Mets Mall

[Ceetar]

okay, hang on a bit.

For one, they withdrew the ED thing. So does this mean the City already has the land required for the mall?

Is this article basically residents bitching that they don't like what's going up next door? well too bad! But who knows, maybe the roads get fixed if the city's building a mall nearby. And sidewalks too probably. And maybe they'll start ticketing those cars you leave everywhere, and install parking meters...

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: 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.

Well, as long as the eminent domain card is there to be played, any deal made is/was under coercion (extra-Constitutional coercion, to my thinking), whether your or I think it's a sweet price or not.

[Ceetar]

I mean, their were quotes about the sellers being happy with it. But sure. of course, eminent domain IS legal, no matter what your political stance is on it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, just because something is legal that doesn't mean it can't be abused.


I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, just because something is legal that doesn't mean it can't be abused. I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business.

political hypocrisy? well, that'd be a first.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I mean, their were quotes about the sellers being happy with it. But sure. of course, eminent domain IS legal, no matter what your political stance is on it.

And plenty of quotes about the holdouts being miserable.

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean folks have no grounds to object to it.

And yes, it was declared legal as sanctioned by a thin majority of the court in a strictly partisan ruling --- decided by the left wing of the Court, despite a chunk of the left wing of the forum here (at least as represented by Willets and Sage) dissenting, and at least one rep of the right (MGiM) assenting. Part of why I like the conversation --- it doesn't split on partisan lines.

I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business.

I don't think this is going to be as easy an hypocrisy trap for the right to walk into as all that.

[Ceetar]

I like the conversation more along the lines of what it's going to do for me personally. a Mets Mall. Bars, restaurants. a great place to watch out of town games after the Mets game to see how the division races are going. etc.

[Edgy MD]

That's disappointing.

Funny how this is reported at the exact same time as the city is withdrawing the E.D. card.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: That's disappointing. Funny how this is reported at the exact same time as the city is withdrawing the E.D. card.

Right, that's what I asked above. Where are they building this? Did they get enough via E.D. or is this somehow undeveloped City land? or what?

and I don't think it's disappointing that I don't find political debates interesting. I tend to find them full of too much yelling and insisting that one's world view is better than another.

[Edgy MD]

It's disappointing to me. And nobody was yelling.

And you sure had enough of a enough of a taste for political debate when it involved the Catholic Church.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: It's disappointing to me. And nobody was yelling. And you sure had enough of a enough of a taste for political debate when it involved the Catholic Church.

was talking in general, not about this issue.

yes, sometimes something piques my interest. I usually regret getting involved. I was including myself in the insisting one's world view is the 'correct' world view.

I think eminent domain has a place, and I'm not sold on this not being one of them. I don't believe that the business owners are completely innocent in the whole 'the city never takes care of us!' angle and suspect they've enjoyed that freedom whether it be the ability to treat the streets like a parking lot or something else.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Why are we assuming that chop shop people won't get a fair price? And what is a fair price for a corrugated metal shack on dirt with wild dogs and used car parts of questionable origin?

Are the chop shop people being unreasonable? It's hard to imagine that they haven't been offered money in the past. Do they have unrealistic expectations of how much they can get for those lots?

[Ceetar]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Why are we assuming that chop shop people won't get a fair price? And what is a fair price for a corrugated metal shack on dirt with wild dogs and used car parts of questionable origin? Are the chop shop people being unreasonable? It's hard to imagine that they haven't been offered money in the past. Do they have unrealistic expectations of how much they can get for those lots?

I think they're being stubborn. Dunno if that's right or wrong, but i'm not sure what their end game is. I suspect a mall and regular traffic in the area won't favor them (which is why they're bitching about it I guess)

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar again embraces political discourse.

I don't assume anything. I'm sure they're driving as hard a bargain as they can get. My objection is to existence of the eminent domain right at all --- which compromises the bargaining position by it's nature. I also object to their position being compromised by the city's deliberate neglect of the area, and that neglect being definitively held against the property owners.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand.

I also wonder if there is someone in the background. Is this really a little rag tag group of chop shop owners?

[Edgy MD]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand.

In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you?

I really think concerns over whether the property owners are saintly or greedy is a red herring.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Edgy DC wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you?

Not at all. But if you know your brother CAN punch you, you don't push him to do that, right?

If you know the city can use things like ED, seems like you get what you can get because if they use ED or another process, you're probably not going to get as much and it will cost you a bundle to fight it.

[Gwreck]

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

This might've been possible if they built the park in an existing neighborhood. I have a hard time seeing anything close to Wrigleyville materializing between those highways.

[Edgy MD]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: It seems like if they're playing such a hard bargain that the city uses other methods, then they overplayed their hand. In the you-shouldn't-have-made-me-punch-you sense? You're not my big brother, are you? Not at all. But if you know your brother CAN punch you, you don't push him to do that, right? If you know the city can use things like ED, seems like you get what you can get because if they use ED or another process, you're probably not going to get as much and it will cost you a bundle to fight it.

Yeah, sure. I guess you disagree, but I think that stinks.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I like casino amenities. I like gambling on occasion. Once in a while, I'm even able to take a sort of delight in the weird, fakey aesthetics of the Vegas pastiche.

I rarely-- if ever-- feel compelled to root for the house, though, regardless of how scummy the guy sitting at the 4 a.m. poker table seems. [i feel even less compelled to root for them when they're pursuing legally-questionable and morally-repellent means to achieve their tawdry-but-expensive ends.]

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar again embraces political discourse. I don't assume anything. I'm sure they're driving as hard a bargain as they can get. My objection is to existence of the eminent domain right at all --- which compromises the bargaining position by it's nature. I also object to their position being compromised by the city's deliberate neglect of the area, and that neglect being definitively held against the property owners.

guess I have no willpower here either. I probably should just stop, but hey, I've had a beer or three..

I ask this totally without judgement, but do you think the neglect of the area was _deliberate_? What would've prompted that? Why would they city decide "eh, they don't need roads paved or traffic signs.." Did they used to maintain it, back in say 65, and stop? Is that neglect being held against the owners? Because it seems like they're just as much twisted it to their advantage too. Using that neglect as evidence of a specific vendetta against them. But I imagine city oversight leads to parking laws, opposite side of the street parking, street sweeping (all evident on the other side of Shea/Citi where the roads are also not great) maybe even parking meters and what not. Does not having those things benefit the shops who leave cars parked wherever for however long they feel like? Basically treating the streets as an extension of the parking lot? It's pretty obvious that if those roads were normal city roads Mets fans AND commuters would park on those streets all the time.

[Edgy MD]

You ask, but you've already drawn your conclusions no matter which way I respond.

I don't know how this keeps turning on the presumed character of the owners and operators of the Iron Triangle.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: You ask, but you've already drawn your conclusions no matter which way I respond. I don't know how this keeps turning on the presumed character of the owners and operators of the Iron Triangle.

well, you have..

[Fman99]

I appreciate any girl who's showing off her triangle, iron or otherwise.

Wait, what?

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: well, you have..

?

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ?

drawn conclusions.

I'm not sure what you think i've concluded since there really isn't anything to conclude.. I don't really have a hard line opinion on eminent domain.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ? drawn conclusions.

About what? The Constitution?

Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure what you think i've concluded since there really isn't anything to conclude

Whoah, that's heavy, man. You are so totally baked.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Associated Press wrote: NEW YORK � A new deal between the Bloomberg administration and a group of developers including the owners of the Mets calls for the remediation and redevelopment of a 20-acre area of the blighted Willets Point neighborhood next to Citi Field, adding retail and ultimately new housing in a time frame that extends past an initial proposed 10-year plan, a person familiar with the agreement told The Associated Press. The person requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an announcement. Under the agreement, the developers, Related Companies and Sterling Equities, would clean up the area and construct retail stores, including a mall in the Queens neighborhood. Then, no later than 2025, they would start construction on a mixed-use component that would include housing and measure anywhere from 1.3 million square feet up to 4.5 million square feet. The founders of Sterling Equities are Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the owners of the Mets. The redevelopment of the area, currently populated by auto-repair shops and junkyards and lacking infrastructure as basic as sewers, has long been a goal of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's. In 2007, he announced a 10-year initiative that would bring homes and commercial space to the area. The new agreement extends past that period, but the person speaking to the AP said that by the original end point of 2017, much would have been done including the vital first step of cleaning the area up and construction of some of the retail spaces. The person said that in conversations with potential developers, it was made clear to the city that the way to make the area somewhere that people wanted to live was by building the retail and other commercial space initially, that "first you have to make it into a destination that people get used to visiting. Then over time you can convince people to come and live there." The person speaking the AP said remediation could start in the area in early 2014.

[Ceetar]

Then, no later than 2025, they would start construction on a mixed-use component that would include housing and measure anywhere from 1.3 million square feet up to 4.5 million square feet.

No rush or anything. Hell, Ruben Tejada will probably be retired by then.