NEW YORK CIVIC TO SEEK PUBLIC REFERENDUM TO MAKE TERM LIMITS LAW EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Good Government Group to Join Councilman Ulrich, Charter Commissioner Cassino and a Coalition of Former City and State Officials to Close “Grandfather” Loophole That Exempts 34 Elected Officials from Two-Term Law

New York Civic, a nonpartisan good government group founded by former NYC Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern, will announce Monday morning on the steps of City Hall that it will pursue a public referendum to eliminate the controversial “grandfather” clause of the recently passed term limits ballot question, which delays the effective date of the law until 2021 and exempts 34 city incumbents from being restricted to two consecutive terms.

Joining New York Civic in undertaking this landmark public referendum will be a grassroots coalition of community leaders and activists, including Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens, who is one of the 34 elected officials the term limits loophole would benefit; Anthony Perez Cassino, one of the Charter Revision Commissioners who objected to the inclusion of the grandfathering clause in this year’s referendum; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform, former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman; and Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who will serve as legal counsel in pursing the public referendum, will also be present at the 10 a.m. press conference on November 22nd.

“This referendum is not about term limits, it’s about respecting the will of the people,” explained Henry J. Stern, the founder and president of New York Civic. “It was bad enough that the City Council ignored the voters in 2008 to extend term limits for itself. It is outrageous that, after 74 percent of New Yorkers voted for two terms for the third time in a generation, 34 incumbents can still serve a third term because of a loophole snuck into the last referendum to benefit a handful of officeholders.”

“Although I supported the recently passed term limits referendum, I was very disappointed that the Charter Review Commission created this loophole for me and my colleagues,” stated Councilman Ulrich. “That’s why I am acting, contrary to my self-interest, to restore the trust of the voters who clearly intended for there to be two terms. This referendum will allow us to make things right again.”

"This campaign is about respecting the will of the people and ensuring that their votes count on term limits and their decision stands unless they vote for a change,” said former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit opposing the term limits extension in 2008. “Our local democracy still hasn't recovered from the harm done by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council two years ago to the true two-term limit that the voters twice imposed by referendum and that they have still not had the opportunity to restore. This campaign will finally afford them that opportunity."

Anthony Perez Cassino, one of three members of the Charter Commission to sign a minority report objecting to the grandfather clause, agrees with Councilman Ulrich’s concerns. “The Charter Revision Commission did the right thing by returning term limits to the ballot for the voters to decide, but we didn’t go as far as we needed to regain the trust of the public. Getting rid of the grandfather loophole is the only way to heal the wounds of 2008.”

Stay of execution for Pelham Pkwy trees

From the Village Voice:

Previously, we wrote about the city's plan to redo the Bronx's Pelham Parkway, including adding guardrails that would require killing at least 80 of the century-old trees lining the road. Last week, the trees -- represented by the Pelham Parkway Preservation Alliance and attorney William J. Madonna -- won a restraining order in Bronx County Supreme Court against the city.

The Alliance took their case to court, requesting that the city stop all construction, remove all construction vehicles, and not cut down any trees. They asked the city to have a third party perform and release environmental impact statements about the project. They also requested the city appoint a lead agency to administer the entire project, since there's been some apparent confusion on which agency, exactly, is ultimately responsible.

The temporary injunction prevents the project from moving forward as long as the case is pending. Only regular maintenance work is now permitted on the Parkway. The case will go to trial on November 5 to determine whether the city can proceed with the project as planned.

"It's a shame they have to go to court," former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern told us. "The city should protect its trees without adding...court."

Sounds like honest graft to me!

From the NY Post:

Here are the numbers The Post’s experts — the ex-city official, watchdog Henry Stern and developer Ken Diamondstone — found suspicious.

ACQUISITION

Instead of simply renovating its own buildings, Ridgewood Bushwick sold them for $14.9 million to itself and another investor for an “inflated” amount in what may have been a bid to get more government financing, said a former city official. The sale doubles the total cost of the project, he noted, so the developer fee — based on a percentage of the total project cost — is doubled as well.

ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING

This $5.6 million fee is quadruple what it should be, the former official said. The state claims it’s simply a clerical mistake that includes all preconstruction, or “soft,” costs in addition to the actual payment to an architect and engineer. Still, the ex-official asserts, the sum is troublesome. “If I had a project where my soft costs were greater than my hard costs, the only reason why would be to stick a bunch of money in my pocket,” he said.

DEVELOPER FEE

The $3.5 million developer fee for only 18 months of renovation work — which goes straight into the pockets of Ridgewood and its executives — is double what it should be, the ex-official said. He said Ridgewood is charging 12 percent of the project’s total cost when it should charge only 5 percent. Affordablehousing developer Ken Diamondstone said, “I can only say that I wish I had a deal like that.”

Henry Stern on another developer giveaway

From the Huffington Post:

...the skyline of New York City is ever-changing, and as generations of New Yorkers know, your view lasts as long as the owner of the lot next door allows. Property owners can build as of right on their land, consistent with zoning codes and city regulations.

In this case, however, the proposed tower was far outside the zoning codes, and required five separate changes in the law to give the developer the height and bulk of the building that he wanted to erect. That is why the Community Board and the City Council were involved under the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (sometimes affectionately called ULURP).

If it is built, the proposed Penn Tower would have 56% more bulk than the zoning code would have permitted without discretionary bonuses. That comes out to almost a million square feet of additional office space. The variances granted to the developer also eliminate the setback regulations typically required for buildings of this size, thereby aggravating the impact upon the skyline from the perspective of New Jersey. The glare from night lighting of the financial tenants will further impact the view of the iconic Empire State Building from the east.

On this one, the CPC was clearly in the tank, abandoning its customary guardianship and attention to size, taste and design in its eagerness to approve the tower.

We believe that what happened in this case is a textbook example of unsound public policy, favoritism to a particular extremely well-connected developer, and lack of regard for the future of the commercial neighborhood around Penn and Moynihan Stations. To grant a massive upgrade to a property owner with no tenant, no financing and no immediate plans to build is premature and irresponsible. These valuable new rights will be for sale along with the property if the developer is unable or unwilling to build on the site.

This is a case of the city making an extraordinary gift, probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to one of its richest and most influential developers. It is a top-down decision, clearly made at City Hall and not by the Planning Commission, which should have been embarrassed at the tricks they had to turn.

You got it! Also, there is a major conflict of interest here because:

Ms. Quinn did not mention that a loophole has allowed Vornado Realty Trust to contribute thousands of dollars to her campaign even though the company, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the country, has business before the city. Last week, Quinn and the council approved Vornado's controversial 15 Penn Plaza development, despite opposition from Community Board 5. - Crains

Tree massacre coming to Pelham Parkway

From NY Civic:

Do you know about Pelham Parkway?

It is a magnificent park and boulevard, 2.3 miles long and 400 feet wide. It connects Bronx Park and Pelham Bay Park...There is nothing quite like it in the City of New York, in terms of greenery and grandeur enhancing a public thoroughfare.

Today it is threatened - by, of all entities, the City of New York, whose Department of Transportation is planning to improve the park's roadways, and remove 87 mature trees that give the parkway its character and beauty. The project is slated to begin this fall and conclude in 2012.

If this were proposed for Central Park, or anywhere in Manhattan, the roar of public outrage would be impossible to ignore. But this is the Bronx, where cries are more likely to be ignored by bureaucrats and by the media. Many Manhattanites don't even know where Pelham Parkway is, much less appreciate its unique appearance.

What is special about this Parkway is that as you drive in it, above you is an arbor of trees whose upper branches reach from one side of the road to the other. It looks, and you feel, as if you were traveling through a park.

In the Pelham Parkway case, we are told the road is not being widened. There is a plan to put a guard rail on the side of the road, to protect drivers who fall asleep, drive drunk, or don't know where the road is. The guard rail would also protect the trees, which are scuffed and gashed by the clumsy or irresponsible drivers.

It is not a physical necessity to remove the trees in order to install the guardrail. It is a convenience for the contractor. Also, a mature tree is not usually at death's door, about to fall on the roadway. Most have decades of life remaining. Their fate should not be determined by a death panel of highway engineers.

A city now engaged in planting a million trees, a most worthy crusade initiated by Mayor Bloomberg, should also place value on keeping the living trees that we have. If people at the highest levels were aware of the damage this project as currently designed would do, they would order the necessary changes so that we could improve the highway, build the guard rail and save the trees.

Part of the problem is awakening the environmental and botanical communities to the arborcide that would occur if current plans are carried out. Although the trees in this case are miles from Manhattan, they deserve equal protection. In order to save them, the Department of Transportation and its construction agency, the Department of Design and Construction, must be made to understand the value of existing mature trees. Many of these trees were planted in the 1930s. It would take until 2090 for the replacements to grow to match what we have today.

It's okay, Janette's making up for the environmental atrocity by putting in bike lanes all over the city! What do you think about this debacle, Reeg?

Parks tries tweeding via Henry Stern

From the Queens Chronicle:

The current New York Civic director believes that underlying racial and economic divisions are fueling controversy and limiting compromise as middle-class Queens residents fight efforts to replace the reservoir with ballfields — a plan favored by community groups representing the notorious East New York section of Brooklyn.

“Highland Park is a border park between a very poor neighborhood and a very rich one,” Stern said. “A lot of it is territorial: ‘This belongs to the uphill people, and the uphill people should decide how it’s used — not the downhill people.’

He later added, “They’re organizing to keep them down at the bottom of the hill.”

Stern believes East New York’s reputation as the city’s crime capital is mobilizing otherwise indifferent Queens residents behind preservationists in an effort to maintain a natural buffer with the Brooklyn neighborhood.

“This controversy is magnified by the racial aspect,” he said. “I’m not saying that’s the motive of the opponents — but why would they want a bunch of kids going in the park, lying down in front of them and hanging around the neighborhood after that?”

Let's remind Henry that:

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall is black.
Rep. Edolphus Towns is black.
Comptroller William Thompson is black.
Rep. Nydia Velazquez is Hispanic.
All are in favor of nature over ballfields.
Community Boards 5 of Brooklyn and Queens both unanimously voted in favor of preservation.

Highland Park, Brooklyn is not a "very poor neighborhood." Homes there can be quite expensive.
Ridgewood, Queens is not a "very rich neighborhood" (and certainly not a very white neighborhood either).

Henry Stern lost his marbles years ago and this just confirms it. Why the Queens Chronicle would not only do the bidding of the Parks Department but leave unchallenged someone who obviously doesn't know what the hell he is talking about is beyond me.

Massive tweeding FAIL by the Bloomberg Administration yet again. Keep doing it and Queens Crap will just keep exposing it.

Photo from Newsday.