My parents did a lot of embarrassing stuff when I was a kid. As immigrants who spoke very little English, they faced their share of challenges adapting to life in the big city.They once walked into a dry-cleaners thinking it was a clothing store with my mom looking at the receipts, amazed at how inexpensive the dresses were. On another occasion, having clarified the meaning of the word “boiled,” she ended up boiling already boiled lunch meat … that was some chewy ham right there.
The most embarrassing thing of all was how she’d occasionally venture out into the park spaces around our neighborhood, in search of dandelions. My friends, genuinely curious, would ask, “Hey man, why was your mom digging up the grass in the park?” My responses would vary from, “Oh that wasn’t my mom,” to, “Our chinchilla will only eat fresh greens,” to “I think she lost her wedding ring or something.”
What I didn’t want them to know was that after she’d gathered a good shopping bag full of dandelion leaves, she’d boil them in a pot, douse them in olive oil and lemon juice and serve them to us as a side with broiled porgies from the fish store. Of course the greens were delicious and we never complained — least not as long as she promised to stay away from places where people would, you know, walk their dogs.
Little did I know then that my mother was violating the public trust. She was never cited. The Bureau of Land Management didn’t slap the cuffs on her or take away her trowel. You might recall how only a few months ago, a certain cowboy situated only a hundred miles or so from where our Las Vegas 51’s play their home games, brought about an armed confrontation with the feds over whether his cattle could graze on public land. It occurred to me that my family had grazed on public land my whole childhood and no one even noticed. Of course we didn’t eat as much as several hundred head of cattle, but still, the principle … anyway, as I continued to peruse the myriad of anti-Wilpon rants and diatribes the other day, I came across a couple of interesting pieces.
The New York Law Journal published an article on August 21st by Joel Stashenko reporting on Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez’ dismissal of a claim against, you guessed it, Sterling Equities and Related Companies.
Sen. Tony Avella and a consortium of neighborhood businesses brought a claim against the Willets Point Development asserting it violates the public trust doctrine which prohibits “non-park” projects from being built on top of parkland without approval of New York State Legislature.
A 1961 law permitted owners of the NY Mets to use a portion of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in constructing Shea Stadium, but it was understood that this law did not apply to new construction. Citi Field, it could be argued was new construction, but in so far as it effectively replaced the old outdated venue, it was deemed permissible, however, it also opened the door to broader revitalization efforts. Mendez argued,
“The public trust doctrine does not apply,” Mendez wrote in Avella v. City of New York, 100161/14. “Administrative Code §18-118[b] applies to the use of the property for a shopping mall, because it will serve the public purpose of improving trade or commerce. The legislature in designating other purposes for the use of the property has already resolved the issues related to the public trust doctrine.”
So as I understand it, parkland adjacent to Citi Field would no longer be available for the pilfering of dandelion greens or any other public use because the 27 acre site would be paved over and turned into, among other things, a hotel, an apartment complex, a movie multiplex, and a $3 billion, 1.4 million square foot mall. So you can forget about getting that discounted alternator for your 2001 Galant from your favorite chop shop.
Now you may ask, what does this have to do with baseball and the New York Mets? You can barely tolerate arugula, you say? You couldn’t care less about dandelions and the Wilpons’ behemoth development? Well, Michael Geus over at 2 Guys Talking Mets put it all together in a brilliant piece on September 8th where he in essence argued that the Mets are a toxic asset and that the Wilpons or any sane owner would cash out and settle their debts were it not for some ulterior motive.
Now I always thought the Wilpons clung to the Mets for the prestige and honor inherent in owning a baseball franchise in baseball’s biggest market, because they saw it as a family heirloom, yada yada. Geus argues it isn’t that at all, that the real reason they hold onto the team is because owning the Mets offers the WIlpons unique rights to to their little corner of WIllets Point, a.k.a. Flushing Meadows-Corona Park … our Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.
So which is it? I’ve argued ad nauseam that the Mets are all the WIlpons have, a blue and orange badge of respectability, an honor like no other that gains them access to circles and country clubs and the back pages. In the grand hierarchy of New York royalty, the Wilpons would be a footnote in a real estate magazine without the Mets. On the other hand, you have this prospect that the Wilpons are really holding onto the Mets because team ownership offers them the opportunity to develop a sizable chunk of NYC park space for considerable personal gain.
The bitter irony in all of this is that Justice Mendez’ controversial decision (which is being appealed by the way), not only violates land use regulations for property held in public trust, but the Wilpons continue to violate the public’s trust as irresponsible stewards of a major baseball entity.
They stubbornly maintain control of our beloved franchise, in spite of their sweeping incompetence and staggering ambivalence to the public’s needs. Insult, say hello to injury.
It is probably some combination of the Wilpons’ desire to redeem their family’s sports legacy and the potential windfall from the massive WIllets Point development that pushes them to sustain their hold on the Mets.
My mom did eventually refrain from her old-world habit of collecting greens from the park, if only to spare us the embarrassment. It’s a shame our ownership group lacks the decency to spare us all the embarrassment of their flawed and crippling hegemony.
Sadly, no amount of embarrassment, not involvement in two Ponzi schemes, not a reputation for being one of the most ineffectual ownership groups in the game, not a sexual discrimination lawsuit, nothing short of MLB intervention or outright default will prompt the WIlpons to sell. It isn’t a matter of dignity. If there were any shred of that left they’d sell for the good of a game they purport to love. No, it is a tragic confluence of pride, hubris, and greed, that keeps our Mets tethered indelibly to their folly.
