Willets Point to be Ratnerized?
There’s always two (or more) sides to every story. Earlier this week I posted a bit called “Extreme Makeover, Queens Edition: Big Changes Coming to Willets Point”, regarding the city’s 3-year plan to makeover the “Iron Triangle” at Willets Point. All sorts of great things have been promised - affordable housing, schools, green space, not to mention cleaning up all the toxic crap there. From my “outsider” perspective, it sounds good.
Joe Ardizzone, a local resident, has a different perspective, one that is influenced by the situation created by Bruce Ratner/Forest City Ratner at Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards. He doesn’t want to see the locals “relocated” or “displaced”, especially if that comes through eminent domain (ED), which I understand the city will use if they feel it necessary. ED is certainly, in my opinion, an unsavory path.
Part of the problem is that, even though Ardizzone hasn’t been told he has to move from his home of 40 years, he hasn’t been told anything. Neither have any of the other residents or business owners. Lack of communication with the people only brews fear and distrust, not to mention a big plate of contempt. The city should let the area locals what is going on with regard to their future in Willets Point. Soon.
As an aside: I find it annoying that the new stadium is going to be called “Citi Stadium” after a stupid bank. Ugh.
Related:
Willets Point’s last man standing defiantly [amNY]
Extreme Makeover, Queens Edition: Big Changes Coming to Willets Point [OuterB]
May 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I did not even know there was housing in the triangle. I thought it was all junk yards and auto shops.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
You and me both, JR.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I agree with the mayor. It’s a dump. Nothing more. If someone has a house there, then they should be relocated for their own good. The area is toxic. I don’t condone the way these people are being treated. But I also highly doubt the city is handling this as harshly as the drama we’re seeing unfold on the news. The area must be cleared and completely cleaned up. Then reused for better purposes. It benefits everyone. The people who are there now will get some kind of compensation and relocation assistance. And pretty soon no one will even remember the controversy.
May 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Well, I hope the city, if they do fall to using ED, give the residents there good compensation. In general, ED creeps me out. Especially when it comes to private developments, and not things like streets, public transportation and such. I can understand why this guy is pissed, though - no one likes to be kicked out from a place they’ve lived for 40 years, no matter what the condition of the home or area is. It has to do with the association one has with property rights, I guess. Anyway, I’d like to see the toxic stuff cleaned up - you’re right, Tom, living in a toxic area is not good for anyone.
Anyway, like I said, there are always multiple sides to every story and I think it’s helpful to see them, even if we don’t agree (this is not intended as a reprimand or anything!).
May 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m not an expert with this matter so I can certainly be wrong. But - it sure sounds like this was a no-mans land and these people just popped up over time. No plumbing, power, sewers, etc. Now the city comes in years later and has their eye on the land. And the people who have been there for years suddenly feel entitled to continue this odd existence. It’s not pleasant for anyone. But the fact is that the land has great value. The location is good. It needs to be cleaned before people get sick. And this junk yard mess has to go. There will be horror stories on both sides but I trust everyone will be just fine in the end. Don’t believe the hype!
And you should be commended, Meg, these are the most substantive conversations I’ve ever seen on this site.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Tom. I enjoy the back and forth.
Speaking of back and forth, I posted a comment and it seems to have disappeared. A shame. I can’t remember too much of what I wrote, just that I thought that having no plumbing or sewer seems kind of ghastly. And that I hope these residents get some cold hard cash for their property!
May 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
yes no sewers ,no streets ,no sidewalks,no curbs,no sanitation service,no snow removal ,no police service. for 35 years the people of willets pt have asked the city for the simple things that everyone in the city gets ,and the answer? no”” there was a sanitation garage&office in willets pt for 30 years did they help clean up ? no”” did they find who was illegal dumping? no””’ there is a dot garage right around the block,roads anyone? no way . sewers are you kidding asked for 35 years , but the new people can have them. listen we all know there were some people who dumped oil into the ground ‘ but why didnt the city &state do something to fix it . there are a lot of ligidamate companys who operate there and always have done things right and to see them destroyed when they did nothing wrong ,all they ever did was ask”” the mayor says this will be a green community? i think i know what he means by green
May 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Here is the real problem for us “common folk”. Whether it’s a blight or no sewers, the area has serviced a 25 mile radius for the middle to lower class for 50+ years to provide “cheap” repairs to peoples vehicles. We do NOT have AAA or On-Star, nor can we afford to have our cars/cabs repaired at dealers and/or “service stations”.. (Are their any of THOSE left). The real question is: Service industries need SOMEWHERE to tend to their customers. Namely the local citizens. What if that attitude was applied to supermarkets, fish markets, etc. “Clean them out, they’re dirty smelly places. Hello! We NEED them, unsightly or not. And we also need our cars to go to work, oick up our kids, etc.. Get it folks?.. Bloomberg and company live in Manhattan and care little for the blue collar community and its NEEDS!
May 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
As landowners in the “iron triangle, we recognize the poor public image of the area. However, you have to look at the underlying reason for the state of Willets. The City performed a study in 1991 that agreed with what the property owners have been saying for the last 50 years; We need sewers and roads and the area will build up on its own. The City has systematically ignored this area because Claire Shulman always wanted to have it as her pet project. The tin roof buildings would be sitting on land that is too valuable for them to remain. Let the property owners and market forces determine what should happen with Willets. The City is not a developer and does not belong in this arena, they should do what the Government is designed to do, provide streets and sewers to the taxpayers.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thanks for all the comments, everyone. Very interesting and good to hear from some local people there in Willets Point. Looks like Claire Shulman has succeeded in becoming part of the development plans, as the leader of the group overseeing the development.
It’s pretty awful that the city never provided essential services, even after being asked over and over and being presented with that 1991 study. I’ve spent time in places that had no sewers (just an outhouse and pumped water!), so I know a little of what that’s like. Also, relatives of mine have a septic tank rather than sewers, but it’s out more in the country. Willets Point is not the country, though.