Report: Malcolm Smith, State Senator, Facilitator
According to Crain’s New York, tensions between the businesses of Willets Point and the city have eased due to a meeting that was held on August 6 and set up by Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith. Smith represents a significant portion of Queens, and although Willets Point doesn’t fall under his jurisdiction, business owners like Tom Mina are crediting him with facilitating the negotiations between the city and the businesses.
From Crain’s:
“Since Malcolm Smith was brought into the picture, it seems like the city’s making a good attempt to reach out to business owners,” said Thomas Mina, vice president of T. Mina Supply, Inc. a water and sewer supply company. “At least we don’t feel like they’re just going to steamroll over us anymore.”
The city maintains that it has always been willing to meet with businesses to make this project happen, but both sides seem to agree that things are moving along better right now than they were in the past.
A spokesman for Deputy Mayo Robert Lieber is quoted as saying of the business owners, “Their reluctance to meet seems to have waned of late, and that’s a good thing.”
Whether or not things have been pushed along by State Senator Malcolm Smith is debatable, but it’s good to hear that an elected official intervened and took a somewhat neutral approach to both sides to try to help the development ultimately happen.
Malcolm Smith stands to become one of the more powerful elected officials in the state when the Democrats take over the State Senate in November.
31 Comments to Report: Malcolm Smith, State Senator, Facilitator
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Welcome to Develop Willets Point
more good news.. the property owners have definitely been spooked by the ED sword and its apparent they are coming around to serious negotiations. the Crains guy is really plugged into the situation.
Based on the recent article in the DN about Soni he seems to be close. My sense it House of Spices and Fodera will soon move to the Hunts Point IBZ.
If you look at the EDC plan for Hunts Point there is a 10 acre vacant parcel (Site C) next to Kragsdale that is “ready for development” by a food distributor. this is MORE than enough land to relocate them to and there are tons of synergies there with the other food distributors.
Mina and Tully do too much city work to not play ball at some point.
that leaves the Bono the sawdust guys and the two iron workers. Feinstein seems like a bright guy.. know nothing about Bacello at QC but he’s right next to Feinstein and will probably follow along. Bono - from his public comments - seems a bit pig headed as a third generation younger owner and will probably go down with the ship.
oh yeah .. parts authority.. they do city business and sell to and with the tenant repair shops so i’d imagine he’d be a part of that relocation. my best guess for that is the Steinway IBZ. There’s a big plot by the bridge to Rikers between the con ed plant and the airport.. perfect place to locate 250 some auto repair shops in a clean new auto repair and service environment.
A fundamental objection of the majority of City Council members to this proposed redevelopment was, and continues to be, that the Council is going to be deprived of its opportunity to evaluate the developer and its specific plans, because no developer will have been selected and brought before the Council to present its plans prior to the Council’s vote. Any potential deals made by property owners have absolutely no effect on the Council’s fundamental, legitimate objection to the proposed redevelopment. If it was unacceptable for the Council to approve the proposed redevelopment due to the lack of any opportunity to scrutinize the developer, as has been stated by numerous Council members, then it remains equally so even when deals are made by property owners. Such deals are immaterial to the Council’s fundamental concern. The Council’s authority concering land use matters is, and must continue to be, sacred; and the Council must assert itself to protect and defend its authority, or it will diminish inappropriately and to the detriment of all New Yorkers.
fact of the matter is regardless of whether or not the master plan is approved by the city council on this go round the city IS going to move forward with the land acquisitions and relocations in anticipation of future development AND/OR the construction of the new off/on ramps (which is already in the city budget) through willets point.
so worse case they condemn all the chop shops, remediate the area, build the highway ramps and then choose a developer for the master plan./
If the application is not approved by the Council, then land acquisition deals are nixed and land ownership remains status quo. The present land acquisition deals were negotiated with the eminent domain gun on the table. If the application is not approved, there will exist no application having eminent domain as a component; and with the present deals withdrawn, property owners can re-negotiate under the American free market system with no looming threat, as they ought to be able to do. The Council is not going to permit condemnation unless and until a firm plan is in place for use of the land.
Additionally, the Willets Point hearings have raised the possibility that land OUTSIDE the Iron Triangle will need to be acquired, via eminent domain if necessary, to facilitate construction of the many additional roadways that would be necessary if the Willets Point redevelopment was to proceed. Exactly which land will be involved? Whose homes or businesses presently occupy that land? People are going to be livid when they find out.
Finally, take a look at the dense storefronts of Flushing, with nearly all of their signage written in Asian languages. The shops are utterly unrecognizable to City residents who cannot read Asian languages, are so densely packed with signage that the area is a nasty visual assault, and are generally as much an eyesore as the existing Willets Point auto shops. It’s likely that the redeveloped Willets Point, if built, will have the same negative characteristics as Flushing, and be equally uninviting to the non-Asian population. Given what’s happened in Flushing, what assurance do we have that the same won’t occur in Willets Point?
If the Willets Point plan passes the Council, it’s guaranteed there will be very rude awakenings for the surrounding community and others citywide, who failed to realize the project’s implications.
what makes “asian language” signs a “nasty visual assault”? that’s a very intolerant statement.
to compare the bustling commerce of flushing with the scrap yards, burned abandoned wrecks and pollution of willets is laughable.
so in your view the projects implications are bleak and “non-inviting” for the “non-asian” population of Queens?
i dont even know how to reply to that. looks like you’ve shown YOUR true colors.
Learn to read with appropriate care before you respond.
I wrote that the nasty visual assault in Flushing is due to the fact that the signage is densely packed, not that it’s written in an Asian language. Such dense signage is a visual cacaphony (if you must consult a dictionary, please do so).
And no – It isn’t at all “laughable” to compare what you call the “bustling commerce” of Flushing with existing businesses of Willets Point, which have thrived for decades despite the City’s willful neglect of the infrastructure; and despite their payment of taxes. To deny that there already is bustling commerce in Willets Point is utterly ignorant of reality. The existing Willets Point bustling commerce can be observed on any day, and has been well documented, by a formal report prepared by the Hunter College department of Urban Planning; by countless press articles and videos; and is common knowledge among members of City Council. Which City Council members would be willing to erase an already bustling business center from their own district, especially in this economy? We’ll find out.
the word is cacOphony. consult a dictionary if you must.
yeah and 1200 some employees in a 50 odd acre area is a REAL bustling micro economy. it’s vastly under served and underutilized. th redevelopment would add 6 times that many jobs while relocating most if not all of the existing jobs in the triangle to a sanitary, economically viable location.
a read of the Pratt Center report on Willets shows most of the economic activity in the triangle is less than legal and under taxed. you cant say that about flushing proper - or maybe YOU can.
so tell me .. what makes the ‘”dense signage” of Flushing equally uninviting to the “non-Asian” population’??
is it, inviting to the Asian population in your Mind?
it is curious and disturbing that you anti development people tend to use the fight against development as a way to mask your hatred for people who may not look like the “surrounding community”
The deliberate spelling error was to test your acuity. Congrats – You pass.
Here’s the big question: Where exactly is the “sanitary, economically viable location” to which you claim “most if not all of the existing jobs in the triangle” will be relocated? So far, it’s strictly a fantasy land. TELL ME WHERE IT IS. There are 1,500 or so people in Willets Point who’d like to know, too.
Redevelopment will eradicate the skilled mechanical and, yes, executive jobs already at Willets Point, and replace them with retail cash register operators, baristas, doormen, and the like.
Redevelopment threatens yet more essential industrial and manufacturing operations in a City that’s already sacrificed enough of them at the altar of the real estate interests, this time in an area whose geography is not only tailor-made for such industrial activities, but which is also fundamentally incompatible with housing, whether affordable or not.
If some existing Willets Point economic activity is “less than legal,” then there is a failure on the government’s part to enforce the law. Add that to the long list of things that have been willfully neglected in Willets Point for decades. It doesn’t need to stay that way, though. Legitimate Willets Point businesses have made that very, very clear.
The ridiculously dense signage in parts of Flushing ought to be equally offensive to people of any ethnicity. That the signage predominantly displays Asian language characters indicates that the signs are not intended to communicate with the non-Asian population. It also suggests that those who put up the signs and those who are intended to read them, are quite comfortable to not assimilate, and to remain isolated unto themselves. That’s inconsistent with the spirit of America, and disturbing. There no “hatred for people,” as you suggest, inherent in that comment.
Lastly, I am not “anti development people.” I am opposed specifically to the Willets Point plan in its present form for many good reasons, as is the overwhelming majority of City Council members.
Where exactly is the “sanitary, economically viable location” to which you claim “most if not all of the existing jobs in the triangle” will be relocated?
i think i outlined in my first comment where there is sufficient vacant land to support the businesses that are currently in the iron triangle.
redevelopment will not eradicate any jobs it will create new union jobs according to ALL parties involved.
And with regard to the illegal activity in the triangle, there is a long history of a solid number of sting operations and racketeering influenced corrupt activities that ARE being prosecuted in connection with illegal activities in the triangle. there is no doubt of this. one only has to look up the incidents.
im not offended by Asian language signage. I find it a cultural attraction and very interesting to delve into the practices and history of our new brothers and sisters who came to this land seeking the same opportunity that our fore fathers had.
it is the melting pot of different cultures and traditions that makes this city as great as it is.
by the way “assimilation” is a code word for the intolerant.
There may have been a few isolated incidents of “corrupt activity” within the Willets Point area over many decades, but any such incidents have been very few and far between. The level of bad activity today in Willets Point, if any, is typical of the entire City and certainly no worse. Any attempt to portray the businesses and people of Willets Point as being routinely unlawful is fiction, and City Council members are well aware of that. In fact, the automotive businesses of Willets Point are among the most regulated in the entire state, with multiple inspections of the same issue taking place every week and no violations found.
Yes, the “melting pot” makes the City great. But the primary element of the “melting pot” is, and always has been, assimilation. Otherwise, there’s no melting, just a permanent co-existence of a panoply of disparate cultures with no intent to ever unify as Americans. Again, that’s inconsistent with the spirit of America, and to say so is not “intolerant,” but on the contrary, patriotic.
You’ve so many lessons to learn. The first one: Don’t jump to unfounded conclusions.
Any attempt to portray the businesses and people of Willets Point as being routinely unlawful is fiction
do you wnat to address the hundreds of illegal and undocumented underground storage tanks in the triangle?
how about the unlawful dumping of toxins such as used motor oil, antifreeze, cleaners and degreasers, hydraulic fluid into the land occupied by the current businesses?
how about the most recent events of possession and sale of stolen auto parts?
are large swaths of the city under investigation for racketeering influenced corruption?
i would hope that the entire city doesnt routinely dump toxic waste into their OWN property or possess and traffic in stolen goods or run corrupt organizations.
are there honest businessmen in the iron triangle - or course. are there massive historical incidents of illegal activity - absolutely. to say that TODAY there is little or no illegal activity is just hogwash and you can pompously dismiss the truth all you like.
In fact, the automotive businesses of Willets Point are among the most regulated in the entire state with multiple inspections of the same issue taking place every week and no violations found.
the regulation of auto businesses is merely a license to practice automotive repair. it says nothing or does nothing about the business practices or ecological practices of the entity. Nor does it address the safety of the work environment for the customers or the employees . if that was the case most of the tin shacks would be shut down and condemned.
if you think inspectors are going into the triangle every week and not finding violations you are either very naive or misinformed. i would contend that an auto repair inspector has never set foot in the triangle.
this thread is moving sorrily off topic so ill leave you to your fairyland of willets as a great place to visit and a friendly place to do business.
maybe you can rent a room from andrizzone and be the second full time resident of the iron triangle if its such a great and magical place.
if you care to address my first comment in the thread regarding the relocation of the businesses of the triangle ill be happy to continue.
No one benefits by you continuing this thread, so don’t.
Again, your characterizations of activities in Willets Point are simply false and baseless. Automotive, DEP and other inspectors are present in Willets Point all the time, trying as hard as they can to cite businesses for violations. Apparently there aren’t many, because the same automotive shops continue to operate there for decades. Given the unfounded distaste that much of the close-minded public apparently has for the Willets Point auto shops, exemplified by your comments and attitude, the City would have eliminated those shops if it could have, on the basis of illegal activity if it actually existed. But it doesn’t, so the businesses continue to not only exist, but thrive. Even now, with redevelopment looming, notice how the City has NOT sought to close down the businesses due to any supposed violations (which would be far simpler than relocating them), because there’s no basis to do it. So, your claims are unfounded and false.
According to the Department of Buildings there are 189 outstanding Building Code Violations and most of the businesses operate without a valid certificate of occupancy. The number of environmental violations is a multiple of that.
My guess is the city will soon descend on the violators and start to close down the most egregious offenders.
For 40+ years, the City hasn’t descended on the violators, if any exist. They’re going to start, now? Baloney.
To the contrary: The City claims that it will work very hard to relocate each and every one of those businesses. If they were violators that deserved to be closed down, then the City wouldn’t have to bend over backward to relocate them, as the City says it will do. The violation that you claim simply do not reconcile with the City’s relocations plans. They’re right; you’re wrong.
as usual you are missing the point.
the real criminals arent the businesses that lease their land but the slumlord entities that milk the property for cash flow without regard to the long term environmental risks or occupational risks of cramming three and four businesses into an undersized lot.
by descending on the violators and shuttering the businesses the city will force the absentee slum lords to sell the golden goose that they have been milking for decades. Similar to working to relocate tenants of a dilapidated slum while playing hard ball with the ultimate owner of the property.
the actual tenant businesses will most likely be relocated as i’ve outlined in my first comment. and the slumlords will either negotiate fairly for the sale of their property or have it condemned and taken by eminent domain for the blight that it is (look up the legal definition of blight - it is defined exactly by what is mostly in the triangle).
the city has hired a consultant to deal directly with the tenant businesses and is in negotiations with the absentee slumlord entities. I think to date only one of 50 some entities have agreed to a deal. while 4 of the 25 or so resident businesses have negotiated a fair relocation.
the tact that the city takes with each type of owner should be very different.
agreed that the city has turned a blind eye to the triangle in the past but this is a new day and the previous passive policy will not be the policy of the future.
get it?
First, you say that the City will descend on the violators and shutter the businesses. Then, you say that they will be relocated. Which will it be?
Next, you twist the effects of the City’s ages-old, deliberate neglect of Willets Point so that now the property owners are “slumlords,” in your view. Have you actually been anywhere IN Willets Point, other than the City-owned “streets,” which are indeed slum-like? Conditions on privately held property there are hardly slum-like. Typically, the disrepair ends right where the City’s “street” ends and the private property line begins.
“Blight” is so liberally defined nowadays as to be a nearly useless term. Neighborhoods in Brooklyn with million dollar apartments are called blighted. Areas that are pristine but “underutilized” are blighted. Anything’s possible. I’ve perused the Willets Point Blight Study. The interesting aspect of blight as it pertains to Willets Point is that the so-called blight was inflicted upon the area deliberately by the City, which now seeks to benefit from the very circumstance that it created. In other areas of the law, that behavior is not permitted. For example, you cannot get a variance for a “self-inflicted hardship;” that point was specifically discussed at Community Board 7 as a parallel to the poor conditions at Willets Point. If the law is to be envisioned consistently, then the City may be precluded from exploiting conditions that it created as a basis for the presently contemplated land grab. It’s a unique situation, because it’s not every day that a municipality deliberately decides to neglect a neighborhood so that it can depress property values, induce at least a visual impression of “blight,” and then exploit the resulting situation to acquire the property. It would be interesting to see this decided by a judge, but my sense of this entire situation is that, for better or worse, property owners will sell for prices on the high end of fair, and none will remain to pursue a costly legal battle.
Finally, that “the previous passive policy” “not be the policy of the future” is precisely what existing property owners have been requesting since at least the early 1990s and possible prior to that. But they were denied by Donald Manes, Claire Shulman, Helen Marshall and their cohorts. Stavisky and Meyersohn have been equally unhelpful over the years with improving Willets Point; one hopes the electorate will hold them accountable for their inaction. I know I will. (Go, Schwartz! Go, Koo!!) With the exception of Manes, who is dead, these same people now have the nerve to suggest that assistance they denied for all of those years to existing property owners, will be given, and then some, to the new property owner after the land grab has been completed. It’s only natural that the existing property owners should be enraged. This whole project would have been a lot less contentious if it had not been headlined by Shulman & Co. Because of who they are and the harm they’ve inflicted on the property owners in the past, the property owners have probably been more likely to dig in their heels on this. I guess no one in City government considered that.
If Golden Girls Shulman, Marshall, Stavisky and Meyersohn think that their legacies will somehow be enhanced by the redevelopment of Willets Point, they should think again. When all is said and done, the net effect on their reputations will be negative, as their misdeeds will have been exposed and memorialized permanently for future generations to know, via Internet articles, dinner time conversations and the like. I suspect that the present property owners will guarantee that is the case.
<I.Conditions on privately held property there are hardly slum-like.
really?? tin shacks housing up to five businesses with undocumented underground storage tanks and no C of O’s and numerous fire hazards isnt slum like? have YOU ever been in the triangle? thats the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard. Only in Calcutta or the hills of Rio de Janiero do you see structures like that erected and containing human beings.
The majority of the structures in the triangle are complete squalor and the definition of blight.
the characteristics of blight are as follows:
irregularity of the plots look at the property map in the DGEIS. the place is carved up in a patchwork fashion with no consistency
inadequacy of the streets the street grid in willets is completely a mess. its a complete free for all with burned out carcasses of cars flipped over in front of businesses.
diversity of land ownership making assemblage of property difficult 50 different tenant landowners renting to 250 businesses in a small area.
incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property with corona and flushing featuring a mix of residential and commercial the iron triangle sits between this and right next to the largest park in the city.
overcrowding the businesses are stacked FIVE to a lot in some areas.
incidence of crime, ive outlined this before. Curious as to how these vendors assemble such a wide variety of Wheels and car parts? Of course fencing stolen goods is routine as proven by the numerous arrests for such activity.
Lack of sanitation the area has been ALWAYS served by cesspools and is not connected to the sewer grid
fire hazards building code violations, illegal underground storage tanks, sub standard construction with NO Certificates of Occupancy. the place is a tinder box.
traffic congestion clearly an issue with the amount of people coming and going from within the triangle.
pollution Federal brownfield in need or remediation.
NOW .. show me a “million dollar home in Brooklyn” that meets all of those characteristics.
Again, the people who own the land are ultimately at fault for the condition of the large majority of the triangle. You would get NO argument from the WPIRA on this fact. They despise the chop shop image of the triangle and see themselves as a separate class of citizens.
I wouldn’t advocate condemnation of those businesses like Feinstein or Tully or Fodera or Soni. But the city is working with these owners in a clearly different way than the tenant landlords that even the WPIRA despises. I would advocate Eminent Domain with respect to the businesses that meet the above requirements of blight. the “respectable businesses of Willets” (WPIRA Words not mine) are receiving “fair and reasonable” (sambucci and antonacci’s words not mine) settlements to move their businesses. the absentee slumlords are currently being dealt with in the same manner. I would recommend a stronger stance with respect to these lots. THe BUSINESSES that RENT from these absentee slumlord entities are being dealt with in a completely separate manner. they have a dedicated consultant to devise a plan to move them as one or individually if they so desire. I would recommend some sort of equity land ownership in there new home. And if they are conducting illegal activity I would definitely like to see investigation and prosecution.
the question I have and the question MOST PEOPLE HAVE is why would anyone be against the remediation and redevelopment of Willets Point?
what’s your plan? spend 200 or so million of tax payer funds to put in a sewage and drainage system for the existing businesses so they can sell the land to Fed Ex in five years at ten times the price?? so what’s your motivation? .. i wonder?
The tin shacks exist not because Willets Point businesses prefer them, but because construction of superior, permanent structures is prohibited in areas such as Willets Point that are not connected to the sewer system. The City is the sole determinant of whether or not a neighborhood is connected to the sewer system. Therefore, it is the City that is accountable for the tin shacks and other consequences of the failure to provide the sewer connection. You claim, “the people who own the land are ultimately at fault for the condition of the large majority of the triangle.” That simply isn’t true. To the contrary: The land owners and their tenants have done everything in their power to attempt to improve conditions, but have received NOTHING in response from the City. If sewers were installed and permanent buildings erected, do you think low-cost auto shops would occupy them? Not a chance. But that’s entirely out of the property owners’ hands, since they can’t install sewers. (Well, actually, T. Mina and Tully can, but that’s an argument for another time. Kelo was incapable of doing the sort of redevelopment that New London had in mind; but Tully, Feinstein and others in Willets Point are capable, and perhaps should have right of refusal…)
Also contrary to your claim, NO plan is contemplated to move tenant businesses “as one” to a new appropriate location. Robert Leiber so stated last November during testimony before the Council’s Land Use and Economic Development committees. More recently, the City Planning Commission seemed perplexed by the lack of any plan on EDC’s part, at this late date in the ULURP process, to relocate tenant businesses as a group. If such a plan had been announced right from the beginning, opposition to the project would not be as intense as it is today. With the lack of such a plan, observers conclude that EDC is scornful of the tenant businesses; presumes that the public does not care what happens to them; and hopes that they will die off during the ULURP process, thereby enabling EDC to avoid all the trouble and work of relocating them. Well, that won’t do.
As Tony Avella has said, “EDC has done an absolutely terrible job. I don’t trust them.” Thank goodness for Monserrate and the majority of all the other Council members, who aren’t hoodwinked so easily by EDC’s deficient plan and work avoidance scheme. The plan will be fixed when, among other things, it indemnifies every affected business and person against losses they may incur before, during and after the redevelopment. As Monserrate has said, “With a project worth 4 billion, there’s no reason anyone should lose.”
I note that you did not comment on my explanation of the shameful roles of Shulman, Marshall, Stavisky (Go, Schwartz! Go, Koo!!) and Meyersohn in this redevelopment debacle.
At the CPC meeting in August the city’s plans for the tenant businesses was discussed.
As you may or may not know, the city has recently hired an outside contractor to work directly with the tenant businesses to design a plan that meets their needs. Whether it be to move as one or individually.
I think most of the objections of the tenant businesses have been from the lack of communication to date with the city.
But communication is a two way street. There is blame to spread on all parties involved. As you’ve outlined the tenant businesses have taken a hostile approach to the master plan - hopefully that will change like it has for the owner operators (reference quote from T. Mina in the article)
Just like the owner operators are now coming around and talking to the city in a rational manner (after the meeting for which this post is titled) I think there will be a similar cathartic moment for the tenant businesses.
As I’ve shown, there are many options to relocate the businesses and there is NOT a lack of appropriately zoned property in the city.
Blame for non-communication is properly placed ONLY upon the EDC, and is not shared by tenant businesses. Community Board members remarked that EDC’s communications have been “evasive” at best. Through their public demonstrations, remarks at hearings, published letters, and so on, tenant businesses have communicated precisely what is required, and only recently, due to those unpaid efforts, has EDC reformulated its plan, which from the beginning never included relocating tenant businesses as a group, or perhaps otherwise (per Robert Leiber’s November testimony to the Council). Even Leiber’s recent letter to Community Board 7 mentions only “retraining” of workers for other jobs, but not preservation/relocation of the existing businesses. So EDC and Leiber have been consistent all along with no intent to relocate existing tenant businesses, which conveniently fits into a work avoidance scheme. Only when tenant businesses made enough noise – helped by Monserrate, God bless him – has EDC begun to realize that it cannot get away with disposing of the tenant businesses, and must relocate them. Talk about a “cathartic moment” for anyone involved – That takes the prize.
Along with Shulman, Marshall, Stavisky (”Go, Schwartz! Go, Koo!!) and Meyersohn, EDC’s reputation is going to be severly damaged for the long term as a result of its bungling of this project from the beginning, in ways that have been entirely foreseeable and for which there can be no excuse.
Finally, notwithstanding any deals that Sambucci and the others may feel pressured to make at this time, they do remain “hostile” towards the master plan which effectively pushes them off of their land, imposes burdens on their businesses, and threatens their ongoing operations. (There has been testimony that 98 pre cent of relocated businesses fail, for reasons stemming from the relocation. The future is indeed dim for Sambucci and all the others.) In fact, Sambucci has publicly stated that he hopes the entire project falls through, so that he can stay right where he is. That’s his first choice. There is no enthusiasm for this redevelopment among the present property owners, nor will there ever be.
you are confusing making retraining available to workers with relocation of businesses. they stand separately.
giving someone an opportunity to learn additional skills and expand their marketability can be done while relocating the people who actually run and own the tenant businesses. these workers are not rocket scientists (no offense meant). the offer of free educational and vocational training is something I think anyone would welcome.
giving the WORKERS of the triangle additional options can only be a good thing. Just like their bosses have options to move their businesses the workers should have options to either continue to work at the new location or take their newly expanded skills and start another hob.
Or do you subscribe to the Ardizzone doctrine that all the workers of Willets Point are mentally and physically challenged and cant ever work anywhere else?
You miss my point. Retraining was the only option available to Willets Point workers, especially tenant businesses, until appropriate pressure was successfully applied by workers, Monserrate and others, to compel EDC to rethink its denial of relocation services to tenant businesses. The record on this couldn’t be clearer, and Monserrate will continue to keep the pressure steady until all necessary concessions have been extracted from EDC. From day one, it’s obvious that preservation of existing jobs should have been prioritized higher than retraining options, consistent with the wishes of the workers and, by the way, the predictions of those who will do the retraining if this moves forward.
Even the existing announced retraining program falls short of being truly attractive. A small (as yet unspecified) stipend will be provided to workers who select retraining, but it isn’t intended to cover all of their living expenses. Therefore, a worker who is being retrained will simultaneously need to work at some other job, which won’t be the one he has now. He’ll be doing double-duty: As a student and as a worker. He’s inconvenienced to some degree by pursuing the retraining offer. A truly attractive system would allow the workers to hit the lottery, so to speak. They’d be paid the same salary they now earn, and be able to pursue the retraining wholeheartedly. It’s no skin off the City’s back to make up the difference between the stipend they will offer, and the full salaries of affected workers.
EDC and the City fail to recognize that the way to eliminate resistance to this project is to make offers in all respects that are so good, the affected people would have to be crazy to not go along. new Yorkers would celebrate such an approach and the associated good treatment that it embodies. Sadly, there’re instead nickel and diming as much as possible, every step of the way.
there is a difference between the Willets Point workers - those that receive salary and little or no job benefits for their daily work in the auto shops and the people who OWN the auto shop business. these individuals will not be doing any retraining as they already OWN BUSINESSES.
there are three parties to this situation
the Workers of Willets (numbering around 800-1,000 in the auto repair field. these people are offered retraining and have the option of moving to a new location with their current employer or taking their skills to another employer
the tenant Business owners numbering from 200 - 250 in the auto related field. these people pay monthly rent and employee people to work on cars. The majority also are involved in the repair but they are not reliant on a salary. they will most probably be offered relocation and possibly equity ownership in whatever land they move to.
the absentee slumlord entities these entities are usually Limited liability corporations or partnerships that are usually sheltered entities that own the underlying land that is in the triangle. They receive fees from teh business owners on a monthly basis and put little or no money back into the property. they are being offered a fair market price for their property fro the city.
First, I note that you have not challenged my characterization of EDC’s failure to prioritize relocation over retraining, from the beginning; nor Monserrate’s triumph in forcing EDC to realize that lack of relocation is unaceptable.
You also have not commented on the roles of Shulman, Marshall, Stavisky (”Go, Schwartz! Go, Koo!!”) in this debacle. Their legacies are forever tarnished by the can of worms they’ve opened. Hopefully the electorate will hold them accountable (those still in office). I know I will.
Thus far, none of the Willets Point three groups you have identified has been offered a genuinely attractive deal.
Workers: If selecting retraining, have to also hold down a full-time job while struggling to attend retraining. Highly inconvenient and reduces the effectiveness of the training. Why not make it attractive for them, by paying their salaries and eliminating the need for them to work full time during retraining? Wouldn’t cost much at all, for the number of people involved. And, with 2.5 million already going to LaGuardia, apparently there’s no shortage of cash. What can LaGuardia do for 2.5 million, that it can’t for just 2 million? Heck, if you give me just a lousy 1 million, I will personally retrain every single Willets Point worker, one-on-one.
Tenants: You now say “they will most probably be offered relocation.” Unacceptable. They must be offered relocation, and in a group or groups if they desire. Non-group relocation destroys the service network on which they and customers rely, and likely subjects them to the 98 per cent relocated business death rate. Furthermore, rather than wait for tenants to organize the groups, EDC should be taking the initiative and signing them up. Yet another EDC aspect where nobody’s home. Perhaps EDC reads this, and will be inspired to curtail the work avoidance program long enough to do something truly useful.
Absentee property owners: Would you put money back into a property, with the perennial threat of condemnation hanging over the site? And with the City refusing to meet you half way with basic infrastructure? The property owners’ hands have been tied, deliberately, by the City for decades, and the results of that cannot now be held against them. That’s why the lawsuit brought by WPIRA against the City is fantastic news for all Willets Point property owners.
I don’t hold much of a high opinion of ANY of the local pols.. Shulman, Marshall, Stavisky and Hiram Monseratte.
I’m encouraged by the focus Bloomberg has put on the area and his making this a priority in his waning days in office.
As to the EDCs priorities I think they are dealing with retraining of workers and relocation of businesses along with the other mechanics involved in moving this project through the process. Any bureaucracy will not move as quickly as the public or interested parties would like.
I wish the process would move faster so the area could be leveled by April 2009 but that doesn’t look like a possibility.
But it looks like finally after all these years there is an end in sight for the stinking mess that is the iron triangle and we all should be happy for that.
You persist with the false mischaracterization of Willets Point.
The area is not a “stinking mess.” It suffers from neglect and disrepair, inflicted upon it deliberately by the City of New York over the course of decades. Thankfully, the bad conditions are for the most part limited to the City “streets” but not extend into the privately owners businesses, which have flourished for decades despite the City’s neglect, because they provide essential services and have plenty of satisfied customers.
EDC has presented a plan missing key components to safeguard existing businesses. Only through the tireless efforts of Hiram Monserrate and others will the plan be adapted and implemented properly, if at all. And, the Council must ensure that this project does not result in any ominous precedents, whereby the handling of Willets Point essentially creates a new mechanism allowing anyone’s private property to be seized and handed over to another private entity for use in a private project. Until and unless all of that, and more, happens, there will be nothing whatsoever for intelligent people of New York City to be happy about concerning this project. On the other hand, beer guzzling Mets fans, billionaire developers and their friends couldn’t care less about the negative consequences of the project (and there are many).
Thankfully, the bad conditions are for the most part limited to the City “streets” but not extend into the privately owners businesses
if you believe this you are maybe the only person in the city other than the lawyers and politicians paid off by the WPIRA. Unless you are one of the lawyers or politicians paid off by the WPIRA.
I believe it because I have taken the time to personally investigate it and know it to be true, unlike others, who seem to put complete faith in everything they hear and read that is put forth by the City. The next person who personally investigates similar issues will be the judge responsible for adjudicating WPIRA’s lawsuit against the City, unless the suit is dismissed. But I imagine that not even that judge’s finding, if it agrees with my point of view, will satisfy you and others of your ilk, who are bent on seeing this project accomplished, no matter what.
Believe me Ive been a witness to the triangle since 1973 and have walked every street in the area.
to assume I’m just spouting some party line is the height of pomposity
so tell us all what your position is with the law firm representing the WPIRA?
or are you employed by the PR Firm or the horde of consultants that are milking these poor people of countless dollars?
these WPIRA guys dont have the deep pockets of Cablevision so I hope you leave something for them to run their businesses in the end