Mets Mall

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Can't wait to shop at Victor Diaz's Secret.

Mets owners close to deal with city to build mall at Willets Point Businesses in grubby area next to Citi Field object http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mets-owners-close-deal-city-build-mall-willets-point-article-1.1071635#ixzz1toMoxAtb The owners of the cash-challenged Mets are close to a deal with the city to build a mall at Willets Point over the objections of existing businesses in the grubby area next to Citi Field, sources said Wednesday. Fred and Jeff Wilpon and Saul Katz will join forces with Related Cos. on the retail component of the redevelopment plan. Word that the Wilpons and their partner won the bid surfaced soon after the city withdrew eminent domain proceedings to take over property in the so-called Iron Triangle of auto-body shops and factories. Willets Point United, a group that opposes the city overhaul, said it was a foregone conclusion the Mets would be chosen for the first phase of redevelopment, calling the bidding process �a dog-and-pony show.� Coalition leader Jerry Antonacci said that if the city refiles for eminent domain, �they�ll have another fight on their hands.� �The whole process has been underhanded and shady,� he complained. The Wilpons� firm, Sterling Equities, and Related Cos. had no comment. Sterling recently settled a 15-month battle with the trustee in the Bernie Madoff case, agreeing to pay back $162 million in profits from investments with the Ponzi schemer. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mets-owners-close-deal-city-build-mall-willets-point-article-1.1071635#ixzz1toMhPIhr

[Ceetar]

exciting. Maybe we can get a solid craft beer bar in there for pre/post game drinks better than McFaddens.

[metirish]

Willets Point United

now playing in the auto trade flushing league.

[Edgy MD]

I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting."

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting."

It is when I can imagine a nice bar in there. Plus, it's a symbol of replacing wild dogs, flood potholes, and what not with something a little bit more aesthetically pleasing.

[Guest themetfairy]

I'm in favor of places to hang out before and after games.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I've long thought that a row of restaurants/bars/hang-outs along Roosevelt Avenue would be the most practical location. And the Mets already own the land they'd just have to build over a small strip of the parking lot.

[Ceetar]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I've long thought that a row of restaurants/bars/hang-outs along Roosevelt Avenue would be the most practical location. And the Mets already own the land they'd just have to build over a small strip of the parking lot.

yes, that would be pretty awesome.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Don't forget Hicks and Sticks.

[metirish]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters.

lol

Lee Mazzilli's Tanning Salon

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I can't wait to buy dope swag from my favorite Mets mall stores Tanana Republic, Build-A-Bearnarth Workshop, Shane Spencer Giftfs, Hawk Taylor Loft, Lane Brian Bohanon, Abercrombie & Twitchell, Barnes & Kobel (that one's a reach), and Elmer Dessenscrafters.

And finish up with a frozen yogurt at Strawberry.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

It would be neat of they could have a Wrigleyville kind of thing!

[Guest themetfairy]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It would be neat of they could have a Wrigleyville kind of thing!

Exactly!

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'd be slow to call the development of any mall "exciting." It is when I can imagine a nice bar in there. Plus, it's a symbol of replacing wild dogs, flood potholes, and what not with something a little bit more aesthetically pleasing.

True, but compare a mall to what was first being proposed back when the redevelopment of WP was first discussed.

The Wilpons started with dreams of their very own faux Brooklyn ballyard neighborhood, Wrigleyville or Yawkey Way, or Jerome Ave, and with a prospective sporting arena to perhaps lure the Islanders/Nets/a soccer team to Flushing (the latter probably was more of a pipe dream, but would have fit in with the bars, shops, restaurants and hotels that were the centerpieces of the plans) and now, just a shopping mall?

gFAT8_5hPWA

Yeah...no. Kind of would rather see the rows and rows of chop shops than a building with grossly expensive merchandise gets sold, even if you put a Target or Best Buy in there.

[Vic Sage]

as much as i'd like a nice place to go for a reasonably priced beer and/or decent meal in the CitiField area, before and after games, i don't think i have a "right" to it over the interests of property and business owners currently there.

Seizing neighboring property so the Mets can build a mall is an abuse of govtl power. The exercise of "eminent domain" should be a last-ditch strategy for creation of necessary civic works (roads and railways, utilities, public safety), not a first strategy to seize private property and sell it to other private interests (or provide undue leverage to force the sale) to improve shopping options in an area. In addition, extending the principles of "E.D." to such an extent will result in unjust enrichment for businesses with govt'l contacts (i.e., lobbying money) and is a practice highly susceptible to corruption.

If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary.

[Edgy MD]

I'd only change that by rephrasing "highly susceptible to corruption" as "highly susceptible to corruption."

Sometimes the system can be so conducive to corruption that we no longer recognize it for what it is.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary.

I'd support your proposal even if the appropriation doesn't get approved.

[Ceetar]

I'd only question why if it's so highly susceptible to corruption, why hasn't it happened yet. Even this report says it's not official. The desire to take over that area has been there for a while. I remember eminent domain abuse signs up there back before Citi Field was even done. And I know the plan to develop the area goes back further than that.

I have very very little sympathy for the shop owners there amongst the wild dogs and whatever rackets they're running.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Vic Sage wrote: as much as i'd like a nice place to go for a reasonably priced beer and/or decent meal in the CitiField area, before and after games, i don't think i have a "right" to it over the interests of property and business owners currently there. Seizing neighboring property so the Mets can build a mall is an abuse of govtl power. The exercise of "eminent domain" should be a last-ditch strategy for creation of necessary civic works (roads and railways, utilities, public safety), not a first strategy to seize private property and sell it to other private interests (or provide undue leverage to force the sale) to improve shopping options in an area. In addition, extending the principles of "E.D." to such an extent will result in unjust enrichment for businesses with govt'l contacts (i.e., lobbying money) and is a practice highly susceptible to corruption. If this "appropriation" gets approved, i'd support a new state law similar to that passed in other states which have narrowed this power to only such civic works as are absolutely necessary.

This. And as I noted, a better location for this kind of development right near the main road/subway stop/parking lot is already in possession of the Mets.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up.

And I think the mall is step 1, with other things to follow.

[Vic Sage]

I have very very little sympathy for the shop owners there amongst the wild dogs and whatever rackets they're running.

that's no more relevant than sympathy for nazis is necessary to defend the 1st Amendment. It's about a principle to limit governmental intervention in private rights.

[Edgy MD]

I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up.

Problem is to me that proper compensation be set by the free market. Not by the whim of the landgrabber.

The city doesn't need to sieze private property to "clean the place up."

On laws that check eminent domain:

... can such laws trump the Supreme Court decision?

... aren't laws by states and municipalities checking the powers of states and municipalities rather toothless --- especially if the courts roll over as they've done?

[Vic Sage]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I have no problem with replacing the Iron Triangle as long as they are properly compensated. The city as a whole benefits greatly by having that area cleaned up. And I think the mall is step 1, with other things to follow.

yeah, and i have no problem with replacing your home with a cool roller coaster.

Ya know it ain't hard to get along with SOMEbody else's troubles,
they don't make ya lose any sleep at night,
just as long as fate is out there, busting somebody else's bubbles,
everything's gonna be alright,
and everything is gonna be alright.

Yes, the city would probably do better financially, and on that basis, it will probably be upheld legally (that's why a state law is going to be necessary). And i'm sure it's just a coincidence that Sterling will be the major beneficiary of that change, right? And i'm sure that a bunch of small businesses should be ended so that Sterling can pocket those profits, right? You want to characterize these businesses as eyesores conducting illegal activity but that's an accusation unsupported by any particular facts, because, were it true, the police could shut those places down WITHOUT "E.D." so its just rumor and reputation, because its a poorly maintained area... and guess who has poorly maintained the property? NYC, that's who. So they fail to maintain roads, sewers, lighting, and then turn around and condemn it and hand it over to private corp for a mall. And you're COOL WITH THAT because you don't like the way it looks and would prefer a Best Buy and a TGIFriday's?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse.

[Vic Sage]

can such laws trump the Supreme Court decision?

no, but the SC has given wide latitude to the states to decide for themselves what a valid "public use" is, and some states have taken them up on it by limiting ED.

are those laws "toothless"? We'll see, but in theory no more than any other state laws not otherwise in conflict with federal law.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm not an ED fan either (and they are not pursuing that route now anyway). And I'm sure Related Cos and Wilpons are filthy businesses themselves. And I don't want a fake mall next to the Stadium. And I'd bet any Wilpon-backed building will probably be ugly itself.

But the Triangle is a mess because the businesses there built on unimproved land. And those who have moved since this thing started weren't forced to but got pretty sweet offers to set up in nicer dumps in College Point.

[Edgy MD]

I like this topic.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse.

which as I understand it has been the case so far. There was a blog about it with links but it's gone.

[Vic Sage]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ...But the Triangle is a mess because the businesses there built on unimproved land. And those who have moved since this thing started weren't forced to but got pretty sweet offers to set up in nicer dumps in College Point.

Agreed, but the city shouldn't then be able to turn around and condemn the property because THEY THEMSELVES failed to ever improve the land. And businesses that get sweet offers and move is how this SHOULD work. they shouldn't be extorted by Sterling, saying "either sell it to me at a low price, or the city will condemn it, pay you the minimum per acre value for this neighborhood, and give it to me for a buck cuz i'm a developer that owns their ass and they just want more tax money for the area anyway."