The Wall Street Journal on Columbia University eminent domain abuse, I comment add NYU and Cooper Union eminent domain not required to displace people

• Suzannah B. Troy wrote: (your comment)
• You can find my comment in full on page two of comments WSJ at the bottom unless the WSJ removes it!

Bravo to Norman Siegel, famed Civil Rights lawyer that represented Nick Sprayregan and won! I voted for king Mike Bloomberg twice not understanding he was pushing a reckless tsunami of community crushing development city wide and often what I believe was the abuse of eminent domain came in to play. I even renamed the "old" Grey Lady The New York eminent domain Times. People pro-deveopment do not mind as long as they are not the ones forced to move. I think NYU is the no. 1 real estate magnate and like Columbia University and now even Cooper Union real estate wheelings and dealing are their no. 1 priority and "higher ed" is a tax shelter for land grabs including busting through zoning and in Cooper Unions cases supersizing and leasing land which has nothing to do with higher ed. The Bloomberg administration and city council favored developers over the people and Nov. 3, we the people of New York City sent a powerful message even with Mike Bloomberg gross obscene spending and I know City Council got the message even if king Mike and his socialite mega millionaire city planner, Amanda the people's Burden did not. We are not going to take it anymore. Bravo to Nick Sprayregan and Norman Siegel who also represented me when Google removed all 334 YouTubes of mine and the majority were about Mike Bloomberg. Google apologized and my YouTubes, my history was restored including this series on Columbia University abusing eminent domain. Here I am at a protest at Columbia University interviewing and video taping the protest. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8C438F43D7335594 Without Norman Siegel and other dynamic souls contacting YouTube Google on my behalf you would not be able to watch people outraged and protesting Columbia University's abuse of eminent domain. Columbia U. students spoke up and said "Not in our name!". NYU were I lived for the last 25 years does not even have to abuse eminent domain to get the job done. When Mike Bloomberg says "Progress" it means get your moving van.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574600131499781664.html

NYC Gov Enironmental Questionaire! Fill it out & demand accountability! Demand they put our safety environmental concerns before greed ex. NYU listen

http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/html/2009/environmental_questionnaire.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHzhEN0fvwA

This was sent to me by Rob Hollander:

Friends and neighbors,

The mayor is planning to undermine government regulation and the public voice yet again.

The public's most powerful protection against destructive development is called the "Environmental Review" process.

It's not about ecology. It's intended to be a public assessment of the impact of a proposed development on the entire community -- on population density, traffic, housing, services... And it includes crucial public hearings.

Developers hate this process. It's an obstacle in their way. They prefer to avoid public review or eliminate it entirely. And now the mayor wants to help them.

Take a look.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/html/2009/environmental_questionnaire.html

The mayor's Economic Development Corporation is seeking to "streamline" the process to "reduce the costs and delays" specifically for "property owners."  The questionnaire is designed as a first step towards making it easier for developers to bypass Environmental Review.

Note the wording of the first topic: Topic 1 - Obstacles and Roadblocks

"We are interested in understanding the obstacles and roadblocks that may be experienced by applicants for projects subject to environmental review...."

I urge you to go to the questionnaire and explain why public review is important and should be strengthened. Let the EDC know that

1) The independence of the public review must be ensured. It should not respond to developers' needs, but to the public's needs.
2) The objectivity of the process must be protected. The Environmental Review must not become a rubber stamp for development.
3) The comprehensiveness, detail and thoroughness of the Review must be ensured and expanded. All aspects of impact on the community and surrounding communities must be carefully and objectively assessed by an independent party.
4) Public hearings and public outreach must be expanded.
5) Means of informing the public must be enhanced.

Remember that this is the same mayor who came up with a plan to restrict legal challenges to illegal developments. Without public review, residents and small businesses have no protection against development, against demolition, bulldozing, eviction, gentrification. It's giving the entire city over to developers whose interest is not the public good. It undermines government regulation and public oversight of destructive private interests. It's taking the city away from the public and handing it over to the few who just want to make a killing off your city and your lives. 

-- 
Rob Hollander
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10
NYC, 10009
212-228-6152

-- 
Rob Hollander
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/