Redeveloping Willets Point

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So

started. Score one for Mets fans looking for a home neighborhood... and for pretty egregious misuse of eminent domain.

I'm of two minds about the subject (as I'd imagine a good portion of you are). What are your specific thoughts? Hopes? Dreams?

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So this started. Score one for Mets fans looking for a home neighborhood... and for pretty egregious misuse of eminent domain. I'm of two minds about the subject (as I'd imagine a good portion of you are). What are your specific thoughts? Hopes? Dreams?

I'm all for it, and I think this is exactly what eminent domain is for. It's not like these are nice clean businesses. They're run down chop shops in a not so safe area with dogs running around and pot holes big enough to lose Prince Fielder in. (Although I do admit it's a nice shortcut to the GCP if you're over there w/o having to deal with all the other cars)

McFadden's is a nice start, but it'd be nice to have a real area to want to stick around. And imagine what the Mets could do on off days, if the area was actually attractive to go to?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Wifey works for EDC, though not on this project. Like a lot of these situations, there will be some posturing until the very end, much of it for the benefit of news media and pre$$ure for more, forcing a showdown on eminent domain, etc etc. Sounds as though that the legit biznesses that can make it elsewhere are being offered good deals to go do that in College Point, and several have already accepted. The triangle is a dump after all.

My fear is that all this will ultimately result in some heinous, mall-like thing, but given the great demand for housing & biz in Flushing, and the need to improve areas on both sides of CitiField, it's ultimately got to happen.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I hope they build a McDonald's. We could use a couple more banks, too. And two cell phone stores.

[ashie62]

I have a property in the area for sale...The buyer will (and me) have an issue with contaminated soil.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: I'm all for it, and I think this is exactly what eminent domain is for.

I'm no lawyer. And this may be the most prominent use of eminent domain these days, but it sure as hell isn't what the concept actually means (think "extreme necessity" and/or "public utility").

If these chop shops are conducting illegal activities, nail them with hard proof, then auction off the property afterward. When you start saying things like "clean businesses" without actual proof of "dirt," and advocate action based on this rationalization, it's not unlike jury conviction of a likely-seeming criminal without actual evidence. ("I mean, come on... just look at him.")

McFadden's is a nice start, but it'd be nice to have a real area to want to stick around. And imagine what the Mets could do on off days, if the area was actually attractive to go to?

Excepting sweet group-ticket/meal deals, I see little to recommend the joint, frankly. It's noisy, uncomfortable, and about as fan- and fam-unfriendly as the inside isn't.

I'm hoping for some Mom and Pop Paysonville action... or at least something that reflects the actual diversity of the surrounding-- or, rather, nearby-- neighborhoods. I'd like to be able to buy actual elote with my "Phuck the Phillies" t-shirts, IOW.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

It's a shame they didn't covert Shea into apartments.

[Valadius]

Good. They've needed to put a sewer line in there for what, 100 years?

[seawolf17]

I don't know. I went to a game with him last year, and he already seemed like a fully formed adult. I don't know that redevelopment is the answer.

[Fman99]

seawolf17 wrote: I don't know. I went to a game with him last year, and he already seemed like a fully formed adult. I don't know that redevelopment is the answer.

Nicely done.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

seawolf17 wrote: I don't know. I went to a game with him last year, and he already seemed like a fully formed adult. I don't know that redevelopment is the answer.

I c wut u did there.

[Ceetar]

Excepting sweet group-ticket/meal deals, I see little to recommend the joint, frankly. It's noisy, uncomfortable, and about as fan- and fam-unfriendly as the inside isn't. I'm hoping for some Mom and Pop Paysonville action... or at least something that reflects the actual diversity of the surrounding-- or, rather, nearby-- neighborhoods. I'd like to be able to buy actual elote with my "Phuck the Phillies" t-shirts, IOW.

McFadden's isn't great, but i was comparing it to not having anything. It's a typical sports bar attached to a park. probably exactly the same as Phillies. But it's not a bad meeting point, as compared to reading every brick in the fanwalk (which I assume will get boring after about 2014 or so once I read them all. I did notice they replaced the Seaver brick though) Like if I'm meeting someone at 6 and I have his ticket, and i'm there at 5:30.

I'd hope the new area is nice. I think the probability of elote corn is about as likely as a vendor or restaurant that serves it choosing to lease space there. Whatever it is, it's not going to be a Mets run thing.

Now, if you have the capital, and want to invest, I'd be glad to pitch in and we can open up a Crane Pool Forum Grill..

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, the displacing of private businesses for the purpose of using that land for different private businesses is specifically NOT what eminent domain was designed to do - even if a recent (and egregious IMO) Supreme Court ruling says that it's allowable. NYC shouldn't neglect to pave roads and install sewers and then act as if it's the fault of the locals because the place is an eyesore on account of there being no sewers and big potholes. Plus the charge that they're all illegal chop shops and the like kind of falls to the ground when you consider that the city was openly doing business with some of them for construction and iron work while building CitiField.

I don't know. I went to a game with him last year, and he already seemed like a fully formed adult. I don't know that redevelopment is the answer.

This was my first reaction too. What's he going to be redeveloped as ... a conservative republican? Oooh I don't think he'd like that one bit.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, the displacing of private businesses for the purpose of using that land for different private businesses is specifically NOT what eminent domain was designed to do - even if a recent (and egregious IMO) Supreme Court ruling says that it's allowable. NYC shouldn't neglect to pave roads and install sewers and then act as if it's the fault of the locals because the place is an eyesore on account of there being no sewers and big potholes. Plus the charge that they're all illegal chop shops and the like kind of falls to the ground when you consider that the city was openly doing business with some of them for construction and iron work while building CitiField. .

Isn't the idea of 'affordable' housing and a school enough 'public good' or whatever?

I understand that this is pushing it, but just because it's partially the city's fault that the area is so decrepit shouldn't mean they shouldn't look to make better use of it either. And they've given tons of warning. I know i'm incredibly biased because I'd like that area to be fun and nice for personal use, but it seems like people leaving the area have been happy with the deals they're getting, and part of the reason the ones that are unhappy are unhappy, is because they won't be able to exploit underhanded deals between each other as much.

Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Isn't the idea of 'affordable' housing and a school enough 'public good' or whatever?

Would you feel this way if were the property of your viable (despite not receiving city services) business being seized?

I'm not sure how the existence of the businesses in the iron triangle were depressing the availablity of affordable housing and schools.

Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there.

Which is a state of affairst that's certainly on the city.

I'm sure they'll achieve something like a just settlement, because the city won't want to look like the bad guy and/or spend years in court. They'll get a generous offer, but with the hammer of eminent domain hanging over them, it'll be an offer they can't refuse.

[Ceetar]

I don't know how I'd feel, as I don't actually own a business. It's hard to extrapolate. But I think i'd see the opportunity to move on from an area like that, whoever's fault it is, if the deal is really a good one as some have made it out to be.

I'm conflicted on it, but ultimately I think the area, and the businesses, will all be better off. Moving to a 'real' street with paved roads and no floods and what not seems to be a good business decision. A lot of what made that area successful was word of mouth and the reputation it had as the place to go for whatever. They won't be able to cut corners as easily and do whatever they do there. Probably can't leave cars filled with garbage and car parts sitting on the sidewalk in College Point or whereever they relocate to, but thety wouldn't be able to do that if the city paved the area and cleaned it up all nice either.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't think it's fair to characterize all the businesses as operating on the shady side. If the city failed to enforce laws and regulations as well as provide the services that their tax dollars entitled them to, who is to be surprised that folks would slide toward Wild West ethics?

There will certailny be opportunities for these business owners. But the greater point remains that using eminent domain (or the threat of eminent domain) for commercial development is abusive and a scary precedent.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think it's fair to characterize all the businesses as operating on the shady side. If the city failed to enforce laws and regulations as well as provide the services that their tax dollars entitled them to, who is to be surprised that folks would slide toward Wild West ethics? There will certailny be opportunities for these business owners. But the greater point remains that using eminent domain (or the threat of eminent domain) for commercial development is abusive and a scary precedent.

If the manager fails to enforce discipline or rules, who's surprised when the players look a little sloppy or unprepared? (this to a common acquisition that the Mets are soft and don't care or whatever)

I don't know that they all are, but that's the impression I get from people talking about them. I wonder if those businesses would be unhappy if the city decided totake an interest in the area, non-eminent domain like?

I'm only looking at it as it applies to Willets Point, where I think it's a good idea. Other situations, not so much. But this certainly isn't the government bulldozing homes to build a freeway. or an intergallatic bypass.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, but once we let that genie is out of the bottle, we don't really get a say in how he behaves next.

[G-Fafif]

The Second Spitter wrote: It's a shame they didn't covert Shea into apartments.

At last an endorsement for this proposal!

To be fair, apartments was my alternative proposal. My big idea was keep Shea in addition to Citi for double home field advantage. I stand by my insane romanticism.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, but once we let that genie is out of the bottle, we don't really get a say in how he behaves next.

I think the genie's already out of the bottle. We don't get a say here do we?

[soupcan]

But...it looks so pretty...

[G-Fafif]

Not pictured: Proud Flushingites sporting home team gear; local merchants' windows featuring signs saluting the five-time world champion New York Mets.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there.

Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it?

If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly..

In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There's no if about it, though; that's the point. When eminent domain is invoked, it's compulsory.

Man, the fifth amendment isn't just for gangsters. Fourth too, baby.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it? If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly..

That's just it; given ED hanging over the proceedings, you almost definitely wouldn't be getting as much as you would on the open market.

Ceetar wrote: In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well.

So would building and running a giant abattoir for "processing" the homeless. (And hey! Two civic blights solved!)

[i'm not saying that paving over "Hubcaps, Hubcaps, Hubcaps" and putting up a few Johnny Rockets is the moral equivalent of that... but it isn't a slam dunk that these ends justify the worm-can-opening inherent in their means.]

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it? If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly.. In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well.

Now there's an idea -- justifying eminent domain because the ensuing demolition tear-down and build-up will create more construction jobs.

How come I never thought of that?

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it? If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly.. That's just it; given ED hanging over the proceedings, you almost definitely wouldn't be getting as much as you would on the open market. Ceetar wrote: In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well. So would building and running a giant abattoir for "processing" the homeless. (And hey! Two civic blights solved!) [i'm not saying that paving over "Hubcaps, Hubcaps, Hubcaps" and putting up a few Johnny Rockets is the moral equivalent of that... but it isn't a slam dunk that these ends justify the worm-can-opening inherent in their means.]

can of worms? I mean.. I understand that there are questions about if it should or shouldn't be possible, but isn't the law already in existence? Hasn't this been determined to be legitimate? I mean, we can get into debates about government and corruption and all that, but this isn't some loophole is it? Or is it an interpretation thing on what falls under eminent domain?

[Guest Edgy DC]

No, the exercise of eminent domain for commerical development is a very recent and highly controversial precedent put through by a divided court, granting new rights to governments, and people should be very wary and resistant when they see their government exercising it.