Skip to main content

Why ownership & control would reduce eminent domain less than promised

Forest City Ratner, according to the developer's web site, "now owns or controls 90 percent of the land needed for Atlantic Yards." And in May 2005, before City Council, FCR asserted in a presentation (right) that it had “substantially reduced the need for condemnation,” citing the large numbers of properties it owned or controlled.

But ownership and control aren't so simple. First, as a lawyer for several Forest City Ratner tenants has charged, ownership of a property with rent-regulated tenants means that the developer needs "friendly condemnations" by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to move the tenants out.

And controlling the property needed for the project does not necessarily mean that Forest City Ratner can demolish a building to construct a skyscraper. A contract to purchase, which is one definition of control, could indeed lead to demolition, but a lease for a property wouldn't provide that power--and Forest City Ratner claims to control at least three properties that are leased.

I queried Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss, who explained, "The mere fact that FCR controls the lessee's interest in a ground lease... would not necessarily mean that the Empire State Development Corporation could avoid condemning that parcel. This is because ESDC might need to extinguish the owner's interest in the parcel as well. Thus, if the owner of the parcel chose not to sell the parcel, ESDC would need to bring a condemnation proceeding."

There might be exceptions, such as if the lessee had an option to purchase the parcel, but no such exceptions has been announced in ESDC documents, and there is no option to purchase three properties at issue. It seems that, by conflating ownership with (claimed) control, FCR’s presentation to City Council was misleading.

A dispute in court

The developer claims to control three properties near the corner of Pacific Street and Carlton Avenue, two parking lots and a six-story building. (The building and one lot are at right.) The properties are owned by company controlled by Henry Weinstein, who had leased them to a company controlled by Shaya Boymelgreen, the developer responsible for the nearby Newswalk renovation and several other Brooklyn projects.

In turn, Boymelgreen assigned the leases to an affiliate of Forest City Ratner. Weinstein has objected, and their dispute is in court. That lawsuit is gingerly acknowledged in the Property Ownership and Control map, though the color purple indicates that the property is under FCR's control.

Lots 5,6,13 of Block 1129 have asterixes that say "FCRC has closed on an option to take by assignment the lessee’s interest under the ground leases for these properties. However, the property owner has objected to such assignments." (Emphasis added)

The property owner has not merely objected, he has gone to court to challenge those assignments.

Were Weinstein to lose his dispute, and the lease assigned to the Forest City Ratner affiliate, that still doesn’t mean the leaseholder could tear down the building or build on the lots. Rather, the properties would have to be acquired by eminent domain. (Click on the map to enlarge.)

Is it 90%?

However, by proclaiming ownership and control over some 90% of the properties needed, Forest City Ratner and the ESDC suggest that only a small fraction of the properties would be subject to eminent domain.

Instead, that fraction is larger, because, as stated, ownership does not necessarily mean control, and control does not necessarily mean ownership. That subtlety can be lost in the public discourse. For example, the New York Times reported in April:
The company owns nearly 90 percent of the square footage it needs to build the development.
In March, NY 1 reported:
He now owns nearly 90 percent of the land he needs for his project.
Last November, Metro NY reported:
Ratner currently owns roughly 90 percent of the property in the footprint.
And last month, in my own error, the Brooklyn Downtown Star reported:
Developer Forest City Ratner owns about 90 percent of the property.

The conflation of ownership and control leads to an inaccurate figure, which can not only be used to pressure holdouts, it can be cited to assure the public that there is little need for eminent domain.

Looking at the document

The General Project Plan suggests that "control" means "contract to purpose," though it leaves room for an unspecified other explanation:
As indicated on the Site Plan, the Project Site is comprised of numerous parcels of land, (i) most of which are either currently owned by FCRC or under contract to purchase by FCRC, (ii) a significant portion of which is comprised of the Yard which is owned by LIRR and MTA, (iii) a small portion of which is currently privately owned and not under contract for sale to FCRC and (iv) a small portion of which is owned by the City.... Based upon the foregoing, FCRC currently owns or controls a very substantial portion of the Project Site. (Emphasis added)

In another paragraph, the GPP uses the word "control" once but doesn't follow up:
The current ownership and control of the parcels comprising the Project Site is illustrated on Exhibit E attached hereto. FCRC continues to negotiate to acquire the remaining private properties within the Project Site. Parcels that are not owned by MTA/LIRR or which FCRC is unable to purchase would be acquired by ESDC through the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedures Law. (Emphasis added)

So, even if the developer controls a parcel, it may not be able to purchase it. Weinstein and Forest City Ratner have not come to an agreement regarding the properties at issue.

So those properties that FCR “controls” via the disputed lease would be subject to eminent domain. For a less confusing ownership map, the properties that are merely controlled deserve something other than the color purple.


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…