Skip to main content

No-property-tax status was supposed to raise the price of the Vanderbilt Yard

There's another obscured benefit for Forest City Ratner in the bid for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard. In its September 2005 report on Atlantic Yards, the city's Independent Budget Office (IBO) stated:
IBO’s estimate of new property tax revenue lost to the arena PILOT does not include a loss of property taxes for the MTA land that would be part of the arena building foot print. The city currently receives no tax payment from the MTA for the rail yard because the MTA, like other state entities, is exempt from local property tax. Under the MTA’s Request for Proposals, any developer acquiring the development rights to the site would probably enter into a long-term lease, leaving the MTA in place as the owner. Therefore, the property would likely remain off the city’s tax roll, resulting in no impact on the city budget. Indeed, the MTA has an incentive to make a deal that maintains the tax exemption in order to maximize the price it receives for the development rights.

(Emphasis added)

That hardly happened. Forest City Ratner paid $100 million in cash for property appraised at $214.5 million, and values its total bid at $379.4 million, though that's questionable. Meanwhile, the developer expects tax breaks worth [corrected] $165 million, as $800 million in tax-exempt bonds are repaid by PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes).

It doesn't sound like the MTA maximized much.

Comments

  1. Using the 2004 apprisal, the MTA write-down on the land not being collected by the MTA would be $114 million. Adjusting that for inflation and other factors we might figure that the overall write-down that the MTA is forgoing is in the $150-300 million neighborhood. We are stuck with estimations because of the property was never actually put out for a real bid.

    But, by getting the Vanderbilt Yards, Ratner is also getting the right to the eminent domain windfall and upzoning windfall associated with the 60% of the non-yards property constituting the rest of the project’s wrench-shaped site.

    Remember, there has never been a bid (Extel’s $150 million offer included) that encompassed receiving these rights associated with those additional 13.5 acres.

    Had a there been a properly packaged bid, then anyone bidding would have been explicitly bidding not only for the MTA’s Vanderbilt Yards but also for the rights to an associated 4.7 million square of zoning feet. If, say we value it at $295.00 per buildable square feet we get a total for an envelope number reflecting that value of $1.380 billion. From this must be subtracted some other not necessarily very big numbers to come up with the value of the combined eminent domain windfall and upzoning windfall. One thing that will keep the value up is that, unlike the Vanderbilt Yards, there are no platform construction costs that need to be subtracted. Yes, Ratner already owned some of the property within the 60% area but he is using eminent domain to wipe out leases by way of getting to the benefit of the upzoning.

    Based on this it is possible to envision that a properly constructed bid would have netted the MTA not only its estimated $150-300 million write-down mentioned above, but in addition thereto another very substantial figure that could be in the neighborhood of . . . $1 billion?

    To be continued . . .

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is a comment on my comment above.

    My comment above dealt with the additional ($1 billion?) amount that the MTA might have collected with a bid process that was structured properly so that any bidders on Vanderbilt Yards understood they should factor in that they were getting the rights to the eminent domain and upzoning windfall associated with the 60% of the non-yards property constituting the rest of the project’s wrench-shaped site.

    My comment probably made it seem as if it would be right for the MTA to collect that extra `billion’ in value rather than having it be taken by Ratner.

    In fact, it would not be right for the MTA to take the `billion’ in value.

    The extra `billion’ in the form of eminent domain and upzoning windfalls is value being improperly seized and which should not be taken away from the original owners of the property to whom it belongs.

    Ergo, there are three possible directions in which the `billion’ in value could go. Setting them forth in the order in which it most appropriate for the `billion’ to go they are as follows:

    1.) The `billion’ belongs to and should actually stay with the original owners of the property adjacent to Vanderbilt Yards.- Eminent domain windfall is reaped by forcing a lower-than-market prices from owners and making them absorb the costs of unnecessary, unplanned dislocations and business interruptions.- Nor should the original owners be deprived of the opportunity to benefit from the materialization of the upzoning of their property which was something they paid for when they bought their property.

    2.) The `billion’ could be taken by the MTA to benefit the taxpayers if a bid for the Atlantic Yards wrench-shape property were properly structured to do so. (Per my comment above.)

    3.) Lastly, the `billion’ can simply go to Ratner. This would be under the theory that Ratner is Ratner and shouldn’t have to bid for or pay for the value of what he might get. This tautologically limited theory is actually the theory that was subscribed to by the Doctoroff/Bloomberg/Pataki contingent that put together the Ratner deal. It is the theory now available to anyone who wants to buy it from businessman-Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    *******

    Hold it for one minute more- - -

    The above is not right either- The `billion’ should not necessarily go to the original owners.

    To say that the `billion’ should go to the original owners is to presuppose that it is proper and desirable to heap on their property all of the huge amount extreme density that is being heaped on the property being given to Ratner.- If, as is most certainly the case, that density should actually be spread more broadly and evenly across a number of parcels in the extended neighborhood then only some of that density and value should accrue to the original owners.

    Spread around, the value of the increased density from an upzoning would then be shared in a more general manner amongst surrounding owners. Spreading that density will not be possible under the Atlantic Yards plan when density increases elsewhere are precluded by the density that will be concentrated on the 22 acres of Atlantic Yards. Dispersing the density more broadly and fairly means that owners immediately neighboring Atlantic Yards will not be burdened by the blight of inappropriate adjacent density crammed onto a single owner’s site. By receiving only those density increases that are appropriate there will be the general benefit to everyone, including increased property values, of having a more livable desirable neighborhood.

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York

    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…

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.