Sunnyside Railyard plan a disaster

(with permission from the Woodside Herald)
Please Don't Build Over Sunnyside Yards
Op Ed By Patricia Dorfman

The Mayor has discarded the wishes of the electorate in his enthusiastic speech about his Yards development plan, which seems to favor giant real estate interests and construction workers who do not live here (East Side Access workers live in onsite dormitories). This disconnect from actual human beings who have chosen our lives in Western Queens, who believe we live in a democracy, look to him as our Mayor, not the Mayor of only people who live elsewhere or who have not yet moved to NYC, is a shock.

A "Sunnyside Starrett City" being featured so lavishly as a centerpiece of his February 2 speech, when one has yet to find one resident in favor not connected to current government or special interests, gives the appearance that the entire project is one crafted by rich, powerful people that Mayor deBlasio has accepted dutifully. He gets to let giant financial firms make millions, gets to please the unions and others giving huge donations to the party, and can call it “affordable housing,” as though it is a kindness to the needy.

If affordable housing, whatever that means, is wanted, why not immediately buy five vacant small lots in Sunnyside Woodside here, and get started, for a fraction of the billions this will cost us taxpayers? In two years, something real can happen. The hole in the ground at Sunnyside center where Dae Dong burned down has been ready for 14 years.

If the Yards are built over as he projects, that would mean that there seems to be a frightening marriage of political, economic, and organized labor at a national, state and local level which is not by the consent or in the interest of local voters, taxpayers and residents. The words used by his aides, that the Yards are an “ugly scar,” and we residents are clamoring for decking, sounds like heartless people looking down upon us from on high.

Many in the Queens are shocked at the mayor's lack of interest in the welfare and wishes of actual residents and small businesses. Mitch Waxman, Astoria resident who reports and photographs for NewtownPentacle.com and Brownstoner.com, says, "I find it surprising that the self-proclaimed progressive mayor of New York City has so thoroughly embraced the plan of Michael Bloomberg's former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff. (Doctoroff was CEO of Bloomberg LLC.)

We live in a one party system out here, with so much power in the hands of elected officials to dispense patronage favors, that sometimes the party itself has become a kind of company, which runs for itself. That might be occurring in the larger picture now. We ask the Mayor and City Hall to care about us above all and not read the “party memo” which will forever change our lives for the worse.

And for those who want to have an open “discussion” about how to use some of the Sunnyside Yards for anything other than a giant park (hey, billionaires Bloomberg and Doctoroff, buy us a park, that will change all of our lives instantly and make you our heroes) means that once any building is done, the rest is up for grabs. We cannot build on just part of it.

Please do not build over Sunnyside Yards. If "Sunnyside Starrett City" comes to pass, it means we no longer have any say about our city. It means that all rezoning of the past 20 years of Queens is calculated to line the pockets of the rich, displace the working class and small businesses who would not be afford the new rents, is paid for by the taxpayer, and is now described as “affordable housing,” as though it is a noble goal, to crush our lifestyles, wishes, hopes and dreams. Developing over the Yards will extend Manhattan over us like serfs on their land.

(The author is a registered Democrat, union member, and lives in Sunnyside.)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/124/232/303/please-do-not-build-over-the-sunnyside-yards/

Many not on board with Sunnyside Railyard plan

From NY Mag:

About two hours after de Blasio exited the stage to the strains of Peter, Paul and Mary’s “If I Had a Hammer,” Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a statement declaring that the yards are important to the MTA and “not available for any other use in the near term.”

Maybe Cuomo is miffed that de Blasio didn’t play the Pete Seeger version of “Hammer.” More likely this is just the beginning of a protracted negotiation, with some fascinating political ripples. Cuomo, back in his 2012 State of the State address, floated the notion of replacing the Javits Center with a new $4 billion convention facility at Aqueduct racetrack. That plan collapsed within six months, when a Malaysian gambling company balked at paying for a major share of the project.

The scheme was revived in November, however, on the op-ed page of the Times, in a new form: Replace Javits with a convention center at Sunnyside Yards, plus 14,000 residential units, 50 percent of them “affordable.” Even more intriguing was the essay’s author — Dan Doctoroff, who’d been Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s forceful deputy mayor for economic development. Sunnyside has been on Doctoroff’s mind for a long time. It was a key location in his pitch to bring the 2024 Olympics to New York.

A middle-class-housing enclave at Sunnyside would be an indirect de Blasio answer to a more successful Doctoroff deal — the luxe Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s West Side. It would also be a nifty jab at the pals of Bloomberg who have been encouraging Doctoroff to run against de Blasio in 2017.

From Sunnyside Post:

Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan issued a statement that questioned his plan.

Nolan’s viewpoint follows Governor Andrew Cuomo’s statement yesterday that made it clear that such development was not imminent. Cuomo said the ‘state and the MTA are studying several potential uses of the site from a long-term planning perspective.”

“I am extremely supportive of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s concerns that long term planning must be considered in any development of Sunnyside yards,” Nolan’s statement read.

“I have grave concerns about Mayor de Blasio’s plans as expressed in [Tuesday’s] state of the city address. There are many questions that must be asked."

From Capital New York:

City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, who represents Sunnyside, did not immediately embrace the idea of building 11,250 units of affordable housing at the 200-acre site.

A left-leaning Democrat, Van Bramer stressed that he supports an expansion of affordable housing in New York City, which was the focus of de Blasio's State of the City speech Tuesday morning. He said his concern stems from the needs that arise with the additional population in his already-crowded district. He also said he is wary of the possible height of the apartment buildings in a predominantly residential area.

"I'm down with the vision and I truly do applaud the mayor for making this a priority," he said. "[But] if you're going to seriously look at the Sunnyside Yards, though density works in some places it doesn't work in others."

For instance, he said he would oppose high-rise buildings that may be out of character in the neighborhood, which is home to a mix of long-time residents and young families attracted to the proximity to midtown Manhattan.

"The truth is we just don't know" what the mayor's specific blueprint is, he said. "We're just not going to build 30, 40, 50 residential towers in Sunnyside—that's just not going to happen. That level of density would be wildly out of character with the very low-rise nature of Sunnyside."

He also said, as local officials skeptical of major housing projects in their districts often do, that the city and state should provide adequate resources to accompany the growth—a school and a new train line, for instance.

"When the 7 train goes down, then all hell breaks loose," he added, referencing the only subway that serves that area.

It's not exactly fun when it's running well, either.

Doctoroff has really pissed Van Bramer off

From LIC Post:

The drum beat to develop the Sunnyside Yards continues with the latest call to build on it coming from the former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff.

Doctoroff, in a New York Times op-ed piece that ran Sunday, said that the city needs to build a 3.1 million square foot convention center and that Sunnyside Yards would be the ideal place for it. The center could also be accompanied, he wrote, by nearly 14,000 residential units of which 50 percent would be affordable.

The op-ed stated that Long Island City is a great location for this development since it is “one of the most convenient, transit-friendly areas in the city, served by eight subway lines.” The idea is that the new convention center would replace the Javits Center, which he deemed too small.

However, residents and local officials argue that the concept just doesn’t make sense and that the neighborhood’s infrastructure in terms of schools, parks and subways are already stretched. Many are unsure how the neighborhood will absorb all the new residents coming to the area, with 5,000-10,000 units coming online in the next few years.

“I found some of [Doctoroff’s op-ed] patronizing,” said Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer who opposes decking over the yards. “It revealed to me somewhat of a Manhattan elitist view of Queens.”

Van Bramer said that Doctoroff might find the neighborhood transit friendly when he looks at the area on a map. However, he said, people who live here know that the No. 7 train is not reliable and there are a lot of delays. During morning rush hour, people often struggle to get on at the Jackson Ave/Vernon Blvd. Station, he said.

At the October Community Board 2 meeting, when the idea of studying the yards was raised, several board members wanted to know how the area will cope with all the Court Square/Queens Plaza development coming online—let alone the yards.

Meanwhile, a petition has just been formed, calling on the city not to allow the site to be developed.

Doctoroff pushing hard for development of Sunnyside Yards

From the NY Times:

We are an undisputed leader in tourism, yet we lag badly in one important aspect: the huge convention and conference business. Nationwide, conventions add nearly $400 billion to our gross domestic product, and employment in the industry is set to grow 33 percent through 2022. Sadly, New York ranks 64th globally in this business, leaving tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars on the table — resources that could fund better schools, parks and affordable housing.

New York struggles for two main reasons. First, of course, is price. With the average Manhattan hotel room costing nearly $300 per night, we are pricing ourselves out of the market for many major conventions. Then there is the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. Located on Manhattan’s Far West Side, Javits was unloved practically from the moment it opened. It’s too small for many events and can’t compete with facilities in other cities.

Fortunately, there’s a solution — one that would not only address our lack of competitiveness in the conventions and conferences business, but would also catalyze the transformation of two neighborhoods and make a meaningful dent in our affordable housing crisis. The best part is that we can do this all without costing taxpayers a dime.

The key is to replace the Javits Center. There’s been talk over the years of expanding it, but that won’t solve the affordability problem. Fortunately, the perfect undeveloped location for a new convention center exists at Sunnyside Yards, the more than 160-acre rail yard that carves a nasty scar through the heart of Queens.

Sunnyside Yards is adjacent to Long Island City, a neighborhood that has blossomed in recent years with new residents and businesses, including nearly 20 new hotels since 2007, with almost as many currently under construction or in the planning stages. The average hotel room rate in Queens is less than half that of Manhattan; a convention center on the border of Long Island City would go a long way toward solving the affordability problem that holds the Javits Center back.

Long Island City is also one of the most convenient, transit-friendly areas in the city, served by eight subway lines. The Long Island Rail Road and Amtrak pass through and park their trains there. Even New Jersey Transit stores its trains in Sunnyside. From my office one block south of Bloomingdale’s in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, I can get to Long Island City by subway in just one stop, and eight minutes flat.

Given the neighborhood’s many advantages, redeveloping Sunnyside Yards seems obvious — but the biggest barrier has always been the multibillion-dollar cost of building a platform over the train tracks that can allow the trains to run while accommodating large construction. The cost has always made the idea a nonstarter, but times — and real estate values — have changed. Stronger market conditions bring us closer to feasibility, but the numbers for building the platform still don’t add up unless we get creative.

That’s why we should relocate the Javits Center to Sunnyside, sell the extremely valuable property the Javits Center owns, and use the proceeds to pay for it.

And where will the conventioneers stay since we are converting all our hotels into homeless shelters?

Hudson Yards is more than the city bargained for

Dan Doctoroff

From the Daily News:

Wherever you wander along midtown Manhattan’s far West Side, you’ll come across the dusty din of jackhammers, cranes and construction crews lifting new hotels, condos, and office buildings into the sky.

Welcome to Hudson Yards, the 26 acres around the MTA’s West Side railyards that New York’s real estate moguls keep touting as this city’s next great commercial district.

But the slick pitchmen for Hudson Yards rarely mention the scandalous subsidies taxpayers have shelled out the past 10 years for this megaproject.

The city will have paid nearly $650 million in subsidies into Hudson Yards by the end of this fiscal year, according to a review by the city’s Independent Budget Office — and more will be needed in the future.

That’s not exactly how the project was sold when the City Council approved it in January 2005.

It never is. It's always lies.

Doctoroff's back and wants the Olympics in Sunnyside

From Crains:

Now the CEO of Bloomberg LP, Mr. Doctoroff is back at it with a plan to organize a bid for the 2024 games, centered this time on the Sunnyside yards area of Queens. The Doctoroff playbook is at work again. He would put a deck over the rail yards and presumably build his Olympics stadium there as well as thousands of housing units needed for the athletes. Most important, he would construct the world-class convention center New York has always lacked to replace the cramped, money-losing and economically-hamstrung Jacob Javits Convention Center on the West Side, which in turn would free up that key parcel on the West Side for other development.

What could be more compelling? Create new land in a city starved for space, create much needed housing and solve the convention center problem that has bedeviled the city's business community for 30 years. And generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the city or state from the West Side site.

Mr. Doctoroff has had his eye on the rail yards for some time. He had raised the issue of decking over rail yards like Sunnyside in his ambitious NYCPlan 2030 released in 2007, which tried to chart a way to accommodate a growing population while protecting the environment. Almost two years ago, he made moving Javits to Sunnyside the centerpiece of a 2012 speech that seemed to mark a return to public policy.

Why is corporate welfare ok for Willets Point?

From the Queens Courier:

The proposed Willets Point economic development project is essentially government picking the winners and losers. Many of the developers continue to act like pigs, by feasting on taxpayer dollars. The borough of Queens and New York City prospered for centuries prior to the creation of various city and state development corporations over the past decades. In too many cases, projects have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers, commonly known as corporate welfare. Between direct government funding, low interest loans and long term tax exemptions — the bill to taxpayers may be greater than the benefits. Also there is a relationship between Pay for Play campaign contributions from developers to elected officials looking for favorable legislation, permits and subsidies.

Don’t forget the conflict of interest for senior staff from city or state regulatory and permitting agencies. Too many leave at the end of any mayoral or governor’s administration to become employees or consultants to the same developers they previously oversaw. Remember former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff who went to work on some of the very same projects he previously represented at City Hall? Too many mega developers try to purchase the support of local community groups by making so-called voluntary donations. They also make promises for capital improvements, which after the major project is completed, don’t always appear.

If projects like Willets Point are so worthwhile, why can’t major developers use their own funds? Can’t they obtain loans from banks, like medium and small businesses, rather than pick the pockets of taxpayers to pay a significant portion of the bill? Can our water, sewage, power and transportation infrastructures handle the additional stress on the environment from such projects?

Because then it wouldn't be tweeding.

Willets Point = Bloomberg's folly

From the Queens Courier:

The proposed Willets Point economic development project is essentially government picking the winners and losers. Many of the developers continue to act like pigs, by feasting on taxpayer dollars. The borough of Queens and New York City prospered for centuries prior to the creation of various city and state development corporations over the past decades. In too many cases, projects have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers, commonly known as corporate welfare. Between direct government funding, low interest loans and long term tax exemptions — the bill to taxpayers may be greater than the benefits. Also there is a relationship between Pay for Play campaign contributions from developers to elected officials looking for favorable legislation, permits and subsidies.

Don’t forget the conflict of interest for senior staff from city or state regulatory and permitting agencies. Too many leave at the end of any mayoral or governor’s administration to become employees or consultants to the same developers they previously oversaw. Remember former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff who went to work on some of the very same projects he previously represented at City Hall? Too many mega developers try to purchase the support of local community groups by making so-called voluntary donations. They also make promises for capital improvements, which after the major project is completed, don’t always appear.

If projects like Willets Point are so worthwhile, why can’t major developers use their own funds? Can’t they obtain loans from banks, like medium and small businesses, rather than pick the pockets of taxpayers to pay a significant portion of the bill? Can our water, sewage, power and transportation infrastructures handle the additional stress on the environment from such projects?

Existing small business people at Willets Point created their companies, over time by their own hard work and sweat with no assistance from government. During that same time period, they created hundreds of jobs. Both the owners and employees are our neighbors. They pay taxes like the rest of us. The only difference is that for decades they have been denied basic essential municipal services that we take for granted.

Real business people who believe in capitalism build companies on their own. How sad that some don’t want to do it the old fashion way by sweat and hard work. They continue to look for shortcuts in the form of huge subsidies at taxpayers’ expense, including favorable tax code changes, long term low or no interest loans, physical infrastructure improvements, such as roads, sewers and street lighting, along with eminent domain favors from elected officials.

With a looming multibillion dollar municipal budget shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year and $66 billion dollar long term debt, there are surely other priorities that City Hall could spend hard earned tax dollars on than the so-called Willets Point development project.

The same old song and dance

From the NY Observer:

We already know Mayor Bloomberg favors waterfront development, come hell or high water—literally—and so, too, does his former development czar Dan Doctoroff, now head of Bloomberg LP.

It was Mr. Doctoroff, in his capacity as deputy mayor for economic development, who thought up many of the schemes that have led to new apartment towers on the waterfront in Williamsburg and Hunters Point. Thousands of units have been built, tens of thousands have been planned. Mr. Doctoroff still believes that is a good idea, so long as appropriate measures are taken.

“I am obviously a believer in waterfront development,” Mr. Doctoroff said, “but development that is buttressed by strong building codes and is done in conjunction with a smart adaptability strategy. That was a major reason why we made adaptation to climate change a pillar of PlaNYC.”

Not that there is any kind of causation here, but in spite of PlaNYC, the city still got clobbered yesterday.

Also from the Observer:

The infrastructure needed to protect waterfront developments can be considerable, drawing important resources away from other areas.

Mayor Bloomberg did not appear prepared to undertake such investment. “We cannot build a big barrier reef off the shore to stop the waves from coming in; we can’t build big bulkheads that cut people off from the water,” the mayor said. “Robert Moses actually did that with the roads, and we’ve been ever since spending a fortune trying to get around it.”

The consensus among planners The Observer spoke with on Monday and Tuesday is that more needs to be done.

Because what Queens needs is a 3rd proposed convention center

From The Politicker:

...even though Mr. Doctoroff is no longer in command, might it still be possible to see a gondola stretch across the East River between Lower Manhattan, Governors Island and Brooklyn? Or a light rail line running the entire length of the waterfront from Astoria in Queens to Brooklyn’s Red Hook? Or, most audacious of all, tearing down the Javits convention center and moving it to yet another decked-over rail yard, this time in Sunnyside, where it would be surrounded by apartment and hotel towers and a sizable retail complex?

These were among the proposals Mr. Doctoroff put forward on Friday during a speech at the Municipal Art Society’s MAS Summit 2012. They were meant as examples for the next mayor to latch onto in order to “extend the achievements of the Bloomberg Administration by knitting new connections among emerging communities, amenities and institutions.”

Will this guy just go away already?

Flushing really pissed about TDC project

FACT SHEET ON THE PARKING PLAN FOR ‘FLUSHING COMMONS’

_______________________________________________________

THE BOTTOM LINE

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.

1. BACKGROUND

• 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.
  

2. THE CITY SELLS PUBLIC LAND

• 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.
  

3. THE CITY BREAKS THEIR WORD

• 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.
  

4. THE CITY FAILS TO PLAN

• 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.
  

5. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE SERIOUS

• 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.

6. WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN

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.

Lost opportunity for Tent of Tomorrow

From the Times Ledger:

The Parks Department estimated it would cost $21.3 million to $27.8 million to restore just the Tent of Tomorrow.

This would have all been unnecessary, said Marcia Lynn, a former city Department of Environmental Protection employee, if city leaders had carried out her plan, introduced to officials in 2002, to make use of the Tent and towers while providing Queens residents with useful services.

At the time, she said, she had three experts who determined the entire Pavilion was structurally sound and had lined up a group with $20 million to $30 million in funding to restore it.

Lynn’s proposal would have saved the structures by turning the Tent into a multi-floored ice skating facility, public school and New York sports museum and transforming the tops of the towers into a sports bar and restaurant. Lynn’s daughter, now 21, was an avid hockey player and figure skater during her school years and Queens offered no place for her to play the sports she loved.

That is where Lynn’s plan would come in. The Tent would have offered ice sports and a full academic day at an off-site charter public school, she said. The structure would have retained its character but been rebuilt with a glass skin, four to five floors, two or three rinks, the museum, a skate school, shops and more. The plans would have recalled the years when the Tent was operated as a roller rink.

In about 2000, Lynn organized a coalition of experts, including the pavilion’s original structural engineer, Vincent DeSimone; the original architect, the late Phillip Johnston; and Gordon. The three performed an analysis of the towers and Tent and determined they were structurally sound.

“We had a big consortium, we had about $20 [million] to $30 million to fund it. At the time the economy was good, we weren’t at war, so we thought it would be a great program,” she said.

Lynn became ill shortly thereafter and the project was put on hold until 2002, when she said the consortium took the plans to the Parks Department.

At the time, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff was hoping to secure the 2012 Olympic Games for New York City, so he was pressing for a new skating rink with an Olympic-sized pool, plans which eventually manifested themselves as the Flushing Meadows Corona Park Pool and Rink.

The consortium’s plans were ignored and the city is worse off, Lynn said, as only a two-rink facility can host tourism-boosting hockey tournaments.

Bloomberg benefiting financially from being mayor

From the Village Voice:

You can be sure that Time Warner believes that its decision to bump the Yankees and move a minor news network all the way from channel 104 to a prime spot on the dial carries some weight with the city and the man who runs it.

And that's because Mike Bloomberg, besides running New York, also owns a company called Bloomberg LP, which happens to run a little business-news network called Bloomberg TV.

Which you can now find on your cable system at channel 30.

Because Bloomberg is not only the mayor but also the richest man in New York, he agreed to several conditions when he took office in 2002. In order to make sure that his decisions about the welfare of all New Yorkers would not be complicated by his personal business welfare, he was required by the city ethics board to sell his publicly traded stocks and his interest in a hedge fund. Much was made in the media of how well the billionaire, and the city he ran for a salary of a dollar a year, had been sealed off from his (potentially corrupting) billions.

After nearly two full terms, however, the walls between the mayor's money and his public office that once looked so strict have appeared more and more porous. In some cases, like with Time Warner, that may not have been Bloomberg's doing. And in others, it may not have even been what was on his mind. But as he nears a third term, there's little doubt that Bloomberg's business interests have become increasingly intertwined with his government, a conflicted marriage unprecedented in the life of the city and unchecked by an independent overseer.

One of the rules Bloomberg agreed to was that he would keep his hands off "all matters involving cable television."

While Bloomberg has backed wholesale deregulation and higher rates for cable, saying that carriers "don't make a lot of money," there is, in fact, no evidence that Bloomberg has ever personally intervened in the decisions about the three national companies that have contracts with the city. But it's clear that his network did benefit, mightily, from Time Warner's channel change.

It's also true that television is increasingly important to Bloomberg LP's long-term business plan. Until Bloomberg's most trusted aide, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, announced his departure from city employment, he had overseen the city's cable franchises (his designated successor, Ron Lieber, does that now). Doctoroff left the city to become president of Bloomberg LP, where he has made the revamping of the television operation a top priority, bringing in NBC's Andrew Lack and adding Charlie Rose.

Two months after Doctoroff was installed as Bloomberg LP's president in January 2008, the Time Warner channel switch happened.

Doctoroff's dirty deal with Shulman

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

Now hold it one second. Shulman's group was set up to grease the wheels for the redevelopment effort that the Bloombergistas have been proposing for Willets Point-a plan that involves telling 250 businesses and 2500 workers to simply. "Hit the Road Jack!" Shulman, for her part, was all over this effort, hectoring city council members and testifying on behalf of the city's plan before relevant review bodies. Yet this LDC flatly stated in a federal filing that-contrary to its stated charter-that it wouldn't be lobbying at all!

Sounds like a crime was committed here-and what's with the city's own seemingly large fine? The largest lobbying fine in New York City's history and no press release? After all, the fine was levied in April and no one was even aware of the fine for the attempted end run of the law until August?

...what we have here is apparently a collusion between Doctoroff-already burned by his West Side Stadium failure-and Shulman to set up an illegal lobbying effort with city funds. And EDC, which acted as the midwife of this illegal pact, should have known better since all of the LDC's paper work must be vetted by the agency before any funds are remitted.

So, when Shulman was doing all of this lobbying as the point person for the city's effort, was everyone asleep?

Smell test anyone? Please don't insult our intelligence. And if what EDC is saying has any validity whatsoever, than why hasn't the agency shut down the illegal operation that was misusing the funds it was given? Why is this LDC still in business-with Shulman now registered to lobby on it behalf?

The entire Willets Point redevelopment effort is revealed for what it is-an illegal heist, the kind that is known in law enforcement parlance as, "an inside job." And the city's own role-not to be diminished at all-was aided and abetted by some of the very firms that stood to benefit from the eviction of the existing companies.

This is beginning to look like one big criminal enterprise-and perhaps Cuomo needs to expand his purview; because if the LDC has been functioning outside the law, there an entire cohort of co-conspirators that need to be brought to justice, beginning with Doctoroff himself.

Photo from NY Magazine

No-bid is a no-win

From Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

When the folks voted to install Mike Bloomberg as their mayor-and did it a second time-the prevailing wisdom was that, owing to the mayor's vast fortune, the public could count on a corruption-free mayoralty. What was not taken into consideration, was the Bloomberg old boys network that gave Dan Doctoroff and the Related Companies to NYC. As a result of this, we were able to bear witness to a whole series of sweetheart no-bid deals that left the city less well off than it should have been.

No-bid deals similar to ones at the Department of Education (years later you find out the school is contaminated).

There was also some shady bidding for a project to clean up the Staten Island landfill.

In the era of open government there are still a lot of deals happening behind closed doors.

City's ballpark suite may cost us big

Mayor Bloomberg's top aides engaged in a behind-the-scenes brawl to win a free luxury suite at the new Yankee Stadium that could wind up costing taxpayers, e-mails show.

Some of the mayor's top deputies spent months threatening and cajoling to get the free skybox. They even demanded free food and ultimately got most of what they wanted after they agreed to provide America's richest team 250 free stadium parking spaces in exchange.

The loss of revenue from those spaces could wind up coming back to haunt taxpayers if the garage owner - who pays rent to the city - can't pay what he owes.

City demanded free suite, food from Yankees, e-mails reveal

The team has refused to provide the city with free food in its new luxury box. In a July 24, 2006 e-mail to Doctoroff, Pinsky whined, "If others get food with their suites, so should we."

As of this week, it was not clear if the food fight had been resolved.

NYC: Run by a bunch of overpaid, selfish, spoiled crybabies.

More from the NY Times:

The parking spaces were given to the team for the private use of Yankees officials, players and others; the spaces were originally planned for public parking. The city also turned over the rights to three new billboards along the Major Deegan Expressway, and whatever revenue they generate, as part of the deal.

Charlie tried to "Rangel" Yankee tax break

The city and the Yankees secretly crafted a letter Rep. Charles Rangel used to lobby the IRS for tax changes that would save the team $66 million, the Daily News has learned.

They did this at the same time Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and the team's law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, raised almost $25,000 for Rangel, records show.

The law firm's political action committee also donated an additional $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in this election cycle. Rangel is chairman of the DCCC's board of directors and a key fund-raiser for House Democrats. Yankees President Randy Levine is senior counsel at Akin Gump.

Rep. Charles Rangel lobbied IRS for tax breaks on behalf of Yankees

IRS regulations adopted in the mid-1980s - at the request of the late New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan - restrict the use of tax-free financing for sports arenas.

In 2006, the city got the IRS to grant an exception that allowed the Yankees to obtain $942 million in tax-exempt bonds - but the cost of the stadium began to rise, and the exception expired.

Now the Yankees say they need $350 million more in tax-free bonds, so they're pressing the IRS for another exception.

On Jan. 4, Levine e-mailed an unsigned Rangel letter to then-Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff along with "talking points" explaining the need to change the IRS regulations.

Rangel has received campaign contributions from the Yankees and Akin Gump for years, but in this election cycle - after he became chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee - the contributions spiked to $24,950.

Some of the donations appear to be choreographed to get around the $4,600 limit on how much an individual can give a congressional candidate. Last summer, 14 Akin Gump lawyers made $250 to $1,000 donations for a total of $12,850.

Yankees executives, Akin Gump lawyers and Akin Gump's political action committee have raised $45,000 for Rangel and his affiliated National Leadership PAC since 2000.

Now Mr. Brodsky's going to Washington to expose the whole sordid thing.

Wonder who was enlisted to get tax breaks for the Mets...

Dan's not saying

Ever since he left the city for Bloomberg LP in January, there's a fair bit of chatter among government and real estate types about former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff's continued role in the Bloomberg administration—just how much does he say to current city officials, and what is he saying?

The answer to those questions, it turns out, is not public information.

What's Doctoroff Saying to City? It's a Secret

...the city's counsel has denied our FOIL request, saying that every e-mail we requested (between Mr. Doctoroff and Mayor Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler, and a set of other city officials) has been withheld under one of two exemptions: the e-mails represent an invasion of privacy, or are "inter-agency and intra-agency materials."

A 'must read' from the Village Voice

Since the crash, the buildings department has raced to strengthen some of its procedures. Last week, the agency announced that inspectors must be present when tower cranes are raised. Buildings Commissioner Patricia Lancaster issued a carefully calibrated vow to shut down any crane "operating in an unsafe manner in violation of applicable requirements."

But we expect no less of city government when innocent citizens are slaughtered while sitting comfortably in their apartments. And while the crane horror adds a whole new dimension to the problem, this is hardly the first time the building surge of the past few years has prompted public fear and rage.

For all its economic benefits, the boom has turned vacant lots and demolition sites into battle zones across the city. The weapons of assault are backhoes, bulldozers, and piledrivers. And while many local elected officials have tried to respond to panicky constituents, the complaints have generally prompted little more than snickers at City Hall.

There, the dominant attitude remains the Doctoroff Doctrine—the policy espoused by ex–deputy mayor and still top Bloomberg economic adviser Daniel Doctoroff: The more building the better, and don't sweat the small stuff.

City Hall Ignored the Hazards of the Building Boom

Essentially, current buildings-department regulations create a race between aggrieved citizens and corner-cutting developers: Neighbors have to muster all their energy to stop illegal work, while builders try to outrun them, getting foundations in the ground and walls up before anyone throws a red flag. Then the developers' lawyers go to work, arguing that so much money has already been expended that civic decency should allow them to continue.

Green Church owner's bad reputation

A letter to Mayor Bloomberg to meet due to the corruption and lack of coordination from city agencies, including Department of Buildings, Housing Preservation and Human Resources received a couple of calls from Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott. Like Speaker Quinn, these were not followed up. Nor did staff to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, regarding the Pastor's request for a meeting to discuss, in particular, the fact [that] five fires had occurred previously. Still, now, the illegal construction has left all the tenants with blackouts due to faulty wiring, an inadequate electrical supply, insufficient ventilation in the three public bathrooms, a broken intercom, broken unfinished stairs and unpainted, filthy hallways, along with vermin and roaches.

One World Life Systems

Pastor Crea's letter last May and meeting with his assistant Carmine Perez found no response and nothing done from Assemblyman Keith Wright, who said out loud to a recent Harlem rally "I can do nothing," regarding owners of private buildings...Councilman Bill Perkins and staff contributed to the disabled Pastor losing all his belongings from storage. They failed to follow up their own inadequate, inattentive and insensitive efforts, while seeking 2 million dollar tax write-offs for a slumlord.

One of the slumlords mentioned now owns Bay Ridge's Green Church:

Questions Surface About ‘Green Church’ Developer

Photo from Forgotten NY