Skip to main content

FCR buyouts, a one-time waiver on the gag order, and the (missing) pressure on renters

There are three important points to consider when reading today's New York Times article, headlined Forced to Move, Some Find Greener Grass explains that Forest City Ratner has bought out most of the people who lived in the footprint for the Atlantic Yards project, and "at least a few former residents say the negotiations... provided an opportunity to leave spaces that had grown too small or run-down — and to make a profit in the process."

1) Despite FCR's agreement to waive a gag order for this article, the developer has effectively silenced many possible critics
2) FCR's not ungenerous prices to buy out potential critics--among the owners--is a business strategy that should be considered along with the developer's business projections, which remain secret
3) FCR's terms to renters, not fully explained in the article, are far less generous financially and also include a gag order

Those quoted include:
--Erin Coffer, who said her condo at 636 Pacific Street had burst pipes and faulty wiring, and she and her husband more than doubled their money.
--Salvatore Perry, who with his wife sold two co-op apartments at 475 Dean Street for a "very good price."
--Mark Drury, who got a $5000 settlement after leaving a one-bedroom rental on Dean Street, and called the process "insidious," even though he can move into the Atlantic Yards project
--Mark Klein, the former president of 636 Pacific board, who said, "We got a premium on this lemon of a building that turned into a great investment for us." (In a 2/27/05 Times story, he spoke similarly, but his name is Matt Klein)
--Marc Wancer, who lived at 24 Sixth Avenue and called it "unpleasant" to choose between a buyout and living near a construction site
--Ngozi Odita, who would've wanted more time to plan the relocation of her boutique, but got some help for moving and rent from FCR, but said the new space was larger and the location better: "Things are blessings in disguise."

As the Times noted, Forest City Ratner said last month "that it owned or controlled nearly all the owner-occupied residential units on the project site, more than three-quarters of rentals and about two-thirds of the commercial properties there."

On the photos

There are two people pictured in the article. A large color photo, dominating the front of the Metro section, portrays Odita at her boutique. A not-quite-as-large black and white photo (at least in the print edition) of Drury (in a Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn t-shirt) appeares on the jump, on page B5. (Photos from the New York Times.)

Why do they appear and not others? I'm not privy to the decisionmaking, but I speculate that most of those quoted in the story--and obviously others contacted but not quoted--just want to move on with their lives. Odita runs a business, so a photo of her at her store spreads the word about her business. Drury remains opposed to the project, so the photo of him allows him to make a political point.

By the way, Odita is not exactly representative of the people for whom, as a pull quote in the article states, "For some in the path of Atlantic Yards, a blessing in disguise." The article gives greater attention to the homeowners (mostly white, I assume) who profited on their condos; Odita is a black businessperson who rented space in the project footprint.

Also, the caption for Drury's photo states: "Mark Drury, 25, a social worker, had to move out of his rental apartment on Dean Street because of the project, which he opposed." That's incorrect--the article quotes him as saying he's been opposed to the project from the start. The caption should have said: "which he opposes."

What's the cost?

The Times reported: "Forest City officials said that the deals made good long-term business sense, though they added to the cost of the project."

Even though most of those interviewed had mixed feelings about the project and the process of losing their homes, the Times reported, "but even many of those who would rather have stayed said the developer had worked diligently to ensure smooth transitions."

So FCR tries hard to compensate displaced homeowners and relocate renters. That's hardly a bad thing, but such it's also part of a business strategy (and one that hardly began here; it was also the pattern for the MetroTech development). Consider: FCR added 2800 market-rate condos last year, but recently cut 440 of them.

We don't know their calculations--they were supposed to supply a pro forma to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority when bidding for the Vanderbilt Yard, but according to DDDB, supplied an indecipherable document.

However, FCR likely has calculated how many condos it must build to ensure a desired profit. Maybe that number is 500, or 1000, or 1500. The developer could then reduce the project further, and still look like it was responding to the community. Because this is a state project, the Empire State Development Corporation would override the zoning that ordinarily would regulate the size of the project.

Waiving the gag order

Also, FCR's business strategy includes gag orders that have prevented those signing contracts from any participation in criticism of the Atlantic Yards project, required them to praise the developer, and prevented them from funding opposition groups. (I'm told there are different versions of these clauses.)

The Times pointed out that, "[f]or this article, the company agreed to waive contractual restrictions limiting what those who accepted buyouts could say." (Did they get one day to help support opposition groups? Not likely. Will FCR waive the gag order for other journalists?) While the Times reported that "Several took the chance to air criticisms of the project and Forest City Ratner," I counted one person quoted as criticizing the project (Drury) and three saying that the process of relocating was difficult. Others praised the company.

The Times didn't point out, as the New York Post reported (Tout of Bounds — Ratner Forces Apt. Sellers To Hype Nets Arena, 6/16/04) that one version of the contract also required sellers to “Testify in favor of the project at hearings ...with statements to the effect that everyone has been treated fairly, honorably and decently."

How much profit for owners?

The Times wrote: [I]nterviews with former owners and an analysis of city tax records indicate that some sold their properties for more than twice what they paid for them after owning them for only a couple of years.
According to a report released in February by the Real Estate Board of New York, a real estate trade group, the median apartment price in the neighborhood, Prospect Heights, increased by about 36 percent last year.

But that 36 percent figure is insufficient; we need the figure covering two years, not one. (The Real Estate board called this a first-ever survey; note that prices in neighborhing Fort Greene went up 82 percent in a year.) Let's say the two-year price rise in Prospect Heights is 80 percent. If so, then Forest City Ratner paid only a modest premium to not merely acquire property but to buy silence.

The holdout

Daniel Goldstein, spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, is the last owner holding out at 636 Pacific Street. He faces condemnation under eminent domain, a Forest City Ratner attorney told him.

Goldstein's been written about before, so the Times didn't get into it, but why doesn't he take the money? Because, as he's said in the Times, he thinks the project is a bad idea--and is not so desirous of a profit to sacrifice his principles. (That's his apartment with the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn sign hanging from the window.)

Unmentioned pressure on renters

The Times's coverage of the provisions for renters didn't mention some unattractive aspects of the contracts offered:
As the company purchased buildings, it also became a landlord to many renters. Mr. Stuckey said that they were offered the chance to move back into units of comparable rent and size in the completed Atlantic Yards project, if it is approved. The company also paid moving costs and broker's fees for those tenants and covered any increase in rent for transitional housing. For those who declined the offer to move to Atlantic Yards, Mr. Stuckey said, the company paid a lump sum, "representing some value of what they would have gained coming back."
Tenant laws generally require similar recompense when a landlord wants to demolish a building. Jennifer Levy, a lawyer with South Brooklyn Legal Services, said that the company was providing "at best what the law already requires."
Those protections, however, would be erased if the properties were handed over to the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency sponsoring the project. In such cases, the agency is bound by a different, less stringent set of obligations. Mr. Stuckey said that the promise to place tenants in the new complex was beyond what the development corporation would be required by law to do.

But the deal isn't quite that nice. The article doesn't mention two important provisions in the contract being offered to renters (I saw a copy, and also heard Levy discuss it on a tape of a community meeting):

1) The "increase in rent for transitional housing" currently being offered only lasts for three years. Renters leaving subsidized apartments, who are generally have low incomes, would be put in a tough spot if the project isn't built in three years--and such a timetable is hardly likely. That's an argument for them to stay rather than leave. (Note that the Community Benefits Agreement, on p. 25, says the difference in rent would be paid until a unit is made available in the project, with no three-year limit.)

2) By signing the contract to relocate, they must also withdraw permanently from any opposition (statements, positions, signs, organizational membership) to the project. Otherwise, no deal. It's another gag order.

Why does Forest City Ratner treat owners better than renters? Maybe because the former have more clout and more money--and it's important to spend what it takes to neutralize them.


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…