Skip to main content

Daily News's "Abuse of process" editorial an abuse of facts

An editorial in today's Daily News about Atlantic Yards, headlined Abuse of process, deserves a close look because of the numerous errors.

(It was quickly distributed as part of Forest City Ratner's "Atlantic Yards News.")

Blight inflation

It begins:
Opponents of the Atlantic Yards project - developer Bruce Ratner's $4 billion plan to build housing and a pro basketball arena on 22 blighted acres in Brooklyn - have had their days in court. And they have lost over and over again.

While the extent of blight is a matter of extreme debate, especially the state's assertion that a building not developed past 60% of its development rights is blighted, no one disagrees that the state did not designate all 22 acres as blighted. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion noted that "unblighted parcels" may be added "as part of an overall plan to improve a blighted area.”

Of course that "overall plan" came from Forest City Ratner. Note how the Daily News seems to have forgotten the "Jobs, Housing, and Hoops" rationale.

"Wacko attempt"

The editorial continues:
On Friday, a federal appeals court summarily tossed a wacko attempt to block the state from using eminent domain to buy a handful of privately owned properties on the site. The opponents argued that Ratner had co-opted or corrupted every official who likes the idea of building 2,250 units of affordable housing there, along with a ton of market-rate housing and a home for the Nets.

Wacko? Well, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy a year ago wrote that the case raised "serious and difficult questions regarding the exercise of eminent domain under emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence."

The state would not be using eminent domain simply to buy a "handful of privately owned property" but also to acquire buildings owned by Forest City Ratner itself in "friendly condemnations" that would bypass a more onerous process of removing tenants with rent-stabilized leases.

Given that the state’s projections "ignore a whole lot of public costs,” as the plaintiffs' attorney said in court, it's pretty hard to figure out the public benefit, and thus find clues to whether Ratner would benefit.

As for the argument of co-option and corruption, as the court summarized it, the plaintiffs "contend that a 'substantial' motivation of the various state and local government officials who approved or acquiesced in the approval of the Project has been to benefit Bruce Ratner."

I'm not sure that they have to (or could) prove it, but favoritism may arise simply out of failure to do due diligence, as I wrote.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose nonbinding concurrence in the Kelo v. New London decision inspired some of the legal challenge, wrote that a “court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see if it has merit, though with the presumption that the government’s actions were reasonable and intended to serve a public purpose.”

The Second Circuit Court's decision ignored Kennedy’s observation that Kelo was OK because “the substantial commitment of public funds by the State to the development project before most of the private beneficiaries were known” and “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.” Both of those conditions are absent in the Atlantic Yards case.

Who's generous?

The editorial continues:
Such is the nonsense that the opposition, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, has peddled for four years. As Ratner reached generous settlements with scores who lived or owned property in the development zone, the group charged that he had ensnared Mayor Bloomberg and Govs. Pataki and Spitzer into fabulously and unjustifiably enriching him.

While some (but hardly all) settlements may have been relatively generous for the market, they are dwarfed by the vast increase in development rights--and thus profits--that Forest City Ratner would get via the state override of zoning. (An expert in New York magazine estimated a billion-dollar profit.)

Misreading EIS review

The editorial continues:
The federal judges rejected the claim out of hand, just as a Manhattan Supreme Court justice two weeks ago threw out a suit by the group alleging state officials did a faulty environmental review in order to, you guessed it, make Ratner wealthy.

No, the charges of faulty environmental review don't claim a motive. They claim that, among other things, the state ignored extensive public comments refuting the blight study. And that the crime study component of the blight study was bogus--an issue on which the judge punted.

Nine month delay?

The editorial continues:
Now, the opponents are getting set to appeal again - and appear determined to wait the maximum of nine months before filing papers. This is the height of cynicism. The group is dragging its feet for one reason: to try to delay Atlantic Yards to death.

Except a lawyer for the petitioners says it would take three or four months, not nine months.

About that $12 million

The editorial concludes:
Every month costs Ratner $12 million, and financing has become increasingly difficult in the subprime mortgage credit crunch. The developer has asked the Appellate Division to force Develop Don't Destroy to make its case on an expedited basis.

That must happen. The opponents are engaged in an abuse of process that threatens great public harm. The court should order them to proceed forthwith so the matter can be decided on the merits once and for all.

That $12 million a month figure comes from Forest City Ratner's lawyer, who unaccountably doubles the $6 million a month figure provided by an FCR executive. And that $6 million figure is completely untenable as well, as I wrote.

Abuse of process

Are the petitioners' efforts to have their legal claims heard more of an abuse of process than the state's claim that there would be no redevelopment without Atlantic Yards or the state's willingness to claim blight at the edge of the Vanderbilt Yard (now magically removed) without pointing to who might be responsible?


  1. I don't understand why the Daily News is pro-eminent domain. Large segments of the left and right were unhappy with the Supreme Court's Kelo decision - even some of the justices who were in majority didn't like the decision but felt constrained by the law.

    Did the News not get the memo?


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…