Does St. Michael's Cemetery have land to swap for parkland?

This was passed on by a reader:

BILL NUMBER:S581

TITLE OF BILL: An act to authorize the city of New York to discontinue use of and convey certain park land

PURPOSE: To authorize the city of New York to discontinue use of certain park land and convey it to the St. Michael's cemetery.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 1. Authorizes the city of New York to discontinue use as park land and to convey, in fee simple, the land described in section three of this act to Saint Michael's Cemetery.

Section 2. Provides that the authorization of this act shall be subject to the requirement that the city of New York shall use any proceeds and/or land received in exchange for the conveyance authorized by this act to acquire land, to be dedicated for park purposes in an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of the land being conveyed.

Section 3. Describes the land authorized to be discontinued as park land and conveyed as the property bounded by Astoria Boulevard to the north, 30th Avenue to the south, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway to the east, and St, Michael's Cemetery to the west, in the Astoria section of Queens, City and State of New York. The property consists of a 3.77 acre highly irregularly shaped parcel of vacant land know as St. Michael's Park.

JUSTIFICATION: This legislation would allow St. Michael's Cemetery, located in Astoria, Queens to acquire a small strip of park land that is underutilized and in disrepair located adjacent to the cemetery.

St. Michael's Cemetery has agreed to transfer a replacement parcel of land to the City of New York in order to replace the park land acquired and ensure that the western Queens community does not lose valuable green space.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2012: Senate Bill 2513 (Gianaris) - Died in Senate Cities Committee 2012: Assembly Bill 4874 (Simotas) - Died in Assembly Rules Committee 2010: Senate Bill 2768-B (Onorato) - Died in Senate Cities Committee 2010: Assembly Bill 4317-B (Gianaris) - Died in Assembly Cities Committee

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.

VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Cities - May 30, 2013
Ayes (5): Lanza, DeFrancisco, Grisanti, Avella, Breslin
Ayes W/R (1): Ball

So, where is the replacement parkland?

Read More

Shulman, Ferreras, called out at Willets Point press conference

From A Walk in the Park:

Opponents of the Willet's Point West attempted land grab in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park gathered on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday and voiced their overwhelming opposition toward the mega-development project planned on more than 30 acres of public parkland.

Under the proposal a massive 1.4 million sq. ft. mall would be built in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park on parkland currently used for Citi-Field parking. The majority of the land for the $3 billion Willets Point project would be taken from the public parkland.

Critics of the plan argue that if the 40-plus acres being proposed for mall use are no longer needed for parking then it should revert back to its original recreational use.

The City and Bloomberg-preferred developer the Related Companies in partnership with Sterling Equities, the real estate firm controlled by the owner of the Mets - are attempting this without seeking State Alienation legislation as is required under state law to use parkland for non-park purposes.
Critics denounced numerous issues regarding the Willets Point redevelopment project including:

1. This was not the deal that the Council approved: The affordable housing component has been delayed and subject to escape clauses, and the agreed living wage provision has been eliminated;
2. No project - let alone a 1.4 million square foot mall - should be built on public parkland;
3. The City Administrative Code does not authorize or provide any legal basis for the construction of a mall on 30+ acres of parkland, in violation of the parkland Public Trust Doctrine;
4. No massive development should be built in this area without new access ramps being built to and from the Van Wyck Expressway before any other construction;
5. No private property should be taken to merely be paved over as a parking lot;
6. Developers Sterling and Related were selected via a process that excluded the Willets Point Advisory Committee and Queens officials – contrary to written promises made by the City administration in 2008;
7. The City must be compensated for the $200 million it has spent to buy Willets Point property;
8. No team of billionaire developers should be given said property as a $1 gift;
9. No developer who was part of an illegal lobbying scheme should be allowed to profit for engaging in the illegality;
10. No development deal based on an illegal lobbying scheme should be approved by the City Council

Press Conference Statement from Irene Presti, Willets Point property owner:

My name is Irene Presti and I own property at Willets Point that is threatened by the illegal and unethical deal that the Bloomberg administration has put forward to develop the Iron Triangle. 

That’s right, the entire development was promoted by a violation of not only the not for profit lobbying laws of New York State; but by the brazen violation of Federal law as well.

In order to promote this dirty deal the city helped to set up a phony not for profit local development group headed by Claire Shulman. The group, made up of rich developers with the names Muss, Wilpon, Mattone and TDC, was never anything but a not for profit but in name only-it was put in place to advance the special interest of its real estate company members.

Incredibly, NYC EDC forwarded $500,000 in tax payer funds to finance this illegal lobbying scheme.

Unfortunately, this LDC was barred from doing any legal lobbying from the standpoint of the NY State law on local development corporations. Don’t just take my word for it. In July of 2012, the NY State Attorney General cited the violation of the law but, shamefully, failed to do anything to sanction the illegal behavior.

Apparently, some people are considered to be above the law and the AG even failed to demand that the Shulman group refund the illegal contribution from EDC and the tax payers. So small property owners like myself were forced to fend off the big real estate companies who were publicly funded in the campaign to take away my property.

But it gets worse folks. When the Shulman group filed for tax exempt status with the IRS there are two important boxes it checked. The first was: Will you be doing any lobbying? The second was: will you be doing any economic development? The group, lying through its teeth, answered no to both questions-even though Shulman told the NY Times that the entire purpose of the group was to lobby for the Willets Point project.

Did the IRS act on this blatant violation of the federal not for profit laws? Not on your life. It was busy chasing the Tea Party and didn’t have the time to investigate and punish a clear violation of law. So on the state and the federal level, law enforcement is a partisan activity and justice be damned!

Now, however, it gets much worse. We see that Mr. Wilpon of the Mets-the prime mover of the illegal lobbying group- has been awarded the development rights to Willets West and $200 million worth of property for $1. And there is no one with the courage to step in and put an end to this criminal scheme. Who says crime doesn’t pay?

Not only that, but the entire original development deal has been changed in a breathless bait and switch that has eliminated the affordable housing and living wage pledges that were the heart of the approval in 2008. Instead of the “next green neighborhood” we have been given a huge mall and a parking lot. For this we are abusing the eminent domain process?

I am a proud member of Willets Point United. If my group had done what EDC, Wilpon and Shulman have conspired to do, we would be under arrest and awaiting trial. Instead, Shulman remains at large and Wilpon is poised to reap billions of dollars for evading the law and ripping off the tax payers.

Willets West is a scandal and the conspirators should not be rewarded for their illegal scheme. The city council must vote, No-and let the next mayor sort out this scandal.

Read More

Phony park group stands on phony platform

Parks Platform 2013 - White Paper

Note #7:

"Parkland alienation should not occur unless no other land is available to serve an essential public need."

Of course! That's why this partner of the NYC Parks Dept and self-proclaimed "park advocacy" group, New Yorkers for Parks, not only gave their blessing to parkland alienation for a non-essential private need: a walkway at the USTA National Tennis Center, but they also brokered the deal that allows the USTA to dictate where their paltry annual donations to the park will be spent, and also will be looking the other way while cars are parked on grassy parkland that the USTA doesn't lease during their annual tournament, which amounts to a secondary alienation.

And #8:

"State and local laws regulating parkland alienation should be strengthened to require earlier and broader notification of alienation actions, and to mandate acre-for-acre replacement of lost parkland."

Another no brainer! Which is why Holly Leicht, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Parks, squealed with delight to the newspapers when the USTA pulled some phony baloney and "swapped" tennis courts it was leasing for land that it wants (and will still get to use the land it "gave up").

It's so easy to see through this group's hypocritical bullshit, yet the media takes them seriously. Well their free ride ends here.

These people are not park advocates and do not speak for us. They are nothing more than shills for the City of New York.

Read More

He's certainly no Helen Marshall

From the Bronx Times:

Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. may want a soccer stadium for the Bronx, but forget about sacrificing any parkland for it.

“I do not think that using public parkland is such a good idea,” said Diaz, who would still love to see an arena built in the borough for the NYC Football Club, a Major League Soccer franchise still vying for a home in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

Wow. Why is it that on this side of the water elected officials think that building stadiums on parkland is a great idea?

Read More

Deal done: USTA's pocket change buys parkland

From Capital New York:

The United States Tennis Association, eager to win City Council approval for its National Tennis Center expansion plans, has agreed to provide ongoing funding for Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

The USTA had no immediate comment, but according to Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras and New Yorkers for Parks, who have been working to secure a funding agreement, the U.S. Open organizer has promised $10.05 million for the park.

The agreement starts in 2014 and means $5 million for capital projects; $350,000 a year for three years for maintenance and programming, and then $200,000 a year for the ensuing 20 years.

That's on top of the $500,000 the USTA pays in rent each year to the city's general fund.

That funding will help underwrite the creation of a public-private partnership to help maintain the park, similar in function (if not in scale) to the Central Park Conservancy and Prospect Park Alliance. The USTA will sit on its board.

So, an average of less than $500,000 per year? That's it?

Comment from Mayoral Candidate Bill DeBlasio:

“In a city where outer-borough parks have been consistently shortchanged, today’s announcement represents a major step forward. I congratulate Council Member Julissa Ferreras for securing an ongoing and increased commitment from the United States Tennis Association to help fund park maintenance and upgrades at Flushing Meadows Corona Park, and for laying the foundation for a new conservancy that will help improve Queens’ crown jewel park for years to come. We must ensure that whenever private interests lease or use city parkland, those parks receive sustained and substantial funding in return.”

Sustained? Substantial? Why do we need a new conservancy, when we already have the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Conservancy? Especially since part of the park was recently named after its late former president, Pat Dolan? So the USTA can dictate that the money be used on the tennis courts they're not really giving up and flowers outside their new stadiums?

From the Daily News:

“This will be a win-win partnership,” said park advocate Will Sweeney, who bitterly opposed the expansion until the USTA made the $10 million contribution. “The investment can lead to Flushing Meadows-Corona finally reaching its potential as a world class park.”

A win for the phony park advocates!

But not everyone was a fan of the revised deal.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, who added local elected officials should be the ones to pay for the park maintenance. “They’re taking up more park land.”

Look folks, this is how it's going to work: The USTA money is not going to supplement Parks funding, it's going to replace it.

And what happens after 23 years? They sell off more of the park to another billion dollar corporation?

The final City Council vote was 47-1. The only person to not vote in favor was - Dan Halloran!

Read More

Here comes the royal screw job

From Crains:

It's match point for negotiations to expand the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, with the City Council poised to vote on the plans Wednesday. But with the local City Councilwoman and the U.S. Tennis Association sparring over funding for the park and other community benefits, the outcome remains unclear.

The USTA has proposed a $500 million expansion of the 46-acre National Tennis Center, but in order to do so, a 0.68-acre strip of park that is currently public must be taken over. Locals have long complained that the tennis center was a hulking presence within Queen's largest park, one that turns its back on Flushing Meadow until it overwhelms it each August and September during the U.S. Open. Among the complaints: thousands of cars that park on public lawns, limiting recreation space.

To appease local opponents the USTA has promised to open to the public a 1.5-acre set of tennis courts on the eastern edge of its campus. The association, however, would retain use of the courts during events such as the Open.

The bigger sticking point is demands from local Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras and parks advocates that the USTA pay into an annual maintenance budget for the park.

The hope is that with seed money from the USTA, Flushing Meadows could establish its own conservancy.

Here's where Julissa thinks we're all stupid. Flushing Meadows already has its own conservancy. And the place still looks like crap.

USTA will get their expansion and Queens will get the shit end of the stick, once more.

Read More

BP candidates suddenly opposed to Mets mall, soccer stadium

From the Daily News:

Major League Soccer — which was in talks with the city to build a $340 million stadium in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, — won’t be coming to Queens, said a local politician.

“The location doesn’t work,” said City Councilman and Queens Borough President candidate Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans), who chairs the Council’s Land Use Committee. “There was no real benefit for Queens residents to site it in that location.”

Comrie, who said he opposes putting the stadium in the park, pointed out there is land available near Yankee Stadium.

Team officials said they are considering various sites all over the city — and Queens is not off the table just yet.

From the Daily News:

Two City Councilmen — who happen to both be running for Queens borough president — are trying to block the plate against a proposed mega-mall next to CitiField.

The lawmakers, Leroy Comrie and Peter Vallone Jr., announced Monday they oppose the current plan, which includes a 1.4-million-square-foot mall and is currently rounding third and headed for home in the city’s land-use review process.

“The community has responded negatively,” Comrie said. “They don’t feel their needs are being kept in the forefront.”

Comrie heads the powerful Council Land Use committee, and said changes may be needed before it gets the Council’s rubber stamp.

The lawmakers will vote on the mall and adjustments to the $3 billion development this fall.

Comrie (D-St. Albans) blasted a “ridiculous” provision that hinges the construction of the affordable housing to connecting ramps to the Van Wyck Expwy.

He said there are “ongoing negotiations.”

Meanwhile, Vallone said the new plan stretches outside of the boundaries of what was originally pitched in 2008.

“That’s not what we approved,” said Vallone (D-Astoria). “You can’t change it after we approve it.”

“It’s an urban renewal plan.” said Katz. “It’s so easy to talk about amending. We have to look at how to make it happen and move it forward.”

Ah, well Katz's reaction is not surprising. Neither is Comrie's. I'm sure this will sail through Comrie's Land Use Committee as soon as some adjustments are made to the plan.

But what happened to Peter Vallone's "it's not parkland" nonsense? He used to be all for this project before he was against it.

In the meantime, Tony Avella has proposed statewide legislation that would likely prevent the alienation of parkland in the future. Michael Simanowitz has agreed to introduce it in the Assembly. Let's see what the Albany tweeders do with it.

Read More

Avella vs. Stavisky on FMCP parkland alienation

Watch Senator Avella denounce the USTA's alienation of parkland at 8:10:41 followed by Senator Stavisky urging her colleagues to vote in favor of it at 8:13:30.

Read More

City destroys "Forever Wild" area

Four Sparrow Marsh in Brooklyn was spared from Ratnerization in 2011. A new hearing was held in 2012, but then the project was kept very quiet until now.

When is a nature preserve not a nature preserve? When Parks owns it and Michael Bloomberg is mayor. Then it's just another development site. And one that the EDC is keeping a secret. They removed all mention of it from their website even though they are the lead agency overseeing the project. Which probably means that what NYC Audubon shilled for has been drastically altered.

I hope I'm wrong.






Photos by Rob Jett

Read More

Queens Civic Congress comes out against Mets shopping mall, for fixing up FMCP

Testimony on FMCP June 2013

City Council Testimony on FMCP Needs and Conditions 2013

Read More

"Senator Rules" is Mike Bloomberg

From the Queens Chronicle:

Within the halls of Albany roams a lawmaker, unelected and unseen, with one role: to introduce legislation no other state senator wants to be associated with. “Senator Rules” is his (or her) name, and he (or she) is the lead sponsor of a bill currently in the Senate’s Rules Committee that will alienate what is now parkland to allow the United States Tennis Association to expand its presence in Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

The legislation literally lists “Rules” as its sponsor, reflecting the committee’s ability to refer bills to itself. It is part of a common practice in the Senate, sources with knowledge of Senate practices told the Chronicle.

“Senator Rules” is the resulting fictitious lawmaker jokingly referred to in the halls of the state Capitol for such bills. But intrigue surrounds who exactly pushed for the USTA alienation bill. Several lawmakers demurred at speculating who pushed the Rules Committee to take up the bill, but several sources said a Republican-controlled Senate committee would not grant anonymity to a Democratic lawmaker.

“Senator Rules” commonly introduces bills that increase taxes in Republican districts, said one source with knowledge of the Senate’s machinations. The fictional lawmaker also sponsors legislation on behalf of municipalities — which may point to the USTA bill’s author, which some sources believe to be the Bloomberg administration.

The last line of the bill’s sponsor’s memo reads, “Accordingly, the Mayor urges the earliest possible favorable consideration of this proposal by the Legislature.”

“The bill seems to have been submitted directly from the Mayor’s Office,” said one source, who asked to remain anonymous.

An inquiry with the Mayor’s Office prompted a terse response stating Bloomberg supports the USTA’s plan, but no specifics about the administration’s role in the legislation’s genesis.

Read More

Cowardly senators introduce parkland alienation bill without sponsor

From A Walk in the Park:

With just ten days left in the State Senate and Assembly session, "no name" proponents quietly introduced legislation this afternoon to alienate parkland for the United State Tennis Association expansion NYC Park Advocates has learned.

And we mean quietly. The Bill, S 5663, was introduced without a sponsor, a distinction reserved for legislators unwilling to take responsibly for the legislation.

"That seems like a way around accountability," commented one chief of staff for an Assembly member.

So everyone has come out in favor of the USTA plan, but no one wants to put their name on the bill?

Simply amazing. But not all that surprising.

Read More