At Tuesday’s public meeting, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to approve Aurora Capital’s revised plan for their Gansevoort development  (with two commissioners voting against approval).  Although this is the end of the Landmarks process, the battle is not yet over.  The developer will likely need to amend a restrictive declaration that currently exists on this site, and we will fight any attempt to do so.

Thanks to the efforts of the many people who have worked so hard to oppose this project, the final plan is significantly improved compared to the initial application.  50 Gansevoort Street will be restored rather than demolished, and the small set-back one-story addition is nicely done.   The revised design for 60-68 Gansevoort is a big improvement over the original proposal; in addition to the penthouse being removed, the building is  now significantly lower and  the facade is more appropriate to the character of the street.  The removal of the huge two-story penthouse from 74 Gansevoort is an important change for the better, and the design of the building has been somewhat improved.  However, we remain dismayed that the intact, low-rise market architecture of the block is not being preserved, and believe that the new buildings at 60-68 and particularly 74 Gansevoort are way too high.

It is deeply disturbing that in voting to approve this plan, the Landmarks  commissioners ignored the guidelines they had established at their previous meeting (read our analysis of why the heights of the buildings in the revised plan failed to meet these guidelines here).  They did acknowledge the 30 Department of Buildings records that we found showing 50-55′ tenement heights, but most of the commissioners now dismissed concerns about the exact height of the tenements and indicated that an increase of 6-8 feet above these heights was acceptable. They allowed the developer to leave the height of the base building at 74 Gansevoort essentially unchanged, and to justify that height by comparing the building to the largest warehouse buildings in the district, despite having previously instructed that the new building at 74 Gansevoort should be reduced in height and compared to the (significantly smaller) loft buildings in the district.

We had a great crowd at the Landmarks meeting and spirits were high, but the commissioners unfortunately paid no attention to our signs! (See photos below)

Save Gansevoort has released the following statement:

We are deeply disappointed in the Landmark Preservation Commission’s decision today to accept this massive building plan, disregarding the Gansevoort Market Historic District’s designation report and more than 75 years of history.  The Commission’s ruling will not only destroy the last intact block of one- and two-story, market-style structures in Manhattan, but it is also the latest sign that unrestricted development is killing the unique character of so many of our city’s most beautiful neighborhoods. In this day and age, it is disconcerting that even our landmarked areas are no longer protected.

Save Gansevoort will not give up the fight to protect our community. We urge the City Planning Commission and the City Council to block any amendments to the restrictive declaration on these sites that would permit the use of these buildings for office space. Preserving the restrictive declaration would prevent these developers from once again changing existing precedents to fit their bottom line and ensure that we can continue to save the Gansevoort Market Historic District.

The restrictive declaration will be the next fight.  We believe that if the developer is unable to amend the declaration, he will have great difficulties making this project economically viable.  Stay tuned!

The LPC commissioners during the final vote:

We’ve just posted our analysis of the revised massive Gansevoort development proposal.  At its previous public meeting, the Landmarks Preservation Commission was very clear that the proposed building at 60-68 Gansevoort could be no taller than the previously existing tenements at this location, and that the height of the new building proposed for 74 Gansevoort (now 97 feet tall including mechanicals) needed to be significantly reduced.

Yet in the developer’s revised plan, 60-68 Gansevoort is still  about 10 feet higher than the old tenements, and the height of 74 Gansevoort (exclusive of the penthouse) was reduced by a mere two feet.

We’ve now found 30 Department of  Buildings records showing that the old tenements were between 50 and 55 feet high.

We strongly disagree with LPC’s decision at the previous meeting to arbitrarily reach back to an earlier stage in the district’s history in order to justify replacing existing low-rise market buildings with massive new construction.  Nonetheless, if the rationale is to return Gansevoort Street to its earlier tenement configuration, then the new buildings at 60-68 and 74 Gansevoort must conform to the size of their predecessors.  There is no excuse for allowing the developer to exceed the extremely generous guidelines which LPC previously established simply to increase his own profits.

Read the entire analysis here.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold its next public meeting on the proposed massive Gansevoort development this coming Tuesday, June 7th:

TUESDAY, JUNE 7TH, 9:30AM (arrive by 9:15 to allow time to pass through security; this item is first on the agenda so there will be no wait!)
1 CENTRE STREET, 9th Floor (at Chambers Street).  Entrance is at the south end of the building.

The Commissioners will question the developer about his revised proposal, and then either vote to accept the proposal or send it  back for further revisions. We strongly believe this proposal fails to meet the guidelines established by the commissioners at the previous public meeting on the Gansevoort application, and that the commissioners should insist it be further revised to significantly lower the heights of the proposed new buildings at 60-68 and 70-74 Gansevoort Street.

The public will be able to attend (but not speak at) this meeting. WE NEED A GOOD TURNOUT TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS HOW STRONGLY THE COMMUNITY OPPOSES THIS MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT. We will have stickers and signs so that the commissioners know that we want this project radically revised.

Whether or not you can attend the meeting, please send an email to LPC right now telling them why you oppose this project!

The facebook event is here.

See you at the meeting!

The Greenwich Village Society for  Historic Preservation has sent a great letter to the Landmarks Preservation Commission taking apart Aurora Capital’s revised massive Gansevoort development proposal. They point out that the revised plan fails to follow the instructions provided by the commissioners at the previous public meeting, and concludes:

As you know, this is a deeply controversial proposal, broadly opposed by the surrounding community.  While we disagreed with the Commission’s assertion that  pre-existing buildings on this site and other types of buildings served as suitable models for new construction on these sites, we nevertheless accept  the LPC’s judgment in these cases.  However, to allow the applicant to then twist and circumvent even that very generous directive would be an outrageous abridgment of the public’s trust and a  blow to the integrity of the process.  I urge you in the strongest of terms to hold firm to the Commissions previous feedback and not approve the proposed changes to 60-68 and 70-74 Gansevoort Street.

PDF with the full text of the letter is here. Click images below to  enlarge:

Send an email and help Save Gansevoort Market!   A developer is  proposing to build two massive buildings on historic Gansevoort Street in the landmarked Meatpacking District.   This project threatens Gansevoort’s unique character, its historic streetscape, low buildings and market-style architecture.  Sign our petition and it will send an email directly to the Landmarks Preservation Commission  (and please sign this even if you have already signed our old petition)!

[emailpetition id=”8″]

[The next LPC meeting on the massive Gansevoort development will be Tuesday, June 7th, 9:30 AM at 1 Centre Street.  Please come and show LPC you oppose this project!]

Dear Chair Srinivasan –
 
The revised plans submitted by Aurora Capital for 46-74 Gansevoort Street fail to meet the conditions that you and the other commissioners set forth during the February 9th public  meeting.  The  Landmarks Preservation Commission should require the applicant to submit a proposal that is consistent with your explicit comments on February 9th.
 
I strongly urge you to require that the height of the proposed buildings at 74 Gansevoort Street and 60-68 Gansevoort Street be further reduced, per your own instructions.
 
Regarding 74 Gansevoort Street:

• The developer has ignored the commissioners’ directive that in addition to removing the penthouse, the height of this building should be significantly lowered.  The revised building (exclusive of the penthouse) is a mere 2 feet lower than the previous proposal.
 
• Furthermore, the commissioners were explicit that the height of this building should be evaluated in the context of the LOFT buildings in the district.  However, the developer attempts to justify its size by referring to various large WAREHOUSE buildings in the district, which are in general considerably taller than the loft buildings specified by the commissioners.
 
The existing loft buildings in the district average about 55 feet in height.  By contrast, the developer’s revised building is 82 feet tall (97 feet tall when the large array of mechanicals is included).  The proposed building at 74 Gansevoort Street should be lowered to about 55 feet in height so as to be comparable with the average loft building.
 
• Additionally, it should be noted that 7 individual records from the Department of Buildings show that the pre-existing tenements at this site were between 50 and 55 feet tall; the developer’s proposed building is thus nearly double the size of the previously existing structures.

Regarding 60-68 Gansevoort Street:

• The commissioners were clear that the new building at this site should be no higher than the previously existing tenements.  20 individual  DOB records show that the tenements at this location were between 50 and 55 feet tall.  However, the developer is now proposing a structure that would be 62 feet tall (70 feet including mechanicals). The proposed new building at 60-68 Gansevoort should be lowered to a height of no more than 50-55 feet.

I am disappointed that LPC has arbitrarily reached back to an earlier stage in the district’s history to justify replacing existing low-rise market buildings with massive new construction.  Nonetheless, if the rationale is to return Gansevoort Street to its earlier tenement configuration, then the new buildings at 60-68 and 74 Gansevoort must conform to the size of their predecessors.

Sincerely,

Developer’s revised plan

Gansevoort Street as it currently exists – the last remaining intact block of one- and two-story market buildings in the Historic District

[efb_likebox fanpage_url=”savegansevoort” fb_appid=”OPTIONAL_SEE_FAQ” box_width=”400″ box_height=HEIGHT_OF_BOX_IN_PIXELS”” responsive=”1″ show_faces=”SHOW_CONNECTIONS(1/0)” show_stream=”SHOW_STREAM_POSTS(1/0)” hide_cover=”1″ small_header=”1″ hide_cta=”OPTONAL_HIDE_CUSTOM_CTA_BUTTON(1/0)” locale=”NAME_OF_YOUR_LANGUAGE_LOCAE(default en_US)”]

[tfb username=’SaveGansevoort’ count=’false’ lang=’en’ theme=’dark’]

The Landmarks Preservation Commission has just announced that their next public meeting on the massive Gansevoort Development project will be on Tuesday, June 7th, at 9:30 AM.  The meeting will be held at 1 Centre Street (at Chambers Street), 9th floor – the same location as the previous hearings.

The public will be able to attend (but not speak at) this meeting. WE NEED A GOOD TURNOUT TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS HOW STRONGLY THE COMMUNITY OPPOSES THIS MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT. We will have stickers so that the commissioners know that we want this project stopped.

Aurora Capital has submitted a revised plan for the development.  The new design can be viewed here.

Here’s a brief summary:

1.  The proposed building at 70-74 Gansevoort (see rendering above) is still WAY TOO BIG.  At the previous public meeting on February 9th, LPC told the developer to remove the penthouse structure and then reduce the size of the underlying building itself.  The penthouse structure has indeed been removed, but the base building is essentially the same height as before.  The total building height including some large mechanicals is now  97 feet.  This height needs to be significantly reduced.

A huge problem is that Aurora is justifying this height by comparing their proposed building to the existing warehouse buildings in the Gansevoort Market District.  However, at the February  9th public meeting LPC Chair Srinivasan was explicit that the height of 70-74 Gansevoort Street should be determined in the context of the “loft-style” buildings in the district.  The 7 existing loft buildings in the district are considerably lower than the warehouse buildings which Aurora is now citing as the “context” for their 97-foot-high proposal.

2.  The new design for 60-68 Gansevoort is an improvement over what was proposed in the original plan.  The  penthouse has been removed, and the new building is now 62 feet  to the top of the cornice (compared with approximately 70 feet in the old design).  There are some small mechanicals (really pretty unobtrusive)  on top of the building which bring total height to 70 feet, compared to 98 feet in the original plan. The design of the facade has also been improved.  HOWEVER, IT IS STILL TOO TALL.  LPC was explicit at the February 9th meeting that the new building should be no higher than the old tenements, and we have multiple documents from the Department of Buildings stating that the height of the original tenements was between 50-55 feet .  The height of this building needs to be reduced by an additional 7-11 feet to match what LPC mandated at the previous meeting.

3.  Last, the new design for 50 Gansevoort (on the eastern end of the block) has been greatly improved.  Instead of a weird three story building masquerading as a four-story building, it’s now a two story building matching the adjoining structures, with an unobtrusive set-back 3rd story addition.

We strongly disagree with LPC’s decision to arbitrarily reach back to an earlier stage in the district’s history to justify replacing existing low-rise market buildings with massive new construction.  Nonetheless, if the rationale is to return Gansevoort Street to its earlier tenement configuration, then the new buildings at 60-68 and 74 Gansevoort must conform to the size of their predecessors.

Please send an email to the Landmarks Preservation Commission asking the commissioners to hold fast to their guidelines and insist that the heights these buildings be further reduced.  It only takes one click!

[efb_likebox fanpage_url=”savegansevoort” fb_appid=”OPTIONAL_SEE_FAQ” box_width=”400″ box_height=HEIGHT_OF_BOX_IN_PIXELS”” responsive=”1″ show_faces=”SHOW_CONNECTIONS(1/0)” show_stream=”SHOW_STREAM_POSTS(1/0)” hide_cover=”1″ small_header=”1″ hide_cta=”OPTONAL_HIDE_CUSTOM_CTA_BUTTON(1/0)” locale=”NAME_OF_YOUR_LANGUAGE_LOCAE(default en_US)”]

[tfb username=’SaveGansevoort’ count=’false’ lang=’en’ theme=’dark’]

There was a great turnout at last Thursday’s Community Board 2 hearing on the proposed 90′ tall towers at 85 Jane Street!  Over 70 community residents appeared in opposition to the proposed 90′ tall towers at 85 Jane Street in the Greenwich Village historic District.  Not one person spoke in favor of the project.

The developer finally released renderings of his proposed building.  Although it is not clear from the pictures, the concrete tower and the glass tower are actually separate structures, connected with small footbridges:

Residents pointed out that the towers are completely out of character with the Greenwich Village Historic District, and that all of the comparable buildings cited by the developer in fact are situated outside of the Historic District.

Residents also expressed concern about the overbearing, uniform 41′ tall street wall, which will have a sterilizing effect on this charming low-scale block.  (The developer claims that the zoning forces him to create this uniform 41′ street wall; however, an exemption from this requirement for buildings in historic districts can easily be obtained through a 74-711  process.)

The CB2 Landmarks Committee voted unanimously to oppose this application, and we expect that the full Community Board will shortly pass a strong resolution against this project.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission – which will make the actual decision to approve, modify, or deny this application – will hold its hearing some time in June.  It is essential that as many community residents as possible attend and speak at the LPC hearing.  Please contact preserveJaneSt@gmail.com in order to receive updates on the fight against this proposal and information about the LPC hearing as soon as it is scheduled.

For more information, go here.

UPDATE:  Following is a report from the #preserveJaneSt coalition:

On Thursday, May 12th, Community Board 2 held a hearing on the proposed development at the former Pro Piano site at 85 – 89 Jane Street. This site sits squarely within the Greenwich Village Historic District.

The proposal includes a request to include two 90’ towers – one concrete, the other glass, lit at night like a beacon – to what is currently a 30’ tall building. The proposal also includes increasing the street façade of two existing low-rise structures to a uniform 41’ across the entire 110’ street frontage. The two structures date from the late 1800’s / early 1900’s and have had a variety of commercial uses over the years – ranging from horse stables to a garage to ice-cream manufacturing to a piano showroom most recently. The final structure would be a ~20,000 square foot single family home.

 The meeting was standing-room only. A majority of the attendees proudly wore #preserveJaneSt stickers. Also present were: 
·         Andrew Berman of the Greenwich Village Society of Historic Preservation
·         Representatives of the Jane Street Block Association
·         Representatives of #preserveJaneSt
·         Representatives from the Greenwich Village Community Task Force
·         Representatives from City Councilmember Corey Johnson’s office

The voice of opposition from the public was fierce, consistent and on-point.  The crowd repeatedly noted that two 90’ towers had no place in the Greenwich Village Historic District. There is no precedent for such height, especially clad in glass, inside the District. The argument presented by the architect – that this design resembled smokestacks that were present on industrial structures outside of the Greenwich Village Historic District – was met with strong disapproval. Buildings outside of the Historic District are entirely irrelevant as precedents for construction within theDistrict.

 Others raised concerns about increasing the street façade to 41’. While this increased height would be consistent with many of the neighboring townhouses, it would have a homogenizing effect and destroy the character of jagged skyline heights that Jane Street has enjoyed for decades. Many feared it would lead to a more soulless atmosphere.  After some of the more passionate contributions made by the public, the crowd erupted into applause.

The Committee voted unanimously to oppose the proposal. We expect formal resolution language from CB2 next week.

This is win for the community. We expect the full Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing to occur in late June. The LPC meeting is where the important decision will be made on what can be built on the site. It is ESSENTIAL that everyone opposed to this plan attend that meeting.

UPDATE MAY 14th:  at Wednesday’s CB2 hearing, it was revealed that in addition to illegally leasing this space for a restaurant last year, TF Cornerstone also ripped out all of the infrastructure necessary to maintain a meatpacking operation – the freezers, the rails, etc.  Without this infrastructure, it would require a prohibitive capital investment for anyone to move a meatpacking business into this space. Thus, at the very time that TF Cornerstone was legally required to make “best efforts” to find a meat market tenant for this space, they in fact did the very opposite and took action that made it impossible to lease the space to a meatpacker.

Anticipating that CB2 would vote to reject their  application, TF Cornerstone requested that the vote be postponed for a month, presumably to give them time to attempt to negotiate with the community.  Stay tuned!

——-

The owner of the West Coast Apartment building (the entire block bordered by Horatio, West, Gansevoort, and Washington Streets) is applying to change a restrictive declaration that currently limits uses in the northwest corner of the ground floor of that building to meatpacking and light industrial uses only.  We believe that meatpacking uses are still viable in this space, which was occupied by Weischel Beef until 2012 – in fact, the meatpacking coop one-half block to the north is currently full up.  

However, IF the city concludes that meatpacking uses are no longer appropriate, then it’s essential that any changes to the restrictive declaration work to benefit the community as well as the property owner.   Come tell Community Board 2 that if the restrictive declaration is changed, then it should allow only cultural, educational, or community uses by non-profit organizations in this space.  Possibilities would include a non-profit art gallery, non-profit theater space, non-profit bookstore, non-profit day care or nursery school, or space for community organizations.

The community doesn’t need more luxury retail or high-end restaurants.  The community does need spaces where non-profit arts, educational, and service organizations can flourish. The property owner negotiated this restrictive declaration in return for an extremely lucrative rezoning.  The owner has already made a huge profit from this deal, and there’s no reason that he should be now be entitled to get market-rate rents in this space for uses that won’t benefit the community.

The CB2 Land Use Committee will be this coming Wednesday:
Wednesday, May 11th, 6:30 PM
Village Community School, 272 W. 10th St., Auditorium 
(between Greenwich and Washington Streets)

The facebook event is here.

Some additional facts:

When Rockrose Development Corporation obtained a 1984 rezoning to allow the conversion of the old Manhattan Refrigeration building complex into the West Coast Apartments , the community negotiated several restrictive declarations in return.  One of these declarations mandated that 4700 sq/ft of ground floor space and 3500 sq/ft of basement space at the NW corner of the building (the corner of West Street and Gansevoort Street, now across from the Whitney Museum) be reserved for meat market uses.

Last year, the current owner of the building (TF Cornerstone)  tried to ignore the restrictive declaration by illegally leasing this space to a restaurant; we stopped them when they tried to apply for a liquor license.  The City should not reward TF Cornerstone  for its illegal behavior by now granting them the ability to make unlimited profits from this space.  TF Cornerstone still wants to put a giant  restaurant into this space; the late-night noise and congestion that such a huge operation would bring to our community would be unacceptable.

The lobbyist that TF Cornerstone has hired to push this application is James Capalino, who  has been involved in other attempts to remove property restrictions which were intended to  benefit the community.  He represented the companies involved in the recent Rivington Street nursing home scandal; he is also the lobbyist for  Aurora Capital, which has said that it will apply to change the restrictive declaration limiting uses on the site of its massive Gansevoort development project.

This hearing is an opportunity to send a message that the community must be fully engaged in the process of negotiating any future attempts to change restrictive declarations, such as the one governing Aurora’s Gansevoort site, and that any changes should  only be permitted if they benefit the community and the community agrees to them.

This coming Thursday, May 12th, the Community Board 2 Landmarks Committee will be hearing an application to build a huge addition on top of the existing one- and two story buildings at 85 Jane Street. The result will be a new 80 foot tall structure (plus mechanicals) mid-block on landmarked Jane Street between Greenwich and Washington Streets in the heart of the West Village. This is the old Pro Piano location – see the photo above.  

UPDATE MAY 10TH:  WE HAVE JUST LEARNED THAT THIS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY CALLS FOR TWO 90-FOOT-TALL SLIVER TOWERS (including mechanicals), one made of glass and the other of concrete!   The proposed uniform 41-foot-high street wall running the entire length of the property is also an issue.  At an invitation-only meeting with a few community residents to review the proposal, the owners refused to reveal their names and would not allow residents to take any photos of the plans.  Furthermore, the owners have hired lobbyist James Capalino, a long-time community adversary and major de Blasio fundraiser, to push the city to approve the project.  Capalino also represents Aurora Capital’s massive Gansevoort project.

Please come to the CB2 hearing to learn more about this proposal and to tell the Community Board that new structures of this size are completely out-of-character with the Greenwich Village Historic District and should be rejected!

The hearing will be held:
Thursday, May 12th, 6:30PM
NYU Silver Building, 32 Waverly Place, Room 520
(near the Northeast corner of Washington Square Park)

The facebook event for the hearing is here.  Please invite your friends.

If you want to help stop this proposal, please contact preserveJaneSt@gmail.com

The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation has prepared an excellent history of the two buildings currently on this site.  Read it here.

See you at the hearing!

A huge controversy is swirling around New York City’s decision to lift a deed restriction and allow the conversion of a lower east side nursing home to luxury condos in return for a $16 million fee.  It’s been a major embarrassment for the city, and Mayor de Blasio says he is furious that the deal was allowed to happen.

What’s the connection to Aurora Capital’s proposed massive Gansevoort Development project?  High-priced lobbyist James Capalino worked for both seller and buyer in the nursing home transaction; James Capalino is also working for Aurora Capital to push their Gansevoort plan through City Hall.  Additionally, Aurora hopes to lift or amend a restrictive declaration on the Gansevoort property which prohibits office use.

The news first broke in the March 26th  Daily News, which wrote:

A powerful lobbyist steered $50,000 in donations to Mayor de Blasio after pressing the city for a deed change that allows one of his clients to turn a building restricted for use as a nursing home into luxury condos.

Since October lobbyist James Capalino has collected $40,000 in checks for de Blasio’s 2017 re-election bid and personally wrote a $10,000 check in May to Campaign for One New York, the non-profit de Blasio uses to promote his causes.

Capalino represented both the original seller of the nursing home at 45 Rivington St. on the Lower East Side and the developer who will turn it into luxury condos.

On Friday the city said they were misled by a middleman in the transaction…

On March 30th, the Daily News editorialized:

Come 2014 and advances in AIDS care, the building’s owner hired lobbyist and de Blasio fundraiser James Capalino to press the city Department of Citywide Administrative Services to lift the use restrictions to pave the way for a sale…

…last May, Allure quietly agreed to sell it for $116 million to the the Slate Property Group, a condo developer also on Capalino’s client roll. The deal was contingent on getting the city to rescind restriction on the property’s use…

It could be coincidental that Capalino delivered $45,000 in campaign contributions for de Blasio’s reelection after securing that all-important $72 million signature.

Could be.

Also on March 30th, the New York Times picked up the story:

For an administration claiming to be bent on curbing gentrification, and a hands-on mayor who often demands rigorous multisignature memos for making big decisions, questions remain about how the former nursing home, known as Rivington House, came to be unprotected by the city and then sold for a steep profit. Questions have also arisen about the role of the city’s leading lobbyist, James F. Capalino, who, at different points, came to represent the initial seller and final purchaser of the property…

In seeking to secure the deed change, Village Care had a powerful ally in its corner: Mr. Capalino, a fund-raiser for Mr. de Blasio whose firm earned a record $12.9 million lobbying City Hall in 2015.

Mr. Capalino had been hired in 2013 through October 2014 to push for changes to the Rivington House deed. Village Care had bought the building from the city in 1992 with the permanent restriction on its use, and had cared for patients with H.I.V. and AIDS…

In April 2015, before Allure’s sale of the building, Mr. Capalino began representing Slate Acquisition, the developer that would buy the property from Allure Group, though its contract did not cover lobbying related to 45 Rivington Street.

In a subsequent interview with The Lo-Down, James Capalino denied any role in the fiasco, stating that his contract with Village Care was terminated before any deal was reached with the city, and that his contract with Slate Acquisition did not include any work on the nursing home deal.  But Capalino then went on to make this astonishing statement about his role as a lobbyist:

If there are people out there, however misguided, who are prepared to insinuate that my raising money for a mayor who I have supported since he became a candidate, that it represents some question about my personal integrity or the integrity of my firm, it’s just not worth it. (As a) result of less than highly professional journalism over the course of the past week, I have been subject to grossly inaccurate and grossly unfair representations about the conduct of my firm and what our intentions were. If it’s necessary to create basically a Chinese wall between our role as lobbyists and my Constitutional right to raise money for a public official, I guess I might have to consider doing that.

It might not be obvious to Jim Capalino, but, yes, erecting a “chinese wall” between his attempts to influence city government and his donations of  tens of thousands of dollars to Mayor de Blasio would be a very good idea indeed.  Of course, doing so might also make some of those donations rather pointless and simultaneously reduce his much-vaunted influence.

City Comptroller Scott Stringer, NY State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (read the Wall Street Journal report), and now US Attorney Preet Bharara (read the Gothamist report) have all opened investigations into the sale of the nursing home and the  lifting of the deed restriction.