Willets Point Lessons: Trading Parkland for Developer's Donation

Delivering The Deal.  A beaming Related Companies' Charles  J.  O'Byrne, Queens City Council member Julissa Ferreras,  Jeff Wilpon - New York Mets COO and the executive vice-president of Sterling Equities and son of New York Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon, and Glenn  A. Goldstein - president of Related Retail and registered lobbyist, pose on October 10, 2013 shortly after a City Council vote. (Photo: William Alatriste /New York City Council via A Walk In The Park)

In the second of part of a series on a development process that spanned much of the Bloomberg administration, City Limits looks at how parks fare under this deal—and others.

City-Wide

Immediately after the City Council approved the redevelopment of Willets Point early this month, Queens Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras posed at the front of the chambers for a celebratory photograph with the developers. She had brokered the final deal only hours before in the Bloomberg administration's offices at City Hall—and inadvertently paved the way to a troubling future for New York City parks, according to an article in City Limits. 

Private money for a neglected park was at the center of Ferreras' deal with the Willets Point developers, who would be drawing on free land and taxpayer subsidies worth more than the entire annual budget of the city's Parks Department.

The developers—Related Companies and Sterling Equities, the real estate firm of Mets' owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz—agreed to contribute $15.5 million over 25 years to the Flushing Meadows Corona Park Alliance, a nonprofit Ferreras had just founded with the Parks Department and the group New Yorkers for Parks.

The Willets Point plan involves the building of a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall and multi-story parking garages on 46 acres of mapped parkland at the northern end of Flushing Meadows. Even as the proposed mall encountered neighborhood opposition—Community Board 3 voted 30-1 to reject the plan—Ferreras was actively soliciting funds from the developers.

"They know I expect them to contribute," she told City Limits this summer, pointing out that the Mets' stadium was already located in the park. If the team's owners wanted to build their mall there too, she said, they would have to give money to her nonprofit. "I am knocking on their door." Months earlier, Ferreras' park alliance had accepted $10 million over 23 years in exchange for her support of the U.S. Tennis Association's expansion in Flushing Meadows.

In many ways, the Flushing Meadows deals are emblematic of a larger predicament in city parks: For years, the government has inadequately funded parks, so private money has helped to pay for park upkeep.



Related Companies and Sterling Equities are looking to build a 1.4 million square foot mall on 48 acres of mapped parkland in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, west of Citi-Field stadium.  This represents the largest public parkland giveaway in recent history. The proposed   Willets Point West Mall project would allow the seizing of the public parkland to be used exclusively for non-park purposes without first getting State Alienation approval as is required under the law.  The construction of such a mall on public parkland would be unprecedented. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) 

That money usually gravitates to affluent neighborhoods, leaving parks in poorer areas behind. This time, in Flushing Meadows, a park in a lower-income area is getting in on the action, but on different terms: Parkland is effectively being traded to a private company for money to maintain the park that's left.

Our grass, their greenbacks

The amount of private money now paying for New York City parks is staggering. Parks Commissioner Veronica White put the figure at $76 million a year during a recent City Council hearing, but documents obtained by City Limits via the Freedom of Information Law indicated that 26 private groups alone contributed an annual $162 million in 2011 for parks' maintenance and operations. If accurate, that's equal to more than half of the city's yearly tax-levy budget for parks. The Parks Department did not answer questions about these numbers.

*   *    *
Read the rest of this series:
Part 1:
Will a New Mayor Do Development Differently?
Part 3:
Relocation Fears for Workers
*   *    *
The city claims the private investment allows it to target limited taxpayer resources to the parks most in need, but critics say the use of private funding has encouraged a further winnowing of resources to the Parks Department and created growing disparitiesamongparks for the haves and have-nots .

While Manhattan and Brooklyn have ended up with some showplace parks, no one is interested in operating, say, Highland Park on the Brooklyn-Queens border or Ferry Point Park in the Bronx. Donald Trump has struck a deal to take about half of the 413-acre Ferry Point to build a private club and a "world-class" golf course on what had been a garbage dump , but he won't be sharing the revenue with the park, and it's unlikely the patrons of his luxury facility will be the residents of the neighboring public housing project.

Even middle-class and well-heeled areas have been forced to pick up the slack, with volunteers maintaining such parks as Juniper Valley Park in Middle Village, Queens, and Dag Hammarskjold Plaza in Manhattan, right across the street from the United Nations. Half of the city's 1,800 parks and playgrounds now depend on some type of private group to at least chip in on maintenance, according to the Parks Department, but many, if not most, of these groups struggle.

Some people, like Public Advocate and mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, have pinned their hopes for more equitable parks funding on legislation proposed by state Senator Dan Squadron that would create a Neighborhood Parks Alliance to take 20 percent from the budgets of large park conservancies and distribute that money to the parks most in need. "It will make for a fairer city," says de Blasio, "and I think it's a great idea."

But the proposed alliance would be blocked from accessing a large part of the nonprofit funds, says James J. Fishman, a professor at Pace Law School. Endowments would be off-limits, and if donors make restricted gifts, then that money can't be diverted to another use. Nonprofit-law experts consulted by City Limits say the legislation is sure to face legal challenges.

Fact is, the proposed fund would draw from the same private-money system that led to the great disparities it seeks to correct, and the redistribution of money simply won't be enough to right the deeper wrongs. There is no such thing as a free lunch: Taxpayers still cover a portion of the budgets for even the biggest park conservancies, and that means they would end up funding the Neighborhood Park Alliance too. In the end, most public parks remain the responsibility of the public.

More land, less labor

While Bloomberg's borrowed $6 billion over the last 12 years to build new parks and improve existing ones, upkeep relies on the operating budget, and the mayor has consistently allocated 0.5 percent or less of the city's tax-levy budget to maintain parks, which account for 14 percent of the city's surface area.

In contrast, back in the days of Robert Moses, parks maintenance and operations routinely claimed about 1.5 percent of the operating budget. Even under Ed Koch, with the city barely out of the fiscal crisis, roughly 0.8 percent went to parks. Bloomberg has regularly proposed budgets with even smaller shares.

Last year, a Parks Department internal review appealed for the city to hire 682 more workers. In response, Bloomberg paid at least $675,000 for the consulting firm of Pricewaterhouse Coopers to evaluate how the department deploys its current workforce and resources to maintain parks. "The mayor wanted justification," explains one Parks Department employee who requested anonymity in this article. Imagine Bloomberg's surprise, then, when Pricewaterhouse Coopers found the Parks Department needed to hire even more workers than had been requested.

The reasons why are revealed in e-mails and a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Parks Operations for the 21st Century," based on the consultant's report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Law. The publicly financed documents were heavily redacted, but what remained visible among the blacked-out pages painted an ugly picture.

"Over the last five years," the consultants noted, maintenance and operations staff had "decreased by 13%," as the agency was "in full attrition," meaning it was not replacing workers who had left or retired. The mayor's management report showed a more precipitous drop from 2009 to 2012, with total personnel – including both full-time and full-time equivalent staff – falling by 24 percent. Some parks have always fared worse than others. Over the course of Bloomberg's 12 years in office, the full-time maintenance staff at Flushing Meadows Corona Park shrunk from 35 to 13.

Most parks depend on roving crews of workers, who spend much of their time in transit. The consultants found that 54 percent of all Parks Department work-order hours were logged by JTPs—or Job Training Participants, the temporary-employment program for people on public assistance—and 91 percent of JTP time was spent on simply "cleaning," or picking up litter. "JTPs are the majority of the workforce," Pricewaterhouse Coopers noted, "because their hourly [pay] rate is much lower."

With 61 percent of work orders more than 90 days overdue, the consultants discovered bleak conditions in neighborhood parks throughout the five boroughs. Photos and eyewitness accounts captured the details: Broken drinking fountains and cracked concrete foundations, "huge amounts of dead trees made into wood chips … lots of homeless people and trash buildup … algae problems," and illegal dumping.

The Pricewaterhouse report links maintenance deficiencies to safety hazards, zeroing in on the problem of falling tree limbs. That problem appears to have grown worse in recent years, despite attracting a lot of attention. Over an eight-week period this summer, the watchdog group NYC Park Advocates counted 13 incidents of falling limbs injuring parkgoers. Two lawsuits involving diseased trees in Central Park cost the city $14.5 millionthis year.

According to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the average response time to a complaint like "the branch is cracked and will fall" is 20 days, ranging from 9 days in Queens to 48 days in the Bronx. These endemic delays were unsurprising as well, given that the Parks Department had 91 "pruner" and "climber" jobs to take care of the city's 2.6 million trees; following the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report, 30 more were taken on. After a pregnant woman was killed by a tree in Kissena Park in August, the city said it would hire another outside consultant to look at the problem.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers ultimately discovered the city needed to hire more workers. Last January, the Parks Department had 3,329 full-time workers, and the consultants advocated a bump up of 1,910. The agency added 1,165 seasonal temps and filled 150 open positions it previously couldn't fill. In March it announced the hiring of an additional 414 full-time employees, including nearly 100 with trade skills. When all job categories are combined, the new total falls 181 positions short of the Pricewaterhouse Coopers' recommendation, says the Parks Department. According to the mayor's management report for fiscal 2013, the number of full-time parks jobs was still below the level of just three years before.   

After crime rose in parks by 7 percent in 2012—and after the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report identified staffing deficiencies—the number of Parks Enforcement Patrol (PEP) officers was almost doubled this year to 167 officers, still a far cry from a high of 450 in the 1990s, according to Joe Puleo, president of Local 983 of the municipal-employee union DC 37, which represents city parks workers, including PEP officers.

He welcomes the additional hires, but thinks they are still far too few to patrol the city's 29,000 acres of parkland. "Everybody knows the Parks Department is massively understaffed, but Bloomberg had to spend all of this money to identify the obvious," he says, referring to the pricey Pricewaterhouse research.

Revenue leaves

Last year, Bloomberg put White, the former head of his Center for Economic Development, in charge of the Parks Department. At the announcement, he stressed the central role of public-private partnerships and corporate sponsorships in future park operations: "Otherwise we won't be able to afford all the things we're trying to do."

But at the same time Bloomberg was refusing to hire more workers, in 2009, parks were generating in excess of a record $110 million a year from concessions, lease agreements, recreation fees, and special-event rentals. All of this money went into the city's general fund, not into parks.

Meanwhile, the administration permitted some private entities to profit handsomely off parks. For ten months a year—from August to June—the city allows Lincoln Center to rent out the 2.4-acre Damrosch Park and to keep all of the revenue from it, estimated to be about $9 million annually, according to a recent lawsuit by residents near the park.

Over at the Madison Square Park Conservancy, founding board member Danny Meyer runs a multimillion-dollar business in the park. His Shake Shack pays a percentage of its revenue to the city and the conservancy, but that share is a fraction of what park concessionaires normally pay. Even with his sweetheart deal, Meyer picked up an additional $47,080 from the conservancy in 2011, according to the nonprofit's last available tax filing.

By law, all concession revenue is supposed to go to the city's general fund, but the Bloomberg administration has increasingly allowed select nonprofit park groups to take a cut. Back in 2006, the Central Park Conservancy renegotiated its contract to keep a greater percentage of its park's concession revenue, which has resulted in millions of extra dollars. The High Line effectively gets to keep all of its concession revenue, even from concessionaires on the street below the park.

Bloomberg continues to push for more commercial enterprises in parks. Back in 2004, the mayor responded with a shrug to protestors of another Meyer-related project—a plan to establish a high-end restaurant in Union Square Park, backed by a multimillion-dollar anonymous donation. Bloomberg asked, "How do you expect us to pay for parks?"

In Queens, fears of a precedent

Though Ferreras compared her new nonprofit to the Central Park Conservancy and the Prospect Park Alliance, she had created a new model, funded not by philanthropic contributions but by extracting money from businesses that want parkland.

When Ferreras told City Limits of her plans to ask the Willets Point developers for money, she listed other businesses located in the park, including the Mets and the Terrace on the Park banquet hall, noting that all of these businesses already operate under agreements with the city—the Terrace on the Park, for example, pays the city $2.5 million a year, or $100,000 more than the U.S.T.A.

But some park advocates fear Ferreras's forging of separate deals will now set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more development in underfunded parks. The Willets Point deal was "shameful," according to Richard Hellenbrecht, president of the Queens Civic Congress, an umbrella organization of 106 civic and community groups. The Congress opposed the mall plan not only for its taking of parkland but for the harm it could cause to local small businesses, not to mention the likelihood of more traffic and congestion.

"It's taking parkland, mapped parkland," Hillenbrecht says of the "Willets West" shopping mall. "It makes me angry. I worry about this in a lot of ways, and it upsets me that it could have been approved so quickly, ignoring all the concerns of Queens residents. We're going to have a new administration in a few more months. Why couldn't it wait?"

Several community groups have told City Limits they're contemplating a lawsuit over the city's claim that the shopping mall is permitted under a 1961 law that allowed for the financing of Shea Stadium. They claim the administration wants to avoid the burden of alienating that parkland, which would require state legislation to strip the land of its legal protections. Alienation legislation mandates the replacement of lost parkland or a payment for other park improvements equal to the land's fair market value.

As for the combined $25.5 million for Flushing Meadows from the mall and tennis projects, more than half of it will be spent on one-time capital improvements while the rest gets spread over two decades. That might sound like a lot of money, but it amounts to an annual $550,000 over most of the life of these two deals.

"That really won't do much," Hellenbrecht says. "It might pay for some more staffers, but not many. It's not enough to make a dent in what needs to be done, either operationally or even capital-wise. It's better than nothing, but I'd rather not have somebody taking parkland."

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Read More:

Lessons of Willets Point: Trading Parkland for Developer's Donation

City Limits - November 1, 2013 - By Patrick Arden

Related Co. Strikes Gold As City Council Approves Park Land Grabs Deals - Willets Point West & Ruppert Playground Development 

A Walk In The Park - October 10, 2013 - By Geoffrey Croft 

Helen Marshall's Support In Upcoming USTA Expansion Vote Obvious - Defends Her Park Legacy

Danny Zausner, USTA's Chief Operating Officer giving the presentation the USTA refuses to make publicly available online despite repeated requests. He was once again reminded that the USTA could build their two stadiums on its existing footprint without encroaching further on public parkland.  (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advoctes) click on images to enlarge

Queens

By Geoffrey Croft

If there were any doubts on how Borough President Helen Marshall was going to vote regarding the USTA expansion plan they were certainly put to rest at the land use hearing she held as part of the ULURP process on Thursday.

Throughout the hearing, the Borough President repeatedly complimented the USTA and their supporters and consistently interrupted speakers who criticized her, the USTA or the process itself. She also defended her legacy on park related issues during her twelve year tenure.

Ironically proof of at least part of this legacy was right outside the window.  Attendees looking out of the second story hearing room could easily see the area where more than two dozen Cherry trees were needlessly destroyed to make room for a new $ 17 million dollar atrium Ms. Marshall spearheaded using tax payer funds.   

When reminded that there were two other commercial projects being proposed for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park coming right after the USTA - the massive Willets Point West mall & a Major League Soccer Stadium -  Helen Marshall (above) replied, "I hope not." 

Responding to criticism that she has given the park away to private businesses she said, 

"We haven't given it away we've enhanced it." 

Joshua Laird, the Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Parklands at the Parks Department began the hearing by expressing the agency's strong support for the USTA's taking of additional parkland to expand the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

USTA's Chief Operating Officer Danny Zausner followed with a powerpoint presentation which the USTA still refuses to make available on-line despite repeated requests. 

The USTA has tweaked the presentation over the past months in response to various weaknesses and criticism that have been raised at public meetings.

As they have done throughout the process, the USTA's presentation contained a number of half-truths and misinformation that, due to the extremely limited structure of the public review process, the public is never really given the opportunity to adequately address.

After the hour-long presentation by the USTA, the public participation portion of the meeting began.

As has been the case during all the previous hearings not a single person testified in favor of the expansion that was affiliated with the organization in some way. 

The USTA's public hearing strategy has revolved around parading out supportive testimonials from businesses with ties to the USTA and from people benefiting from programs offered on their 42-acre park campus they lease from the Parks Department. Ironically, programs at the USTA tennis center that are mostly offered by other providers such as the NY Junior Tennis League.  

The tennis giant and the Borough President were reminded once again that none of this testimony was particularly relevant because the issue being considered has nothing to do with removing the USTA from the premises but whether or not they should be allowed to expand further into Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

The Borough President had to be reminded that this was not supposed to be a popularity contest involving the USTA but a land use hearing regarding whether  or not to allow more parkland to be used for a private corporation's benefit. 

It is implied that the "wonderful" public programs touted would go away if the USTA were not permitted to expand, and they would increase if the project were approved.  (This time around the USTA has not promised it would never come back to the city and ask for even more parkland in the future as they have done in the past). 

However when USTA's Danny Zausner was asked at a February 18th Community Board 7 meeting if they had planned on increasing funding for programming in the New York area as a result of the additional $ 4-5 million dollars they expect in new revenue as a result of the expansion, he clearly in the negative: 

"In addition to what we are already funding in the New York area - on an annual basis? No," Mr. Zausner responded.

Critics of the expansion took exception to a non-profit Alliance fund some people are advocating be established. It was pointed out that it was the city’s legal responsibility to properly fund our public parks not private businesses.  

Agreeing to a deal that puts money into a park fund in exchange for a yes vote which would allow the USTA to expand will only encourage more businesses try and take our public parkland. It would also allow the very people whose job it is to properly fund and protect our public spaces off the hook. 

There is a huge difference between receiving philanthropic contributions from civic minded people seeking nothing in return and establishing a fund explicitly created for extracting money from businesses exploiting the park.  

It is also the job of our elected officials to protect our public park lands NOT give them away to corporations. 

For critics of the expansion there was little doubt what side of the fence Helen Marshall was on before Thursday's hearing.



Queens resident Ben Haber testifying on Thursday. "If you and a group of politicians who for years have not only failed to address the park's needs with tax dollars but have alienated it piece by piece, support the USTA's application, it comes as no surprise," said Ben Haber.  

"I would ask you to reject the USTA application, but your history with FMCP makes it clear it would be an exercise in futility," began long-time Queens resident Ben Haber.

"You will support the current application notwithstanding any opposition you hear," he stated.

He reminded the public of her support to build a Grand Prix race track in the park in the 1980's,  a 70,000-seat stadium for the NY Jets, and the previous taking of 21 acres for the USTA  expanstion in the 1990s.

He turned his attention to the upcoming Willets Point West project, the mega-mall the Related Companies proposes to build in conjunction with Sterling Equities in the park next to Citi-Feild, and a proposed Major League Soccer Stadium proposed for another area of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park. 

"I have not supported that," Ms. Marshall interrupting. "I have to see what they're talking about." 

"There is nothing to talk about,  they don't belong in the park," Mr. Haber shot back.

"You will support it. Let me finish please.

You will support a Major League Soccer stadium in the park and a shopping mall on the Mets parking lots which are on parkland and which will destroy the small businesses," he said commenting on the two other proposals. 

He also called her out for her lack of funding the park other than for structures. "The record is clear, practically everything you gave had nothing to do with the passive use urban parks are all about," he said. 

The hearing's only laugh came at the conclusion of 85-year-old Ben Haber's biting testimony.

"If I'm wrong about anything I said here today I apologize."

Helen Marshall ignored the criticism and said the borough president's office had continuously enhanced the park during her tenure as well as Claire Shulman's, who was in that office from the suicide of former BP Donald Manes in 1986 until 2001.

"You know I wonder if I didn't do anything for the parks and my predecessor didn't do anything for the parks, I would be at that microphone,” she said, defending her record.

"We don't want a barren park we want a park that's meaningful and brings us wonderful things - children getting tennis at this age, that's wonderful."

She ignored the most important point: that it is the City's job to provide recreational opportunities for children, the exorbitant prices to play at the facility, and that giving away parkland to a private developer in exchange for an extremely limited amount of access to our pubic parkland is not sound policy.

She also completely dismissed the impacts of the 42 acres of parkland that the USTA has already been allowed to seize.

"There is still plenty of room for people to walk, to spread their blankets, all of that is still preserved. But now we have wonderful things that we would have to go to other boroughs or other parts of the city to find.  So I think we deserve credit for it. Thank you," Ms. Marshall said to applause from supporters of the USTA expansion, including more than a dozen USTA employees and paid consultants such as representatives from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Rubenstein Associates, and AKRF. 

Robert LoScalzo held up photographs taken during the 2012 U.S. Open showing two lanes of traffic on Roosevelt Avenue cordoned off – one in each direction – exclusively to accommodate the drop-off and pick-up of tennis patrons.

"This situation is already very bad," he said while also mentioning the USTA's plan hopes to attract another 80,000 people to the annual event. He also reminded the public that the conditions on Roosevelt is directly adjacent to the enormous 1.4 million sq. ft.  mall being proposed for the Citi-Field parking lot.

Queens resident Robert LoScalzo reminded the audience that the USTA "is perfectly capable of renovating its facilities while keeping within its present footprint, and NOT expanding onto even more parkland," he said.

He pointed out the project's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that contained two options that would prevent further encroachment into the parkland, while allowing the USTA to build their two stadiums.   

"So if you're in favor of creating construction and trade jobs,  those two reasonable options would absolutely do so,  and would also satisfy USTA's desire for new,  state-of-the-art facilities – without further encroaching into Flushing Meadows Corona Park," he said.

"USTA's self-serving conclusion is that rebuilding within its current footprint is not acceptable to USTA." 

The information in the USTA's EIS directly contradicts Danny Zausner testimony from February 18 when he stated, “We can't physically replace these two stadium without taking this asphalt strip and turning it into a landscape buffer." 

Mr.  LoScalzo pointed out the USTA wants more parkland for two main reasons: "to increase the width of a walkway inside the tennis center, to provide a more luxurious experience for tennis people during just two weeks of the U.S. Open," 

In addition to increasing attendance at the U.S. Open by 10,000 people daily.

"But," he asked, "who says that we want 10,000 more people there, or that it's even reasonable to put them there?"  

He pointed out that a large number of these people would be arriving by car, taxi or limousine.   

Holding up photographs as evidence he says were taken during last year's US Open, Mr. LoScalzo pointed out the traffic problems that already exist without the 80,000 additional attendees the USTA anticipates.

"This situation is already very bad – but USTA wants to attract another 10,000 people here per day? By the way, these conditions on Roosevelt are right next to the proposed site of the Mets mall in the Citi Field parking lot – which would be the largest mall in New York City," he said.

"How can you reconcile commandeering Roosevelt Avenue like this, with the simultaneous traffic to be generated by a huge mall, right here?

The prestige of the U.S. Open is already well established. It does not depend on whether 10, 000 more people attend it.This USTA proposal, like the two others that impinge on our park,  are efforts to close deals on parkland while the Bloomberg administration is still around to sign the papers. Please do right by the people of Queens: Tell USTA to renovate within its existing space, and reject its self-serving application to expand its size and its impacts."

Paul Graziano, an urban planner and community activist who is running for City Council in the 19th District noted that almost every person opposing the expansion were regular Queens residents who care about their borough's parkland, whether it was .68 or 1,000 acres that were in question of being compromised. Graziano also likened the giving away of public parkland to the growing bribery corruption scandal that has occurred during the past week which ensnared his opponent in the Council race, Councilmember Dan Halloran.  

"It's clear that these situations have much in common," Graziano stated. "I've worked in over 50 municipalities in the New York City metropolitan area and I've never seen protected parkland being given away anywhere else. Whether it's legal or illegal, it brings up the question as to whether this is the right thing to do. It's the government's job to protect our public interest, not give it away to corporate interests."


The expansion would utilize an additional acre of public parkland,  remove more than 400 trees,  bring in an additional 80,000 people, and increase traffic in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park which is already severely impacted by the USTA.


Various neighborhood residents who serve on community boards, and civic group representatives also spoke out against the expansion including Phil Konigberg, Ed Westley, Rich Hellenbrecht, president of Queens Civic Congress, and Jon Torodash. 

It is protocol at public hearings to allow elected officials and or their representatives the courtesy of presenting testimony before the general public.

The Borough President refused to allow State Senator Tony Avella's representative the opportunity to speak. Senator Avella has been the only elected official to consistently oppose the USTA expansion - as well as the other proposed projects in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park - and giveaway of public parkland. After waiting more than two hours, Deputy Legislative Council Dawa Jung handed over the Senator's written testimony and left.

To add insult to injury the Senator's testimony was not publicly read into the record at the hearing. 

Senator Avella fired off a letter to Marshall seeking an apology from Borough President Marshall, which, to date, has not been given by her office.

"I find it disgraceful that your office did not follow this common protocol and did not allow her the opportunity to properly represent me, " the Senator wrote. 

Mr. Avella also questioned the motive:

"Is it because I oppose the application," he asked.

The Borough President will be voting on the USTA expansion issue tomorrow,  Monday, April 8th.

Read/View More

Marshall argues with people testifying against USTA plan

Queens Crap - April 5, 2013

"That's Not Parkland" - Peter Vallone On Proposed Mall Site In Flushing Meadows Park

"It"s not parkland, and anyone saying that Williets Point is park land is relying on some technical definition from the 60's."  -  Peter Vallone

Critics of the plan argue that if the 40-plus acres of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park being proposed for mall use are no longer needed for Citi-Field parking then it should revert back to its original recreational use. Queens Borough President candidate Peter Vallone is supporting the parkland development he said last night.  

Candidate Melinda Katz said she supported the USTA expansion project if a maintenance fund for Flushing Meadows Park came from those who want to develop the park. Tony Avella said he is against all three commercial development proposals. 

Last week City Planning Commission kicked off the land use review process for a sweeping proposal by the Queens Development Group — a joint venture between Sterling Equities and the Related Cos. — to redevelop Willets Point. 

Queens Borough President candidate Peter Vallone at last night's forum.

Queens

By Geoffrey Croft

City Council Member Peter Vallone doesn't believe the mapped parkland in Flushing Meadows the City and developers want to build a mall on is parkland.

Mr. Vallone, one of six candidates running for the office of the Borough President said last night he supports the Willets Point project including taking 40 plus acres of Flushing Meadows parkland currently used for Citi-Field parking in order to build the city's largest mall.  

"It"s not parkland, and anyone saying that Williets Point is park land is relying on some technical definition from the 60's," Vallone said.

"You know what Willets Point is….It also involves the Met's parking lot. I want to see that development happen," he said.

"I want to make sure what goes there is what you want but that needs to be developed that can't stay the way it is,  and it's not parkland," Vallone claimed.

The Councilmember was a bit confused last night as candidates squared off.

It is the City in fact that is desperately trying to rely on a 1961 bill that is used when it took over the parkland to build Shea Stadium. 

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 to use the parkland without seeking State Alienation legislation as is required under state law to use parkland for non-park purposes.

The 1961 law clearly states that the park land now used as a parkling lot is part of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park. 

The City and the developers are also attempting to bypass City Council approval.  

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

Mr. Vallone's Bloomberg-esque moments came last night during the Bay Terrace Borough President Candidate's Night.

Some of the candidates were asked if they were in favor of creating a maintenance fund for Flushing Meadows made up of donations by those who want to develop the park or preserving open space by providing proper funding for parks in the city budget passed by the mayor and city council.

State Senator Tony Avella (above) once again came out strongly against any development in the park.

Mr. Avella said he was obviously not in favor of the first option, "because that means we would have development in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

Unless one of the other candidates for Borough President has changed their position recently I am the only candidate who has come out against all three projects that are proposed for Flushing Meadow's Corona Park," Avella said to applause.

"Parkland is sacred," Avella continued.  "They wouldn't dare do this in Prospect Park in Brooklyn and they certainly wouldn't  dare do it all in Central Park. Why is it that the developers of this city seem to think that they have elected officials who would just look the other way when it comes to our borough park." 

Addressing the second part of the question Mr. Avella acknowledged that the city was not allocating adequate resources and said that  proper government funding should be made available to care for the park.

"I'm committed to that," he said. 

Candidate Melinda Katz (above)  said that some of the money from the USTA should go back into the park.

She also reminded the audience that there already was a Flushing Meadows-Park Conservancy but did not mention that it's president Jean Silva voted to support the taking of additional parkland for the USTA expansion at the Community Board 6 hearing a few weeks ago. 

At that meeting a grandmother in the audience publicly called Ms. Silva and the conservancy out for not protecting the parkland from development.  She said was "shocked" to learn there already was a conservancy and strongly questioned the reason for its existence if they weren't fighting for protect the park.

"I'm very shocked," said Anisia Ayon addressing Ms. Silva and the rest of the board.  "What have you done to stop this.  You are allowing this to happen."

Ms. Katz said the interest from the USTA's capital investment in the 90's was supposed to fund the upkeep of that organization. 

She said she supported the USTA expansion project if additional funds generated is allocated back into the park. 

"This should be a template for the future, " Katz said of the proposed plan to create a maintenance fund for Flushing Meadows made up of funds collected by those who want to develop the park.

Deputy Borough President Barry Grodenchick was not asked the question.

Union Fight Over Building New Luxury Hotel And Condos In Brooklyn Bridge Park

Hotel and Motel Trade Council members protest a new luxury hotel and condo tower to be built by Starwood Capital Group and Toll Brothers in Brooklyn Bridge Park because it will likely not be built or run by union workers. 

For years community and park advocates have fought to prevent housing developments from being built inside the park.


Brooklyn

A new luxury hotel and condo tower at the gleaming Brooklyn Bridge Park will likely not be built or run by union workers, according to the New York Daily News.  

The labor organizations representing hotel staffers and construction workers say they have been stonewalled by the developers selected for the controversial Pier 1 complex--Toll Brothers City Living and Starwood Capital Group.

At stake are an estimated 210 permanent jobs and 300 construction jobs at the waterfront park. 

“This is a luxury hotel on prime public land,” said Josh Gold, political director for the hotel trades council.

"We want to make sure that the jobs that are created are good jobs with real benefits that keep New Yorkers in the middle class.”  

Last year, there were seven bids for the project from different developers, according to records. Five of those proposals would likely have included using union workers, union officials said.  Park officials promised to give preference to developers with a good labor history. 

“I think we would be setting a terrible precedent to allow a project like this, which is on public land, to not include really basic job protections for employees who work there on the site,” said City Councilman Steve Levin (D-Greenpoint).  

Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Myer said talks with the developer are ongoing.   

Rendering of the Toll Brothers/Starwood Capital Group's controversial 159-apartment, 200-room hotel project  to be built in Brooklyn Bridge Park. 

The city's elected officials refuse to allocate the necessary funds required to maintain the park so the Bloomberg administration launched a funding scheme they say will raise $3.3 million towards the park's annual maintenance budget they claim is a massive $16 million. 

“We've been working with Starwood on this item,” she told the park's board at a Wednesday meeting near Pier 1.

“Starwood is willing to enter negotiations. The issue is timing,” she said, noting the building design has not been finalized. 

Union officials scoffed at that excuse, pointing out that they already have initial labor agreements with the developer at Willets Point and for a potential new soccer stadium in Queens. 

The hotel and condo development are set to open in fall 2015.

Both developers declined to comment. 

At issue is a state law passed in 2009. 

The Public Authority Reform Act requires developers on public land sign a "labor peace" agreement, which typically leads to union workers being hired. Union officials and pols say that law applies to the parks project too. 

Brooklyn Bridge officials insist the law doesn’t apply to the park because of its unique financing situation. The hotel and condo were added to the glitzy new waterfront park with killer views of Manhattan as part of a 2002 agreement with city and state pols as a way to generate cash. 

Maintaining the 85-acre park and restoring its five old piers is expected to cost $16 million annually, with the development projected to provide $3.3 million annually.   

Read More:

New luxury hotel and condo at the gleaming Brooklyn Bridge Park on path

to be built by non-union labor- More than 500 jobs at stake  

New York Daily News -  February 20, 2013  - By Reuven Blau