How feasible is the Sunnyside Railyard plan?

From Crains:

Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, whose district encompasses the entirety of the rail yard, has vowed to block any proposal for a convention center or high-rise housing in the portion of the yard adjacent to landmarked neighborhood Sunnyside Gardens.

"There have been lots of proposals on developing the yard over the years," he said. "And every time it comes up, folks in the neighborhood get frightened about the prospect of massive development."

And then there's the small matter of timing. In his State of the City speech last week, the mayor talked of putting 11,250 below-market apartments at Sunnyside Yards, the same number built in 1947 at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village in Manhattan. But experts doubt that Mr. de Blasio will even be around to count those units toward his ultimate goal of building or preserving 200,000 affordable apartments during the next decade. Decking over the rail yard, even a small portion of it, is expected to be a multidecade project—one with financially unfortunate timing.

"It's a 30-year project where probably 50% of the costs will be incurred in the first five years," said Seth Pinsky, a former CEO of the city's Economic Development Corp., now an executive vice president at developer RXR Realty. "It's decking, it's sewers, it's electricity. There's nothing there. You're building from scratch."

No wonder the mayor's office acknowledges that any housing built at Sunnyside Yards will likely become available after the conclusion of Mr. de Blasio's affordable-housing plan. Nonetheless, it now looks likely that at some point, with the city's blessing — if not cash — housing will blossom on the site. It's a possibility rich in irony.

Hey folks, as we recall, Mr. Van Bramer thinks that warehousing homeless people is a great idea. He's also agreed with every major "affordable housing" overdevelopment push except this one. Why? Only because he lives there. Anyway, I wouldn't be too worried about this silly folly happening during the lifetime of anyone alive today.

Pinsky leaves EDC

From Crains:

Seth Pinsky, the long-time head of the city Economic Development Corp., will be leaving his post at the agency to join the real estate investment firm RXR Realty, the company announced on Tuesday morning.

The city said Kyle Kimball, currently an executive director at the agency, will serve as as Mr. Pinsky's successor. Mr. Pinsky will stay at the agency until August.

"Seth Pinsky has been an exceptional public servant," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement. "We're going to be counting on [Kyle Kimball] as we sprint to the finish over the next 168 days, and I have no doubt he will succeed in managing some of our most important projects."

Mr. Pinsky, a stalwart of Mr. Bloomberg's economic development agenda for the past five years, will lead a new arm of RXR Realty that the company said will focus on investment in developing New York markets.

He leaves behind a big list of failed legacy projects.

Taxpayers now footing the bill for Willets Point remediation

From Willets Point United:

A contentious point about the proposed Willets Point development has been the alleged need for remediation of the property. Willets Point United Inc. believes that during 2008, the City greatly exaggerated the alleged need for remediation in order to horrify the City Council and provide some basis to approve the land grab involving our property. That the City is now awkwardly backing away from its 2008 claim proves our point.

During a 2008 City Council public hearing, the cost to remediate the entire 62 acres of Willets Point, according to the City, was said to be between $470 million and $570 million – "half a billion dollars", as then-Councilman Hiram Monserrate put it – a large sum that implied a large amount of remediation was required. That a developer would foot such a bill was touted as a benefit of proceeding with the entire proposed project.

Now, five years later, the City's contract with chosen developers Sterling/Related anticipates the cost of remediating one-third of Willets Point (the "Phase One" area) to be just $40 million, or less.
Extrapolated to the full 62 acres of Willets Point, the cost would be $120 million – which is dwarfed by the original $570 million quoted to the City Council during 2008. Moreover, Sterling/Related now won't even pay the $40 million cost – the taxpayers will, by virtue of a grant of taxpayer funds to the developers to cover the remediation. The previously-claimed benefit to the taxpayers – that a developer would pay for and do extensive remediation – has been stood on its head.

A lingering question for the City is: What happened to the $570 million remediation program that was said to be necessary during 2008? What explanation is there, for drastically reducing the cost of remediation from $570 million, to $120 million (or less, per the contract)?

Incredibly, when the issue came up during a committee meeting of Queens Community Board 7 on April 11, 2013, NYCEDC's Tom McKnight tried to create the impression that people are mis-remembering the $570 million figure, and that $570 million somehow was never said. Strange that McKnight would do this now, as he was seated just feet behind then-Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber and NYCEDC President Seth Pinsky at the City Council during 2008 when the discussion of the "half a billion dollars" occurred.

For anyone who doubts this, here is a video clip that shows a portion of the City Council Q&A. At no time does anyone dispute the $570 million remediation cost that is discussed – only how it might be paid.



We emphasize that today, this cost is down to just $40 million for one-third of the site, with the taxpayers – not the developers – paying the bill. The need for remediation is nowhere near what the City Council was told during 2008; and in any case, the cost of paying for it has been shifted from the developers to the taxpayers, and is now a taxpayer liability instead of the benefit we were promised.

See Willets Point United Inc.'s Gerald Antonacci's explanation of this, in our YouTube video ("Willets Point Factual Update") beginning at 9:39 (9 minutes, 39 seconds).

They continue to weave a tangled web

From the Times Ledger:

Willets Point property and business owners are not surprised that Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., is attempting to do damage control, now that the state attorney general has determined that EDC and Claire Shulman’s local development corporation acted illegally in pursuing the Willets Point development project (“EDC cites ’08 global crisis,” Aug. 2-8).

But we will not allow Pinsky to misinform the public by downplaying EDC’s admitted illegal acts that threaten our property ownership, thus distracting attention from the glaring need for accountability.

Here are the facts you did not hear from Pinsky: During his tenure as EDC president, EDC engaged in activity so contrary to law that the attorney general is now exercising his statutory power to dissolve EDC and require it to cease its operations and the city to establish a new corporation to handle economic development. Far from safeguarding the corporate existence of EDC, Pinsky saw it driven into the ground on his watch.

Acting on a formal complaint made by Willets Point United Inc., the attorney general has determined that Pinsky’s EDC violated the state Not-For Profit Corporation Law as well as EDC’s certificate of incorporation. Unlike garden-variety nonprofits that are permitted to lobby, EDC was a specific type of nonprofit, dedicated to development, that is prohibited from attempting to influence legislation.

But EDC did so anyway in its zeal to obtain City Council approval of the proposed Willets Point development, including authorization to forcibly acquire our Willets Point properties and businesses via eminent domain.

To those ends, Pinsky’s EDC disbursed city funds to another local development corporation set up by Shulman, which was likewise prohibited from lobbying for legislation. EDC deliberately assigned specific tasks to Shulman’s LDC. For its part, Shulman’s LDC lobbied but filed none of the required registrations or disclosure reports for 18 months — until the city clerk finally interceded, holding Shulman’s LDC liable to pay a record $59,090 penalty.

But EDC continued to disburse city funds to Shulman’s LDC, even after the LDC registered its staff members/employees as lobbyists while their salaries remained payable using city funds disbursed by EDC. Moreover, EDC disbursed city funds to Shulman’s LDC without requiring Shulman to produce evidence of actual eligibility for those funds or entering into funding agreements that contain all of the provisions required by EDC’s master contract with the city.

All of that and more was done to push the proposed Willets Point development, an EDC project that would later be open to bidding by developer firms that are financiers of Shulman’s LDC.

Is it any wonder that city Comptroller John Liu has since called this “EDC’s culture of lawlessness” or that Pinsky now wants to start a friendly dialogue with a newspaper on other topics? If any other company well-known to the public had shown the same disregard for law and contracts as has EDC, the shareholders would demand the immediate resignations of its president and board of directors.

But in the case of EDC, no one has been held to account. The attorney general’s recent action merely prevents EDC from lobbying illegally in the future.

Lobbying is not even the half of it: Pinsky’s EDC has also inexplicably omitted the required “living wage” provision from the Willets Point Phase 1 request for proposals, violating a written promise to labor unions that was relied upon by the Council and eliminating any chance that retail workers at a future Willets Point development will be paid a living wage.

And, although affordable housing was the linchpin of the proposed development when it was evaluated by the Council in 2008, the city is now reportedly entering into a contract with Phase 1 developers that will provide them the option to not construct any housing whatsoever.

Finally, although the Council was told that the city would recoup the taxpayer dollars spent to acquire Willets Point property to the greatest extent possible via the sale of the land to the project’s developers, the city intends to give the Phase 1 property to the developers at no cost.

New Yorkers must demand much better of EDC and its stewards — no disregard of the law and no abrogation of commitments to elected officials and the public, all of which has been the disturbing hallmark of EDC under Pinsky. For him and others, their charade must end and they must be held accountable.

Gerald Antonacci
President
Willets Point United Inc.
Willets Point

Jake Bono
Member
Willets Point United Inc.
Willets Point

Irene Prestigiacomo
Member
Willets Point United Inc.
Willets Point

More city-sponsored corporate welfare

From the Daily News:

Manhattan Beer Distributors will receive tax breaks worth nearly $24 million from the Industrial Development Agency to buy and renovate four parcels of land in Hunts Point. The company expects to add at least 25 jobs at the site within three years of opening its new headquarters, in 2013.

Overshadowed by a food fight over $83.5 million in tax breaks and grants for Fresh Direct at the Harlem River Rail Yards, the smaller package calls for Manhattan Beer to spend $60 million on land, renovations and equipment.

CEO Simon Bergson said the project will allow the firm to grow without leaving the Bronx, where it set up shop in 1979. Manhattan Beer is currently based on Walnut Ave. in Port Morris.

Manhattan Beer currently operates distribution sites in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Wyandanch on Long Island and Suffern in Rockland County. It plans to shift routes from Brooklyn to Queens and the Bronx.

Its new headquarters will boast 620 jobs after three years, with 528 relocated from Walnut Ave., 67 relocated from Brooklyn and 25 new, according to the New York City Economic Development Corp. EDC President Seth Pinsky heads the IDA.

Manhattan Beer will pay its new full-time workers $29,400 a year on average, plus benefits, according to IDA documents. The firm threatened to look for property outside the city when it requested public benefits.

EDC wants more development in Flushing

From the Times Ledger:

The city put out a call last week to develop a lot in downtown Flushing that is currently occupied by an unused city Sanitation Department building, citing future development in the area as one of the incentives.

The 2,500-square-foot lot is currently zoned for commercial use and in the heart of downtown Flushing at 135-15 41st Road, across the street from an entrance to the Long Island Rail Road’s Flushing-Main Street station.

“While the property is small in size, it represents a meaningful step towards creating a brighter future for downtown Flushing,” said Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp. “To reactivate this vacant building presents an opportunity to the private sector to be a part of Flushing’s incredible, ongoing renaissance.”

The two-story, gray brick building that sits on the lot was constructed in 1950 and subsequently used by Sanitation until 2005, when it was damaged by nearby construction, according to the EDC.

Any developer interested in the project would be responsible for demolishing the structurally compromised building before constructing a new one.

In the request for proposals issued Dec. 6, the EDC lists one incentive as the lot’s proximity to Flushing Commons, a proposed mixed-use, $850 million development that would take the place of Municipal Lot 1, which is between 37th and 39th avenues between 138th and Union streets.

“The nearby development of Flushing Commons indicates the growth potential and strength of the Flushing demographics,” the EDC said in the document.

Yet the project that was once scheduled to break ground in 2012 has been put on hold due to lack of funding.

In fact, the city-owned property has not even been turned over to the developer, TDC Development.

Where our tax money really goes

From the Daily News:

The city will spend nearly $1 million in taxpayer money on a contest meant to encourage business in lower Manhattan - but two-thirds of the cash will likely go to consultants.

The city's Industrial Development Agency board Tuesday approved spending $950,000 on the Lower Manhattan Business Expansion Competition to award businesses that locate or expand in lower Manhattan prizes ranging from $20,000 to $650,000.

Three board members - representatives from the Manhattan and Bronx borough presidents and the city controller - angrily objected because the amount expected to go to consultants wasn't spelled out.

The Economic Development Corp. will oversee the project, but will hire a private consultant to run it.

EDC President Seth Pinsky wouldn't say how much the consultants would be paid because, he said, the agency is still taking bids.

A source familiar with the proposal said the EDC planned to spend about two-thirds - around $600,000 - on the consultant.

EDC, lies and videotape

From Willets Point United:

We have been discussing why the partial, segmented development of Willets Point is illegal. What we haven't yet discussed, however, is the extent to which city officials-and other supporters of the project-have made the full, comprehensive and complete development of the 62 acres of the Iron Triangle an absolute necessity.

In the above embedded video you will get to see just how strenuously the city argued against any partial development of the Willets Point area-with serial prevaricator Robert Lieber leading the charge claiming that, because of the flood plain nature of the land, the "high water table," and the years of soil contamination, the project could not be developed in a piece meal fashion. Lieber told the city council that developing Willets Point was a, "transformative exercise," that must be dealt with, "in its totality."

Not to be outdone, EDC's Senior Vice President Thomas McKnight told CB #7 that because of the extensive nature of the environmental clean up, "those kinds of comprehensive things can't really happen with the businesses there...We want to redevelop the entire Willets Point district."

Queens BP Helen Marshall, reading from the EDC script given to her, told the City Planning Commission that Willets Point, "must proceed comprehensively, and Not be phased in." Finally there's UpChuck Apelian, the chair of CB#7, who told his board that, "the site Must be remediated as one complete site."

Well what has changed, and why is EDC proceeding in a manner that it said was environmentally proscribed three years ago? The only possible answer to this is the fact that WPU's intervention on the ramps introduced a high level of uncertainty for the city's crack development team-and the new Phase I was and is a desperate attempt to end run, not only proper traffic reviews,but EDC's own prescriptions for an environmentally sound development plan.

It is hard to conceive of how this will all pass a legal challenge from WPU. In the end the city and EDC's own words will serve to convict them of a fraudulent attempt to rewrite history in order to promote an environmentally unsound development at the expense of small property owners.



From Willets Point United:

Given the fact that EDC has now issued its RFP for the illegal Phase 1 development of Willets Point, WPU is raising the issue of the legality of developers who are members of Shulman's LDC, and who financed illegal lobbying, participating in the RFP announced by NYCEDC.

This is not a minor point be any means. The NYS Attorney general is investigating the legality of using LDCs to lobby on behalf of city projects and if the office decides to chastise EDC for its funding efforts it would raise serious issues as to whether those firms who have partnered with Shulman’s group should be allowed to munch on fruit from their poisonous tree.

During testimony on October 17, 2008 before the New York City Council Subcommittee on the potential disqualification of LDC Members Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber could not rule out the possibility that "members of the board of the LDC" – presumably Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation ("FWPCLDC"), which unlawfully lobbied to influence legislation contrary to § 1411, and which also unlawfully concealed its lobbying activities – would be prohibited from bidding to become developers of the proposed Willets Point development, when NYCEDC would eventually issue its Request For Proposals ("RFP") pertaining to that development.
Hearing Transcript - Planning 101708
All of this was deliciously captured on video as a visibly perturbed Lieber answered the question from CM Monserrate. As those board members in part financed FWPCLDC activities which have been shown to be unlawful, the board members now must not be permitted to profit from any ill-gotten gains, especially by being awarded the developer contract for a project on behalf of which FWPCLDC unlawfully attempted to influence legislation which embodies the project's approval.

Of the 29 respondents to NYCEDC's prior RFQ concerning the Willets Point development -- which was a precursor to today's RFP, and from which NYCEDC was to select firm to receive the RFP -- the following respondents were full-fledged "Members" of Shulman's LDC:
(1) Ciampa Organization
(2) Muss Development LLC
(3) Sterling Equities (Mets)
(4) TDC Development (F&T Group)

In addition, the following RFQ respondents are identified as "Supporters" of Shulman's LDC, at the web site of Shulman's LDC:
(1) Albanese Organization, Inc.
(2) CPC Resources, Inc.
(3) Douglaston Development
(4)Triangle Equities

The press needs to ask EDC who its select group of bidders may be, and if these colluders with the development corporation have been made eligible to bid in spite of their collusion. Our exit question: What would happen if all of this was subject to a RICO indictment?

Again?

From the Gotham Gazette:

Instead of packing onto crowded, often delayed and inconvenient subways, commuters along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront will have an alternative way to travel when a new ferry service begins making stops along the East River later this year.

The service is the latest in a long line of attempts to boost commuting by water in New York in an effort to revitalize the waterfront and ease congestion. It comes in the wake of a few successes and many failures. The ferries, which will serve Greenpoint, Williamsburg, DUMBO, downtown Brooklyn and East 34th Street, will be operated by BillyBey Ferry Co., which contracts with NY Waterway and whose boats bear the NY Waterway logo.

According to the city Economic Development Corp., the East River ferry system will cost passengers $3 to $5.50, depending on distance. Currently, the city is constructing piers for the new service, and hopes to have them operating by the time boats are ready to take passengers -- probably by June, although no date has been announced. According to development corporation spokesperson Julie Wood, if the new service becomes a success, the city will look to expand ferry service in other places.

The new ferry service comes after years of unsuccessful effort to promote ferries. In the mid-1990s, then Gov. George Pataki and then Mayor Rudy Giuliani asked NY Waterway to provide service between Hunters Point and East 34th Street. The ferries ran between every 15 to 20 minutes, but only carried 135 people per day at its peak. The service was not subsidized by the city and ended in 2001.

In 2002, NY Waterway once again tried to bring ferries to the East Side of Manhattan. The ferry served the 90th Street pier on the Upper East Side, Long Island City, 34th Street and Pier 11 in Lower Manhattan. Costing only $5 per trip, the ferries operated every 30 minutes during rush hour and had no off-hour service. The second attempt faltered due to low ridership, having only carried 150 people per day. Upper East Side opposition to shuttle bus service NY Waterway provides to its terminals further complicated matters, and low ridership from Long Island City resulted in the service ending once more in 2004.

The administration also has attempted to bring ferry service to other parts of the city. In May 2008, NY Water Taxi offered service from Breezy Point in The Rockaways, to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. Despite having community support, the ferry only served 160 people per day and cost the city $1.5 million in subsidies. The service ended last year 2010.

...the ferries will link up to a free bus service in Midtown as well as to the M34 bus. The ferries also will accommodate bicycles.

Who is going to board a ferry to then have to board a bus to then also probably have to board a train? Why do they think ferry service will have a different result this time? Why are we subsidizing this guaranteed failure?

Hello?

Here comes the Bloomberg steamroller

From the Wall Street Journal:

Seeking to kick-start a massive Queens real-estate development project conceived in the boom years, the Bloomberg administration is moving to seize a portion of the site from private property owners.

Next week, the city plans to initiate the eminent-domain process on holdout owners who own property in the first 20-acre phase of the 62-acre project. The city also is planning to solicit bids from developers in the spring, according to city officials.

Known as Willets Point, the development site by Citi Field is slated to ultimately contain more than eight million square feet, with more than 5,000 apartments, a hotel and more than 1.7 million square feet of retail space.

The site currently is filled with junkyards and auto-repair shops, along with some larger industrial properties. The City Council in 2008 approved the use of eminent domain to acquire parcels from holdouts.

The property owners are expected to litigate to block the city action, although New York state laws give the government broad powers to use eminent domain. Similar recent development projects, like the new basketball arena being built at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, have survived court challenges.

Seth Pinsky, president of the city's Economic Development Corp., said in an interview Wednesday that the city has purchase agreements with property owners for 88% of the first phase of the site.

There are nine holdouts whose land the city would seek to acquire, and others whose land would be acquired in later phases.

"We just can't wait any longer and need to know that if we can't reach those agreements, that we can still move forward," he said.

Opponents of the project have argued that the city isn't permitted to construct entrance ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway nearby that are called for as part of the project. Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents business owners at the site, says that the eminent domain action was "an absolute disgrace."

"The city is going ahead with a project that no one knows what it will cost, with a developer that no one knows who it will be, and with ramps that no one knows whether they can be built," Mr. Lipsky says.

Mr. Pinsky said the city's position is that it isn't required to build the ramps—which would mitigate traffic congestion on the local streets—until later phases of the project.

The action comes as the city administration is making a bet that the real-estate development industry—in hibernation since 2008—has warmed enough that landlords are willing to take risks on giant construction projects. In April, city officials said, they plan to solicit bids from a set of developers who have previously showed interested in the site, including Related Cos., Muss Development and Sterling Equities.

Sterling Equities?

EDC wining and dining out of control

From the Daily News:

An examination of Economic Development Corp. honchos' credit cards from July 2008 through March unearthed a stunning collection of unusual purchases on the taxpayer's dime. The bills generally have risen month by month during the past two fiscal years, growing from $5,870 in July 2008 to $18,226 in March. In December, they topped $20,000.

EDC executives have used their agency American Express cards:
* To buy four gold- and silver-plated shovels for grip-and-grin groundbreaking ceremonies. Total cost: $494.
* To fly participants in a "Next Idea" contest from India and Argentina and put them up for a week in the Manhattan Holiday Inn in January. The tab: $13,861. Winners and others that month got gold-engraved plaques valued at $370.
* For interoffice wining and dining.

Most city agencies follow rules that say payment for "modest meals and light refreshments" should be regarded as "an exceptional event." But officials at the EDC, a quasi-city agency that also collects rent on city properties, say they aren't subject to the same rules.

The city controller has chastised them for this position, asserting that the EDC is sloppy about how it spends its money.

Take, for example, the $112 the EDC spent on wine on May 22, 2008, at the Green Grape in lower Manhattan, listed as a "prewedding party" on the bill.

Asked by the Daily News to explain the expense, the agency released a statement saying it held a "congratulatory toast" for EDC Chief Operating Officer Tokumbo Shobowale at the agency's office.

EDC bosses "invited all 400 EDC employees to participate."

Records show EDC President Seth Pinsky charged $3,630 in March for a day-long event at the elegant Bayard restaurant near Wall Street attended solely by about 40 agency employees.

Then there was $3,000 for "companywide catering" - including coffee, dessert trays and miniature Italian pastries - from the gourmet Sale & Pepe in 2008 and last year.

Another $3,000 went for food and space rental for a companywide event at Water Taxi Beach at the South Street Seaport in October 2009, records show.

The agency also paid Fairway $600 to fete dignitaries like Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and Rep. Nydia Velazquez with fruit and cheese.

LIC: still a work in progress

Haven't we been hearing that LIC was going to be the next great neighborhood for something like 25 years now? Can we can that talk already? Especially when we have genius quotes like this one from Seth Pinsky:

"Look at where Long Island City was a few years ago. Not many people knew it was there. Today, we're at a tipping point for this neighborhood where growth could go from steady to exponential."

Not many people knew it was there? Um, what? Are you talking about just among your friends in the ivory tower?

Exponential growth, eh? And has infrastructure been upgraded to accommodate this? No.

LIC may also be getting fan-muffling equipment. See, not one of our genius city planners or the administration's favorite developers thought a noisy fan would be an issue if the area became residential, so now we're scrambling to fix it.

Why is everything so ass backwards in this city?

Pols uneasy about cemetery at Flushing Commons

From the Daily News:

Leroy Comrie, chairman of the City Council's powerful land use committee, called on the city to ensure "gentle" treatment of any tombs at the plot set for Flushing Commons, a mix of housing and retail space.

The proposal is expected to be voted on by the land use committee on July 28 and then by the full Council. But Comrie said too many question marks remain.

"I'm not prepared to encourage the full body to vote because we have so many unresolved issues," Comrie said at a hearing Thursday near City Hall.

At Thursday's hearing, Comrie (D-Jamaica) pressed Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., for details about new excavation plans.

"No one has said to date what will be done," Comrie said.

Pinsky defended the 1953 excavation as an "extensive investigation." But when Comrie asked how far down the hand-diggers went in 1953, Pinsky admitted, "I don't have that exact figure."

The News asked the city last month for records of the excavation to determine its scope, but the city has not yet produced any.

A spokeswoman for the city Law Department, which officially declared the cemetery nonexistent in 1954, said the agency is "still looking" for the report.

Pinsky also noted that community leaders did not mention the possibility of graves during numerous meetings with EDC.

"We have not received any evidence other than the story in the Daily News," Pinsky said. But, he added, "We would ensure the site would be treated with respect."

Later, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall echoed Comrie's calls for a careful check.

"There should be reasonable measures to ensure there are not human remains on the construction site," Marshall read from prepared testimony.

She lifted her head and continued off the cuff: "We treasure our people, both while they're alive and after they pass away."

Trailer meeting raises more questions

QUEENS CRAP ROVING REPORTER #2 ON THE TRAILER MEETING

Tonight, a hastily arranged meeting between a CB7 committee and NYCEDC occurred inside the College Point Corporate Park office trailer. The purpose was to again review NYCEDC's plans to relocate 3 businesses from Willets Point to the College Point Corporate Park, prior to the votes that will be held on Monday by the Queens Borough Board. If the Borough Board approves on Monday, then NYCEDC will be legally permitted to transfer the titles of the College Point properties to the 3 Willets Point businesses to enable their relocation.

The 3 businesses represented at tonight's meeting and which will be the subject of Monday's Borough Board votes are Feinstein Ironworks, Sambucci Bros. Auto Salvage and T. Mina Supply.

Those who have followed the Willets Point story may recall that last year, a total of 5 Willets Point businesses were approved by CB7, the Queens Borough President, the City Planning Commission and the City Council to relocate to property within the College Point Corporate Park. Tonight's meeting and Monday's Borough Board vote account for only 3 of those total 5 businesses. The 2 businesses that are being denied relocation at present are Flushing Towing and Mets Metals. Although the proprietor of Flushing Towing had been invited to attend tonight's meeting, earlier today he was again contacted by NYCEDC and told that the meeting was "canceled". This outright lie seems concocted to discourage this business owner from showing up at tonight's meeting, and thereby eliminate any questions about why all 5 businesses whose relocations were approved last year by CB7, the Queens Borough President, the City Planning Commission and the City Council, are not in fact being relocated.

Apparently, the proprietor of Flushing Towing did not believe NYCEDC's lie that the meeting had been canceled, and he decided to show up at the trailer. Half an hour prior to the start of the meeting, he was seen conversing at length with NYCEDC lackeys outside of the trailer. Eventually, he left prior to the meeting without entering the trailer. During the meeting, no one present even bothered to ask what had happened to the other 2 businesses of the total 5 whose relocations to the College Point Corporate Park had been approved last year.

The 3 businesses provided "Cooperation Letters" to CB7, containing representations such as: Acknowledging the adequacy of the space available at the College Point site; business will not park any vehicles or trucks on any of the adjacent or adjoining streets or business lots; main access to the site will be on College Point Boulevard, and main egress exiting the site will be on 31st Avenue.

Committee Chair Chuck Apelian stated: "My sole desire is to have these 3 businesses come into College Point, as owners; and become model citizens of the College Point Corporate Park. And the biggest intent we have, is that we never hear of any problems or any issues from them at all. ... And that's the purpose of the memorialization of these letters."

However, CB7 Chair Gene Kelty wondered what recourse there would be if the terms of the letters are violated in the future. Kelty asked, "Those letters that we now have -- If they don't abide by them, what enforcement action is there and what agency is going to enforce it?" When told by NYCEDC that NYPD would be responsible for enforcement, that did not sit well with Kelty. "See, now we have a problem. ... You're not going to dump that on the PD because they're not going to enforce it. They haven't enforced anything in 25 years that I've been here."

Kelty insisted that instead, NYCEDC's legal department should commit in writing to "sue" any of the 3 relocated businesses that fails to comply with any provision of their Cooperation Letter, to force their compliance. Kelty concluded: "Unless EDC gives me a commitment, in a letter in writing, by next week, saying that their legal department will take legal action to back these letters up, this is as useless as Mayor Bloomberg's promises."

NYCEDC diplomatically pointed out that NYCEDC may not be legally entitled to compel relocated businesses – by suing them – to comply with provisions of the Cooperation Letters. And the business owners appeared insulted, that Kelty is envisioning future circumstances in which NYCEDC must sue the businesses.

After further discussion, Kelty ultimately requested that NYCEDC provide a letter signed by NYCEDC President Seth Pinsky, assuring CB7 that NYCEDC will be responsible for contacting enforcement agencies in the event that relocated businesses do not abide by the terms of the Cooperation Letters that they have signed.

The Queens Borough Board reportedly is scheduled to vote on this matter during its meeting on Monday at 5:30P.M. If the Borough Board approves, the 3 businesses still will not take title to the College Point properties until their closing dates with NYCEDC, which have not yet been scheduled and are not expected to occur until several months from now.

Meanwhile, why the relocation of 2 other approved businesses is not proceeding is unknown. And above all, there is no plan whatsoever to relocate the overwhelming majority of 250 additional Willets Point businesses.