Willets Point project is a 10-year long joke

Dear Editor (Queens Chronicle):

While a slice of bread is better than nothing, it is a poor substitute for the whole loaf, particularly if the single slice is stale.

The Feb. 8 Queens Chronicle editorial “Is the future of Willets Point finally here?” is legitimate in utilizing a question mark. It has been 10 years since approval of the 2008 Willets Point Plan, which involved 23 acres with 5,500 housing units. The current plan is limited to six acres said to accommodate 1,100 affordable units, a 450-seat elementary school, retail and some open space. Six acres is a pittance, hardly enough space to accommodate just a school, let alone what is planned. The bulk of the area consisting of 17 acres is left in political hands, and at this time is left open without the slightest transparency of what and when anything of substance will come to pass.

Given the length of time that has transpired since 2008 and continuation of involvement of the Queens Development Group, which consists of the Mets ball club owners, the Wilpons, their Sterling Equities and the Related Companies, one must have deep concern about the current proposal.

The QDG’s credibility is so slight it could not be visible even under a powered microscope. It was deceitful in accepting the original plan because what the developers really intended was to build a gambling casino, and when that failed, the project lay dormant until they came up with an even more absurd plan. They claimed they could not proceed with the original plan because they could not afford to do so, and needed to construct a 1.4 million-square-foot mega shopping mall on the Citi Field parking lot to generate the money they would need. The QDG’s owners had a portfolio of at least $20 billion consisting of many apartments and were in fact one of New York City’s largest landlords, and owned thousands of other properties in the country.

While there may well be “nothing rotten in the state of Denmark,” methinks there is something rotten in the City of New York. There has been no explanation for the current plan and no rationale for not including the left out 17 acres — nor any justification for why the original 2008 Willets Point Plan cannot now be accomplished. Mayor de Blasio’s support for an absurd six-acre deal is a sham for which he should be ashamed. The six-acre plan is the epitome of a lack of municipal transparency, and must be rejected.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

When Ben called Bill

Lehrer: Let’s take another phone call. Ben in Queens, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello Ben.

Question: Good morning Brian. Mr. Mayor, good morning.

Mayor: Good morning Ben.

Lehrer: What’s your question Ben?

Question: Okay, I’ve been involved in the Willets Point issue for ten years since the adoption of the 2008 development plan, and nothing’s been accomplished. Nothing's going to happen until you, Mr. Mayor, wake up to reality. Bloomberg gave this deal to a bunch of real estate moguls who were deceitful and liars. They never had any intention of doing the job, they wanted to build a casino. When that failed they came up with an absurd plan that they needed to have a mega-mall and Citi Field parking lot to earn enough money to build it. These are multi-millionaires. They never had intention of doing anything. And you have an opportunity now to get things straightened out. Get rid of these guys. We don’t need them. You go ahead and hire somebody else to do the job.

Lehrer: Ben let me ask you. What’s your issue? Is it the building of a mall on public parkland in Flushing Meadows –

Question: No, no

Lehrer: – Park?

Question: That’s dead at the moment. The New York State Court of Appeals said they could not build the mall. We’re talking about Willets Plan, the 2008 plan.

Lehrer: Okay.

Question: We’re now concerned, there’s a rumor, that this administration may be giving 23 acres of Willets Point land to these builders. We oppose that. That costs of hundreds of millions of dollars. They’re giving it to these guys for one dollar.

Lehrer: Mr. Mayor, go ahead.

Mayor: Okay, I – Brian I know Ben, and Ben I truly admire you, you’ve been at a number of my town hall meetings and you’re a passionate activist and you have been for decades. So I thank you. I think – look, first be careful about rumors. I’ve said to you in public before, I want to reaffirm it to everyone who’s listening. We want affordable housing at Willets Point, that’s our priority. We’re not focused on anything else, we want affordable housing. And anything the City does will come with the guarantee upfront and the actualization of a substantial amount of affordable housing or else we won’t approve anything. So, there’s a lot more that’s going to play out. Ben is exactly right that the Court of Appeals decision I think put us in a position to fix the mistakes of the previous administration. I share a lot of his critique that I think the original concept of Willets was supposed to be focused on community needs including the need for affordable housing, it drifted substantially or was altered substantially in the years before I came into office. We want to go back to that original focus on affordable housing.

Full transcript

Ben also sent out a letter to the editor on the subject.

Learn the importance of parkland

Dear Editor (Queens Chronicle):

Madison Square Garden, AEG Live and Founders Entertainment, extremely wealthy entertainment giants, are seeking to use Flushing Meadows Corona Park for paid-for-admission music festivals this summer. Queens Borough President Melinda Katz has launched a pre-emptive strike against such use and she is correct.

For too long the NYC Parks Department has been complicit with myopic politicians and wealthy special interests in dumping all sorts of intrusions that do not belong in an urban park like FMCP. It is the most abused park in our municipal park system and that abuse must stop. The Parks Department fails to understand FMCP is important for many Queens residents who do not have summer homes or rear yards in which to relax during summer months. The park is wall-to-wall people during the summer months. Large paid-for-admission events are nothing less than an unwarranted commercialization of public park property which must never be permitted, and particularly as to those with political connections. There are many nonpark facilities in this city that would be available to these entertainment giants.

That Mitchell J. Silver, the NYC Parks commissioner, said he would explore a new rule to approve live large scale multi-day events in the park is unacceptable. It should immediately be rejected with no ifs, ands or buts. Mr. Silver’s attempts to compare this proposal to a charitable AIDS walk in a park or to concerts in other parks that are over in a few hours, free to all persons who which to attend, is political nonsense. There is a difference between such short, free concerts and those events that last for days, that people must pay to attend and given the inadequate parking in the park, will result in mass parking on park grass throughout the park. Public park users will for all practical purposes be denied use of their park so billionaire entertainment owners can make more money and the little people who use and need the park be damned.

Over 100 hears ago Frederick Law Olmstead, the genius who created Central and Prospect parks in this city and important parks elsewhere, said:

“The survival of our park system requires the exclusion from management of real estate dealers and politicians and that the first duty of our park trustees is to hand down from one generation to the next the treasure of scenery which the city placed in their care.”

If Mr. Silver is not familiar with the above or if he is uncaring about its meaning, it would suggest he has no place as an urban parks commissioner. If Mayor de Blaisio is likewise unfamiliar or uncaring about its meaning and fails to prevent Mr. Silver, his parks commissioner, from further desecration of FMCP, he should be aware it will be an issue he will have to confront should he seek re-election.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

AG Schneiderman lobbied on mall in park; submits court brief in favor

Dear Editor (Queens Chronicle):

(An open letter to state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman)

For many years I and many other residents of Queens have fought to protect the integrity of Flushing Meadows Corona Park as an urban park. We successfully defeated an attempt to construct around Meadow Lake in the park a Grand Prix racetrack. We were not successful in opposing the usurpation of parkland for the USTA stadiums and their expansions. We made it clear we would oppose any attempt to place in the park a soccer or hockey stadium.

There is currently pending before the New York State Court of Appeals, our highest state court, litigation that seeks to prevent the construction of a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall on the parking lot adjacent to the Citi Field stadium, on the grounds the lot is on land that is part of FMCP and there can be no alienation of parkland without New York State legislative approval and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure before the community boards whose areas touch upon the park. The developers claim that with regard to use of the Citi Field parking lot they have no obligation to seek legislative approval nor any requirement to engage in the ULURP process. While we lost our case in the lower court, our attorney, John Low-Beer, was successful before the Appellate Division First Department in having the lower court reversed and construction of the mall prohibited. The developers then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

We recently became apprised of the fact that you as attorney general of New York State have injected yourself into the litigation and are submitting an amicus curiae brief in support of the developers and their projected mega mall. We find your 11th-hour entry into this litigation indeed strange, given that at no time while the issue was being debated before the public was there any participation by you or your office. As the attorney general we expect you to be the defender of the public trust doctrine as it relates to parkland. We are certain you are familiar that in the past the AG office has invoked the public trust doctrine in the cases of Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York and Capruso v. Village of Kings Point. We fail to understand how you differentiate a mega mall on parkland from the cited cases.

We do not know if your initiative was prompted by yourself or as the result of lobbying from the developers or at the behest of Gov. Cuomo, who in the past has sought to settle the pending litigation and permit a mall. In this connection, we think it relevant and important to take note of the fact that, according to the Board of Elections’ website, Sterling Equities, Sterling Mets LP, Related Companies, Stephen M. Ross, Kara Ross, Jeff T. Blau and Lisa Blau — all related in various ways with the developers of the mall project — have contributed to election campaigns of both you and Cuomo a total of $187,300 since 2010. That is a large amount, which raises serious questions regarding the obligation of both you and the governor to protect the interests of your constituents and not that of billionaire real estate moguls.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Time to investigate FMCP shenanigans

From the Queens Chronicle:

Re “Pol: FMCP belongs to public, not politics,” July 7, multiple editions:

Parks are the lifeblood of congested urban societies. While Flushing Meadows Corona Park is the second-most used park in New York City, mostly by the underprivileged, it is also the most abused, pockmarked with all sorts of structures alien to legitimate public park use, that would never be permitted in Central Park or indeed in any other municipal park. Terrace on the Park; the Mets’ stadium and its parking lot; the USTA and its newly added, ugly dome; a previous attempt to construct a Grand Prix race track around Meadow Lake; an attempt to construct a soccer stadium; and a current attempt to build a huge mega shopping mall on the Citi Field parking lot, which is parkland.

The culprits responsible for the above are former mayors, possibly current Mayor De Blasio, former borough presidents and most of all the vast majority of City Council members, all of whom have operated as if their constituents are the real estate moguls and not the little people. An example is the attempt for a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall on the Citi Field parking lot, which included a raid on the city treasury and for all practical purposes the demise of the 2008 approved Willets Point redevelopment plan. The Council and its prime mover, Julissa Ferreras-Copeland, negotiated and supported a plan that gave the developers property acquired by the city, for tens of millions of dollars, for $1; plus subsidies and tax abatements. To nail the coffin shut, the developers were given the right to walk away from any obligation to construct affordable housing by forfeiting $35 million, an amount that to them is akin to the tip one gives the youngster who delivers groceries. Walk away they will.

At long last there is a breath of fresh air in City Councilman Rory Lancman, who has sued the city and the Alliance for Flushing Meadows Corona Park, which he claims was formed to funnel money from for-profit entities in exchange for the use of park resources.

The time is long overdue for a full investigation into how and why FMCP has become the dumping ground for all sorts of illegitimate public park use. I am sure the public supports and thanks Lancman to let right be done.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Telling it like it is on Willets Point

Letter to the Editor of the Queens Chronicle:

An apathetic public is a hack politician’s best friend. That cannot be said of a group of concerned citizens who took on former Mayor Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission, former Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, the Wilpons of the Mets ballclub and their affiliates Sterling Equities and Related Companies, who are for all practical purposes a cabal trying to usurp a large portion of Flushing Meadows Corona parkland that houses a parking field so private developers can construct a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall. The Appellate Division: First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in a unanimous decision, hit a home run in holding the proposed development was not sanctioned by law.

In heralding the court’s decision, the Queens Chronicle’s July 9 editorial, “A major victory, just outside Citi Field,” pointed out the developers’ claim that the 1961 law that allowed the construction of Shea Stadium also authorized the mega-mall was nonsense, as indeed it was.

Equally nonsensical were the claims by the developers that they could not proceed with the 2008 Willets Point plan without the mega-mall to generate the necessary money. The developers are billionaires, and the claim they needed a mall to make money is the height of absurdity. While accepting the 2008 plan, it is evident they never had any intention to pursue it, but only to use it as a wedge for other purposes.

Not only did Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission and Marshall approve this charade, but they rewarded the developers with the property for $1, millions in taxpayer subsidies and the right to forfeit $34 million and walk away from any obligation to construct affordable housing, which was the lynchpin in the 2008 plan to begin with. $34 million dollars for these billionaire developers is tantamount to the tip one gives the youngster who delivers your groceries. Make no mistake once they had a mega mall, they would walk. Equally outrageous was Bloomberg’s saying Willets Point was a blight and had to go, when it was the city that caused the blight, collecting sewer rent when there were no sewers and letting the infrastructure fail.

These officials’ complicity in this sordid municipal episode would cause the infamous Boss Tweed to tip his hat in admiration. Mayor de Blasio has remained silent on the subject. There now exists a good opportunity for him to demonstrate to the public whether there be any real difference between himself and Bloomberg.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Julissa got ripped a new one at CB4

From the Queens Chronicle:

After a somewhat fiery debate at Community Board 4’s February meeting regarding the ongoing Willets Point saga, Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) appeared at Tuesday’s session to discuss the project, as requested last month.

A number of Willets Point advocates also appeared, speaking harshly about Ferreras during the public forum portion of the meeting and emotionally about the project that has impacted hundreds of business owners.

However, Ferreras had left the meeting almost an hour before her critics could speak out against the proposed shopping mall, the subject of a new lawsuit filed by state Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside), activists and Willets Point business owners.

“She is here to put over her own views on this, and to frankly create the false impression that people should love this project,” Robert LoScalzo, a documentary filmmaker covering the Willets Point plan, said after the meeting. “The elephant in the room was the open question of why this community board did not get any say in evaluating or approving the actual mall on the parkland. The councilwoman came here tonight and discussed everything but that.”

Ferreras did not speak about the upset owners, the mall or the lawsuit, angering Ben Haber, a Willets Point advocate who spoke during the public forum.

“Are you aware that in regard to the 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall, that you had no say? It was never part of [the Uniformed Land Use Procedure] and was snuck in through the back door,” Haber told the board. “How many people think [the mall] is a good idea? You were deprived by your City Council member of any say in the matter.”

One board member out of the nearly 30 present raised his hands in response to Haber’s question.

Many Willets Point owners have been upset with what they see as Ferreras’ hands-off approach in regards to the litigious project, but in a phone interview on Wednesday, she defended her actions, saying she has always been supportive of those impacted by the massive undertaking.

Avella, activists, file lawsuit to stop shopping mall at Flushing Meadows

Notice of Petition & Petition

From Save FMCP:

State Senator Tony Avella of Whitestone, Queens, The City Club of New York, park advocacy groups, and an array of residents and business people neighboring the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, filed suit today to cut off the threat of construction of a 1.4 million square foot shopping mall within the Park.

The complaint alleges that the project cannot proceed without approval by the State Legislature under the “public trust” doctrine that protects all parkland throughout the State against any form of transfer or introduction of non-park uses without consent of the Legislature. It does not appear that any such approval for the shopping center use has been requested or obtained.

The complaint also alleges violations of the City’s Zoning Resolution and Charter, and seeks annulment of approvals granted by the City to date for the related Willets Point plan.

The site is 30.7 acres near the northerly end of the Park. From 1964 to 2006, the site was occupied by Shea Stadium. When Shea was demolished and replaced in 2009 by Citi Field at a location slightly east of the Shea site, the project site became a parking field for visitors to Citi Field. The site has also been used for a variety of public recreational events including foot races, circus performances, an annual wheelchair baseball game, and concerts.

In 2012, Sterling Equities and the Related Companies, both well-known developers, convinced the Bloomberg administration to allow the shopping mall on Park property, although the City Council had approved a plan in 2008 to place the intended retail development in the neighboring Willets Point development project along with affordable housing.

The project has moved forward without the customary public review. There have been no hearings on it before community boards, the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the State Legislature. The Bloomberg administration appears to have acted on the assumption that no public review is required because in 1961 the State Legislature approved construction of Shea Stadium and provision for parking, with wording broad enough, say proponents of the project, to allow replacement with a shopping center. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the project on the parking field declares that the parcel is on designated parkland and that legislation permits the shopping mall project. It lists approvals that the City and developers expect to seek, but State legislative approval is not among them.

The contention that the 1961 law exempts this transaction from the public trust doctrine, says John Low-Beer, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, is wrong. “The 1961 law was intended to allow a stadium and uses directly related to a stadium, such as parking, concessions, and other commercial activity typically incidental to a professional sports arena.”

Low-Beer adds that the 1961 law “says nothing about a shopping center. In fact, the Legislature explicitly prohibited any purely commercial uses other than ones strictly related to the stadium, such as concession stands. The public trust doctrine requires that any legislative consent be very specific about what it will allow. If it doesn’t specify a use, then that use is not permitted.”

Senator Tony Avella stated that “Parks are intended to serve the people, to provide open space, landscaping, opportunities for recreation, playgrounds for children, and escape from the hordes and noise of a busy commercial city. The only commercial uses that belong in them are those, such as snack stands, that enhance the park experience. A shopping center is not one of them. We have a wonderful law that is supposed to assure all of this, known as the ‘public trust doctrine.’ I’m outraged when the people who are supposed to administer parks for everyone turn them over to private interests without seeking the State Legislature's consent as the public trust doctrine requires. So, I am very pleased to be a party to this action.”

The plaintiffs include Paul Graziano, Al Centola and Ben Haber who have prominently opposed a spate of recent proposals for new or enlarged sports venues in the Park, as well as the shopping center. The efforts of “Save Flushing Meadows Park,” a coalition of many Queens civic groups put together by Graziano, Centola, Haber and others, thwarted the proposed professional soccer stadium, though it was unable to stop a half-acre expansion of the Tennis Center. They have also led opposition to the shopping center.