2002-08-03 / Letters

Saving Breezy Point’s Ocean Beach

Saving Breezy Point's Ocean Beach

Dear Editor;

If you live in Breezy Point and you ask too many questions or post too many signs, you go to jail.

In August of 2001, Dorothy Farrel of the Fort Tilden Postal Contract Station closed my post box. (Note: I had been posting flyers opposing hi-rise development, in Breezy Point, on the station's public bulletin board. She alleged that I said that she will be sorry).

On 9/11 and 9/12, as a retired N.Y.C. firefighter, I worked at Ground Zero. On 9/17/01, I was thrown out of the Queens D.A. office, for asking if a perjury complaint against Charles Hynes (Brooklyn D.A.) was in order. It was indicated to me that if I pursued the issue I would be jailed.

Several days later, I was jailed. The Park Police arrested me on an issue stemming from Dorothy Farrel's false allegations weeks earlier. I spent a month in jail. It took me five days to secure a criminal attorney. Five attorneys refused to take my case against Charles Hynes. It was indicated to me that I might not ever get out of jail if I pursued the case. I believe that the only reason I did is because of the firefighters increased popularity from 9/11.

Apparently, prison guards kept certain trouble away from me. On July 30, Justice Hon. F. Camacho dismissed all charges against me. Note it was not a conditional dismissal or an adjournment contemplating dismissal. It was a complete dismissal, meaning that all charges against me were merit less. It indicated that I did nothing to be arrested for in the first place, that I should not have been jailed.

Note: city police indicated to me that they would not have arrested me. I believe that it was a political arrest from the beginning. Note that the new General Manager of Breezy Point, a pro-sewer advocate, is also the last, past head of Gateway National Park and/or Park Police.

Note this was the fifth time that I was unfairly arrested. All of the arrests were related to issues in opposition to Breezy Point hi-rise development. Note that all of the cases were dismissed.

In 1987, leaders of Breezy Point sued me, and in 2001, after a four-month trial, the court decided Breezy Point's case against me was merit-less and dismissed it. During that 15-year wait, on three separate occasions, I stopped attempts by the Breezy Point leadership to get hi-rises in Breezy Point, by stopping the installation of city sewers (I closed the barn door before the horse got out).

Note that prior to trial, Breezy leaders offered me $1,000,000.00 for my $500,000 house, conditioned on the fact that I move out of Breezy Point in 30 days. I declined. I thought I could get the truth to surface at trial. I had waited and fought 15 years to get a fair trial. Apparently the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to all in the nation. Finally, I got a trial, only because I did a hunger strike in front of the Queens Supreme Court. I believed I could testify and present witnesses, that would prove the corruption of certain Breezy leaders and show how they wanted the city sewer system, only so they could force hi-rise development in Breezy Point.

Numerous times in the years prior to trial, I was diminished. Like going to Hanna's coffee shop with my grandchildren and, after waiting 20 minutes, being told we don't serve you, not being allowed in local stores or clubs, having fear instilled in me by the many assaults on me. Terrible it was when a director of the Co-op, warned me that a bomb may be put in my car. After not being able to get an attorney to represent me for years, then finally getting one and then losing him because, according to that attorney, he was warned by a judge not to continue to represent Tom Young or the court would slow play all my other legal procedures.

For twenty years, they pointed their finger at me, made me out to be a monster. Said the sky would fall, if we didn't get city sewers. The sky is still here. Breezy Point has no complaints from the Health Department, and each homeowner has saved over $35,000.00 by not having sewer taxes.

During the Civil trial, under the direction and/or acknowledgement of Charles Hynes, I was arrested and jailed. Note I was next to testify. Judge Pulizzi, based on numerous erroneous allegations by people brought in, by Breezy leaders, dismissed the case. Note in 1987 Charles Hynes, who as Chairman of Breezy Point, directed this case against me. And 15 years later he was subpoenaed to testify at its trial. According to Attorney Mike Levine, he committed perjury. I asked the judge what he was going to do about Charles Hynes' perjury. He replied, said he would do nothing. He's not part of the trial. After that the trial turned into an exercise in discrediting the judicial system, so kangaroo like, that my attorney asked the judge on several occasions that he excuse himself from the trial because of his unfair and poor conduct. He refused.

Note that the criminal case against me was dismissed. Note, whereas Breezy Point leaders have spent millions against my efforts to stop city sewers. Stopping it has saved Breezy Point owners over $92,000,000.00 in sewer related expenses. Breezy Point continues to save about $2,000,000.00 annually by not having a city sewer and prevents hi-rise development.

Note it appears that leaders of Breezy Point, and its law firm have some kind of grip on the courts. The court delayed Charles Hynes' merit-less legal action against me for 15 years, causing me to go to court hundreds of times, stopping many witnesses from testifying, costing me huge amounts of money. And then had the case dismissed just before I was next to testify and much more and now not allowing me to see Breezy Point accounts, which the Breezy lease provides for.

On 4/29/02 attorney Marshall Palmer of Strock, Strock and Lavan, representing Breezy Point, was asked how much, if any, money was given to the Queens Court Campaign Fund. Her reply was "I don't want to discuss that." Breezy continues to hide the truth from its stockholders. They won't allow me to post flyers. They won't allow me to testify in court. They won't even allow me to properly speak at its annual or association meetings or make any rebuttals in its local paper.

Charles Hynes told hundreds of Breezy residents that I cost them huge amounts of money. After that I was assaulted numerous times, ostracized, given over 200 unfounded violations. Hearings were requested and refused. I was stripped of my Constitutional rights of free speech and severely punished when I attempted to exercise them.

The following year Breezy again, without informing its stockholders, attempted to get this $20,000,000.00 sewer pipe. I then filed legal action to stop it until the people of Breezy could have a ballot vote to decide if they wanted city sewers. Queens Borough President Claire Shulman then demanded Breezy leaders to have a ballot vote to decide if sewers were wanted. Prior to the vote, Breezy Point leaders misinformed its stockholders. About 85% of the people of Breezy were expected to vote in favor of sewers. I informed the New York Times of the issues, and two days prior to the vote The New York Times released a front-page article describing the benefits and problems of sewers in Breezy Point, and the vote was defeated. Thus again stopping city sewers.

Breezy Point is still giving me violations. Last month the court ordered Breezy Point to return to me $400.00 that I was forced to pay for unfounded violations. Note, if I didn't pay I would not be allowed to drive my car thru Breezy to my home without getting fined again and again. This harassment and other harassments resulting in my receiving unfoundedly over 200 violations.

Charles Joe Hynes directed The Breezy Point Cooperative to bring a Supreme Court Action against me, now, after 15 years and over 400 times to court, that case was decided to be without any merit and was dismissed in my favor, giving me the legal and moral right to sue Breezy Point for damages. Apparently again the Queens Supreme Court seems to be partial towards Breezy Point and is attempting to dismiss my case without it even being tried.

Note, I have never been against development in Breezy Point, as long as its' requested by and benefits the majority. I am against (forced) hi-rise development, something city sewers would guarantee.

Note, Breezy Point leaders continue to decline to allow a proposal to be voted on to have an economic, social, impact and environmental study on sewers in Breezy Point; and decline to reveal the results of a study made by Columbia University, the Dr. Sewell Report of sewage and soil in Breezy Point. That study determined that city sewers are not necessary in Breezy Point.

TOM YOUNG


Return to top


Email Us
Contact Us

Copyright 1999 - 2014 Wave Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved

Neighborhoods | History