Skip to main content

Delay demolitions? Not in public interest, say ESDC, FCR

The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) have responded forcefully to the lawsuit trying to invalidate the environmental review for the Atlantic Yards project.

In doing so, they argue against the temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by Atlantic Yards opponents and critics to block planned demolitions of some 15 properties owned by the developer, saying that it would not be in the public interest and that the chances of getting a preliminary injunction in court next month are low.

A decision on the TRO is expected by Friday. The preliminary papers filed this week will be followed up by more extensive legal arguments from both sides.

An affirmation filed by Philip Karmel, an attorney representing the ESDC, points out that the ESDC determined that Atlantic Yards “would achieve significant public purposes;” thus, the “petitioners’ assertion that the public will not be harmed by any delay in the Project is self-serving.”

FCR attorney Jeffrey Braun states in another document that “the public benefits include the elimination of blight, the redevelopment of a largely derelict 22-acre site, the return to Brooklyn of a major league sports franchise…, the creation of new housing (including 2250 units of affordable housing), environmental remediation…, the construction of extensive new mass transit improvements, the creation of thousands of jobs, and the generation of billions of dollars in new tax revenues.”

The impact of vacant lots

The crux of the matter, beyond the cost of delay alleged by the developer, is the impact of vacant lots cleared for development and "interim surface parking" that could last for decades.

Karmel argues that plaintiffs have not established that they would be irreparably harmed by limited demolition work, as the buildings are currently vacant: “Petitioners have not demonstrated that they would suffer any legally cognizable harm from living next to a vacant lot rather than a vacant building.”

Braun makes a similar point, noting that Forest City had gained required permits and approvals to demolish buildings it owns. The request is “based on the idea that they have some protectable interest in the current character of these properties that they neither own nor occupy” and that Forest City might rehabilitate the buildings if the court sets aside the project approvals. “These suggestions are absurd.”

Even if the case succeeds, Braun notes, the developer could still demolish the buildings at issue and build more profitable new structures.

For the petitioners, civic and neighborhood groups organized by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), the argument is about “facts on the ground.” Attorney Jeff Baker argues, “It would be inequitable to permit FCRC to turn a substantial portion of the neighborhood at issue into vacant lots before the Court has had the opportunity to consider fully the merits of petitioners’ motion.”

Citing an affidavit from City Council Member Letitia James, Baker points out, “demolition of the buildings at issue would have a severely intimidating impact on residents who live adjacent to or near the demolished buildings,” some of whom are in court challenging the project.

Whose delay?

“It would be illogical and unfair to allow FCRC to demolish buildings before the remanded environmental review is completed, just because of a “window” of opportunity between the end of the unlawfully conducted review” and the reopening of the review after a judge’s decision, Baker argues.

The defense blames the petitioners for asking the court to hurry up after they moved slowly. “They waited four months to file this proceeding and now seek extraordinary relief prior to proper briefing,” Karmel states.

Similarly, Braun argues, “If anyone has been dilatory, it is petitioners, who for months have trumpeted their intention to seek an injunction halting demolition but did not apply for a T.R.O. until eight weeks after FCRC’s public announcement of the work’s commencement

Posting a bond

Braun suggests that the petitioners have no case, noting that a similar injunction, brought by parks advocates against the destruction of trees for the new Yankee Stadium, was denied because of the costs of delay.

He attempts to turn the tables, saying that the wealthy people are the petitioners: "Significantly, the potential economic harm to FCRC of injunctive relief is so substantial that petitioners’ papers devote considerable space to a specious effort to persuade the Court that, notwithstanding the fact that petitioners for the most part are associations of homeowners and other residents of prosperous Brooklyn neighborhoods, petitioners should be allowed to avoid financial responsibility for the economic havoc that they seek to impose upon FCRC by being excused form any requirement that they post an injunction bond in an amount sufficient to protect FCRC from its potential losses."

The petitioners had argued that the court "should not require petitioners to post more than a nominal undertaking,” given that judges have discretion to consider the financial means of the parties and the balance between financial resources and public purpose. A large bond requirement would render moot a TRO or preliminary injunction.

Responding to the charges

Braun also takes aim at some major components of the lawsuit filed two weeks ago. While the petitioners argue that the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) failed to make written environmental findings, the defense states that such findings are not required.

As for the charge that the “community forums” were actually public hearings, and thus the public comment period should have been extended, Braun calls them “good faith efforts to facilitate public comments” but does not specifically explain why they differ from the public hearing.

He argues that the petitioners did not point out an argument that was omitted because of the short window of opportunity to comment.

The petitioners argue that a privately-owned arena can’t be a “civic project,” but Braun points out that the ESDC “has sponsored the construction of numerous sports stadiums and arenas in various locations around the state.”

As for the “purported deficiencies” in the FEIS, Braun points out that the “standard for judicial review of an FEIS is reasonableness” and that courts shouldn’t substitute their judgment for an agency.

Ward Bakery

As for the Ward Bread Bakery, which preservationists would like to see retained, the State Historic Preservation Office, notes Forest City Ratner executive Jim Stuckey, concurred “that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to demolition” of the building.

“Historic” CBA?

Stuckey claims, as he did in February 2006, that the “historic” Community Benefits Agreement “may set a standard for future projects in the City.” That’s doubtful, as shown by the CBA being discussed in West Harlem regarding Columbia University’s expansion. (And there are further questions about the LDC established for that project.)

The "intended beneficiaries of the CBA" are "the least privileged residents of Brooklyn," according to Stuckey, which seems to omit certain beneficiaries, including the McKissack Group, cited by Stuckey as the "nation's oldest minority-owned professional design and construction firm," hired to work on the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard.

Stuckey claims that all of the CBA commitments—including job training, affordable housing, and minority contracting, “have teeth in the form of substantial legally enforceable penalties for a failure by FCRC to fulfill its obligations.

Actually, the CBA (XIII. ENFORCEMENT) sets up a 60-day right to cure and mediation, before the coalition members may seek binding arbitration or judicial remedies. If they go to court, seeking to require the developer to comply, they must pay their own fees.


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…