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

Lancman suing de Blasio

From the Daily News:

A Queens City Councilman is slapping Mayor de Blasio with a lawsuit charging that he was illegally shut out of a conservancy formed for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

Councilman Rory Lancman says de Blasio barred him from choosing a board member because he’s not a political pal — and broke city law that requires such conservancies to have a rep for each Council district that covers part of the park.

“I represent almost half of Flushing Meadows Park, and because I’m not a political ally of the mayor...I don’t get an appointment,” Lancman said. “It’s a private, off the books scheme for funding projects in Flushing Meadows Park without the representation that is required.”

The United States Tennis Association, in a deal to win approval for the expansion of its tennis center in the park, is contributing $350,000 a year for the next three years, and then $200,000 annually for 20 years after that for the conservancy.

De Blasio announced the new conservancy for the 900-acre park in November — but only Julissa Ferreras-Copeland, a mayoral ally, got to fill a seat on the board.

Still waiting on the USTA's Flushing Meadows money

From DNA Info:

The newly-renovated USTA center in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is set to open later this month, but so far none of the $10.05 million promised in a 2013 deal with the community has been paid out, DNAinfo has learned.

The money was brokered as part of a community benefits agreement in 2013, before the city council approved the expansion of the tennis facilities inside the public park.

The USTA agreed to pay $5.05 million to fund programming and upkeep at the park through a new alliance for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and $5 million to the Parks Department for the relocation of a road — but the conservancy, which was suggested by local community boards and Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, hasn't been formed yet, officials said.

Interestingly, about the time this news broke, I received this:

Hi Crappie, Sunday I went to the festival in Flushing Meadow Park and was disgusted with the condition of our largest and most used park in Queens.The main viewing area along the lake where all the corporate tents were set up was just horrible.The Park Dept. did nothing to beautify the area,there was litter and debris in the water that was there for a long time and could have been easily removed before the event.I stayed for the whole event and not once did I see a Park worker picking up trash along the water's edge.

I also took a bike ride around the lake and went all the way to the Promanade by Flushing Bay and the roads are horrible,lots of pot holes and uneven pavement not conducive to good biking and down right dangerous. There are no signs marking bike paths and no signs warning cars to share the road.Some of the roads in the park are just service roads to the Grand Central especially around Citi Field and the Tennis Stadium and cars are moving fast and furious.

With all the big events that are held in the park and all the multi billion dollar stadiums and their mega rich teams you would think we would have a park that would be up there with Central or a Prospect Park. Instead we have a park where we have a crumbling NYS Pavillion the city wanted to knock down.We also had the Gertrude Earle Aquacade that was from the 1939 World's Fair and had seating for 10,000 people and was demolished and replaced with a Gertrude Earle Café that I have never seen open yet.

Maybe a mega mall in the park might be just what is needed to make this a world class park. Only kidding.

Arthur Ashe stadium to get a roof

From CBS New York:

After years of U.S. Open weather woes, the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center at Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens is ready to serve up some major changes.

As CBS 2’s Tony Aiello reported Wednesday, engineers have finally figured out how to mount a retractable roof over Arthur Ashe Stadium – the main venue for the U.S. Open. It is considered an overhead smash against Mother Nature.

For the last five years, rain has pushed the U.S. Open final from Sunday to Monday.

“The players are very upset about the finals’ being postponed to Monday. They have Davis Cup the next week — that’s interfered there. The fans are unhappy,” said Dan Kaplan of SportsBusinessDaily.com.

The obvious solution is to design and build a retractable roof over center court, but as recently as last summer the United States Tennis Association said putting a roof over Arthur Ashe Stadium was an engineering impossibility and couldn’t be done.

The USTA said the stadium was built on swampland and could sink under the weight of a roof. But Kaplan said the organization has figured out a fix.

“What they’re planning to do is rip out a lot of the very heavy seating in the upper decks,” he said. “That will reduce the weight.

Since they can put a roof on it, why not make it permanent so that the community doesn't have to deal with the noise from re-routed planes?

Phony park group stands on phony platform

Parks Platform 2013 - White Paper

Note #7:

"Parkland alienation should not occur unless no other land is available to serve an essential public need."

Of course! That's why this partner of the NYC Parks Dept and self-proclaimed "park advocacy" group, New Yorkers for Parks, not only gave their blessing to parkland alienation for a non-essential private need: a walkway at the USTA National Tennis Center, but they also brokered the deal that allows the USTA to dictate where their paltry annual donations to the park will be spent, and also will be looking the other way while cars are parked on grassy parkland that the USTA doesn't lease during their annual tournament, which amounts to a secondary alienation.

And #8:

"State and local laws regulating parkland alienation should be strengthened to require earlier and broader notification of alienation actions, and to mandate acre-for-acre replacement of lost parkland."

Another no brainer! Which is why Holly Leicht, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Parks, squealed with delight to the newspapers when the USTA pulled some phony baloney and "swapped" tennis courts it was leasing for land that it wants (and will still get to use the land it "gave up").

It's so easy to see through this group's hypocritical bullshit, yet the media takes them seriously. Well their free ride ends here.

These people are not park advocates and do not speak for us. They are nothing more than shills for the City of New York.

See...it actually does exist!

Do you think Jean Silva is now kicking herself for testifying in support of the USTA deal since her group is effectively being replaced with a new conservancy run by the USTA? If only Pat were still alive...

Deal done: USTA's pocket change buys parkland

From Capital New York:

The United States Tennis Association, eager to win City Council approval for its National Tennis Center expansion plans, has agreed to provide ongoing funding for Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

The USTA had no immediate comment, but according to Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras and New Yorkers for Parks, who have been working to secure a funding agreement, the U.S. Open organizer has promised $10.05 million for the park.

The agreement starts in 2014 and means $5 million for capital projects; $350,000 a year for three years for maintenance and programming, and then $200,000 a year for the ensuing 20 years.

That's on top of the $500,000 the USTA pays in rent each year to the city's general fund.

That funding will help underwrite the creation of a public-private partnership to help maintain the park, similar in function (if not in scale) to the Central Park Conservancy and Prospect Park Alliance. The USTA will sit on its board.

So, an average of less than $500,000 per year? That's it?

Comment from Mayoral Candidate Bill DeBlasio:

“In a city where outer-borough parks have been consistently shortchanged, today’s announcement represents a major step forward. I congratulate Council Member Julissa Ferreras for securing an ongoing and increased commitment from the United States Tennis Association to help fund park maintenance and upgrades at Flushing Meadows Corona Park, and for laying the foundation for a new conservancy that will help improve Queens’ crown jewel park for years to come. We must ensure that whenever private interests lease or use city parkland, those parks receive sustained and substantial funding in return.”

Sustained? Substantial? Why do we need a new conservancy, when we already have the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Conservancy? Especially since part of the park was recently named after its late former president, Pat Dolan? So the USTA can dictate that the money be used on the tennis courts they're not really giving up and flowers outside their new stadiums?

From the Daily News:

“This will be a win-win partnership,” said park advocate Will Sweeney, who bitterly opposed the expansion until the USTA made the $10 million contribution. “The investment can lead to Flushing Meadows-Corona finally reaching its potential as a world class park.”

A win for the phony park advocates!

But not everyone was a fan of the revised deal.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, who added local elected officials should be the ones to pay for the park maintenance. “They’re taking up more park land.”

Look folks, this is how it's going to work: The USTA money is not going to supplement Parks funding, it's going to replace it.

And what happens after 23 years? They sell off more of the park to another billion dollar corporation?

The final City Council vote was 47-1. The only person to not vote in favor was - Dan Halloran!

Here comes the royal screw job

From Crains:

It's match point for negotiations to expand the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, with the City Council poised to vote on the plans Wednesday. But with the local City Councilwoman and the U.S. Tennis Association sparring over funding for the park and other community benefits, the outcome remains unclear.

The USTA has proposed a $500 million expansion of the 46-acre National Tennis Center, but in order to do so, a 0.68-acre strip of park that is currently public must be taken over. Locals have long complained that the tennis center was a hulking presence within Queen's largest park, one that turns its back on Flushing Meadow until it overwhelms it each August and September during the U.S. Open. Among the complaints: thousands of cars that park on public lawns, limiting recreation space.

To appease local opponents the USTA has promised to open to the public a 1.5-acre set of tennis courts on the eastern edge of its campus. The association, however, would retain use of the courts during events such as the Open.

The bigger sticking point is demands from local Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras and parks advocates that the USTA pay into an annual maintenance budget for the park.

The hope is that with seed money from the USTA, Flushing Meadows could establish its own conservancy.

Here's where Julissa thinks we're all stupid. Flushing Meadows already has its own conservancy. And the place still looks like crap.

USTA will get their expansion and Queens will get the shit end of the stick, once more.

LPC rejects Avella's landmarking request for Flushing Meadows

From Save FMCP:

Senator Tony Avella was joined last Friday by preservationists and several area civic groups at a press conference protesting the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (LPC) decision to reject landmark designation for Flushing Meadows Corona Park (FMCP).

The 1,255 acre Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is the Borough of Queens’ most prominent park and provides open space and recreational benefits to thousands of borough residents and low and middle income families. The Park is a valuable asset for the City and the residents of Queens not only because of its green space and natural areas, but also due to its embodiment of historical structures and leading cultural and educational institutions. The Park also has a unique history, serving as host to two World Fairs in 1939 and 1964, plus hosting the General Assembly of the United Nations from 1946 to 1950.

That is why, earlier this year, Avella asked LPC to review landmark status for Queens’ most prominent and historic park, which is under the threat of devastating development interests. Currently, the Mets organization is floating the idea of building a Mall in the park, the United States Tennis Association is proposing to expand and Major League Soccer is still interested in building a stadium that would further eliminate parkland.

Unfortunately, LPC recently denied this request and indicated that the park did not meet the criteria for designation.

Avella stated, “I am very disappointed in the Landmark Preservation Commission’s decision to not designate Flushing Meadows Corona Park as a landmark. It is clear to me that with its rich history and importance as Queens’ most significant and treasured park, Flushing Meadows Corona Park deserves landmark recognition, especially now. With three separate development proposals threatening to take away valuable parkland, Flushing Meadows Corona Park needs to be preserved now more than ever.”

“Parkland is sacred,” continued Avella. “The City should not be entertaining these proposals which would radically reduce open and recreational space for the hundreds of thousands of Queens residents who use this park on a yearly basis. Instead, the City should landmark this vital borough park to ensure its continued usage for generations to come and send a clear message that parkland is not for sale!”

“That is why I am calling on the Landmarks Preservation Commission to immediately reconsider their decision and demand that they hold a public hearing on this important issue. At the very least, the residents of Queens deserve to have their voices heard,” concluded Avella.

I guess the only surprise here is that the Parks Department turned the Unisphere fountains on a full month before the US Open.

Council Members act clueless at park hearing

From the Daily News:

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being generated each year in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park by big-money operations like the Mets, but Queens lawmakers say the park isn’t getting its slice of the pie.

The Mets and the U.S. Tennis Association pay a total of $2.5 million to lease their sites from the city. Meanwhile, the 900-acre park operates on $11.6 million in city funds and counts only 18 full-time city maintenance workers.

“It’s incredibly frustrating that this city has not identified a way to have our park be able to collect on the revenue it generates,” said City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst), who called a Council hearing on Friday to address the lack of city funding to help pay for the park’s upkeep.

Ferreras said during the packed hearing that she is in talks with the city to create a public-private alliance — similar to the Central Park Conservancy — to fund much of the maintenance of the nearly 900-acre park, which is surrounded by predominantly immigrant and low-income communities.

Ferreras would like to fill the coffers of the alliance with private donations and a cut of the almost $7 million in annual concession fees and rents that are paid by the businesses and stadiums in the park.

Queens officials and parks advocates blasted the city after learning Citi Field pays only about $155,000 a year to lease its Flushing Meadows site from the city. That amount is slated to jump to $400,000 in 2014.

The U.S. Tennis Association, which hosts the U.S. Open in the park, pays roughly $2.4 million a year.

Meanwhile, Terrace on the Park, a banquet hall in Flushing Meadows, pays the city roughly $2.5 million a year.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates. Citi Field is “clearly not paying their fair share.”

City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria) said, “there’s something fishy in those numbers.”

“It sounds to me like Citi Field and the USTA are getting off really easy,” added Vallone, who said he will introduce a bill requiring all park conservancies with more than $5 million of annual income to give 20% to maintain other needy city parks.

So let me get this straight... The City Council voted to give the Mets a sweetheart deal when they came to them for permission to build a new stadium, yet now this same legislative body is shocked that the Mets have a sweetheart deal? Nice try, but we weren't born yesterday. And what difference does it make how much rent each entity pays under the current system? It goes into the general fund and hardly any of it goes back to Flushing Meadows anyway.

Hey City Council, how about DOING YOUR JOB by budgeting adequate funding for ALL city parks as you are required to, so there will be no need to further privatize our parks or have dog-and-pony show hearings?

Meanwhile, we have Parks Commissioner Veronica White, who conveniently skipped the FMCP hearing, telling Brian Lehrer (at about 14:00) that Parks chose to fund the High Bridge instead.

"Senator Rules" is Mike Bloomberg

From the Queens Chronicle:

Within the halls of Albany roams a lawmaker, unelected and unseen, with one role: to introduce legislation no other state senator wants to be associated with. “Senator Rules” is his (or her) name, and he (or she) is the lead sponsor of a bill currently in the Senate’s Rules Committee that will alienate what is now parkland to allow the United States Tennis Association to expand its presence in Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

The legislation literally lists “Rules” as its sponsor, reflecting the committee’s ability to refer bills to itself. It is part of a common practice in the Senate, sources with knowledge of Senate practices told the Chronicle.

“Senator Rules” is the resulting fictitious lawmaker jokingly referred to in the halls of the state Capitol for such bills. But intrigue surrounds who exactly pushed for the USTA alienation bill. Several lawmakers demurred at speculating who pushed the Rules Committee to take up the bill, but several sources said a Republican-controlled Senate committee would not grant anonymity to a Democratic lawmaker.

“Senator Rules” commonly introduces bills that increase taxes in Republican districts, said one source with knowledge of the Senate’s machinations. The fictional lawmaker also sponsors legislation on behalf of municipalities — which may point to the USTA bill’s author, which some sources believe to be the Bloomberg administration.

The last line of the bill’s sponsor’s memo reads, “Accordingly, the Mayor urges the earliest possible favorable consideration of this proposal by the Legislature.”

“The bill seems to have been submitted directly from the Mayor’s Office,” said one source, who asked to remain anonymous.

An inquiry with the Mayor’s Office prompted a terse response stating Bloomberg supports the USTA’s plan, but no specifics about the administration’s role in the legislation’s genesis.

Cowardly senators introduce parkland alienation bill without sponsor

From A Walk in the Park:

With just ten days left in the State Senate and Assembly session, "no name" proponents quietly introduced legislation this afternoon to alienate parkland for the United State Tennis Association expansion NYC Park Advocates has learned.

And we mean quietly. The Bill, S 5663, was introduced without a sponsor, a distinction reserved for legislators unwilling to take responsibly for the legislation.

"That seems like a way around accountability," commented one chief of staff for an Assembly member.

So everyone has come out in favor of the USTA plan, but no one wants to put their name on the bill?

Simply amazing. But not all that surprising.

Weiner wants development in parks

From the Queens Courier:

Among major issues affecting Queens, Weiner also discussed developments including a possible new soccer stadium, Willets Point and the expansion of the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

Weiner said his default position is the belief “we should be developing and that we should try to create jobs and that we should try to create economic activity places outside of Manhattan.”

He said he was previously conflicted about expanding the tennis center, even voting against the move when he was on the City Council. But Weiner said generally speaking, he is in favor of the three projects and wants to see them move forward. He added he wants to leave himself some wiggle room on details of the soccer stadium.

Fake park advocates think fake parkland swap is great

From Crains:

The U.S. Tennis Association, which owns and operates the U.S. Open, announced Tuesday morning it has reached an agreement with the city that will replace a sliver of public parkland in Flushing Meadows Corona Park that it needs to complete its expansion and also increase the active space available there.

The agreement ends a local fight over a 0.68-acre piece of parkland that the Tennis Association needed to acquire as part of a $500 million expansion for its 42-acre Flushing, Queens, tennis complex.
The community has been pushing the tennis association to replace the parkland, while the city had been open to accepting a financial commitment from the tennis group to make improvements to the park, rather than exchange land. One source said the land-swap agreement means there will be no USTA funding of improvements, but another said the matter is still to be negotiated.

The new agreement with the city will give 1.56 acres of parkland back to the community in return for 0.68 acres of parkland it needs. The replacement space will be located east of David Dinkins Circle and includes three-quarters of an acre of "passive open space" and nearly one acre of active space that contains five tennis courts. Those two parcels of land were added to the National Tennis Center's lease in 1993 and will be returned to the city. The Tennis Association would still be responsible for maintaining and repairing the tennis courts and would use those courts only for major tennis events.

So, they are proposing to privatize parkland by "giving back" parkland they already privatized (but still will be able to use whenever they want to). Well, that sounds like such a great deal for parkgoers! Let's hear from Holly...

"We are pleased that the USTA and the city have shifted their positions on replacement parkland," said Holly Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks. "This may seem like a small amount of acreage, but it is vital to close the door on this and future attempts to privatize parkland without replacing what is lost to the public."

Once again, New Yorkers for Parks is a fake park advocacy group that is joined at the hip with the Bloomberg Administration and a "partner" of the NYC Parks Department. I'm sure local activists will take a different stance...

"It's a good first step," said Will Sweeney, co-founder of the Jackson Heights Green Alliance and member of the Fairness Coalition of Queens. "We felt this was the most important thing the USTA had to do, mostly for precedent purposes."

So Sweeney and his fake coalition think that setting a precedent of replacing parkland with other parkland is good?

Heaven protect Queens from our so-called "park defenders."

Julissa Ferreras & "New Yorkers for Parks" pushing for privatization of FMCP

From the Daily News:

A Queens lawmaker is in talks with the city to create a public-private alliance to fund the upkeep of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

City Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) said such an alliance could solicit donations from Queens residents and businesses for the borough’s 1,255-acre, flagship park.

It could also eventually seek a cut of the rent paid to the city by Citi Field and the U.S. Tennis Association, which are located in the park, she said.

“Flushing Meadows-Corona Park has not received the attention and resources it deserves,” Ferreras told the Daily News on Wednesday. “We get such a small percentage of the dollars that are generated by our park reinvested into our park.”

Holly Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, said she supports the idea of an alliance.

“It is the most heavily used park in Queens,” she said of Flushing Meadows, which is bordered by low-income, immigrant communities. “It really does need that public-private partnership to have that level of care it deserves.”

Well if it is bordered by low-income, immigrant communities, then where does this dingbat think private donations like the ones that fund the Central Park Conservancy and the Prospect Park Alliance will come from?  And if conservancies work so well, then why did the one for Flushing Meadows not raise any money?   Why do we need another one?  The Queens Chronicle asked the same question in an editorial this week.

Why aren't these people demanding adequate funding in the city budget, as the city is supposed to provide?

What kind of park advocates push for the privatization of public parkland?

Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, said if an alliance profits from the stadiums located within its perimeters, this could create an incentive to rent out more parkland to other private companies.

“It is the elected officials’ job to adequately fund public parks — not private businesses,” he said.

A city Parks Department spokesman said the idea is under serious consideration.

Of course it is! It lets them off the hook for proper funding and that's more money that can be funneled into tweeding programs and developers' pockets.  Why do these pols think they are entitled to treat public parkland like it's personal real estate to make a deal with?  And this comes just in time for the third project to be revealed.

Avella, NYC Park Advocates and Queens Civic Congress to host Sunday rally against USTA plans

This Sunday, April 21 at 1:00 PM, Senator Tony Avella will be joined by NYC Park Advocates and the Queens Civic Congress at a rally to protest the proposed expansion of the USTA Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park. The New York City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for this project this coming Wednesday, April 24th.

This proposed expansion would require 0.68 acres of parkland to be permanently turned over to USTA in addition to the 42 acres of parkland that they already possess. However, in reality, this project will alienate parkland without replacing it, robbing the community of public green space. In conjunction with the proposed construction of a Major League Soccer stadium and a large mall as part of the Willets Point development, these three projects constitute perhaps the biggest land grab for parkland not only in Queens but also in the entire City.

The three projects will result in elimination of crucial parkland from our borough's most prominent park, which provides open space and recreational benefits to thousands of borough residents, immigrant families and low and middle income families.

Avella will call on the City Planning Commission to reject this proposal and will continue to fight against all three projects and any further commercial development in Flushing Meadow Corona Park.

WHO: Senator Avella, NYC Park Advocates, Queens Civic Congress

WHERE: Main Entrance, USTA Tennis Center, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park (by Unisphere)

WHEN: SUNDAY, April 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Koo kisses up to the USTA while a small businessman gets the shaft

From the Times Newsweekly:

City Council Member Peter Koo told Zausner that business owners around the tennis center say they don’t get promotional support from the USTA or see much additional business during the U.S. Open, which the center hosts every year and which the USTA cites as a serious boon for the local economy.

Koo suggested the USTA offer promotional opportunities inside the stadium to local restaurants during high-profile events.

“They have so many hot dog stands. What about a Chinese food stand?” he said.

“I will tell you that we have not done a good enough job reaching out to all the businesses in downtown Flushing,” Zausner responded, adding the tennis center has garnered lauds from the Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel and the Flushing Business Improvement District.

“There will not be outright ‘no’s,’” he said. “There will be a conversation, and we will figure out what we can do together.”

Koo stated he would support the expansion if he could be assured the USTA would reach out to area businesses.

Why does Peter Koo think that it's his job to tell the USTA what they need to do to gain his support? Why doesn't he just let them try figure it out on their own?

Now you know who the Council Members really represent.

Why isn't Koo concerned that the Parks Dept suddenly, and for no reason, pulled Tommy Chan's vending permit this year?

Tommy has sold hot dogs for years near the mosaics in the park. According to the Courier, he was the only vendor authorized to sell in the park during the U.S. Open.  (Figure that one out.  The USTA has a legal monopoly?) Now he's been removed, as per a story featured on WPIX, which unfortunately was not posted online.

So who pulled the plug and why?

Cowardly council members hide during USTA borough board vote

From the Queens Chronicle:

The USTA’s proposal reached the Borough Hall-stage of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure during a Borough Board hearing on Monday before it winds its way towards a vote in the City Council and a hearing before the City Planning Commission.

But the gathering abruptly ended with a touch of confusion, as the various community board chairmen and women and four City Council members left without conducting a vote due to the lack of a quorum.

The unusual move was propagated by a dearth of the 12 eligible voters needed, falling short by one City Council member. The math for a quorum calls for at least one person more than half of the 22 eligible voters in the USTA’s case. A dozen would have put a vote through — a vote the USTA may have lost.

The absence of 11 lawmakers came on a day when the City Council had no scheduled hearings after 2 p.m. and no stated meetings.

Councilmen Danny Dromm (D-Jackson Heights), Peter Koo (D-Flushing), Donovan Richards (D-Rosedale) and Ruben Wills (D-Jamaica) were the only members of Queens’ council delegation at the meeting. All four were set to vote “No” on the project, according to a source close to the City Council who asked to remain anonymous. Had a fifth member of the council delegation arrived to reach a quorum, the three opposing community boards and four councilmen would have combined to deliver a 7-5 no vote, the source said.

The lack of a quorum did not come as a surprise to at least one person, as Marshall’s statement before the board indicated a lack of voters even though it was prepared ahead of the meeting.

A vote is not necessary in order to proceed with ULURP, and the borough president plans to submit a recommendation on Thursday.

Several members of the Borough Board said “Let’s vote anyway,” with some murmurs of phoned-in votes but those calls were quickly shot down by Community Board Director Barry Grodenchik, who invoked procedural rules in stopping a vote.

The absence of lawmakers came at a delicate time in the negotiations between the city and the USTA. Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) will be the guiding vote on the matter, as the USTA’s facilities fall within her district. Her vote at the Borough Board would have shown her cards too soon, sources say. And in the annals of councilmanic politics, it’s considered bad manners to speak out on an issue outside one’s district before the presiding lawmaker takes a stand. Which means bupkis for the USTA now that it’s moving on to the City Council.

I guess we know Grodenchik's position on selling parkland off to the highest bidder. Another perfect BP candidate! The Queens Chronicle summed it up in their editorial:

Think your vote doesn’t matter? Don’t feel bad — neither do those cast by members of the Borough Board.

That’s one of the nifty tidbits revealed by Monday’s canceled vote on the United States Tennis Association’s expansion plans. The board lacked a quorum you see — and somehow Borough President Helen Marshall knew it would ahead of time, as evidenced by her prepared remarks.

No worries, some members said, we vote without a quorum all the time. (Oops! Did we say that out loud?)

Well, this time they didn’t vote. But that didn’t hold up the plan, oh no. Marshall will just approve it herself.

Why do we waste time and money on sham votes by sham boards that mean absolutely nothing in the end?

Flushing Meadows development conspiracy continues

Exactly one month ago today, this blog published a post entitled, "How phony park groups, the press and elected officials are conspiring to develop FMCP". It generated a bit of buzz within the activist community, but the media coverage of the Flushing Meadows issues unfortunately has not changed. In fact, it has only gotten worse. We can now add Claire Trapasso, reporter for the Daily News, to the list. Here's what she wrote about FMCP this past week:

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall came out in support on Friday of the $500 million proposed expansion in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park — provided the USTA make some significant concessions. The plan must still be approved by the City Council.

The USTA, which holds the U.S. Open in the park every year, has come under fire from community advocates who have accused it of being a “bad neighbor” and seeking to use 0.68 additional acres of parkland in its expansion — without being required by the city to replace it elsewhere.

Notice how there's absolutely no mention of the fact that the USTA does not need to take additional parkland in order to build what they want to build.  Also, real park activists have called for disapproval of the project, not approval if the USTA replaces parkland.

Let's continue:

Holly Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, called Marshall’s conditions “a good step forward.”

“It’s an important precedent” that privatized land be replaced, she said. “Otherwise, it becomes too easy to privatize public parkland. We have so little parkland.”

But she said she would like Marshall to take it further and require the USTA to make annual contributions toward the upkeep of the park.

There's Holly Leicht promoting the privatization of parkland again, when she is supposed to be protecting it from development. Another "park defender" who fails to mention that the USTA doesn't need the land, but if they want it, it's ok, so long as they replace it and throw a little money around. This is unacceptable and dangerous.

Not quoted are NYC Park Advocates and the Save Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Coalition. I can only assume that was deliberate.

What's also been left out of all this coverage is that the Parks Department is the one that said the USTA should not be required to replace the parkland. It actually wasn't the USTA!

Dana Rubinstein of Capital New York also did a piss-poor job of covering the USTA issue again this month.

We know that we get the representation we deserve.  Do we also get the press coverage we deserve?  Or is something else going on here?

Kudos to the Times Ledger and the Queens Courier for at least publishing Op-Eds by Bob Harris and Geoffrey Croft that are critical of Flushing Meadows development even though all the local papers save for the Queens Chronicle seem to think that the projects in the park are just peachy.

USTA doesn't actually need to take parkland to expand (it just wants to)

Ladies and gentlemen, in light of the following, it's hard to imagine any elected official (who is not on the take) being in favor of handing over more parkland to the USTA. If they don't actually need it, why should we give it to them? - QC

Testimony of Robert LoScalzo  to Queens Borough President Helen Marshall  concerning the proposed expansion of the  United States Tennis Association National Tennis Center  within Flushing Meadows Corona Park, April 4, 2013
"I am Robert LoScalzo, a resident of Queens. I'm opposed to unnecessarily sacrificing even more parkland to the USTA. I am very concerned that you may not be aware, that USTA is perfectly capable of renovating its facilities while keeping within its present footprint, and NOT expanding onto even more parkland.

USTA's EIS for this project (chapter 17) sets forth two options – the "Alternative Without Additional Park Land" and the "Alternative Without New Park Land Alienation" – either of which would rebuild the USTA stadiums, in place.

So if you're in favor of creating construction and trade jobs, those two reasonable options would absolutely do so, and would also satisfy USTA's desire for new, state-of-the-art facilities – without further encroaching into Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

USTA's self-serving conclusion is that rebuilding within its current footprint is not acceptable to USTA.

USTA wants more parkland, for two main reasons:

Number One:

To increase the width of a walkway inside the tennis center, to provide a more luxurious experience for tennis people during just two weeks of the U.S. Open. If that walkway really isn't wide enough, U.S. Open fans would have testified at the public hearings in support of widening it. They haven't. Solving a non-existent problem two weeks out of the year does not justify sacrificing sacred parkland

Number Two:

USTA wants to increase attendance at the U.S. Open by 10,000 more people every day. But who says that we want 10,000 more people there, or that it's even reasonable to put them there?

The impacts of those people are very significant.

A very large number of them will travel by car, taxi or limousine. Here are two photographs showing the effects on Roosevelt Avenue during the 2012 U.S. Open. Two entire lanes are coned off – one in each direction – to accommodate drop-off and pick-up of tennis people.



This situation is already very bad – but USTA wants to attract another 10,000 people here per day? By the way, these conditions on Roosevelt are right next to the proposed site of the Mets mall in the Citi Field parking lot – which would be the largest mall in New York City. How can you reconcile commandeering Roosevelt Avenue like this, with the simultaneous traffic to be generated by a huge mall, right here?

The prestige of the U.S. Open is already well established. It does not depend on whether 10,000 more people attend it.

This USTA proposal, like the two others that impinge on our park, areefforts to close deals on parkland while the Bloomberg administration is still around to sign the papers. Please do right by the people of Queens: Tell USTA to renovate within its existing space, and reject its self-serving application to expand its size and its impacts.

Thank you."

Robert LoScalzo
Whitestone, New York

(excerpts from the EIS available here.)

On top of all this, the Borough Board, which does not have to weigh in on the USTA expansion under the rules of ULURP, plans to take a vote on the matter and make a recommendation Monday despite not holding a public hearing, which is required.

The information in the USTA's EIS directly contradicts Danny Zausner testimony from February 18 when he stated, “We can't physically replace these two stadium without taking this asphalt strip and turning it into a landscape buffer."