard all about his "Parkside connections" but at least he does try to preserve the community he represents.

All of those running for Tonys seat all promised us they would work with the council to get things done, a kinder gentler kind of representative. Well after seeing everything our City Council members have done to our City, that may not be such a great idea. Yes we need someone that is able to work with his colleagues, we also need someone who is not afraid to stand up to them , especially when it affects the community that elected them.

Anonymous said...

Tony is very good at these things---But will he ever speak out against Parkside and Evan's Mom?

Anonymous said...

Tony is very good at these things---But will he ever speak out against Parkside and Evan's Mom?

******************************************************

That echoes my thoughts. Will he bite the hands that feed him? Stay tuned...

Moby and Evan said...

He's OURS now. Heh Heh Heh

Claire Shillman said...

Moby and Evan said...
He's OURS now. Heh Heh Heh

****************************************************

Then I'm leaving it up to you to keep him in line!!!

DO YOUR JOBS!

Anonymous said...

Bienvenidos a La Habana!

Anonymous said...

I need for the city to fix the pot holes in the street. Everything else especially redeveloping Willets Point can wait another million years after I die.

Anonymous said...

Malba you have no idea how evil parkside is

there game playing in the state senate for better or worse has assured that the republicans will remain state senate leaders for a long time

i hope tony does not sell out in e the senate

Anonymous said...

Parkside was hired by Shulman to illegally lobby for the Willets Point project. Tony is standing up against them.

Anonymous said...

Parkside was hired by Shulman to illegally lobby for the Willets Point project. Tony is standing up against them.

***********************************************

Politics makes strange bedfellows?!!?!?!?!!

Or does Parkside see it as a win win situation? They should REALLY be called the Darkside Group!

Anonymous said...

lol tony is standing up to parkside lol lol lol

that is hilarious

Anonymous said...

lol tony is standing up to parkside lol lol lol

that is hilarious

And the check is in the mail!

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely wrong to characterize the March 2 hearing as any sort of benign "discussion" about the project. The hearing is a condemnation hearing, plain and simple, held pursuant to NYS EDPL. The only purpose of the hearing which matters, is that only issues that are raised during the hearing can be the basis of legal challenges to condemnation when it occurs. EDC is attempting to downplay that this is a condemnation hearing, when that is exactly what it is. EDC is activating eminent domain against scores of private property owners and businesses, because EDC, Shulman and the Bloomberg administration prefer to see other owners and users of the site. As for "relocation": Again, EDC is dishonest. The truth, which journalists have shamefully ignored, is that EDC refuses to implement the relocations of businesses (e.g., Flushing Towing and Met Metals) whose relocations have already been approved all the way through the City Council. Even businesses who have contracts to relocate, are not being relocated to property approved by CB7, Helen Marshall and the Council. Instead, those people have received the same EDPL condemnation hearing notices as other property owners, and will be condemned. Also, the public comment period relating to this hearing is open only until March 18 -- NOT for 60 days as this article incorrectly states. Imagine if someone relies on this article, then finds their comments are rejected due to untimeliness and they lose their right to file a legal challenge on the basis of issues raised within their untimely comments. Finally, the author mistakenly states that a "last chance to stop the project" via legal means is related to the condemnation. That is not true, and attorneys on both sides know it. "

Anonymous said...

Eminent Domain
n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings.

WHAT ARE THEY PROPOSING ON THE SITE AGAIN?

ALFREDO

Anonymous said...

Well the city will just have to jack-off and jack-up the taxes of the rest of us property (home & business) owners in the meantime when revenues fall short if the Willets Point business are put out onto the street.

So, in essence, we will be paying for the TDC's development.

Hey Mr. Chen...make your friends in Taiwan foot THE FULL TAX BILL for developing "Wellington Pointe"!

Uh...and...I'd like a percentage of your profits a co-investor if I'm going to be subsidizing your boondoggle through my taxes...you little runt!

Anonymous said...

It seems that all of Donald Manes' plans are still being implemented throughout Queens with a tweak or two of change.

Remember his grande prix racing scheme for Willow lake...Hunters Point development plan or RKO Keith's replacement?

Claire Shillman is his (well paid) agent at Willets Point.

Her legacy will be the corpse of a formerly vital borough she'll leave behind.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Parkside is Tony's dark side...but who really knows how beholding he is to the Staviskys.

Only time will tell.

I believe that few candidates running for office have any choice but to use that nefarious group if they intend on getting elected.