Skip to main content

ESDC’s long leash on Phase 1 provokes lawsuit from tenants

The willingness of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to give developer Forest City Ratner 12+ years to build Phase 1 of Atlantic Yards has provoked a lawsuit charging that the agency is violating a provision of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law that requires disposition of properties within a decade.

It also argues that, given the expected delay in the promised public benefits, ESDC must hold another public hearing.

The lawsuit was filed yesterday in state Supreme Court on behalf of 13 tenants in two buildings, 624 Pacific Street and 473 Dean Street, in the planned arena block. It generated coverage in the New York Times, which previously had not written about the long leash granted by the ESDC in the State Funding Agreement, even though the document surfaced more than a month ago.

Third lawsuit for tenants

The tenants, who hold rent-stabilized leases, have filed two other lawsuits, both unsuccessful. A case arguing that the tenants are not condemnees under state law was dismissed at the trial court and appellate court levels, and another case contending that the state lacked a “feasible” relocation plan was dismissed by the appellate court, though attorney George Locker has asked the court to permit an appeal to the State Court of Appeals.

The new lawsuit cites the 3/21/08 disclosure of the State Funding Agreement as well as yesterday’s disclosure of a separate City Funding Agreement. It also cites CEO Bruce Ratner’s admission to the New York Times that the project was significantly delayed.

It points out that the ESDC in December 2006 approved the project, with a ten-year construction timeline for the whole project, but the Funding Agreement shows that ESDC allows 12 years from acquisition of the Project Site to complete Phase 1 and an unspecified time to build Phase 2, which contains “70% of the affordable housing units, 100% of the open space, and 75% of the construction job/years,” figures asserted on “information and belief.”

Should the developer fail to complete the balance of Phase 2 by the Final Deadline, ESDC can buy FCR’s interest in the undeveloped parcels.

Not allowed?

However, the suit contends, “New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”), Article 4 section 406, requires a condemnor to materially improve property within 10 years from acquisition. After ten years, the condemnee has the right to reacquire the materially unimproved property."

So if FCR has more than a decade to build Phase 1 and can sell the property, that violates state law, Locker contends, though he acknowledged there’s no case law on the issue. “This is a case of first impression, based on a clear reading of the statute,” he acknowledged.

The statute: §406 Abandonment (A) If, after an acquisition in fee pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the condemnor shall abandon the project for which the property was acquired, and the property has not been materially improved, the condemnor shall not dispose of the property or any portion thereof for private use within ten years of acquisition without first offering the former fee owner of record at the time of acquisition a right of first refusal to purchase the property at the amount of the fair market value of such property at the time of such offer.

Does the term "materially improve" give the state an out, as long as something is built on the site? Locker contended no, given that there's no timetable for Phase 2 and much of the site could be left fallow for more than a decade.

The Times article doesn't point out that, when the ESDC approved the project, it was expected to take a decade. That decade is as important a benchmark as the decade cited by Locker before a project must restore ownership rights.

Toss it out

The lawsuit asks that the court voids “so much of the Funding Agreement as purports to give respondent the right to permit acquired property, in Phase I or Phase II, to remain undeveloped for a period of greater than 10 years” and that it also voids the section that gives ESDC the option “and deprives petitioners of the right, to reacquire condemned property, in Phase I or Phase II, that is undeveloped 10 years from acquisition.”

Can the tenants reacquire property, given that they're renters in buildings now owned by Forest City Ratner? Even though Locker contended in an earlier case that the tenants were not condemnees under state law, he lost, and the ruling in that case is a key to the latest filing. “In the case of my clients, since they were declared condemnees,” he said, “they all have ownership rights and leases. As I read the law, if nothing is done in ten years, people have to be put back.”

New hearing

Given that “ESDC has substantially amended the Project that it approved in December 2006,” the project requires another public hearing, the lawsuit contends. “The amendments represent an enormous loss of the Project’s stated public benefits - most of the housing, open-space, and construction job/years - and portend decades of developer blight, vacant lots, and ever-mounting public costs.”

The lawsuit cites a 1989 case, Leichter v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (aka ESDC), which agreed that an additional public hearing "limited to the consideration of the amendments of the plan" could be held.

Whether this case is on point, however, will be determined in court. The ESDC has until May 28 to respond and it has defended all lawsuits vigorously.

Modest penalties

The article closes with a too-brief reference to a complex set of issues I raised yesterday:
Norman Oder, author of the Atlantic Yards Report blog and a critic of the project, noted that Forest City’s agreement with the state, and one with the city that he wrote about Wednesday after obtaining a copy through a Freedom of Information request, both appear to impose relatively minor penalties if Forest City starts missing its deadlines.

“It seems to me,” Mr. Oder said, “that Forest City has reason to be more concerned about losses from the Nets and from construction cost increases than from the penalties posed in these agreements.”


Bitter, told-you-so?

The article also states:
But Mr. Ratner’s recently conceded difficulties — he has indefinitely delayed the project’s signature skyscraper, known as Miss Brooklyn — have energized his opponents, in a particularly bitter, told-you-so way.


There's no specific reference and, while it's true that there was an angry edge, say, to the Brooklyn Museum demonstration last month, I don't think opponents and critics should be faulted for pointing out that the developer's promises shouldn't be trusted.

After all, last year executive Chuck Ratner seemed to acknowledge to investment analysts that the arena wouldn't be built until 2010, then backpedaled not too credibly to the official goal of 2009--only to be proven right the first time when Forest City Ratner quietly adjusted the timeline. Now 2010 is the official goal, though I think 2011 is more realistic.

A more interesting question is why project supporters like Borough President Marty Markowitz and ACORN's Bertha Lewis retain unshaken trust in the developer. They last issued statements on March 21, after Bruce Ratner admitted delays to the Times. What do they think, now that the City Funding Agreement has surfaced, about a project that could result in just 300 affordable units by 2020?

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…

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…