So the Bloomberg administration did what it so often does when it wants to think big: It ordered the creation of a point-by-point action plan, fed in large part by work from a major private consulting firm.

Four months later, we now have a product, as Mayor Bloomberg on Wednesday unveiled his “Financial Services Revitalization Plan,” calling for 11 points of action in the wake of the economic crisis. In the past the city had turned to McKinsey & Company for a few big reports; this time it engaged Boston Consulting Group to help with the report, which was prepared by the city’s Economic Development Corporation.

The plan calls for about $15 million in city investment to encourage start-ups, boost early investment in growing companies and convince financial firms in emerging markets to open or expand offices in New York (later this spring, Deputy Mayor Bob Lieber is planning a trip to Beijing with this end in mind).

Driving the report are two main themes: the need to heal a wounded financial services sector, an industry that may forever be much smaller than it was in 2007; and the desire to retain the talent lost in the waves of Wall Street layoffs, encouraging entrepreneurship on an individual level.

The plan also takes $30 million in federal money allocated to speed Lower Manhattan’s recovery after Sept. 11, 2001. Presumably this $30 million comes from a program meant to encourage companies to grow in, or relocate to, Lower Manhattan: the Job Creation & Retention Program. The state’s development arm, the Empire State Development Corporation, initially had an unspecified amendment to the program listed on the agenda for a Wednesday board meeting, though the meeting was canceled.

As currently worded, that program already is intended to encourage job growth, as it gives grants to companies “in return for a minimum commitment of seven years to maintain more than 200 jobs in Lower Manhattan,” according to the ESDC’s Web site.

The city’s projections for the plan’s effects are rather ambitious: The report estimated that the actions are expected to create more than 25,000 jobs over 10 years (and more than 12,000 jobs over five years), totaling a potential $750 million in economic impact over the decade.

This morning, Mr. Brodsky sent out a press release announcing that he was holding a hearing on Wednesday on the stadium deal, a day before the city holds its public hearing for the bonds. He invited two representatives of the city, Seth Pinsky, the president of the Economic Development Corporation, and Derek Park, who is the vice-chair of the agency that approves the bonds.

"The City's attempt to ram through this complicated project without disclosure of its implications is not acceptable as the Legislature considers what changes in State law it ought to be making," Mr. Brodsky said in a statement.

In a letter today, the Bloomberg administration fired back, rebuffing Mr. Brodsky by saying the officials did not have time to attend. In addition to the bond hearing on the following day, the mayor is scheduled to deliver his State of the City speech next Thursday, the day after Mr. Brodsky's scheduled hearing.

Safe to assume Mr. Brodsky and the mayor have a less than cheery relationship. Earlier this week, the mayor responded to questions about charges from Mr. Brodsky by saying: “Assemblyman Brodsky is criticizing everything,” and, “I just don’t have enough time to answer every one of Brodsky’s complaints.”

A note on the tax-free bonds: The bonds do not represent direct subsidy or taxpayer money themselves. As tax-exempt bonds, investors generally save somewhere in the range of one-fifth of the cost of the bonds when they are tax-exempt, with the bulk of those savings coming out of federal tax rolls (the investors that buy the bonds don't have to pay tax on their gains, and therefore can offer the bonds at a lower rate).

Full response in the city’s letter here, which also includes a lengthy set of other letters to the assemblyman.

In two separate votes, the Council approved the redevelopment of the 61-acre Willets Point industrial site by Shea Stadium and the 30-acre Hunter’s Point South site south of Long Island City along the East River. Based on numbers released by the city, in a full build-out of what’s allowed under the zoning, Willets Point would have more than 1,900 units of below-market-rate housing while Hunter’s Point South would have about 3,000.

The Willets Point vote culminates months (or decades, taking a broader view) of contentious battle over the site's future. The Bloomberg administration targeted the district for redevelopment more than two years ago, and since has worked to push through the City Council a plan that would remove the current landowners and allow a developer to build a giant new complex of housing, retail, a hotel and perhaps a convention center. The fight to get Council approval was particularly difficult, as local Councilman Hiram Monserrate proved to be an exacting negotiator on issues surrounding affordable housing and deals with the large landowners.

Ultimately, the city boosted the affordable housing numbers to higher levels than it preferred and scaled back the scope of the main development. While the whole 61 acres will still be rezoned, two large parcels owned by Fodera Foods and House of Spices will remain in private hands and will not be awarded to a developer, though the businesses could independently sell their land. (The city bought out the largest landowner, Tully Construction, earlier today, though Tully would stay on its land for a number of years.)

Shovels in the ground shouldn’t be expected anytime soon as the project is clearly one for the long term, especially given the inclement credit markets. The site has been targeted for redevelopment by numerous administrations since the 1960s, but the landowners and other factors have thwarted the plans each time. Despite the likely widespread use of politically unpopular eminent domain, or at least the threat of it used on businesses to force land sales, the Bloomberg administration managed to emerge successful.

The plan passed the Council 42-2, with one abstention. Councilmen Tony Avella and Charles Barron voted against the plan, while Letitia James, an opponent of eminent domain, abstained.

HUNTER'S POINT SOUTH WAS hardly marked by any controversy, and thus slipped under the radar. The site was initially targeted by Mayor Bloomberg as a future home of 5,000 apartments, all for the middle class. The administration subsequently dropped that number to about 3,000 (with another 2,000 or so at market rates); however, it is still unclear how the costly venture will be financed.

The city is considering a financing structure where it would essentially be the developer and landlord for all the buildings on the site, a structure that the Economic Development Corporation thinks could save money in the long run as it would allow the use of tax-free financing. That structure has caused debate within the administration and would also need approval from the Internal Revenue Service, and has drawn fire from elected officials and affordable housing advocates who worry it would be inefficient. Still, a more standard development structure would be unlikely to qualify for tax-free bonds, and thus would require a large city investment.

Hunter’s Point South passed the Council 45-0.

Mr. Kucinich, leading the inquiry as chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, queried the city's Department of Finance commissioner, Martha Stark, and the city's Economic Development Corporation president, Seth Pinsky, over the deal with the Yankees, which allowed them to get more than $1 billion in tax-free bonds.

His questioning was critical and at times condescending, focusing much of the three-hour hearing on the assessment practices (which Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky suggests were cooked to fit the financing model).

Here's a rather hilarious exchange, in which Mr. Kucinich adopts the posture of a strict middle school teacher censuring chatty students in the back of the classroom [starting at 1:54:30 in the video]:

In the e-mail to which Mr. Kucinich was referring, Mr. Pinsky suggested to another city official that there would be "implications" if the Department of Finance assessment of Yankee Stadium was not high enough. Mr. Pinsky acknowledged a higher assessment would have jeopardized the financing structure as it was ultimately set up, but denied that there was any pressure put on Finance to improperly assess the land.

The heart of the controversy centers on assessments of the land for the new Yankee Stadium, which Mr. Brodsky has suggested were improperly boosted. To reach the assessed value, the city drew on information of properties outside the South Bronx, including land in the Lower East Side. (Ms. Stark said such practices were customary.)

A fair amount has been written on the assessment controversy, and the city previously responded to allegations by Mr. Brodsky with its own fact sheet. The city issued another one today. Mr. Brodsky's staff issued a response.

Despite giving testimony against the plan and the full-court opposition effort, Mr. Scully said Tully is still in active negotiations with the city, though he did not seem hopeful that an easy solution was on the horizon.

"We've always had an open door to the EDC. We've told them what we want," he said. "We heard from them, ‘Gee, we don't have enough money,' or, ‘Gee, we can't move you to this location because there's problems over there.' So just because we're talking doesn't necessarily mean that we're accomplishing."

Tully, which owns about one-fourth of the private land at Willets Point, is a large construction contractor in the area and has worked on numerous city- and state-led projects, including portions of the redevelopment of the World Trade Center, the new water-filtration plant in the Bronx, and the creation of Hudson River Park. If the city were able to cut a deal with Tully, it would likely make the plan far easier to get through the Council.

The company, which has numerous affiliates, also has a waste transfer station on the property at Willets Point, which is difficult to relocate given the resistance of neighborhoods to having a new garbage center and a frequent flow of trucks.

What to do with the transfer station has factored into talks with the city. "That's one of our biggest problems," Mr. Scully said. "We've been trying to say, 'Hey guys, what are we going to do, how are we going to move this?' And we haven't been getting answers. We've come up with some possible areas, but to date, there's nothing solid."

In his testimony before the Council, Mr. Scully was highly critical of the city's redevelopment plan for the area, questioning the city's claims that it will only spend $400 million on acquisitions and infrastructure; that it is unable to install infrastructure such as sewers without first clearing the site; and that pollution on one site would seep into a neighboring new development.

The selection was coupled with a vote on the project by the City Council, which this afternoon approved a rezoning of the site that runs from 125^th Street to 127^th Street, between Second and Third avenues.

Developer General Growth--which is a leader on a team that includes Archstone-Smith, the Richman Group, Monadnock Construction, the Carey Group, Hope Community and El Barrio's Operation Fightback--faces financial troubles nationally. Federal regulators named General Growth as one of nearly 1,000 stocks banned from short selling last month, as the company has investors concerned about its outstanding debt.

Its stock has dropped 92 percent in the past year, falling from $55 a share to about $4.50. Today alone, the stock is down 43 percent.

The project is one of the rare Bloomberg administration initiatives for which city officials backed down amid community resistance to their initial plan, and then developed a more palatable concept with community support.

Back in 2006, the city was ready to move forward with a $1 billion development by Urban Strategic Partners that would have put in 700,000 square feet of commercial space and 1,500 apartments, 80 percent at market rates. But the community and local elected officials cried foul, and the city scrapped its plans with a pledge to devise a new plan with the community.

According to figures from the city, the $700 million plan approved today calls for more than 800 apartments, three-fourths of which would be targeted for families and individuals with middle and moderate incomes; 250,000 square feet of office space; and 30,000 square feet of nonprofit-run cultural space.

The numbers released by the city did not address a signature element of the site, the retail and entertainment space. Before the last-minute public selection of General Growth, the city called for about 470,000 square feet of entertainment and retail space in the project, according to figures in a report from the Manhattan Borough President's Office.

The project is to be built on mostly city-owned lots (the city says it controls 82 percent of the site), though the Bloomberg administration is attempting to acquire the remaining parcels.

The result, a year after the city announced the $2 million commitment, will be a project called "In Pursuit of Freedom," which will have an "artistic installation," a self-guided walking tour, a theatrical performance, "interpretative exhibits," and a Web site.

The controversy arose when the city had targeted for demolition houses on Duffield Street as part of the downtown Brooklyn rezoning that may have been used as part of the Underground Railroad. The city said in December that it would not destroy the houses.

Press release below.

The planning commission voted 11-1 and 12-0 in favor of, respectively, Willets Point and Hunter's Point South, according to a Department of City Planning spokeswoman, an unsurprising vote given that the board is controlled by mayoral appointees. The one vote against came from the representative for Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.

The Council has about two months to act, and typically takes much of that time for negotiations with the administration. Willets Point is the most contested large-scale project to come before the Council in years, as a majority of members have signed onto a letter of opposition to the plan in its current form. A Council defeat would kill the project, and would be an unprecedented step for a project of this size in the land use approval process.

Likely to arise over the coming weeks as a major issue is the subject of below-market rate housing, as most of the Council and advocacy groups including ACORN have said the current level planned (20 percent) is not nearly enough.

Also on the table is the use of eminent domain—never very popular among Council members seeking reelection or higher office—which the city has said is needed to guarantee that the entire 61-acre site can be assembled and developed. The existing landowners have vehemently resisted the plan, particularly the eminent domain aspect of it, and have been fighting back with a constant stream of rallies, lobbying and campaign donations.

Hunter's Point South, a site near Long Island City where the Bloomberg administration wants to put up to 5,000 apartments, most of them for middle- or moderate-income families, has been less controversial, though advocates are still pushing for more affordable units. The city has said 60 percent will be below-market rates.

According to a disposition from the COIB [see PDF here], Mr. Mir said he arranged for accommodation for his son on his honeymoon at a Kiska-owned hotel in Istanbul with the impression that his son would pay for the room.

Later, after the reservations were made, Kiska told him they would not charge his son. Mr. Mir said in the disposition that he told his son to still pay for the trip, though the front desk at the Turkey hotel refused to let him pay.

Mr. Brodsky, who testified at Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Congressional hearing today on the issue, lobbed a series of accusations at the city on Tuesday when he released his report titled "The House that You Built" [click here for a PDF, along with testimony]. Among other criticisms, Mr. Brodsky charged that the city artificially boosted the appraised land value for the Yankee Stadium site so as to better qualify it for a complex tax-free financing plan. Last week, Daily News columnist Juan Gonzales reported on the issue and quoted a "veteran Finance Department official" as saying, "Our assessors jacked up the numbers and the comparables ... to justify the stadium bonds."

The city has denied the claim, and in its two-page response today, titled "Yankee Stadium: Fact vs. Fiction," it said the discrepancy between two city assessments was due to the inclusion of hundreds of millions in infrastructure in one of those assessments.

From the city's Economic Development Corporation: