Skip to main content

Columbia vote (35-5-6) vs. AY vote (4-0), newspaper coverage, and the value left in ULURP

What a difference the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) makes, at least in terms of public awareness. The City Council's contentious approval of Columbia University's West Harlem development plan merited front-page, above-the-fold coverage in the New York Times yesterday (albeit attached to graphics regarding Governor's Island plans; click to enlarge), as the vote was 35-5, with 6 abstentions. (Gotham Gazette called it divisive, and highlighted those not toeing the line.)

By contrast, on 12/6/06, when the Empire State Development Corporation board voted 4-0 to approve the Atlantic Yards project after perfunctory and uninformed discussion, the Times placed the article, headlined A Nod for Atlantic Yards, and Then a Lawsuit, on page 3 of the Metro section. The ESDC meeting lasted 15 minutes; the City Council hearing Wednesday elapsed over five hours, including breaks.

There wasn't any contentiousness; as I noted, the press release had already been prepared when the 3:30 pm board meeting began. Still, as an example of how business gets done in New York, it was worth a closer look, and the Times article, which did look skeptically at some statements by then-ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano, simply described the board meeting as "largely anticlimactic."

AY via ULURP?

Consider what might have occurred had the Atlantic Yards project gone through ULURP. It likely would have passed the City Council, thanks to the city's and Forest City Ratner's political muscle, but the criticism voiced by the three affected community boards would have gotten much more airing. And, at the City Council vote, critics like Council Members Letitia James and Charles Barron would have had a platform for their views.

An Atlantic Yards critic on the ESDC board might have flayed fellow board member Charles Dorkey for his uninformed question about the location of Atlantic Yards: “What are the cross streets for (Site) 5”). That critic might have said that it was time to start rather than conclude examination of the project.

And even if ULURP is a "complete sham," as Municipal Art Society Kent Barwick has said, it is superior to the ESDC process, not just because it provides a greater opportunity for a democratic vote but because, as shown yesterday, it provides more of a platform for public scrutiny. And Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff now acknowledges Atlantic Yards probably should've gone through ULURP.

PACB approval

When the three-member Public Authorities Control Board approved the project two weeks later, on 12/20/06, the Times did run the story on the front page the next day. (Here's No Land Grab on the anniversary.)

But the coverage, headlined State Approves Major Complex For Brooklyn, was about inside political maneuvering, and then outside reaction from project critics. The approval votes by Republican Gov. George Pataki, who owed little fealty to Brooklyn voters, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, were in the can.

The real drama revolved around Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver of Lower Manhattan, again not elected by Brooklynites but deeply engaged in city dealmaking. The Times reported: Yesterday's vote followed days of intense negotiation between officials at the Empire State Development Corporation, which is overseeing the project, and aides to Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the State Assembly, who has one of three votes on the control board.

None of those voting, however, got a chance to express any dissent. The approval vote took just five minutes.

Comments

  1. When is a ULURP hearing (and process) not a ULURP hearing (and process)? When the public officials before whom the hearing is held say that isn’t within their purview to do anything concerning the public action issues about which the public testifies at the hearing.

    Before we get too enthusiastic about the beneficial result of the fuller ULURP process that applied to Columbia’s rezoning and takeover of West Harlem, let’s remind ourselves that, though it was a fuller process, what is being proposed by Columbia was not treated to a full ULURP process.

    Yes, Columbia ‘s expansion will not integrate or share space with the neighborhood, involves a great deal of rezoning principally for the special benefit of Columbia, will wipe out a swath of older buildings, including historic ones, and does not look to designate as landmark old buildings that might actually be saved. Yes, all of this was subject to ULURP review and hearings, but one of the most highly objectionable aspects where the Columbia plan diverges from the plan wanted by the Community Board is Columbia’s strategic use of eminent domain to acquire property. The eminent domain is to be exercised by the Empire State Development Corporation and this was not treated as being subject to ULURP.

    The City Planning Commission held hearings but the Planning Commissioners voting for Columbia’s plan pointedly put it on record that eminent domain was not something they were deciding upon and that this was instead the State’s responsibility. They side-stepped the issue which is to say they gave the public testimony against eminent domain no effect (and also ignored CB9's position on this). Similarly, there were City Council Members last week who excoriated as abysmal the situation with eminent domain, complained about the lack of local and City Council control and called for the state legislature to pass remedial legislation to fix it. Then, they voted for Columbia’s plan since they said they could only be voting on something other than eminent domain as it was so entirely out of their control that it was, perforce, outside their preview. This is again to say that they gave the public testimony against eminent domain no effect while also ignoring the Community Board on this.

    It was all of course an exercise in political buck passing. The idea of ULURP is political accountability. So long as eminent domain is done with the distortion of a State agency acting outside the ULURP process (which it needn’t be) there has not been a full ULURP process.

    Had there been a full ULURP process where it was absolutely clear that it was the responsibility of public officials to consider and act on eminent domain based upon the public’s testimony and community board input the vote tallies might have been different. Yes, if the public and community board had been treated with greater deference results might have been different.

    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…

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…