Rendering for Flushing Commons, from inhabitat.com

The beauty of development in New York is that there is always another layer. Today, it’s the argument about plans for Flushing Commons, the 5.5-acre mixed-use development slated for Flushing, Queens.

As we reported a few weeks ago, Streetsblog.com has voiced its opposition to the plan, citing it as an example of the Bloomberg administration not following through on its PlaNYC commitment to transit-oriented development. The plan will add 500,000 square feet of vehicle storage, which the transportation-advocacy blog says will encourage more driving rather than green transit. But yesterday an article on the Queens Neighborhood Retail Alliance blog added several more shades of nuance to the argument.

About 80 small businesses showed up to the City Planning Commission meeting last week to protest the project. They argued the project could seriously harm their businesses, the increased housing and retail could choke traffic and that the city had not offered the proper contingency plans should the plan stall or fail.

“Something doesn’t add up,” said Flushing BID Chairman James Gerson, “and I guess the biggest issue that concerns us is that these negotiations and this change to the plan took place without any community input whatsoever.”

Here are a few of the issues of concern to those following the project:

*Streetsblog says adding parking will worsen congestion, and ignores the PlaNYC goal to reduce transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030.

*The Neighborhood Retail Alliance reports that in fact, locals are calling for more parking in the crowded neighborhood.

*According to the Alliance, nearly everyone agrees that parking or no, the development will exacerbate congestion.

*BID Chairman James Gerson also wonders about the plans to distribute $2 million in assistance to local businesses, saying there is no real plan for allocation and that the money may fall short.

*Then there is the contingency plan, or lack thereof, in the case that the project should fail. It’s not unreasonable to expect that the city provide some contingency plan so that we don’t get stuck with a hole in the ground,” said Gerson, “and so far the issue has not been addressed at all.”

*Ever suggestive, Curbed has noted that someone must “really” want the plan to go through given that opposition from all sides has not stymied the project, which almost died in 2007 but was reborn last January. Know who is pulling strings? We’d love to hear.

And so, other thoughts on Flushing Commons? More questions to add about the plan? Do you think that it will bring something needed to the neighborhood? Let us know….