Skip to main content

AY won’t “touch the existing tax base”? Ratner's claim soon contradicted

On the fourth anniversary of the announcement of the Atlantic Yards project, a look at a dubious economic claim.

We now know that Atlantic Yards would involve hundreds of millions of dollars in direct subsidies and public costs, and possibly much, much more. And we know developer Forest City Ratner always claimed the project would be “primarily privately funded.”

Less known, however, is that Forest City Ratner CEO Bruce Ratner initially went even farther, claiming that Atlantic Yards would “not touch the existing tax base.” That has since been clearly contradicted. But he's never been called to account for it.

(Graphic from Ratner's 6/26/05 New York Times Magazine interview.)

Ratner rarely grants interviews or answers questions at press conferences, so it's worth listening again to his 12/12/03 interview on the Brian Lehrer Show. Lehrer read a listener's question: "Can you make all of this happen with no public money and with New York State getting the full value for the land it surrenders?"

Ratner's response wasn't quite a yes: “We have a bunch of goals, and one of the goals from Day One is to make sure to not hurt our existing tax base. I’m very sympathetic. I worked for the government, the city government, I love this city. We want to make this primarily private money, so let me answer your question.”

“Primarily,” Lehrer interjected, with a touch of skepticism.

Fair market?

“That’s not a trick word, that was really meant,” Ratner responded. “First, we will pay fair market value for any of the development land, um, that we build housing on and commercial.”

Unmentioned was that the developer would not pay fair market value for all development land used for the arena; in a the 2/18/05 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the city agreed to convey streets and city properties underlying the arena for $1, well below full value. That deal, Ratner’s locution suggested, was already under discussion.

And Ratner's cash bid for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard, $50 million, was way less than the $214.5 million appraised value, and was upped to $100 million after the MTA agreed to exclusive negotiations, even though rival bidder Extell bid $150 million. (FCR says its bid was worth more; Extell allegedly wasn't able to package ancillary improvements because the MTA wouldn't answer technical questions.)

Incremental revenues?

“Second," Ratner continued, "the tax money that we will use, will be incremental tax money that’s based on sales tax from tickets, concessions, and so on, that normally we wouldn’t have, that’s added taxes… and any taxes like that, which are incremental, because of the arena, so it will not touch the existing tax base.”

Maybe that’s how they were thinking about it then, in terms of so-called “tax-increment financing” (TIF), but that wasn’t how it came to be. In the MOU issued 14 months later, the city and state each agreed to put up $100 million in capital for site preparation, infrastructure, and property acquisition. There was no mention of TIF.

The New York City Independent Budget Office, in its September 2005 Fiscal Brief on Atlantic Yards, did not mention TIF, stating:
The city funds will be raised through the sale of general obligation bonds as part of the city’s capital plan, with debt service on these bonds paid out of general revenue.

This year, that city budget allocation went up to $205 million and the city is spending money even though the new arena might never be built. Even if it is, the spending suggests, as I've written, that the city might lose money, rather than gain, on the arena. (The developer, which would gain from lucrative arena naming rights and luxury suites, faces a big potential upside.)

"Blank check"

And both the city and state, according to the MOU, have agreed to “consider making additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs relating to the mixed-use development on the Project Site (excluding the Arena Building Site).

Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) calls this a “blank check.”

Only new revenues?

In the radio interview, Lehrer wanted to understand the concept behind TIF: “Is that like kind of a loan and the city and state get it back assuming that you make that much….?”

Ratner wasn’t too helpful. “I gave you the general answer and that’s the answer, “ he responded, with a touch of testiness. “We should get rid of that notion we’re taking existing tax bases or other kinds of government money. This is remarkable--it’s a 2.5 billion dollar project in which in the only kinds of new revenues are used are new revenues from ticket sales, concessions, and the like.”

Not so. Also, as the IBO added in its Fiscal Brief, there are “several special benefits not available as-of-right to development projects: capital contributions from the city and state, low-cost financing for the arena, extra property tax savings, a low-cost lease, and property obtained using the state’s power of eminent domain."

Other benefits

The IBO noted that "the property transfers and tax exemptions would involve foregone new revenues rather than new outlays" and that use of bonds for affordable housing and the arena represented "limited public resources not available for development elsewhere."

Beyond that, the state's override of zoning would allow "greater density than would be possible under current zoning for the site."

Also, unmentioned by the IBO, we could add naming rights for the "publicly-owned" arena.

The initial claim

Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards Project Overview released 12/10/03 echoed Ratner's claim:
The cost of the entire Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project—including residential, commerical and retail space and public amenities—is estimated at more than $2.5 billion over a ten-year period. The Arena will be primarily privately funded. Incremental revenues will be derived from sales taxes on tickets, food, and merchandise sold at the new Arena.

A 2004 FCR flier sent to Brooklynites contained this passage:
Q. How will Atlantic Yards be financed?
A. Primarily through private funds.
…A study by respected Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist projects that Atlantic Yards will generate $4.1 billion in new tax revenue for the City and the State over the next 30 years. About one-third of that will help pay for construction and operating costs, leaving New York with $2.8 billion we didn’t have before to help fund better schools and safer streets.


However, that study was full of holes, the trade was never as simple as Ratner suggested, and the existing tax base has already been touched--and may well be touched again.

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.