OCA/CUNY BSA Hearing next week; Does QCA qualify as community use?
OCA/CUNY Dev Site, July 2008
The next BSA hearing for the very controversial OCA/CUNY development site on 5th Street is set for next Tuesday, August 19th. According to Queens Chronicle, the latest issue on the table is whether or not the OCA’s granting of space to the Queens Council on the Arts (QCA) counts as an official community benefit:
“In a submission to the Board of Standards and Appeals in Manhattan, which will convene a hearing next week on the project, the group, calling itself the Long Island City Community (LICC), blasted the arts organization for not being a true “community facility,” worthy of the seven variances already given by the city for the development.
QCA gave out around $300,000 in grants to artists this year, with 25 percent given to artists based in L.I.C. alone. With the group’s operating budget doubling to $1.3 million since 1993, the group had out-grown its current 811-square-foot office space in a former golf clubhouse in Forest Park — far from art galleries and performance venues in L.I.C., the borough’s cultural capital.
“What’s been offered by this project is a dry bone,” said Doug Otto, a member of LICC, who filed the submission with the BSA. “What we need is an actual community center, not 6,000 square feet of office space.””
Oconnor Capital Partners (OCA) [website]
Queens Council on the Arts (QCA) [website]
Art group struggles to find new home [Queens Chronicle]
CUNY CUNY CUNY. Need we say more? [liQcity]
No one doubts the potential benefit if QCA were to truly interface with the LIC Arts Community. QCA is a conduit for various funding sources. How could one not like that? But there is skepticism about programming because the track record for community projects has had some big problems in the past.
The non-profit gallery space is the only part of their tenancy that does qualify as a Community Facility under the zoning. But that will not be the primary use nor is it the focus of QCA or this development. But we will see how this goes.
Re: the Chronicle It should be noted that the artist quoted lives in Woodside and her studio is nearly 2 miles from the project. She is a QCA grant recipient. The closest artist who testified in favor of OCA at the last hearing is nearly a mile away and also a QCA recipient. It’s their right and possibly their obligation but one can only point out that they will not be affected by the potential negatives. They should at least talk to artists and organizations in the immediate area.
I heard that liqcity herself testified on behalf of this project. How come that’s never mentioned?
How about it liqcity, did you testify?
I re-read the whole last thread on this. I didn’t understand it before and I still don’t understand it now. I am someone completely in favor of promoting the arts, providing artist space in LIC, and keeping the community involved in the local artistic community–yet somehow I feel like there’s something standing in the way of me supporting this project, and I’m not sure why.
5, it’s not all that easy and to a large extent the focus on CUNY and QCA and Waste cleanup cloud the issues. From my view, OCA has done very well in diverting attention from their primary goal - a luxury high rise. They are seeking a host of variances that cut across different Zoning designations and also alter the living space and air requirements to be less than what Zoning allows.
The variance application has been largely based on their estimated cost of environmental remediation which they state will cause a hardship. CUNY and QCA are IMO eye candy.
Those who want this development to comply with Zoning and not be a precedent that disrupts the low rise Zones have pointed to OCA’s acceptance in the Brownfield Program as well as an insurance policy that will help cover their cost. And they point out that OCA has not yet performed the study that would finally tell us the cost. The Board of Standards has also requested that they untangle the buildings and their costs so that each refelect the situation of their particular Zoning rather than it alll being mushed together.
Ok, now you know what I know and maybe it explains why you feel some hesitancy as I do. Bottom line is that it is quite possible that CUNT and QCA and a cleanup can take place along with a market rate residential building that complies with code (approximately 7 stories).
This article does a good job in pointing out how shameful and silly the opposition to this project is. Also it does a good job of dispelling the myth you can look at various portions of the project separately. If one part doesn’t get approved none of it will go forward. If you are against the tower, you are against the QCA, you are against additional community space, you are against the environmental cleanup of a polluted site and against development of the neighborhood. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Hi I’m #5 again, I’m FOR QCA, FOR additional community space, FOR the environmental cleanup of a polluted site and FOR development of the neighborhood. Yet somehow I am still feel there’s something wrong with a tower that sets a precedent for height using variances. I am not sure I believe the fact that the project can’t go forward if the height issue isn’t approved. I want the project too, and wonder if it is carved in stone that it can’t go forward without that tower. I guess I’m just a NY skeptic
#1, LICC is a new shadowy organization in the LIC neighborhood. You may be surprised to know that they are representing your interests. Don’t be alarmed! With a warm and fuzzy name as the Long Island City Community I’m sure it’s all good. There is a new one of these organizations each month. It’s all quite routine. One never hears about meetings of these organizations. Contrary to what their name implies there is no community outreach or publicizing of their activities, because they do not want dissenting opinions being voiced. In this fashion they can go in front of Community Boards and BSA and claim to speak for you and I and the neighborhood at large. Who leads the LICC? Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. They are not elected in any way and they have no obligation to the community at large, so you should no concern yourself with such details. Feel reassured? I know I do.
#7, Where on earth do you pull from the article “If one part doesn’t get approved none of it will go forward. ” This seems a transparent attempt at misinformation here - sort of our own local Swift Boat operation meant to derail the real objections and replace them with this “with us, against us” mentality.
This will affect the lives and businesses of those with a stake here. Most who will make money from this will be long gone out of here when the dust clears.
10, save it for someone naive. Direct quote from the article: “misinformation and fear about continued development in rapidly-changing L.I.C. threatenes to kill the project, which needs BSA approval before breaking ground. ”
Funny you should mention missinformation. The aticle directly rebuts some misstatments being made by LICC reps, so who is really running the swift boat operation?
I saw the OCA submission above. Can someone provide the submission from the local group? If they are really advocating a lesser clean-up, that is not something that I’d like to see happen.
I agree. Let them clean as much as they want. This is not an area where less is more. If this LICC is advocating a quick and dirty clean up in an attempt to cost and reduce the height I would be against that as well.
#5, these are complicated issues to be sure. If you have not read the developers response to the LICC you should. It’s easy to miss above, so I post the link here as well:
http://www.liqcity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bsa-submission-august-8-2008.pdf
You will not be confused after reading this. This just about sealed the deal for me.
I believe this project has support from the local politicians and the community board. Opposition is fine, but the group against it has no business referring to itself as the “Long Island City Community”.
Can someone from the LICC please speak from their point of view? I too am like #5… I don’t see anything wrong, but my gut says there is…. does it really just come down to the fact that it will set a precedence for height variance and that is dangerous for the neighborhood?
People can draw their own conclusions about the article and the writer’s bent.
But as for Swift Boating, the so called LIC Community (now referred to as LICC) is not a “shadowy organization”. The name was generically given to the group by the Board of Standards when members from the community spoke. No one asked for the designation. No one pretended to be representing any more than the 300+ signatures on the petition that was presented requesting examination of the facts. It was simply how the BSA abbreviated this group for the purposes of keeping the arguments identified.
By coincidence there is a long standing group called the Long Island City Coalition (LICC) that has been part of the call for refined investigation.
The proponents of respecting the Zoning keep getting labeled as backward, anti-development, and now shadowy. There are personal insults as well. I have yet to see a similar volume of insults thrown at the OCA supporters. I would hope that the more level minded folks can appreciate the difference between an attempt at thoughtful dialogs versus hate posts.
I’m still trying to figure out what drives someone to be so rabidly opposed to asking the hard questions. Why do people who seem to support free enterprise get so bent up when they are simply examined to make sure they play by the rules. What is the big deal?
Thank you to the LICC, whatever it stands for. I am glad that people who live here care enough to spend so much time and energy to protect their neighborhood. That alone is something great.
#16, that sounds like a reasonable explaination, but how do you account for people refering to themselves in the media as members of or leaders of the LICC? If this is a name that was thrust upon them by the BSA, why use it in interviews?
#16, the rationale for adopting the name “Long Island City Community” seems pretty weak (almost as weak as the rationale for sending around the deceptive drawings of the project that omitted the Queens West buildings). I could see using a name like the Opposition Group within the community or something similar but adopting the name of the community (even if BSA used it first) is intentionally misleading. No offense intended. If the developer claimed it spoke for the community, I’d call BS on that too.
18, I personally cringe when I hear our group referred to with the name because I know it invites valid criticism. As for the article - some reporters do not get it right and many do not check their facts. It is rare that those who are interviewed see the article until it is printed. I was not interviewed so I don’t know if those who were portrayed themselves or were portrayed.
It’s a fairly incomplete article that I feel is skewed. The artist interviewed is very tight with QCA and has little connection to this neighborhood. There have not been any Hunters Point artists or organizations that have testified in favor.
19, Why the constant barrage of attack? You have deemed the drawings deceptive but as has already been pointed out the drawings were placed on top of drawings from OCA’s architect. No one removed the Queens West buildings because they were not there in his drawings. But beyond that the Queens West scale does not enter into the BSA’s deliberations. Gosh, you seem to be saying that just because those buildings are big everything else must be.
Why then not the opposite? If the majority of buildings in neighboring R6B zones are two stories or less then why shouldn’t we compare to that?
I don’t think anyone is saying that the OCA project should be as big as the Queens West buildings, but showing the larger Queens West buildings in addition to the lower-scale buildings on the east side of 5th Street would give a more accurate picture of the context.
#20, I call bulls*** on you. The developer directly addressed this point in their rebuttal. And I quote:
“Previous drawings of the massing of the submitted by the opposition have already been reviewed with the Board and demonstrated to be grossly inaccurate with regard to how they have represented the design proposal. These inaccuracies include increasing and exaggerating the building height by two to three stories, and completely eliminating from all views the existing and approved tall buildings that are immediately adjacent to our site.
At the last hearing Studio V Architecture submitted extensive perspectives drawings and views to show the project’s proposed massing accurately from all possible viewpoints, including corrections to the opposition’s drawings. We also included extensive new views from multiple points on each street on the upland community and different viewpoints. These drawings clearly demonstrated that the projects massing and height were carefully considers relative to the surrounding context. The proposed design also provides a very careful and appropriate bridge between the existing community and context and the waterfront Queens West Development.
Following that hearing and the submittal of our corrected drawing, the opposition has public published their incorrect and incomplete original drawings extensively on internet sites, including a detailed submission on “QueensCrap.com” stating falsely that their drawing are accurate and based on Studio V architectural drawings.”
Do you deny this characterization? It would be quite easy to find out who is lying as the materials from the last meeting are public materials.
By the way if you haven’t done so already I reccomend reading the full text of the developers response which is where I took the above quote from. It would be easy to miss the link as I did not realize it was there until someone alluded to it in the comments. It is quite telling and directly speaks to each of the “LICC” points. you come to your own conclusions
OCA’s BSA Submission (pdf):
http://www.liqcity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bsa-submission-august-8-2008.pdf
By the way if you haven’t done so already I reccomend reading the full text of the developers response which is where I took the above quote from. It would be easy to miss the link as I did not realize it was there until someone alluded to it in the comments. It is quite telling and directly speaks to each of the “LICC” points. you come to your own conclusions. Click on the link entitled”
“OCA’s BSA Submission (pdf)”
22 and 23 - all you are doing is taking the developer’s statement as fact. The architect did not offer any true geometry to back his claim - just photos and his statement that they are more accurate.
But tell you what? Don’t believe any of us. Go to anywhere from 5th to say Vernon and count the floors in East coast 3 up to the height OCA wants and realize that this height will appear even higher as it moves toward you by a block and and still higher as it moves halfway up the block. Then look around at the scale of buildings it encroaches on.
Why are we being cursed at and denigrated for simply saying we think that’s too imposing on the smaller homes and businesses we own? What you seem to be saying is that expansion has a right to take place no matter what the people directly affected feel. Many proponents of unregulated expansion just seem to want to bully and push wherever they go.
The site is a toxic site that needs cleaning up. Period. If not CUNY, who else at this point? It seems like the alternative, if this plan is voted down, is just to wait around with the site empty until some other developer comes in, right?
I live right next to the site, and I DO NOT support this LICC group, whoever they are. It’s fine to push back, and I’m all for that. But folks, having seen development in Hudson Square in Lower Manhattan, you take what you can or you’ll be waiting around for another 10 years!
I wonder if any of these supporters of LICC live right next to the site like we do.
Give me a break!
To 24: I’m more inclined to believe the developer. He has provided a point by point analysis of the issues raised by your group. In his response he cites the works of architects, engineers, finance professionals and the law. I’ve heard nothing from the other side except personal attacks on the professionals involved in this project, hyperbole, and statements that could generously be described as misguided. What is the support for your position?
I did not need to see this letter to conclude how half baked some of the opposition points are. I pretty much made up my mind after reading that letter on QueensCrap. The original version (which is no longer available online) was full of so many errors that the webmaster had to edit out the inaccurate statements in order to publish it. You do not agree with what the developer says? Don’t agree with the media reports? Please post your analysis here. We would love to hear what you have to say. After all this blog exists in part to freely exchange ideas on neighborhood issues. I’ll start off with a few questions:
Does LICC really support an environmental remediation of this site that is done as cheaply as possible and that cuts as many corners as possible despite the health risks that that may pose to the community and future inhabitants of that site? Would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution on matters as important as this?
Do you deny that the corrected drawings were provided at the last board meeting and that you ignored the new drawings and chose to use your own drawings as they suited your objectives better?
Please describe the methods used to collect the 300 signatures from the community. I live and walk around this area every day. No one ever asked my opinion on this. There was no one in the lobbies of the buildings, no flyers, no one standing near the subway entrances, nothing in local establishments. Where did these signatures come from and do you feel they really represent a cross section of the community?
How does a 13 story building create a hardship when it stands next to several 40 story buildings?
26, While some of your questions are valid the accusatory slant is obvious and I have no reason to stand trial with you especially without full disclosure of who you are. Additionally you are grilling with the infamous “how many times do you beat your wife?” technique. Just the fact that you ask if I deny the “corrected versions of the drawings” were shown reveals your bias. How do you know they are “corrected” - just because their (your?) side says so?
So either you work for OCA or you are naively swallowing whole a well crafted rebuttal from an attorney very experienced in ripping apart the other side’s arguments. Of course his arguments look plausible as do his attacks. That’s what he is paid to do.
But the bottom line is simple. If the arguments are not valid from either side, they are rejected by the BSA. The BSA is not stupid nor are they overly interested in giving endless time to invalid arguments. The hearing has continued this long because the points raised by some community members are valid.
We are not calling the developer names. Nor are we calling for a partial remediation. This is all smoke screen by people pushing an agenda at any cost. We are simply asking the BSA to examine the financials and determine if OCA has enough funds to remediate or not. It’s not any more complicated than that. All the loud screaming from their (your) side is because they have yet to present convincing financials to the BSA. This was true before we “trouble makers” got involved.
26 writes “How does a 13 story building create a hardship when it stands next to several 40 story buildings?”
Because it is much closer to far many more buildings that are 2 and 3 stories. There is far greater impact on the character of the lower built neighborhood and even the physical integrity of the older homes when massive construction moves inland. Conversely it does not hurt the waterfront zone if a 7 story building goes up a block away.
We are fighting to preserve what’s left of a neighborhood that supposedly everyone loves. Sad part is we are being viciously attacked for doing nothing more than that.
Contrary to this idea of altruism they are putting forth, OCA and all of it’s surrogates are fighting for massive profit. No one held a gun to their head and said buy a property for $24M that is not zoned for high rise.
But remediation is good. CUNY and QCA are positives. New buildings are positive (though I’m not sure we need more luxury ones). But the question is simple. Why are the arguments all about blending in with the waterfront towers while anyone asking to consider the long existing enclave of small business and small homes is attacked?
That is the question I would like to see answered.
27, 28 how about answering some of the questions substantively? What is your position on the clean-up? If experts find that the site is polluted and recommend a certain course of action to clean it and the developer indicates his intention to follow that course of action will you withdraw your complaints that the developer is inflating the clean up costs instead of putting forth your own clean-up plan?
The expansion of high rises and luxury residential buildings is LIC’s version of Manifest Destiny.
Did they really pay 24M for that parcel?
31, I’m not an expert but the $24M figure has been reported. It may actually be low, My own search of Property Shark shows several purchases by OCA on the block:
5-11 47th Ave $13,600,000
46-11 to 46-19 5th Street $7,500,000
5-20 46th Road $13,600,000
There’s another small purchases on the next block that appears to be only $200k
OCA also attempted to purchase at least one other buildings.
Call me stupid. I’m kind of skeptical about the hardship claim.
29, that’s a no brainer. If truly independent experts can agree that it is a necessity, of course it should be remediated. And the Brownfield program will cover costs somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 percent of their total construction hard costs. This is way more than adequate for their situation.
33, it may sound like a no brainer, but there are some with no background in these fields who are advocating for a clean-up that is less in scope than what is recommended by experts. I live here and don’t like that idea one bit.
32, hardship has nothing to do with your financial resources. You can buy land for $24M and still have a hardship. In fact as land cost continue to go up, the more expensive the land the greater the likeihood of hardship. The hardship in this case exists since the developer can not develop the land as zoned and still make a reasonable profit. The legislature in their wisdom did not intend for zoning laws to stifle or end development so there is a process in which waivers can be obtained if the developer can show this hardship.
34, at last! someone who is likely on the side of the developer but nonetheless is thoughtful and polite. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
The one item I will harp on is that as of the present date, there has not been a complete remediation investigation and consequently no approved remediation plan exists. So no one actually knows the cost. Everything on both sides is based on speculation. Nonetheless Brownfield funds are designed to cover the cost. So from that standpoint, hardship - as narrowly defined in a BSA hearing - may simply not exist.
Once the shouting dies down and we stop arguing CUNY, QCA, toxic waste, yuppies, hipsters, old timers, the above last sentence, last paragraph is what it’s all about.
35, see the developers response above. The environment survey results are included in Exhibit A to the letter. Testing has been done and identified levels of acetone, choloride, butanone, benzine, ethlebenzine, toluane and clorinated solvents (what is all this stuf???), that are all above NY standards.
This is the first time a local neighborhood group has supported a Substandard cleanup effort. This is a dangerous precedent, as there are many contaminated sites in LIC. This Substandard approach may become the new defacto standard, exposing the area to significant risk.
36, Whoever you are, you are again putting your spin on this when you make statements that the community group supports a substandard cleanup. That is untrue and it’s an irresponsible statement.
Unless you are an environmental specialist and can technically evaluate OCA’s submission, you are again taking the lawyer’s argument as fact. I should point out that this same lawyer has made some statements that have not proven true. For example, two hearings ago he implied that there has only been one recipient of Brownfield funding. Even the BSA was skeptical of that. My own net search pulled up a multitude. But it was a conveniently skewed opinion designed to draw attention away from the fact that they are eligible for Brownfield funds. That’s what lawyers are paid to do.
Those of us who want to see compliance with zoning (except where true hardship exists) will be happy to see OCA do the approved cleanup.
Can anyone who went to the hearing provide a report?
The ongoing saga over the proposed construction in Long Island City of a CUNY Graduate Center dormitory and new home for the Queens Council for the Arts continued at a Board of Standards and Appeals hearing in downtown Manhattan on Tuesday.
A number of residents voiced their objections to the proposed 13-floor building. Opposed to its height and bulk, residents also feared that it will lead to similar projects that would ultimately change the character of the neighborhood.
The site’s developers, O’Connor Capital Partners, through attorney Howard Goldman, offered to remove one floor of the proposed building in exchange for the go-ahead to break ground.
With CUNY scheduled to move graduate students into the building in two years, time was of the essence. “The opposition’s strategy is to delay the project,” Goldman said.
The issue before the BSA centered on seven variances to existing zoning regulations. Also discussed was tax breaks granted to developers under New York state’s Brownfield Tax Credits program. The site, located at 5-11 47th Ave. in L.I.C., like much of the waterfront area, is contaminated with petroleum products and other hazardous compounds.
The Long Island City Community, a recently formed residents group that claimed up to 300 members, questioned the developers’ stated cost of cleaning up the site and the tax breaks and variances meant to make the project financially viable.
“The project is on the fence of being financially viable,” Goldman said, comparing cleanup costs estimated at $10 million with the $3 million in tax credits the developers stood to receive.
LICC leader and longtime neighborhood resident Tom Paino spoke out against the project, calling it “not in context with the community.” Paino also asked the BSA to deny the developers’ zoning requests. “There is 980,000 square feet of light and air being taken away from the community,” he said.
Another resident, photographer Tony Vaccano, who has a studio in L.I.C., welcomed CUNY and QCA to the neighborhood but thought the board should limit the project to six floors.
The hearing focused on two contradictory assessments on the cost of cleaning up the heavily-polluted property, across the street from a just-opened state ball field in the Queens West Development.
Appearing for the LICC, an environmental expert contested the $10 million cleanup estimate, while another expert testified for the developers that the cleanup bill was accurate.
Kenny Greenberg, a local artist and business owner, voiced concern about how much community space would be offered to the public by QCA, which would relocate its offices from its current home in Forest Park, as well as open a new gallery space in the building.
The decision giving the possible go-ahead for the project, which already won approval from Community Board 2, is expected on Sept. 23.
More fine work from the “Long Island City Community” Thanks guys! I heard your next action will be to protest the cleanup of Newton creek. Good to see the gangs all here! It’s great that all the development in LIC made you all millionaires. Read about you in FT. A 10 equity multiple on your house. Hmm, I wonder if that is a reasonable profit…
Hey 42, if you are going to mention names why don’t you have the courage to mention yours? Btw, the Chronicle article written minutes before the deadline is so full of incorrect info it’s absurd. Names are wrong. Information as to who said what is wrong.
Once again here, we are forced to refute charges that are pure lies. Everyoneat the hearing from the community group supported remediation. The contention is very simple - if you are going to use the remediation cost as your justification for getting extra floors that Zoning does not allow - prove your cost. What is the big deal?? Why the organized and continuous attack against a group just trying to get to the truth?
Similarly if the community facility is a significantly tiny percentage of the full project, let’s have parity. The pure lie that we oppose development is exactly the same as “either you are with us or against us”. Fact is that 42 while attacking supposed alliances with the wealthy is fully in bed with the developers and willing to lie to gain points.
As great as blogs can be, it’s really too bad that it becomes a forum for hooded snipers to do public damage and get away clean without revealing their ties and connections. But no worries. I know exactly who you are.
Problem solved. We can all live in peace under our new developer overlords.
Honestly, I think there are reasonable points on both sides. But if the BSA gives the go ahead, this project can become an excellent addition to the neighborhood.
44, Ok just don’t blame the small group who asked for reasonable explanations when you end up saying “how did this happen?” Meantime, are you looking forward to the huge planned medical center around the corner on 47th Ave?
Celebrities, public officials and private citizens involved in newsworthy incidences are all legally defined as public figures. Public figures have far fewer rights to privacy than an ordinary person. If you want to self appoint yourself head of the “Long Island City Community”, guess what? You are a public figure. I do not agree with Liqcity deleting the names. Public officials should be held accountable for their words and actions. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy on the anti-development side. People should know who are leading these groups and efforts and what their motivations are. Having said that I recognize that this is not my blog, so he/she should do what they feel is best, and I will continue to do the same.
As to #43 claim that I am the devloper, that is paranoid and untrue. I would hope he would not be stupid enough to come onto blogs to debate the issues. The developers speak through lawyers, not anon posts on the internet. I am a resident just as you are. Why is it so hard to believe that as strongly as you feel about this issue there are others who feel as strongly on the opposite side? Also#43, don’t you find it strange that every paper seems to “get it wrong”? My dad used to say if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck. Go ahead and ask the hard questions, but after they have been answered time and time again at what point do you become obstructionist?
45, please explain the medical center on 47th Ave.
#45, I won’t blame you if that happens. I trust you’ll take some blame if BSA rejects the project and the area stays a polluted mess or some noxious manufacturing company moves in instead.
This is probably the medical center reference:
Thanks 48. 45, based on what is availible on the DOB site, I think I am looking forward to the medical center. This area sorely needs medical facilities. I don’t know much beyond what is on the web, but from what I’ve seen I think it will be a fine addition to the neighborhood.
45 -The money is there to do the remediation. It’s called the Brownfield program. If they file their remediation plan they will learn what their benefit will be. All this group is saying is that we should not just give out extra floors based solely on the developer’s figures.
46 - the reporter did not even get the name right of one speaker. A huge problem is this LIC Community name that keeps sticking and the idea that it has leadership or 300 members. The reporter got that wrong. No one in the group portrays it this way.
48 - No matter how much I tell you I am not opposed to remediation you keep saying I am. It is simply wrong. I only question the claim that they must build beyond the zoning to do this. There are other nearby large projects that have remediation issues and nonetheless comply with zoning. Are you really saying the public has no right to question the figures?
50, if not based on the developers figures whose should we use? The LICC whose figures have been laughable? It doesn’t work that way.
If you are sincere about the name and find the use of it as offensive as I do how about writing an open letter to the editor of both publications requesting a retraction? I don’t see anyone falling over themselves to make these corrections as it probably help your cause to say you represent the community and have 300 members. By the way why has no one answered the questions about this petition. How, where and when were the 300 signatures collected? Is it a secret just like who is in this group and when they meet?
You also think, you are not against remediation, but you haven’t pieced the full story together yet, so allow me to do so for you in the simplest form. BSA doesn’t appprove variance - developer doesn’t like profitabilty of the project and decides to walk - land sits vacant and polluted. Its that simple. There’s no way this site is getting cleaned up unless it is developed. Who is going to do it? The city? The EPA? You? No one is going to develop with the “air and light” police obstructionism. So therefore if you are against development (directly or indirectly through handcuffing the profitability of the project - which is what you are doing) you are against remediation. Simple. Hope this clears it up.
51 - I’m glad you are bright and opinionated but I do wish you would research your facts before shooting from the hip. I’ll try to address each complaint.
re: figures. Did I anywhere ever say anyone should use the community group’s figures. But how do you manage to stick in the personal view that these figures are “laughable?” What are your qualifications. So stop inserting opinion under the guise of getting at facts. Sounds like you want to be a talk radio host. I have always said it is up to the BSA to determine the figures and these specifically should be from the Brownfield Program and DEC review of their remediation plan. Note that there has been no remediation plan available to date. So I guess you just believe in giving any developer what he wants on his say so.
re: the name - I offered an explanation twice here. I feel that’s enough.
re: news - I used to write to the papers. But these days there are so many items that need correcting in the various local media that I have stopped bothering to write to the editors. I think they get a lot wrong because most of the writers are inexperienced and the local papers do not do much in the way of fact checking. Unfortunately people think “it’s in the paper, so it must be true”.
re: remediation - you are buying into one side of the story but this does not explain how a multitude of approved projects have encapsulated their polluted sites. Simple fact is that according to environmental experts both views are valid and both views have downsides as well. For example, our neighborhood has been exposed to harsh and in some cases hazardous fumes as a result of the past and present Queens West remediation. This does not happen where the ground is capped. On the other hand I recognize that it is likely impossible to really contain what’s seeping through our underground former marshlands. But the same is equally true with excavation. You cannot really contain it.
I am happy if you are purely a concerned citizen. But I do have to ask if you stand to profit if this or similar development takes place. I just can’t seem to otherwise account for your unwillingness to consider other sides of the argument and your continual attack dog stance.
There was a time not long ago when I gladly would have dropped everything and taken myself to the steamship office for the chance to engage in such a vital debate. It is true. I would have returned to the New World, even by aeroplane (possibly); but, alas, I must rest here in the sanitarium, overlooking Antwerp, safe from the rude intrusions of market forces, and their constant jiggering with the franchise of taxpayers and the trust of communities.
But, however far away I may be, I am, in spirit, in your very midst, and therefore simply must express my delight and amusement at the work of “anonymous” (#51), who so lovingly insults his readers with his or her ingenious little misrepresentations. Again and again I believe I have detected them, and I do feel strongly that (#51) was not the first, nor the second comment, nor even the third–indeed, whoever you may be, please know that I have discovered a number of your efforts, having devoted myself to a kind of “forensics of excrescence.” (Please pardon the translation; I am certain you will know what I am meaning.)
Although it is possible that some Walloon shallot-farmer might be fooled by such harmless dissembling, I do not believe there are so many Walloons staying in New York (assuming they could find it), and I have never heard of any in the Hunters Point prefecture of Long Island City, so there is barely any worry there.
In the meantime, dear Sir or Madam, I dream, and how well I am aware my dream is an idle one, but if only I might know your name(!) I could praise you on this side of the ocean as well. What rhetorical virtuosity we Europeans might have witnessed, had “anonymous” (#51) taken a turn in the warm debate we remember as “l’Affaire EuroDisney.” (We recognize, of course, that no sophisticated city would ever part with any citizen as brilliant as this; we are not quite so stupid either).
I punish myself that I have no talent with language equal to that of “anonymous” (#51), indeed, not even equal to that which this genius erases, spindles, or otherwise mutilates, although, in the end, everything–even the humblest ordure–finds its place and time for materialization, n’est-ce pas?
#53, congratulations. So far that was the most coherent explanation of why we should be against the CUNY Dorms.
# 53 sounds suspiciously like the “Dr. Sigmond Amondier, MD” of Queenswest.com fame (or infamy). He disappeared as suddenly as he appeared, and hasn’t been heard from in about a year.
He was some character. Some found humor in his posts, while others found arrogance. Many really disliked him, while others didn’t care.
Charlie.
I beg your pardon, mon cher Charlie, but I say with confidence I know of no such Doctor, and humbly wonder if he has completed medical training beyond one’s basic Croix Rouge skills, specifically cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, and possibly the Heimlich. Such an absurd name conveys no Walloon-fooling credibility, in my view, although I suppose it is preferable to “anonymous.” In any case, I hope you will not vex me in this regard, as I deny any implications cast by your post, and as I am, so I remain,
R. Belhinge
56 S’il vous plait is the pronunciation Bell’-Hinge or Bel-enjeh’? I have a bet with my colleagues. For that matter Ree’-bar or rih-bahr’?
Also, do you speak Belgique?
So you have learned my prenom, “anonymous” (#57). From whom, may I ask? And what have you wagered?
Charlie - I am sure that R.Belhinge is the esteemed (infamous) Doctor under a new guise. He has also just appeared on the post re: Metfoods. Oh my gawd - I’m expecting bugsbunny to show up any minute now!
liqcity be warned - both these characters were banned from QW about a year ago.
“Anonymous” (#59) does not know any of the above, therefore how he may be “sure” of any of it fills me with awe, and no little dismay. The truth is, Sir, that you know nothing of me, at this time. I have never been banned from a forum of any sort, and have never corresponded with “QW,” whatever that may be. As for “bugsbunny,” I would assume he is a fictitious creature invoked to enhance the case you wish others to entertain. In any case, I am not familiar with any of his correspondence. Finally (and once again), I will have you know that I am not a Doctor, infamous or otherwise, Sir, and would appreciate relief from such surmise, thus permuted into false characterizations.
Yep #”s 57, 59; it appears that you see it too. Now if we can only get him, bugsbunny, and licresident (I know there’s been more than one) to engage in verbal discourse to the amusement of all of the readers here.
Hey everyone, don’t let this person pull your leg. It’s his or her idea of humor, or practical joking.
Hey # 59, I’m really looking forward to the response from the good former doctor.
Charlie.
Alas, mon cher Charlie, how am I to offer a “response” when I have not been properly addressed?
You contend that you know who I am, but you are bluffing. You know nothing about me, Monsieur.
I now ask you, as one gentleman to another: What have I said that so offended you that you slander me and accuse me of being someone that I am not?
Until my sunset becomes your sunrise, I humbly await your response, if you please,
R. Belhinge
Antwerp
No offense, no slander, just off the wall, and been down this road before.
Charlie.
Very well, Sir, but now you might withdraw the accusations.
No accusations, no withdrawals, do not pass go, just to the point.
Charlie.
Accusations enough, “Charlie,” repeated here and elsewhere. “Off the wall,” indeed.
Repeated here, there, and everywhere the writing comes off the wall.
Charlie.
Someone please tell me where is this wall? I want to see what is off this wall?
Ah, Sir Belhinge - Let me introduce you to the 21st century. “off the wall” is an exprssion in the vernacular describing someone who is “wacky”. It is also the title of an album by “Wacko Jacko” (Michael Jackson). Perhaps it comes from the practice of people in solitary confinement who literally bounce off the wall to express their emotions. Sound familiar????
R. Belhinge is off this wall, # 68, and it’s in many places. If you observe it from the appropriate angle, you’ll easily find it.
Charlie.
If there is, as you say, no offense, Charlie, then why is it necessary to offend me? Are you such a superior being, one chosen to police the content of this site? And as such, do your motives and actions require no clarification or correction? “Off the wall,” indeed! (I know what it signifies, professor)
Oh smug one, go to the other thread where you’re posting, and read my response.
Charlie.
Charlie, I have visited the discussion regarding the arrival of Met Food and found your last communication. I would not call it a “response,” however. I understand that you do not care for the way in which I express myself, but you have never responded to anything in particular. I have asked you how I have offended you that you insult me repeatedly. I have asked you to supply some support for your repeated allegation that I am another correspondent, one “Dr. Sigmond Amondier.” You have said that I am banned from another site, a statement also unmatched by reality, unless you can somehow make it true. I struggle to understand what advantage you seek by promoting falsehood in a public forum devoted to sharing information and opinion. How does this help your neighborhood to form a consensus?
You see, by now writing in a conversational style, you have shown that your other posts were as I said; for your amusment. It was all a put-on, in an attempt to entertain yourself by misleading others. Your mixing in French terms, the ridiculous overuse of commas, your meandering style, the use of too many words rarely heard in general conversation; belied your stated intent .
The use of sentences which make no sense, which you’re still using, even in this most recent post of yours, such as; “I struggle to understand what advantage you seek by promoting falsehood in a public forum devoted to sharing information and opinion”. there’s no advantage to be sought; stated, implied, or otherwise. Plus, you are not sharing opinion. You’ve only been sharing nonsense, and attempting to look good doing it.
Here’s your closing line: “How does this help your neighborhood to form a consensus?” A consensus on what? Perhaps the consensus is that you’re a phoney; so stop with the fake whining about how you’re insulted and abused.
Oh, and don’t start making phoney anonymous posts, pretending to be others in support of yourself, and making silly statement about me.
I’ve called you out. Now, take your ball & glove off the johnny pump and go home.
Charlie.
Did I miss something? When was ‘Charlie’ (is that his real name?) appointed arbitor of fact, style, and blog usage? He obviously has no clue what a waste of time his posts are to us.
I knew you were going to do this. It happens like clockwork after I post a respose to you. You’re not fooling anyone. The writing style is even the same. This thread is old and ready to be pushed to the next page. No one is reading or posting on this anymore, especially on the Labor Day weekend; except for me & you.
Charlie.
Wrong again 76, as 75, I know for certain that I am not the same person as 73.
Enough already. As I said, we’re the only two here.
Charlie.
No, YOU hang up…
It’s no wonder you’re keeping this up; you’re a kid, or at least sound like one.
Charlie.
So who’s a kid? Look at all your infantile posts. Bet you can’t resist having the last word.
Go ahead, have the last word. Only immature people get caught up in that train of thought, so post away; I know you need to.
Charlie.
I have only just returned from a very nice weekend in the Ardennes. I hope everyone else had a pleasant time. In any case, I would never insist on having the last word.
Who or what is the LICC?