Letters To New York City Planning Commissioners Requesting Recusals With Respect To Vote on Proposed Sale and Shrinkage of Brooklyn Heights Library

Below is a letter from Citizens Defending Libraries that was delivered today to the New York City planning commissioners that have calendared a vote for this coming Monday, November 2nd on whether to approve the sale and drastic shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library, the central destination library in Downtown Brooklyn.

The letter requesting that a number of the planning commissioners recuse themselves, based on conflicts of interest, from the precedent setting vote on whether to sell off this important and valuable public asset, was delivered with another open letter specifically to Commissioner Cheryl Cohen Effron about her vote and influences that exist to affect it.  See: Friday, October 30, 2015, Open Letter To NYC Planning Commissioner Cheryl Cohen Effron Respecting Her Vote About Selling & Shrinking the Brooklyn Heights Library, Other Libraries The Revson Foundation, Center for an Urban Future, And More.

Also delivered to the commissioners today was another letter similarly requesting recusal of commissioners: See the letter below it from Laurie Frey on which Citizens Defending Libraries was copied.

The commissioners took oral testimony about the proposed sale on September 22nd and have since further discussed the proposal a number of times and received additional testimony about the proposal.  See: Report on Tuesday, September 22nd City Planning Commission Hearing On Proposed Sale and Shrinkage of Plus Testimony of Citizens Defending Libraries (it includes links to video).

Note: As the commissioners receive physical copies of their correspondence (submission of fifteen copies is required) the letters they received di not include hyper-links.  Links have been add below for the web reader's convenience.

Letter New York City Planning Commissioners Requesting Recusals (from Citizens Defending Libraries)

October 30, 2015

City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NY 10007
Attn: Yvette V. Gruel
- (212) 720-3370 -

Re: Submission of supplemental testimony against the proposed sale and drastic shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library, Brooklyn’s central destination library in Downtown Brooklyn. (ULURP C15039 PPK - Oral testimony taken by Commissioners on September 22, 2015)

Dear City Planning Commission:

Selling a very important and valuable public asset like the Brooklyn’s downtown central destination library at 280 Cadman Plaza, setting an extraordinary precedent in the process, should not be done by City Planning Commissioners who are not free from conflicts of interests that will affect the careful balancing of the judgments they must make.  Accordingly, we ask again that all New York City Planning Commissioners who have conflicts of interest recuse themselves.

Two commissioners have already recused themselves (we think very properly):  Michelle de la Uz and Joseph Douek.

We think there is ample evidence however that the commissioners have heretofore given insufficient examination to the need of other commissioners to also recuse themselves.  We further question the downplaying of matters involved in connection with the decisions that would otherwise appropriately highlight the need for commissioners to recuse themselves.

For instance, why in a transaction where the transfer of development rights must involve negotiation, modification and signing of agreements with Forest City Ratner does it appear that all such therefore appropriate references to Forest City Ratner have been scrupulous expunged from the applicant’s package and the materials being presented and certified?

Likewise, why would all the approvals authorizing city officials to take the significant actions with respect to Forest City Ratner by changing the terms of the special permit for the zoning and development rights be turned into a consent item on the commissioners’ agenda, side-stepping a direct affirmative vote and discussion with the substitution of an unaccountable, presumed and automatic vote?

This chosen procedural evasion wounds the public even more because it means that the commissioners will similarly side-step and not vote forthrightly and out in the open about whether public space and parkland at the north end of the library should be eliminated.  That parkland and open space is protected by the terms of the same special permit  Because of the inscription to be found there we call that park in question (funded by charitable donations specifically raised for it) “Truth Park.”  That means the irony is that via this procedural maneuver the elimination of “Truth Park” will take place secretly in the shadows.  Could anything be more symbolically fitting?

We believe that with appropriate consideration, which we hereby request, the following commissioners likely have conflicts of interest requiring them to also recuse themselves:

    1.    Commission Chair Carl Weisbrod: For the reasons stated in our prior testimony concerning the involvement of the Episcopal Diocese of New York in real estate matters relating to the sale of New York City Libraries and also because he is a former president of one of the co-applicants, specifically the NYCEDC, and because we understand, that during his tenure at EDC as president the high profile deal with Forest City Ratner modification of which is now before the board for approval, was put into place.
    2.    Kenneth J. Knuckles, Esq: Because of business relationships with Forest City Ratner.
    3.    Irwin G. Cantor, P.E: Because of business relationships with Forest City Ratner and because of the Tishman Speyer relationship to the contemporaneously planned selling of the Donnell Library using the same model as this proposed Brooklyn Heights transaction now before the commissioner with an overlap of people involved behind the scenes.
    4.    Cheryl Cohen Effron: Because of her relationships with those selling and promoting the sale of libraries, including the Offensends, Sharon Greenberger, the library heads, including BPL president Linda Johnson (president of one of the co-applicants) and the Center for an Urban Future and Commissioner Effron’s simultaneous active involvement with libraries and library policy together with her board membership on the Revson Foundation which has been funding the efforts of various different entities that promote library sales.
    5.    Richard W. Eaddy: Because of business relationships with Forest City Ratner.
    6.    Orlando Marín: Because of professional relationships with the Bluestone Organization (at whose office he sometimes answers the phone): Bluestone is a partner with The Hudson Companies, a co-applicant, in the Gowanus Green project.
    7.    Larisa Ortiz: Because one of the co-applicants, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), is her client.

We thank the commissioners in advance for the attention we feel this deserves and pray they will do the right thing.

                            Sincerely,

                            Michael D. D. White
                            Citizens Defending Libraries

* * *  *

Letter New York City Planning Commissioners Requesting Recusals (from Laurie Frey)

Click to enlarge

October 30, 2015

Via Hand Delivery

The City Planning Commission of
The City of New York
22 Reade Street
New York, New York 10007

Re:   ULURP Application M860392AZSK, 150399PPK, I50400PQK Brooklyn Heights Library, Brooklyn Borough, Block 239, Lot 16

Dear Commissioners,

I write with regard to the above-referenced land review application. Based on a review of the public record, the Commissioners need to ensure they will avoid the appearance of impropriety with regard to potential conflicts of interest. Commissioners De La Uz and Douek have already recused themselves, yet others also appear to have a reason for recusal. Commissioners who have, have had or potentially will have (again) a business or client relationship with any party or entity interested in the proposed sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library should tender a recusal.

The Commissioners of course know they are obligated to avoid the appearance that their public action will benefit their private interests. In this instance, however, it may not be obvious which corporate entities will potentially benefit from approval of the application. For example, documents filed with the NYC Department of Finance but not included in the application reveal that the property interest attaching to the adjacent Lot 1 (which constitutes a merged zoning lot with the subject parcel, Lot 16) accrues to the Forest City Ratner Companies, the long-term ground leaseholder. As a party financially interested in the existing zoning lot merger and potentially in the anticipated new merger agreement which will be executed if the library parcel is sold, Forest City Ratner will potentially realize a benefit if the application is approved and the project goes forward.

Commissioners are Obliged to Avoid the Appearance of Impropriety

Commissioners Knuckles, Cantor and Eaddy and/or partners in their various firms have a previously established business relationship with Forest City Ratner. Commissioner Knuckles's development corporation, the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, has been involved with Forest City Ratner in Harlem real estate development, and Commissioner Cantor's firm was involved with Forest City Ratner in the 8 Spruce Street project in Manhattan. Commissioner Eaddy's firm, Savills Studley, has negotiated with Forest City Ratner on behalf of Savills Studley's client(s). The Commissioners involved with firms doing business with Forest City Ratner should, in good faith, recuse themselves.

Similarly, Commissioner Ortiz's private firm, Larissa Ortiz Associates, lists one of the co-applicants of the above-referenced application, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), as a "Select Client." The NYCEDC also has a property interest in merged Lots 1 and 16 as a long-term leaseholder, like Forest City Ratner.

Commissioner Marin's professional association with the Bluestone Organization presents a potential conflict of interest. Bluestone is a partner with The Hudson Companies (in another Brooklyn project, Gowanus Green), and the NYCEDC has selected The Hudson Companies to develop the Brooklyn Heights Library parcel if the Commission approves the disposition. The Hudson Companies' subsidiary, Cadman Associates, LLC, is a co-applicant.

Additionally, Commissioner Effron is listed as a member of the Board of Directors of the Revson Foundation, a private foundation having a direct financial relationship through its grants program with another co-applicant, the Brooklyn Public Library.

To avoid an appearance of impropriety, the Commissioners associated with private firms doing business with any one of the co-applicants or any one of the parties interested in the subject property—including Forest City Ratner, The Hudson Companies, the NYCEDC, and the Brooklyn Public Library—should recuse themselves from taking action on the disposition of the Brooklyn Heights Library.

The Impartiality of the Chair Must be Preserved

This application also highlights the need to preserve the impartiality of the Chair. Chairman Weisbrod is the former NYCEDC President. During Chairman Weisbrod's tenure at the NYCEDC, the subject property was before the City Planning Commission with regard to a special permit applying to the merged Lots 1 and 16, and public officers are prohibited from taking action on projects they worked on during their previous employment.

More to the point, the Lot 16 deed will be conveyed to the NYCEDC (albeit via a shell corporation, the NYC Land Development Corporation) if the Commission approves the proposed disposition. Chairman Weisbrod will be put in the uncomfortable position of appearing to use his public office to convey a parcel of valuable public land, currently valued at $52 million, to his former employer.

The concerns in this letter are raised based on various online resources which may or may not be completely accurate. The Commissioners have a better knowledge regarding their own potential conflicting interests. As a concerned citizen, I urge the Commissioners to provide the above-indicated recusals to ensure the highest in public integrity. The Commission is obliged to—and must—only take action which is untainted by any appearances of impropriety, if the already fragile public trust in government action is to be upheld.

Sincerely,

Ms. Laurie Frey
xxx West xxth Street
New York, NY 10025

New York, New York
Dated: October 30, 2015

cc:     Hon. Bill de Blasio, Mayor
         Hon. Letitia James, Public Advocate
         Hon. Eric Adams, Brooklyn Borough President
         NYC Conflicts of Interest Board
         Brooklyn Borough Board
         Brooklyn Community Board 2
         Citizens Defending Libraries

Commissioners Knuckles alongside Forest City Ratner.'s representative at their groundbreaking for a Harlem real estate development

Forest City ratnre's building?  Yes.  And there is Commissioners Cantor's name.

Conflicts of Interest Inquiry- Inquiry Submitted To The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board Respecting Brooklyn Community Board 2 and The Proposed Sale and Shrinkage of Brooklyn Heights Library

The following is a conflicts of interest inquiry submitted August 3, 2015 to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.  As of that day we received oral confirmation that the inquiry was accepted and an investigation with respect thereto will proceed.

* * * * 
Conflicts of Interest Inquiry

Can a New York City community board member or community board committee member vote  (or participate in discussions respecting a vote) that will directly affect the financial interests of a private school (probably to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) if that board or committee member assures the public and others voting that they are voting independently using their own personal judgment about what would be right and wrong, not being influenced by the their full-time employer or any other entity.

Background

We already have a statement of assurance to the public from the community board's District Manager that this is not the kind of conflict of interest and "does not meet the Conflicts of Interest Board's definition of a conflict" so as to be prohibited by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.   Further, the community board committee member when voting and advocating for the outcome that would benefit the private school, the outcome that her employer (more facts below) was specifically advocating for, stated that she was voting for what she personally believed was right, not what any other entity wanted.

The committee member and another board member, both participating in several outcome determinative votes and related discussions (in June and July 2015), were both full time employees of the Brooklyn Heights Association.  The Brooklyn Heights Association was taking the position that a major public asset, the Brooklyn Heights Library, should be sold and drastically shrunk.  The Brooklyn Heights Association president explained that this decision, greatly surprising most people in the neighborhood, was being made by its library committee, "which is how we operate," she explained.  The library committee was comprised so that key deciders on that committee steering its decision in this regard were connected with the Saint Ann's school that will benefit significantly if the library is sold and shrunk.  One such committee member was from a family that considers itself a founding family of the private school, another is a Saint Ann's parent.

It is probably surplusage, but a later addition to this BHA library committee also had traceable connections to those with vested interests in selling the library and, while the library sale plans were being formulated, one of the BHA board members, a former president of the BHA, was the architect and implementer of the NYPL's plans to sell and shrink libraries, turning them into real estate deals while his wife, with a position on the board of the Brooklyn Public Library, was involved in helping to structure mirroring transactions for similar deals at the BPL, including this particular sale and shrinkage proposal that the BHA employees were voting on, a virtual replica of her husband's Donnell Library sale and shrinkage.

Clearly discernible, these influences are highlighted by several stark BHA inconsistencies related to not representing neighborhood and public interest:  1.) The BHA, now advocating for the shrinkage of the library, previously advocated for its substantial enlargement (in fact, at appreciable public cost and sacrifice the library was substantially enlarged by one-third, building out over two wings, and was fully upgraded, brought into the modern computer technology-supporting era in 1993), 2.) The BHA is, as a rule, opposing discretionary public approvals of new towers in the neighborhood until the need for an augmenting balance of new public school infrastructure is addressed, but, by omission from its rule, doesn't oppose this tower and instead continues to argue for the conversion of the library into a new luxury tower, and 3.) The BHA refused to advocate for more funding for NYC libraries when it meant that this library might not be sold as a result, but now advocates for funding for NYC libraries (in other neighborhoods) as a premise and rationale for selling the Brooklyn Heights Library.

Although one of the BHA's employees faced with the issue of her BHA employment said (June 17th):  "I am not here representing any organization.  I am here on this committee to do what I think is right,"  it was readily apparent to witnesses that the other BHA employee was clearly put under pressure and therefore reversed her vote about selling and shrinking the library as a result.

Initially (June 17th), this other employee spoke forcefully in opposition to the library sale and shrinkage stating that "I will not vote for any large scale residential development until we get a school."  She also forcefully pointed out the lack of any credible assurance for believing, as posited by some, including the BPL, that a sale and shrinkage of the library would mean that there would be funds coming to the libraries as a result in the future.

Then, on two succeeding occasions (July 6th and July 15th), CB2 had meetings to reverse and supersede (we believe quite likely improperly) the votes in which that CB2 member and Land Use Committee member participated that night.  First (July 6th) it held another meeting of the Land Use Committee, comprising that committee of different attending individuals.  The CB2 Member and Committee member did not attend that meeting, reportedly "on vacation," helping to change the composition of the committee members meeting.  When there was a discussion at that meeting of whether the proposed developer had been lobbying any of the Land Use Committee members in the interim, it was reported that the developer had tried to reach this member, calling the offices of the BHA as a way of doing so, with her immediate supervisor being informed of the attempt.  Her immediate supervisor is the BHA employee Land Use Committee member who has been forceful and faithful in voting and arguments for how to proceed consistent with the BHA's efforts to have the library sold and shrunk (the one who nevertheless describes themself as being "on this committee to do what I think is right.")

Thereupon (July 15th), the entire CB2 then  met to vote with this BHA employee CB2 member being present where she:  1) inexplicably reversed her previous (June 17th) vote and voted in favor of selling and shrinking the library, and 2) sat in stony silence throughout the discussions with a strange, uncomfortable look on her face.

The exact dollar amount of benefit that the private Saint Ann's school will get from the library sale and shrinkage when it is able to sell its development rights as a result is not out in the open as public information, nor is information about what Saint Ann's has done to lobby behind the scenes.  The amount the school is getting is likely in the tens of millions of dollars. The developer refused to answer when asked how much he was paying the school, saying that it was a "private" transaction even though it is clearly an influence helping to drive forward a public transaction that will be a significant loss for the public.  (The dollar value of the library to the public is over $120 million, $60 million to replace the building alone and over another $60 million to replace the land and associated rights for expansions of public use, yet any cash netted by the city on this sale would be paltry, perhaps even less than zero when the math is completely done.)

What we do know from prior disclosures is that Saint Ann's was previously proposed to get a 20,000 square foot student theater in the new building as part of its payment for its rights, but it will now, instead, take all cash.  Also, the developer, in saying (June 17th) he would NOT disclose how much Saint Ann's was getting, referenced a tax-exempt borrowing by Saint Ann's in the amount of "$40 million" (public records indicate it is actually $30 million), and said that these transactions were unrelated and should not be viewed as reflecting what he was actually paying the school.

Needless to say we can alert you that your answer and analysis will be freighted with importance to a community that is up in arms about all of the above.