Willets Point United Inc.

P.O. Box 560191 College Point, New York 11356

Information for press in advance of community meeting October 18, 2011 According to information published at the web site of Claire Shulman's local development corporation ("LDC"), representatives of the LDC, the New York State Department of State ("DOS") and the LDC's consultant team will host a "community meeting" pertaining to the LDC's brownfield plan for certain property located near the Flushing river between Northern Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue. The community meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 from 4:00PM to 8:00PM at Flushing Town Hall. Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") alerts representatives of the media that the grant of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC has been allowed to proceed, on the basis of inaccurate information suspiciously provided by the New York State Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") to DOS; that upon receiving accurate information, the Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") may suspend the disbursal of taxpayer funds pertaining to this grant; that, far from being a charitable endeavor, this grant is a pretext to obtain others' private property, to serve as a site of development for the potential tremendous financial benefit of members of Shulman's LDC; that Shulman's LDC has not disclosed that TDC Development, a preeminent financier of Shulman's LDC, owns most of the waterfront property in the area to which the grant pertains; that DOS has re-defined the LDC's catchment area in order to justify awarding the grant; that DOS and OSC have overlooked apparently false information within the LDC's grant application; and that the grant and the project to which it pertains are being challenged. WPU believes that the circumstances of this grant award are as questionable and improper as, for example, the unregistered lobbying already performed unlawfully by Shulman's LDC during 2007 and 2008, for which the LDC was held liable to pay a then-record financial penalty of $59,090.00. Shulman's LDC is now a target of an ongoing OAG investigation which could result in the dissolution of the LDC; and a different state agency is investigating allegations of false filing and evasion of law by Shulman's LDC. WPU is committed to root out and expose all questionable behavior by Shulman's LDC and/or its representatives, and to ensure that those responsible are held to account. The information on the following pages provides additional detail, but is not exhaustive. WPU possesses voluminous records that support the summaries below and invites interested media to contact WPU via email at UnitedTriangle@gmail.com. WPU will reply as time permits. ___________________________________________

Page 1 of 13

(1.) The pending investigation of Shulmans LDC by the New York State Office of the Attorney General should have prohibited the execution of the grant contract with Shulmans LDC, and may yet prohibit the actual disbursal of grant funds to Shulmans LDC: New York State Department of State ("DOS") emails obtained by Willets Point United Inc. ("WPU") indicate that as of March 2011, DOS could not recommend that the New York State Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") execute the grant contract with Shulman's LDC, until DOS was satisfied that two potentially disqualifying matters involving Shulman's LDC had been resolved: (1.) The LDC's violation of the New York City lobbying law, which resulted in the then-record financial penalty of $59,090.00 against Shulman's LDC; and (2.) the pending investigation by the New York State Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") of allegations that Shulman's LDC violated 1411 of the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (" 1411"), which prohibits all local development corporations from attempting to influence legislation. As for item (1.): DOS determined that Shulman's LDC had paid the $59,090.00 penalty, which DOS believes eliminates the underlying violations from further consideration. (WPU notes that although Shulman's LDC may have paid a financial penalty to the City, doing so cannot erase that fact that Shulman's LDC lobbied in favor of the proposed Willets Point development for a long period of time without filing the required lobbyist registrations or periodic reports. By not filing those registrations or reports, Shulman's LDC deprived the opponents of its lobbying including Willets Point property owners, who stood lose their properties if the project that was the subject of the LDC's lobbying was approved of information to which they were lawfully entitled, concerning the subject of the LDC's lobbying and the "Targets" of that lobbying, thus constituting violations of the property owners' rights to due process as their future property ownership was being decided. Those violations of the property owners' due process rights by Shulman's LDC have not yet been considered or adjudicated by any court.) As for item (2.): Significantly, if an OAG investigation finds that the alleged violations of 1411 by Shulman's LDC have occurred, then OAG is entitled to commence an action to dissolve or annul the corporate existence of Shulman's LDC, among other remedies. Obviously it would be inappropriate to award any grant of taxpayer funds to an entity whose continued existence depends upon the outcome of an OAG investigation. Accordingly, DOS contacted OAG to enquire about the status of OAG's investigation of Shulman's LDC. So serious are the implications of an ongoing investigation, that the objective of DOS was to obtain a written statement from OAG, regarding the status of the investigation. On October 14, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that a DOS representative wrote to WPU that DOS and OSC "'were unable to confirm that there is a pending investigation' by the attorney general", and that DOS therefore allowed the grant to proceed. (See Page 2 of 13

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629520547359248.html?mod=g ooglenews_wsj) However, the failure of DOS and OSC to ascertain the status of OAG's investigation is incredible, considering that OAG confirmed immediately to the Wall Street Journal reporter that the investigation still is active; and that during the same timeframe in 2011 when DOS and OSC could not confirm the status of OAG's investigation, representatives of WPU attended two meetings, and otherwise communicated, with OAG staff responsible for the very same investigation. How did a newspaper reporter and a community organization so readily obtain information about OAG's investigation, but DOS could not, when it needed to do so to determine the LDC's eligibility to receive a state grant of $1,505,700.00? Making matters even worse than has been reported, however, is the fact that OAG actually provided inaccurate information to DOS about OAG's investigation information on which DOS then relied, when recommending that OSC execute the grant contract with Shulman's LDC. Had OAG provided the same information to DOS that it provided to the Wall Street Journal reporter and to WPU, it is difficult to imagine how the grant of $1,505,700.00 state taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC would have been allowed to proceed. OAG must be held to account for its suspicious conveyance of inaccurate information to DOS which facilitated the grant award to Shulman's LDC, and for the suspicious inability of OAG to locate any person within OAG with reliable knowledge of the investigation, as well as any written records that would necessarily result from such an investigation. First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls. DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau): "I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back". Why would a state agency not respond to enquiries from a sister agency, on a matter affecting the proposed disbursal of $1,505,700.00 state taxpayer funds? Second, when DOS attorney Treacy finally did establish contact with Assistant Attorney General Kittilsen, she provided inaccurate information that cannot be reconciled with information provided by OAG to the Wall Street Journal and to representatives of WPU. Via email on March 22, 2011 at 1:41PM, Treacy informed DOS employees that Kittilsen: " has found no information on the matter in the AG's Office and has not received any successful responses to her attempts to identify anyone in her Office Page 3 of 13

who may have been involved with the matter. The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave [elsewhere referred to as 'maternity leave', indicating that the individual is female]. Everyone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office. (There have been many departures.) Thus, a statement on the status of the AG's investigation will not be forthcoming". Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find "no information on the matter in the AG's Office", representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that "The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave", and it is not true that "[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office". Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation. Indeed, it seems quite a convenient coincidence, that records of the investigation of Shulman's LDC could disappear from OAG, and that OAG would purportedly be devoid of anyone with knowledge of the investigation, right at the time when availability of such records or knowledge might have jeopardized the disbursal of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC. Whether the lack of accurate communication between OAG, DOS and OSC is due to incompetence, or is a deliberate scheme to overlook disqualifying factors and to facilitate the disbursal of $1,505,700.00 to Shulman's LDC, is unknown. What is obvious, however, is that the manner in which OAG, DOS and OSC have acted thus far is anathema to good government, and fails to fulfill the agencies' obligations to the public. Compare what OAG, DOS and OSC have actually done, with the lofty promises of State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: At his 2014 re-election web site (www.tomdinapoli.com), Comptroller DiNapoli states: "I'm watching every taxpayer dime. It's your money, and it's my job to protect it". Ironically, collaboration between OAG and OSC is crucial to highly-touted initiatives described at OAG's web site: "Attorney General Schneiderman has made cracking down on corruption and Page 4 of 13

restoring the public's trust in government a top priority for the Office. In 2011, the Attorney General launched a groundbreaking initiative expanding his office's authority to investigate public corruption involving taxpayer funds by partnering with the state Comptroller." (http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/public_integrity/about.html) "By working with the Comptroller to police public integrity in Albany, the Attorney General is building on his multi-pronged approach to root out waste, fraud and corruption in state government. Attorney General Schneiderman has made restoring New Yorkers faith in their state government a top priority of his administration." (http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2011/may/may23a_11.html) And so: Now that DOS and OSC are aware that OAG has confirmed the existence of its pending investigation encompassing Shulman's LDC an investigation which DOS and OSC previously were unable to confirm, but which they have already recognized may prevent the disbursal of state taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC will they suspend any disbursal of state taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC, unless and until OAG concludes its investigation and announces that the LDC has not committed the violations that have been alleged and documented by WPU? Or do DOS and OSC consider Shulman and her LDC to be so above the law, that they will disregard the existence of the OAG investigation, and disburse taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC no matter what and thereby abdicate their fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers of New York State? ___________________________________________ (2.) Shulmans LDC Masquerading as a charitable community-based organization:

Shulman's LDC purports to be a charitable, community-based organization a prerequisite to receive the state brownfield grant. However, the LDC members' ultimate objectives are not charity, but profit; and the LDC does not represent our "community" in the traditional sense. The purported charitable elimination of brownfields and underutilized sites if any actually exist within the area to which the brownfield grant pertains is only incidental to the LDC's ultimate objective: For a brownfield designation to make the property eligible to be forcibly acquired via eminent domain, and for the LDC's members to profit tremendously from implementing an enormous development at the 60-acre site. Indeed, the LDC has already displayed artists' renderings of a gigantic new development situated at the Flushing waterfront on the site of the property to which the brownfield grant pertains. The brownfield designation is a convenient pretext to acquire the area's property, which could not certainly be acquired any other way. The "community" which the LDC represents does not consist of area citizens. Instead, the LDC represents the interests of its corporate members, which are multinational developer Page 5 of 13

firms, utilities, banks, and other entities that stand to profit tremendously if the area to which the proposed brownfield grant pertains is declared a brownfield, and then acquired (via condemnation or otherwise) for redevelopment. Records of Queens Community Board 7 indicate that the membership of Shulman's LDC includes the following firms: Briarwood Group Ciampa Organization Citibank Commerce Bank Con Edison Crystal Windows F&T Group Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association J&K Pi Foundation Keyspan Major Automotive Companies Mattone Group Muss Development Nash Builders New York Community Bancorp New York Mets Palaus, Sokolowski & Sartor RAMAH TDC Center Verizon In addition, the LDC's web site has acknowledged that the following firms are "Supporters" of the LDC: Albanese Organization, Inc. CPC Resources, Inc. Douglaston Development Triangle Equities Among the LDC's members are deep-pocketed firms which are collectively capable of financing a brownfield study without any taxpayer support, especially in these times when public funds are scarce. Does the group of above-listed firms appear to be in need of a taxpayer hand-out? Disturbingly, however, when evaluating the LDC's grant application, DOS and OSC apparently have drawn no distinction between a genuine community-based organization representing an actual community with a legitimate demonstrated financial need (which the grant is truly designed to support), and a consortium of multi-national developers and other firms that Page 6 of 13

is masquerading as a community-based organization with a financial need in order to receive a $1,505,700.00 hand-out of taxpayer dollars from New York State, in lieu of spending their own funds. ___________________________________________ (3.) Shulmans LDC has failed to disclose that its member, TDC Development and its affiliates, owns most of the prime waterfront property to which the brownfield grant pertains: TDC Development is a preeminent financier of Shulman's LDC. According to records maintained by Queens Community Board 7, the LDC's board members have included the President of TDC Development, a Vice President of TDC Development, and the Chairman and CEO of F&T Group, the parent company of TDC Development. TDC Development is responsible for the Flushing Commons and Queens Crossing projects (located east of the property to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains), and is a respondent to the Request for Proposals for the proposed Willets Point development (west of the property to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains). Significantly, it so happens that TDC Development, or the affiliated entities Fulton/Max International Holdings, Inc. and F&T Management & Parking Corp., already own most of the prime Flushing waterfront property within the area to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains. (See the attached map.) It would not be sensible for TDC Development to support the LDC's brownfield initiative, which could determine that the waterfront property owned by TDC or its affiliates is a brownfield, and therefore eligible to be condemned for subsequent development unless TDC Development has been assured that it will retain ownership of its property, even if other nearby affected properties are forcibly acquired via condemnation. Since TDC Development or its affiliates already own most of the prime waterfront property within the area to which the LDC's brownfield grant pertains, and it is unlikely that TDC Development would jeopardize its property ownership, the implication is that if the brownfield program eventually results in the area being declared a brownfield, that all of the property will not be transferred to the City and competitive bids solicited from all interested developers (as is being done in the case of Willets Point); but rather, that TDC Development is going to develop the waterfront property, and that adjacent properties presently owned by others may be incorporated into that project. Accordingly, it appears that the LDC's brownfield grant directly benefits TDC Development, by specifically facilitating its waterfront development. Thus the following questions arise: Page 7 of 13

Isn't the LDC's brownfield grant a thinly-disguised way for TDC Development to use state taxpayer funds to pay for environmental studies of TDC Development's properties, to facilitate its waterfront project; and to expand the developable area, by facilitating condemnation of adjacent properties on the pretext of being brownfields? Have TDC Development and its affiliate firms been assured that they will retain their property ownership, even if the brownfield program results in the area being declared a brownfield, and even if adjacent properties are subject to condemnation? If the brownfield program results in properties being declared brownfields, might those properties be condemned? If so, what entity will be the condemnor? By what process will the subsequent owner of condemned properties be selected?

___________________________________________ (4.) Shulmans LDC Downplaying its key objectives, to minimize interest, controversy and opposition: Presuming that the brownfield program will result in designations of the affected properties as brownfields, then it appears that the present owners of those properties, other than those who are LDC members, will likely be forced to surrender their property ownership to the development project as is contemplated at Willets Point. If so, then the LDC's plan poses a threat to the present owners' continued ownership of their properties and those owners deserve to be unambiguously notified that such is the case. However, there has been no such notice. Neither the invitation to the LDC's community meeting nor the map of the area displayed at the LDC's web site indicates that existing property and business owners in the affected area are in any way threatened by the LDC's brownfield plan, or may lose their properties or businesses because of it. Property and business owners who see the LDC's community meeting invitation have no way of appreciating the severity of the threat to them which the LDC's plan constitutes, as the invitation appears to pertain to a benign project and its purported "community benefits". The LDC displays a map of the area at its web site, but the map is merely one that depicts the existing industrial uses of the property, and does not hint at any threat to those continued uses by the property's present owners. Had Shulman's LDC been interested in communicating its true intent regarding the property to which the brownfield grant pertains, the LDC would have published the map and chart found within its brownfield grant application, which show the LDC's predeterminations that each and every privately-owned lot within the target area is either a "brownfield" or "underutilized" making those properties eligible for condemnation. (See the attached chart.) Thus it appears that Shulman's LDC is shrewdly promoting its community meeting just Page 8 of 13

enough to satisfy requirements of the brownfield grant program, but is deliberately not disclosing the ultimate goal of the project and the methods of realizing it, so as to minimize the controversy and opposition at this time. Does this sound like the behavior of an organization that believes it has the support of the public? ___________________________________________ (5.) A harmful project is not legitimized by the Downtown Flushing Development Framework document: The much-ballyhoed Downtown Flushing Development Framework document is frequently cited by development project proponents as justification for their proposed projects as if to say that a proposed project that relates to ideas in the Framework automatically attains a sacred status, which then exempts the project from scrutiny of its aspects that the Framework does not address. In fact, the Framework is merely a development wish-list, produced deliberately to create the illusion of "community" involvement and buy-in, while slyly avoiding any consideration of undesirable or controversial aspects of implementing the projects which the Framework advocates. The Framework contains no analysis of the adverse impacts of any project that it proposes, and is not a substitute for any required analysis, now. And, as hard as Shulman's LDC may try to convince the community otherwise, the Downtown Flushing Development Framework does not (and never did) constitute the surrounding communities' consent to tolerate any and all adverse impacts that will result from the implementation of ideas listed within the Framework. The LDC claims that the brownfield project carries out goals set forth in the Downtown Flushing Development Framework. Regardless, the area to which the brownfield grant pertains, and the nearby infrastructure and transit, cannot support the level of development which the LDC ultimately intends to implement. (See the attached artists rendering and map produced by the LDC.) For example, traffic studies already conducted for the proposed Willets Point development establish that just that project will severely degrade the operation of the Van Wyck Expressway, as well as local roadways and intersections. The LDC's reckless development concept, which the brownfield plan is intended to facilitate, will compound an already impossible situation. The LDC further claims that the Downtown Flushing Development Framework resulted from a community planning process, implying that the community supports the LDC's brownfield scheme. Although the drafters of the Framework may have held community meetings, none of the meeting attendees was ever told that the method by which the area near the Flushing river would be revitalized would be to declare that area a brownfield, then use that brownfield designation to get rid of most of the existing owners via any means including eminent domain, and turn the property over to a private developer who will enjoy and profit from the revitalization, instead of the present property owners. Had attendees of community meetings been told of that entire scheme, it is unlikely that they would have consented to it. To Page 9 of 13

pretend otherwise now is not credible. ___________________________________________ (6.) What Shulman and her cohorts get:

According to an article published on October 14, 2011 by the Wall Street Journal, "Ms. Shulman's group is using the grant money to hire a consultant". (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629520547359248.html?mod=g ooglenews_wsj) However, a budget worksheet prepared by Shulman's LDC shows that LDC staff members will also collectively profit by $95,020.00 due to their work on the brownfield project; and that the salaries of two individuals are being raised due to their work on the project. AMOUNT CHARGED TO THIS PROJECT $43,333.00 $36,125.00

TITLE Claire Shulman, President & CEO Nick Roberts, Project Manager Pre-brownfield salary: $52,250.00 Anne Marie Boranian, Administrator Pre-brownfield salary: $52,250.00

ANNUAL SALARY $130,000.00 $72,250.00 ($20,000.00 raise) $62,250.00 ($10,000.00 raise)

$15,562.00

___________________________________________ (7.) To create eligibility for the $1,505,700.00 grant, DOS re-defines the LDCs catchment area: The actual catchment area of the LDC consists of Flushing, Willets Point and Corona. The very name of the LDC "Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation" plainly identifies the areas to which the LDC pertains. The LDC's web site also explicitly states that "Our Areas" are Flushing, Willets Point and Corona. But twenty five percent of the LDC's board of directors do not reside within the LDC's catchment area of Flushing, Willets Point and Corona, and so the LDC fails to satisfy the statutory residency requirement that is a prerequisite to receive the brownfield grant. To paper over this fatal flaw, DOS has pronounced nothwithstanding the unambiguous statement of the LDC, that its areas are Flushing, Willets Point and Corona that the "community" which the LDC represents is instead the entire borough of Queens. In so doing, DOS has discarded even the LDC's own unambiguous descriptions of its catchment area, and Page 10 of 13

substituted DOS's own much larger, borough-wide catchment area thereby expanding the area of the LDC to encompass neighborhoods in which the LDC has no interest, but where residences of the LDC's board members are located, so that the LDC then may satisfy the statutory residency requirement for the grant. DOS attempts to justify its expansion of the LDC's catchment area beyond that defined by the LDC, by stating that DOS consistently defines "community" "as the smallest geographic unit of incorporated local government in which the proposed BOA study area is located", which in this instance is the entire borough of Queens. However, other than DOS's desire to enlarge catchment areas so as to increase the likelihood that brownfield grant applicants will be able to satisfy the statutory residency requirement, there appears to be no reason why DOS should be permitted to substitute a vastly larger catchment area for the catchment area that is plainly specified by a grant applicant. That is especially the case as concerns a grant applicant such as the LDC, whose name, web site text, mission statement and IRS Form 990 statement all leave no doubt as to the boundaries of its catchment area. The LDC's description of its own catchment area should be respected, not manipulated by DOS to create false eligibility to receive public funds. Ironically, having expanded the LDC's catchment area to include the entire borough of Queens, that broad and prosperous "community" may be less likely to satisfy the demonstrated financial need requirement which is also a prerequisite to receive the brownfield grant, than the area immediately surrounding the alleged brownfield property to which the proposed grant pertains. And so, inconsistent with the borough-wide standard that is used to assess the residency requirement, DOS focuses on census tract 87100 when assessing whether the LDC represents a community with a demonstrated financial need. Census tract 87100 is said by DOS to qualify as an Environmental Zone, and to encompass 30 to 40 percent of the alleged brownfield property to which the proposed grant pertains (though it appears to encompass less than 30 percent of the property, when viewed on a map). Although DOS points out that the borough of Queens also contains other Environmental Zones, it ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of census tracts in the vicinity of the alleged brownfield property to which the proposed grant pertains are not Environmental Zones. It is not the role of DOS to shrewdly apply the concept of Environmental Zones to assist the LDC to claim that it represents a community with a demonstrated financial need, when such is not actually the case. ___________________________________________ (8.) DOS and OSC overlook apparently false information within the LDCs grant application: On October 6 and 7, 2008, the LDC registered its staff members/employees as lobbyists with the Lobbying Bureau of the Office of the New York City Clerk, and retroactively acknowledged lobbying activities beginning in 2007. Via letter dated October 14, 2008, the LDC informed the New York State Temporary Commission on Lobbying that the LDC authorized Page 11 of 13

certain of its staff members and/or employees to lobby on behalf of the LDC. The LDC also registered as a lobbying client of The Parkside Group, LLC, a notorious lobbying firm. Periodic lobbyist reports indicate that both the LDC and its hired lobbyist firm, The Parkside Group, LLC, performed lobbying activities on behalf of the LDC beginning in 2007. The lobbyists attempted to influence the legislation of the New York City Council pertaining to the proposed Willets Point development, which encompassed re-zoning which has been determined by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), among other government agencies, to constitute legislation. However, contrary to the reported lobbying activities of both the LDC and its hired lobbyist firm, The Parkside Group, LLC, the LDC apparently filed with IRS a Form 990, dated October 23, 2008, attesting that the LDC engaged in "No" lobbying. Moreover, the same IRS Form 900 attests that an LDC expense in the amount of $55,000.00 attributed to The Parkside Group, LLC is payment for "Marketing" services, even though The Parkside Group, LLC is registered to lobby on behalf of the LDC during the timeframe represented by the Form 990 and its compensation for doing so was $55,000.00; and the Form 990 does not report any expense attributable to The Parkside Group, LLC as payment for its lobbying services. Shulman's LDC filed a duplicate of the above-referenced IRS Form 990 attesting that the LDC engaged in "No" lobbying, and devoid of any lobbying expense, including those reported elsewhere as payments to The Parkside Group, LLC for its lobbying services together with its brownfield grant application to obtain state taxpayer funds in the amount of $1,505,700.00. Apparently, Shulman's LDC is attempting to distance itself from its prior lobbying activities which remain under investigation and which have already resulted in a then-record financial penalty of $59,090.00 against Shulman's LDC but providing apparently false information to IRS and DOS is not an appropriate means of doing so. Submitting a false written instrument for filing under certain circumstances is a felony offense. If the LDC has submitted false and misleading written information with its grant application to DOS, then DOS should refer the matter to law enforcement authorities, and the LDC should be deemed ineligible to receive a state grant of taxpayer funds. At the very least, the state should not disburse funds to the LDC unless and until the LDC submits an amended and accurate IRS Form 990 to DOS. Upon being informed by WPU that the IRS Form 990 that Shulman's LDC submitted with its brownfield grant application contains apparently false and misleading information which contradicts other official filings, OSC responded to WPU via letter dated September 29, 2011: " if as you assert, information provided by FWPCLDC in its lobbying reports contradicts the information provided by FWPCLDC in its Form 990s filed with the IRS, that would be a matter for the OAG and its investigators (and, perhaps, the IRS). Prior to awarding the contract, OSC conducted a vendor responsibility analysis of FWPCLDC and did not find any reason to deny FWPCLDC the grant award". Page 12 of 13

WPU finds it disturbing and inappropriate, that Comptroller DiNapoli deliberately relies only on OSC's obviously inadequate attempt at due diligence, and chooses to disregard evidence of ineligibility for the grant that was presented to OSC by WPU. ___________________________________________ Reporters are encouraged to attend the LDC's community meeting, and ask: Isn't the ultimate goal of this brownfield program to clear the existing property and business owners from the affected area, to facilitate development to enrich the LDC's members? Given the deep pockets of the LDC's member firms, why does the LDC believe it is appropriate that it receive a state grant of taxpayer funds in the amount of $1,505,700.00, to sponsor a program that is ultimately intended to enrich the LDC's member firms? Isn't this just a savvy way to obtain private property that cannot readily be obtained any other way, and to get the state to cover costs that really should be borne by the firms who will reap the financial profits of this project? Why has the LDC's invitation to the community meeting not disclosed to affected property and business owners the urgency that they attend the community meeting, because the LDC's project ultimately will require them to vacate the area, and could involve the use of eminent domain to force them to do so?

And, for representatives of the New York State Department of State who will attend the community meeting: Now that the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Office of the Attorney General has confirmed the existence of its investigation of Shulman's LDC which you were unable to confirm, but which would have caused you to hesitate in recommending that Comptroller DiNapoli execute the grant contract with Shulman's LDC will you now instruct Comptroller DiNapoli to suspend any disbursal of public funds to Shulman's LDC, unless and until the Office of the Attorney General concludes its investigation and announces that the LDC has not committed the violations that have been alleged and documented by Willets Point United Inc.? Or, do you consider Shulman and her LDC to be so above the law that you will disburse taxpayer funds to Shulman's LDC no matter what?

___________________________________________

Page 13 of 13