Skip to main content

Rep. Kucinich asks IRS, Treasury to hold off on approving financing deal for AY arena, other projects

Who loses when triple tax-exempt bonds are used to finance stadiums for the Yankees and Mets, and the planned Atlantic Yards arena? Overwhelmingly the savings come at the expense of federal taxpayers, not state or city ones, which is why city and state officials are so eager to use such a financing mechanism--the costs are just too diffuse.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, former maverick presidential candidate, and Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, yesterday released a letter asking the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department to desist from approving any more sports facility deals based on PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), pending further clarification of their policies.

In other words: don't approve any deal involving the Nets arena just yet.

It's not clear to me whether Kucinich, whose letter was dated May 23, was piling on the recently-surfaced concern about such deals, or whether the original delivery of that letter triggered additional alarm among New York officials whose expectations of smooth sailing for AY arena funding and more bonds for Yankee Stadium had already been dashed.

The Times reported yesterday:
The Internal Revenue Service initially approved the use of the bonds for the ballparks, but quickly issued a proposal in 2006 to tighten the rules governing the use of tax-exempt bonds so that it would be more difficult, and perhaps impossible, for this kind of financing to be used again by profitable, private enterprises like professional sports teams.


Shining a light

We know that such a PILOT deal is contemplated for Atlantic Yards, though we don't know whether it is under discussion in those departments. On page 10 of the letter, Kucinich asks a bit disingenuously whether additional sports franchises seek to use PILOTs and "To your knowledge, does the Atlantic Yards proposal include use of PILOTs to fund an arena for the Nets?"

It's not clear whether Kucinich's subcommittee has the power to stop the agencies from acting. But the subcommittee, concerned about lagging investment in the country's infrastructure, has been trying to shine a light on the public policy distortions caused by devoting subsidies and tax-exempt funding to sports facilities, holding two hearings last year.

(Here's an explanation from Neil deMause, author of the book Field of Schemes and the Field of Schemes web site, about how PILOTs work in this context.)

No net benefit from sports facilities

The letter states:
There was abundant evidence adduced at Subcommittee hearings demonstrating that the financing of sports stadiums with tax-exempt bonds does not provide a net economic benefit to communities, whether or not the financing is accomplished through PILOTs.


Kucinich's letter cites testimony by three critics of such stadium financing, including Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York and deMause:
"There is absolutely no evidence that $18.5 billion dollars in public benefits have been generated since 1990 to compensate for the $18.5 billion dollars in public costs. Variations on the loophole, including recent creative use of payments-in-lieu-of-taxes should be similarly prohibited. The opportunity cost is significant, viewed in the context of infrastructure or any of a host of other important public services, and competition between local jurisdictions is becoming increasingly counter-productive when measured at the national level."

From Kucinich's letter

The letter opens:

The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is writing regarding the U.S. Department of Treasury's (Treasury Department) and Internal Revenue Service's (IRS and, collectively, Treasury Department) regulation of the use of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) in the financing of the construction of sports stadiums.

I believe that in testimony to this Subcommittee, the Treasury Department inaccurately characterized its decision in two Private Letter Rulings issued in 2006 (PLRs) to treat PILOTs made by the Yankees and Mets as permissible sources of financing for tax-exempt private activity bonds.' I am particularly troubled with Treasury Department testimony that the department existing regulations compelled the Treasury Department's decision to allow the use of PILOTs in this context. After carefully considering your testimony and the relevant regulations, I believe that your putative lack of discretion to prohibit the use of PILOTs is incorrect as a matter of law. In fact, there is strong argument that Treasury Department's existing regulations compelled a decision to prohibit the use of PILOTs for tax-exempt bonds used to finance stadium construction, both in the cases of the Yankees and Mets projects and more generally. At a minimum, the Treasury Department retains discretion to prohibit their use.

The Treasury Department's rulings open the door to other sports franchises to emulate the Yankees' and Mets' use of PILOTs to finance tax-exempt bonds. This is a significant change with, according to many Subcommittee witnesses, substantial negative public-policy ramifications. Between the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and 2006, stadium projects involving tax-exempt bonds were financed by what were indisputably generally applicable taxes, such as broadly applicable sales taxes borne generally by the public. The Treasury Department has insisted to this Subcommittee that it had no choice to allow the PILOTs and that it promptly proposed a new PILOT rule that would close an old "loophole" in the existing regulations. On the contrary, it appears that this loophole was partially of the Treasury Department's own recent creation. While the new PILOT rule would tighten the requirements for the use of PILOTs in certain respects, it would further legitimize their use for financing stadiums by placing them on firmer regulatory authority.

Because of the importance and technical nature of this issue, we request additional clarification of your position before you proceed with further rulemaking in this area.

(Emphasis in original)

The letter goes into considerable technical detail, as well.

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…

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.