Skip to main content

A closer look at the 421-a revision; can you figure it out?

So can you make sense of the revision of the 421-a tax exemption, produced in closed-door negotiations between city officials and state legislators, and which even left reporters confused?

It's hard to read. (Click to enlarge.) One key is that the section in brackets, which I've highlighted in red, was the original, more blatant, "Atlantic Yards carve-out," the one that even ticked off Mayor Mike Bloomberg and ACORN's Bertha Lewis. That would've provided an estimated $300 million in benefits to developer Forest City Ratner. (The underlined segments are new.)

Getting less blatant

The underlining is the new text, and Atlantic Yards would still get special treatment, worth $150-$200 million. The carve-out would have given a 25-year tax exemption for AY buildings that don't include affordable housing, just because they were part of a project that included an average of 20% affordable housing for households at 70% of Area Median Income (AMI), which at that point was higher than the 60% AMI in the state bill.

The AMI levels have changed, which I'll explain below, but the important thing is that Atlantic Yards buildings that meet the new standards--20% affordable housing--would get a 25-year tax exemption. Atlantic Yards buildings that don't meet the new standards would get a 15-year tax exemption, unavailable to other market-rate buildings in the same neighborhood. In other words, unlike other market-rate construction in Prospect Heights, they'd be grandfathered in.

The New York Times on Wednesday reported, the city's party line:
As for Atlantic Yards, city officials said the new agreement represents a fair compromise. To receive the maximum tax break, 20 percent of the units in any building will have to meet the new affordability guidelines, which are more stringent than those that originally applied. And the lower-priced units will have to be built at the same time as the market-rate units, to insure that they are not put off until the end of construction or never completed.

This fails to explain that Forest City Ratner would still be eligible for a special tax break. It sets up a false comparison. Yes, the new law is more stringent than that "originally applied," but it would be more stringent for everyone, so that's not the point. The point is that the affordability guidelines would be different for Atlantic Yards. That's why it's still a "carve-out."

The Times reported June 29:
But the bill would also provide what the city estimates are an additional $300 million in tax breaks for the vast Atlantic Yards complex being developed by Forest City Ratner Companies, the development partner with The New York Times Company in the Times’ new Midtown headquarters, without getting any additional affordable units in return. Mr. Lopez said it was a concession sought during negotiations with Mr. Spinola and the Senate over his bill.

So it all depends on how you spin it. The $150-$200 million would not provide "any additional affordable units" as well. Yes, Forest City Ratner, when it planned the Atlantic Yards project, expected to get it moving in 2004 or 2005, long before the tax break was revised. But any other developers whose projects were delayed would now have to provide affordable housing in exchange for the tax break.

Looking at the tax break

The Sun and the Post and a blogger or two figured out that Atlantic Yards would receive a special tax break unavailable to other projects. Here's the key text, which needs a decoder ring:
With respect to any multiple dwelling in a UDC Large Scale Project that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of subdivision seven of this section, the period of tax benefits awarded to such multiple dwelling shall be the same as the period of tax benefits awarded under clause (A) of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section. With respect to any multiple dwelling in a UDC Large Scale Project that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c) of subdivision seven of this section, the period of tax benefits awarded to such multiple dwelling shall be the same as the period of tax benefits awarded under clause (A) of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section.
(Emphases added)

Those sections relate to the state's law CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (search on 421-a) The first section offers 25 years of tax breaks; the second, 15 years. Current 421-a law, before revision, offers 10-year and 20-year exemptions in the Manhattan core; the longer period is for projects that contain affordable housing.

The 15-year and 25-year exemptions apply to projects outside the Manhattan core; the 15-year exemption is as-of-right, with no affordable housing required, while the 25-year exemption goes to projects that either include affordable housing or are in areas targeted for revival. (See reports from the Independent Budget Office and the Pratt Center for Community Development.)

In other words, a 15-year tax break means Forest City would get the status quo grandfathered in.

Section iii sets out this schedule of exemptions:
During Construction (max. three years): 100%
Following completion of work, by year
1-21: 100%
22: 80%
23: 60%
24: 40%
25: 20%

Section ii sets out this schedule of exemptions:
During Construction (max. three years): 100%
Following completion of work, by year
1-11: 100%
12: 80%
13: 60%
14: 40%
15: 20%

Changing AMI

The AMI figures have changed, and now that I've seen the text of the bill, I can update and correct Wednesday's post. The definition of affordable housing is not being raised across the board from 60% AMI to 90% AMI, as I'd suggested, from my reading of press coverage.

Rather, projects built by private developers without "substantial government assistance" would be required to include 20% affordable housing at 60% AMI. Projects built "with substantial assistance of grants, loans or subsidies from any federal, state or local agency or instrumentality," with that assistance aimed to provide affordable housing would have a different standard.

Those projects, which would include Queens West and Atlantic Yards, would be required to either offer 20% for-sale units at up to 125% AMI or 20% rentals at rentals at an average of up 90% of AMI. Projects with fewer than 25 units could include 20% rentals at up to 120% of AMI.

It seems odd that government-assisted projects would have more expensive affordable housing than that required of projects built by private developers on their own. However, the 90% AMI ceiling is apparently aimed to give the city flexibility in major projects like Queens West.

Comments

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…

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…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.