CUNY variance granted by the BSA; dorms and QCA to descend on LIC

Ultimately this is good.

You’d get all the variances you asked for, too, if you had a Senator on speed-dial.

This is a long time coming and most people are happy about it. You go LIC!

LIQ-
I have been having problems with your site from both my home and work computer.
The page will load, then an error message will pop up that ie could not open site, “operation aborted’. Just a headz up.

I had the same problem with the site from work. But it works from home.

If any Constitutional Conservatives out there at all care, the BSA approval totally flies in the face of proper application of the law as written. Whether you are for or against this project I don’t think you should be celebrating the misapplication of law. All you need to do is study the burden of proof that was on the applicant and whatever opinions or politics you can clearly see that OCA’s did not come close to the required standards of proof. This was a well engineered bail out by people in high places exerting influence to ignore the requirements of law.

That said, I know a lot of people eager to move into the empty so-called ‘luxury’ apartments, once the glut really hits home and prices fall through the floor.

14 - wrong re bitter renter. Neither is true. What is true is if you pick up transcripts and compare what the law says must be proven with the utter lack of any substantial case made, you’ll understand the disappointment with the BSA. Oh well, what can I expect in a day and age where anything goes as long as it has money and power behind it. Schumer’s wife Iris Weinshall was the power behind this one.

Some day someone will have to explain to me what’s so exciting about big box slab towers.

#6 as soon as you explain where the 300 signatures on your petition came from and how you collected them when no one in the community every saw this alleged petition, we will explain how we collected our data.

If you don’t want to be asked how many times you beat your wife, stop beating your wife. It’s been explained? Where? In the same fantasy land where polluted sites can be cleaned up for pennies on the dollar by clicking your heels and wishing for it? I certainly have not seen any explainations. I’m glad this is over, because I’m also sick of hearing the one sided BS in opposition to this. Please dissapear into the shadows and emerge when the next building that infringes on the mythical qualities of historic LIC is on the drawing board. By then you will have a new moniker for your “community” group and newly doctored petitions. Unfortunately what will not change is your MO and the agenda. You’ll trot out you so-called “experts” attack the developer complain about light and air. It’s all very tiring if you ask me. After a decade I’m bored with it.

Crime is something that Hunters Point never reallyhad a problem with. The area was as virtually crime free, as a neighborhood could possibly get.

Charlie.

Actually crime has increased here.

When you cram more people into the same area, who both bring with them and purchase more possessions of value, then crime will increase; if only due to sheer numbers.

Charlie.

26 - As always you are wrong with your tired stereotypes and twisting of words. You really should go to work for Karl Rove. No where did anyone mention preserving views. What you fail to see is that the same zoning you protest, actually guarantees more space and air around the towers than it does for the lower rise community. So your sense of fairness is non-existent and therefore your opinions are not worth much to this community. NIMBY is a word you apparently just learned. It has a much more important social context than preserving your asinine economy damaging viewpoint. Read up on some history and stop hiding behind a completely irrelevant term as well as your black/white over-simplification. It’s really quite the opposite of what you are saying. It’s the people who cannot see beyond their own selfish desire to have this fake luxury yuppie land take over that are in part responsible for the mess we are in today.

#26, what support do you have for the argument that zoning rules guarantee more space and air around towers than low rise areas?

There is a housing shortage in this city and the only way to combat it is to build more apartments. If you want to keep your “light and air” and not build taller buildings than the problem of affordability in the city will only get worse (although maybe this financial crash will take care of that problem). I think it is a legitimate NIMBY accusation if people say they care about affordability and want more apartments built, they just don’t want them put in their neighborhoods and affect their light and air.

#30 is right. This can and does happen to anyone. I know people who bought at Citylights on a high floor with the expectation that the Avalon building would be built according to plan. Then Avalon got more height and reduced their set back and their views were blocked. You did not see them complain when it happened to them. There were no protests and petitions. It’s an accepted fact of life in NYC.

looks alright in that picture i guess. lets hope that the they can properly remediate the site without polluting the whole neighborhood.

34 touches on something. It will not surprise me one bit if we watch this project morph as did Queens West. One scenario is CUNY conveniently says “oops” we don’t have the bucks. Just remember you heard it here first on LIQ.

Anonymous dude #36, we couldn’t even get the a-holes to properly hose down the freaking dust when they were tearing down the old buildings. I don’t know where YOU were then, but will you be around when the real digging starts?
If so, how close will you be?

The community DOES NOT advocate skimping where any environmental issue is concerned, and where you got that idea I can only guess, but it’s pretty freaking tiresome.

The community DOES dislike developers who present extraordinary excuses for screwing up. We dislike it when they use environmental issues such as the “unanticipated” toxicity of sites to extract sympathy from zoning authorities in the form of variances and other relief to compensate for the cost of properly cleaning up said site. If anyone was skimping (or scheming) it was they, who failed to initially record the actual state of a property in which they intended to invest millions of dollars, little of it ultimately their own. They are merely idiots with business licenses who don’t get criticized on this site for their execrable judgment.

On the contrary, we get to be characterized as backward because we don’t wish to be taken advantage of by greedy developers who pretend to do us favors (An Art Gallery! A University!), and we’re to be teased by fatuous apologists if we exercise our critical faculties, not to mention our rights.

No, no 38. If you are going to be a mindless pitbull at least support your view with something substantial. 37 IMO is a refreshing voice of accuracy and intelligence. You might learn something by listening. Oh and just why exactly is it that we are supposed to walk lockstep with your absurd notion that whatever some developer dreams up next is just great for us? Sorry sweetheart reality is turning against you.

Anonymous dude #38 and #40, precisely the fatuous apologist I meant to cite. Thank you for your cooperation.

#42 Anonymous dude, doesn’t it matter at all to you that this is done in a way that violates rules, skirts others, and is likely to produce further hardship that is unreasonable? You are so nonchalant about the points I’ve been expressing that I wonder if you are entirely literate. Or do we have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes civilized behavior?

But you still want “that LIC hospitality…”

You may get it, but I wouldn’t expect universal hospitality if you insist on promoting development as if it were the latest version of the Manifest Destiny fallacy. It’s a hard sell after the way QW and other projects have been operating around here, projects that have routinely breached agreements, cavalierly polluted the air, and monopolized the “view corridors” promised in the original treaty. Meanwhile, to suggest that I’m the one with the Attitude wins you the prize for insufferable patronizing.

#40 thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is “bitter”. There’s only one voice on this blog who is always reliably bitter.

#42, 44 I appreciate your kinder voice. But please try not to get caught up in the stereotype fostered here by the faction who think it’s great to completely re-do the neighborhood. Many of us who have been here a long time want to see development. At the same time we believe that we have a right to play a role in helping to shape how the neighborhood grows.

Unfortunately there are those who want to shout our voices down at every turn. We have been the patient ones but it’s becoming very tiring. We see no compromise on their part. They feel entitled and anyone who even comes close to questioning the reasoning of some of what’s happening here gets targeted as an anti-development NIMBY etc etc. Same crap as what’s going on in our elections. And you’ve got to ask what exactly is the motivation?

The frustration is the result of various types patronizing me and anyone else who dares point at that not all development is so freaking wonderful. Perhaps it wouldn’t be so lame if they didn’t consistently fail to address the point. This project has violated laws, speciously evaded other laws, and will no doubt continue to ignore right and correct procedures for the year-long plus period of construction.

And this is the kind of bullshit that irks me. I called 311 numerous times as well as other officials farther up the food chain and did manage on at least one occasion to halt the demolition. On other occasions, however, the agents sent by the city and state to monitor the work (which began at an ILLEGALLY early hour on several days) got smoke blown up their asses by site managers and thus failed to rectify the problems which included large-scale demolition which is ILLEGAL without thorough dust dampening. Furthermore, work was carried on after hours and on weekends, during which times oversight of any kind was unlikely to occur.
I don’t like “the process,” duh, but with regard to the variances I have supported a timely and credible (and quite legitimate) set of procedures which were well-received downtown, well enough to downsize the project by one story. The contention of the developer that this site will be prohibitively expensive to remediate without relief in the form of excessive variances has yet to prove itself persuasive, but we are becoming accustomed to disingenuous strategies on the part of developers.
Meanwhile, speaking of disingenuous, you ARE trying to limit my participation in this site, but I can think of no other reason for its existence unless you want to compare brick-oven pizzas.
I know what happened so you don’t have to explain the outcome to me like I’m four years old. Perhaps you will never cease to patronize me, but don’t tell me I’m making shit up here #48. The fact that this happened and you minimize its significance ought to irk anyone who possesses a sense of fair play.
But I understand Charlie is the only one allowed to rant on this site. (You can see his castigation of Banking and Real Estate on the latest thread.) Why don’t you go pick on him?

Hey Townie; what’s with the sarcastic remark concerning me? Why would you tell someone to pick on me?

I believe in anyone posting what they feel and think, of any length, even if it is a rant; as long as it’s done respectfully with concern to others, and in a coherent manner. Oh, and by the way, I don’t rant, except in defense of myself; and then only when I begin to lose control. My heavy criticism of the financial industry is justified, and I didn’t rail on the real estate sector; as you suggested.

So, be cool, and watch what you say. Be respectful of others, or you will deserve none in return.

Charlie.

Charlie, I told that last anonymous muffin brain to go pick on you instead of the both of you ganging up on me. You tell me to “calm down,” meanwhile, on the other (latest) thread you thoroughly go off on “big business (in general),” opining that (big business) “has shown us time and time again that they are (it is) incapable of regulating themselves (itself), and or operating in an honest or honorable manner.” You then state: “There needs (sic) to be laws put into place which render powerful punishment, involving long prision (sic) terms, along with the heaviest of financial loses (sic), and having the most minimal of plea bargaing (sic, don’t you have spellcheck?) as is possible, for those who deliberately violate such regulations, and for those who misuse/abuse the public’s money and trust…Making the consequence of such wrongs as dire as possible, is the only realistic way to act as a control.”
That’s not a rant? Compared to anything I’ve said, it certainly is. But it’s OKAY for you to post like that, but not okay for me to say things like that about what is happening locally, without someone like you telling me to “calm down.” Others tell me to get over it, it’s over, but, no, and here’s where I agree with you–there ought to be consequences for violations of the public trust, not to mention the law, otherwise people get away with a world of perpetrations.
“What is needed is rock solid regulations,” indeed, and not just for bankers and mortgage lenders either. Happy ranting, Charlie.

Listen Townie, you attack the posters and engage in name calling. You began your post (#53), by calling someone a muffin brain. Can you not help yourself ? You’ve been sarcastic, argumentatitive and combative. That is why you’re getting flack from others. When I said to calm down, I meant exactly that. You’re starting to go off the deep end. By saying that I’m ranting, and using what I had written to somehow justify your writings, is a sorry assed political maneuver. You sound like a partisan politician; who only knows how to attack, and place blame onto others.

I am not taking part in any “ganging up” on”you. What I had written, concerning you, was independent of what anyone else was writing, so don’t get paranoid. But you might want to be prepared. People are no longer going to take your posts seriously, if you don’t clean up your act.

Why do you feel the need to insult others and be sarcastic? Do you have some sort of inferiority complex? Where you beaten up by bullies when you were a kid?

Oh, and by the way, for someone who doesn’t use compositional skills very well, or proper punctuation for that matter, you shouldn’t be giving others any crap about spelling. My spelling is very good, but I do make mistakes. This blog does not have spellcheck, as I compose directly in the comments box.

You don’t even have the decency to apologize to those you insulted. In fact, you keep doing it. So, unless you put a stop to tthe sarcasm and insults, you’d better get used to others giving you flack, and even taunting you.

So, go look up the word “rant”, then get back to me; and keep that dictionary handy.

Charlie.

Townie - If you are going to get technical with charlie about grammar, spelling etc.- here is the correct way to bracket [sic].

This site has everything!

What a breath of fresh air #60! I think you speak for the everyday LICer. Mostly everyone I’ve spoken to feels the same way. While I felt strongly about it like you, I have a job and can’t take off to rally in support of random real estate projects (even if I did have the time, I can think of better things to do with my time). Unfortunately those that do have the time are often the ones that get all the press. The majority of us are happy to see this project move forward.

I would add that most of those garages are sitting empty. The only beneficiary of them is the commuters who drive to our neighborhood and take mass transit into the city. Most of the people in Queens West don’t own cars. The garages exist to protect the cherished street parking of the older residents. That was one of their many complaints with the QW design. I agree they are an ugly travesty.

Charlie, I find it objectional that these ugly gargages are being pushed upon us when they are not needed or being used. In fact in this very CUNY building had to include more parking off street parking due to complaints. I’m not passing judgement on anything else, but would add that street parking near your house is not a constitutional right.

People complain here about many things that they shouldn’t. Views parking, etc. None are protected. None should be given special priority or consideration. My views were blocked by one of the new building, yet my panties are not in a bunch over it. I don’t like the garages, but I’m not going to take to the street over it. Privite citizens should be free to develp their land within the confines of the law as they see fit. That’s my feeling on it.

The garages are the best thing about Queens West. They successfully address a current need, and under other circumstances, such as martial law, may easily accommodate thousands of refugees/internees. Meanwhile, they represent a triumph of functional design.

I don’t really care, Townie.

Charlie.