Master Index of Archived Threads


Wallace Mathews and the chop shops

metsguyinmichigan Mar 18 2008 08:10 AM

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spwally185617932mar18,0,2998662.column?track=rss He's got another column bemoaning that the chop shops in the iron triagle will likely be evicted. I know he's beaten this drum before and is fueled by being an idioit and MFY love, but this is getting beyond silly. I like how he says the city wants some "Camden Yards thing" -- LIKE THAT'S BAD???? Just don't get it.

AG/DC Mar 18 2008 08:20 AM

I agree with him on this one. The place didn't become an eyesore by itself. City services and regulatory authorities pass the place by for two generations or more and people are demonized and disposessed for making whatever living they can out of the place. Take a visit to Baltimore some time. The place is turning into the chop shops of tomorrow.

seawolf17 Mar 18 2008 08:25 AM

In defense of Wally, he doesn't say "Camden Yards situation," the owner of one of the business does. And I'd be upset if I was being forced out/priced out also.

metsguyinmichigan Mar 18 2008 08:41 AM

Good points, and I stand corrected. But having been to ballparks surrounded by neat shops and restaurants and things to do, it would sure be nice to see that around Shea.

seawolf17 Mar 18 2008 08:45 AM

Totally agree.

AG/DC Mar 18 2008 08:47 AM

If the city would have given them the streetlights, running water, pavement, and sewers that they were entitled to, the neighborhood might have evolved without the city pulling an eminent domain seizure. But, somehow, we're constitutionally entitled to Chili's.

86-Dreamer Mar 18 2008 08:59 AM

I hate agreeing with Matthews on anything, but I do in this case. Those businesses have a right to exist and it would be a gross misuse of eminent domain to take them down in favor of nice looking shops and restaurants. There are plenty of great ethnic places within easy walking distance or subway of Shea - I wish Mets and city would figure out a way to embrace those existing businesses.

soupcan Mar 18 2008 09:02 AM

86-Dreamer wrote: There are plenty of great ethnic places within easy walking distance or subway of Shea That's very true - some really good Korean restaurants in Flushing that don't get nearly enough traffic from Shea patrons.

attgig Mar 21 2008 04:30 AM

http://current.com/items/87589751_willets_point_behind_the_curbline

AG/DC Mar 21 2008 07:23 AM

Go Peter Vallone. It's about time somebody took the threat of the Dutch seriously.

MFS62 Mar 27 2008 08:34 AM

If they really want to clean up the trash in the City they should ask Wallace Matthews (and Bill Madden) to leave. Later

soupcan Mar 27 2008 09:20 AM

Okay - I watched that video and yes, it is well-produced, compelling and sincere. Those business owners have been there for years and own the property. Fine. In that 16 minute plus video however it isn't until the lst 60 seconds or so that they really get to the crux of the issue. It's the business owners themselves who want to reap the benefits of the money that Citifield and an improved Willets Point will bring. Most of the video centers on the multi-generational businesses and how unfair the City has been in not providing basic services. They're right. 100%. The City should have addressed those issues long ago and the business owners are right to feel abused. The City (and the Wilpons) are financing the stadium and the resulting economic boost that it is expected to bring to the area. As a reward they want to develop that property. I get that. It is unfair. But the business owners wouldn't be so up in arms if they didn't think that there was a financial windfall coming their way either. They speak about the perfect location, how their great-grandfathers started their companies, but in reality they want to benefit from the increased value of the property instead of the City. I agree that the business owners should be the ones that reap the benefits but let's be honest about it and cool the heart-string tugging. Find a way to make it work for all parties involved. If the stadium wasn't being built, that property would not be increasing in value. The City/ Wilpons should be able to gain from the investment they are putting forth.

Valadius Mar 27 2008 09:25 AM

Why have I not realized before that Peter Vallone has a vague resemblance to William Shatner?

AG/DC Mar 27 2008 09:29 AM

soupcan wrote: But the business owners wouldn't be so up in arms if they didn't think that there was a financial windfall coming their way either. I think they'd still be upset about the prospect of eminent domain hanging over their heads.

soupcan Mar 27 2008 09:34 AM

But the eminent domain wouldn't be an issue if a new stadium wasn't being built and there weren't (wasn't?) all this money involved.

Valadius Mar 27 2008 09:38 AM

Here's what I don't understand - granted, I'm only 21, so I haven't been around long enough to understand the many facets of this particular issue - but why the hell can't they build a freaking sewer already? Who's their congressman?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 27 2008 09:44 AM

]Most of the video centers on the multi-generational businesses and how unfair the City has been in not providing basic services. They're right. 100%. The City should have addressed those issues long ago and the business owners are right to feel abused. Not really. The fact that the land is unimproved sort of a red herring. I mean, the owners chose to set up shop where there were no sewers or paved roads. To listen to their basic argument now, they'd be perfectly happy to continue operating under those conditions. And really the whole "taking" aspect is kind of a dramatic interpretation too. It's not like the city comes in with guns blazing, padlocks the buildings and throws them out on their butts. What they're paid to relocate would be decided upon by a third party who would assess fair value, and should make them all wealthy. The city will also help them move in terms of site selection and streamlining approvals and so on which would be difficult for any biz to do alone. So each biz owner there ought to come out OK, provided their business is OK. It's not like they're evicting single mothers from rent-controlled buildings and letting them fend for themselves. (shhh) several have already expressed approval of new sites offered them in College Point (shhh) The overarching question is the purpose of it all, but I think generally, "highest and best" use for waterfront property alongside a magnificent public park and a new stadium probably isn't industrial businesses on unimproved land.

AG/DC Mar 27 2008 09:46 AM

soupcan wrote: But the eminent domain wouldn't be an issue if a new stadium wasn't being built and there weren't (wasn't?) all this money involved. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Or why it should be implied that they're particularly merecenary. They've made their property work despite the denial of city services. They didn't build the stadium. They're entitled to their property and the profits they can make from it. If that's from the revenues of their business, fine. If that's from the appreciation of the property, fine. Their rights are still the same. Who's more mercenary --- the one's who want to collect on the return of their property or the city who wants to sieze somebody else's property and collect? They're taxpaying business not getting treating equally. That's all there is.

AG/DC Mar 27 2008 09:56 AM

Luchbucket is married to a city planner, isn't he?

soupcan Mar 27 2008 10:13 AM

I agree that in a perfect and fair world, the business owners should be the beneficiaries of the increase in their property value. I think eminent domain should not be applied here and the only reason it is being threatened is because of the expected increased value of the property. The increased value of the property will be a direct result of the new stadium being built thanks to the entities that have financed that project. Lets assume that before the financing was in place for the stadium that there were more than a few backroom deals in place that stated that should the monies be put forth to finance this project, there will be other sources of revenue that would allow thhose monies (and more) to be recouped. Financing the stadium would be a good investment. That 'agreement' in place, finacing is provided, staddium gets built, property values increase. Again in a perfect world the current owners should benefit, but without those initial agreements, there would be no stadium and no property value increase. I'm also assuming that the City has made offers to these business owners already and that those offers have been rebuffed because the property owners know that the value will increase dramatically once the stadium is built. Eminent Domain is the City's threat to take the offer or else. What if the City makes a better offer to these guys for the property taking into account the increased value of the property. Maybe they already have and these guys are holding out for more. Again - I am 100% on the side of the owners here and think the City should give them the sewers and basic services they want and leave them the hell alone. I'm just trying to determine what the reality is though and think of a solution that would benefit all involved. Just don't talk about how your grandfather founded the business and the location is second-to-none. Its all about the Benjamins. Be honest about it. OE: Didn't see Lunchables response 'til just now. Not surprised.

AG/DC Mar 27 2008 10:32 AM

]Its all about the Benjamins. Be honest about it. That's fair enough.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 27 2008 10:47 AM

]OE: Didn't see Lunchables response 'til just now. Not surprised. Not surprised by what? You're a business owner, right? Under what conditions would you locate your biz in a site without paved roads or sewers?

soupcan Mar 27 2008 10:54 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not surprised by what? You're a business owner, right? Under what conditions would you locate your biz in a site without paved roads or sewers? Not surprised by all of this : ](What they're paid to relocate would be decided upon by a third party who would assess fair value, and should make them all wealthy. The city will also help them move in terms of site selection and streamlining approvals and so on which would be difficult for any biz to do alone. So each biz owner there ought to come out OK, provided their business is OK. It's not like they're evicting single mothers from rent-controlled buildings and letting them fend for themselves. (shhh) several have already expressed approval of new sites offered them in College Point (shhh) The overarching question is the purpose of it all, but I think generally, "highest and best" use for waterfront property alongside a magnificent public park and a new stadium probably isn't industrial businesses on unimproved land.