Master Index of Archived Threads


eff Wilpon: Land Thief

batmagadanleadoff Aug 13 2013 11:33 AM

City must reject plan for mall at Willets Point In 2008, the Bloomberg administration declared 62 acres of property in Flushing to the east of Citi Field called Willets Point, on which there were more than 200 small auto businesses as well as others, a blight. Auto repair shops in and of themselves cannot be considered a blight, much like a factory that manufactures glue. To the extent there was blight, it was caused by the city, which for decades collected sewer rent from the owners, notwithstanding that there were no sewers, and collected real estate and other taxes without repairing the area’s infrastructure. The Willets Point plan approved in 2008 was clear and unambiguous. The city would acquire 62 acres in Willets Point through the voluntary sale by property owners or if need be through eminent domain. A private developer would construct on the site retail stores, office buildings, a convention center, a school and luxury housing with a portion set aside for affordable housing. The developer would be required to remove whatever contamination existed on a 23-acre portion of the site. There was no mention of a 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall at Citi Field or connection to Citi Field. Bearing in mind that of all the developers interested in the plan, it was only the New York Mets and its Related Cos. that held the lease at Citi Field. Bloomberg saw to it that it would be selected as the developer because what was really on the horizon was a huge shopping mall at Citi Field. That became evident in 2013 when the Mets and Related Cos. sought what they described as a minor change to the 2008 plan. All they wanted was the right to construct on the 23-acre area a parking lot. A parking lot in and of itself would indeed be minor and probably not subject to much opposition. The claim the amendment sought was minor and, if not an outright lie, a hoax. The change was major. The reason for a parking lot at Willets Point was to enable the Mets to move its parking lot at Citi Field to Willets Point and on the vacated Citi Field parking lot construct a 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall. The mall would have nothing to do with Willets Point or the plan approved in 2008, and on that basis the amendment sought should be rejected. But there exists a variety of other cogent reasons for a rejection: 1. The Willets Point property the city has so far costs tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, will cost much more in the future and will be sold to the Mets and its companies for $1. 2. The city will subsidize the Mets and its companies to the tune of $99 million. 3. After construction of the parking area at Willets Point, the highest priority will be the 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall. 4. The housing, which was a significant part of the 2008 plan, without which it is doubtful it would have been approved, is not only given the least priority but will not be built until 2025, if ever. I say “if ever” because housing will not be built until there is in place traffic ramps to accommodate the huge increase in traffic that will ensue from the development. The only vehicular arteries that can service the area are the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, Roosevelt Avenue and Northern Boulevard — arteries that are choked to capacity and cannot in any way be increased in size. So-called ramps are akin to the infamous bridge to nowhere. We will have a huge shopping mall and some commercial areas, but no housing. 5. Does Queens need a huge mall that will decimate the many small businesses on Roosevelt Avenue and Northern Boulevard and in downtown Flushing, as well as the malls in Rego Park and on 20th Avenue? No. 6. The fact that Borough President Helen Marshall has approved the amendment is meaningless, given her history of considering the real estate moguls and the wealthy her true constituents, and that Community Boards 3 and 7 considered the amendment. CB 7 approved it 22-18 while CB 3 rejected it 30-1 with one abstention, The result was 48 against and 23 in favor. Marshall refused to consider the CB 3 vote, an example of ineptitude. 7. Since a vote to approve the parking lot on the 23-acre Willets Point site does mean a go-ahead for the 1.4-million-square-foot shopping mall at Citi Field, another reason to reject it is the fact that in so doing a mockery is being made of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure principles. ULURP was enacted to make sure there was transparency in land use changes with community input. It is to be noted that the Mets and Related Cos. have pursued ULURP only with regard to a parking area at Willets Point. There is no ULURP pending with regard to a huge mall. The Mets claim that because of their lease they can do whatever it wishes and the community has no say in the matter. Furthermore, Citi Field and its parking areas are on Flushing Meadows Corona Park land. Again, the Mets claim that, by virtue of its lease, it can ignore the fact that a change from a parking lot on park property to a mall can be ignored and that it is not required to replace parkland taken for a mall. These positions are absurd yet consistent with Bloomberg’s partnership with big business and the public be damned because he has gone along with the Mets’ position. A mayor who cares about transparency in government would reject these claims and, if need be, litigate the matter. Suffice to say, Bloomberg, a foe of government transparency, will do nothing. Ultimately, the decision will rest with the City Council. It remains to be seen if the majority of the Council will be true to their constituents. Given the dictatorial manner reminiscent of the banana republics of old, Bloomberg has pursued this matter for the benefit of his friend Fred Wilpon, the multibillionaire owner of the Mets. It comes as no surprise that eviction notices were sent to the small business owners (“Auto shops rail against city plan at Willets Point,” July 19). At eviction proceedings, the court always takes into account whether eviction should be held in abeyance until the evictee can find other suitable space for its business. Given Bloomberg’s lack of diligence in finding space for the shop owners, eviction should be postponed for at least two years. Benjamin Haber Flushing ©2013 Community Newspaper Group http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2013 ... _09_q.html

Lefty Specialist Aug 13 2013 11:47 AM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

As much as I hate the chop shops, this whole thing has been completely sleazy from the git-go.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 13 2013 11:49 AM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

That's a letter to the editor. I wonder if the author is an interested party. I don't know how a mall, especially one that attached to a baseball stadium, would decimate the small businesses on Roosevelt, Northern and in Downtown Flushing. Aren't those different types of businesses attracting different types of customers? Is Fred trying to build a Roosevelt Field type of mall, or something aimed at people going to ballgames, creating a Wrigleyville type of place? (Granted, the Wrigleyville places are organic and arise over decades, not plunked down in one fell swoop.)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 13 2013 11:59 AM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

Concerned interest or no, his points bear fact-checking well. There are a couple of malls in the area already, within a ten-minute walk of the stadium, and-- as someone who drives them several times a week, at varying times of day-- traffic along the Van Wyck/LIE/Grand Central-- not to mention College Point Blvd, Roosevelt Ave, and the other arterial roads-- are already difficult virtually every time of day, and nigh-impassable during rush hours/game times. Aside from the fact that it's been there forever, Wrigleyville works because it isn't JUST bars-- it's an actual honest-to-Goodness neighborhood.

Ceetar Aug 13 2013 12:26 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

metsguyinmichigan wrote: That's a letter to the editor. I wonder if the author is an interested party. I don't know how a mall, especially one that attached to a baseball stadium, would decimate the small businesses on Roosevelt, Northern and in Downtown Flushing. Aren't those different types of businesses attracting different types of customers? Is Fred trying to build a Roosevelt Field type of mall, or something aimed at people going to ballgames, creating a Wrigleyville type of place? (Granted, the Wrigleyville places are organic and arise over decades, not plunked down in one fell swoop.) Yes, but you don't get a Wrigleyville, at least these days, without some attempt at it. But I doubt anyone is trying to recreate that exactly anyway. What they're trying to do is set it up so Citi Field is in the Center of the developments, rather than off to one side. I like that, as long as the mall itself respects Shea's footprint. (At the very least. Ideally said mall's entrance would be a grand atrium over Shea with Mets statues situated at proper locations) That letter is very circular. His/Her problem is with the eminent domain, not the development proposals or the mall or whatever side-arguments he makes to lend weight to his statements. Every year people come out that claim the businesses are being rushed and forced out. This has been going on for at least as long as Citi Field started, in 2005, if not longer. Stubbornly refusing to believe the City/Citi is eventually going to get that land does not change how long you've known you should GTFO. I can't wait. But I've been saying that for decades.

Edgy MD Aug 13 2013 12:35 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

Ceetar wrote: Yes, but you don't get a Wrigleyville, at least these days, without some attempt at it. I don't believe it's true that that attractive dynamic neighborhoods can no longer occur organically, and must be engineered by the government. And if it is true, I'd like to know where I can sign up to make it not true.

Ceetar Aug 13 2013 01:12 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Yes, but you don't get a Wrigleyville, at least these days, without some attempt at it. I don't believe it's true that that attractive dynamic neighborhoods can no longer occur organically, and must be engineered by the government. And if it is true, I'd like to know where I can sign up to make it not true. shades of gray. The ballpark already exists. it's here and operating. And it's not going to change from chop shops and parking lot without some outside effort. Whether that's Wilpons or an independent collection of businesses deciding to try to buy up space (that's right now not for sale) to open fun bars or restaurants or shops doesn't really matter. But the area, at the very least, needs to be prepared to be developed.

Edgy MD Aug 13 2013 01:24 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

I think it's true that city needs to provide the services they've neglected to provide the neighborhood, and at the same time, enforce municipal codes against local businesses regarding violations that they've looked the other way on. That's true whether the city's process of grabbing the land and flipping it to the Wilpons or whoever goes through or not. And that's not engineering a neighborhood.

Ceetar Aug 13 2013 02:46 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

Edgy MD wrote: I think it's true that city needs to provide the services they've neglected to provide the neighborhood, and at the same time, enforce municipal codes against local businesses regarding violations that they've looked the other way on. That's true whether the city's process of grabbing the land and flipping it to the Wilpons or whoever goes through or not. And that's not engineering a neighborhood. Sure. Providing services (And raising rates for them, as is apt to happen), and enforcing municipal codes would probably drive those guys out of there faster than eminent domain anyway.

d'Kong76 Aug 13 2013 05:57 PM Re: eff Wilpon: Land Thief

I like walking up the Pepsi Porch ramp and looking out at the garages and stuff. It's cool and unique. And if Jeff, et al think it's an eyesore I like it even more. They should build a monorail tour circling the area and call it the Wilpyville Express or something equally corny.