« The lesson taught by the case of OSHA vs. Tyler-Conner Inc. dba Eddington & Assoc. Security. Does NYS DOL have a conflict of interest? | Main | INORDINATE REGULATORY INTERFERENCE »

"In the Know" said to find out who is truly responsible, go bact to 2003

On September 4, 2007, "In the Know" posted a comment (Click Here) in which he or she cryptically said that to learn who was responsible, go back to at least 2003.   Ever since, we have kept our eyes open for events of 2003.  What happened in 2003 that was significant?  It turns out that Governor Pataki issued Executive Order No. 128 in which LMDC was designated as "the instrumentality of the State" with regard to plan reviews that are funded by the Federal Government. In addition, it created within the Executive Department of the State of New York the position of Special Assistant for Lower Manhattan Development and designated the President of the LMDC to serve as the Special Assistant.  Follow the money? Into the hands of the President of LMDC are the federal funds placed. The power of LMDC begins to grow.

Note: FDNY has no jurisdiction over NYS owned buildings (Click Here). LMDC is the 800 pound guerilla. FDNY had no chance against it. Only the presence of the United States Government via US funds and the US EPA and other US Agencies has kept the 800 pound guerilla in check (Click Here). 

Why are we calling LMDC a 800 pound guerilla and why are we saying that FDNY had no chance against it. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York - the highest Court in NY State - has said that the NYS Urban Development Corporation and its subsidiaries - LMDC is a subsidiary of NYS Urban Development Corporation - are relieved from "all local controls".  Lloyd v. NYS Urban Development Corporation, 33 NY2d 1, 200 N.E.2d 704, 347 NYS2d 161 (1973). When  LMDC came into NYC, like a a foreign diplomat with diplomatic immunity, LMDC was above the law of the local municipality. In its sole discretion, LMDC can disregard the rules of the local municipality, i.e., cut through what it perceives to be red tape of local government.  Is there any wonder, therefore, why LMDC's contractors were saying that 130 Liberty St. is not subject to any standards (Click here). This thought was not an original thought. The contractor heard it from someone.  Whom do you think the contractor was parroting? (Note: the contractor was partially correct and partially mistaken.  There are standards to which LMDC is subject).


ExecOrder128designatingLMDC.jpg 

Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 06:59PM by Registered Commenter[Your Name Here] | CommentsPost a Comment

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>