Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Margaret Flanagan, Board Member of Guardians of Flushing Bay
1:11:08
ยท
137 sec
Margaret Flanagan, a board member of Guardians of Flushing Bay, testifies against the Queen's Future/Metropolitan Park proposal, urging the council to vote no on demapping parkland and commercial zoning. She questions the level of community support and raises concerns about the influence of lobbying and financial interests.
- Highlights the lack of genuine community support, citing 70 written comments against the project versus only 3 in support
- Calls for disclosure of financial relationships from those testifying in support of the project
- Argues that demapping parkland will permanently reduce the size of Flushing Meadows Park
- Suggests modifications if the council votes yes, including acre-for-acre replacement of lost parkland and annual community benefit contributions
Margaret Flanagan
1:11:08
Hello.
1:11:09
I'm Margaret Flanagan, a lifelong Queens resident and a guardian of Flushing Bay.
1:11:13
Do not take previous levels of of approval for this project as a sign of wider community support.
1:11:19
The borough president received 70 written comments against this project and just three in support.
1:11:26
Though jobs are actually not part of the technical ULERP analysis, speaking of jobs, workday hearings like this are very difficult for people to take off but pretty easy to fill with your paid partners and consultants.
1:11:40
This week, Cranes reported that in 2024, Queen's future was top of the list, spent the most of anyone lobbying, quote, dozens of city officials.
1:11:50
Last year, senator Ramos concluded from her survey, it's been hard to find supporters who haven't, quote, received or been promised a check.
1:11:59
I call on everyone testifying today to disclose if there is a financial or business relationship driving your support for the applicant.
1:12:08
I have none.
1:12:10
So I ask you to vote no on this demapping.
1:12:13
The acres of green in the slide show are already parkland.
1:12:17
Demapping the casino part will make Flushing Meadows Park forever smaller.
1:12:22
In response to your question, Sully used manipulative wordplay.
1:12:27
There is a loss of legally designated acreage of parkland in this land use proposal, which is priceless to New Yorkers.
1:12:35
That public open space, call it a park or a parking lot.
1:12:38
It is our open space.
1:12:40
Or if you do vote yes, modify it to require an acre for acre replacement of lost parkland.
1:12:47
Vote no on the commercial zoning, which makes this an even worse deal.
1:12:51
Multiply the commercial rent by the acreage, by the height, by the lease, and there are so many more billions of dollars in profit at stake, making the current benefits list crumbs.
1:13:02
Or if you do vote yes, approve with modifications that that million dollar community benefit is an annual contribution and helps cover the costs for city agencies like police, sanitation, and Department of Health, please do not vote by deference, particularly considering the applicant's extreme lobbying and paid for supporters.
1:13:24
Thank you.