Willets Point Pro and Con, from the Queens Courier
The Queens courier ran op-eds from both sides of the argument regarding Willets Point. Claire Shulman writes in favor of the plan, while the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association provided the argument against the plan.
Some highlights from Claire Shulman’s piece:
For several generations Willets Point has been an eyesore in north central Queens. As Flushing to its east and Corona to its west have thrived, Willets Point has been frozen in time, with street scenes more likely to be witnessed in a third world country than the greatest city on earth. All of that is about to change…
…The new Willets Point will join a new Citi Field across the street, the U. S. National Tennis Center and outstanding cultural facilities such as the New York Hall of Science, Queens Theatre in the Park, the Queens Museum of Art, the Queens Zoo and the Queens Botanical Garden next door in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.
Over the next several months, the City Council will debate the Willets Point plan. I urge you to contact your local councilmember to add your support for redeveloping Willets Point to unlock one of the greatest economic bonanzas our city has ever seen.
Couldn’t agree more with that comment about contacting your council member. There’s no better time than now to do so.
Excerpts from the Con op-ed will be posted later today.
6 Comments to Willets Point Pro and Con, from the Queens Courier
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Welcome to Develop Willets Point
Claire is really a poor writer. You’d think they’d have people on staff to craft a coherent message.
She really doesnt give much of a PRO argument but more of an update on the process.
The big difference between the two opinions is Claire contends the workers are all min wage no bene workers and WPIRA claims them to be skilled high wage high benefit employees.
Since the WPIRA only represents 14 of the 260 some odd businesses ( and 70 some landowners) I imagine they are just speaking for their own employees.
Its clear to me from the CON argument that the landowners want the services to turn the triangle into a bustling INDUSTRIAL park and object to the use of ED to buy them out. Well. the city should simply say they dont want an industrial park there. they have Industrial Business Zones set up for those businesses.
They should make the argument that the people of the city would be better served if the area was a bustling Residential/Commercial/Entertainment Venue given its location. And outline the added jobs and revenue associated with such a transformation. Period. End of debate.
i should say the THREAT of ED to buy them out.
I read the 1991 study referenced in the CON article and it doesnt provide any real great alternatives.
the highlights:
the city would have to spend 25-30 million or more 1991 dollars to install a sewer system. Remediation costs could not be estimated. But are described as not practical for a small business owner or developer to absorb .
The current sewer mains in the area do not have the capacity to support triangle development and a pumping station would have to be build to pump the sewage a mile uphill to the nearest main with capacity or build a new sewage treatment plant in the area (unpractical).
Over THIRTY YEARS the maximum about of jobs created in the industrial park proposed in the 1991 plan is 1500 -2,100 and new tax revenue generated would be 25 million.
They did some borings on private land in 1991 (the landowners must have been more accommodating) and found high levels of industrial pollution requiring serious mitigation before new construction.
Any new construction in the triangle (piece meal or large) would require mitigation of the land (at considerable cost to the private developer) and pilings set up to 80 feet into the ground.
According to law any new construction would require the elevation of the business OVER the 100 year flood plain level.
These last two are important because it shows the private developers can not develop the land sufficiently without serious capital investment (regardless of whether sewers are installed). This seems to be a strong reason why the point has not developed to date rather than solely the” lack of infrastructure” argument that has been made.
this document is linked on the WPIRA web site.
Interesting enough there is another good document linked on teh WPIRA site.
This document is presumably endorsed by WPIRA as they link to it prominently.
An APRIL 2006 Land use study funded by Hiram Montserrate and performed by Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development.
It’s 28 pages but the important line is on page 3..
The total assessed property value in Willets Point is $118 million, about $24 million of which is privately held land. The average assessed value per sq. foot for business firms is $13.50; this is comparable to the average for industrial properties in Brooklyn but lower than the Queens average
and again on page 7
Property values in Willets Point are comparablte to values in other industrial areas in Brooklyn and Queens. The total assesse value of property in Willets point was $118
millioni n 2004. Private land accounts for about $24 million of that total. Values of
tax lots range from a low of $17,550 to a high of $2,025,000. The average assessed
value was$ 13.50 per square foot, and most property falls in the range between $8
and $18 per square foot. This can be compared to averages of $17 per square foot for all Queens industrial properties and $13 for Brooklyn. The high average in Queens most likely reflects dramatic increases in land values in Long Island City.
So the City has set aside $150 million for land acquisition. which seems reasonable based on the WPIRA’s and Hiram’s own document.
Further, It doesn’t show much depreciation for the lack of sanitary sewers or whatever other services the rest of Queens may have.
It also doesnt support Hiram’s and the WPIRA’s claim (and their high paid hack lawyers) of the EDC stealing land for 10 cents on the dollar.