Senator Avella and Advocacy Groups who are challenging the “Willets West” mega-mall proposal completed their oral arguments before Justice Mendoza yesterday

On Wednesday, the lawsuit filed by State Senator Tony Avella, City Club of New York, Queens Civic Congress, several members of Willets Point United Inc., and nearby residents/business owners against the “Willets West” mega-mall proposal was argued before the New York State Supreme Court.

Attorney John Low-Beer argued the matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners.

The lawsuit is challenging the give-away of 47 acres of Queens parkland worth an estimated $ 1 Billion to build the "Willets West" mega-mall adjacent to CitiField. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment to invalidate approvals already granted to the project. In addition, the suit seeks a declaratory judgment for a permanent injunction which would prevent the construction of a megamall on City parkland without respondents having obtained required State legislative authorization and without respondents having obtained any zoning for this un-zoned park area.

During the oral arguments, both parties presented their case, with the City and developers claiming entitlement to the land based on a 1961 law which authorized the construction of Shea Stadium. However, Mr. Low-Beer explained that the 1961 law never granted the defendants complete control over the premises, which is comprised of public park land. 

Following the arguments, Mr. Low-Beer stated, "As they did in their legal papers, yesterday the developers and the City spent a lot of time talking about how great their project was and very little time addressing the legal issues that are before the Court.  We argued that the defendants are brazenly violating State law and the City Charter's land use provisions, and we are confident that the Court will so hold." 

Senator Avella added, “Most of their response, in their argument, had actually nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is that they still have to get the necessary approval from the State Legislature and undergo the City’s land use process before being able to develop on-site. As things stand right now, the developers are illegally taking away parkland and the City is letting them! It’s absurd and I am confident that the Court will agree.”

Mr. Michael Gruen, President of The City Club of New York, stated, “Too often in recent years, the City has acted as if parks exist to generate income rather than to serve the public’s need for places for recreation and relaxation.  A strong body of law called the public trust doctrine is supposed to protect against such abuse by barring any non-park use of park land without the specific consent of the State Legislature.  When the past City administration decided, without legislative approval, to turn over a large portion of the most important park in Queens to private commercial exploitation, the City Club felt it had to act to remind present and future City administrations that parks belong to the people, not to shopping center developers.” 

Marty Kirchner, street organizer with Queens Neighborhoods United, stated:

"As a social justice organization, Queens Neighborhoods United is honored to stand by the many plaintiffs in this lawsuit who would not comprise on such a scandalous parkland give-away. Together with numerous local residents and small business owners, we believe that under no circumstances is this mega-project justified. Not only would the city's largest mall take away precious parkland, but it would significantly diminish the quality of life throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, displacing low-cost housing and reducing the ability of immigrant family-based small businesses to thrive on nearby Roosevelt Avenue." 

Senator Avella concluded, “The bottom line is that this case must be decided on merits. And from what we heard today, the defendants have no explanation as to why they did not follow the law, just that they didn’t. I think their case simply does not make sense.”

Good afternoon,

My name is Geoffrey Croft, president and founder of NYC Park Advocates.

It is truly a sad day in "city planning" when we are talking about a plan that seizes more than 30 acres of public parkland to allow one of the country's largest developers to build the largest mall New York City. 

Sounds inconceivable right?  Just when you thought this administration couldn't get any lower, here we are today. 

And lets not forget the Related Companies and Sterling's original plan for our park -  building a massive casino and retail complex.

Let's be very clear:  The 1961 statute that the city and the applicants are so desperately trying to rely on in order to justify being allowed to develop the public parkland for non-park purposes does not permit a shopping mall, much less a 1.4 million square foot mall.    

Administrative Code 18-118 explicitly states that any monies gained from a temporary lease on the property must go back into the property. Back Into The Property, not line the pockets of Related or Sterling Equity. 

To quote the law directly, the revenue must aid "in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities, and any additions, alterations or improvements thereto, or to the equipment thereof." 

Clearly this is not the case unless the applicant is representing that this is being done to off-set unfortunate investments made by the Wilpons.  Is that the plan?

Clearly the intention of the law was not to allow any project to make a permanent claim on the parkland or its facilities, because the revenue was supposed to fund the property.

The law simply does not authorize the Willets West project. It does not enable use of the parking lot or authorize retail stores - and certainly something that is primarily a shopping mall.

The bill does say "trade and commerce", but that obviously refers to conventions, not stores. Obviously, a shopping mall was never intended as the bill language states.

The park land we are talking about here today for this irresponsible project was never alienated as required under state law nor are they planning to replace it if approved. 

By law, PARKS ARE NOT allowed to be used for such non-park purposes. In fact State law - which our elected officials have taken an oath to uphold - prohibits such commercial development.

If ever there was a poster child for non-park purposes, building the city's largest mall would be it. 

I would also like to point out one of the most disingenuous statements being made today -  language included in your calendar states:

"It would incorporate a development substantially similar to that anticipated and analyzed in the 2008 Willets Point Development Plan Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS), as well as a major entertainment/retail component and parking adjacent to CitiField."

Is that a joke - who wrote that -  the Applicant? The 30 acres of public parkland was NEVER part of the original plan in anyway. In any way and it certainly was never approved by the City Council.  

There is also just no getting round the fact that this 1.4 square foot mall is a totally new project than what was approved by the City Council and City Planning. 

And, as usual, no one is under any illusion that City Planning will do its job and reject such an irresponsible project.  This is nothing but an end run around the law and City Planning will be complicit when you rubber stamp its approval.   

This is public park land and it does NOT belong to Mayor Bloomberg or to Seth Pinsky, the Related Companies or the Wilpons - it belongs to the people of the City of New York. 

If the 30 plus acres of public park land they are attempting to seize for the project are no longer needed for parking ,then it should revert back to its original use. This is what our elected officials should be pushing for and what any legitimate city planning agency would insist on and not, instead, allowing our public spaces to be given away to politically connected developers. 

The proposed giveaway of public park land is being done to sweeten the deal for Related so they have a guaranteed revenue stream "up front"  in order to help them off-set their investments in building the rest of the Willets Point.  

This is disgraceful.   This plan is about greed, pure and simple. It is a nightmare for the residents of Queens in so many ways and for the City's taxpayers at large who are greatly subsidizing this project. 

The corporate welfare must end. 

Thank you.

Geoffrey Croft
NYC Park Advocates
(212) 987-0565
(646) 584-8250 Cell #
[email protected]

NYC Park Advocates Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan watchdog group dedicated to improving public parks, restoring public funding, increasing public recreation programs, expanding open space and accessibility, and achieving the equitable distribution of these vital services in New York City for all. We are the only non-profit park advocacy group dedicated to all City, State and Federal parkland in New York City. For more information please visit us at http://nycparkadvocates.org

There will be a Community Board 7 public hearing this Monday night regarding Willets Point / Willets West mall.  The public is encouraged to testify.  This past Wednesday, the Land Use Committee of CB7 rejected the proposal with a "NO" in a landslide 7-2 vote, but the vote Monday is the one that counts.

What: Community Board 7 full board meeting
Date: Monday, May 13th
Meeting Time: 7:00pm
Place: Union Plaza Care Center, 33-23 Union Street, Flushing, NY 11354
Sign up to speak upon entering.

The application is being portrayed as a "minor amendment to the previously-approved project" -- but it obviously is not. The effect of the amendment is to nearly double the size of the project from 62 acres to 108.9 acres, and to prioritize the construction of a previously undisclosed 1.4 million square foot mall on public parkland that is presently a Citi Field parking lot. If you thought the original Willets Point development was a monstrosity, this is no comparison ...

The Queens Borough President and Community Board were promised a hand in selecting the developer for the project, but they were not consulted before Sterling/Related was chosen by the Bloomberg administration.  If they had been involved, perhaps a proposal that did not take public parkland would have been selected.
 
It also is not likely that the City Council will call up the project, hear testimony and publicly debate it.  Again, the project is being framed as just a "minor amendment to the previously-approved project," but the previously approved plan did not involve a mall, the Mets parking lot, or mapped parkland.
 
Here is an article from this week's Times Ledger newspaper, which reveals that the City and the developers are aware that parkland alienation is involved in this proposal: First Willets plan called for parkland swap.  Here also is a list of alternate proposals rejected by the City that would have spared parkland.

There will be a Community Board 7 full board meeting on Monday night, which will offer an opportunity to address the board about Willets Point / Willets West mall, prior to committee meetings starting.  Please note that Willets Point is not on the agenda, but you may still speak about it during the public participation period.  (The project is expected to be on the agenda for the May 13th meeting, when you may also sign up to speak.)

What: Community Board 7 full board meeting
Date: Monday, April 8th
Meeting Time: 7:00pm
Public participation Time: 9:30pm (but may start earlier)
Place: Union Plaza Care Center, 33-23 Union Street, Flushing, NY 11354
Sign up to speak upon entering.

The first (and perhaps only) committee meeting on the matter will happen this Thursday.  There will be no public participation, but you may observe the discussion about the Willets Point project, which is on the agenda.

What: Community Board 7 buildings and zoning committee hearing
Date: Thursday, April 11th
Time: 7:30pm
Place: Union Plaza Care Center, 33-23 Union Street, Flushing, NY 11354
For observation only - no testimony accepted.

The application is being portrayed as a "minor amendment to the previously-approved project" -- but it obviously is not. The effect of the amendment is to nearly double the size of the project from 62 acres to 108.9 acres, and to prioritize the construction of a previously undisclosed 1.4 million square foot mall on public parkland that is presently a Citi Field parking lot. If you thought the original Willets Point development was a monstrosity, this is no comparison …

The Queens Borough President and Community Board were promised a hand in selecting the developer for the project, but they were not consulted before Sterling/Related was chosen by the Bloomberg administration.  If they had been involved, perhaps a proposal that did not take public parkland would have been selected.
 
It also is not likely that the City Council will call up the project, hear testimony and publicly debate it.  Again, the project is being framed as just a "minor amendment to the previously-approved project," but the previously approved plan did not involve a mall, the Mets parking lot, or mapped parkland.

ZONING RESOLUTION THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Article XII: Special Purpose Districts 
Chapter 4: Special Willets Point District

(2/2/11)
124-17
Special Permit for Cogeneration Power Plant

The Board of Standards and Appeals may permit a combined heat and power cogeneration plant not to exceed 100,000 square feet in #floor area#, provided that:

(a) the power plant is designed to maximize both electric and thermal cogeneration system efficiency to the greatest extent feasible;
(b) a detailed energy analysis is submitted to the Board demonstrating that the system as designed shall operate with maximum efficiency and perform more effectively than a 
traditional, power-purchased-from-grid system; and 
(c) the power plant is designed primarily to serve the #Special Willets Point District#.
In addition, the Board shall refer such application to the Department of Environmental Protection for a report to ensure that the power plant is designed to maximize cogeneration efficiency to the greatest extent feasible and that the system as designed shall operate with maximum efficiency and perform more effectively than a traditional, power-purchased-from-grid system.

The Board may prescribe appropriate conditions or safeguards to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area including safety devices, emissions limits, and the concealment of such #use# with #building# enclosures, landscaping, buffer zones or other methods.

(2/2/11)
124-18
Special Permit for Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Board of Standards and Appeals may permit an enclosed membrane bio-reactor wastewater treatment plant not to exceed 100,000 square feet in #floor area# on a site not to exceed 40,000 square feet in area, provided that the following findings are made:

(a) that in all cases the proposed plant promotes and protects the public health, safety and general welfare; 
(b) the proposed plant shall be adequate for anticipated #development# in the area to be served; 
(c) the proposed plant is designed primarily to serve the #Special Willets Point District#;
(d) the site for such #use# is so located as to minimize the adverse effects on the integrity of existing and future development, and to minimize the interruption of the continuity of retail frontage;
(e) the architectural and landscaping treatment of such #use# shall blend harmoniously with the rest of the area; and
(f) that such #use# shall conform to the performance standards applicable to M1 Districts.
In addition, the Board shall refer such application to the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection for a report to ensure that the site-specific design of the enclosed membrane bio-reactor waste water treatment plant meets all City and State health and effluent standards.

The Board may prescribe appropriate conditions or safeguards to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area including requirements for soundproofing, safety devices, and the concealment of such #use# with #building# enclosures,

Headline from today's New York Post, below.  Amazingly, Sterling Equities and The Related Group proposed a Shinnecock Nation-run casino on city parkland as part of their Willets Point West proposal, and the City hasn't completely ruled out the plan!

Please see stories in today's NY Post, A Walk in the Park and Willets Point United blogs, and see map below:

Just when you thought that it could not get any more outrageous than the CB7 committee meeting re: USTA expansion held last week, along came Tuesday night's meeting of the Queens Housing Coalition, held in Woodside at 57th Street and 39th Avenue, with a special presentation by the attorneys representing the joint venture of Sterling/Related to acquaint the community with the proposed Willets Point / Willets West development and the housing that comes with it (in 2028).

Highlights (and there were many) included attorney Ethan Goodman emphasizing that "our project does not affect any publicly accessible open space that is parkland. We are developing only HERE [points to PowerPoint slide depicting a large parking lot filled with automobiles] and HERE [points to next slide, depicting quonset huts with automotive businesses on 126th Street at Willets Point]. Our project doesn't take away any fields, grass, etc.

And, we're going to remove 100 YEARS' WORTH of contamination at Willets Point."

A key theme of the evening was alleged contamination, with the attorneys emphasizing that Willets Point had been used as an ash dump, with some ash piles having been "90 feet high". (So what?) Attorney Jesse Masyr said "it's beyond any doubt that the area is severely contaminated" – so contaminated that "no one can live there under the present conditions" and "it would be illegal to let anyone live there under the present conditions". To which the sole resident, Joe Ardizzone, came to the microphone and replied: "I'm 80 years old, and I've lived there ever since I was born, with no problem. How bad is it really, then?"

When the attorneys closed their PowerPont with a slide summarizing all of the projects' supporters (mostly housing/developer/chamber of commerce groups), Ardizzone added that a large number of groups also oppose the project – and cited the Queens Civic Congress's vote to oppose and its representation of 100+ civics.

By and large, the audience saw through the attorneys' double-talk. The Queens Housing Coalition trying to put lipstick on this pig, in support of fantasy housing in 2028, was pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves.

City Council Member Julissa Ferreras did not attend.  Probably because it was held nowhere near her district.  Why is it that a meeting regarding housing built in Corona/Flushing was not held in either community?