IDA Resolution on SEQR
“Instead of politicians, let the monkeys govern the countries; at least they will steal only the bananas!”
―
January 28, 2020
SEQR RESOLUTION
The gist: In this resolution, the IDA said it has no information to suggest that the Planning Board was incorrect in determining that the Project will not have a “significant effect on the environment” pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and, therefore, that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
Background: This resolution is a cover-your-ass move to show you’re not aware of any improprieties that took place during the SEQRA vetting process to spot risks of environmental disasters. You know, little things, like whether the building will collapse because there’s no bedrock, or whether blasting or drilling could bring down one of the neighboring historical buildings if they’re not properly protected. Of course, if you turn a blind eye to improprieties, you’re not going to find them. Here are several improprieties that violate requirements for open and public participation in a decision known as Merson v. McNally. What is SEQRA and what are “neg decs” and “pos decs”? See here. What is Merson v. McNally and how was it flouted? See here.
- Mayor Noble set the stage for SEQRA’s violation when he equated it with an impediment to housing in this report.
- Then, on March 19, 2019, Noble stated publicly that there would be a neg dec, although studies still needed to be done and the vote was not held until nine months later, on Dec. 16, 2019.
- In April 2019, engineer Dennis Larios posted on Facebook that the developers would pull out of the project if they were forced to produce an environmental review.
- The Landmarks Commission thought there might be an environmental impact and tried to put it on the agenda, but Suzanne Cahill and city attorney Dan Gartenstein tried to thwart that. Nevertheless, the Landmarks Commission prevailed, and voted unanimously to recommend a pos dec.
- Then, the mayor Steve Noble fired several members of the Landmarks Commission and replaced them with yes-men.
- The public learned about this only because someone read the recommendation aloud at a hearing.
- When a hapless Planning Board member asked about that pos dec vote at a Planning Board meeting, Cahill said the (newly-populated) Landmarks Commission was still deliberating and she refused to let the previous recommendation be read.
- The newly-populated Landmarks Commission dutifully recommended a neg dec. For a look at the Landmarks suppression timeline, see here.
- In a final insult, whoever was in charge of documenting public comment tried to get away with not uploading the entire pos dec recommendation that had been read aloud at the hearing. The second page contained the actual vote and recommendation.
Why this might stand: The way to dispute a finding is by filing an Article 78, and that right to dispute expired four months after the December 2019 vote.
Why this might not stand: What precisely is the IDA’s responsibility to investigate the documents that come before them? Is there a minimum standard to which members must adhere? Were they negligent by not doing so? Does the very fact that they passed this resolution indicate that they knew the process was corrupt? What if the four-month limit has nothing to do with the IDA’s responsibility? What if THAT clock started ticking Jan. 20, 2021? The IDA can reject a PILOT for plenty of reasons, and they don’t need an Article 78 to do so. Could the IDA, if it so wanted, refuse to grant the PILOT on grounds that the SEQR process is clearly unlawful, and is that why it covered its ass, so it cannot be accused of dereliction of duty, or negligence, or whatever? Is the IDA obligated to reject a process when there is a more than reasonable suspicion of malfeasance?
-0-