
Q. One thing I learned from the book is that sports facilities like the proposed Atlantic Yards arena have leases for just one dollar because the building has to be nominally publicly owned--and the developer pays off construction costs via PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), a "loophole," according to the IRS.
A. Prior to 1986, you could finance a stadium with tax-exempt bonds, which are cheaper because theyāre tax-exempt. You donāt have to pay as much interest to the bond holders, so theyāll take a lower interest rate. Itās great for cities, because it lowers their costs. Itās terrible for the federal government, because they get nothing out of it; all that happens is suddenly there are all these extra bonds theyāre not getting taxes on. It was soaking up all the available tax-exempt bonds, because everyone was using them for these big private projects. So in ā86, they instituted limits on private activity bonds, particularly on sports facilities, saying, āOK if this really a private project, if the city is just lending its bonding capacity for a private project and itās going to make money with private revenue, you canāt do it.ā The limit was, if more than 10% of the facility is private use and more than 10% of the cost is paid off by revenues from facility, then you canāt do it. This was [Senator Daniel Patrick] Moynihanās attempt to close off tax-exempt bonds used for stadiums.
Immediately, what cities started doing is saying is, āOK, well, we just wonāt charge you any rent.ā
The arcane world of tax-exempt bonds

A. No one understands this. When it started coming up for the Jets project, they were going to use this end run, PILOT [payments in lieu of taxes] payments; instead of calling it rent, they would say, āOK, itās PILOTs,ā even though they claimed it wouldnāt actually be subject to property taxes, because itās on public land. They said this isnāt rent, itās tax money, even though itās a special tax just for them. The Jets thing never happened, the Yankees and Mets used the same structure, got away with it and now the Nets are trying to use the same thing. When the Jets [plan] came up, in 2004, I was calling around the country, trying to find someone who understood was whether itās legal. I called Dennis Zimmerman [formerly of the Congressional Research Service], who said, āThat doesnāt sound legal to me, but Iām sure there are plenty of bond lawyers who can convince a judge or the IRS that it is.ā So you really had folks in Dan Doctoroffās office who were really breaking new ground.
You had this City Council Finance Committee hearing for the Yankees, where the Yankees were simultaneously saying "This isnāt private money, this is tax money, so therefore we can use tax-exempt bonds, and you should go ahead with this project because it wouldnāt require any tax money."And nobody questioned them on it.
PILOTs vs. TIFs
Q. One thing I learned from the book: PILOTs donāt need legislative approval but TIFs do. And TIFs were first thought to be the plan for Atlantic Yards.
A. This was the genius of the Jets plan. Doctoroff was proposing a TIF for the Jets plan, and it was not going over very well. I was writing a lot of stuff for the Voice, interviewing people who said TIFs are horrible. I think he realized it was going to be difficult getting it through state legislature and realized, āOh, a TIF district has to be approved by the state legislature, but a PILOT is just āredirecting property taxesā and we can do that without the state.ā
Of course he forgot about the PACB [Public Authorities Control Board], so he wound up having Sheldon Silver block his deal anyway. Just the ways theyāve gone around public oversight in all these deals has been remarkable. They had the alienation of the parkland for the Yankees pushed through in eight days.
Comments
Post a Comment