Skip to main content

Deconstructing 'Death throes for arena foes'

In his Daily News column today, headlined Death throes for arena foes, Errol Louis repeats many of his past arguments against the Atlantic Yards eminent domain suit.

I've responded to most of them already.

He's also ignoring the existence of other lawsuits, including the challenge to the project environmental review, as well as a challenge to the state's relocation offer. And, personalizing the issue, he calls Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn "Daniel Goldstein's anti-project group," ignoring the many volunteers and supporters.

Smoking gun?

He additionally points out that there's no smoking gun that shows government officials illicitly green-lighting the project. The plaintiffs are asking for discovery, based on a sequence they call illegitmate--an angle of the lawsuit Louis won't address.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his concurrence to the court's 2005 Kelo v. New London opinion, agreed that the practice of eminent domain was legitimate because, in part (as the plaintiffs cite), "the substantial commitment of public funds by the State to the development project before most of the private beneficiaries were known; evidence that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand."

That may or may not serve as precedent in this case, but the circumstances in Brooklyn are different. More on this tomorrow.

Looking at the rhetoric

Note his rhetorical fudges. Louis cites an allegation that "the Project will not materially increase available affordable housing" and writes, "Really? You can build an arena and 6,400 apartments without creating any new jobs or housing?"

He's right about the jobs, but creating new housing is not the same as increasing available affordable housing if there's significant displacement.

Also, Louis writes that "Ratner paid top dollar to local homeowners and businesses to assemble property for the project."

As I've written, it's hardly clear that the price increase was a huge premium over the general rise in value over two years, and it should be expected that FCR would add something extra to ease the process--especially since the developer has also bought the silence of the sellers and barred their participation in any organizations opposed to the project.

Beyond that, there's a huge difference between replacement value of the property purchased and the value of the development rights Forest City Ratner would gain.

Affordable housing

Louis points to "fellow Brooklynites desperate for the 2,000-plus units of affordable housing that the development would provide."

First, only half of the subsidized housing units would be reserved for Brooklynites (residents of the three adjacent Community Districts). The rest would be distributed via an open lottery.

Second, only 900 of the 2250 affordable housing units would be available to those at the Brooklyn median income--and that unnerved many of the attendees at an affordable housing information session last year.

Third, the development would not "provide" the housing; substantial government subsidies are necessary. Such subsidies--a limited pool--could be deployed elsewhere.

And fourth, while the project is scheduled to take ten years, even landscape designer Laurie Olin says it could take 20 years, which means that the benefit of subsidized housing could come--if ever--long after Forest City Ratner sells a significant slice of luxury condos and reaps millions from luxury suites at the arena and arena naming rights, sponsorship deals, and advertising on the building.

Junk lawsuit?

After noting the lack of smoking-gun evidence, Louis concludes:
No wonder two of the original 13 plaintiffs in the lawsuit recently pulled out, and four more reportedly are considering settling with Ratner.

The appeals judges would do us all a favor by tossing this junk lawsuit out of court.


First, the plaintiffs leaving the lawsuit are residential tenants, as are the other four mentioned, and they're settling because they're in the most precarious position, without rent-regulated leases.

And if it really were a "junk lawsuit," why did U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy write that the case "raises serious and difficult questions regarding the exercise of eminent domain under emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence"?

Comments

  1. The best way to create more housing for everyone is to get government out of the way.

    Fill up the Atlantic Yards with market-rate real estate and get out of the way as more and more people with higher incomes seek homes in Brooklyn.

    The large influx of affluent residents will provide the revenue base to assist the less affluent. People with little money can't support others who have no money.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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.