Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets Mall

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 03 2012 07:05 AM

Can't wait to shop at Victor Diaz's Secret. Mets owners close to deal with city to build mall at Willets Point Businesses in grubby area next to Citi Field object [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mets-owners-close-deal-city-build-mall-willets-point-article-1.1071635#ixzz1toMoxAtb The owners of the cash-challenged Mets are close to a deal with the city to build a mall at Willets Point over the objections of existing businesses in the grubby area next to Citi Field, sources said Wednesday. Fred and Jeff Wilpon and Saul Katz will join forces with Related Cos. on the retail component of the redevelopment plan. Word that the Wilpons and their partner won the bid surfaced soon after the city withdrew eminent domain proceedings to take over property in the so-called Iron Triangle of auto-body shops and factories. Willets Point United, a group that opposes the city overhaul, said it was a foregone conclusion the Mets would be chosen for the first phase of redevelopment, calling the bidding process “a dog-and-pony show.” Coalition leader Jerry Antonacci said that if the city refiles for eminent domain, “they’ll have another fight on their hands.” “The whole process has been underhanded and shady,” he complained. The Wilpons’ firm, Sterling Equities, and Related Cos. had no comment. Sterling recently settled a 15-month battle with the trustee in the Bernie Madoff case, agreeing to pay back $162 million in profits from investments with the Ponzi schemer. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/met ... z1toMhPIhr

Ceetar May 03 2012 07:07 AM Re: Mets Mall

exciting. Maybe we can get a solid craft beer bar in there for pre/post game drinks better than McFaddens.

metirish May 03 2012 07:08 AM Re: Mets Mall

Willets Point United now playing in the auto trade flushing league.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 07:18 AM Re: Mets Mall

I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting."

Ceetar May 03 2012 07:29 AM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting." It is when I can imagine a nice bar in there. Plus, it's a symbol of replacing wild dogs, flood potholes, and what not with something a little bit more aesthetically pleasing.

themetfairy May 03 2012 07:38 AM Re: Mets Mall

I'm in favor of places to hang out before and after games.

Mets – Willets Point May 03 2012 08:48 AM Re: Mets Mall

I've long thought that a row of restaurants/bars/hang-outs along Roosevelt Avenue would be the most practical location. And the Mets already own the land they'd just have to build over a small strip of the parking lot.

Ceetar May 03 2012 09:00 AM Re: Mets Mall

Mets – Willets Point wrote: I've long thought that a row of restaurants/bars/hang-outs along Roosevelt Avenue would be the most practical location. And the Mets already own the land they'd just have to build over a small strip of the parking lot. yes, that would be pretty awesome.

A Boy Named Seo May 03 2012 09:10 AM Re: Mets Mall

I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters.

Benjamin Grimm May 03 2012 09:11 AM Re: Mets Mall

Don't forget Hicks and Sticks.

metirish May 03 2012 09:24 AM Re: Mets Mall

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters. lol Lee Mazzilli's Tanning Salon

Mets – Willets Point May 03 2012 09:50 AM Re: Mets Mall

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters. And finish up with a frozen yogurt at Strawberry.

metsguyinmichigan May 03 2012 10:32 AM Re: Mets Mall

It would be neat of they could have a Wrigleyville kind of thing!

themetfairy May 03 2012 10:56 AM Re: Mets Mall

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It would be neat of they could have a Wrigleyville kind of thing! Exactly!

SteveJRogers May 03 2012 12:27 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting." It is when I can imagine a nice bar in there. Plus, it's a symbol of replacing wild dogs, flood potholes, and what not with something a little bit more aesthetically pleasing. True, but compare a mall to what was first being proposed back when the redevelopment of WP was first discussed. The Wilpons started with dreams of their very own faux Brooklyn ballyard neighborhood, Wrigleyville or Yawkey Way, or Jerome Ave, and with a prospective sporting arena to perhaps lure the Islanders/Nets/a soccer team to Flushing (the latter probably was more of a pipe dream, but would have fit in with the bars, shops, restaurants and hotels that were the centerpieces of the plans) and now, just a shopping mall? [youtube]gFAT8_5hPWA[/youtube] Yeah...no. Kind of would rather see the rows and rows of chop shops than a building with grossly expensive merchandise gets sold, even if you put a Target or Best Buy in there.

Vic Sage May 03 2012 12:44 PM Re: Mets Mall

as much as i'd like a nice place to go for a reasonably priced beer and/or decent meal in the CitiField area, before and after games, i don't think i have a "right" to it over the interests of property and business owners currently there. Seizing neighboring property so the Mets can build a mall is an abuse of govtl power. The exercise of "eminent domain" should be a last-ditch strategy for creation of necessary civic works (roads and railways, utilities, public safety), not a first strategy to seize private property and sell it to other private interests (or provide undue leverage to force the sale) to improve shopping options in an area. In addition, extending the principles of "E.D." to such an extent will result in unjust enrichment for businesses with govt'l contacts (i.e., lobbying money) and is a practice highly susceptible to corruption. If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 12:49 PM Re: Mets Mall

I'd only change that by rephrasing "highly susceptible to corruption" as "highly susceptible to corruption." Sometimes the system can be so conducive to corruption that we no longer recognize it for what it is.

batmagadanleadoff May 03 2012 12:54 PM Re: Mets Mall

Vic Sage wrote: If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary. I'd support your proposal even if the appropriation doesn't get approved.

Ceetar May 03 2012 12:59 PM Re: Mets Mall

I'd only question why if it's so highly susceptible to corruption, why hasn't it happened yet. Even this report says it's not official. The desire to take over that area has been there for a while. I remember eminent domain abuse signs up there back before Citi Field was even done. And I know the plan to develop the area goes back further than that. I have very very little sympathy for the shop owners there amongst the wild dogs and whatever rackets they're running.

Mets – Willets Point May 03 2012 01:00 PM Re: Mets Mall

Vic Sage wrote: as much as i'd like a nice place to go for a reasonably priced beer and/or decent meal in the CitiField area, before and after games, i don't think i have a "right" to it over the interests of property and business owners currently there. Seizing neighboring property so the Mets can build a mall is an abuse of govtl power. The exercise of "eminent domain" should be a last-ditch strategy for creation of necessary civic works (roads and railways, utilities, public safety), not a first strategy to seize private property and sell it to other private interests (or provide undue leverage to force the sale) to improve shopping options in an area. In addition, extending the principles of "E.D." to such an extent will result in unjust enrichment for businesses with govt'l contacts (i.e., lobbying money) and is a practice highly susceptible to corruption. If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary. This. And as I noted, a better location for this kind of development right near the main road/subway stop/parking lot is already in possession of the Mets.

metsguyinmichigan May 03 2012 01:07 PM Re: Mets Mall

I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up. And I think the mall is step 1, with other things to follow.

Vic Sage May 03 2012 01:09 PM Re: Mets Mall

I have very very little sympathy for the shop owners there amongst the wild dogs and whatever rackets they're running. that's no more relevant than sympathy for nazis is necessary to defend the 1st Amendment. It's about a principle to limit governmental intervention in private rights.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 01:10 PM Re: Mets Mall

I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up. Problem is to me that proper compensation be set by the free market. Not by the whim of the landgrabber. The city doesn't need to sieze private property to "clean the place up." On laws that check eminent domain: ... can such laws trump the Supreme Court decision? ... aren't laws by states and municipalities checking the powers of states and municipalities rather toothless --- especially if the courts roll over as they've done?

Vic Sage May 03 2012 01:21 PM Re: Mets Mall Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 03 2012 01:35 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up. And I think the mall is step 1, with other things to follow. yeah, and i have no problem with replacing your home with a cool roller coaster. Ya know it ain't hard to get along with SOMEbody else's troubles, they don't make ya lose any sleep at night, just as long as fate is out there, busting somebody else's bubbles, everything's gonna be alright, and everything is gonna be alright. Yes, the city would probably do better financially, and on that basis, it will probably be upheld legally (that's why a state law is going to be necessary). And i'm sure it's just a coincidence that Sterling will be the major beneficiary of that change, right? And i'm sure that a bunch of small businesses should be ended so that Sterling can pocket those profits, right? You want to characterize these businesses as eyesores conducting illegal activity but that's an accusation unsupported by any particular facts, because, were it true, the police could shut those places down WITHOUT "E.D." so its just rumor and reputation, because its a poorly maintained area... and guess who has poorly maintained the property? NYC, that's who. So they fail to maintain roads, sewers, lighting, and then turn around and condemn it and hand it over to private corp for a mall. And you're COOL WITH THAT because you don't like the way it looks and would prefer a Best Buy and a TGIFriday's?

Benjamin Grimm May 03 2012 01:22 PM Re: Mets Mall

I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse.

Vic Sage May 03 2012 01:24 PM Re: Mets Mall

can such laws trump the Supreme Court decision? no, but the SC has given wide latitude to the states to decide for themselves what a valid "public use" is, and some states have taken them up on it by limiting ED. are those laws "toothless"? We'll see, but in theory no more than any other state laws not otherwise in conflict with federal law.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 03 2012 01:29 PM Re: Mets Mall Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 03 2012 01:31 PM

I'm not an ED fan either (and they are not pursuing that route now anyway). And I'm sure Related Cos and Wilpons are filthy businesses themselves. And I don't want a fake mall next to the Stadium. And I'd bet any Wilpon-backed building will probably be ugly itself. But the Triangle is a mess because the businesses there built on unimproved land. And those who have moved since this thing started weren't forced to but got pretty sweet offers to set up in nicer dumps in College Point.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 01:31 PM Re: Mets Mall

I like this topic.

Ceetar May 03 2012 01:36 PM Re: Mets Mall

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse. which as I understand it has been the case so far. There was a blog about it with links but it's gone.

Vic Sage May 03 2012 01:39 PM Re: Mets Mall

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ...But the Triangle is a mess because the businesses there built on unimproved land. And those who have moved since this thing started weren't forced to but got pretty sweet offers to set up in nicer dumps in College Point. Agreed, but the city shouldn't then be able to turn around and condemn the property because THEY THEMSELVES failed to ever improve the land. And businesses that get sweet offers and move is how this SHOULD work. they shouldn't be extorted by Sterling, saying "either sell it to me at a low price, or the city will condemn it, pay you the minimum per acre value for this neighborhood, and give it to me for a buck cuz i'm a developer that owns their ass and they just want more tax money for the area anyway."

Ceetar May 03 2012 01:44 PM Re: Mets Mall

okay, hang on a bit. For one, they withdrew the ED thing. So does this mean the City already has the land required for the mall? Is this article basically residents bitching that they don't like what's going up next door? well too bad! But who knows, maybe the roads get fixed if the city's building a mall nearby. And sidewalks too probably. And maybe they'll start ticketing those cars you leave everywhere, and install parking meters...

Edgy MD May 03 2012 01:45 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse. which as I understand it has been the case so far. There was a blog about it with links but it's gone. Well, as long as the eminent domain card is there to be played, any deal made is/was under coercion (extra-Constitutional coercion, to my thinking), whether your or I think it's a sweet price or not.

Ceetar May 03 2012 01:56 PM Re: Mets Mall

I mean, their were quotes about the sellers being happy with it. But sure. of course, eminent domain IS legal, no matter what your political stance is on it.

Benjamin Grimm May 03 2012 01:59 PM Re: Mets Mall

Well, just because something is legal that doesn't mean it can't be abused. I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business.

Ceetar May 03 2012 02:07 PM Re: Mets Mall

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, just because something is legal that doesn't mean it can't be abused. I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business. political hypocrisy? well, that'd be a first.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 02:17 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar wrote: I mean, their were quotes about the sellers being happy with it. But sure. of course, eminent domain IS legal, no matter what your political stance is on it. And plenty of quotes about the holdouts being miserable. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean folks have no grounds to object to it. And yes, it was declared legal as sanctioned by a thin majority of the court in a strictly partisan ruling --- decided by the left wing of the Court, despite a chunk of the left wing of the forum here (at least as represented by Willets and Sage) dissenting, and at least one rep of the right (MGiM) assenting. Part of why I like the conversation --- it doesn't split on partisan lines. I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business. I don't think this is going to be as easy an hypocrisy trap for the right to walk into as all that.

Ceetar May 03 2012 02:22 PM Re: Mets Mall

I like the conversation more along the lines of what it's going to do for me personally. a Mets Mall. Bars, restaurants. a great place to watch out of town games after the Mets game to see how the division races are going. etc.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 02:25 PM Re: Mets Mall

That's disappointing. Funny how this is reported at the exact same time as the city is withdrawing the E.D. card.

Ceetar May 03 2012 02:30 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: That's disappointing. Funny how this is reported at the exact same time as the city is withdrawing the E.D. card. Right, that's what I asked above. Where are they building this? Did they get enough via E.D. or is this somehow undeveloped City land? or what? and I don't think it's disappointing that I don't find political debates interesting. I tend to find them full of too much yelling and insisting that one's world view is better than another.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 02:34 PM Re: Mets Mall

It's disappointing to me. And nobody was yelling. And you sure had enough of a enough of a taste for political debate when it involved the Catholic Church.

Ceetar May 03 2012 02:46 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: It's disappointing to me. And nobody was yelling. And you sure had enough of a enough of a taste for political debate when it involved the Catholic Church. was talking in general, not about this issue. yes, sometimes something piques my interest. I usually regret getting involved. I was including myself in the insisting one's world view is the 'correct' world view. I think eminent domain has a place, and I'm not sold on this not being one of them. I don't believe that the business owners are completely innocent in the whole 'the city never takes care of us!' angle and suspect they've enjoyed that freedom whether it be the ability to treat the streets like a parking lot or something else.

metsguyinmichigan May 03 2012 02:53 PM Re: Mets Mall

Why are we assuming that chop shop people won't get a fair price? And what is a fair price for a corrugated metal shack on dirt with wild dogs and used car parts of questionable origin? Are the chop shop people being unreasonable? It's hard to imagine that they haven't been offered money in the past. Do they have unrealistic expectations of how much they can get for those lots?

Ceetar May 03 2012 02:55 PM Re: Mets Mall

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Why are we assuming that chop shop people won't get a fair price? And what is a fair price for a corrugated metal shack on dirt with wild dogs and used car parts of questionable origin? Are the chop shop people being unreasonable? It's hard to imagine that they haven't been offered money in the past. Do they have unrealistic expectations of how much they can get for those lots? I think they're being stubborn. Dunno if that's right or wrong, but i'm not sure what their end game is. I suspect a mall and regular traffic in the area won't favor them (which is why they're bitching about it I guess)

Edgy MD May 03 2012 02:57 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar again embraces political discourse. I don't assume anything. I'm sure they're driving as hard a bargain as they can get. My objection is to existence of the eminent domain right at all --- which compromises the bargaining position by it's nature. I also object to their position being compromised by the city's deliberate neglect of the area, and that neglect being definitively held against the property owners.

metsguyinmichigan May 03 2012 03:01 PM Re: Mets Mall

It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. I also wonder if there is someone in the background. Is this really a little rag tag group of chop shop owners?

Edgy MD May 03 2012 03:15 PM Re: Mets Mall

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you? I really think concerns over whether the property owners are saintly or greedy is a red herring.

metsguyinmichigan May 03 2012 03:20 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you? Not at all. But if you know your brother CAN punch you, you don't push him to do that, right? If you know the city can use things like ED, seems like you get what you can get because if they use ED or another process, you're probably not going to get as much and it will cost you a bundle to fight it.

Gwreck May 03 2012 03:22 PM Re: Mets Mall

themetfairy wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: It would be neat of they could have a Wrigleyville kind of thing! Exactly! This might've been possible if they built the park in an existing neighborhood. I have a hard time seeing anything close to Wrigleyville materializing between those highways.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 03:48 PM Re: Mets Mall

metsguyinmichigan wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you? Not at all. But if you know your brother CAN punch you, you don't push him to do that, right? If you know the city can use things like ED, seems like you get what you can get because if they use ED or another process, you're probably not going to get as much and it will cost you a bundle to fight it. Yeah, sure. I guess you disagree, but I think that stinks.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 03 2012 04:01 PM Re: Mets Mall

I like casino amenities. I like gambling on occasion. Once in a while, I'm even able to take a sort of delight in the weird, fakey aesthetics of the Vegas pastiche. I rarely-- if ever-- feel compelled to root for the house, though, regardless of how scummy the guy sitting at the 4 a.m. poker table seems. [I feel even less compelled to root for them when they're pursuing legally-questionable and morally-repellent means to achieve their tawdry-but-expensive ends.]

Ceetar May 03 2012 05:52 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar again embraces political discourse. I don't assume anything. I'm sure they're driving as hard a bargain as they can get. My objection is to existence of the eminent domain right at all --- which compromises the bargaining position by it's nature. I also object to their position being compromised by the city's deliberate neglect of the area, and that neglect being definitively held against the property owners. guess I have no willpower here either. I probably should just stop, but hey, I've had a beer or three.. I ask this totally without judgement, but do you think the neglect of the area was _deliberate_? What would've prompted that? Why would they city decide "eh, they don't need roads paved or traffic signs.." Did they used to maintain it, back in say 65, and stop? Is that neglect being held against the owners? Because it seems like they're just as much twisted it to their advantage too. Using that neglect as evidence of a specific vendetta against them. But I imagine city oversight leads to parking laws, opposite side of the street parking, street sweeping (all evident on the other side of Shea/Citi where the roads are also not great) maybe even parking meters and what not. Does not having those things benefit the shops who leave cars parked wherever for however long they feel like? Basically treating the streets as an extension of the parking lot? It's pretty obvious that if those roads were normal city roads Mets fans AND commuters would park on those streets all the time.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 07:11 PM Re: Mets Mall

You ask, but you've already drawn your conclusions no matter which way I respond. I don't know how this keeps turning on the presumed character of the owners and operators of the Iron Triangle.

Ceetar May 03 2012 07:12 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: You ask, but you've already drawn your conclusions no matter which way I respond. I don't know how this keeps turning on the presumed character of the owners and operators of the Iron Triangle. well, you have..

Fman99 May 03 2012 07:30 PM Re: Mets Mall

I appreciate any girl who's showing off her triangle, iron or otherwise. Wait, what?

Edgy MD May 03 2012 08:10 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ?

Ceetar May 03 2012 08:20 PM Re: Mets Mall

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ? drawn conclusions. I'm not sure what you think i've concluded since there really isn't anything to conclude.. I don't really have a hard line opinion on eminent domain.

Edgy MD May 03 2012 08:29 PM Re: Mets Mall

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ? drawn conclusions. About what? The Constitution? Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure what you think i've concluded since there really isn't anything to conclude Whoah, that's heavy, man. You are so totally baked.

Benjamin Grimm May 17 2012 06:56 PM Re: Mets Mall

Associated Press wrote: NEW YORK — A new deal between the Bloomberg administration and a group of developers including the owners of the Mets calls for the remediation and redevelopment of a 20-acre area of the blighted Willets Point neighborhood next to Citi Field, adding retail and ultimately new housing in a time frame that extends past an initial proposed 10-year plan, a person familiar with the agreement told The Associated Press. The person requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an announcement. Under the agreement, the developers, Related Companies and Sterling Equities, would clean up the area and construct retail stores, including a mall in the Queens neighborhood. Then, no later than 2025, they would start construction on a mixed-use component that would include housing and measure anywhere from 1.3 million square feet up to 4.5 million square feet. The founders of Sterling Equities are Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the owners of the Mets. The redevelopment of the area, currently populated by auto-repair shops and junkyards and lacking infrastructure as basic as sewers, has long been a goal of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's. In 2007, he announced a 10-year initiative that would bring homes and commercial space to the area. The new agreement extends past that period, but the person speaking to the AP said that by the original end point of 2017, much would have been done including the vital first step of cleaning the area up and construction of some of the retail spaces. The person said that in conversations with potential developers, it was made clear to the city that the way to make the area somewhere that people wanted to live was by building the retail and other commercial space initially, that "first you have to make it into a destination that people get used to visiting. Then over time you can convince people to come and live there." The person speaking the AP said remediation could start in the area in early 2014.

Ceetar May 17 2012 06:59 PM Re: Mets Mall

Then, no later than 2025, they would start construction on a mixed-use component that would include housing and measure anywhere from 1.3 million square feet up to 4.5 million square feet. No rush or anything. Hell, Ruben Tejada will probably be retired by then.