wpu brief for press re: ldc 10-18-11

8/3/2019 WPU Brief For Press Re: LDC 10-18-11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wpu-brief-for-press-re-ldc-10-18-11 1/16

Willets Point United Inc.P.O. Box 560191 • College Point, New York 11356

Information for press in advance of community meeting – October 18, 2011

According 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's

LDC 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 [email protected]. WPU will reply as time permits.

___________________________________________

of 13



(1.) The pending investigation of Shulman’s LDC by the New York State Office of the

Attorney General should have prohibited the execution of the grant contract with

Shulman’s LDC, and may yet prohibit the actual disbursal of grant funds to Shulman’s

LDC:

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, thus

constituting 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 to

enquire 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. (See

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 that

the 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 on

which 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 Office

of 13



who may have been involved with the matter. The only person still employed bythe AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC'slobbying activities is out on medical leave [elsewhere referred to as 'maternityleave', indicating that the individual is female]. Everyone else who may have beeninvolved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the

matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office. (There have been manydepartures.) Thus, a statement on the status of the AG's investigation will not beforthcoming".

Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find "no information on thematter in the AG's Office", representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for theinvestigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that "The only person stillemployed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC'slobbying activities is out on medical leave", and it is not true that "[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter,apparently has since left the AG's Office".

Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would needto be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsenapparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliableinformation to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.

Indeed, it seems quite a convenient coincidence, that records of the investigation of Shulman's LDC could disappear from OAG, and that OAG would purportedly be devoid of anyone with knowledge of the investigation, right at the time when availability of such records

or knowledge might have jeopardized the disbursal of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC.

Whether the lack of accurate communication between OAG, DOS and OSC is due toincompetence, or is a deliberate scheme to overlook disqualifying factors and to facilitate thedisbursal of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC, is unknown. What is obvious, however, is that themanner in which OAG, DOS and OSC have acted thus far is anathema to good government, andfails to fulfill the agencies' obligations to the public. Compare what OAG, DOS and OSC haveactually done, with the lofty promises of State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and State AttorneyGeneral Eric Schneiderman:

At his 2014 re-election web site (www.tomdinapoli.com), Comptroller DiNapoli states:

"I'm watching every taxpayer dime. It's your money, and it's my job to protect it".

Ironically, collaboration between OAG and OSC is crucial to highly-touted initiativesdescribed at OAG's web site:

"Attorney General Schneiderman has made cracking down on corruption and

of 13



restoring the public's trust in government a top priority for the Office. In 2011, theAttorney General launched a groundbreaking initiative expanding his office'sauthority to investigate public corruption involving taxpayer funds by partneringwith the state Comptroller."(http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/public_integrity/about.html)

"By working with the Comptroller to police public integrity in Albany, theAttorney General is building on his multi-pronged approach to root out waste,fraud and corruption in state government. … Attorney General Schneiderman hasmade restoring New Yorkers’ faith in their state government a top priority of hisadministration."(http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2011/may/may23a_11.html)

And so: Now that DOS and OSC are aware that OAG has confirmed the existence of its pending investigation encompassing Shulman's LDC – an investigation which DOS and OSC previously were unable to confirm, but which they have already recognized may prevent the

disbursal of state taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC – will they suspend any disbursal of statetaxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC, unless and until OAG concludes its investigation andannounces that the LDC has not committed the violations that have been alleged anddocumented by WPU? Or do DOS and OSC consider Shulman and her LDC to be so above thelaw, that they will disregard the existence of the OAG investigation, and disburse taxpayer fundsto Shulman's LDC no matter what – and thereby abdicate their fiduciary responsibilities to thetaxpayers of New York State?

___________________________________________

(2.) Shulman’s LDC – Masquerading as a charitable community-based organization:

Shulman's LDC purports to be a charitable, community-based organization – a prerequisite to receive the state brownfield grant. However, the LDC members' ultimateobjectives are not charity, but profit; and the LDC does not represent our "community" in thetraditional sense.

The purported charitable elimination of brownfields and underutilized sites – if anyactually exist within the area to which the brownfield grant pertains – is only incidental to theLDC's ultimate objective: For a brownfield designation to make the property eligible to beforcibly acquired via eminent domain, and for the LDC's members to profit tremendously fromimplementing an enormous development at the 60-acre site. Indeed, the LDC has already

displayed artists' renderings of a gigantic new development situated at the Flushing waterfront onthe site of the property to which the brownfield grant pertains. The brownfield designation is aconvenient pretext to acquire the area's property, which could not certainly be acquired any other way.

The "community" which the LDC represents does not consist of area citizens. Instead,the LDC represents the interests of its corporate members, which are multinational developer

of 13



firms, utilities, banks, and other entities that stand to profit tremendously if the area to which the proposed brownfield grant pertains is declared a brownfield, and then acquired (viacondemnation or otherwise) for redevelopment.

Records of Queens Community Board 7 indicate that the membership of Shulman's LDC

includes the following firms:

Briarwood GroupCiampa OrganizationCitibank Commerce Bank Con EdisonCrystal WindowsF&T GroupGreater New York Automobile Dealers AssociationJ&K Pi Foundation

KeyspanMajor Automotive CompaniesMattone GroupMuss Development Nash Builders New York Community Bancorp New York MetsPalaus, Sokolowski & Sartor RAMAHTDC Center Verizon

In addition, the LDC's web site has acknowledged that the following firms are"Supporters" of the LDC:

Albanese Organization, Inc.CPC Resources, Inc.Douglaston DevelopmentTriangle Equities

Among the LDC's members are deep-pocketed firms which are collectively capable of financing a brownfield study without any taxpayer support, especially in these times when public

funds are scarce. Does the group of above-listed firms appear to be in need of a taxpayerhand-out?

Disturbingly, however, when evaluating the LDC's grant application, DOS and OSCapparently have drawn no distinction between a genuine community-based organizationrepresenting an actual community with a legitimate demonstrated financial need (which the grantis truly designed to support), and a consortium of multi-national developers and other firms that

of 13



is masquerading as a community-based organization with a financial need in order to receive a$1,505,700.00 hand-out of taxpayer dollars from New York State, in lieu of spending their ownfunds.

___________________________________________

(3.) Shulman’s LDC has failed to disclose that its member, TDC Development and its

affiliates, owns most of the prime waterfront property to which the brownfield grant

pertains:

TDC Development is a preeminent financier of Shulman's LDC. According to recordsmaintained by Queens Community Board 7, the LDC's board members have included thePresident of TDC Development, a Vice President of TDC Development, and the Chairman andCEO of F&T Group, the parent company of TDC Development.

TDC Development is responsible for the Flushing Commons and Queens Crossing

projects (located east of the property to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains), and is arespondent to the Request for Proposals for the proposed Willets Point development (west of the property to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains).

Significantly, it so happens that TDC Development, or the affiliated entities Fulton/MaxInternational Holdings, Inc. and F&T Management & Parking Corp., already own most of the prime Flushing waterfront property within the area to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains. (See the attached map.)

It would not be sensible for TDC Development to support the LDC's brownfieldinitiative, which could determine that the waterfront property owned by TDC or its affiliates is a

brownfield, and therefore eligible to be condemned for subsequent development – unless TDCDevelopment has been assured that it will retain ownership of its property, even if other nearbyaffected properties are forcibly acquired via condemnation.

Since TDC Development or its affiliates already own most of the prime waterfront property within the area to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains, and it is unlikely thatTDC Development would jeopardize its property ownership, the implication is that if the brownfield program eventually results in the area being declared a brownfield, that all of the property will not be transferred to the City and competitive bids solicited from all interesteddevelopers (as is being done in the case of Willets Point); but rather, that TDC Development isgoing to develop the waterfront property, and that adjacent properties presently owned by others

may be incorporated into that project.

Accordingly, it appears that the LDC's brownfield grant directly benefits TDCDevelopment, by specifically facilitating its waterfront development.

Thus the following questions arise:

of 13



• Isn't the LDC's brownfield grant a thinly-disguised way for TDC Development to usestate taxpayer funds to pay for environmental studies of TDC Development's properties,to facilitate its waterfront project; and to expand the developable area, by facilitatingcondemnation of adjacent properties on the pretext of being brownfields?

• Have TDC Development and its affiliate firms been assured that they will retain their property ownership, even if the brownfield program results in the area being declared a brownfield, and even if adjacent properties are subject to condemnation?

• If the brownfield program results in properties being declared brownfields, might those properties be condemned? If so, what entity will be the condemnor?

• By what process will the subsequent owner of condemned properties be selected?

___________________________________________

(4.) Shulman’s LDC – Downplaying its key objectives, to minimize interest, controversyand opposition:

Presuming that the brownfield program will result in designations of the affected properties as brownfields, then it appears that the present owners of those properties, other thanthose who are LDC members, will likely be forced to surrender their property ownership to thedevelopment project – as is contemplated at Willets Point. If so, then the LDC's plan poses athreat to the present owners' continued ownership of their properties – and those owners deserveto be unambiguously notified that such is the case.

However, there has been no such notice. Neither the invitation to the LDC's community

meeting nor the map of the area displayed at the LDC's web site indicates that existing propertyand business owners in the affected area are in any way threatened by the LDC's brownfield plan, or may lose their properties or businesses because of it.

Property and business owners who see the LDC's community meeting invitation have noway of appreciating the severity of the threat to them which the LDC's plan constitutes, as theinvitation appears to pertain to a benign project and its purported "community benefits". The

LDC displays a map of the area at its web site, but the map is merely one that depicts theexisting industrial uses of the property, and does not hint at any threat to those continued uses bythe property's present owners.

Had Shulman's LDC been interested in communicating its true intent regarding the property to which the brownfield grant pertains, the LDC would have published the map andchart found within its brownfield grant application, which show the LDC's predeterminationsthat each and every privately-owned lot within the target area is either a "brownfield" or

"underutilized" – making those properties eligible for condemnation. (See the attached chart.)

Thus it appears that Shulman's LDC is shrewdly promoting its community meeting just

of 13



enough to satisfy requirements of the brownfield grant program, but is deliberately notdisclosing the ultimate goal of the project and the methods of realizing it, so as to minimize thecontroversy and opposition at this time. Does this sound like the behavior of an organization that believes it has the support of the public?

___________________________________________

(5.) A harmful project is not legitimized by the Downtown Flushing Development

Framework document:

The much-ballyhoed Downtown Flushing Development Framework document is

frequently cited by development project proponents as justification for their proposed projects – as if to say that a proposed project that relates to ideas in the Framework automatically attains asacred status, which then exempts the project from scrutiny of its aspects that the Framework does not address.

In fact, the Framework is merely a development wish-list, produced deliberately to createthe illusion of "community" involvement and buy-in, while slyly avoiding any consideration of undesirable or controversial aspects of implementing the projects which the Framework

advocates. The Framework contains no analysis of the adverse impacts of any project that it proposes, and is not a substitute for any required analysis, now. And, as hard as Shulman's LDCmay try to convince the community otherwise, the Downtown Flushing DevelopmentFramework does not (and never did) constitute the surrounding communities' consent to tolerate

any and all adverse impacts that will result from the implementation of ideas listed within theFramework.

The LDC claims that the brownfield project carries out goals set forth in the Downtown

Flushing Development Framework. Regardless, the area to which the brownfield grant pertains,and the nearby infrastructure and transit, cannot support the level of development which theLDC ultimately intends to implement. (See the attached artist’s rendering and map produced

by the LDC.) For example, traffic studies already conducted for the proposed Willets Point

development establish that just that project will severely degrade the operation of the Van Wyck Expressway, as well as local roadways and intersections. The LDC's reckless developmentconcept, which the brownfield plan is intended to facilitate, will compound an alreadyimpossible situation.

The LDC further claims that the Downtown Flushing Development Framework resultedfrom a community planning process, implying that the community supports the LDC's brownfield scheme. Although the drafters of the Framework may have held community

meetings, none of the meeting attendees was ever told that the method by which the area near theFlushing river would be revitalized would be to declare that area a brownfield, then use that brownfield designation to get rid of most of the existing owners via any means includingeminent domain, and turn the property over to a private developer – who will enjoy and profit

from the revitalization, instead of the present property owners. Had attendees of communitymeetings been told of that entire scheme, it is unlikely that they would have consented to it. To

of 13



pretend otherwise now is not credible.

___________________________________________

(6.) What Shulman and her cohorts get:

According to an article published on October 14, 2011 by the Wall Street Journal , "Ms.Shulman's group is using the grant money to hire a consultant". (Seehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629520547359248.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

However, a budget worksheet prepared by Shulman's LDC shows that LDC staff members will also collectively profit by $95,020.00 due to their work on the brownfield project;and that the salaries of two individuals are being raised due to their work on the project.

AMOUNT

CHARGEDTITLE ANNUAL SALARY TO THIS PROJECT

Claire Shulman, President & CEO $130,000.00 $43,333.00

Nick Roberts, Project Manager $72,250.00 $36,125.00

Pre-brownfield salary: $52,250.00 ($20,000.00 raise)

Anne Marie Boranian, Administrator $62,250.00 $15,562.00

Pre-brownfield salary: $52,250.00 ($10,000.00 raise)

___________________________________________

(7.) To create eligibility for the $1,505,700.00 grant, DOS re-defines the LDC’s

catchment area:

The actual catchment area of the LDC consists of Flushing, Willets Point and Corona.The very name of the LDC – "Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation" – plainly identifies the areas to which the LDC pertains. The LDC's web site also explicitly statesthat "Our Areas" are Flushing, Willets Point and Corona.

But twenty five percent of the LDC's board of directors do not reside within the LDC's

catchment area of Flushing, Willets Point and Corona, and so the LDC fails to satisfy thestatutory residency requirement that is a prerequisite to receive the brownfield grant.

To paper over this fatal flaw, DOS has pronounced – nothwithstanding the unambiguousstatement of the LDC, that its areas are Flushing, Willets Point and Corona – that the"community" which the LDC represents is instead the entire borough of Queens. In so doing,DOS has discarded even the LDC's own unambiguous descriptions of its catchment area, and

of 13



substituted DOS's own much larger, borough-wide catchment area – thereby expanding the areaof the LDC to encompass neighborhoods in which the LDC has no interest, but whereresidences of the LDC's board members are located, so that the LDC then may satisfy thestatutory residency requirement for the grant.

DOS attempts to justify its expansion of the LDC's catchment area beyond that defined by the LDC, by stating that DOS consistently defines "community" "as the smallest geographicunit of incorporated local government … in which the proposed BOA study area is located",which in this instance is the entire borough of Queens. However, other than DOS's desire toenlarge catchment areas so as to increase the likelihood that brownfield grant applicants will beable to satisfy the statutory residency requirement, there appears to be no reason why DOSshould be permitted to substitute a vastly larger catchment area for the catchment area that is plainly specified by a grant applicant. That is especially the case as concerns a grant applicantsuch as the LDC, whose name, web site text, mission statement and IRS Form 990 statement allleave no doubt as to the boundaries of its catchment area. The LDC's description of its owncatchment area should be respected, not manipulated by DOS to create false eligibility to receive

public funds.

Ironically, having expanded the LDC's catchment area to include the entire borough of Queens, that broad and prosperous "community" may be less likely to satisfy the demonstratedfinancial need requirement which is also a prerequisite to receive the brownfield grant, than thearea immediately surrounding the alleged brownfield property to which the proposed grant pertains. And so, inconsistent with the borough-wide standard that is used to assess the residencyrequirement, DOS focuses on census tract 87100 when assessing whether the LDC represents acommunity with a demonstrated financial need. Census tract 87100 is said by DOS to qualify asan Environmental Zone, and to encompass 30 to 40 percent of the alleged brownfield property towhich the proposed grant pertains (though it appears to encompass less than 30 percent of the

property, when viewed on a map). Although DOS points out that the borough of Queens alsocontains other Environmental Zones, it ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of censustracts in the vicinity of the alleged brownfield property to which the proposed grant pertains arenot Environmental Zones.

It is not the role of DOS to shrewdly apply the concept of Environmental Zones to assistthe LDC to claim that it represents a community with a demonstrated financial need, when suchis not actually the case.

___________________________________________

(8.) DOS and OSC overlook apparently false information within the LDC’s grantapplication:

On October 6 and 7, 2008, the LDC registered its staff members/employees as lobbyistswith the Lobbying Bureau of the Office of the New York City Clerk, and retroactivelyacknowledged lobbying activities beginning in 2007. Via letter dated October 14, 2008, the LDCinformed the New York State Temporary Commission on Lobbying that the LDC authorized

of 13



certain of its staff members and/or employees to lobby on behalf of the LDC. The LDC alsoregistered as a lobbying client of The Parkside Group, LLC, a notorious lobbying firm. Periodiclobbyist reports indicate that both the LDC and its hired lobbyist firm, The Parkside Group,LLC, performed lobbying activities on behalf of the LDC beginning in 2007. The lobbyistsattempted to influence the legislation of the New York City Council pertaining to the proposed

Willets Point development, which encompassed re-zoning – which has been determined by theInternal Revenue Service ("IRS"), among other government agencies, to constitute legislation.

However, contrary to the reported lobbying activities of both the LDC and its hiredlobbyist firm, The Parkside Group, LLC, the LDC apparently filed with IRS a Form 990, datedOctober 23, 2008, attesting that the LDC engaged in "No" lobbying. Moreover, the same IRSForm 900 attests that an LDC expense in the amount of $55,000.00 attributed to The ParksideGroup, LLC is payment for "Marketing" services, even though The Parkside Group, LLC isregistered to lobby on behalf of the LDC during the timeframe represented by the Form 990 andits compensation for doing so was $55,000.00; and the Form 990 does not report any expenseattributable to The Parkside Group, LLC as payment for its lobbying services.

Shulman's LDC filed a duplicate of the above-referenced IRS Form 990 – attesting thatthe LDC engaged in "No" lobbying, and devoid of any lobbying expense, including thosereported elsewhere as payments to The Parkside Group, LLC for its lobbying services – together with its brownfield grant application to obtain state taxpayer funds in the amount of $1,505,700.00.

Apparently, Shulman's LDC is attempting to distance itself from its prior lobbyingactivities which remain under investigation and which have already resulted in a then-recordfinancial penalty of $59,090.00 against Shulman's LDC – but providing apparently falseinformation to IRS and DOS is not an appropriate means of doing so.

Submitting a false written instrument for filing under certain circumstances is a felonyoffense. If the LDC has submitted false and misleading written information with its grantapplication to DOS, then DOS should refer the matter to law enforcement authorities, and theLDC should be deemed ineligible to receive a state grant of taxpayer funds. At the very least, thestate should not disburse funds to the LDC unless and until the LDC submits an amended andaccurate IRS Form 990 to DOS.

Upon being informed by WPU that the IRS Form 990 that Shulman's LDC submittedwith its brownfield grant application contains apparently false and misleading information whichcontradicts other official filings, OSC responded to WPU via letter dated September 29, 2011:

"… if as you assert, information provided by FWPCLDC in its lobbying reportscontradicts the information provided by FWPCLDC in its Form 990s filed withthe IRS, that would be a matter for the OAG and its investigators (and, perhaps,the IRS). Prior to awarding the contract, OSC conducted a vendor responsibilityanalysis of FWPCLDC and did not find any reason to deny FWPCLDC the grantaward".

of 13



WPU finds it disturbing and inappropriate, that Comptroller DiNapoli deliberately reliesonly on OSC's obviously inadequate attempt at due diligence, and chooses to disregard evidenceof ineligibility for the grant that was presented to OSC by WPU.

___________________________________________

Reporters are encouraged to attend the LDC's community meeting, and ask:

• Isn't the ultimate goal of this brownfield program to clear the existing property and business owners from the affected area, to facilitate development to enrich the LDC'smembers?

• Given the deep pockets of the LDC's member firms, why does the LDC believe it isappropriate that it receive a state grant of taxpayer funds in the amount of $1,505,700.00,to sponsor a program that is ultimately intended to enrich the LDC's member firms? Isn't

this just a savvy way to obtain private property that cannot readily be obtained any other way, and to get the state to cover costs that really should be borne by the firms who willreap the financial profits of this project?

• Why has the LDC's invitation to the community meeting not disclosed to affected

property and business owners the urgency that they attend the community meeting, because the LDC's project ultimately will require them to vacate the area, and couldinvolve the use of eminent domain to force them to do so?

And, for representatives of the New York State Department of State who will attend thecommunity meeting:

• Now that the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Office of the Attorney General has

confirmed the existence of its investigation of Shulman's LDC – which you were unableto confirm, but which would have caused you to hesitate in recommending thatComptroller DiNapoli execute the grant contract with Shulman's LDC – will you nowinstruct Comptroller DiNapoli to suspend any disbursal of public funds to Shulman's

LDC, unless and until the Office of the Attorney General concludes its investigation andannounces that the LDC has not committed the violations that have been alleged anddocumented by Willets Point United Inc.? Or, do you consider Shulman and her LDC to be so above the law that you will disburse taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC no matter

what?

___________________________________________

of 13

wpu brief for press re: ldc 10-18-11

Documents