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 #
gmcroft@verizon.net

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

After her public hearing, at which there were 20 speakers in opposition and just 2 in favor, and prior opposition from the overwhelming majority of the combined memberships of community boards 3 and 7, Borough President Helen Marshall has APPROVED the 1.4 million square foot Mets mall to be constructed on mapped parkland in Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

The City Planning Commission public hearing is next Wednesday, July 10, on a calendar with other items. The entire session begins at 9:00AM, but according to the CPC calendar the Mets mall hearing "is not likely to begin before 11:30AM".

On Monday April 8th, the Queens Borough Board will vote on the USTA application. However, the Queens Borough Board has not held any public hearing on this application. Council members who would vote as Queens Borough Board members have no Borough Board record on which to rely, or to base their decision. Moreover, our own interpretation of the ULURP rules is that a Borough Board may ONLY submit a recommendation to City Planning Commission if the Borough Board first holds a public hearing. In the alternative, a Borough Board may elect to waive its right to submit a recommendation.
The relevant ULURP rule is here (Section 2-05).

As we interpret it, the first sentence sets forth two clear alternatives: "… an affected borough board may conduct a public hearing on an application AND submit a written recommendation on such application or any community board recommendations" OR "waive the right to submit a recommendation to the Commission" (emphases added). The presence of the word "and" in the first quoted section indicates that the two actions (conducting a public hearing AND submitting a written recommendation) go together. There is no authorization to submit a recommendation without holding the public hearing.

Via telephone last Friday, staff of the Office of the Queens Borough President stated that it is not required that the Borough Board hold a public hearing -- that the Borough Board "may" do so, but is not obligated. It was then pointed out that the very same text that says that they "may" hold a hearing continues "and submit a recommendation" to CPC -- in other words, that both events (the hearing and the recommendation) are connected. The word "AND" means that you do one, AND the other. You cannot split off the recommendation from the hearing (e.g., do the former but not the latter). They responded that it's always done this way, and that we should speak w/counsel to QBP, Hugh Weinberg.

That Council members who are on the Borough Board have heard nothing whatsoever directly from the public, and there is NO RECORD within the Borough Board -- other than USTA's presentation -- is a basis for any Borough Board vote. Even if the ULURP rules do not require a public hearing (and we believe they obviously do), there is no dispute that the rules allow the Borough Board to hold a public hearing -- and the Borough Board is not doing so. That amounts to a pointless exclusion of the public from Borough Board decision-making.

We are aware that, when a Borough Board authorizes disposition of City-owner property under City Charter section 384(b)(4), there is no requirement for a public hearing. But what is happening in the case of USTA is different, as the Borough Board is getting involved under the ULURP process -- and the ULURP rules, unlike 384(b)(4), apparently require a public hearing prior to any recommendation. The Office of the Queens Borough President may be confusing the circumstances of 384(b)(4) with those of ULURP, to which different rules apply.