Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
WPU Brief For Press Re: LDC 10-18-11

WPU Brief For Press Re: LDC 10-18-11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 531 |Likes:
Published by unitedtriangle
If you would like to know, in a fair amount of detail, what's been happening with the state Attorney General's investigation and Shulman's LDC's brownfield program for the Flushing waterfront (the state taxpayer grant of $1,505,700.00), then read the attached PDF. Today, Shulman's LDC is holding a bogus "community meeting" pertaining to its brownfield program for the waterfront properties. The attached PDF has been sent to all press.
If you would like to know, in a fair amount of detail, what's been happening with the state Attorney General's investigation and Shulman's LDC's brownfield program for the Flushing waterfront (the state taxpayer grant of $1,505,700.00), then read the attached PDF. Today, Shulman's LDC is holding a bogus "community meeting" pertaining to its brownfield program for the waterfront properties. The attached PDF has been sent to all press.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: unitedtriangle on Oct 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Willets Point United Inc.
P.O. Box 560191 • College Point, New York 11356
Information for press in advance of community meeting – October 18, 2011According to information published at the web site of Claire Shulman's localdevelopment corporation ("LDC"), representatives of the LDC, the New York State Departmentof State ("DOS") and the LDC's consultant team will host a "community meeting" pertaining tothe LDC's brownfield plan for certain property located near the Flushing river between NorthernBoulevard and Roosevelt Avenue. The community meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 from 4:00PM to 8:00PM at Flushing Town Hall.Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") alerts representatives of the media that the grant of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC has been allowed to proceed, on the basis of inaccurateinformation suspiciously provided by the New York State Office of the Attorney General("OAG") to DOS; that upon receiving accurate information, the Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") may suspend the disbursal of taxpayer funds pertaining to this grant; that, far from being a charitable endeavor, this grant is a pretext to obtain others' private property, to serve as asite of development for the potential tremendous financial benefit of members of Shulman'sLDC; that Shulman's LDC has not disclosed that TDC Development, a preeminent financier of Shulman's LDC, owns most of the waterfront property in the area to which the grant pertains;that DOS has re-defined the LDC's catchment area in order to justify awarding the grant; thatDOS and OSC have overlooked apparently false information within the LDC's grant application;and that the grant and the project to which it pertains are being challenged.WPU believes that the circumstances of this grant award are as questionable andimproper as, for example, the unregistered lobbying already performed unlawfully by Shulman'sLDC during 2007 and 2008, for which the LDC was held liable to pay a then-record financial penalty of $59,090.00. Shulman's LDC is now a target of an ongoing OAG investigation whichcould result in the dissolution of the LDC; and a different state agency is investigatingallegations of false filing and evasion of law by Shulman's LDC. WPU is committed to root outand expose all questionable behavior by Shulman's LDC and/or its representatives, and to ensurethat those responsible are held to account.The information on the following pages provides additional detail, but is not exhaustive.WPU possesses voluminous records that support the summaries below and invites interestedmedia to contact WPU via email at UnitedTriangle@gmail.com. WPU will reply as time permits. ___________________________________________ Page 1 of 13
(1.)The pending investigation of Shulman’s LDC by the New York State Office of theAttorney General should have prohibited the execution of the grant contract withShulman’s LDC, and may yet prohibit the actual disbursal of grant funds to Shulman’sLDC:
 New York State Department of State ("DOS") emails obtained by Willets Point UnitedInc. ("WPU") indicate that as of March 2011, DOS could not recommend that the New York State Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") execute the grant contract with Shulman's LDC,until DOS was satisfied that two potentially disqualifying matters involving Shulman's LDC had been resolved: (1.) The LDC's violation of the New York City lobbying law, which resulted inthe then-record financial penalty of $59,090.00 against Shulman's LDC; and (2.) the pendinginvestigation by the New York State Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") of allegations thatShulman's LDC violated § 1411 of the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law ("§1411"), which prohibits all local development corporations from attempting to influencelegislation.As for item (1.):DOS determined that Shulman's LDC had paid the $59,090.00 penalty, which DOS believes eliminates the underlying violations from further consideration. (WPU notes thatalthough Shulman's LDC may have paid a financial penalty to the City, doing so cannot erasethat fact that Shulman's LDC lobbied in favor of the proposed Willets Point development for along period of time without filing the required lobbyist registrations or periodic reports. By notfiling those registrations or reports, Shulman's LDC deprived the opponents of its lobbying – including Willets Point property owners, who stood lose their properties if the project that wasthe subject of the LDC's lobbying was approved – of information to which they were lawfullyentitled, concerning the subject of the LDC's lobbying and the "Targets" of that lobbying, thusconstituting violations of the property owners' rights to due process as their future propertyownership was being decided. Those violations of the property owners' due process rights byShulman's LDC have not yet been considered or adjudicated by any court.)As for item (2.):Significantly, if an OAG investigation finds that the alleged violations of § 1411 byShulman's LDC have occurred, then OAG is entitled to commence an action to dissolve or annulthe corporate existence of Shulman's LDC, among other remedies. Obviously it would beinappropriate to award any grant of taxpayer funds to an entity whose continued existencedepends upon the outcome of an OAG investigation. Accordingly, DOS contacted OAG toenquire about the status of OAG's investigation of Shulman's LDC. So serious are theimplications of an ongoing investigation, that the objective of DOS was to obtain a writtenstatement from OAG, regarding the status of the investigation.On October 14, 2011, the
Wall Street Journal 
reported that a DOS representative wrote toWPU that DOS and OSC "'were unable to confirm that there is a pending investigation' by theattorney general", and that DOS therefore allowed the grant to proceed. (SeePage 2 of 13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629520547359248.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)However, the failure of DOS and OSC to ascertain the status of OAG's investigation isincredible, considering that OAG confirmed immediately to the
Wall Street Journal 
reporter thatthe investigation still is active; and that during the same timeframe in 2011 when DOS and OSCcould not confirm the status of OAG's investigation, representatives of WPU attended twomeetings, and otherwise communicated, with OAG staff responsible for the very sameinvestigation.How did a newspaper reporter and a community organization so readily obtaininformation about OAG's investigation, but DOS could not, when it needed to do so to determinethe LDC's eligibility to receive a state grant of $1,505,700.00?Making matters even worse than has been reported, however, is the fact that OAGactually provided inaccurate information to DOS about OAG's investigation – information onwhich DOS then relied, when recommending that OSC execute the grant contract withShulman's LDC. Had OAG provided the same information to DOS that it provided to the
Wall Street Journal 
reporter and to WPU, it is difficult to imagine how the grant of $1,505,700.00state taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC would have been allowed to proceed. OAG must be heldto account for its suspicious conveyance of inaccurate information to DOS which facilitated thegrant award to Shulman's LDC, and for the suspicious inability of OAG to locate any personwithin OAG with reliable knowledge of the investigation, as well as any written records thatwould necessarily result from such an investigation.First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS lefttelephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls. DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau):"I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the CharitiesBureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back".Why would a state agency not respond to enquiries from a sister agency, on a matter affectingthe proposed disbursal of $1,505,700.00 state taxpayer funds?Second, when DOS attorney Treacy finally did establish contact with Assistant AttorneyGeneral Kittilsen, she provided inaccurate information that cannot be reconciled withinformation provided by OAG to the
Wall Street Journal 
and to representatives of WPU. Viaemail on March 22, 2011 at 1:41PM, Treacy informed DOS employees that Kittilsen:"… has found no information on the matter in the AG's Office and has notreceived any successful responses to her attempts to identify anyone in her OfficePage 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->