Skip to main content

AY financing documents have been signed, city official confirms

A city official has finally confirmed that both the city and state have "executed and registered" financing documents regarding Atlantic Yards, and $55 million of public funds has been distributed. The exact nature of the deals had been in question, as Atlantic Yards Ombudsman Forrest Taylor in early January indicated they haven't been signed. (It may be, however, that more financing documents remain to be signed.)

Last week, after I reported that the developer last October had indicted the documents were "executed," Crain's New York Business reported that a source said they were still waiting for approval by the city and state comptrollers.

EDC president has the news

Seth Pinsky, the new president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC), appeared yesterday at a New York City Council oversight hearing held by the Economic Development Committee and the Small Business Committee.

City Council Member Letitia James said that Pinksy indicated that $40 million of city funds and $15 million of state funds had been distributed. The state has pledged $100 million and the city $205 million. At the request of fellow Council Member David Yassky, a member of the Economic Development Committee, Pinsky said he'd release the financing documents to the committee, James said.

Will the documents ensure the provision of affordable housing, part of the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA)? That's unclear, though state officials had indicated that such guarantees were forthcoming. James said Pinsky acknowledged that the CBA is not incorporated in financing document but some city priorities, such as affordable housing, are reflected in it.


  1. So Ratner is presently accessing maybe 02.5% of the total no-bid subsidy he is hoping to get?

    Signing these agreements means a lot less than people might believe.

    One thing hasn’t changed: it is still the duty of any straight-thinking politicians to walk away from this thing poste-haste. If you do the math, we could walk away from this thing after having dumped multiple hundreds of millions on Ratner and the public would still be way ahead in the end.

    Nor has Ratner in his no-bid deal earned anything by virtue of any “signatures.” Nobody should ever think that he is owed anything by virtue of this failure or process. . A failure of process for which he is quite personally responsible.

  2. This project is exactly what the borough of Brooklyn and the City of NY needs to remain vital and to grow in a way that makes the best use of the amazing transit hub that sits over that ugly open wound of a train yard. I've lived and worked in this neighborhood for years and I'm sick and tired of the NIMBY attitude being dished out by special interestes in neighboring affluent communities. This project should get the same subsidies for affordable housing that other developers around new york city and state are entitled to. This project can revitalize and elevate Brooklyns status world wide, it will provide commerce and housing within easy walking distance to every subway line in the city of NY save two and the LIRR to boot. It's value is obvious. The nay sayers are fighting to preserve a stagnant industrial corridor to serve their own agenda to limit traffic in their affluent neighborhoods. I feel for those that will really suffer the hardship of moving when their buildings are taken but they are of very small number in comparison to the political funding machine that is championing their cause.

  3. Regarding Mark’s comment.- It raises a few points worth responding to.

    The suggestion that “This project should get the same subsidies for affordable housing that other developers around New York city and state are entitled to,” if accepted, may be just enough to kill the project.

    But Atlantic Yards shouldn’t get that. It should get less in the way of subsidies. That depends also where you start counting the subsidies from since almost no matter where you start it is already getting to much.

    This project should be recognized as the no-bid subsidy hog that it is. Why should it get any subsidies when whatever it gets is through a no bid process? Then, if it ever got subsidies it would get many times what anyone else could get because it is hugely and inappropriately more dense than anything around it via the permission it is getting from a special zoning override permitting it to be different than anything else permitted for the surrounding neighborhood. It is more immense and multiplies its inappropriate density by being largely built on land purchased at below market prices through eminent domain abuse. You see Mark is ill informed: this project doesn’t sit “over that ugly open wound of a train yard.” Only 40% of the project involves train yard property. 60% is over other land including at last one whole block that is being gratuitously grabbed just for the eminent domain windfall. That is why the project foot print is so oddly shaped. Mark probably doesn’t know why it is called the “Boymelgreen Wrench.”

    So where does this process stop? What if the buildings were twice as tall and what if double the land were taken from the neighbors through the extra low prices of eminent domain abuse? Would Mark advocate that the project receive quadruple the subsidies? All these subsidies get drained away from other worthwhile projects where the force of natural economics would be calling for them to be built. It would be nice if we had some diversification where we were building up the strength of some other developers rather than using fictions to dump several times that amount of money on Ratner and turning him into a super giant subsidy collector depriving everyone else. Maybe Mark hasn’t noticed Atlantic Yards is poorly designed and is closing down streets and avenues that ought to be kept open?

    But where do you start counting the no-bid subsidies to Ratner? It is not just the no-bid housing subsides and not just the zoning override subsidy and not just the eminent domain subsidy, or the MTA land donations, all these subsides are an afterthought pegged on the $1 billion plus in no-bid subsidies he is supposed to get for arena that the public will pay for and he will own while getting to pocket tens of millions on day one.

    The project is close to subway lines and that is an argument for some density. In fact the A-line probably has some absorption capacity. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future all the numbered subways lines have a capacity problem, # 2, 3, 4, & 5. The head times can’t be shortened and the trains can’t be lengthened. I am willing to go for a little squeezing in, but let’s not be ridiculous.

    Mark is wrong- It isn’t a NIMBY thing- It is a NIABY thing- No one would want this ANYBODY’s back yard. Brooklyn needs the kind of growth that is naturally occurring “to remain vital and to grow.” We don’t need this project which is so poorly designed that it will blight the neighborhood tremendously. It is blighting it now. Which brings me to this point, if Mark thinks that the project sits amidst “neighboring affluent communities” he is basically right about that but he seems to disagree with the ESDC blight findings that are essential for it to be possible.

    Mark is also wrong about what the projects’ opposition wants. The project’s opposition doesn’t want “to preserve a stagnant industrial corridor.” The project opposition wants substantial development over the rail yards at an appropriate density that would be high, perhaps as high as Battery Park City but not multiples thereof. They would like good design, a continuing street grid and a process that bids out the construction, preferably to multiple competent developers who get to build it based on merit and a high bid rather than political connections.


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…