Skip to main content

Is "adoption" really "approval"? Looking more closely at ESDC board action in July 2006

In the Atlantic Yards chronology, the meaning of one action by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) is a key to whether tax-exempt bonds for the project would be grandfathered in under new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules.

Last week, I (like others) concluded that the ESDC's vote to adopt the Atlantic Yards General Project Plan (GPP) at its 7/18/06 meeting likely constituted what the Treasury Department requires as "official action evidencing its preliminary approval of the project before October 19, 2006."

The issue may be more ambiguous. "Adoption" might also be seen merely as an agreement to release a "proposed" plan for public comment. On the other hand, "adoption" of a plan that receives no comment means it will go into effect, which does indicate approval.

(All emphases in text below are added.)

City/state argument

A May 8 letter to the IRS and Treasury Department from the ESDC and the New York City Industrial Development Authority (IDA), which clearly influenced the new regulations, stated:
On July 18, 2006, the ESDC Board approved the General Project Plan (the "GPP") for the Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project. Adoption of a General Project Plan is ESDC's method of initially approving a project.

Then the letter switched to the word "approved":
We note that the GPP was approved prior to the IRS release of the Stadium PLRs [Private Letter Rulings, which enabled Yankee Stadium and the new Mets stadium] or the Proposed Regulations.

At the meeting

So what exactly happened at the meeting? I attended, and remember the board action as rather pro forma; the real action came afterward in a press conference, during which ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano answered questions not about the funding mechanism but the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the process for ultimately project approval.

I asked ESDC for a copy of the meeting minutes (PDF), which totaled nine pages and consist mainly of resolutions rather than narrative. The minutes indicate that ESDC board members asked "several logistical questions" and that one wanted to make sure that the agency would use its condemnation powers for a public benefit. There was no apparent discussion of the plan to finance the arena, nor any indication that it was a novel strategy pending approval, in the case of the Yankees and Mets, by the IRS.

The ESDC's adoption vote was a prelude to another action: for purposes of the public hearing(s) required by Section 6 and Section 16 of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act.... the proposed General Project Plan.
(Emphasis added)

Had the GPP been approved in preliminary fashion or had it simply been proposed? The vote was to approve a resolution that contained the "adoption" of the GPP for the purposes of a public hearing.

Looking at Section 16

Section 16 describes how the ESDC must file copies of the adopted GPP in local municipalities, how it must announce notice of the plan, and how it must announce a public hearing, It adds:
(c) the corporation shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to such notice, provided that such public hearing shall not take place before the adoption or the filing of such plan by the corporation;

In other words, the act of adoption may be akin to "filing," or on the continuum with it. Rather than a preliminary approval, it sounds like an administrative action.

Then again, other language in Section 16 buttresses the argument for preliminary approval: (d) upon a written finding of the chief executive officer of the corporation that no substantive negative testimony or comment has been received at such public hearing, such plan shall be effective at the conclusion of such hearing; provided, however, that if any substantive negative testimony or comment is received at such public hearing, the corporation may, after due consideration of such testimony and comment, affirm, modify or withdraw the plan in the manner provided for the initial filing of such plan in paragraph (a) of this subdivision.

If no negative testimony or comment is heard, the plan becomes effective, so no additional approval is needed.

Contrast

Executive Law § 807, regarding Local land use programs, uses "adoption" as similar to "enactment," rather than filing:
Upon approval, or approval subject to conditions by the agency, and upon valid enactment or adoption of such law or ordinance, the authority of the agency over such uses and facilities pursuant to sections eight hundred six and eight hundred nine of this article shall be vested in the local government,

Looking at the press release

In the 7/18/2006 press release regarding Atlantic Yards, the term "adopted" was used, but there was no mention of "approval":
Charles A. Gargano, Chairman of Empire State Development Corp., today announced the ESDC Board adopted the General Project Plan (GPP), made Land Use Improvement Project Findings and Civic Project Findings available, accepted the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and authorized a public hearing for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, NY.


The resolution noted that the ESDC found the DEIS "satisfactory." There is no mention in the resolution regarding the GPP that it was considered adequate or satisfactory.

ESDC statements

It's worth noting that the ESDC, in its public statements on similar projects, has used inconsistent language.

In a 4/5/2006 press release on the Javits Convention Center project, both words were used:
Empire State Development Chairman Charles A. Gargano announced today that the General Project Plan (GPP) for the redevelopment of the Jacob K. Javits Center has been adopted by the New York Convention Center Development Corporation (CCDC) and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).

“Today’s approval marks another step forward in the redevelopment of the Jacob K. Javits Center,” CCDC Chairman Gargano said. “The new convention center will provide New York with the world-class, state-of-the-art facility our great city deserves, capable of hosting more conventions, exhibitions and trade shows...."


This year, regarding Columbia University's expansion plan, the 7/17/08 press release did not use the word "approved":
In adopting the General Project Plan, the ESDC board accepted the findings of a neighborhood conditions study conducted by the consulting firm AKRF Inc. and a comprehensive audit of that study by Earth Tech Inc. Both reports found that the area surrounding the project’s 17 buildings was mainly characterized by aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings, with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated conditions.

The word "accepted" may describe the essence of the board's action; it has neither the time nor expertise nor function to seriously analyze long reports prepared by specialized consultants.

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…