« We didn't know we hired a crook: Ratner firm | Main | Ridge Hill trial: Forest City execs pushed payment for no-show job despite internal resistance; prosecution's case complicated by Bender's agreement that developer convinced Annabi to switch vote »
February 29, 2012
Tales From The Far Side -- Forest City Story
Talk of the Sound
by Warren Gross
I cannot let go of this story and none of you should do either. It represents both sound government and an organization, Forest City, that appears so venial and grasping, that both the development and management of our City and its moral imperative is threatened.
...You ought to read the next installment in the Journal News today under Jonathan Bandler's by-line.
Before looking at one or two points in Bandler's article, it is not at all unfair to postulate that you come away at the end with one of three end-state conclusions which are: (1) Forest City is composed of managerial incompetents, (2) Forest City was active in Ridge Hill in ways that you would, minimally ground your children for, were they guilty of something similar in the playground or (3), they received some form of immunity from the US government in favor for testifying for the prosecution against some rather benign defendents in office at the time in Yonkers. If the latter turns out to be the case, it makes one wonder whether the AG's District Office is somewhat influenced in ways I can only speculate on given what appears to be the evolving substance of this case.
Related coverage...
Talk of the Sound, A View of Forest City - Politics Promises and Payoffs
Questions about the relationship between New Rochelle's administration and Echo Bay developer, Forest City Ratner, are nothing new to the readers of this site. The dichotomy of having one agenda for the public to witness and another "behind closed doors" agenda for the purpose of bypassing public witness of the procedure can only be characterized as self serving. Self serving for the developer, that is, and not, necessarily, for New Rochelle. On one hand, the public is asked to meet and voice concerns and/or support (as required by law mind you) and then the developer disappears behind closed doors to meet with council members, two at a time, thus avoiding open meeting laws. They did this when they were looking to get their first extension and, quite frankly, it was illegal. Will they do it again? Who knows, but it fits their pattern. Couple that with the campaign money to the mayor and the pattern repeats just as it has in Brooklyn, Yonkers and who knows where else.
Posted by eric at February 29, 2012 9:51 AM