This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
A genteel preservationist took the opportunity to advise on adaptive reuse, which had been dismissed by the Empire State Development Corporation, and didn't get much traction with the crowd.
MS. CHRISTABEL GOUGH: I'm Christabel Gough from the Society for the Architecture of the City. We're an all-volunteer historic preservation advocacy group. And we're here to make some comments on the EIS, specifically on the chapter seven, Cultural Resources. Two buildings in the footprint were determined by the State Historic Preservation Office to be significant historic structures: The former LIRR Stables and the Ward Bakery.
...The consultants say that they examined the possibility of conversion to residential use, but they rejected it. Why? Conversion might entail altering the buildings and then the buildings would lose their integrity. To contend that historic buildings should be demolished so as to avoid changing them is an affront to common sense... and to local preservation laws. The ultimate loss of integrity is demolition, not minor alterations for adaptive re-use.
A VOICE: They don't want no housing.
[The implication was that project opponents didn't want people living near them. I think Gough misheard it as an argument about architecture.
MS. CHRISTABEL GOUGH: Yes, but there could be housing -- there could [be] housing where we built buildings, they're often is. It's done all over the country.
[And Forest City Enterprises, the parent of Forest City Ratner, has done that, as well, in cities like Richmond. It just didn't fit their plans this time.]
Sunday, August 31, 2008
From the DEIS hearing: unheeded wisdom regarding the economic claims
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
Late in the hearing, two women with the same first name offered some useful but unheeded wisdom about validating the economic claims behind Atlantic Yards.
MS. KATE GUINEY: My name is Kate Guiney. And I'll be very, very brief. I just want to publicly request that Alan Hevesi, the State Comptroller, audit the proposed Atlantic Yards project by --
(Audience participation.)
MS. KATE GUINEY: -- Forest City Enterprises. I think that the financial numbers and the environmental impact conclusions that we have heard or read about are so widely divergent; we've heard so many different numbers from so many different angles, that I think an audit by a comparatively unbiased party is in order. Thanks.
Questioning the numbers
MS. KATE GALASSI: My name is Kate Galassi. I'm 21 years old and I've lived on Pacific Street for my whole life.
...The benefits laid out in detailed numbers in the DEIS rely on assumptions about new residents coming from outside of the city, about all retail and office space being filled immediately, about Nets fans coming from out of state and a certain number of Nets players living one the city.
These seemingly small assumptions are the fundamental foundation of the promised benefits to the City and the State. Yet, it is not hard to imagine circumstances in which several of these assumptions might play out differently in reality. Once the foundation falters, the whole facade of economic benefit begins to crumble.
Often important assumptions appear in [FCR consultant Andrew] Zimbalist's report, but are absent from the DEIS, misleading the public. If there is solid evidence to back up these claims, it is not presented in the DEIS.
Without this evidence it is unreasonable for the public to believe in the promises made by Forest City Ratner.
Late in the hearing, two women with the same first name offered some useful but unheeded wisdom about validating the economic claims behind Atlantic Yards.
MS. KATE GUINEY: My name is Kate Guiney. And I'll be very, very brief. I just want to publicly request that Alan Hevesi, the State Comptroller, audit the proposed Atlantic Yards project by --
(Audience participation.)
MS. KATE GUINEY: -- Forest City Enterprises. I think that the financial numbers and the environmental impact conclusions that we have heard or read about are so widely divergent; we've heard so many different numbers from so many different angles, that I think an audit by a comparatively unbiased party is in order. Thanks.
Questioning the numbers
MS. KATE GALASSI: My name is Kate Galassi. I'm 21 years old and I've lived on Pacific Street for my whole life.
...The benefits laid out in detailed numbers in the DEIS rely on assumptions about new residents coming from outside of the city, about all retail and office space being filled immediately, about Nets fans coming from out of state and a certain number of Nets players living one the city.
These seemingly small assumptions are the fundamental foundation of the promised benefits to the City and the State. Yet, it is not hard to imagine circumstances in which several of these assumptions might play out differently in reality. Once the foundation falters, the whole facade of economic benefit begins to crumble.
Often important assumptions appear in [FCR consultant Andrew] Zimbalist's report, but are absent from the DEIS, misleading the public. If there is solid evidence to back up these claims, it is not presented in the DEIS.
Without this evidence it is unreasonable for the public to believe in the promises made by Forest City Ratner.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
In 2006, as well, Zimbalist's ($73K) testimony was disallowed in court
Three times in the last year sports economist Andrew Zimbalist’s work has been either discredited in a court case or thrown out of court. Let's add a fourth episode to the list, albeit in 2006, in a court case involving the baseball team in Southern California known as the Angels.
The Orange County Register, in a 1/8/06 article, previewed a case in which the city of Anaheim sued the Angels baseball team, arguing that the change of the team name from “Anaheim Angels” to the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” violated a lease in which the team was compelled to keep “Anaheim'” in the name.
The city contended that the change would cost the city $98 million to $374 million. Meanwhile, the team had the third-highest attendance in Major League Baseball and, while the city was concerned about lowered tourism, bed-tax receipts went up 20 percent over the previous year.
Zimbalist, an expert hired by the city, contended that the effect of advertising must be measured over time. Two sports marketing experts interviewed by the newspaper questioned the city’s argument, however.
Alternative considered
The newspaper reported:
A city witness analyzed how much the stadium property would be worth if the city used it for a different purpose, such as hotels, commercial property or entertainment venues. Zimbalist found that value would be $105 million through 2029, based on 1996 dollars.
Angels' court documents say the damage claim is ``speculative, hypothetical, (and) has no basis in fact or reality,'' mostly because city officials failed to show intent to use the land for anything other than a stadium.
Curiously enough, the opposite happened in Brooklyn. Zimbalist’s deeply-flawed study for Forest City Ratner made no attempt to analyze how much the arena block would be worth if used for a different purpose.
While that may be speculative, Brooklyn is different from Anaheim, and such choice land in New York City couldn’t be ignored.
Zimbalist bounced from case
A 1/26/06 article in the Los Angeles Times explained that Zimbalist would not be allowed to testify, according to the trial judge. The newspaper reported:
In analyzing the effect of the Angels' name change, Zimbalist calculated the city had foregone $138.5 million by signing a long-term lease with the team rather than demolishing the stadium, selling the land and reaping taxes from property development.
But that analysis does not offer "the proper measure of damages" in a breach-of-contract case, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos ruled. If the Angels have broken their lease by adding "Los Angeles" to their name and dropping "Anaheim" from use, he said, the damages should reflect the value of the actual benefits lost by the city.
Polos did allow two other experts hired by the city to testify on the loss of the Anaheim name.
The city of Anaheim lost the case.
What it cost
A 2/11/06 Orange County Register article reported that the city spent $2.5 million on the case, including some $169,000 for three expert witnesses.
That included $73,276.60 for Zimbalist, even though he didn’t get to testify.
The Orange County Register, in a 1/8/06 article, previewed a case in which the city of Anaheim sued the Angels baseball team, arguing that the change of the team name from “Anaheim Angels” to the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” violated a lease in which the team was compelled to keep “Anaheim'” in the name.
The city contended that the change would cost the city $98 million to $374 million. Meanwhile, the team had the third-highest attendance in Major League Baseball and, while the city was concerned about lowered tourism, bed-tax receipts went up 20 percent over the previous year.
Zimbalist, an expert hired by the city, contended that the effect of advertising must be measured over time. Two sports marketing experts interviewed by the newspaper questioned the city’s argument, however.
Alternative considered
The newspaper reported:
A city witness analyzed how much the stadium property would be worth if the city used it for a different purpose, such as hotels, commercial property or entertainment venues. Zimbalist found that value would be $105 million through 2029, based on 1996 dollars.
Angels' court documents say the damage claim is ``speculative, hypothetical, (and) has no basis in fact or reality,'' mostly because city officials failed to show intent to use the land for anything other than a stadium.
Curiously enough, the opposite happened in Brooklyn. Zimbalist’s deeply-flawed study for Forest City Ratner made no attempt to analyze how much the arena block would be worth if used for a different purpose.
While that may be speculative, Brooklyn is different from Anaheim, and such choice land in New York City couldn’t be ignored.
Zimbalist bounced from case
A 1/26/06 article in the Los Angeles Times explained that Zimbalist would not be allowed to testify, according to the trial judge. The newspaper reported:
In analyzing the effect of the Angels' name change, Zimbalist calculated the city had foregone $138.5 million by signing a long-term lease with the team rather than demolishing the stadium, selling the land and reaping taxes from property development.
But that analysis does not offer "the proper measure of damages" in a breach-of-contract case, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos ruled. If the Angels have broken their lease by adding "Los Angeles" to their name and dropping "Anaheim" from use, he said, the damages should reflect the value of the actual benefits lost by the city.
Polos did allow two other experts hired by the city to testify on the loss of the Anaheim name.
The city of Anaheim lost the case.
What it cost
A 2/11/06 Orange County Register article reported that the city spent $2.5 million on the case, including some $169,000 for three expert witnesses.
That included $73,276.60 for Zimbalist, even though he didn’t get to testify.
Zimbalist's Seattle bill was $61,296
Last month, I reported, based on press accounts in Seattle, that expert witness Andrew Zimbalist cost the city of Seattle $17,753 in its effort to hold the new owners of the Seattle SuperSonics to their local lease.
Actually, as the Post-Intelligencer reported yesterday, the total was $61,296, including $59,540 on time spent preparing his report and his 50 minutes of testimony, with the rest going to plus travel expenses.
Zimbalist's report, trashed by an opposing attorney, didn't help Seattle's cause, but the city, which spent $2.96 million in the case, was successful in getting $19 million more in settlement than previously offered.
Zimbalist's report for FCR
As I wrote, we don’t know how much Zimbalist was paid by Forest City Ratner for his deeply-flawed report on Atlantic Yards. But maybe, given that Gov. George Pataki’s administration relied on Zimbalist’s study in a press release, the government should tell us.
Remember, then-FCR executive Jim Stuckey told City Council in May 2004, "It is really not our report, it is Professor Zimbalist’s report."
It deserved the public rebuttal and cross-examination that Zimbalist's work has faced more recently in court.
Actually, as the Post-Intelligencer reported yesterday, the total was $61,296, including $59,540 on time spent preparing his report and his 50 minutes of testimony, with the rest going to plus travel expenses.
Zimbalist's report, trashed by an opposing attorney, didn't help Seattle's cause, but the city, which spent $2.96 million in the case, was successful in getting $19 million more in settlement than previously offered.
Zimbalist's report for FCR
As I wrote, we don’t know how much Zimbalist was paid by Forest City Ratner for his deeply-flawed report on Atlantic Yards. But maybe, given that Gov. George Pataki’s administration relied on Zimbalist’s study in a press release, the government should tell us.
Remember, then-FCR executive Jim Stuckey told City Council in May 2004, "It is really not our report, it is Professor Zimbalist’s report."
It deserved the public rebuttal and cross-examination that Zimbalist's work has faced more recently in court.
From the DEIS hearing: "Daniel Ratner" and the Legion of Doom
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
On Thursday, I wrote about the Beckett-like aspects of the hearing. On Friday, I cited a farcical moment in the final community forum. Today let's look at the performance of an eccentric fellow named William Stanford, Jr., who wore dark shades (as he did at this hearing of the Rent Guidelines Board).
Stanford often sounded like a nut, calling his antagonist "Daniel Ratner" (a combo of Bruce Ratner and Daniel Goldstein?), threatening to attack with pro wrestling moves, and charging the aforementioned Ratner with drug smuggling.
But he also made some earthy good sense, questioning the scheduling of a forum on Primary Day with "Are you stuck on stupid?"
The testimony
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: Thank you for holding this forum. By holding this forum you just gave me a better reason to give Daniel Ratner a flying full nelson off the top rope courtesy of the Legion of Doom.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: All right. I'm getting so fed up with Daniel Ratner, his nasty attitude against the people who have low incomes. He's telling the people who live there in Brooklyn, who lives in Brooklyn for years who have low incomes to get the hell out so the rich people can come there and he builds his damn project.
First of all, that damn project belongs in Queens, not here in Brooklyn. Bronx no, where I come from, Manhattan, or Staten Island.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: It belongs in Queens, okay. Just put it in College Point or as somebody called it, Garbage Point, okay. The damn project belongs in Queens. Queens only, nowhere else, okay.
I feel like giving Daniel Ratner a flying close line off the top rope courtesy of the Legion of Doom, okay. I feel like taking that camcorder and smashing it over his head. I'm getting fed up with his attitude.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: His attitude towards people with the low income who have lived here all their lives for a long time for that matter, is degrading. His project who's tearing down buildings so he can accommodate a stadium that's going to knock out the Atlantic -- the Atlantic Hall [Mall?] which is already there. It makes no sense. Put that damn project in Queens where it belongs and stop tearing down houses here in Brooklyn. Stop telling the people who have lived here --
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: -- all their lives to get the hell out so rich people could come. And you're telling them, oh, if we -- if we -- if we tell you to get the hell out, we'll pay for your expenses. You know, it sounds like -- you know, you tell -- if Superfly tells you I'm you're mama, I'm you're poppa, then they get the hell out, that's ridiculous. He needs to get over to Queens, okay, take his drug smuggling operation to Queens as well. I'm getting so fed up with it, I really am.
And another thing is you have this forum, it's scheduled for Primary Day. Are you serious? I mean are you stuck on stupid? How you going to put a forum on Primary Day. People want to vote and you're telling them they got to come out here.... You better change that date. Primary Day, Primary Day, we want to vote. We don't have time for this. This is BS, okay, good-bye.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Stanford. I take it the remarks weren't
directed at the Hearing Officer.
(Laughter.)
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: That's Mr. X to you.
(Audience participation.)
On Thursday, I wrote about the Beckett-like aspects of the hearing. On Friday, I cited a farcical moment in the final community forum. Today let's look at the performance of an eccentric fellow named William Stanford, Jr., who wore dark shades (as he did at this hearing of the Rent Guidelines Board).
Stanford often sounded like a nut, calling his antagonist "Daniel Ratner" (a combo of Bruce Ratner and Daniel Goldstein?), threatening to attack with pro wrestling moves, and charging the aforementioned Ratner with drug smuggling.
But he also made some earthy good sense, questioning the scheduling of a forum on Primary Day with "Are you stuck on stupid?"
The testimony
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: Thank you for holding this forum. By holding this forum you just gave me a better reason to give Daniel Ratner a flying full nelson off the top rope courtesy of the Legion of Doom.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: All right. I'm getting so fed up with Daniel Ratner, his nasty attitude against the people who have low incomes. He's telling the people who live there in Brooklyn, who lives in Brooklyn for years who have low incomes to get the hell out so the rich people can come there and he builds his damn project.
First of all, that damn project belongs in Queens, not here in Brooklyn. Bronx no, where I come from, Manhattan, or Staten Island.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: It belongs in Queens, okay. Just put it in College Point or as somebody called it, Garbage Point, okay. The damn project belongs in Queens. Queens only, nowhere else, okay.
I feel like giving Daniel Ratner a flying close line off the top rope courtesy of the Legion of Doom, okay. I feel like taking that camcorder and smashing it over his head. I'm getting fed up with his attitude.
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: His attitude towards people with the low income who have lived here all their lives for a long time for that matter, is degrading. His project who's tearing down buildings so he can accommodate a stadium that's going to knock out the Atlantic -- the Atlantic Hall [Mall?] which is already there. It makes no sense. Put that damn project in Queens where it belongs and stop tearing down houses here in Brooklyn. Stop telling the people who have lived here --
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: -- all their lives to get the hell out so rich people could come. And you're telling them, oh, if we -- if we -- if we tell you to get the hell out, we'll pay for your expenses. You know, it sounds like -- you know, you tell -- if Superfly tells you I'm you're mama, I'm you're poppa, then they get the hell out, that's ridiculous. He needs to get over to Queens, okay, take his drug smuggling operation to Queens as well. I'm getting so fed up with it, I really am.
And another thing is you have this forum, it's scheduled for Primary Day. Are you serious? I mean are you stuck on stupid? How you going to put a forum on Primary Day. People want to vote and you're telling them they got to come out here.... You better change that date. Primary Day, Primary Day, we want to vote. We don't have time for this. This is BS, okay, good-bye.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Stanford. I take it the remarks weren't
directed at the Hearing Officer.
(Laughter.)
(Audience participation.)
MR. WILLIAM STANFORD: That's Mr. X to you.
(Audience participation.)
Friday, August 29, 2008
As de Blasio stresses AY support, he claims CBA, not government, would guarantee the affordable housing
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
Given his current more critical posture toward Atlantic Yards, note that Council Member Bill de Blasio declared his support for the project up front. He acknowledged concerns--amplified significantly in recent months, as he ramps up his candidacy for Borough President--about the impacts on quality of life.
I've written about de Blasio's failure to do "due diligence" regarding Atlantic Yards. But I hadn't examined his statement at the hearing, which claimed that, because the federal and state governments were not supporting affordable housing, Atlantic Yards "is one of the only ways we're going to be able to make progress," but "only if we insure the community benefits agreement [CBA] is adhered to."
However, the affordable housing depends significantly on city and possibly state housing bonds, both authorized by the federal government. Other elements of the CBA depend on government funding as well.
His statement
COUNCILMAN DE BLASIO: I'm the Councilmember representing, among other neighborhoods, Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, and Cobble Hill, all very close to this site. And I want right up front say I want to express my support for this project.
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO: I am providing written –
(Audience participation.)
COUNCIL MEMBER DE BLASIO: -- I am providing written comments, but I just want to summarize here. I support the project because I believe that we're at a crisis in New York City when it comes to affordable housing.
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO: And I think we're in a crisis when it comes to economic development and providing real jobs for the community. But I also want to stress as much as I believe this project will help move us forward in terms of economic development and especially affordable housing, I also believe very strongly the need for accountability in relationship to the community benefits agreement. I think the community benefits agreement is historic. I think it sets a model that I hope will be followed throughout New York City going forward --
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMAN DE BLASIO: -- but it must be adhered to. And it's the responsibility of all of us and especially as we elected officials, to ensure that it is scrupulously adhered to. As someone who's been involved in the housing field for a long time, I can say that unfortunately the places that we look to historically for affordable housing are not producing it, meaning our Federal and State government and this is one of the only ways we're going to be able to make progress. But, again, only if we insure the community benefits agreement is adhered to.
(Emphasis added.)
Now I also want to note that the crucial elements of the Draft EIS related to the impact on the surrounding community. Although I do see some important acknowledgments on the kind of actions we have to take to protect our neighborhood surrounding this project, we have much, much more that we have to do than what is indicated in the Draft EIS. It only, in my opinion, begins to indicate what we have to do in terms of traffic and congestion and parking, in terms of reducing any negative impact on neighborhoods during the construction process, and obviously in terms of infrastructure, insuring we have schools and water lines and sewer lines and all the basics we need for a large increase in population.
I see in the Draft EIS an outline of what we have to do, but we have to ensure that actions are taken, that government budgets reflect the needs, for example, for new schools to accommodate the kids who will be living in this area, and particularly for increased public transportation, to take full advantage of the transportation hub that exists. And to ensure that congestion is not untenable.
So those are some of the concerns I want to share. I am very, very concerned that we take that Draft EIS as a starting point and that as we move towards any type of implementation of this project, that there be real commitments and firm commitments by government agencies to address the quality of life needs of the surrounding neighborhood. And that is a precondition about just starting to get into any of the specifics of this project.
Given his current more critical posture toward Atlantic Yards, note that Council Member Bill de Blasio declared his support for the project up front. He acknowledged concerns--amplified significantly in recent months, as he ramps up his candidacy for Borough President--about the impacts on quality of life.
I've written about de Blasio's failure to do "due diligence" regarding Atlantic Yards. But I hadn't examined his statement at the hearing, which claimed that, because the federal and state governments were not supporting affordable housing, Atlantic Yards "is one of the only ways we're going to be able to make progress," but "only if we insure the community benefits agreement [CBA] is adhered to."
However, the affordable housing depends significantly on city and possibly state housing bonds, both authorized by the federal government. Other elements of the CBA depend on government funding as well.
His statement
COUNCILMAN DE BLASIO: I'm the Councilmember representing, among other neighborhoods, Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, and Cobble Hill, all very close to this site. And I want right up front say I want to express my support for this project.
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO: I am providing written –
(Audience participation.)
COUNCIL MEMBER DE BLASIO: -- I am providing written comments, but I just want to summarize here. I support the project because I believe that we're at a crisis in New York City when it comes to affordable housing.
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO: And I think we're in a crisis when it comes to economic development and providing real jobs for the community. But I also want to stress as much as I believe this project will help move us forward in terms of economic development and especially affordable housing, I also believe very strongly the need for accountability in relationship to the community benefits agreement. I think the community benefits agreement is historic. I think it sets a model that I hope will be followed throughout New York City going forward --
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMAN DE BLASIO: -- but it must be adhered to. And it's the responsibility of all of us and especially as we elected officials, to ensure that it is scrupulously adhered to. As someone who's been involved in the housing field for a long time, I can say that unfortunately the places that we look to historically for affordable housing are not producing it, meaning our Federal and State government and this is one of the only ways we're going to be able to make progress. But, again, only if we insure the community benefits agreement is adhered to.
(Emphasis added.)
Now I also want to note that the crucial elements of the Draft EIS related to the impact on the surrounding community. Although I do see some important acknowledgments on the kind of actions we have to take to protect our neighborhood surrounding this project, we have much, much more that we have to do than what is indicated in the Draft EIS. It only, in my opinion, begins to indicate what we have to do in terms of traffic and congestion and parking, in terms of reducing any negative impact on neighborhoods during the construction process, and obviously in terms of infrastructure, insuring we have schools and water lines and sewer lines and all the basics we need for a large increase in population.
I see in the Draft EIS an outline of what we have to do, but we have to ensure that actions are taken, that government budgets reflect the needs, for example, for new schools to accommodate the kids who will be living in this area, and particularly for increased public transportation, to take full advantage of the transportation hub that exists. And to ensure that congestion is not untenable.
So those are some of the concerns I want to share. I am very, very concerned that we take that Draft EIS as a starting point and that as we move towards any type of implementation of this project, that there be real commitments and firm commitments by government agencies to address the quality of life needs of the surrounding neighborhood. And that is a precondition about just starting to get into any of the specifics of this project.
From absurdism to farce: the community forums conclude with "What for?"
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
Yesterday I wrote how the August 23 hearing at times resembled an absurdist work by Samuel Beckett. But the end of the September 18 community forum devolved into a moment of pure farce, in which a not very well-informed young woman questioned the premise of the hearing and got back a wearily sardonic rebuttal from an audience member.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: Hi. My name is Tameka Brown. And I represent PPEE [People for Political and Economic Empowerment]. And I'm for the project.
As a single mother -- I am also in the construction business. Just like these men out here that's wanting jobs and low income housing, I also want that too, for me and my daughter to provide a better life for me and her.
On that point, with y'all coming up here and saying all that stuff about the environment and all the rest of the stuff, what for? Why?
MR. TIMOTHY LOGAN, Sierra Club: Because it's an Environmental Impact hearing.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: What for? What for?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Sir, let her finish.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: What for? The environment's already messed up. There's a hole in the atmosphere, what's up? I mean, come on, let's be real.
(Applause.)
Yesterday I wrote how the August 23 hearing at times resembled an absurdist work by Samuel Beckett. But the end of the September 18 community forum devolved into a moment of pure farce, in which a not very well-informed young woman questioned the premise of the hearing and got back a wearily sardonic rebuttal from an audience member.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: Hi. My name is Tameka Brown. And I represent PPEE [People for Political and Economic Empowerment]. And I'm for the project.
As a single mother -- I am also in the construction business. Just like these men out here that's wanting jobs and low income housing, I also want that too, for me and my daughter to provide a better life for me and her.
On that point, with y'all coming up here and saying all that stuff about the environment and all the rest of the stuff, what for? Why?
MR. TIMOTHY LOGAN, Sierra Club: Because it's an Environmental Impact hearing.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: What for? What for?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Sir, let her finish.
MS. TAMEKA BROWN: What for? The environment's already messed up. There's a hole in the atmosphere, what's up? I mean, come on, let's be real.
(Applause.)
To Lew Fidler, AY would replace an "old Buick"
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
He may not have been quite as folksy as State Senator Carl Kruger, but Council Member Lew Fidler gave him a run for his money.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS FIDLER: For those of you who are probably about to boo me, I want to offer you my sympathy, but not my support. You know, I remember when I had to get to get rid of my -- my old Buick, you know, it's a trusty old familiar car. You know, I had it for, you know, longer than I probably should have. And I felt really bad as they drove it off to the junkyard. But you know what, I knew that driving into the future with my beautiful, new union-built car was a whole lot better.
I want to be associated with bringing jobs to Brooklyn; I want to be associated with bringing union jobs to Brooklyn; I want to be associated with bringing housing to Brooklyn...
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMAN FIDLER: -- I want to be associated with bringing affordable housing to Brooklyn. Yes, some people I know it's unfortunate that your ox is going to be [gored] but you know what, the greater good of this borough, the greater good of this City, the greater good of the people looking for homes; the greater good of people looking for jobs, that's what this project serves and that's why I'm here to support it.
He may not have been quite as folksy as State Senator Carl Kruger, but Council Member Lew Fidler gave him a run for his money.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS FIDLER: For those of you who are probably about to boo me, I want to offer you my sympathy, but not my support. You know, I remember when I had to get to get rid of my -- my old Buick, you know, it's a trusty old familiar car. You know, I had it for, you know, longer than I probably should have. And I felt really bad as they drove it off to the junkyard. But you know what, I knew that driving into the future with my beautiful, new union-built car was a whole lot better.
I want to be associated with bringing jobs to Brooklyn; I want to be associated with bringing union jobs to Brooklyn; I want to be associated with bringing housing to Brooklyn...
(Audience participation.)
COUNCILMAN FIDLER: -- I want to be associated with bringing affordable housing to Brooklyn. Yes, some people I know it's unfortunate that your ox is going to be [gored] but you know what, the greater good of this borough, the greater good of this City, the greater good of the people looking for homes; the greater good of people looking for jobs, that's what this project serves and that's why I'm here to support it.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
"I've been here since 2:00": echoes of Beckett at DEIS hearing
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
There are more than a few places where the dialogue, at least as captured on the transcript, has echoes of absurdist playwright Samuel Beckett, notable for lines like “You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on.”
Anonymous voices inside the Klitgord Auditorium lamented that people were not let into the building, that they'd been waiting for hours, and that the public would no longer be allowed to speak at a public hearing.
(Photo of Beckett mural in London by Rachel Scott Halls, reproduced under a Creative Commons license.)
Inside and outside
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. The next speaker is Bob Braun. Is Bob Braun here?
A VOICE: He won't be let into the building. Bob Braun is outside.
THE HEARING OFFICER: In that case, the next speaker is Richard Chernoso (phonetic.) Is Richard Chernoso here?
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Then the next speaker is Paul Heller.
A VOICE: He also has not been allowed in the building.
A VOICE: These people are not being allowed in the building.
A VOICE: There's a thousand people outside waiting to get in.
Endless waiting
[Later in the hearing]
THE HEARING OFFICER: Rhonda Dweck.
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next group of speakers will be: Margaret McNabb; Anthony Knight; K. Gleeson; Ronald Washington; Henry Weinstein; Blaise Sarne; Kate Galassie; Stephen Ebaz; Lilana Aristizabal; William Stanford Jr.; Gaston Dweck; Judith Wright; Genevieve Christy; Cecil Henry; and Simon Sarway.
A VOICE: I've been here since 2:00.
A VOICE: I've been here since 3:00. What's going on?
VOICES: We haven't spoke yet. You're not going in order.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: There are approximately, where I can see, at least 300 people who haven't spoken yet.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Everybody will speak. We'll continue. The next speaker is Margaret Mcnabb.
(No response.)
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Anthony Knight.
(Audience participation.)
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: K. Gleeson.
(No response.)
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ronald Washington.
(No response.)
In conclusion, confusion
THE HEARING OFFICER: It is now 11:30. Thanks to the cooperation and courtesy of everyone here today, over 100 people have been able to speak in a short period of time. I have been advised by ESDC that the June 12th hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: I mean, sorry, September 12th, that at the September 12th hearing, that individuals who were not called will get priority and that there will be a list posted on the ESD website by Friday.
A VOICE: September 12th was promised to be a public meeting, not an official hearing. Are you now stating it's a public hearing?
THE HEARING OFFICER: I am not stating it's a public hearing, it's just an additional forum --
A VOICE: So if it's not a public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sir, sir, sir, please sit down.
A VOICE: Why?
THE HEARING OFFICER: This hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- this hearing is concluded. There is another hearing, an additional hearing scheduled --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sit down. Please sit down.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sit over there. Please sit over there.
A VOICE: I want to know if it's a public hearing.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, please sit over there.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: It is not a public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: If everyone would please be quiet.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, please be quiet It is not a public hearing. I am told it is a community forum. And at that community forum, which I'm told, that the transcript will be made available to ESDC that --
A VOICE: So you're concluding a public hearing tonight and not holding another
one, is that what you're saying?
[Had the additional community forums been considered public hearings, the comment period would have been extended. The issue was part of the lawsuit over the environmental review, which is under appeal; a judge ruled that the community forums, despite their resemblance to the public hearing, were essentially an expansion of the opportunity for written comments.]
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: This hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- this hearing is now closed.
A VOICE: So there will not be another public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: There will not be another --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- public hearing.
A VOICE: When?
THE HEARING OFFICER: There will not be another public hearing.
A VOICE: There will not. So you are not allowing the public to speak at this public hearing.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Again, I am here as an independent hearing officer. And you may make a request from ESDC --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sir, let me talk. I can tell you that the hearing now is closed.
A VOICE: Is there going to be another public hearing?
THE HEARING OFFICER: No. Again, one additional thing, the written comment period is extended to thirty days. I believe it's September 22nd, written comments can be made and will be included as part of the record.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you and good evening.
There are more than a few places where the dialogue, at least as captured on the transcript, has echoes of absurdist playwright Samuel Beckett, notable for lines like “You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on.”Anonymous voices inside the Klitgord Auditorium lamented that people were not let into the building, that they'd been waiting for hours, and that the public would no longer be allowed to speak at a public hearing.
(Photo of Beckett mural in London by Rachel Scott Halls, reproduced under a Creative Commons license.)
Inside and outside
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. The next speaker is Bob Braun. Is Bob Braun here?
A VOICE: He won't be let into the building. Bob Braun is outside.
THE HEARING OFFICER: In that case, the next speaker is Richard Chernoso (phonetic.) Is Richard Chernoso here?
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Then the next speaker is Paul Heller.
A VOICE: He also has not been allowed in the building.
A VOICE: These people are not being allowed in the building.
A VOICE: There's a thousand people outside waiting to get in.
Endless waiting
[Later in the hearing]
THE HEARING OFFICER: Rhonda Dweck.
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next group of speakers will be: Margaret McNabb; Anthony Knight; K. Gleeson; Ronald Washington; Henry Weinstein; Blaise Sarne; Kate Galassie; Stephen Ebaz; Lilana Aristizabal; William Stanford Jr.; Gaston Dweck; Judith Wright; Genevieve Christy; Cecil Henry; and Simon Sarway.
A VOICE: I've been here since 2:00.
A VOICE: I've been here since 3:00. What's going on?
VOICES: We haven't spoke yet. You're not going in order.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: There are approximately, where I can see, at least 300 people who haven't spoken yet.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Everybody will speak. We'll continue. The next speaker is Margaret Mcnabb.
(No response.)
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Anthony Knight.
(Audience participation.)
(No response.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: K. Gleeson.
(No response.)
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ronald Washington.
(No response.)
In conclusion, confusion
THE HEARING OFFICER: It is now 11:30. Thanks to the cooperation and courtesy of everyone here today, over 100 people have been able to speak in a short period of time. I have been advised by ESDC that the June 12th hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: I mean, sorry, September 12th, that at the September 12th hearing, that individuals who were not called will get priority and that there will be a list posted on the ESD website by Friday.
A VOICE: September 12th was promised to be a public meeting, not an official hearing. Are you now stating it's a public hearing?
THE HEARING OFFICER: I am not stating it's a public hearing, it's just an additional forum --
A VOICE: So if it's not a public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sir, sir, sir, please sit down.
A VOICE: Why?
THE HEARING OFFICER: This hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- this hearing is concluded. There is another hearing, an additional hearing scheduled --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sit down. Please sit down.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sit over there. Please sit over there.
A VOICE: I want to know if it's a public hearing.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, please sit over there.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: It is not a public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: If everyone would please be quiet.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, please be quiet It is not a public hearing. I am told it is a community forum. And at that community forum, which I'm told, that the transcript will be made available to ESDC that --
A VOICE: So you're concluding a public hearing tonight and not holding another
one, is that what you're saying?
[Had the additional community forums been considered public hearings, the comment period would have been extended. The issue was part of the lawsuit over the environmental review, which is under appeal; a judge ruled that the community forums, despite their resemblance to the public hearing, were essentially an expansion of the opportunity for written comments.]
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: This hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- this hearing is now closed.
A VOICE: So there will not be another public hearing --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: There will not be another --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- public hearing.
A VOICE: When?
THE HEARING OFFICER: There will not be another public hearing.
A VOICE: There will not. So you are not allowing the public to speak at this public hearing.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Again, I am here as an independent hearing officer. And you may make a request from ESDC --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sir, let me talk. I can tell you that the hearing now is closed.
A VOICE: Is there going to be another public hearing?
THE HEARING OFFICER: No. Again, one additional thing, the written comment period is extended to thirty days. I believe it's September 22nd, written comments can be made and will be included as part of the record.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you and good evening.
Elections = term limits? The disingenuous Marty Markowitz
With Mayor Mike Bloomberg quietly exploring the possibility of having the City Council--not the voters--overturn term limits, term-limited Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, undeclared for mayor and unsure of his next move, has signed on.
The Sun, in an article headlined Markowitz Calls for Ending Term Limits, reported Tuesday:
"New York City has always had term limits: They're called elections," Mr. Markowitz said yesterday in an interview at City Hall, where he held a press conference calling for greater federal funding for the city's senior centers. He added that his support for ending term limits would have a direct impact on his own political future.
"If Brooklynites would have me again, I would love to serve as their borough president," Mr. Markowitz said.
The justification
Markowitz suggested that term limits empower a "faceless, nameless bureaucracy" and, as the Sun reported, second terms are often less effective under the current two-term system, as they must devote much of their time to planning their next campaign rather than governing.
Well, um, shouldn't they be planning their next campaign for their job, as well? And how much of what Markowitz does is governing and how much is promotion?
The rebuttal
City Council Member and BP candidate Charles Barron offered the Sun a rebuttal:
"A lot of people give that old line about term limits, 'It's called Election Day,' but it's almost impossible to get incumbents out," he said in an interview. "There are too many people in office who have really rendered themselves ineffective and need to go. We need new blood and new leadership."
The New York Times, in its initial coverage, neglected to include that obvious rebuttal. A follow-up included criticism from challengers.
The "ultimate job"?
The Times also reported that Markowitz has long said that the job of borough president was one he had always coveted, calling it “the job of a lifetime.”
The Times didn't point out that, as speculation began about a race for Mayor, Markowitz excised from the Borough President's web site the claim that borough president "is the ultimate job" and that he had no interest in becoming mayor.
Term limits the answer?
In a comment on the Times's CityRoom blog, former City Council candidate (and longtime gadfly) George Spitz suggested that term limits don't work all that well:
Changing the New York City Charter to substitute for the present single-member district selection method, a proportional representation system, consisting of the multimember districts, similar to that used by the Democratic Party in choosing presidential delegates might provide a more representative City Council. Substituting a modest filing fee refundable to candidates obtaining 15% of the vote as a replacement for the draconian signature requirements which cause many non-organization candidates to be removed from the ballot could also aid in the creation of a more diversified City Council. Providing equal distribution of campaign finance funding and/or making the Video Voters Guide interactive so voters can question all candidates running in their own constituency should improve citizen awareness as well as offering greater representation for varied viewpoints.
I think the proportional representation system is especially worth consideration, especially given how some City Council districts are irregularly drawn.
The Sun, in an article headlined Markowitz Calls for Ending Term Limits, reported Tuesday:
"New York City has always had term limits: They're called elections," Mr. Markowitz said yesterday in an interview at City Hall, where he held a press conference calling for greater federal funding for the city's senior centers. He added that his support for ending term limits would have a direct impact on his own political future.
"If Brooklynites would have me again, I would love to serve as their borough president," Mr. Markowitz said.
The justification
Markowitz suggested that term limits empower a "faceless, nameless bureaucracy" and, as the Sun reported, second terms are often less effective under the current two-term system, as they must devote much of their time to planning their next campaign rather than governing.
Well, um, shouldn't they be planning their next campaign for their job, as well? And how much of what Markowitz does is governing and how much is promotion?
The rebuttal
City Council Member and BP candidate Charles Barron offered the Sun a rebuttal:
"A lot of people give that old line about term limits, 'It's called Election Day,' but it's almost impossible to get incumbents out," he said in an interview. "There are too many people in office who have really rendered themselves ineffective and need to go. We need new blood and new leadership."
The New York Times, in its initial coverage, neglected to include that obvious rebuttal. A follow-up included criticism from challengers.
The "ultimate job"?
The Times also reported that Markowitz has long said that the job of borough president was one he had always coveted, calling it “the job of a lifetime.”
The Times didn't point out that, as speculation began about a race for Mayor, Markowitz excised from the Borough President's web site the claim that borough president "is the ultimate job" and that he had no interest in becoming mayor.
Term limits the answer?
In a comment on the Times's CityRoom blog, former City Council candidate (and longtime gadfly) George Spitz suggested that term limits don't work all that well:
Changing the New York City Charter to substitute for the present single-member district selection method, a proportional representation system, consisting of the multimember districts, similar to that used by the Democratic Party in choosing presidential delegates might provide a more representative City Council. Substituting a modest filing fee refundable to candidates obtaining 15% of the vote as a replacement for the draconian signature requirements which cause many non-organization candidates to be removed from the ballot could also aid in the creation of a more diversified City Council. Providing equal distribution of campaign finance funding and/or making the Video Voters Guide interactive so voters can question all candidates running in their own constituency should improve citizen awareness as well as offering greater representation for varied viewpoints.
I think the proportional representation system is especially worth consideration, especially given how some City Council districts are irregularly drawn.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
At the DEIS hearing, invocations of Brooklyn street cred
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
From Assemblyman Roger Green to various community members, supporters of the Atlantic Yards project stressed their connections to Brooklyn, which might have led a casual observer to conclude that supporters were the "real Brooklyn." Even the one union guy who spoke that night, Dan Jederlinic, was a Brooklyn resident, though many if not most of the union representatives at the hearing were from out of the borough or even the city.
Perhaps because they were focused on actually responding to the DEIS within their precious three minutes, or perhaps because some were relative newcomers, project opponents initially didn't try to match the Brooklyn rhetoric. Though that ultimately changed, it's not what made the news.
Born in Brooklyn
Green came out swinging.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I want to start by saying for some of you that I was born in Brooklyn --
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: -- okay. I was raised in Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I grew up in Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I walked these streets before some people got here.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: And in walking these streets, like the Reverend Camara said, say some of you have not been in the Fort Greene Housing Project with the unemployment rate....
Anomalous opponent
The first project opponent who spoke was, anomalously, from outside Brooklyn, the Westchester village of Pleasantville, and that story line made the news.
MR. TAL BARZILAI: Yeah. I'm a resident of Pleasantville, New York. And I know I don't really live in this borough, but my statements are just as important here.
The response
Barzilai's hometown was not ignored by a streetwise fellow named Umar Jordan, who represents a group, My Brother's Keepers, about whom I could find no information, and who otherwise has not been part of the Atlantic Yards debate. (A Lexis-Nexis search turns up a 4/21/04 New York Beacon article about Jordan attending a summit on youth violence in East New York.)
Jordan somehow suggested that Atlantic Yards opponents unfamiliar with the 'hood in Brooklyn were inauthentic, though, as I pointed out, his descriptions almost certainly applied to many potential AY residents.
MR. UMAR JORDAN: [Where] Brooklyn at? My name is Umar Jordan and I represent My [Brother's] Keepers. I heard a lot of people come up to this microphone saying that they're from Brooklyn and they've been in Brooklyn. I'm here to speak for the underprivileged, the people that don't get the opportunity to work. The brothers that just came over out of prison, yeah, you know, wants to get a job too.
MR. UMAR JORDAN: And for -- and for the people that are going to, people that say they represent our community, this is Brooklyn. If you never been in the Marcy projects, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you haven't been to Betsy Head pool, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you never been in the Marcy Projects, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you haven't to Brownsville or East New York, Flatbush, you not from Brooklyn --
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: -- you just visiting. I'm speaking about the people that really never been to Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
...And this is for people that are unpleased with the behavior of Brooklyn. Well, I suggest you go back up to Pleasantville or wherever it is --
(Audience participation.)
More local cred
A Community Board 8 member had his say.
MR. MEREDITH STATON: It's pronounced Staton, S-T-A-T-O-N. Good evening, folks. I'm a member of this community and the community board, as well as member of Crown Heights. I've been living in this community for forty years.
MR. MEREDITH STATON: I'm not a newcomer here, I've been here for years and years. A lot of people claim where they came from. They come from Brooklyn, from Manhattan –
(Audience participation.)
Some response
Some critics began to cite their Brooklyn cred.
MR. MICHAEL UTEVSKY: My Name is Michael Utevsky. I live in Fort Greene. I've lived in Brooklyn for 30 years. I'm a Board Member of the Fort Greene Park Conservancy, and I am speaking on its behalf tonight.
MS. ASTRID LEGROV-SOLOMON: Having lived in this area since the 1960s I have witnessed the rebirth of what once -- were once elegant streets that had been left for decay. House by house and block by block people invest with their money and sweat to bring back this brownstone area. Now tourists come on buses and go on walking tours to get a glimpse of what 19th and early 20th century streets look like. Other cities cherish their old neighborhoods. The world knows Manhattan as the borough of skyscrapers. Brooklyn is the borough of neighborhoods.
MS. PATTI HAGAN: My name is Patti Hagan from 117 St. Marks Avenue. I am founding member of Prospect Heights Action Coalition - the little group that declared war on Ratner's expansionist Brooklyn empire in July 2003.
I'm here as an expert on ordinary life in Brooklyn. Over two decades I have watched developer Ratner relentlessly push his way into Brooklyn - along imaginary paths of blight. That's how fortress MetroTech rose up over the thriving artists and small business community on Bridge, Lawrence and Duffield Streets and killed it.
Bridging the divide
Given the race/class divide evident at the hearing, some of the more powerful invocations of Brooklyn cred came from black residents who questioned or opposed the project.
Captured partially in Brooklyn Matters was the statement by SHIRLEY MCRAE, the Chairperson of Brooklyn Community Board #2: ...Bypassing ULURP means that no local official will have a vote for the development of this project. Now listen, you have to agree on one thing, whether you are for this project or whether you are against this project, the community needs enough time to review these massive documents.
(Audience participation.)
MS. SHIRLEY MCRAE: The amount of time provided by the -- if the community that we all live in and serve, and don't even talk about Brooklyn because I've been here in Brooklyn among six decades.
(Audience participation.)
Later came a voice from the projects.
MR. ED CARTER: My name is Ed Carter. And I'm known as the living legend of Fort Greene... I'm the President and Chairman of the Relocation and Modernization Committee of Fort Greene Projects...
We have over 200 vacant apartments at the Ingersoll site. I served on Community Planning Board #2 for forty years... I've been here, I've been in the struggle. I heard so many people sitting tonight and talking, Reverend Daughtry, for example, I've been in this struggle five or ten years before he get out. I seen [a] lot of the people get bought out. And have no doubt, the truth will set you free.
Late in the evening, a man with a Caribbean accent offered perhaps the angriest response to the project.
MR. LLOYD HEZEKIAH: My name is Lloyd Hezekiah. For over 35 years I have owned a home in historic Fort Greene and contributed actively in its in development. Yet, so called gentrification began there more than 35 years ago. The current plans for Atlantic Yards should be dumped in the Atlantic Ocean...
More back and forth
MS. PAT BOONE: Good evening. My name is Pat Boone. I am a President of New York ACORN.
(Audience participation.)
MS. PAT BOONE: While I represent the entire state of membership all over the state, I also represent over 3,800 City Dwellers, the majority of which live right here in Brooklyn. I was born, bred and have lived life-long in Brooklyn. In fact, I was born right here on Bergen Street between 3rd and 4th Avenue. My church is on Bergen Street between 3rd and Nevins. So I am very, very interested as to what goes on in this neighborhood. And as reflective of my membership and all of my family members and residents from this neighborhood, I believe that this project is beneficial for every single Brooklynite there is all over.
Later, a pugnacious response from another CB8 member.
MR. ROBERT PUCA: My name is Robert Puca. I live on Dean Street. I live in the Newswalk Building, the Newswalk Condo which is adjacent to the Rail Yards so --
(Audience participation.)
MR. ROBERT PUCA: Do me a favor, let me speak. You'll get your chance to speak. If anyone would feel the impacts of this proposed project, it would be the Newswalk Building. I'm a member of Community Board #8. I was born in the -- it was called -- it used to be called the Jewish Hospital. It was on Classon Avenue. That's where I was born. I've been a full time -- just so everybody knows, I've been living in Brooklyn for 43 years. I was born on Classon Avenue.
Becoming a ritual
As the evening continued, more project opponents began to ritually cite their history in Brooklyn.
MS. AUDREY DOYLE: Good evening. My name is Audrey Doyle. I have lived -- I have lived in Fort Greene for about thirty years.
MR. PETER VITAKIS: My name is Peter Vitakis. And I have been a resident of Fort Greene and the surrounding neighborhood for forty years.
Questioning authenticity
Later in the evening, Scott Turner of Fans for Fair Play tossed an autographed basketball to the crowd, then confessed the autographs from Nets players were fake, a prelude to a challenge to the calls for authenticity.
MR. SCOTT TURNER: ...I'm just going to say one thing, for people who are preaching independence, and I support independence on all levels, for people preaching independence, you sure are depending on rich, white folks to buy luxury condos to make their affordable housing. And the people who talk about community, and I wish the DEIS --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Time is up.
MR. SCOTT TURNER: -- would have done a study on what it means to be a Brooklynite. You are depending on a heirloom from Cleveland, a rich, white guy and you're calling him a savior. That's not independence, that's not independence.
Nearly a month later
Brooklyn cred was invoked at the two follow-up community forums. One forceful response, at the September 18 community forum, came from a Brooklyn resident named Bill Gillen:
MR. WILLIAM GILLEN: I live at 193 State Street in Downtown Brooklyn. My familiarity with Brooklyn goes back to 1947. My father worked at The Daily News plant on Pacific Street. Many of you now know that as condo development. We moved from the Bronx to Crown Heights where I attended and graduated from St. Gregory's Elementary School on St. Johns Place at Brooklyn Avenue.
Like Reverend Daughtry, who spoke here in August, I, too, hold Brooklyn dear. All my children are still here in Brooklyn. I have three grandchildren living here and many, many friends and associations. After my years in college and the Army, I returned to Brooklyn in '69. Since then I have lived in Fort Greene, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights so I believe I know something about this part of Brooklyn.
And what I know is that this project is wrong. It's wrong for our communities, it's wrong for Brooklyn, it's wrong for New York City and it's wrong for New York State.
But he didn't get to speak early that first night.
From Assemblyman Roger Green to various community members, supporters of the Atlantic Yards project stressed their connections to Brooklyn, which might have led a casual observer to conclude that supporters were the "real Brooklyn." Even the one union guy who spoke that night, Dan Jederlinic, was a Brooklyn resident, though many if not most of the union representatives at the hearing were from out of the borough or even the city.
Perhaps because they were focused on actually responding to the DEIS within their precious three minutes, or perhaps because some were relative newcomers, project opponents initially didn't try to match the Brooklyn rhetoric. Though that ultimately changed, it's not what made the news.
Born in Brooklyn
Green came out swinging.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I want to start by saying for some of you that I was born in Brooklyn --
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: -- okay. I was raised in Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I grew up in Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: I walked these streets before some people got here.
(Audience participation.)
ASSEMBLYMAN GREEN: And in walking these streets, like the Reverend Camara said, say some of you have not been in the Fort Greene Housing Project with the unemployment rate....
Anomalous opponent
The first project opponent who spoke was, anomalously, from outside Brooklyn, the Westchester village of Pleasantville, and that story line made the news.
MR. TAL BARZILAI: Yeah. I'm a resident of Pleasantville, New York. And I know I don't really live in this borough, but my statements are just as important here.
The response
Barzilai's hometown was not ignored by a streetwise fellow named Umar Jordan, who represents a group, My Brother's Keepers, about whom I could find no information, and who otherwise has not been part of the Atlantic Yards debate. (A Lexis-Nexis search turns up a 4/21/04 New York Beacon article about Jordan attending a summit on youth violence in East New York.)
Jordan somehow suggested that Atlantic Yards opponents unfamiliar with the 'hood in Brooklyn were inauthentic, though, as I pointed out, his descriptions almost certainly applied to many potential AY residents.
MR. UMAR JORDAN: [Where] Brooklyn at? My name is Umar Jordan and I represent My [Brother's] Keepers. I heard a lot of people come up to this microphone saying that they're from Brooklyn and they've been in Brooklyn. I'm here to speak for the underprivileged, the people that don't get the opportunity to work. The brothers that just came over out of prison, yeah, you know, wants to get a job too.
MR. UMAR JORDAN: And for -- and for the people that are going to, people that say they represent our community, this is Brooklyn. If you never been in the Marcy projects, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you haven't been to Betsy Head pool, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you never been in the Marcy Projects, you ain't from Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: If you haven't to Brownsville or East New York, Flatbush, you not from Brooklyn --
(Audience participation.)
MR. UMAR JORDAN: -- you just visiting. I'm speaking about the people that really never been to Brooklyn.
(Audience participation.)
...And this is for people that are unpleased with the behavior of Brooklyn. Well, I suggest you go back up to Pleasantville or wherever it is --
(Audience participation.)
More local cred
A Community Board 8 member had his say.
MR. MEREDITH STATON: It's pronounced Staton, S-T-A-T-O-N. Good evening, folks. I'm a member of this community and the community board, as well as member of Crown Heights. I've been living in this community for forty years.
MR. MEREDITH STATON: I'm not a newcomer here, I've been here for years and years. A lot of people claim where they came from. They come from Brooklyn, from Manhattan –
(Audience participation.)
Some response
Some critics began to cite their Brooklyn cred.
MR. MICHAEL UTEVSKY: My Name is Michael Utevsky. I live in Fort Greene. I've lived in Brooklyn for 30 years. I'm a Board Member of the Fort Greene Park Conservancy, and I am speaking on its behalf tonight.
MS. ASTRID LEGROV-SOLOMON: Having lived in this area since the 1960s I have witnessed the rebirth of what once -- were once elegant streets that had been left for decay. House by house and block by block people invest with their money and sweat to bring back this brownstone area. Now tourists come on buses and go on walking tours to get a glimpse of what 19th and early 20th century streets look like. Other cities cherish their old neighborhoods. The world knows Manhattan as the borough of skyscrapers. Brooklyn is the borough of neighborhoods.
MS. PATTI HAGAN: My name is Patti Hagan from 117 St. Marks Avenue. I am founding member of Prospect Heights Action Coalition - the little group that declared war on Ratner's expansionist Brooklyn empire in July 2003.
I'm here as an expert on ordinary life in Brooklyn. Over two decades I have watched developer Ratner relentlessly push his way into Brooklyn - along imaginary paths of blight. That's how fortress MetroTech rose up over the thriving artists and small business community on Bridge, Lawrence and Duffield Streets and killed it.
Bridging the divide
Given the race/class divide evident at the hearing, some of the more powerful invocations of Brooklyn cred came from black residents who questioned or opposed the project.
Captured partially in Brooklyn Matters was the statement by SHIRLEY MCRAE, the Chairperson of Brooklyn Community Board #2: ...Bypassing ULURP means that no local official will have a vote for the development of this project. Now listen, you have to agree on one thing, whether you are for this project or whether you are against this project, the community needs enough time to review these massive documents.
(Audience participation.)
MS. SHIRLEY MCRAE: The amount of time provided by the -- if the community that we all live in and serve, and don't even talk about Brooklyn because I've been here in Brooklyn among six decades.
(Audience participation.)
Later came a voice from the projects.
MR. ED CARTER: My name is Ed Carter. And I'm known as the living legend of Fort Greene... I'm the President and Chairman of the Relocation and Modernization Committee of Fort Greene Projects...
We have over 200 vacant apartments at the Ingersoll site. I served on Community Planning Board #2 for forty years... I've been here, I've been in the struggle. I heard so many people sitting tonight and talking, Reverend Daughtry, for example, I've been in this struggle five or ten years before he get out. I seen [a] lot of the people get bought out. And have no doubt, the truth will set you free.
Late in the evening, a man with a Caribbean accent offered perhaps the angriest response to the project.
MR. LLOYD HEZEKIAH: My name is Lloyd Hezekiah. For over 35 years I have owned a home in historic Fort Greene and contributed actively in its in development. Yet, so called gentrification began there more than 35 years ago. The current plans for Atlantic Yards should be dumped in the Atlantic Ocean...
More back and forth
MS. PAT BOONE: Good evening. My name is Pat Boone. I am a President of New York ACORN.
(Audience participation.)
MS. PAT BOONE: While I represent the entire state of membership all over the state, I also represent over 3,800 City Dwellers, the majority of which live right here in Brooklyn. I was born, bred and have lived life-long in Brooklyn. In fact, I was born right here on Bergen Street between 3rd and 4th Avenue. My church is on Bergen Street between 3rd and Nevins. So I am very, very interested as to what goes on in this neighborhood. And as reflective of my membership and all of my family members and residents from this neighborhood, I believe that this project is beneficial for every single Brooklynite there is all over.
Later, a pugnacious response from another CB8 member.
MR. ROBERT PUCA: My name is Robert Puca. I live on Dean Street. I live in the Newswalk Building, the Newswalk Condo which is adjacent to the Rail Yards so --
(Audience participation.)
MR. ROBERT PUCA: Do me a favor, let me speak. You'll get your chance to speak. If anyone would feel the impacts of this proposed project, it would be the Newswalk Building. I'm a member of Community Board #8. I was born in the -- it was called -- it used to be called the Jewish Hospital. It was on Classon Avenue. That's where I was born. I've been a full time -- just so everybody knows, I've been living in Brooklyn for 43 years. I was born on Classon Avenue.
Becoming a ritual
As the evening continued, more project opponents began to ritually cite their history in Brooklyn.
MS. AUDREY DOYLE: Good evening. My name is Audrey Doyle. I have lived -- I have lived in Fort Greene for about thirty years.
MR. PETER VITAKIS: My name is Peter Vitakis. And I have been a resident of Fort Greene and the surrounding neighborhood for forty years.
Questioning authenticity
Later in the evening, Scott Turner of Fans for Fair Play tossed an autographed basketball to the crowd, then confessed the autographs from Nets players were fake, a prelude to a challenge to the calls for authenticity.
MR. SCOTT TURNER: ...I'm just going to say one thing, for people who are preaching independence, and I support independence on all levels, for people preaching independence, you sure are depending on rich, white folks to buy luxury condos to make their affordable housing. And the people who talk about community, and I wish the DEIS --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Time is up.
MR. SCOTT TURNER: -- would have done a study on what it means to be a Brooklynite. You are depending on a heirloom from Cleveland, a rich, white guy and you're calling him a savior. That's not independence, that's not independence.
Nearly a month later
Brooklyn cred was invoked at the two follow-up community forums. One forceful response, at the September 18 community forum, came from a Brooklyn resident named Bill Gillen:
MR. WILLIAM GILLEN: I live at 193 State Street in Downtown Brooklyn. My familiarity with Brooklyn goes back to 1947. My father worked at The Daily News plant on Pacific Street. Many of you now know that as condo development. We moved from the Bronx to Crown Heights where I attended and graduated from St. Gregory's Elementary School on St. Johns Place at Brooklyn Avenue.
Like Reverend Daughtry, who spoke here in August, I, too, hold Brooklyn dear. All my children are still here in Brooklyn. I have three grandchildren living here and many, many friends and associations. After my years in college and the Army, I returned to Brooklyn in '69. Since then I have lived in Fort Greene, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights so I believe I know something about this part of Brooklyn.
And what I know is that this project is wrong. It's wrong for our communities, it's wrong for Brooklyn, it's wrong for New York City and it's wrong for New York State.
But he didn't get to speak early that first night.
"We talk about people and we talk about children": Carl Kruger's "Brooklyn" aria
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
As I write today, a lot of people at the hearing invoked Brooklyn. However, no one did it quite like Carl Kruger, who conjured up an aria of Brooklyn buzzwords: communities, children, neighborhoods, jobs, and housing.
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: My name is Carl Kruger. I'm the State Senator representing the Southern Tier of Brooklyn and I think that tonight "Brooklyn" is the operative word. We're not talking about the Nets Arena. We're not talking about Forest City Ratner. We're talking about Brooklyn, we're talking about communities, we're talking about Brooklyn first. And what better setting for us to talk about Brooklyn than to talk about job creation; to talk about union jobs --
(Audience participation.)
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: -- building a union project; What better way can we talk about Brooklyn than talking about affordable housing; What better way can we talk about Brooklyn than bringing an arena and a first-class team it the doorstep of what is truly the capital of the world, our borough, Brooklyn;
(Audience participation.)
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: How better tonight can we talk about Brooklyn than to talk about development. When we talk about development, we talk about neighborhoods; We talk about sustaining the old while we build on the new; We talk about creating communities where communities existed; We talk about change; and We talk about growth; We talk about a borough and we talk about a city; We talk about people and we talk about children; We talk about what it means to each and every one of us and what we hold near and dear. So today, as this Commission deliberates the very process for which this hearing is taking place, it must look at the Atlantic Yards project in the vacuum of what it really is, it's putting Brooklyn first --
(Audience participation.)
-- and jobs and housing and communities and neighborhoods and children.
As I write today, a lot of people at the hearing invoked Brooklyn. However, no one did it quite like Carl Kruger, who conjured up an aria of Brooklyn buzzwords: communities, children, neighborhoods, jobs, and housing.
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: My name is Carl Kruger. I'm the State Senator representing the Southern Tier of Brooklyn and I think that tonight "Brooklyn" is the operative word. We're not talking about the Nets Arena. We're not talking about Forest City Ratner. We're talking about Brooklyn, we're talking about communities, we're talking about Brooklyn first. And what better setting for us to talk about Brooklyn than to talk about job creation; to talk about union jobs --
(Audience participation.)
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: -- building a union project; What better way can we talk about Brooklyn than talking about affordable housing; What better way can we talk about Brooklyn than bringing an arena and a first-class team it the doorstep of what is truly the capital of the world, our borough, Brooklyn;
(Audience participation.)
SENATOR CARL KRUGER: How better tonight can we talk about Brooklyn than to talk about development. When we talk about development, we talk about neighborhoods; We talk about sustaining the old while we build on the new; We talk about creating communities where communities existed; We talk about change; and We talk about growth; We talk about a borough and we talk about a city; We talk about people and we talk about children; We talk about what it means to each and every one of us and what we hold near and dear. So today, as this Commission deliberates the very process for which this hearing is taking place, it must look at the Atlantic Yards project in the vacuum of what it really is, it's putting Brooklyn first --
(Audience participation.)
-- and jobs and housing and communities and neighborhoods and children.
As new stadiums spring up, grumbling over ticket prices (but is that the real issue?)
There's been some vigorous discussion on the New York Times web site in response to yesterday's front page article, headlined New Stadiums: Prices, and Outrage Escalate, about how four new stadiums coming online in the next few years have raised ticket prices and also added revenue-raising elements like personal seat licenses--both of which are likely for the Atlantic Yards arena, which goes unmentioned in the article.
The article is sympathetic to the elite of sports fans who have season tickets, while some online commenters suggest that fans should be paying for new stadiums. Others point out that the stadiums receive public financing and tax breaks, and that "professional sports leagues are government sanctioned cartels" with competition limited. Moreover, season tickets are often a tax deduction.
And what about the Nets? As I wrote last year: "Thanks significantly to 170 new high-priced suites, the “blended average ticket price” for Nets games would go up dramatically, 73% for regular-season games and 64% for playoff games, upon the team's move." The number of suites has been reduced to 130, but you can bet the average ticket price would skyrocket.
The article is sympathetic to the elite of sports fans who have season tickets, while some online commenters suggest that fans should be paying for new stadiums. Others point out that the stadiums receive public financing and tax breaks, and that "professional sports leagues are government sanctioned cartels" with competition limited. Moreover, season tickets are often a tax deduction.
And what about the Nets? As I wrote last year: "Thanks significantly to 170 new high-priced suites, the “blended average ticket price” for Nets games would go up dramatically, 73% for regular-season games and 64% for playoff games, upon the team's move." The number of suites has been reduced to 130, but you can bet the average ticket price would skyrocket.
Onward with Team Golden? AY supporter caught in self dealing
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
State Senator Marty Golden, who had his own heckler at the hearing, mainly stuck to Forest City Ratner talking points. His closing, however, showed a bit more rhetoric:
Onward with Team Nets; Onward with Team Ratner; Onward with the team of the City and this great Borough of Brooklyn for their future.
Team Golden
But the Senator seems most concerned with Team Golden, as Tom Robbins of the Village Voice explains in an article today headlined GOP Star Marty Golden Doles Out Big Bucks to his Family Catering Hall:
What makes it even more noteworthy is that every time Golden's campaign writes a check to the company [that owns Bay Ridge Manor], it goes into very friendly hands. Although he sold the establishment a couple of years after he entered the senate, Golden didn't have to hunt for a buyer: His brother bought it. Also, according to Golden's disclosure report with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, his wife Colleen serves as the catering hall's business administrator. And the Bay Ridge Manor's landlord? That would be Golden himself, who lists full ownership of the three-story red-brick building with the green-colored awnings on his filings.
That makes three separate income streams that the senator gets from the Manor, according to his filings: rent, his wife's salary, and continuing payments from the 2004 sale.
State Senator Marty Golden, who had his own heckler at the hearing, mainly stuck to Forest City Ratner talking points. His closing, however, showed a bit more rhetoric:
Onward with Team Nets; Onward with Team Ratner; Onward with the team of the City and this great Borough of Brooklyn for their future.
Team Golden
But the Senator seems most concerned with Team Golden, as Tom Robbins of the Village Voice explains in an article today headlined GOP Star Marty Golden Doles Out Big Bucks to his Family Catering Hall:
What makes it even more noteworthy is that every time Golden's campaign writes a check to the company [that owns Bay Ridge Manor], it goes into very friendly hands. Although he sold the establishment a couple of years after he entered the senate, Golden didn't have to hunt for a buyer: His brother bought it. Also, according to Golden's disclosure report with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, his wife Colleen serves as the catering hall's business administrator. And the Bay Ridge Manor's landlord? That would be Golden himself, who lists full ownership of the three-story red-brick building with the green-colored awnings on his filings.
That makes three separate income streams that the senator gets from the Manor, according to his filings: rent, his wife's salary, and continuing payments from the 2004 sale.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Three minutes? Transcript shows how DEIS hearing quickly went off track
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
More than 250 people signed up to speak at the hearing, which, if speakers had been kept to the three-minute limit, would've meant 750 minutes (12.5 hours) in speaking time alone. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
Hearing Officer Edward Kramer's unwillingness to keep some of the first 13 speakers, all elected officials, to three minutes, coupled with his incapacity to keep the crowd under control, made for a chaotic hearing. And while an ESDC spokeswoman insisted afterward that "ESDC followed our practices and policies regarding hearings. We intend to conduct the forums similarly," in the follow-up community forums, Kramer enforced the time limit by having the microphone turned off.
After the elected officials spoke, neither Debra Dawkins of the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Association (DBNA) nor Nets fan Tal Barzilai required Kramer to warn them to conclude on time.
Then things began to unravel, mainly due to the insistence by certain Atlantic Yards supporters that they had to be heard.
Nine requests to conclude
The first speaker who notably flummoxed Kramer was Karen Smith Daughtry, wife of the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, founder of the DBNA and signatory of the Community Benefits Agreement. (By the way, their daughter Leah Daughtry is CEO of the ongoing Democratic National Convention.)
The transcript of Karen Daughtry's remarks, reproduced in part, shows that, after warning Daughtry she had 20 seconds to conclude, Kramer asked nine times for her to finish. (Note that the term "Audience participation" encompasses a lot and that the transcription is inexact.)
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: My name is Dr. Karen Smith Daughtry. And I am a member of the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance otherwise known as DBNA, and a proud member of the House of Lord Pentecostal Church.
... I am particularly excited about DBNA's part in the Atlantic Yards project as it relates to the community, amenities and facilities' portion of the CBA where there will be a health and wellness pavilion, and offers of arena-related affairs an initiatives; parks and open space, a museum and library.
The educator that I am and having more than 35 years of experience working with youth, children and seniors, the possibilities of what an intergenerational initiative will bring for our youth, our seniors and our young people, bringing them together in this dismal time in our history as a nation, is one of the lights of hope on the horizon. As we stand here today at the Klitgord Auditorium --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- one of our alma maters of days of yours [probably 'yore'], the future of our youth is in jeopardy. On September the 8th, this year, 5,000 children will lose their after school care to a system which is not fully developed. The Day Care Direct Lease Program will be closed because the City is not renewing the direct leases which we've had the benefit for the past twenty years.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please conclude --
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: Classes in already -- in already existing programs for young children are losing slots. The children now will get into trouble if they travel eighteen blocks unattended to go to an unsupervised program that has been set up to the demise of our community.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: The families that will lose their --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up. You have several pages, if you could let the next speaker --
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: No, well, I just got one or two more things to say as others have spoken longer than me.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You have ten seconds, ma'am and your time is up.
(Audience participation.)
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: I choose -- I choose to be remembered with those who plan for tomorrow. And I therefore, support the concept of providing support for our children in the dawn of life, for our youth in the prime of summer of their lives and our seniors in the autumn and the winter of their lives. I believe that one of the ways this can be actualized is through --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- is through DBNA --
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker, please.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- community amenities and facilities --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- and the position in the CBA. I, again, repeat the words of Malcom X --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- so the power belong to those who plan for it today and I choose to plan for it tomorrow --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- by being in support of this project today.
(Audience participation.)
Nearly six minutes
Only a bit later in the hearing, her husband, the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, spoke for 5:45, albeit with interruptions.
I can't do justice in describing Daughtry's passionate, combative, and triumphant sermon, in front of many cheering followers and some jeering project opponents.
However, the partial transcript suggests that Kramer just gave up trying to enforce the time limit, as he stopped requesting that the speaker to conclude.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: ...Let me speak -- let me speak more specifically to the area that we are engaged. You heard my beautiful wife of 44 years. My children are here. They were born here in Brooklyn. I came to Brooklyn 65 years ago. I'm 75. Most of my years were spent in Brooklyn.
We support this project because --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- it will provide an intergenerational center. And guess what, guess what, we have participated in the design of the complex. It will provide a health facility in a community that is starved for health facilities. It will provide a place for our young, a place for the seniors, a place for the youth to come together in an atrium designed by us.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: We support the project --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- and I ask the question --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- I ask the question, I ask the question, listen, I ask the question, why are we holding against Forest City Ratner when all around Brooklyn development is going on with non-union work --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Build in Brooklyn first. On with development of this
project --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can everybody please sit down. Can everybody please sit down. Reverend, if [you] could conclude your remarks, please. Thank you.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: (Indicating.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: If you can please conclude your remarks. Thank you.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: And let me conclude -- I thank you for allowing me time. Thank you for your support. I'm only trying to say I appreciate even the opposition. Perhaps if I were you I'd argue the same way. I don't think so, but I'm concerned about the community and I've always been.
But listen, Forest City Ratner isn't even the largest development plan in Brooklyn. Downtown Brooklyn plan, why don't you protest against that?
[Well, some people did protest it, but the difference is that the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning was approved by the City Council, while Atlantic Yards, given the state override of zoning, is essentially a private rezoning.]
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: That bank -- listen, listen. That bank that you hold sacred, the Williamsburg Bank, guess what, the developer said ain't going to be no affordable housing. That's what they said. Protest against that.
[Indeed, the condo conversion is as of right and need not include affordable housing--and there are tax breaks to boot, a sign that the city and state moved too slowly in reforming the 421-a tax break. But developer Forest City Ratner promised from the start that the bank's iconic clock would not be blocked.]
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Why don't you cry over that?
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: And so I conclude. Thank you for the time. I conclude. Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish. The Chairman has been kind. Just let me finish. I'll conclude this way. I'm an old man now. I've walked these valleys all over the world, --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- from Belfast to Bangkok to Baton Rouge. I have fought for justice --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- and rights for everybody. And now finally in my neighborhood, a few blocks from my church is an urban development --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- is coming on and I don't even have to take a cab or a plane, I can walk there. I say forward with the Atlantic Yards project.
(Audience participation.)
Another example
Later in the hearing, a representative of BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development) was intent on describing the Community Benefits Agreement and went way over time.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: ...There you will also find the School Based Workforce Development Program for youth in our school from grades five through 12; You also find the Church-based Employment Training & Educational Attainment Services Program for underemployed and unemployed adults out of school ages 16 to 25. You find for the highly educated brothers of which they doubt like myself, the Brooklyn Scholarship and Fellowship program for young black brothers and sisters between the ages --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
MR. DE SHAUN TAYLOR: -- of 18 and 23.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: How much time I have left? Okay. And to wrap it up, let me give you my best twenty seconds on my final point. We have brought a $4.2 billion project to Brooklyn, New York. Let's understand that very clearly. What I am suggesting and my recommendation to the CBA and to the fine Speaker here, is that along with this $4.2 billion project we need to have a program called the Free Enterprise Institute of Education that focuses on entrepreneurial sciences and focuses on business development, okay --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: No, no, hold on now. We need to teach our people, we need to teach our people collectively in Brooklyn, New York, what does is mean to create a $4.2 billion project. What does it mean to --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sum up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- have economic analysis -- Hold on one second.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: What does it mean -- what does it mean to have economic analysis in our community to project the next profit gain. And for all the people who are against -- no.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Taylor, your time is up. Your time is up.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- I ask you for a little more time.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you for your comment. You can submit your comments. Sir, your time is up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: All right. I can deal with that. But let me tell you --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- on our time of political uncertainty --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: In our time of political uncertainty we --
THE HEARING OFFICER: This gentleman, please come to the microphone. Thank you.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Okay. You want me to go public with that statement?
THE HEARING OFFICER: You can do whatever you want, sir.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Okay. In our time --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Time is up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- of political uncertainty -- on our time --
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker --
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- in our time of war, what we need is balanced -- balanced politics. We need --
A moment of levity
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker is Eric McClure.
(Audience participation.)
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: Do I have three allotted minutes or three of his minutes?
THE HEARING OFFICER: Hopefully three of my minutes.
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: My name is Eric McClure and I am here this evening as Atlantic Yards Campaign Coordinator for Park Slope Neighbors....
I was going to start with a critique of the ESDC, but since its actions have shown that it obviously just doesn't give a damn, I won't waste my breath.
(Audience participation.)
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: Suffice it to say the ESDC is a walking advertisement for Public Authorities reform.
Later on
Apparently even more people signed up to speak, since at about 8 pm, Kramer made the following announcement.
THE HEARING OFFICER: We have been here a little over four hours straight now. We still have registered speakers. However, in view of full disclosure, we still have, on my estimate, it's about 250 to 300 more registered speakers.
The essential complaint
More people might have spoken had the time limits been adhered to. And the evidence generally supports the complaint made by JoAnne Simon, district leader for the 52nd Assembly District, who wrote to the ESDC:
While generally respectful of witnesses [hearing officer Edward] Kramer had a heavy hand on the time clock for those who were testifying about environmental impacts, allowing project supporters to preach and scold well beyond the 3-minute limit... Had such testimony been remotely on topic, I might be less offended, although it still would have been unfair.
He didn't have a hand on any time clock, as far as I can tell. While some project opponents offered their share of jeers and unseemly behavior, those who testified were more respectful of time limits.
More than 250 people signed up to speak at the hearing, which, if speakers had been kept to the three-minute limit, would've meant 750 minutes (12.5 hours) in speaking time alone. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
Hearing Officer Edward Kramer's unwillingness to keep some of the first 13 speakers, all elected officials, to three minutes, coupled with his incapacity to keep the crowd under control, made for a chaotic hearing. And while an ESDC spokeswoman insisted afterward that "ESDC followed our practices and policies regarding hearings. We intend to conduct the forums similarly," in the follow-up community forums, Kramer enforced the time limit by having the microphone turned off.
After the elected officials spoke, neither Debra Dawkins of the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Association (DBNA) nor Nets fan Tal Barzilai required Kramer to warn them to conclude on time.
Then things began to unravel, mainly due to the insistence by certain Atlantic Yards supporters that they had to be heard.
Nine requests to conclude
The first speaker who notably flummoxed Kramer was Karen Smith Daughtry, wife of the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, founder of the DBNA and signatory of the Community Benefits Agreement. (By the way, their daughter Leah Daughtry is CEO of the ongoing Democratic National Convention.)
The transcript of Karen Daughtry's remarks, reproduced in part, shows that, after warning Daughtry she had 20 seconds to conclude, Kramer asked nine times for her to finish. (Note that the term "Audience participation" encompasses a lot and that the transcription is inexact.)
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: My name is Dr. Karen Smith Daughtry. And I am a member of the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance otherwise known as DBNA, and a proud member of the House of Lord Pentecostal Church.
... I am particularly excited about DBNA's part in the Atlantic Yards project as it relates to the community, amenities and facilities' portion of the CBA where there will be a health and wellness pavilion, and offers of arena-related affairs an initiatives; parks and open space, a museum and library.
The educator that I am and having more than 35 years of experience working with youth, children and seniors, the possibilities of what an intergenerational initiative will bring for our youth, our seniors and our young people, bringing them together in this dismal time in our history as a nation, is one of the lights of hope on the horizon. As we stand here today at the Klitgord Auditorium --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- one of our alma maters of days of yours [probably 'yore'], the future of our youth is in jeopardy. On September the 8th, this year, 5,000 children will lose their after school care to a system which is not fully developed. The Day Care Direct Lease Program will be closed because the City is not renewing the direct leases which we've had the benefit for the past twenty years.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please conclude --
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: Classes in already -- in already existing programs for young children are losing slots. The children now will get into trouble if they travel eighteen blocks unattended to go to an unsupervised program that has been set up to the demise of our community.
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: The families that will lose their --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up. You have several pages, if you could let the next speaker --
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: No, well, I just got one or two more things to say as others have spoken longer than me.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You have ten seconds, ma'am and your time is up.
(Audience participation.)
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: I choose -- I choose to be remembered with those who plan for tomorrow. And I therefore, support the concept of providing support for our children in the dawn of life, for our youth in the prime of summer of their lives and our seniors in the autumn and the winter of their lives. I believe that one of the ways this can be actualized is through --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- is through DBNA --
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker, please.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- community amenities and facilities --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- and the position in the CBA. I, again, repeat the words of Malcom X --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- so the power belong to those who plan for it today and I choose to plan for it tomorrow --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ma'am, your time is up.
MS. KAREN DAUGHTRY: -- by being in support of this project today.
(Audience participation.)
Nearly six minutes
Only a bit later in the hearing, her husband, the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, spoke for 5:45, albeit with interruptions.
I can't do justice in describing Daughtry's passionate, combative, and triumphant sermon, in front of many cheering followers and some jeering project opponents.
However, the partial transcript suggests that Kramer just gave up trying to enforce the time limit, as he stopped requesting that the speaker to conclude.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: ...Let me speak -- let me speak more specifically to the area that we are engaged. You heard my beautiful wife of 44 years. My children are here. They were born here in Brooklyn. I came to Brooklyn 65 years ago. I'm 75. Most of my years were spent in Brooklyn.
We support this project because --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- it will provide an intergenerational center. And guess what, guess what, we have participated in the design of the complex. It will provide a health facility in a community that is starved for health facilities. It will provide a place for our young, a place for the seniors, a place for the youth to come together in an atrium designed by us.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: We support the project --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- and I ask the question --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- I ask the question, I ask the question, listen, I ask the question, why are we holding against Forest City Ratner when all around Brooklyn development is going on with non-union work --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Build in Brooklyn first. On with development of this
project --
(Audience participation.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can everybody please sit down. Can everybody please sit down. Reverend, if [you] could conclude your remarks, please. Thank you.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: (Indicating.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: If you can please conclude your remarks. Thank you.
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: And let me conclude -- I thank you for allowing me time. Thank you for your support. I'm only trying to say I appreciate even the opposition. Perhaps if I were you I'd argue the same way. I don't think so, but I'm concerned about the community and I've always been.
But listen, Forest City Ratner isn't even the largest development plan in Brooklyn. Downtown Brooklyn plan, why don't you protest against that?
[Well, some people did protest it, but the difference is that the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning was approved by the City Council, while Atlantic Yards, given the state override of zoning, is essentially a private rezoning.]
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: That bank -- listen, listen. That bank that you hold sacred, the Williamsburg Bank, guess what, the developer said ain't going to be no affordable housing. That's what they said. Protest against that.
[Indeed, the condo conversion is as of right and need not include affordable housing--and there are tax breaks to boot, a sign that the city and state moved too slowly in reforming the 421-a tax break. But developer Forest City Ratner promised from the start that the bank's iconic clock would not be blocked.]
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Why don't you cry over that?
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: And so I conclude. Thank you for the time. I conclude. Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish.
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: Let me finish. The Chairman has been kind. Just let me finish. I'll conclude this way. I'm an old man now. I've walked these valleys all over the world, --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- from Belfast to Bangkok to Baton Rouge. I have fought for justice --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- and rights for everybody. And now finally in my neighborhood, a few blocks from my church is an urban development --
(Audience participation.)
REVEREND DAUGHTRY: -- is coming on and I don't even have to take a cab or a plane, I can walk there. I say forward with the Atlantic Yards project.
(Audience participation.)
Another example
Later in the hearing, a representative of BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development) was intent on describing the Community Benefits Agreement and went way over time.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: ...There you will also find the School Based Workforce Development Program for youth in our school from grades five through 12; You also find the Church-based Employment Training & Educational Attainment Services Program for underemployed and unemployed adults out of school ages 16 to 25. You find for the highly educated brothers of which they doubt like myself, the Brooklyn Scholarship and Fellowship program for young black brothers and sisters between the ages --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Twenty seconds.
MR. DE SHAUN TAYLOR: -- of 18 and 23.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: How much time I have left? Okay. And to wrap it up, let me give you my best twenty seconds on my final point. We have brought a $4.2 billion project to Brooklyn, New York. Let's understand that very clearly. What I am suggesting and my recommendation to the CBA and to the fine Speaker here, is that along with this $4.2 billion project we need to have a program called the Free Enterprise Institute of Education that focuses on entrepreneurial sciences and focuses on business development, okay --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: No, no, hold on now. We need to teach our people, we need to teach our people collectively in Brooklyn, New York, what does is mean to create a $4.2 billion project. What does it mean to --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please sum up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- have economic analysis -- Hold on one second.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: What does it mean -- what does it mean to have economic analysis in our community to project the next profit gain. And for all the people who are against -- no.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Taylor, your time is up. Your time is up.
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- I ask you for a little more time.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you for your comment. You can submit your comments. Sir, your time is up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: All right. I can deal with that. But let me tell you --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- on our time of political uncertainty --
(Audience participation.)
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: In our time of political uncertainty we --
THE HEARING OFFICER: This gentleman, please come to the microphone. Thank you.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Okay. You want me to go public with that statement?
THE HEARING OFFICER: You can do whatever you want, sir.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: Okay. In our time --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Time is up.
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- of political uncertainty -- on our time --
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker --
MR. DESHAUN TAYLOR: -- in our time of war, what we need is balanced -- balanced politics. We need --
A moment of levity
THE HEARING OFFICER: The next speaker is Eric McClure.
(Audience participation.)
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: Do I have three allotted minutes or three of his minutes?
THE HEARING OFFICER: Hopefully three of my minutes.
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: My name is Eric McClure and I am here this evening as Atlantic Yards Campaign Coordinator for Park Slope Neighbors....
I was going to start with a critique of the ESDC, but since its actions have shown that it obviously just doesn't give a damn, I won't waste my breath.
(Audience participation.)
MR. ERIC MCCLURE: Suffice it to say the ESDC is a walking advertisement for Public Authorities reform.
Later on
Apparently even more people signed up to speak, since at about 8 pm, Kramer made the following announcement.
THE HEARING OFFICER: We have been here a little over four hours straight now. We still have registered speakers. However, in view of full disclosure, we still have, on my estimate, it's about 250 to 300 more registered speakers.
The essential complaint
More people might have spoken had the time limits been adhered to. And the evidence generally supports the complaint made by JoAnne Simon, district leader for the 52nd Assembly District, who wrote to the ESDC:
While generally respectful of witnesses [hearing officer Edward] Kramer had a heavy hand on the time clock for those who were testifying about environmental impacts, allowing project supporters to preach and scold well beyond the 3-minute limit... Had such testimony been remotely on topic, I might be less offended, although it still would have been unfair.
He didn't have a hand on any time clock, as far as I can tell. While some project opponents offered their share of jeers and unseemly behavior, those who testified were more respectful of time limits.
Powell calls Towns "woefully" MIA on Atlantic Yards
The Brooklyn Paper has posted articles and podcasts of its separate interviews with veteran 10th Congressional District Rep. Edolphus Towns and challenger Kevin Powell.
At about 29:00 of the interview, Powell begins to criticize Towns on a number of issues, saying Towns hasn't addressed joblessness and the need to incubate small businesses, and has been "silent on police brutality" and unwilling to talk to peace activists.
"Missing in action"
Then, at about 30:30, Powell adds, "Where is he on Atlantic Yards? Woefully missing in action, because he's in the pocket of a number of developers."
Actually Towns is not so much missing in action but offering his endorsement to developer Forest City Ratner, although he's been far less vocal than most other elected endorsers.
Powell says he'd try to make sure small businesses get micro-loans and also said Towns hadn't tried to lure businesses like Best Buy to empty buildings along Atlantic Avenue in the district: "He's not using his position [to say] 'I'll fight to make sure you get the kind of tax breaks you need or the space you need'.... to create job opportunities for young people."
Tax breaks and government intervention on land? Sounds a bit like Atlantic Yards, but there is a difference: those spaces in Towns's district might need a boost to attract business, while the Atlantic Yards site is "a great piece of real estate," to quote Chuck Ratner.
Towns on housing
At about 4:00 of the Towns interview, Brooklyn Paper editor-in-chief Gersh Kuntzman asks a long question about affordable housing, mentioning Atlantic Yards and also Forest City Ratner's 80 DeKalb Avenue project, which he erroneously says has $1.5 million in subsidy per unit. (Actually, it's $1.5 million per unit in tax-exempt bonds, which offer interest rate savings compared to taxable bonds.)
Towns responds with his ideas about affordable housing, but isn't steered back to address Atlantic Yards.
At about 29:00 of the interview, Powell begins to criticize Towns on a number of issues, saying Towns hasn't addressed joblessness and the need to incubate small businesses, and has been "silent on police brutality" and unwilling to talk to peace activists.
"Missing in action"
Then, at about 30:30, Powell adds, "Where is he on Atlantic Yards? Woefully missing in action, because he's in the pocket of a number of developers."
Actually Towns is not so much missing in action but offering his endorsement to developer Forest City Ratner, although he's been far less vocal than most other elected endorsers.
Powell says he'd try to make sure small businesses get micro-loans and also said Towns hadn't tried to lure businesses like Best Buy to empty buildings along Atlantic Avenue in the district: "He's not using his position [to say] 'I'll fight to make sure you get the kind of tax breaks you need or the space you need'.... to create job opportunities for young people."
Tax breaks and government intervention on land? Sounds a bit like Atlantic Yards, but there is a difference: those spaces in Towns's district might need a boost to attract business, while the Atlantic Yards site is "a great piece of real estate," to quote Chuck Ratner.
Towns on housing
At about 4:00 of the Towns interview, Brooklyn Paper editor-in-chief Gersh Kuntzman asks a long question about affordable housing, mentioning Atlantic Yards and also Forest City Ratner's 80 DeKalb Avenue project, which he erroneously says has $1.5 million in subsidy per unit. (Actually, it's $1.5 million per unit in tax-exempt bonds, which offer interest rate savings compared to taxable bonds.)
Towns responds with his ideas about affordable housing, but isn't steered back to address Atlantic Yards.
USA Today loves Brett Yormak
Brett Yormark, CEO and president, Nets Sports and Entertainment (and CEO, Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment), is impressive on a lot of fronts, as USA Today's rapturous profile told us yesterday.
Unfortunately, the reporter swallowed the line that Yormark and the Nets "hope to be in [Brooklyn] by the start of the 2010 season." As I commented on the USA Today site, check out Bruce Ratner's 2011 statement to shareholders and Yormark's consistent fudging of the facts.
Unfortunately, the reporter swallowed the line that Yormark and the Nets "hope to be in [Brooklyn] by the start of the 2010 season." As I commented on the USA Today site, check out Bruce Ratner's 2011 statement to shareholders and Yormark's consistent fudging of the facts.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Overstatements from the DEIS hearing: land acquisition, legal challenge, new high schools, housing
This week AYR will look back at the 8/23/06 hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), drawing on the official transcript.
There were several overstatements and deceptions during the DEIS hearing, notably claims that developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) would pay for the land, that the opponents' legal case was unstoppable, that FCR would build four new high schools, and that affordable housing would be "given" out and guaranteed.
(All emphases are added.)
FCR paying for the site?
Early on, ANN HULKA, Senior Vice President - Real Estate, Empire State Development Corporation, read some boilerplate that was true at the time:
The project developer, Forest City, owns or controls approximately 87 percent of the project site inclusive of land owned by the MTA and City property. It is expected that ESDC will acquire title to the project -- the entire project site exclusive of the parcels to be retained by the MTA -- by condemnation, excuse me. All costs of site acquisition will be born by Forest City.
As we know, the city's initial $100 million contribution goes exclusively for land acquisition. A hint of that emerged in January 2007, when the city added $105 million to its contribution, and it was confirmed in March 2007.
An unstoppable legal case?
Later in the evening came some hubris about the upcoming legal challenge to the project.
DANIEL GOLDSTEIN, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn: If ESDC and Forest City Enterprises insist on the use of eminent domain, owners and renters, including myself, will litigate to save our homes and businesses and no project will be built at this site for years, if ever. It is your choice. That is your decision.
And you --you have no defense against the case we intend to bring....
Well, the new state eminent domain case is still pending, but the federal case was dismissed before trial, at two levels of federal court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court was unwilling to hear it.
Four high schools?
Some project supporters were reading the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) very generously.
DESHAUN TAYLOR, a member of BUILD (Brooklyn United For Innovative Local Development): Now, as a youth activist, I engage in working with at-risk teenagers. I work with under-served teenagers. And I work with the teenage population of the New York City Foster Care System here in New York City.
And what I find is that it is appalling that 88 of 114 SURR [Schools Under Registration Review] schools in New York City are in Brooklyn and that's something that we can do something about. Now, going into the community benefits agreement, it says that this community benefits agreement with Mr. Ratner has made a legally binding agreement to build four new high schools in Brooklyn, New York. That's what I'm talking about.
Later on, that issue was seconded.
DEBBIE TAMIFOOK, a member of ACORN: Reverend Daughtry, who at one time was against the project... came to the meetings. Everything that was asked for was granted. Everything that he was fighting for was granted. Now we're going to have a senior center included in the project. We're going to have four new schools, high schools.
School promises
The Community Benefits Agreement says nothing about Ratner committing to build four high schools. It states:
The Developers agree to work with BUILD, trade unions, local universities, local community groups and elected officials towards the creation of a High School for Construction Management and Trades to be located preferably within the Neighboring Community, and if not, then within the Surrounding Community and, if not, then elsewhere within the Community somewhere within Brooklyn. The creation of such a High School will be subject to public and/or private funding.
It also states:
SCHOOLS. The Project Developer will work with the DBEC in the creation of educational services, including the development of four (4) schools that will be located in the Surrounding Community, subject to the approval of appropriate governmental authorities. Such schools shall include:
* Cleveland Robinson Academy for Labor Studies, a charter school that will have as its focus construction technology, construction management, and entertainment technology.
* The Jackie Robinson Academy, a charter school that will have as its focus sports, science, and sports management.
* The Lewis Latimer Academy, a new vision school that will have as its focus information technology.
* The Wonder School, a charter school that will focus on music and film, including the study of the business side of the music and film industry.
What does "work with" mean?
Later in the hearing came a response concerning the legitimacy of those promises.
JEFF BAKER, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn attorney: The community benefits agreement has been touted as this wonderful, important agreement. Many people have pointed to the fact that it provides for health care facilities, community centers, day care facilities. Let me be clear, read the agreement - it specifically disavows any financial obligation by Forest City Ratner... to pay for any of those things. There is no money to do it.
Another school promise
Remember, in December 2006, after the project was approved by the Public Authorities Control Board, the Daily News massively overhyped--with the headline "Nets go High Tech: Ratner throws in new home for elite Brooklyn HS in arena deal"--a vague plan by Forest City Ratner to "work with the City, State and the United Federation of Teachers on the creation of a new 21st Century Brooklyn Tech High School, at a yet to be determined location in the borough."
No such plan is part of Atlantic Yards, though a much smaller K-8 school is planned for the project.
"Giving out" affordable housing
There were also some inflated promises about affordable housing.
STATE SENATOR MARTIN GOLDEN: Atlantic Yards will not only be one of the greatest job creators for our borough that it has witnessed in decades, it will also help to address one of the most troubling issues that face Brooklyn and that's affordable housing - giving out 2,200 units of affordable housing.
The project wouldn't "give out" affordable housing; the housing depends on scarce tax-exempt bonds.
PAT BOONE, president of NY ACORN: Therefore, I do believe this project will give me joy and piece of mind for myself, on a more personal note, because I have a son who is paraplegic. And I know now that when I retire should my son decide to stay on here in New York and live on his own, I know that there will be an affordable place that he may look forward to and he can call home in the same borough where he, like his mom, myself was born.
If it does get built, there'd be a lottery for places.
There were several overstatements and deceptions during the DEIS hearing, notably claims that developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) would pay for the land, that the opponents' legal case was unstoppable, that FCR would build four new high schools, and that affordable housing would be "given" out and guaranteed.
(All emphases are added.)
FCR paying for the site?
Early on, ANN HULKA, Senior Vice President - Real Estate, Empire State Development Corporation, read some boilerplate that was true at the time:
The project developer, Forest City, owns or controls approximately 87 percent of the project site inclusive of land owned by the MTA and City property. It is expected that ESDC will acquire title to the project -- the entire project site exclusive of the parcels to be retained by the MTA -- by condemnation, excuse me. All costs of site acquisition will be born by Forest City.
As we know, the city's initial $100 million contribution goes exclusively for land acquisition. A hint of that emerged in January 2007, when the city added $105 million to its contribution, and it was confirmed in March 2007.
An unstoppable legal case?
Later in the evening came some hubris about the upcoming legal challenge to the project.
DANIEL GOLDSTEIN, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn: If ESDC and Forest City Enterprises insist on the use of eminent domain, owners and renters, including myself, will litigate to save our homes and businesses and no project will be built at this site for years, if ever. It is your choice. That is your decision.
And you --you have no defense against the case we intend to bring....
Well, the new state eminent domain case is still pending, but the federal case was dismissed before trial, at two levels of federal court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court was unwilling to hear it.
Four high schools?
Some project supporters were reading the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) very generously.
DESHAUN TAYLOR, a member of BUILD (Brooklyn United For Innovative Local Development): Now, as a youth activist, I engage in working with at-risk teenagers. I work with under-served teenagers. And I work with the teenage population of the New York City Foster Care System here in New York City.
And what I find is that it is appalling that 88 of 114 SURR [Schools Under Registration Review] schools in New York City are in Brooklyn and that's something that we can do something about. Now, going into the community benefits agreement, it says that this community benefits agreement with Mr. Ratner has made a legally binding agreement to build four new high schools in Brooklyn, New York. That's what I'm talking about.
Later on, that issue was seconded.
DEBBIE TAMIFOOK, a member of ACORN: Reverend Daughtry, who at one time was against the project... came to the meetings. Everything that was asked for was granted. Everything that he was fighting for was granted. Now we're going to have a senior center included in the project. We're going to have four new schools, high schools.
School promises
The Community Benefits Agreement says nothing about Ratner committing to build four high schools. It states:
The Developers agree to work with BUILD, trade unions, local universities, local community groups and elected officials towards the creation of a High School for Construction Management and Trades to be located preferably within the Neighboring Community, and if not, then within the Surrounding Community and, if not, then elsewhere within the Community somewhere within Brooklyn. The creation of such a High School will be subject to public and/or private funding.
It also states:
SCHOOLS. The Project Developer will work with the DBEC in the creation of educational services, including the development of four (4) schools that will be located in the Surrounding Community, subject to the approval of appropriate governmental authorities. Such schools shall include:
* Cleveland Robinson Academy for Labor Studies, a charter school that will have as its focus construction technology, construction management, and entertainment technology.
* The Jackie Robinson Academy, a charter school that will have as its focus sports, science, and sports management.
* The Lewis Latimer Academy, a new vision school that will have as its focus information technology.
* The Wonder School, a charter school that will focus on music and film, including the study of the business side of the music and film industry.
What does "work with" mean?
Later in the hearing came a response concerning the legitimacy of those promises.
JEFF BAKER, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn attorney: The community benefits agreement has been touted as this wonderful, important agreement. Many people have pointed to the fact that it provides for health care facilities, community centers, day care facilities. Let me be clear, read the agreement - it specifically disavows any financial obligation by Forest City Ratner... to pay for any of those things. There is no money to do it.
Another school promise
Remember, in December 2006, after the project was approved by the Public Authorities Control Board, the Daily News massively overhyped--with the headline "Nets go High Tech: Ratner throws in new home for elite Brooklyn HS in arena deal"--a vague plan by Forest City Ratner to "work with the City, State and the United Federation of Teachers on the creation of a new 21st Century Brooklyn Tech High School, at a yet to be determined location in the borough."
No such plan is part of Atlantic Yards, though a much smaller K-8 school is planned for the project.
"Giving out" affordable housing
There were also some inflated promises about affordable housing.
STATE SENATOR MARTIN GOLDEN: Atlantic Yards will not only be one of the greatest job creators for our borough that it has witnessed in decades, it will also help to address one of the most troubling issues that face Brooklyn and that's affordable housing - giving out 2,200 units of affordable housing.
The project wouldn't "give out" affordable housing; the housing depends on scarce tax-exempt bonds.
PAT BOONE, president of NY ACORN: Therefore, I do believe this project will give me joy and piece of mind for myself, on a more personal note, because I have a son who is paraplegic. And I know now that when I retire should my son decide to stay on here in New York and live on his own, I know that there will be an affordable place that he may look forward to and he can call home in the same borough where he, like his mom, myself was born.
If it does get built, there'd be a lottery for places.
Is Kucinich looking at the issue of naming rights?
From a New York Times Magazine Q&A yesterday with Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
I see you are scheduled to speak at the convention on Tuesday, at the Pepsi Center, which sounds like the name of a soda plant. Why is it called that?
My guess is that Pepsi probably bought the naming rights. Naming rights are another thing my subcommittee — the Domestic Policy Subcommittee — is looking into.
We know that the subcommittee has been looking into the tax-exempt bond deals for Yankee Stadium and other sports facilities, as well as the rules behind tax-exempt bonds. But the naming rights inquiry is news to me.
I see you are scheduled to speak at the convention on Tuesday, at the Pepsi Center, which sounds like the name of a soda plant. Why is it called that?
My guess is that Pepsi probably bought the naming rights. Naming rights are another thing my subcommittee — the Domestic Policy Subcommittee — is looking into.
We know that the subcommittee has been looking into the tax-exempt bond deals for Yankee Stadium and other sports facilities, as well as the rules behind tax-exempt bonds. But the naming rights inquiry is news to me.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Will new head of ESDC take a walk around the AY footprint?
In March, Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) Downstate Chairman Pat Foye, an appointee (and friend) of departed Governor Eliot Spitzer, resigned, leaving his deputy, Avi Schick, as the ESDC's acting president.
Schick, who will leave his post in September, has publicly defended Atlantic Yards. Foye was supposed to visit the AY site, but never did.
Now Governor David Paterson has nominated Marisa Lago, a global head of compliance at Citi Markets and Banking, to be the ESDC's president and chief executive, supervising executives for both downstate and upstate. Reported the New York Times:
Mr. Paterson has made revamping the agency a top priority. As he has sounded the alarm in recent weeks about the increasingly bleak outlook for New York’s economy, a better functioning Empire State Development Corporation has become a key piece of the governor’s economic revitalization plan.
New scrutiny coming?
Given the many things on the ESDC's plate, as described by Crain's New York Business, it may be wishful thinking for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn to opine, New Leadership at ESDC Could Mean New Scrutiny of Atlantic Yards Project.
At the very least, however, Lago or her downstate deputy should take that walk that Foye never managed to do.
Schick, who will leave his post in September, has publicly defended Atlantic Yards. Foye was supposed to visit the AY site, but never did.
Now Governor David Paterson has nominated Marisa Lago, a global head of compliance at Citi Markets and Banking, to be the ESDC's president and chief executive, supervising executives for both downstate and upstate. Reported the New York Times:
Mr. Paterson has made revamping the agency a top priority. As he has sounded the alarm in recent weeks about the increasingly bleak outlook for New York’s economy, a better functioning Empire State Development Corporation has become a key piece of the governor’s economic revitalization plan.
New scrutiny coming?
Given the many things on the ESDC's plate, as described by Crain's New York Business, it may be wishful thinking for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn to opine, New Leadership at ESDC Could Mean New Scrutiny of Atlantic Yards Project.
At the very least, however, Lago or her downstate deputy should take that walk that Foye never managed to do.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Two years after the DEIS hearing, one change is "just business"
Here's a flashback from the epic hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), held 8/23/06. And here's some video, from Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse.Departed since then, along with Forest City Ratner point man Jim Stuckey, is point guard Jason Kidd, who gamely appeared with teammate Vince Carter to help provide sports flash for the cameras. (He's standing a bit stoically next to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz in this NY Sun photo.)
Kidd, whose trade for Devin Harris looks increasingly like a wise move for the Nets, told the Star-Ledger this week that he didn't have any regrets:
"It's just business," he said. "We had a great run. Sometimes, with moves, business gets in the way. The sad thing is, nobody there is left from when we started the whole thing. I guess you could say they're starting over.
Neil deMause interviews collected
On May 28, I conducted an interviewed, excerpted in eight parts, with Neil deMause, the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site.
7/1/08: Author deMause on tax-exempt bonds, PILOTs, & TIFs
7/2/08: So, why aren't naming rights counted as sports facility subsidies?
7/16/08: Author deMause on Zimbalist: "a lot of people don't take him as seriously"
7/18/08: National ACORN's (episode of) scandal, and NY ACORN's dubious Brooklyn stadium deal (in 2000)
8/1/08: The Brooklyn Ratners or the Ratner Nets? What if team names in the U.S. were more like those in Japan?
8/7/08: "So many different angles": deMause puts the AY opposition in context
8/19/08: If Barclays Center gets built, how long before it's obsolete?
8/22/08: The lesson of Field of Schemes: political reform needed
7/1/08: Author deMause on tax-exempt bonds, PILOTs, & TIFs
7/2/08: So, why aren't naming rights counted as sports facility subsidies?
7/16/08: Author deMause on Zimbalist: "a lot of people don't take him as seriously"
7/18/08: National ACORN's (episode of) scandal, and NY ACORN's dubious Brooklyn stadium deal (in 2000)
8/1/08: The Brooklyn Ratners or the Ratner Nets? What if team names in the U.S. were more like those in Japan?
8/7/08: "So many different angles": deMause puts the AY opposition in context
8/19/08: If Barclays Center gets built, how long before it's obsolete?
8/22/08: The lesson of Field of Schemes: political reform needed
Friday, August 22, 2008
The lesson of Field of Schemes: political reform needed
This is the eighth and final part of a multi-part interview (conducted May 28) with Neil deMause, the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site. He testified at a 3/29/07 Congressional hearing that questioned taxpayer financing of stadiums, convention centers, and hotels.Q. What’s the lesson of the book? Do you have general reform advice--what should cities, states, or the federal government do?
A. It’s easy if you’re the city or the state or the federal government: you stop giving money… It’s within federal government’s power to stop tax-exempt bonds from being used for stadiums right now. You just pass a law telling the IRS don’t do that anymore. The federal government could shut down subsidies for sports stadiums and for other ridiculous deals, luring companies from one state to another.
There’s this thing I mentioned in the book. [Rep.] David Minge’s proposal, why don’t you just pass an excise tax on corporate subsidies, so if Ratner gets, say, a billion in subsidies for this project, then he has to pay federal taxes on this project, that would suddenly make it a lot less lucrative. Congress could do that in a second. They are not.
Cities could say No, it’s not worth it to us, that it would be nice to have a basketball team in Brooklyn, but not that nice. All this is within the power--it’s not that hard to do. The problem is, what do we as private citizens do when the government is not making decisions based on the public interest but making decisions based on the private interest.
What's the book about? A. I tell people Field of Schemes is not a book about sports, it’s not really a book about stadiums, it’s about the failure of democracy in this country, about how governments, at every level, are more there to serve the interests of people with money than their constituents.
For a while, when people would say, What should be done? my glib answer was: Campaign finance reform. I still think it’s a good answer.
Who's in charge?
A. If Bruce Ratner didn’t have the ear of all these people--again, if he can’t give them money, he can certainly hire their friends as lobbyists. You have to in some way find a way to shift power from people who can spend money to buy it to popular will, which is what it’s supposed to be about.
This writer for Crain’s Detroit, who wrote this piece about all the great things that Comerica Park has done for Detroit. I wrote him an email saying You’re accepting a lot of numbers at face value that are ridiculous.
At one point, he said, Well, people are voting for these deals, so if people think it’s a good thing, why are you complaining about it? and I said, Well, these are referendums where opposition is being outspent 100 to 1, if the opposition comes anywhere near having the same resources they always win.
His answer was, Isn’t that just the market at work? I said, Call me old-fashioned, I don’t think our democracy is about people being able to buy votes.
What does Brooklyn want?
A. That’s the problem. Right now our democracy is about people being able to buy votes. It is not a question about what does Brooklyn want, or what does New York City want, which would be interesting questions. There are people who don’t care about subsidies, the problems of the arena, they don’t care about eminent domain, they really care about getting more affordable housing.
That’s a legitimate reason to support the project. But you’ve never had a public forum debating what do people want. It’s about what does Ratner want.
And it’s a huge problem, that our media isn’t responsive to what the public wants, our elected officials aren’t responsive to what the public wants. I think there are a lot of little pieces that could be done, but I think political reform is as necessary as fighting project to project. You have to do both.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The reality behind FCR's 80 DeKalb deal (and the implication for AY)
Forest City Ratner's press release about getting a final $30 million (not that much) in financing for its residential project at 80 DeKalb Avenue is getting a lot of coverage (here and here), with one story line, according to the Brooklyn Paper, that "critics pointed out that the state subsidy means that the public will be spending $1.5 million for each affordable unit."
No actual critics were quoted in the article, though a couple appear in the comments section. While the state Housing Finance Agency's 80/20 financing plan is surely vulnerable to criticism, the 80 DeKalb project, as I wrote in April, may be a relative bargain for taxpayers.
$1.5 million per unit is low
The FCR project, along with three others, was selected among 14 projects for the state agency's bonds, because "we view [the 80 DeKalb project] as an efficient use of a scarce resource," said Priscilla Almodovar, President and Chief Executive Officer of HFA. "[T]he developer agreed to limit its allocation to $1.5 million per low-income unit--lower than our $1.7 million ceiling--and agreed to permanent affordability for its low-income units rather than for just 30 years.
(The subsidy does not mean $1.5 million per unit; rather, $1.5 million is the amount of tax-exempt bonds allowed. A fraction of that figure--a 25% difference in interest rate between taxable and tax-exempt bonds--represents the subsidy, with most of that absorbed by federal taxpayers. Hence the federal limit, aka "volume cap," on the capacity of states and cities to authorize tax-exempt bonds.)
The three other projects moving ahead, all in Manhattan, requested $1.65 million, $1.7 million, and $1.9 million per unit, though two will be permanently affordable to low-income tenants, while the Brooklyn project will offer a different version of permanent affordability, to somewhat higher-income tenants.
The real questions
As I wrote, Forest City Ratner, part of a publicly-traded company based in Cleveland, is likely not sacrificing profits on 80 DeKalb. Rather, its relatively low bonding request per unit likely reflects a smart decision acquiring the property inexpensively in 1989 and seeing (likely, helping) it get rezoned a dozen years later to accommodate residential development, thus boosting the value of the land.
So the first unanswered question is how the land was rezoned. [Update: While this was previous to the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, it was part of a Special Downtown District in 2001 and thus a fairly thorough rezoning.]
The larger question is whether a similar fate awaits Atlantic Yards. Though the financing of Atlantic Yards remains murky, it's reasonable to speculate that, given the significant amount of subsidies and tax breaks for Atlantic Yards, plus the advantage of eminent domain, Forest City Ratner may be able to successfully compete for the scarce pool of tax exempt bonds offered by the city Housing Development Corporation by asking for somewhat less per unit than other 50/30/20 projects that include 50% market-rate units, 30% middle-income units, and 20% low-income units.
And that's an argument for a full accounting of subsidies and public costs for AY, before such a decision is made.
No actual critics were quoted in the article, though a couple appear in the comments section. While the state Housing Finance Agency's 80/20 financing plan is surely vulnerable to criticism, the 80 DeKalb project, as I wrote in April, may be a relative bargain for taxpayers.
$1.5 million per unit is low
The FCR project, along with three others, was selected among 14 projects for the state agency's bonds, because "we view [the 80 DeKalb project] as an efficient use of a scarce resource," said Priscilla Almodovar, President and Chief Executive Officer of HFA. "[T]he developer agreed to limit its allocation to $1.5 million per low-income unit--lower than our $1.7 million ceiling--and agreed to permanent affordability for its low-income units rather than for just 30 years.
(The subsidy does not mean $1.5 million per unit; rather, $1.5 million is the amount of tax-exempt bonds allowed. A fraction of that figure--a 25% difference in interest rate between taxable and tax-exempt bonds--represents the subsidy, with most of that absorbed by federal taxpayers. Hence the federal limit, aka "volume cap," on the capacity of states and cities to authorize tax-exempt bonds.)
The three other projects moving ahead, all in Manhattan, requested $1.65 million, $1.7 million, and $1.9 million per unit, though two will be permanently affordable to low-income tenants, while the Brooklyn project will offer a different version of permanent affordability, to somewhat higher-income tenants.
The real questions
As I wrote, Forest City Ratner, part of a publicly-traded company based in Cleveland, is likely not sacrificing profits on 80 DeKalb. Rather, its relatively low bonding request per unit likely reflects a smart decision acquiring the property inexpensively in 1989 and seeing (likely, helping) it get rezoned a dozen years later to accommodate residential development, thus boosting the value of the land.
So the first unanswered question is how the land was rezoned. [Update: While this was previous to the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, it was part of a Special Downtown District in 2001 and thus a fairly thorough rezoning.]
The larger question is whether a similar fate awaits Atlantic Yards. Though the financing of Atlantic Yards remains murky, it's reasonable to speculate that, given the significant amount of subsidies and tax breaks for Atlantic Yards, plus the advantage of eminent domain, Forest City Ratner may be able to successfully compete for the scarce pool of tax exempt bonds offered by the city Housing Development Corporation by asking for somewhat less per unit than other 50/30/20 projects that include 50% market-rate units, 30% middle-income units, and 20% low-income units.
And that's an argument for a full accounting of subsidies and public costs for AY, before such a decision is made.
60,000 vehicles daily at Flatbush and Atlantic? A closer look
A couple of AYR readers yesterday were taken aback by the claim, on the Barclays Center web site, that 60,000 vehicles pass (or will pass) daily through the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues, thus providing a prime location for the Jones Soda Stoop & Adjacent Terrace.
Do 60,000 vehicles really pass through that intersection now--or would they do so later? The short answer is that evidence is inconclusive, since the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, didn't aim at cumulative vehicle counts but rather at whether traffic during peak hours could be mitigated. (Answer: traffic at a.m. peak hours would have significant impacts at 11 intersections even after mitigation efforts.)
However, Community Consulting Services, which provided the graphic at right, has steadily contended that the ESDC's report lowballed the cumulative impact of development on traffic and transit. (The ESDC responded.)
FCR's conundrum
Developer Forest City Ratner must have conflicting impulses. On the one hand, they want to minimize the amount of new traffic so not to cause traffic jams and other adverse impacts. On the other hand, the more vehicles, the more eyeballs delivered to arena partners and advertisers.
ESDC punts
According to the Response to Comments chapter, the total number of trips wasn't important:
Consistent with CEQR Technical Manual methodology, the traffic analysis in the DEIS analyzed 7 peak hours to assess reasonable worst-case traffic conditions resulting from the proposed project and was not based on total vehicle trips per day since that figure is not appropriate for assessing worst-case conditions.
According to Table 12-27 (click on graphics to enlarge), the total trips at weekday peak hours (914 + 626 + 1590 + 5369 + 5749) adds up to 14,248. That, obviously, doesn't encompass the whole day, nor any specific intersection.
(The other two peak hours analyzed were on weekdays.)
Estimates elsewhere
A January 2006 New York Times article on AY-related traffic stated:
The Atlantic Yards project would lead to 40,000 new vehicle trips through the area each weekday, according to an independent study by Community Consulting Services, a transportation and environmental consulting firm advocating better traffic planning in Brooklyn.
Forest City Ratner officials disputed that study, saying that it overstated the vehicle trip increase by 40 percent to 50 percent, in part by failing to subtract trips generated by homes and businesses that would be replaced by the project.
Comments submitted to the ESDC by Community Consulting Services' Brian Ketcham, dated 4/25/05, estimate 59,000 new vehicle trips from current development approved over the last decade, 33,500 trips from yet unbuilt development under the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, and 23,000 new trips from the then-configuration of the Atlantic Yards project, for a total of 115,500 trips.
How many trips that would mean daily at the all-important intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush, however, remains a mystery to me--and, apparently, to the ESDC.
Do 60,000 vehicles really pass through that intersection now--or would they do so later? The short answer is that evidence is inconclusive, since the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, didn't aim at cumulative vehicle counts but rather at whether traffic during peak hours could be mitigated. (Answer: traffic at a.m. peak hours would have significant impacts at 11 intersections even after mitigation efforts.)
However, Community Consulting Services, which provided the graphic at right, has steadily contended that the ESDC's report lowballed the cumulative impact of development on traffic and transit. (The ESDC responded.)FCR's conundrum
Developer Forest City Ratner must have conflicting impulses. On the one hand, they want to minimize the amount of new traffic so not to cause traffic jams and other adverse impacts. On the other hand, the more vehicles, the more eyeballs delivered to arena partners and advertisers.
ESDC punts
According to the Response to Comments chapter, the total number of trips wasn't important:
Consistent with CEQR Technical Manual methodology, the traffic analysis in the DEIS analyzed 7 peak hours to assess reasonable worst-case traffic conditions resulting from the proposed project and was not based on total vehicle trips per day since that figure is not appropriate for assessing worst-case conditions.According to Table 12-27 (click on graphics to enlarge), the total trips at weekday peak hours (914 + 626 + 1590 + 5369 + 5749) adds up to 14,248. That, obviously, doesn't encompass the whole day, nor any specific intersection.
(The other two peak hours analyzed were on weekdays.)
Estimates elsewhere
A January 2006 New York Times article on AY-related traffic stated:
The Atlantic Yards project would lead to 40,000 new vehicle trips through the area each weekday, according to an independent study by Community Consulting Services, a transportation and environmental consulting firm advocating better traffic planning in Brooklyn.
Forest City Ratner officials disputed that study, saying that it overstated the vehicle trip increase by 40 percent to 50 percent, in part by failing to subtract trips generated by homes and businesses that would be replaced by the project.
Comments submitted to the ESDC by Community Consulting Services' Brian Ketcham, dated 4/25/05, estimate 59,000 new vehicle trips from current development approved over the last decade, 33,500 trips from yet unbuilt development under the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, and 23,000 new trips from the then-configuration of the Atlantic Yards project, for a total of 115,500 trips.How many trips that would mean daily at the all-important intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush, however, remains a mystery to me--and, apparently, to the ESDC.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
"Maximum" private participation: will the Urban Room become ADT Plaza?
Architect Frank Gehry, developer Forest City Ratner, and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) have long called it the "Urban Room," publicly-accessible open space. (See more here and here.) It looks like we should start calling it the ADT Plaza.
While ADT Plaza is not described explicitly as the "Urban Room" on the Barclays Center web site, it would include several elements tagged to the Urban Room.
First, consider how the ESDC describes a large, at least 10,000-sf publicly accessible atrium that would serve as a dramatic gateway to the arena and provide a place for people to congregate... [I]t would serve as an entrance to the office space and hotel in Building 1, the restaurant and cafe, the arena (its ticket booths would be located here), and a new access point to the subway via an underground connection....The Urban Room would serve as its own destination when programmed with small concerts, cultural events, art shows, and readings that would be open to the public... The second level mezzanine of the Urban Room would be accessed externally by a grand stoop at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues or internally by a stair and an elevator.
(Emphasis added)
Enter ADT
Then consider the description on the Barclays Center web site:
# 365-day meeting place
# The Primary entrance for the venue
# Direct elevator, escalator and stair access to the subway station
# Pedestrian access in and out from Flatbush & Atlantic Avenues
# Access to the Team Store
# Prime location adjacent to Venue Box Office
# Views directly into the Venue Bowl
# Jones Soda Shoppe
It would be named for "ADT Security Services, a unit of Tyco International, the largest provider of electronic security services to nearly six million commercial, government and residential customers throughout North America."
The Soda Stoop & Shoppe
And what about the second level mezzanine of ADT Plaza, accessed by a grand stoop? That sounds like the Jones Soda Shoppe, with its retro spelling of "shop." Again, according to the web site, Jones Soda Stoop & Adjacent Terrace are expected to include:
# Open air structure at tip of the Plaza – the main access point to the Barclays Center – will serve as a year-round gathering point and meeting place for residents, visitors and tourists
# Prime location at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues; the Jones Soda Stoop and Terrace will be visible to 60,000 vehicles that pass through the intersection daily
# WIFI capabilities
Jones Soda Shoppe expected to include:
# Jones Soda branded signs visible to Atlantic & Flatbush Avenues
# Open daily for residents, commuters, and event attendees
# WIFI capabilities
# Digital TV service displayed on plasma televisions
# Branded environment (e.g., cups, napkins, staff uniforms)
Maximum private participation
The ESDC, in Part II of the Modified General Project Plan, assures us (p. 35) that FCRC will maintain the Urban Room as a publicly accessible space with a subway entrance.
That's keyed to a finding that Atlantic Yards would be a Land Use Improvement Project under state law, that the plan or undertaking affords maximum opportunity for a participation by private enterprise, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole.
Thus a Civil Rights-era provision aimed to clear slums in the absence of willing private investors apparently leads, in the 21st century, to a highly-branded "Urban Room."
While ADT Plaza is not described explicitly as the "Urban Room" on the Barclays Center web site, it would include several elements tagged to the Urban Room.First, consider how the ESDC describes a large, at least 10,000-sf publicly accessible atrium that would serve as a dramatic gateway to the arena and provide a place for people to congregate... [I]t would serve as an entrance to the office space and hotel in Building 1, the restaurant and cafe, the arena (its ticket booths would be located here), and a new access point to the subway via an underground connection....The Urban Room would serve as its own destination when programmed with small concerts, cultural events, art shows, and readings that would be open to the public... The second level mezzanine of the Urban Room would be accessed externally by a grand stoop at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues or internally by a stair and an elevator.
(Emphasis added)
Enter ADT
Then consider the description on the Barclays Center web site:
# 365-day meeting place
# The Primary entrance for the venue
# Direct elevator, escalator and stair access to the subway station
# Pedestrian access in and out from Flatbush & Atlantic Avenues
# Access to the Team Store
# Prime location adjacent to Venue Box Office
# Views directly into the Venue Bowl
# Jones Soda Shoppe
It would be named for "ADT Security Services, a unit of Tyco International, the largest provider of electronic security services to nearly six million commercial, government and residential customers throughout North America."
The Soda Stoop & ShoppeAnd what about the second level mezzanine of ADT Plaza, accessed by a grand stoop? That sounds like the Jones Soda Shoppe, with its retro spelling of "shop." Again, according to the web site, Jones Soda Stoop & Adjacent Terrace are expected to include:
# Open air structure at tip of the Plaza – the main access point to the Barclays Center – will serve as a year-round gathering point and meeting place for residents, visitors and tourists
# Prime location at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues; the Jones Soda Stoop and Terrace will be visible to 60,000 vehicles that pass through the intersection daily
# WIFI capabilities
Jones Soda Shoppe expected to include:
# Jones Soda branded signs visible to Atlantic & Flatbush Avenues
# Open daily for residents, commuters, and event attendees
# WIFI capabilities
# Digital TV service displayed on plasma televisions
# Branded environment (e.g., cups, napkins, staff uniforms)
Maximum private participation
The ESDC, in Part II of the Modified General Project Plan, assures us (p. 35) that FCRC will maintain the Urban Room as a publicly accessible space with a subway entrance.
That's keyed to a finding that Atlantic Yards would be a Land Use Improvement Project under state law, that the plan or undertaking affords maximum opportunity for a participation by private enterprise, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole.
Thus a Civil Rights-era provision aimed to clear slums in the absence of willing private investors apparently leads, in the 21st century, to a highly-branded "Urban Room."
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
If Barclays Center gets built, how long before it's obsolete?
This is the seventh of a multi-part interview (conducted May 28) with Neil deMause, the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site. He testified at a 3/29/07 Congressional hearing that questioned taxpayer financing of stadiums, convention centers, and hotels.Q. Economist Mark Rosentraub, in your book, says something like, if you’re not prepared for major changes in your sports facility by its second decade, you’re being pollyanish. Let’s say Frank Gehry’s designing the best arena of its time. How long would it last before it needs to be reworked?
A. Well, [Seattle's] Key Arena was rebuilt in '94; now the Sonics are trying to move to Oklahoma City, that’s 14 years. [They have since gotten the OK to move.]
It depends on what you mean by reworked--torn down and rebuilt, or have some new things added? I think there will always be new technology that teams want, or new things that someone else will come up with and will make more revenue, and they’ll say, we need some of those too, the question is what you can retrofit, how much it costs and who pays for it.
At one point, I asked that to Rod Fort, an economist at the University of Michigan. His response was, Well, from the perspective of the owner, if you’re not paying for it, I don’t see anything wrong with a new arena every year.
What kind of question is it?
A. It’s certainly not an architectural question--none of these are architecturally obsolete. It's not even an economic question: at what point are they economically obsolete? It’s a political question: at what point can you go back and say We need a new one, or We need a renovated one, without people saying, What are you talking about, we just gave you one?
Oklahoma City to get the Sonics, is going back and doing renovations to the Ford Center, which was built five years ago--admittedly, it was built barebones…
I don’t think there's any way of knowing. I think the answer is: it’s when the team owner, whoever it happens to be, thinks they can realistically come back and demand something. That could be five years, it could be 30 years--but there’s always going to be something they don’t have.
Is there enough public oversight?
A. That’s the problem with the baseball and basketball [projects] here, they’re not really vetted much by the public. The Yankees and Mets went through ULURP [the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure], but it was very cursory. I will forever remember the City Council Member whose entire speech during the vote on the Yankees project was, I have always loved the Yankees and now I love them even more. I vote aye.
Q. Or Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) telling Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York, who testified before Congress last year, I’m with you, because I’ve always hated the Yankees.
A. We have an exceptionally dysfunctional government and these projects, and especially the Nets one, because it’s not going through oversight process, are not really getting a public hearing.
Talking about [Andrew] Zimbalist defending his report--there isn’t this process for going in and trying to evaluate economic claims.
The IBO [Independent Budget Office] can do a little bit, but really its mandate is just to look at limited stuff... We don’t have an agency whose job is--I guess City Planning is supposed to be that, but it’s not--to be saying what is a reasonable plan for city development... We don’t have a good process, and what processes there are were not even followed in the Nets case.
Enough public airing?
A. So that’s why it’s been up to community groups to have different forums… that MAS [Municipal Art Society] forum [in 2006] was probably one of the best things I’d seen. It at least attempted to have an intelligent conversation about what sort of planning would make sense here.
But it really shouldn’t be left to the Municipal Art Society to be our public oversight body.
Yeah, it would’ve been great to have Zimbalist called before the City Council or [Assemblyman Richard] Brodsky [whose committee oversees public authorities] or somebody like that and have somebody say, OK, what actually makes sense here?
Because, instead, it’s me and [Zimbalist] yelling at each other in the newspaper--and [to him] I’m ‘not an economist.’
Monday, August 18, 2008
Measured Improvement? Times analysis of carbon monoxide may exceed AY FEIS estimates
Would you want to run a marathon around the Atlantic Yards footprint?An informational graphic (click to enlarge) in the New York Times Sports section Saturday suggested some curious details about the Atlantic Yards footprint and nearby parts of central Brooklyn: the area is experiencing high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, close to the levels that prompted Beijing officials to take drastic pre-marathon measures.
The main point of the graphic is to compare the air quality along the Olympic marathon route in Beijing before alternate-day driving restrictions were imposed with the air quality after such limitations were imposed.
The newspaper also included a graphic of the New York City Marathon route, which showed a "spike" in the area near Lafayette and Bedford avenues, where the route turns north,
but also some significant increases around the intersection of Fourth, Flatbush, and Atlantic avenues, the western segment of the AY footprint.The newspaper blames "construction machinery" for the increase, at least in the area closer to Bedford Avenue. There's also a significant amount of construction equipment operating in and around the footprint, as with the excavator pictured on Dean Street near Sixth Avenue.
So, as I describe below, there's an argument for measuring carbon monoxide even though it's not part of the Community Air Monitoring Plan for the construction phase of the project.
Looking at the numbers
The Times graphic suggests that the area around Fourth, Flatbush, and Atlantic avenues experiences well over 5 ppm (parts per million), and possibly as large as 10 ppm, or even larger. Still, without backing data, it's not easy to eyeball the graphic and determine a total.
By contrast, Chapter 17 (Construction Impacts) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) estimates that the combination of construction equipment and traffic would not raise CO above the 9 ppm threshold set by the Environmental Protection Agency in its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).Note that the EPA states that the 9 ppm level should not be exceeded more than once per year. (The maximum permitted one-hour concentration is 35 ppm.) Also note that that level is an 8-hour average, and the Times didn't state whether its totals represent such an average or simply the average of one-time readings along the route.
(What's wrong with CO? Chapter 14 (Air Quality) of the FEIS explains: CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is produced in the urban environment primarily by the incomplete combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. In urban areas, approximately 80 to 90 percent of CO emissions are from motor vehicles. Since CO is a reactive gas that does not persist in the atmosphere, CO concentrations can vary greatly over relatively short distances. Elevated concentrations are usually limited to locations near crowded intersections, heavily traveled and congested roadways, parking lots, and garages. Consequently, CO concentrations must be predicted on a local, or microscale, basis.)
More CO coming, likely
The Construction Impacts chapter in the FEIS notes:CO emissions... generally would also be highest during periods when the most activity would occur.
It's fair to say "most activity" has yet to occur. That's an argument for further monitoring, especially since the Community Air Monitoring Plan for the construction phase of the project focuses solely on particulates and volatile organic compounds, not carbon monoxide.
From Chapter 17:
Maximum predicted combined concentration increments from on-site construction and mobile sources during Phase I, and overall combined concentrations including background concentrations, are presented in Table 17b-6 and Table 17b-7, respectively... The cumulative increments presented in Table 17b-6 are a sum of the Phase I construction on-site increments from Table 17b-4 and the maximum construction related mobile-source increments from the mobile source site closest to the location of the maximum on-site increments.
Conclusion: no problem
Chapter 17 states:
In terms of the magnitude of air quality impacts, any action predicted to increase the concentration of a criteria air pollutant to a level that would exceed the NAAQS... would be deemed to have a potential significant adverse impact. See Chapter 14, “Air Quality,” for a full discussion of the standards and impact criteria.
Most of the section on air quality concerns particulate matter rather than carbon monoxide. A few very selective excerpts from the chapter's conclusions:
Concentrations of CO, NO2, and PM10 were not predicted to be significantly impacted by the construction of the proposed project in any phase of construction...
Under SEQRA, determination of the significance of impacts is based on the assessment of the predicted impacts based on their intensity, duration, geographic extent, reversibility, and the number of people that would be affected by the predicted impacts...
For these reasons, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are predicted during the construction of the proposed project.
From Chapter 14
Chapter 14, Air Quality, deals with effects from the project as built, rather than from construction impacts. The conclusion:CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations due to project-generated traffic would not result in any violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any significant adverse air quality impacts. It was also determined that CO impacts would not exceed CEQR [City Environmental Quality Review] de minimis criteria...
And what are those criteria? Chapter 14 explains:Significant increases of CO concentrations in New York City are defined as: (1) an increase of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) or more in the maximum 8-hour average CO concentration at a location where the predicted No Build 8-hour concentration is equal to or between 8 and 9 ppm; or (2) an increase of more than one half the difference between baseline (i.e., No Build) concentrations and the 8-hour standard (9 ppm), when No Build concentrations are below 8.0 ppm.
You can see that neither of those criteria are met. You can also see that, for some reason, the FEIS, issued in November 2006, contained "maximum predicted existing 8-hour average CO concentrations for 2005," which seems odd, given that 2005 statistics could have been monitored rather than predicted.
(Emphases added)
Note that, while graphics shown on this blog concern conditions in 2010, the predicted end of the first phase of the project, the FEIS also contains charts estimating conditions in 2016, the predicted (though highly unlikely) conclusion of the project.
So when exactly was that Contract Scope for an EIS prepared?
I've posted (via my previous article) the 35-page Contract Scope for an Environmental Impact Statement that I cited on Friday as promising more analysis of blight than was ultimately produced by consultant AKRF.The document was part of a package of documents the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC)) described, in response to my Freedom of Information Law request, "the contract between AKRF and ESDC for services pertaining to the Atlantic Yards project."
The ESDC voted on 9/29/05 to authorize the contract. It was signed by representatives of AKRF on 1/12/06 and ESDC 1/24/06.
The Contract Scope is undated, but its second page states that "a final draft EAF [Environmental Assessment Form] was submitted to ESDC on September 16," which suggests that the document was in front of the ESDC when the agency's board voted that month.
It sure would've been interesting to have had it earlier.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
In Courier-Life, "Yards foes" find journalistic confusion
An odd exchange in the letters section of this week's Courier-Life chain leaves as a casualty some basic factual information about the latest Atlantic Yards eminent domain challenge.
The letter
In Stephen Witt’s article “Yards foes strike back again" paragraph 4 reads:
"The petition asked the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling backing the Empire State Development Corporation's findings and determination to seize property in the footprint of the project."
This is incorrect. The petition is for an entirely new legal challenge, it is not seeking to overturn any court decision at all. There was no lower court ruling backing the Empire State Development Corporation's findings. The suit, rather, is seeking to overturn the Empire State Development Corporations decision to use eminent domain to seize homes and businesses in the footprint of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards plan.
Also, paragraph 2 reads: "The reiteration came after opponents of the $4 billion project ... filed yet another legal petition trying to stop the project.
This is incorrect.
Home owners, business owners, residential tenants and commercial tenants (not "opponents") facing the prospect of NY State seizing their homes and businesses filed this lawsuit in order to stop NY State from seizing their homes and businesses not to "stop the project."
Daniel Goldstein
DDDB Spokesperson
The response
Stephen Witt Responds:
If this is a whole new case, unrelated to any other of the opponent's numerous cases, why was it filed in the Appellate (appeals court) Division of the New York State Supreme Court? On Jan. 11, 2008 NY State Supreme Court ruled against opponents in a case on environmental review procedures.
In this current Court of Appeals case, you are the lead petitioner. While you live in the footprint, the release on the new filing came from the vocal Atlantic Yards opponent organization, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, of which you are one of the founders and spokesperson.
The analysis
The eminent domain litigation, first filed in federal court but ultimately dismissed, leading to a successor case filed in state court, is unrelated to the case challenging the environmental review, which was filed in state court and remains under appeal.
Why was it filed in the Appellate Division rather than in the lower-level trial court? That's what state law requires. According to Article 2, §207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law:
Judicial review. (A) Any person or persons jointly or severally, aggrieved by the condemnor's determination and findings made pursuant to section two hundred four of this article, may seek judicial review thereof by the appellate division of the supreme court...
As for whether "opponents... filed yet another legal petition trying to stop the project," Goldstein's technically right. However, Witt and others can point to intertwining motives; DDDB, while not a plaintiff, has organized and helped fund the eminent domain case. And people contributing to DDDB's legal fund are doing so not to help individual plaintiffs but rather to block or change the project.
The letter
In Stephen Witt’s article “Yards foes strike back again" paragraph 4 reads:"The petition asked the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling backing the Empire State Development Corporation's findings and determination to seize property in the footprint of the project."
This is incorrect. The petition is for an entirely new legal challenge, it is not seeking to overturn any court decision at all. There was no lower court ruling backing the Empire State Development Corporation's findings. The suit, rather, is seeking to overturn the Empire State Development Corporations decision to use eminent domain to seize homes and businesses in the footprint of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards plan.
Also, paragraph 2 reads: "The reiteration came after opponents of the $4 billion project ... filed yet another legal petition trying to stop the project.
This is incorrect.
Home owners, business owners, residential tenants and commercial tenants (not "opponents") facing the prospect of NY State seizing their homes and businesses filed this lawsuit in order to stop NY State from seizing their homes and businesses not to "stop the project."
Daniel Goldstein
DDDB Spokesperson
The response
Stephen Witt Responds:
If this is a whole new case, unrelated to any other of the opponent's numerous cases, why was it filed in the Appellate (appeals court) Division of the New York State Supreme Court? On Jan. 11, 2008 NY State Supreme Court ruled against opponents in a case on environmental review procedures.
In this current Court of Appeals case, you are the lead petitioner. While you live in the footprint, the release on the new filing came from the vocal Atlantic Yards opponent organization, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, of which you are one of the founders and spokesperson.
The analysis
The eminent domain litigation, first filed in federal court but ultimately dismissed, leading to a successor case filed in state court, is unrelated to the case challenging the environmental review, which was filed in state court and remains under appeal.
Why was it filed in the Appellate Division rather than in the lower-level trial court? That's what state law requires. According to Article 2, §207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law:
Judicial review. (A) Any person or persons jointly or severally, aggrieved by the condemnor's determination and findings made pursuant to section two hundred four of this article, may seek judicial review thereof by the appellate division of the supreme court...
As for whether "opponents... filed yet another legal petition trying to stop the project," Goldstein's technically right. However, Witt and others can point to intertwining motives; DDDB, while not a plaintiff, has organized and helped fund the eminent domain case. And people contributing to DDDB's legal fund are doing so not to help individual plaintiffs but rather to block or change the project.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Gehry: seeking the "small percentage of space" to make a difference
OK, Frank Gehry considers himself a "do-gooder, liberal," and let's take him at his word, though his powers of discernment--describing his patron Bruce Ratner in such an uncomplicated way--might be challenged.
In the documentary Sketches of Frank Gehry, the protagonist told his friend, the director Sydney Pollack, how much the latter had influenced him:
You won’t remember this, but years ago, when we first met, you talked to me about filmmaking. I was struggling with the world I was confronted with, which was a commercial world, they weren’t interested in what I was doing. And I talked to you about it one night, and you said you faced the same commercial world and that you made peace with it by finding this small percentage of space in that commercial world where you could make a difference.
Finding the space
Gehry's tone gained a degree of wonderment, as he continued:
Man, that was amazing to me, Sydney, I’ve never forgotten that, and if you hear in my talks after that, I always talk about it that way, I say--he chuckled--there’s a sliver of space--I almost use your words.
That is the understandable challenge faced by many professionals, not just architects, when the excellence or vision they seek is constrained by cost, regulation, or their patrons. And Gehry surely has been successful in making a difference--though not always, since he has walked away from a few projects.
So Gehry, eager to build his first arena and do it right, may be willing to stay mum about changes to his design, which lessen some populist aspects (e.g., a green roof and rooftop park), because it represents that "small percentage of space."
Such changes are not atypical. After all, Gehry's design for an ice rink in Anaheim was diminished after the Disney Co. took another look at his designs. And, as sympathetic critic Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times wrote in June 2006, the balance can be hard to discern:
Whatever [Atlantic Yards developer Bruce] Ratner’s ambitions, a mainstream developer is not about to promote radical changes in local housing policy. And Mr. Gehry is an architect, not a politician. But he has a public responsibility to put his formidable talents to full use.
That's the question.
In the documentary Sketches of Frank Gehry, the protagonist told his friend, the director Sydney Pollack, how much the latter had influenced him:
You won’t remember this, but years ago, when we first met, you talked to me about filmmaking. I was struggling with the world I was confronted with, which was a commercial world, they weren’t interested in what I was doing. And I talked to you about it one night, and you said you faced the same commercial world and that you made peace with it by finding this small percentage of space in that commercial world where you could make a difference.
Finding the space
Gehry's tone gained a degree of wonderment, as he continued:
Man, that was amazing to me, Sydney, I’ve never forgotten that, and if you hear in my talks after that, I always talk about it that way, I say--he chuckled--there’s a sliver of space--I almost use your words.
That is the understandable challenge faced by many professionals, not just architects, when the excellence or vision they seek is constrained by cost, regulation, or their patrons. And Gehry surely has been successful in making a difference--though not always, since he has walked away from a few projects.
So Gehry, eager to build his first arena and do it right, may be willing to stay mum about changes to his design, which lessen some populist aspects (e.g., a green roof and rooftop park), because it represents that "small percentage of space."
Such changes are not atypical. After all, Gehry's design for an ice rink in Anaheim was diminished after the Disney Co. took another look at his designs. And, as sympathetic critic Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times wrote in June 2006, the balance can be hard to discern:
Whatever [Atlantic Yards developer Bruce] Ratner’s ambitions, a mainstream developer is not about to promote radical changes in local housing policy. And Mr. Gehry is an architect, not a politician. But he has a public responsibility to put his formidable talents to full use.
That's the question.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Missing from the Blight Study: documentation, as planned, of rents and assessed value trends
Remember the 5/3/07 oral argument in the lawsuit over the Atlantic Yards environmental review? In response to the petitioners' contention, based on newspaper articles and citations of recent and new development, that the area in and around the AY footprint was undergoing redevelopment, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) called that claim speculative.
“OK, let’s compare our analysis to the market analysis they did,” petitioners' attorney Jeffrey Baker said sardonically. “Sorry, I can’t. They never did.”
The ESDC called recent condo conversions "isolated redevelopment" and Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden, in her ruling this past January, agreed, calling it "insufficient to outweigh the ample evidence of blight conditions documented in the Blight Study."
Market study to be included?
Now that the case is under appeal, it's interesting to note that, according to the Contract Scope (PDF, 25MB) for the environmental review to be performed for the ESDC by consultant AKRF, there were, it seems, plans for something of a market study.
The blight study was to:
A. Determine the study area for analysis of blight conditions and prepare and draft criteria that will be used as the basis for the blight study area, in consultation with state and city agencies, including ESDC and DCP.
(Note that there's no evidence the study area changed from Forest City Ratner's map.)
B. Document blighted conditions, including the following:
--Analyze residential and commercial rents on the project site and within the study area
--Analyze assessed value trends on the project site, and compare to sample blocks with comparable uses in the study area, such as the Atlantic Center
--Describe residential and commercial vacancy trends
--Compare current economic activity on the project site, such as direct and indirect employment, with relevant surrounding sites
--Review New York City Police Department (NYPD) crime statistics for the affected area; and
--Identify physical conditions, including New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) building code and other pertinent violations (e.g., New York City Fire Department, Department of Environmental Protection, etc.), and determine Certificate of occupancy compliance on the project site.
Blight characteristics
The Contract Scope states:
The characteristics of blight can include, but are not limited to: Physical deficiencies (insanitary/substandard building conditions, building/housing/fire code violations, site vacancy or underutilization), economic deficiencies (building vacancies, low rents, high rental turnovers) or other deficiencies (incompatible land uses, multiple ownerships that hamper assemblage of properties, traffic congestion, pollution). Taken together, these characteristics may demonstrate that the area under study is substandard, insanitary, or deteriorating.
What the Blight Study said
As far as I can tell, the Blight Study did not analyze rents or assessed value trends, as planned, though the issue was mentioned in one sentence.
For each property in the Blight Study, the status of "Location, Use, Zoning, and Ownership" was described, then assessed under the following criteria of blight:
Unsanitary and Unsafe Conditions
Indications of Structural Damage
Building Code Violations
Vacancy Status
Underutilization
Environmental Concerns
Other sections include a highly-suspect crime study, an extensive projection of the benefits of Atlantic Yards, and some cursory observations about the current site.
Multiple site ownership
From the Blight Study, one paragraph in Section F addressed diversity of ownership and sales/rents:
The condition of multiple site ownership has hindered site assemblage and impeded the sound growth and development of the overall project site. As noted above, the proposed project site contains a multitude of properties where conditions are substandard or insanitary. The diverse ownership of these properties has impeded correction of these substandard conditions for many years, leading to substantially lower sales prices and rents for most properties, and thus lower revenue generating potential for the City.
There's no documentation of sales prices and rents, however, nor any acknowledgement that a rezoning could generate activity and raise revenue as well.
Low density
Section E of the Blight Study noted low residential density:
Together, the 29 businesses and institutions provided approximately 300 jobs. Residential development on the site is also sparse. There are only 171 housing units located on the 22-acre project site. This translates to an average of 13 housing units per acre, compared to approximately 52 units per acre in the ½-mile area surrounding the project site, and an average of approximately 24 housing units per acre in all of Brooklyn.
Well, given that nearly 40% of the site is a railyard, and other chunks of the footprint (e.g., P.C. Richard and Modell's at Site 5) are industrial or commercial and thus not zoned residential, a low residential density is not surprising. Again, the results of a potential rezoning are not suggested.
The Contract Scope pages
“OK, let’s compare our analysis to the market analysis they did,” petitioners' attorney Jeffrey Baker said sardonically. “Sorry, I can’t. They never did.”
The ESDC called recent condo conversions "isolated redevelopment" and Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden, in her ruling this past January, agreed, calling it "insufficient to outweigh the ample evidence of blight conditions documented in the Blight Study."
Market study to be included?
Now that the case is under appeal, it's interesting to note that, according to the Contract Scope (PDF, 25MB) for the environmental review to be performed for the ESDC by consultant AKRF, there were, it seems, plans for something of a market study.
The blight study was to:A. Determine the study area for analysis of blight conditions and prepare and draft criteria that will be used as the basis for the blight study area, in consultation with state and city agencies, including ESDC and DCP.
(Note that there's no evidence the study area changed from Forest City Ratner's map.)
B. Document blighted conditions, including the following:
--Analyze residential and commercial rents on the project site and within the study area
--Analyze assessed value trends on the project site, and compare to sample blocks with comparable uses in the study area, such as the Atlantic Center
--Describe residential and commercial vacancy trends
--Compare current economic activity on the project site, such as direct and indirect employment, with relevant surrounding sites
--Review New York City Police Department (NYPD) crime statistics for the affected area; and
--Identify physical conditions, including New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) building code and other pertinent violations (e.g., New York City Fire Department, Department of Environmental Protection, etc.), and determine Certificate of occupancy compliance on the project site.
Blight characteristics
The Contract Scope states:The characteristics of blight can include, but are not limited to: Physical deficiencies (insanitary/substandard building conditions, building/housing/fire code violations, site vacancy or underutilization), economic deficiencies (building vacancies, low rents, high rental turnovers) or other deficiencies (incompatible land uses, multiple ownerships that hamper assemblage of properties, traffic congestion, pollution). Taken together, these characteristics may demonstrate that the area under study is substandard, insanitary, or deteriorating.
What the Blight Study said
As far as I can tell, the Blight Study did not analyze rents or assessed value trends, as planned, though the issue was mentioned in one sentence.
For each property in the Blight Study, the status of "Location, Use, Zoning, and Ownership" was described, then assessed under the following criteria of blight:
Unsanitary and Unsafe Conditions
Indications of Structural Damage
Building Code Violations
Vacancy Status
Underutilization
Environmental Concerns
Other sections include a highly-suspect crime study, an extensive projection of the benefits of Atlantic Yards, and some cursory observations about the current site.
Multiple site ownership
From the Blight Study, one paragraph in Section F addressed diversity of ownership and sales/rents:
The condition of multiple site ownership has hindered site assemblage and impeded the sound growth and development of the overall project site. As noted above, the proposed project site contains a multitude of properties where conditions are substandard or insanitary. The diverse ownership of these properties has impeded correction of these substandard conditions for many years, leading to substantially lower sales prices and rents for most properties, and thus lower revenue generating potential for the City.
There's no documentation of sales prices and rents, however, nor any acknowledgement that a rezoning could generate activity and raise revenue as well.
Low density
Section E of the Blight Study noted low residential density:
Together, the 29 businesses and institutions provided approximately 300 jobs. Residential development on the site is also sparse. There are only 171 housing units located on the 22-acre project site. This translates to an average of 13 housing units per acre, compared to approximately 52 units per acre in the ½-mile area surrounding the project site, and an average of approximately 24 housing units per acre in all of Brooklyn.
Well, given that nearly 40% of the site is a railyard, and other chunks of the footprint (e.g., P.C. Richard and Modell's at Site 5) are industrial or commercial and thus not zoned residential, a low residential density is not surprising. Again, the results of a potential rezoning are not suggested.
The Contract Scope pages
Was AKRF's work for Ratner a hindrance to hiring by ESDC? No, it was a justification
I wrote in July 2007 about the questionable but apparently legal practice of a developer like Forest City Ratner hiring consultants like AKRF, then paying for AKRF's work on the same project on behalf of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).
Since then, I've learned some details:
--AKRF had been working for Forest City Ratner since June 2003
--the ESDC's conflict-of-interest policy doesn't address issues of consecutive representation
--AKRF was hired without any competitive bidding or public notice because the ESDC was convinced speed and continuity were important.
All this suggests that AKRF, widely acknowledged as the largest and most experienced environmental consulting firm in New York, the consultant of choice for sponsors of major projects, can benefit from some cozy circumstances: in the case of Atlantic Yards, its preliminary work for the developer, rather than raise questions about the ethics about later doing similar work for ESDC on behalf of the public (from an account funded by the project sponsor), instead cemented the contract without competition.
In the case of Atlantic Yards, the voluminous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adds up to nearly $4.8 million.
"The noncompetitive, nonadvertised aspect is questionable, as is who’s managing the consultant," observed Hope Cohen of the Manhattan Institute, who's critiqued the EIS process, when I forwarded her some documents for comment. "This question of who’s in charge is a fundamental problem in the public sector."
"Rather than [the ESDC saying] Here’s my list of approved consultants," Cohen added, "You have an applicant saying, I hired a consultant, he’s done 10% of the work so far, so please approve a noncompetitive contract to complete the work under your aegis.”
AKRF background
Here's an August 2007 profile of AKRF by the New York Observer, explaining how the firm has grown, and noting controversies over its work regarding Duffield Street in Downtown Brooklyn and on the Columbia University expansion.
Note the (anonymous) comment from a planner who says AKRF violates the "American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct by not upholding 'the Planner's Responsibility to the Public' as the primary responsibility of ethical behavior" and the response from a former AKRF staffer that the company plays it straight.
While it may be easy to cherry-pick the enormous Atlantic Yards EIS, here are a couple of jaw-dropping statements from it, concerning the prospect of no redevelopment without the project and the responsibility for upkeep of the railyard.)
No rules on consecutive representation
A state judge has ruled (upheld by an appellate court) that it was a conflict for AKRF to work simultaneously for the ESDC and Columbia University regarding Columbia’s expansion project, resulting in the disclosure of AKRF-ESDC documents but not ending the relationship. But no one has formally challenged the consecutive work that AKRF did on the Atlantic Yards project.
Last year,
I queried the ESDC about its guidelines regarding consecutive representation, but never got an answer. The AKRF/ESDC contact, acquired via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, provides something of an answer.
It does contain a conflict-of-interest provision (right; click on all graphics to enlarge) that prevents the consultant (AKRF) from acquiring "any interest" in the project or associated real estate. It prevents any ESDC official from sharing in any benefits from the AKRF contract. It extends the provisions to subcontractors.
However, it says nothing about serving two masters consecutively on the same project.
Does gap make a difference?
Lawyer and urban planner Michael White, in his comment on my blog, questioned whether the work was “truly consecutive” and, beyond that, questioned whether the work “could be ‘consecutive’ when there is an implicit warranty that travels with the work.”
Cohen was more circumspect about the concept of consecutive representation. "I absolutely see the problem," she said, "but should the state put itself in a position where it can’t hire the best firm?"
She acknowledged she didn't have a good solution, but suggested that, at the very least, there should be more transparency around the process. "It would be nice if AKRF had more competition," she said. "They have the most resources, the most experience."
Since June 2003
Though Atlantic Yards was not officially announced until 12/10/03, a document titled Contract Scope for an Environmental Impact Statement indicates (right) an established relationship between AKRF and FCR:
Since June 2003, AKRF has been working closely with the project architects, project attorneys, and other involved parties to prepare a draft EAF [Environmental Assessment Form].
It continues:
Over the past several months, AKRF has worked in coordination with the project team to produce a draft document that reflects the most current project information and analysis framework.
Work carryover?
On p. 33 of the document, there are several footnotes; two are of particular interest, since they regard work done for Forest City Ratner:
1: Assumes that AKRF will be able to use lighting diagrams produced by consultants under contract to FCRC
8: Assumes update of economic/fiscal impact analysis previously performed by AKRF for FCR Sports, and that operating pro forma is available from FCR Sports.
I asked ESDC if those assumptions were borne out and received the following responses from spokesman Warner Johnston.
Regarding lighting:
AKRF was provided information from FCRC's lighting consultants and architects on the type, illumination, and signage coverage (e.g., animated, illuminated, backlit) envisioned for the arena and other buildings on the project site (i.e., retail storefront lighting, internal illumination). The diagrams from the lighting consultants were not included in the EIS.
Regarding economic/fiscal impact:
The economic impact analysis presented in the FEIS analyzes the impact of the entire proposed project on New York City and State. The analysis AKRF initially conducted for FCRC analyzed the impact of the arena only. The two analyses share certain inputs related to arena operations (e.g., ticket prices, number of events per year, salaries for basketball players). However, specific values used for the FEIS analysis differ in some instances from those used in the earlier analysis based on updated information from FCRC and additional research conducted by AKRF.
Those both seem to be gray areas, in which AKRF at least in part relie
d on work produced for Forest City Ratner by an outside consultant and on its own work for the developer.
Feb. 2004 request
In a 2/18/04 letter from FCR to ESDC, the developer described an agreement to "pay certain costs" incurred by ESDC with respect to the proposed Atlantic Yards project. Among the services FCR requested that ESDC oversee included:
Services to be provided by AKRF, Inc. ("AKRF") in connection with the environmental analysis of the Project
Legal services to be provided by Sive, Paget & Riesel....
Response claims urgency
It took about a year and half until the ESDC wound up signing a contract with the consultant. In response to my FOIL request, I was provided with documents dated 9/29/05 regarding the request for authorization to enter into a contract with AKRF.
A memo from that day states, in part:
FCRC anticipates the opening of the arena and the completion of the newly renovated Rail Yard and other developments planned for the arena blocks and Site 5 by 2009, which represents Phase I of the project, and completion of all other pr
oject elements by 2016, which represents Phase II of the project.
In order to meet the aggressive schedule for completion of Phase I of the proposed project, FCRC already has had AKRF begin collecting data to enable the environmental analysis to be completed in time. An exemption from advertising these services in the Contract Reporter has been granted because of this schedule, and because staff recommends that AKRF be retained to continue providing these services for cost and schedule efficiency.
(Emphasis added)
The next paragraph explains that AKRF “is regarded as the premier environmental consulting firm in the New York metropolitan area” and has provided services to ESDC and its subsidiaries for more than 20 years.
Cohen commented, "Public agencies do have rules, in this case the relevant rule being advertising and competitive bidding. They should be required to follow those rules. When they’re making an exception, they should explain in public why they’re doing it."
Minutes from the directors’ meeting that day do not indicate any concern about any potential conflict or any inquiry into the need and scope of "schedule efficiency.".
"Schedule efficiency" or political expediency?
It's hard to say what exactly "schedule efficiency" means. It's hard to have called Atlantic Yards a project of urgency, given that it had been announced nearly two years earlier and was to take at least ten years and possibly much, much longer to construct.
Then again, there was a push to finish the environmental review by December 2006, when the administration of Gov. George Pataki was to leave office, and the membership of the Empire State Development Corporation and the Public Authorities Control Board was to change. (Arguably, the change would have made little difference, but project proponents couldn't be sure.)
FCR's account
AKRF’s compensation would come “from an interest account funded by Forest City for ESDC’s out-of-pocket costs, including consultants.”
Minutes from the 9/29/05 meeting show that ESDC Director Kevin Corbett wanted more details: “The out-of-pocket, did that also cover staff expenses as well…?"
“I don’t think we have discussed that,” responded Rachel Shatz, ESDC’s director of planning and environmental review.
AKRF contract increases
The 9/29/05 action by the ESDC authorized a contract with AKRF "not to exceed $1.5 million," including reimbursables and contingency.
On 4/27/06, after the Draft and Final Scopes of Analysis for an EIS were issued, and after one public hearing, the ESDC directors authorized contract amendments that added $600,000.
The explanation? Additional funding is needed in order to complete the EIS and related tasks due to expansion of the scope of work for the EIS and blight study, requiring substantial amounts of additional effort on the part of the Consultant and its subconsultants. A number of iterations of the EIS scope and draft chapters and the preparation of a response to comments document were necessary based on the large volume of public comments received on the Draft Scope of Analysis, as well as site plan changes, project team review, and expansion of study areas for the EIS. The scope of work on the blight study has also been substantially expanded to include additional analyses, document restructuring, site photographing, and team coordination, which were determined to be necessary in order to provide sufficient documentation of blight to rule conclusively on the condemnations that are proposed as part of the project. The increased budget is also due to additional traffic peak hour analysis and expanded intersection study area required for the traffic study based on team review and public comments.
(If blight means "the fabric of the community is shot to hell," in the words of Penn planning professor Lynne Sagalyn, would it be that hard to document?)
On 9/20/06, after the Draft EIS was issued and a public hearing and two "commmunity forums" were held, $2,056,230 was added to the contract.
The explanation? Additional funding is needed to cover expenses related to completing the Draft EIS and for current and upcoming efforts for the Final EIS's preparation. The additional funds are due to an expansion of the scope of work for the EIS, which also require substantial amounts of additional effort on the part of the Consultant and its subconsultants, most significantly for construction related anlayses. In addition, the project schedule proposed an intense level of effort over a concentrated period and required particiaption of many senior level principles [sic] at AKRF. Also, because of iterative changes to the program, DEIS chapter review and editing was more extensive than originally anticipated. Lastly, documentation has been in the hundreds, far exceeding what both ESDC and the Consultant originally anticipated and budgeted for document production and distribution.
On 5/17/07, $630,000 was authorized, reaching a total of $4,786,230.
The explanation? As noted last year, the additional funding is needed to cover expenses related to unanticipated additional work, to complete the Final EIS, post-FEIS litigation support in connection with an Article 78 proceeding [the lawsuit challenging to the environmental review], and interim mitigation monitoring services. The additional funds are due to the unusually high volume of substantive comments on the Draft EIS, additional effort associated in responding to comments that were inadvertently omitted from the FEIS issued on Nov. 15, and preparation of the memo in response to post-FEIS comments.
Billing rates
The Contract Scope, from (apparently) 2005, listed the following compensation rates per hour for AKRF:
Chairperson, $245
Senior Officer, $225
Officer, $200
Tech Director, $175
Senior Professional, $135
Professional II, $110
Professional I, $105
Tech II, $95
Tech I, $75
Since then, I've learned some details:--AKRF had been working for Forest City Ratner since June 2003
--the ESDC's conflict-of-interest policy doesn't address issues of consecutive representation
--AKRF was hired without any competitive bidding or public notice because the ESDC was convinced speed and continuity were important.
All this suggests that AKRF, widely acknowledged as the largest and most experienced environmental consulting firm in New York, the consultant of choice for sponsors of major projects, can benefit from some cozy circumstances: in the case of Atlantic Yards, its preliminary work for the developer, rather than raise questions about the ethics about later doing similar work for ESDC on behalf of the public (from an account funded by the project sponsor), instead cemented the contract without competition.
In the case of Atlantic Yards, the voluminous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adds up to nearly $4.8 million.
"The noncompetitive, nonadvertised aspect is questionable, as is who’s managing the consultant," observed Hope Cohen of the Manhattan Institute, who's critiqued the EIS process, when I forwarded her some documents for comment. "This question of who’s in charge is a fundamental problem in the public sector."
"Rather than [the ESDC saying] Here’s my list of approved consultants," Cohen added, "You have an applicant saying, I hired a consultant, he’s done 10% of the work so far, so please approve a noncompetitive contract to complete the work under your aegis.”
AKRF background
Here's an August 2007 profile of AKRF by the New York Observer, explaining how the firm has grown, and noting controversies over its work regarding Duffield Street in Downtown Brooklyn and on the Columbia University expansion.
Note the (anonymous) comment from a planner who says AKRF violates the "American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct by not upholding 'the Planner's Responsibility to the Public' as the primary responsibility of ethical behavior" and the response from a former AKRF staffer that the company plays it straight.
While it may be easy to cherry-pick the enormous Atlantic Yards EIS, here are a couple of jaw-dropping statements from it, concerning the prospect of no redevelopment without the project and the responsibility for upkeep of the railyard.)
No rules on consecutive representation
A state judge has ruled (upheld by an appellate court) that it was a conflict for AKRF to work simultaneously for the ESDC and Columbia University regarding Columbia’s expansion project, resulting in the disclosure of AKRF-ESDC documents but not ending the relationship. But no one has formally challenged the consecutive work that AKRF did on the Atlantic Yards project.
Last year,
I queried the ESDC about its guidelines regarding consecutive representation, but never got an answer. The AKRF/ESDC contact, acquired via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, provides something of an answer.It does contain a conflict-of-interest provision (right; click on all graphics to enlarge) that prevents the consultant (AKRF) from acquiring "any interest" in the project or associated real estate. It prevents any ESDC official from sharing in any benefits from the AKRF contract. It extends the provisions to subcontractors.
However, it says nothing about serving two masters consecutively on the same project.
Does gap make a difference?
Lawyer and urban planner Michael White, in his comment on my blog, questioned whether the work was “truly consecutive” and, beyond that, questioned whether the work “could be ‘consecutive’ when there is an implicit warranty that travels with the work.”
Cohen was more circumspect about the concept of consecutive representation. "I absolutely see the problem," she said, "but should the state put itself in a position where it can’t hire the best firm?"
She acknowledged she didn't have a good solution, but suggested that, at the very least, there should be more transparency around the process. "It would be nice if AKRF had more competition," she said. "They have the most resources, the most experience."
Since June 2003
Though Atlantic Yards was not officially announced until 12/10/03, a document titled Contract Scope for an Environmental Impact Statement indicates (right) an established relationship between AKRF and FCR:Since June 2003, AKRF has been working closely with the project architects, project attorneys, and other involved parties to prepare a draft EAF [Environmental Assessment Form].
It continues:
Over the past several months, AKRF has worked in coordination with the project team to produce a draft document that reflects the most current project information and analysis framework.
Work carryover?
On p. 33 of the document, there are several footnotes; two are of particular interest, since they regard work done for Forest City Ratner:
1: Assumes that AKRF will be able to use lighting diagrams produced by consultants under contract to FCRC
8: Assumes update of economic/fiscal impact analysis previously performed by AKRF for FCR Sports, and that operating pro forma is available from FCR Sports.I asked ESDC if those assumptions were borne out and received the following responses from spokesman Warner Johnston.
Regarding lighting:
AKRF was provided information from FCRC's lighting consultants and architects on the type, illumination, and signage coverage (e.g., animated, illuminated, backlit) envisioned for the arena and other buildings on the project site (i.e., retail storefront lighting, internal illumination). The diagrams from the lighting consultants were not included in the EIS.
Regarding economic/fiscal impact:
The economic impact analysis presented in the FEIS analyzes the impact of the entire proposed project on New York City and State. The analysis AKRF initially conducted for FCRC analyzed the impact of the arena only. The two analyses share certain inputs related to arena operations (e.g., ticket prices, number of events per year, salaries for basketball players). However, specific values used for the FEIS analysis differ in some instances from those used in the earlier analysis based on updated information from FCRC and additional research conducted by AKRF.
Those both seem to be gray areas, in which AKRF at least in part relie
d on work produced for Forest City Ratner by an outside consultant and on its own work for the developer.Feb. 2004 request
In a 2/18/04 letter from FCR to ESDC, the developer described an agreement to "pay certain costs" incurred by ESDC with respect to the proposed Atlantic Yards project. Among the services FCR requested that ESDC oversee included:
Services to be provided by AKRF, Inc. ("AKRF") in connection with the environmental analysis of the Project
Legal services to be provided by Sive, Paget & Riesel....
Response claims urgency
It took about a year and half until the ESDC wound up signing a contract with the consultant. In response to my FOIL request, I was provided with documents dated 9/29/05 regarding the request for authorization to enter into a contract with AKRF.
A memo from that day states, in part:
FCRC anticipates the opening of the arena and the completion of the newly renovated Rail Yard and other developments planned for the arena blocks and Site 5 by 2009, which represents Phase I of the project, and completion of all other pr
oject elements by 2016, which represents Phase II of the project.In order to meet the aggressive schedule for completion of Phase I of the proposed project, FCRC already has had AKRF begin collecting data to enable the environmental analysis to be completed in time. An exemption from advertising these services in the Contract Reporter has been granted because of this schedule, and because staff recommends that AKRF be retained to continue providing these services for cost and schedule efficiency.
(Emphasis added)
The next paragraph explains that AKRF “is regarded as the premier environmental consulting firm in the New York metropolitan area” and has provided services to ESDC and its subsidiaries for more than 20 years.
Cohen commented, "Public agencies do have rules, in this case the relevant rule being advertising and competitive bidding. They should be required to follow those rules. When they’re making an exception, they should explain in public why they’re doing it."
Minutes from the directors’ meeting that day do not indicate any concern about any potential conflict or any inquiry into the need and scope of "schedule efficiency.".
"Schedule efficiency" or political expediency?
It's hard to say what exactly "schedule efficiency" means. It's hard to have called Atlantic Yards a project of urgency, given that it had been announced nearly two years earlier and was to take at least ten years and possibly much, much longer to construct.
Then again, there was a push to finish the environmental review by December 2006, when the administration of Gov. George Pataki was to leave office, and the membership of the Empire State Development Corporation and the Public Authorities Control Board was to change. (Arguably, the change would have made little difference, but project proponents couldn't be sure.)
FCR's account
AKRF’s compensation would come “from an interest account funded by Forest City for ESDC’s out-of-pocket costs, including consultants.”
Minutes from the 9/29/05 meeting show that ESDC Director Kevin Corbett wanted more details: “The out-of-pocket, did that also cover staff expenses as well…?"
“I don’t think we have discussed that,” responded Rachel Shatz, ESDC’s director of planning and environmental review.
AKRF contract increases
The 9/29/05 action by the ESDC authorized a contract with AKRF "not to exceed $1.5 million," including reimbursables and contingency.
On 4/27/06, after the Draft and Final Scopes of Analysis for an EIS were issued, and after one public hearing, the ESDC directors authorized contract amendments that added $600,000.
The explanation? Additional funding is needed in order to complete the EIS and related tasks due to expansion of the scope of work for the EIS and blight study, requiring substantial amounts of additional effort on the part of the Consultant and its subconsultants. A number of iterations of the EIS scope and draft chapters and the preparation of a response to comments document were necessary based on the large volume of public comments received on the Draft Scope of Analysis, as well as site plan changes, project team review, and expansion of study areas for the EIS. The scope of work on the blight study has also been substantially expanded to include additional analyses, document restructuring, site photographing, and team coordination, which were determined to be necessary in order to provide sufficient documentation of blight to rule conclusively on the condemnations that are proposed as part of the project. The increased budget is also due to additional traffic peak hour analysis and expanded intersection study area required for the traffic study based on team review and public comments.
(If blight means "the fabric of the community is shot to hell," in the words of Penn planning professor Lynne Sagalyn, would it be that hard to document?)
On 9/20/06, after the Draft EIS was issued and a public hearing and two "commmunity forums" were held, $2,056,230 was added to the contract.
The explanation? Additional funding is needed to cover expenses related to completing the Draft EIS and for current and upcoming efforts for the Final EIS's preparation. The additional funds are due to an expansion of the scope of work for the EIS, which also require substantial amounts of additional effort on the part of the Consultant and its subconsultants, most significantly for construction related anlayses. In addition, the project schedule proposed an intense level of effort over a concentrated period and required particiaption of many senior level principles [sic] at AKRF. Also, because of iterative changes to the program, DEIS chapter review and editing was more extensive than originally anticipated. Lastly, documentation has been in the hundreds, far exceeding what both ESDC and the Consultant originally anticipated and budgeted for document production and distribution.
On 5/17/07, $630,000 was authorized, reaching a total of $4,786,230.
The explanation? As noted last year, the additional funding is needed to cover expenses related to unanticipated additional work, to complete the Final EIS, post-FEIS litigation support in connection with an Article 78 proceeding [the lawsuit challenging to the environmental review], and interim mitigation monitoring services. The additional funds are due to the unusually high volume of substantive comments on the Draft EIS, additional effort associated in responding to comments that were inadvertently omitted from the FEIS issued on Nov. 15, and preparation of the memo in response to post-FEIS comments.
Billing rates
The Contract Scope, from (apparently) 2005, listed the following compensation rates per hour for AKRF:
Chairperson, $245
Senior Officer, $225
Officer, $200
Tech Director, $175
Senior Professional, $135
Professional II, $110
Professional I, $105
Tech II, $95
Tech I, $75
Thursday, August 14, 2008
In legal battle over AY environmental review, a realistic timetable is a casualty
The gulf between what’s legal and what’s truthful is on display in the appellate briefs in the legal case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review. The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) have responded at length to a host of issues raised by the appellants, Develop Don’t Destroy and 25 other civic groups, who saw their case dismissed at the trial court level in January.
For now, however, I’d like to focus on whether or not it was legitimate for the ESDC to assume, when it approved the project in December 2006, that the arena would open in October 2009, that Phase 1 would be finished by 2010, and the entire project would be finished by 2016.
The answer, according to lawyers for the ESDC and FCR, is yes, given that there was a timetable that said it was possible to physically construct the project within that time. Whether that timetable was realistic is another story.
ESDC: vague generalities
ESDC's brief states:
Appellants argued that it is “extremely unlikely” the Project will be completed by the 2016 build year, and that it will “almost certainly” require from five to ten years beyond that date to be completed. Judge Madden rejected this claim as being backed up only by “vague generalities and isolated statements made outside the environmental review process.”
[Appellants] add a few bells and whistles to their unsuccessful argument below, without addressing the fundamental deficiencies identified by Justice Madden… The primary basis for this argument remains the “vague generalities” and “isolated statements” discounted by Justice Madden. In addition, Appellants make the irrelevant observation that the start date for the construction schedule that formed the basis for ESDC’s selection of the build year slipped by a few months.
The ESDC points out the document:
The build year of 2016 for the Project was confirmed by a detailed quarter-by-quarter schedule prepared by Turner Construction Company, one of the largest construction contractors in the United States, which laid out the expected sequence and timing of all major activities required for completion of the project.
…Appellants proffer no credible evidence to indicate that the schedule prepared by Turner Construction and carefully reviewed by ESDC and its consultants was faulty in any material way. They provide no affidavits from persons knowledgeable in project scheduling, construction, or project management, and “do not identify any specific inaccuracies in the construction schedule.”
Actually, they could have done so. It turns out that, while the quarter-by-quarter schedule was not updated between the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Final EIS, the Construction Impacts chapter was updated, doubling the time needed to reconstruct the Carlton Avenue bridge.
Add the two years needed to rebuild the Carlton Avenue Bridge to the one year needed to rebuild the Sixth Avenue Bridge and the result is three years--meaning that it was unrealistic to expect the arena to open for the 2009 season, even though the ESDC said it would (and so did Forest City Ratner).
"Forest City Ratner tells us that while the arena might be able to open without the bridge in operation, the goal is to have the bridge open in coordination with the arena's opening," ESDC spokesman A.J. Carter said last November. I’d say it would be completely unrealistic to open the arena without the bridge open.
What about Chuck Ratner?
Both the ESDC and FCR go to great lengths to discount statements made by Forest City Enterprises CEO Chuck Ratner in March 2007. The ESDC brief states:
In their attempt to discredit the 2016 build year, Appellants point to Charles Ratner’s comment that the project may last fifteen years. What they fail to mention, however, is that Mr. Ratner explained that his 15-year period referred “to the total time, from the idea or conception of the development to completion of the final building” and that he further stated that “[t]he actual construction of Atlantic Yards will take 10 years.” Mr. Ratner’s statement fully comports with the 2016 Build Year.
The FCR brief says:
Chuck Ratner’s statement... was mistaken and corrected immediately and, as the motion court recognized, is not persuasive evidence that the build years were unreasonable as of ESDC’s approval of the Project in December 2006.
Well, what if he’d said it three months before? And why should the court accept Ratner’s corrections? Remember, in the very same interview, he acknowledged:
That is--this is going to be a 15-year buildout, so obviously, we believe over time that we’ll be able to make up for this, as we have. MetroTech was a perfect example. We had the same kind of issue.
Indeed, MetroTech was supposed to take five years. It took 14.
Ratner then went off on a peroration on how even his 15-year estimate could be wrong: I’m confident that Bob is right, we will start within that time frame. I’m not at all confident of how long it will take us to finish.
We’re very good at estimating markets, we’re very good at estimating rents, at estimating lease-ups, and estimating costs. We are terrible, and we’ve been a developer for 50 years, on these big multi-use, public private urban developments, to be able to predict when it will go from idea to reality.
In fact, though Ratner claimed the arena would open in 2009, at the time of his speaking, the three-year bridge reconstruction schedule pointed to 2011.
Short delay important?
The ESDC brief notes:
Appellants note that certain preparatory work slated to begin in November 2006 did not commence until February 2007 and declare that the “construction schedule… was already demonstrably inaccurate…” They then blow this asserted slippage of a few months out of all proportion… Appellants make no attempt to explain how a de minimis three month deferral of preparatory activities would result in a delay of the Project for five to ten years.
Well, maybe it wouldn’t. But it speaks to the reasonableness of the statements in the FEIS.
What about the Funding Agreement?
The ESDC says the court should ignore the State Funding Agreement, because it was signed in September 2007 and did not exist at the time the public approvals were issued.
Beyond that, the ESDC argues that it’s a mischaracterization to say the agreement “afforded FCRC twelve years… to build Phase I alone, and an indeterminate amount of time to build Phase 2,” because yet-to-be issued project documentation will require “commercially reasonable efforts to achieve construction of the Arena and the other buildings in accordance with the project schedule set forth in the GPP.”
Well, that's what it says in the funding agreement; we haven't seen the project documentation yet nor the penalties for non-compliance.
Legal delays
Moreover, said ESDC, it’s inappropriate for legal delays to cause constant updating of EIS’s. FCR brief continues:
Petitioners also contend that, when ESDC approved the Project, it... knew that eminent domain would delay the project.
This contention is outrageous. No court ever has held that a public agency conducting a SEQRA review is required to incorporate potential litigation into the construction schedule for a project for purposes of establishing a build year for environmental analysis... Moreover, to incorporate potential litigation into an environmental review would be wholly speculative...
Maybe courts won't enter into such an analysis. But does it pass the sniff test to think ESDC expected legal delays wouldn't affect the construction schedule? (Updated: After all, as a reader points out, the federal eminent domain case had been filed two months earlier.)
The rule of reason
Those challenging an EIS must prove that the agency was unreasonable and capricious. Thus, FCR’s brief concludes:
Because Petitioners have not established that ESDC’s selection of the build years for analysis in the EIS was unreasonable as of the time that ESDC approved the Project, there is no basis upon which to invalidate ESDC’s compliance with SEQRA.
Maybe not. But can we believe the construction schedule? Not when Chuck Ratner questions it himself.
And not when, in its 2007 Form 10-K Annual Report, Forest City Enterprises offered this boilerplate warning:
There is also the potential for increased costs and delays to the project as a result of (i) increasing construction costs, (ii) scarcity of labor and supplies, (iii) our inability to obtain tax exempt financing or the availability of financing generally, (iv) increasing rates for financing, and (v) other potential litigation seeking to enjoin or prevent the project for which there may not be insurance coverage.
And in its 2007 Annual Report to investors, FCE said:
While we cannot make any assurances on the timing or delivery of these projects, our track record speaks to our ability to bring large, complex projects to fruition.
For now, however, I’d like to focus on whether or not it was legitimate for the ESDC to assume, when it approved the project in December 2006, that the arena would open in October 2009, that Phase 1 would be finished by 2010, and the entire project would be finished by 2016.
The answer, according to lawyers for the ESDC and FCR, is yes, given that there was a timetable that said it was possible to physically construct the project within that time. Whether that timetable was realistic is another story.
ESDC: vague generalities
ESDC's brief states:
Appellants argued that it is “extremely unlikely” the Project will be completed by the 2016 build year, and that it will “almost certainly” require from five to ten years beyond that date to be completed. Judge Madden rejected this claim as being backed up only by “vague generalities and isolated statements made outside the environmental review process.”
[Appellants] add a few bells and whistles to their unsuccessful argument below, without addressing the fundamental deficiencies identified by Justice Madden… The primary basis for this argument remains the “vague generalities” and “isolated statements” discounted by Justice Madden. In addition, Appellants make the irrelevant observation that the start date for the construction schedule that formed the basis for ESDC’s selection of the build year slipped by a few months.
The ESDC points out the document:
The build year of 2016 for the Project was confirmed by a detailed quarter-by-quarter schedule prepared by Turner Construction Company, one of the largest construction contractors in the United States, which laid out the expected sequence and timing of all major activities required for completion of the project.
…Appellants proffer no credible evidence to indicate that the schedule prepared by Turner Construction and carefully reviewed by ESDC and its consultants was faulty in any material way. They provide no affidavits from persons knowledgeable in project scheduling, construction, or project management, and “do not identify any specific inaccuracies in the construction schedule.”
Actually, they could have done so. It turns out that, while the quarter-by-quarter schedule was not updated between the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Final EIS, the Construction Impacts chapter was updated, doubling the time needed to reconstruct the Carlton Avenue bridge.
Add the two years needed to rebuild the Carlton Avenue Bridge to the one year needed to rebuild the Sixth Avenue Bridge and the result is three years--meaning that it was unrealistic to expect the arena to open for the 2009 season, even though the ESDC said it would (and so did Forest City Ratner).
"Forest City Ratner tells us that while the arena might be able to open without the bridge in operation, the goal is to have the bridge open in coordination with the arena's opening," ESDC spokesman A.J. Carter said last November. I’d say it would be completely unrealistic to open the arena without the bridge open.
What about Chuck Ratner?
Both the ESDC and FCR go to great lengths to discount statements made by Forest City Enterprises CEO Chuck Ratner in March 2007. The ESDC brief states:
In their attempt to discredit the 2016 build year, Appellants point to Charles Ratner’s comment that the project may last fifteen years. What they fail to mention, however, is that Mr. Ratner explained that his 15-year period referred “to the total time, from the idea or conception of the development to completion of the final building” and that he further stated that “[t]he actual construction of Atlantic Yards will take 10 years.” Mr. Ratner’s statement fully comports with the 2016 Build Year.
The FCR brief says:
Chuck Ratner’s statement... was mistaken and corrected immediately and, as the motion court recognized, is not persuasive evidence that the build years were unreasonable as of ESDC’s approval of the Project in December 2006.
Well, what if he’d said it three months before? And why should the court accept Ratner’s corrections? Remember, in the very same interview, he acknowledged:
That is--this is going to be a 15-year buildout, so obviously, we believe over time that we’ll be able to make up for this, as we have. MetroTech was a perfect example. We had the same kind of issue.
Indeed, MetroTech was supposed to take five years. It took 14.
Ratner then went off on a peroration on how even his 15-year estimate could be wrong: I’m confident that Bob is right, we will start within that time frame. I’m not at all confident of how long it will take us to finish.
We’re very good at estimating markets, we’re very good at estimating rents, at estimating lease-ups, and estimating costs. We are terrible, and we’ve been a developer for 50 years, on these big multi-use, public private urban developments, to be able to predict when it will go from idea to reality.
In fact, though Ratner claimed the arena would open in 2009, at the time of his speaking, the three-year bridge reconstruction schedule pointed to 2011.
Short delay important?
The ESDC brief notes:
Appellants note that certain preparatory work slated to begin in November 2006 did not commence until February 2007 and declare that the “construction schedule… was already demonstrably inaccurate…” They then blow this asserted slippage of a few months out of all proportion… Appellants make no attempt to explain how a de minimis three month deferral of preparatory activities would result in a delay of the Project for five to ten years.
Well, maybe it wouldn’t. But it speaks to the reasonableness of the statements in the FEIS.
What about the Funding Agreement?
The ESDC says the court should ignore the State Funding Agreement, because it was signed in September 2007 and did not exist at the time the public approvals were issued.
Beyond that, the ESDC argues that it’s a mischaracterization to say the agreement “afforded FCRC twelve years… to build Phase I alone, and an indeterminate amount of time to build Phase 2,” because yet-to-be issued project documentation will require “commercially reasonable efforts to achieve construction of the Arena and the other buildings in accordance with the project schedule set forth in the GPP.”
Well, that's what it says in the funding agreement; we haven't seen the project documentation yet nor the penalties for non-compliance.
Legal delays
Moreover, said ESDC, it’s inappropriate for legal delays to cause constant updating of EIS’s. FCR brief continues:
Petitioners also contend that, when ESDC approved the Project, it... knew that eminent domain would delay the project.
This contention is outrageous. No court ever has held that a public agency conducting a SEQRA review is required to incorporate potential litigation into the construction schedule for a project for purposes of establishing a build year for environmental analysis... Moreover, to incorporate potential litigation into an environmental review would be wholly speculative...
Maybe courts won't enter into such an analysis. But does it pass the sniff test to think ESDC expected legal delays wouldn't affect the construction schedule? (Updated: After all, as a reader points out, the federal eminent domain case had been filed two months earlier.)
The rule of reason
Those challenging an EIS must prove that the agency was unreasonable and capricious. Thus, FCR’s brief concludes:
Because Petitioners have not established that ESDC’s selection of the build years for analysis in the EIS was unreasonable as of the time that ESDC approved the Project, there is no basis upon which to invalidate ESDC’s compliance with SEQRA.
Maybe not. But can we believe the construction schedule? Not when Chuck Ratner questions it himself.
And not when, in its 2007 Form 10-K Annual Report, Forest City Enterprises offered this boilerplate warning:
There is also the potential for increased costs and delays to the project as a result of (i) increasing construction costs, (ii) scarcity of labor and supplies, (iii) our inability to obtain tax exempt financing or the availability of financing generally, (iv) increasing rates for financing, and (v) other potential litigation seeking to enjoin or prevent the project for which there may not be insurance coverage.
And in its 2007 Annual Report to investors, FCE said:
While we cannot make any assurances on the timing or delivery of these projects, our track record speaks to our ability to bring large, complex projects to fruition.
For the record: the AY arena would take 32+ months
Though Forest City Ratner officials continue to claim that "We plan to break ground this fall and are working to open [the arena] in calendar year 2010," the numbers just don't work.
According to Chapter 17 (Construction Impacts) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the arena would take "less than three years" to build or, by my calculations, 32 months. Even if they started today, the construction schedule would go well into 2011.
Bruce Ratner, speaking to investors in June, somewhat more accurately estimated that the arena would take two-and-a-half years (30 months) to build, though that seems optimistic.
If the developer were to break ground in February, assuming lawsuits are cleared by then, a 32-month (two years, eight months) timetable would still allow for completion for the basketball season beginning in October 2011.
But it sure wouldn't allow for a 2010 arena opening.
What the FEIS says
The document states:
It is expected that the arena construction, including the mass excavation, would take less than three years, ending in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The chapter notes two overlapping phases:
EXCAVATION AND FOUNDATIONS
This phase is expected to last about five months.
LOWER CONCRETE SUPERSTRUCTURE
This phase is the erection of the lower concrete superstructure, which would overlap with the foundation work.
After construction of the lower concrete superstructure, the upper steel superstructure and roof would take about 10 months. Construction of the exteriors would take about 15 to 18 months, beginning about three to four months after the start of the construction of the steel superstructure.
That gets you to a total of 23 months, in a best-case scenario (5+3+15 months), or perhaps 27 months (5+4+18 months).
The 29-month total
But no need to haggle about those numbers, because the five-month initial phase is succeeded by a 24-month phase. Consider this:
INTERIORS AND SEATING
Construction of the interiors and seating is expected to take about 24 months and would commence as soon as the lower concrete superstructure had been constructed.
A total of 32 months
Finally, we get to the phase of Commissioning:
The commissioning process is expected to last about three months and would be the final part of the arena construction prior to its public opening.
Add three months to 29 months and you get 32 months.
According to Chapter 17 (Construction Impacts) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the arena would take "less than three years" to build or, by my calculations, 32 months. Even if they started today, the construction schedule would go well into 2011.
Bruce Ratner, speaking to investors in June, somewhat more accurately estimated that the arena would take two-and-a-half years (30 months) to build, though that seems optimistic.
If the developer were to break ground in February, assuming lawsuits are cleared by then, a 32-month (two years, eight months) timetable would still allow for completion for the basketball season beginning in October 2011.
But it sure wouldn't allow for a 2010 arena opening.
What the FEIS says
The document states:
It is expected that the arena construction, including the mass excavation, would take less than three years, ending in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The chapter notes two overlapping phases:
EXCAVATION AND FOUNDATIONS
This phase is expected to last about five months.
LOWER CONCRETE SUPERSTRUCTURE
This phase is the erection of the lower concrete superstructure, which would overlap with the foundation work.
After construction of the lower concrete superstructure, the upper steel superstructure and roof would take about 10 months. Construction of the exteriors would take about 15 to 18 months, beginning about three to four months after the start of the construction of the steel superstructure.
That gets you to a total of 23 months, in a best-case scenario (5+3+15 months), or perhaps 27 months (5+4+18 months).
The 29-month total
But no need to haggle about those numbers, because the five-month initial phase is succeeded by a 24-month phase. Consider this:
INTERIORS AND SEATING
Construction of the interiors and seating is expected to take about 24 months and would commence as soon as the lower concrete superstructure had been constructed.
A total of 32 months
Finally, we get to the phase of Commissioning:
The commissioning process is expected to last about three months and would be the final part of the arena construction prior to its public opening.
Add three months to 29 months and you get 32 months.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Barclays/Nets alliance poses questions, seeks "positive perception of landmark partnerships"
It seems unlikely that anything other than a symbolic groundbreaking for the Barclays Center arena could be held this fall, as promised, given that the arena block will not have been cleared nor will the state and developer control all the properties within it, as lawsuits are pending. Moreover, bonds for the arena can't be sold until those lawsuits are cleared, and that most likely wouldn't be until 2009, in a best-case scenario.Still, officials from Barclays Capital, Forest City Ratner, and the (as of now) New Jersey Nets are forging ahead with a "Barclays/Nets Community Alliance," aiming to "leverage the Nets with FCRC and BARCLAYS to create a positive perception of landmark partnerships"--in other words, giving away $1 million with the twin goals of helping the disadvantaged communities and, not coincidentally, reaping some public relations rewards.
The announcement also raises questions about timing, length of commitment, and the morphing of a previously announced project.
A year late?
The alliance was announced 11/16/07, with approving quotes from the Rev. Al Sharpton, Assemblyman Darryl Towns, and State Senator Eric Adams, and others. (Other black leaders were more critical, citing Barclays' much-debated, not-necessarily-worse-than peers ties to the slave trade, which caused some uproar last year but has quieted down considerably. )
The first grant, of $150,000, was announced as going to Out2Play, Inc, a non-profit dedicated to building and refurbishing playgrounds throughout the city public school system.
No other alliance grants have been announced since then, as far as I know, though the Nets have teamed up with the American Dairy Association to refurbish two basketball courts in Manhattan.
A five-year effort?
How long will it last? While the press release last year stated that the alliance "will invest one million dollars per year in local non-profits," another press release, dated this May (right), stated that "Barclays and Nets/FCRC together will invest $5 million in a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting Brooklyn's youth." That suggests an effort that might end in five years. That might be just long enough to build the planned arena.
A revised alliance?
The alliance was announced some ten months after the Barclays Center naming rights deal was announced.
The latter, when announced in January 2007, was to spawn an organization with a slightly different name, the Nets-Barclays Sports Alliance, aimed "to promote athletics, education and personal development among young people in Brooklyn," aiming to "repair and renovate basketball courts and other sports facilities throughout the borough, as well as sponsor amateur athletic tournaments and clinics for Brooklyn’s youth."(The Post reported a figure of $2.5 million.)
Given that the Sports Alliance hasn't been mentioned since, it certainly seems like it's been supplanted by the Community Alliance, given that the latter is also involved in refurbishing playgrounds. But that's a question Forest City Ratner and Barclays should clarify.
Timing issues
The images in this article come from a Request for Funding Guidelines handed out to some 50 community groups last week at a conference hosted by the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty.
Apparently the document was prepared last year, rather than this year. It states that the alliance was created in 2007 "to assist community-based nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations in Brooklyn and surrounding communities in need through outreach programs, which shall promote education, health, community development and amateur athletics."That's a fairly broad mandate and could encompass organizations that are part of the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA).
Also, though the cover page states that the Request for Funding Guidelines and associated documents would be linked from the web sites of the sponsoring organizations, I couldn't find such links.
As noted, the project does seem behind, given that the sequence of selection, award notification, and award start all were to be accomplished between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007.
$1 million available
The guidelines state that a total budget of $1 million available, with a maximum award of $200,000. The total includes $500,000 from Barclays, $250,000 from the Nets, and $250,000 from Forest City Ratner.Given the $305 million in public aid secured (so far) from the developer, and Barclays' (pledged) $400 million in naming rights, these contributions seem certainly within their budgets.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Footprint mysteries: two FCR violations, two unpaid $2500 fines
In two buildings located in the Atlantic Yards footprint, one owned and one rented by developer Forest City Ratner (FCR), the Department of Buildings (DoB) has assessed $2500 fines for active violations considered hazardous.
In neither case, at least according to the DoB's web site, has the developer contested the violations, paid the fines, or corrected the violations. (Queries to both the DoB and the FCR have not been returned. Maybe someone else will follow up.)
Click on graphics to enlarge.
A violation on Pacific Street
A violation issued April 29 at 754 Pacific Street cited a failure to maintain the building, including missing guard rails on interior stairs, and risers and tread missing from stairs.
A hearing was scheduled June 25 and the developer apparently didn't show up, since the "hearing status" is "default."
In March 2007, a state judge backed charges by property owner Henry Weinstein that his tenant, developer Shaya Boymelgreen, improperly assigned leases to that building and adjacent parking lot to an affiliate of Forest City Ratner. The case is under appeal.
[Update Aug. 13: Weinstein points out the court ruled that the leases were terminated and no stay was issued, so he contends that Boymelgreen's continued occupation during the appeal is illegal and thus FCR cannot be said to be renting the building.]
The lease assignment allowed the developer and the Empire State Development Corporation to misleadingly portray that Forest City Ratner “controlled” the land, thus suggesting a lesser need for eminent domain.
A violation on Dean Street
The residential building at 473 Dean Street, within the planned arena block, is owned by Forest City Ratner, and its tenants, nearly all with rent-stabilized leases, have been plaintiffs in three lawsuits (one pending) challenging aspects of the project.
A violation issued April 7 concerned the boiler, citing clogged ventilation, missing "clean out door," an improperly sealed pipe, and more.
A hearing was scheduled June 25 and the developer apparently didn't show up, since the "hearing status" is "default."
In neither case, at least according to the DoB's web site, has the developer contested the violations, paid the fines, or corrected the violations. (Queries to both the DoB and the FCR have not been returned. Maybe someone else will follow up.)
Click on graphics to enlarge.
A violation on Pacific Street
A violation issued April 29 at 754 Pacific Street cited a failure to maintain the building, including missing guard rails on interior stairs, and risers and tread missing from stairs.A hearing was scheduled June 25 and the developer apparently didn't show up, since the "hearing status" is "default."
In March 2007, a state judge backed charges by property owner Henry Weinstein that his tenant, developer Shaya Boymelgreen, improperly assigned leases to that building and adjacent parking lot to an affiliate of Forest City Ratner. The case is under appeal.
[Update Aug. 13: Weinstein points out the court ruled that the leases were terminated and no stay was issued, so he contends that Boymelgreen's continued occupation during the appeal is illegal and thus FCR cannot be said to be renting the building.]
The lease assignment allowed the developer and the Empire State Development Corporation to misleadingly portray that Forest City Ratner “controlled” the land, thus suggesting a lesser need for eminent domain.
A violation on Dean Street
The residential building at 473 Dean Street, within the planned arena block, is owned by Forest City Ratner, and its tenants, nearly all with rent-stabilized leases, have been plaintiffs in three lawsuits (one pending) challenging aspects of the project.A violation issued April 7 concerned the boiler, citing clogged ventilation, missing "clean out door," an improperly sealed pipe, and more.
A hearing was scheduled June 25 and the developer apparently didn't show up, since the "hearing status" is "default."
Are we talking arena 2012? Four-year deal at Izod Center offers hint
Just days after definitive evidence surfaced that Bruce Ratner now considers mid-2011 a best-case scenario for the opening of the Atlantic Yards arena came a hint that everything might be pushed back one more year.
Credit NoLandGrab for noticing a Newark Star-Ledger report that Vonage Holdings will pay more than $1 million in a four-year deal to put its name on the concourse of the Izod Center. That four-year stretch would end before the 2012-13 season.
Of course, deals can be broken, especially ones that are relatively puny compared to the $400 million Barclays Center naming rights deal. Still, it's notable that the press release from the Nets called it simply a "multi-year deal" but the Star-Ledger pinned it down to four years.
Big commitment?
The press release contains this happy talk from Brett Yormark, president and CEO of Nets Sports and Entertainment: “The commitment of Vonage demonstrates the significant level of excitement in the marketplace about the IZOD CENTER and once again fortifies the viability of the venue.”
By contrast, the Star-Ledger reported:
Vonage declined to confirm the value of the sponsorship deal, but a spokesman, Charles Sahner, called the dollar figure a "minor" part of its marketing budget.
The deal is "more economical" than Vonage's sponsorship of the Nets, which recently came to an end, Sahner said.
Still, Yormark has to think positive if he has to sell the aging Izod Center for four more years while maintaining interest in Brooklyn 2011/12 and--if some reports are to be believed--considering the possibilities of Newark's one-year-old Prudential Center.
Credit NoLandGrab for noticing a Newark Star-Ledger report that Vonage Holdings will pay more than $1 million in a four-year deal to put its name on the concourse of the Izod Center. That four-year stretch would end before the 2012-13 season.
Of course, deals can be broken, especially ones that are relatively puny compared to the $400 million Barclays Center naming rights deal. Still, it's notable that the press release from the Nets called it simply a "multi-year deal" but the Star-Ledger pinned it down to four years.
Big commitment?
The press release contains this happy talk from Brett Yormark, president and CEO of Nets Sports and Entertainment: “The commitment of Vonage demonstrates the significant level of excitement in the marketplace about the IZOD CENTER and once again fortifies the viability of the venue.”
By contrast, the Star-Ledger reported:
Vonage declined to confirm the value of the sponsorship deal, but a spokesman, Charles Sahner, called the dollar figure a "minor" part of its marketing budget.
The deal is "more economical" than Vonage's sponsorship of the Nets, which recently came to an end, Sahner said.
Still, Yormark has to think positive if he has to sell the aging Izod Center for four more years while maintaining interest in Brooklyn 2011/12 and--if some reports are to be believed--considering the possibilities of Newark's one-year-old Prudential Center.
Monday, August 11, 2008
From three months to 14 months: the (yet unexplained) expansion of the timetable for AY utility work
A look at documents produced by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) during and after the environmental review shows some inconsistencies in estimates of time for utility work. According to the construction schedule and also Chapter 17 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), it was supposed to take a year. Chapter 17 states, “The major in-street utility work would begin late in 2006 and last about 12 months.”However, the construction updates issued by the ESDC offer contradictory information, suggesting a shifting timetable for the first phase of utility work and potentially a much longer stretch for all three phases.
Though the ESDC is often willing to answer questions I've posed, in this case, I haven't gotten answers yet.
Three months at the start
In the first Construction Update mentioning utility work, issued for weeks beginning November 5, 2007 and November 11, 2007, the timetable was three months:Utility Work: The first of three phases of upgraded water and sewer installations will begin in this two week period and is expected to be underway for three months.
Extended by at least one month
Two weeks later, in the Construction Update issued for weeks beginning November 19, 2007 and November 26, the timetable was extended by at least one month:The first of three phases of upgraded water and sewer installations will be underway in this two week period and is expected to be underway for four to six months.
Now 14 months
Some two months later, in the Construction Update issued for weeks beginning January 28, 2008 and February 4, 2008, the first phase had been extended to the end of the year, for a total of some 14 months:Utility Work: The first of three phases of upgraded water and sewer installations is underway and is expected to continue through the end of the year. Work will continue on Dean Street between Flatbush and Sixth Avenues and on Sixth between Pacific and Dean Streets.
Questions for the ESDC
I asked the ESDC for the explanation for the initial announcement of a shorter period and the significant revision in the expected length of time.
I also asked how long the full three phases are expected to take. Are the second and third phases not “major in-street utility work” as described in the FEIS? What do the second and third phases consist of?
Mitigations available?
I also asked whether, given that the (overall) utility work seems to be going on longer than anticipated, there are any additional potential mitigations for the impact on those living in/near the project footprint.
Private utility work
Recently, the construction updates have included mention of Private Utility Work (ConEd, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and Keyspan). I asked how long such Private Utility Work is expected to go on.
Still waiting
My questions are still pending. They're obvious questions raised by public documents, and they deserve answers.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Warnings about "the architect as artist" and Gehry's victimization of Brooklyn
It's a little late for a review of sociologist Nathan Glazer's 2007 collection of essays, From a Cause to a Style: Modernist Architecture’s Encounter with the American City, which I wrote about last year (here and here), and it's a little late for a blog post pointing to a review published in the spring. Still, Fort Greene-based critic Charles Taylor's essay in Dissent, headlined A Wrench in the Machine for Living: Frank Gehry Comes to Brooklyn, is notable in that it connects Glazer's critique directly to Atlantic Yards, just as Glazer has done so in public presentations, albeit not in the text.Taylor, a columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger and contributor to several national publications, takes off from the "prosecution’s case," as presented by Glazer: “Modernist architecture began with social aims as strong as its aesthetic orientation, or stronger, but social objectives and interests have fallen away almost entirely, and aesthetic interests and judgment, ever more sophisticated and theory-based, have become predominant.”
To Taylor, that portends a dangerous era in which "the architect as artist," who can produce work that affects the lives of numerous people is "presumed to have the privilege of imposing [his] vision on the public regardless of consequences or the public’s wishes."
The Ouroussoff defense
Taylor suggests such vision is enabled by starchitect-defending critics like Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times, who wrote 12/16/07, in an essay headlined Let the ‘Starchitects’ Work All the Angles :Architects have no control over a development’s scale or density. Nor do they control the underlying social and economic realities that shape it.
Taylor calls that "horse puckey," arguing that, when an architect like Gehry "signs on to an immense public development, as Frank Gehry has to Forest City Ratner’s gargantuan Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, he not only gives concrete expression to how the scale and density might be realized, thus having the most direct impact on “underlying social and economic realities,” his imprimatur gives the project the weight of cultural edification."
It's not quite a public development, but rather a public-private one. But Taylor's point is sound. As Brooklyn Views blogger Jonathan Cohn (an architect) wrote 5/21/06 in a piece headlined It's The Scale, Stupid, while the architect does not decide the size of the project, "there is a danger in being hoisted by the developer's petard when taking on a project that is seriously flawed in its conception."
And I pointed out that Ourousoff fails to acknowledge that starchitects, by virtue of their fame, may in fact have some power, and that the public's capacity for discernment is aided or hindered by the effort by the starchitect's clients to survive what he calls "an often tricky public review process."
The AY critique
Taylor suggests that both Jane Jacobs, "with her distrust of urban planners," and Glazer, "with his disdain for the ego of star architects, would each find something to despise" about Atlantic Yards. Indeed, Glazer has objected to the density and, as I've argued, Jacobs would have multiple grounds for criticism.
Writes Taylor:
Whether or not Atlantic Yards is ever built, the journalist who undertakes to tell its story will have an epic tale of corruption, cronyism, and obeisance to private interest. (Isabel Hill’s documentary Brooklyn Matters tells the story so far.) Because Ratner went directly to the state, local hearings on the project have been limited to one meeting. No local officials or residents have had the opportunity to vote on the project. Months after Ratner announced plans, a report miraculously found urban blight existing in the exact footprint of the project, thereby giving the state the right to seize property by eminent domain. And Ratner has stirred up racial tension in the predominantly African American neighborhood by founding BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development), a “community” group that argued that those opposed to Atlantic Yards were white newcomers who didn’t care about affordable housing or jobs, though most of the “affordable” housing planned is well above the median income of Brooklyn, and many jobs are likely to consist of maintenance, security, and concession jobs for the nights there are events at the arena.
Ratner didn't so much found BUILD but allow a fledgling group to find a reason to continue.
No context?
Taylor continues:Introducing his design for Atlantic Yards, Gehry spoke about trying to understand “the body language of Brooklyn.” But the only language Gehry has ever been interested in is the language of Frank Gehry. To say he is defiantly noncontextual is to imply that context enters into his thought at all.
I'm not sure that's true--Gehry has talked about using brick on the lower floors of towers fronting Dean Street, in an effort to make out-of-scale buildings harmonize with their neighbors. Whether that would work is another question.
Superblocks
Taylor writes:
Gehry might have taken The Life and Death of Great American Cities as an anti-text. With its interior “public space,” its super-blocks, its potential for creating what Jacobs called “border vacuums” and the attendant crime that always accompanies such areas, in the way it cuts itself off from the neighborhoods around it and cuts them off from each other, Atlantic Yards represents the sort of thinking Jacobs discredited nearly fifty years ago.
What's interesting is that the state considers it a better superblock. I'm not sure crime would be the problem around these mostly luxury apartment buildings, but rather that the much-ballyhooed open space would be used mainly by residents. (Consider Stuyvesant Town or MetroTech.)
Death coming?
Taylor's conclusion:
Atlantic Yards is the largest project Frank Gehry, now seventy-eight, has ever undertaken. And if it proves to be his last large project, it will be a fitting capstone to a career utterly blind to the public function of architecture. For how better to assert your dedication to personal expression over context than to have your distinct visual style serve as the emblem for the death of two Brooklyn neighborhoods?
Jacobs’s legacy, on the other hand, is assured. Her influence continues to be present both where she is heeded and where she is ignored. I even know of one Manhattan bar where you can order a “Jane Jacobs” (Prosecco, elderflower liqueur, orange bitters, Hendrick’s gin). I know of no establishment where you can order a “Frank Gehry.” Certainly not in Brooklyn.
I don't think AY would kill Fort Greene and Prospect Heights. But it might have some very uncomfortable ramifications.
As for a "Frank Gehry" cocktail, maybe it would be served at the Forest City Ratner arena opening night party.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Celebrating Brooklyn Day with scowls
From the Atlantic Yards web site:
If Forest City Ratner really had been celebrating Brooklyn Day, well, couldn't they have found a happier picture of some of the participants?
It's further evidence that Brooklyn Day, as Daily News sports columnist Michael O'Keeffe observed, was, in fact, a dud.
If Forest City Ratner really had been celebrating Brooklyn Day, well, couldn't they have found a happier picture of some of the participants?
It's further evidence that Brooklyn Day, as Daily News sports columnist Michael O'Keeffe observed, was, in fact, a dud.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Yet again, sports economist Zimbalist stumbles in court
It’s been a tough seven months for sports economist and professional witness Andrew Zimbalist, who has been beaten up in court three times, not to mention the court of opinion. I recently chronicled a case involving the Seattle SuperSonics, during which Zimbalist’s credibility was shredded during cross-examination, an antitrust case involving NASCAR in which a judge cast doubt upon Zimbalist's report, and Zimbalist’s dubious and defensive appearance on the Brian Lehrer Show.
In the past two weeks, Zimbalist’s credibility further suffered during a federal antitrust trip involving a challenge to the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), the men's professional tennis players' association, by organizers of the tour in Hamburg, Germany, upset that their tournament had been demoted from the top tier and changing its schedule.
(All coverage is from SportsBusiness Journal, reposted in this tennis blog.)
An uproar in court
According to SportsBusiness Journal, Zimbalist’s testimony “caused an uproar,” leading the defense to request a mistrial and the judge to dismiss the jury early, because he brought notes to the stand, in contravention of court procedures.
In fact, at one point, Zimbalist corrected the lawyer questioning him, asking if the right question had been asked. “Well, I have seen it all,” federal judge Gregory Sleet said.
Illegal cartel?
Zimbalist “testified that the ATP is an illegal cartel that monopolizes top flight men’s tennis,” SportsBusiness Journal reported. In response, the lawyer for ATP suggested that Zimbalist’s report was similar to the one he prepared in the NASCAR case. In both reports, he argued (according to the newspaper) “that the sports competed only internally, and not against other forms of entertainment.”
SportsBusiness Journal noted that even the plaintiffs’ lawyer conceded that Zimbalist’s interpretation “was very subtle and nuanced,” suggesting the alleged injury was more to players and tournament owners rather than consumers or sponsors—even though antitrust cases typically address injury to consumers.
At one point, Judge Sleet suggested, “So maybe it's (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal that needs to be the plaintiffs here.”
Verdict: Zimbalist's client loses
After Sleet threw out all but one of the charges in the case, he “expressed great skepticism regarding the merits of the case” and revealed that he came close to striking Zimbalist’s testimony, according to SportsBusiness Journal. He did tell the jury that they could take Zimbalist’s behavior into account in assessing his credibility.
After a two-week trial, a jury deliberated nine hours before dismissing the final count.
Money issues
The German Tennis Federation had sought some $76 million in damages. The ATP, in its successful defense, paid its economic witness Jonathan Walker and his firm, Economists Inc., $1 million.
In contrast, the plaintiffs paid Zimbalist $850 per hour, but no total was given, so maybe in this battle of the experts, Zimbalist was not only outmatched but out-compensated.
(In Seattle, he was paid $17,753. How much was he paid for the Atlantic Yards study? We don't know, but we know it's a lot more than volunteers Peebles and Kim were paid.)
All told, it’s another reminder that Zimbalist should never have been given the last word, as the New York Times granted, in coverage of the Atlantic Yards economic impact study commissioned by developer Forest City Ratner.
In the past two weeks, Zimbalist’s credibility further suffered during a federal antitrust trip involving a challenge to the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), the men's professional tennis players' association, by organizers of the tour in Hamburg, Germany, upset that their tournament had been demoted from the top tier and changing its schedule.
(All coverage is from SportsBusiness Journal, reposted in this tennis blog.)
An uproar in court
According to SportsBusiness Journal, Zimbalist’s testimony “caused an uproar,” leading the defense to request a mistrial and the judge to dismiss the jury early, because he brought notes to the stand, in contravention of court procedures.
In fact, at one point, Zimbalist corrected the lawyer questioning him, asking if the right question had been asked. “Well, I have seen it all,” federal judge Gregory Sleet said.
Illegal cartel?
Zimbalist “testified that the ATP is an illegal cartel that monopolizes top flight men’s tennis,” SportsBusiness Journal reported. In response, the lawyer for ATP suggested that Zimbalist’s report was similar to the one he prepared in the NASCAR case. In both reports, he argued (according to the newspaper) “that the sports competed only internally, and not against other forms of entertainment.”
SportsBusiness Journal noted that even the plaintiffs’ lawyer conceded that Zimbalist’s interpretation “was very subtle and nuanced,” suggesting the alleged injury was more to players and tournament owners rather than consumers or sponsors—even though antitrust cases typically address injury to consumers.
At one point, Judge Sleet suggested, “So maybe it's (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal that needs to be the plaintiffs here.”
Verdict: Zimbalist's client loses
After Sleet threw out all but one of the charges in the case, he “expressed great skepticism regarding the merits of the case” and revealed that he came close to striking Zimbalist’s testimony, according to SportsBusiness Journal. He did tell the jury that they could take Zimbalist’s behavior into account in assessing his credibility.
After a two-week trial, a jury deliberated nine hours before dismissing the final count.
Money issues
The German Tennis Federation had sought some $76 million in damages. The ATP, in its successful defense, paid its economic witness Jonathan Walker and his firm, Economists Inc., $1 million.
In contrast, the plaintiffs paid Zimbalist $850 per hour, but no total was given, so maybe in this battle of the experts, Zimbalist was not only outmatched but out-compensated.
(In Seattle, he was paid $17,753. How much was he paid for the Atlantic Yards study? We don't know, but we know it's a lot more than volunteers Peebles and Kim were paid.)
All told, it’s another reminder that Zimbalist should never have been given the last word, as the New York Times granted, in coverage of the Atlantic Yards economic impact study commissioned by developer Forest City Ratner.
Kucinich looks into questionable ticket deals for the Yankees and Mets stadiums
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, continues to look into questionable aspects of sports facility deals in New York City.
Yesterday, Kucinich "requested documents relating to a provision in the new Yankee Stadium deal that entitles New York City government officials to free use of a luxury box that will be built in the new stadium and preferential rights to purchase up to 180 tickets for each Yankees home game," according to an announcement on the subcommittee's web site.
He made a similar request to the New York Mets and government agencies, given that the Mets have a similar seat deal with the city for the team's new stadium.
Other inquiries
Kucinich is also looking into whether the valuation of the new Yankee Stadium "gamed" so that the foregone taxes exceeded the expected bond payments, thus allowing a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) financing deal.
Also, he has asked the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department to hold off from approving any deal allowing PILOTs for a Nets arena until his investigations of tax-exempt financing are concluded.
Yesterday, Kucinich "requested documents relating to a provision in the new Yankee Stadium deal that entitles New York City government officials to free use of a luxury box that will be built in the new stadium and preferential rights to purchase up to 180 tickets for each Yankees home game," according to an announcement on the subcommittee's web site.
He made a similar request to the New York Mets and government agencies, given that the Mets have a similar seat deal with the city for the team's new stadium.
Other inquiries
Kucinich is also looking into whether the valuation of the new Yankee Stadium "gamed" so that the foregone taxes exceeded the expected bond payments, thus allowing a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) financing deal.
Also, he has asked the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department to hold off from approving any deal allowing PILOTs for a Nets arena until his investigations of tax-exempt financing are concluded.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
"So many different angles": deMause puts the AY opposition in context
This is the sixth of a multi-part interview (conducted May 28) with Neil deMause, the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site. He testified at a 3/29/07 Congressional hearing that questioned taxpayer financing of stadiums, convention centers, and hotels.Q. In your book, you discuss the opposition movements to sports facilities in Detroit (the Tigers), in Cleveland (the Indians), and Seattle (the SuperSonics)--can you put in perspective the Atlantic Yards opposition movement?
A. You have had so many different angles in Brooklyn, from the start; you’ve had the people who oppose it for eminent domain reasons because they’re opposed to eminent domain or they live there and don’t want their housing taken. You have the neighborhood folks who don’t want that kind of development.
Since it’s this junction of several different neighborhoods, you have a bunch of different constituencies opposing it for different reasons, or some supporting it for different reasons. You have all the issues about spending tax money on a sports team. [They're] not building for a current New York City team, it’s a New York City area team, but it’s bringing a team to Brooklyn--there are people for that and opposed to it.
More moving pieces
A. It’s different than some other projects because there are a lot more moving pieces. In terms of the way they’ve done organizing, I think you’ve seen a lot of parallels to other places, you’ve got [them] talking about it in terms how the money’s spent, talking about it: is this a fair way for the government to be going about a big project and bulldozing things?
I think one advantage the Brooklyn opposition had was [that] it was going into a fairly well-off area, or least bordering a fairly well-off area. You did not get major media coverage of Atlantic Yards until Jonathan Lethem and Steve Buscemi and all those folks started standing up and complaining about it. If they had had those people in the Bronx, I think it would’ve been a very different fight there.(Photo from 7/17/06 rally. Buscemi at right. Actually, I think the role of celebrities has been quite sporadic.)
Or in Detroit. There’s a story in the book where Frank Rashid [of the Tiger Stadium Fan Club] talks about calling up the local newspaper to complain about something and the editor’s response, it was a factual error, was, Who are you to tell us this is a factual error, who are you, [Detroit Tigers owner] Mike Ilitch has done a lot of things for the city. He was. Well, I’m a constituent. Well, being a constituent doesn’t get you anywhere. Being an important constituent does. For better or worse, Steve Buscemi is a more important constituent than Dan Goldstein [of DDDB] is.
And I think that’s a huge reason why it’s gotten some press coverage and some traction, it certainly helped with fundraising and for all these lawsuits that are holding it off. Bronx folks filed a lawsuit and lost one round, and they were done. Brooklyn folks have filed five or six lawsuits, and keep going back, with appeals, and they’ve managed to delay it, if nothing else. In this game, delay could be as good as winning, if the financing changes, and if the economy changes. Again, that’s what happened with the Jets stadium, it wound up losing not so much on the merits as because there was a lot of money opposed to it. I thought it was a terrible project and should’ve lost on the merits, but that wasn’t why it lost.
[I'd argue that there's another angle, as AY--as the Times observed in 2006--"may well be the first large-scale urban real estate venture in New York City where opposition has coalesced most visibly in the blogosphere." I'd call it both opposition and criticism and point out, as Michael White recently observed, that AYR, No Land Grab, and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn all offer regular scrutiny.]
Professional expertise
A. I talk in the book about Fenway Park, and the folks who organized to save Fenway Park to prevent a new stadium from being built with tax money. They again had the advantage that, both among Red Sox fans, and in the neighborhood, you had people with not necessarily money but professional expertise.(deMause is at left.)
Again, here, the fact that [DDDB's] Candace Carponter has that whole pro bono legal team--in Boston, they had professional fundraisers and preservation experts, and people who could go to the Red Sox and say here’s how you can go for preseveration tax credits, and people who could spend 60 hours a week on this stuff, is hugely important.
And the scary part is, that’s what it takes--and, in Boston, there also was this perfect moment in that the timing, that Tom Finneran, the Speaker [of the House] was opposed to putting a lot of state money into it, and the team happened to be sold to someone [John Henry] who liked Fenway, they brought in [architect] Janet Marie Smith, and she liked Fenway Park. It all just worked out right. ….They easily could have lost if they hadn’t had press conference four days before theirs about our plan to renovate the stadium… Everything broke their way and they will totally admit that.
In Brooklyn, destination unknown
A. In Brooklyn, it could still go either way. But Brooklyn at least has a shot at stopping it. Again, in Brooklyn, the fact that it’s a deal with so many moving parts is both an advantage and disadvantage. It’s an advantage because it makes it hard to analyze the economics and argue with Andrew Zimbalist, it’s a disadvantage because, as we’ve seen, one piece can easily just fall off and then it’s hard to make the economics work.
Did the IBO [Independent Budget Office] look at the housing piece? They didn’t. They just looked at the arena. They made an effort to look at the overall costs.... They said, as long as the arena's in the black, they can justify it. That’s before the city doubled it.
I think if the city were just putting in $100 million, they very well could make it back in new tax revenue, because they’re shifting spending from New Jersey. Again, a lot of it depends on how many people are shifting from New Jersey. Andy [Zimbalist] used the Jets as a proxy [in his report], it’s not the same sport, it’s only played on Sundays.
Football’s a regional sport… are people in New Jersey going to go to Brooklyn after work and then commute home? That’s a huge assumption Zimbalist [made]. A lot of the cost-benefit stuff relies on it.
Ducks in a row?
A. Y’know, one of the things that Ratner has done very poorly is, he got up in December 2003 at Borough Hall and brought in Gehry and said, OK, I’m doing this project and had a big rally, and he wasn’t ready to jump at that point. He had the team pretty soon after that, but he didn’t work out everything behind the scenes.
Q. It seemed like he worked out a lot.
A. He didn’t have everything ready to go. The MOU was announced in March ’05. If he had the MOU ready to go right then, and had started getting rolling faster, before the opposition had time to start filing lawsuits and getting Steve Buscemi involved, then things might’ve turned out differently. I think--this is a guess-I think the difference is that the Yankees had Randy Levine… and was able to call up [Bronx Borough President] Adolfo Carrion and call the Bronx delegation and say, let’s sit down and work this out beforehand. Ratner had Marty Markowitz and Frank Gehry and they’re not political heavyweights. He has his connections and donations. He had Pataki--
Q. He’s got a pretty serious list of lobbyists.
A. I’m not sure why the MOU took so long.
Screecher seats
Q. From reading the book, I think the Nets have made a smart decisions, or clever--they are selling 2000 screecher seats for $15 and even though they’re going to various corporate companies as sponsors, they’re trying to get some local sponsorships and multiple food suppliers.
A. That’ll often happen, that they’ll deal in local food companies to be part of the concessions, both because it’s good for drumming up support, and also because the fans like it. It feels cool and hip and local and you know what city you’re in. The screecher seats, have they committed to how long they’re going to do it? Have they made a commitment-- is it anywhere in writing how long they’re going to keep screecher seats and at what level?
I totally can see them doing that, but what’s going to happen down the road? Is it going to stay 2000 seats? Is it going to stay at that rough [price] level? What if they switch to variable pricing, and they charge more for the hot teams and weekend games. At what point is, yeah, you can get it for $15 but only on alternate Tuesdays? I have no idea what they’re going to do.
But clearly, this was a way of saying: it’s not all for the rich, you’ll still be able to get tickets. I credit them for that if they’re going to be asking for public money, they should at least have some sort of discounted seats, so people who live in Brooklyn can afford to go to the games. If that’s part of the justification for the deal, it should be in the MOU.
[The "screecher seats" guarantee is not in any of the documents, as far as I can tell, though the distribution of 54 seats a game "for community use" is part of the Community Benefits Agreement.]
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
In radio interview, Paterson hedges on AY, whiffs on naming rights
Governor David Paterson answered questions on WCBS radio during an interview yesterday afternoon, and Atlantic Yards was one of the relatively few topics that came up. His answer was an unsurprising hedge, but his comment about naming rights elsewhere during the interview was a dismaying whiff.
AY was a legitimate topic; four critical questions on AY were among the 31 posted on the WCBS web site before the 4 pm interview.
One question posed online was:
With the state in dire fiscal straits, why are you supporting the costly Atlantic Yards project, which may end up costing the state and New York City as much as $2 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks? Since many fiscal experts believe that sports facilities return little in economic benefit to the taxpayers, why not scrap the arena in favor of more needed projects?
(That $2 billion figure is highly debatable.)
On the air
A variant of the question was asked (about 11:15 into the program): "With the state in such dire fiscal straits why are you supporting this costly project, which according to this writer may end up costing the state and New York City about 2 billion in subsidies and tax breaks?"
Paterson's response: "There is a point that the listener correctly has addressed, that if it starts to become too costly, a lot of these projects that we were for, we might have to change our mind. To this point we don't think that we are there with the Atlantic Yards and continue to try to help them."
Does continuing to try to help mean simply moving ahead or does it mean additional subsidies, which Forest City Ratner seeks?
Whiffing on naming rights
During the interview, Paterson said he was opposed to selling state assets but not averse to leasing them. Asked about naming rights, as in “the Company Y state office building," Paterson responded, "Well, we’ve got [the new Mets stadium] CitiField"--he chuckled—“and that might be a way to do it, but I wouldn’t want to change the names of any of the facilities that we have honored great New Yorkers in the past…”
Still, the governor said, he was open to more options than previously.
The fact is, “we” don’t have CitiField, nor the Barclays Center, the corporate name of the planned Atlantic Yards arena. The naming rights go to the team owners.
But why? In an interview published last month, author Neil deMause observed, "There’s no reason for this to be private money. If the public is building the stadium, if the public is owning the stadium, why should the team get to slap a name and get the money from it, or consider the money from it that pays off the stadium as paying off their share?"
Maybe it's time to reconsider.
[Update: A reader suggests that Paterson's "we" was merely a reference to the concept of naming rights, not a claim that the state was benefiting from CitiField. Well, the governor probably does know better. However, I'd still contend that his formulation--without the acknowledgment that the public doesn't benefit--was misleading to listeners.]
Other AY questions
Among the questions posted online, five were about Atlantic Yards:
1) What about Atlantic Yards?
With the severe fiscal problems facing the city and state; with the developer unable to put together financing and scrapping all the public benefits; and all the serious unanswered questions about the approval process for Atlantic Yards, will you have the PACB review this project's approval?
3) More Money for the MTA
The MTA has an agreement to sell their 8-acre rail yard in Brooklyn to developer Bruce Ratner for 100 million, even though the MTA appraised the land at $214.5 million. that deal has not actually closed. Wouldn't it make sense for the Governor to have the MTA void that deal and put the rail yard out for bid to multiple developers and get at least $100 million more for the supposedly cash strapped MTA?
6) Atlantic Yards
With the state in dire fiscal straits, why are you supporting the costly Atlantic Yards project, which may end up costing the state and New York City as much as $2 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks? Since many fiscal experts believe that sportsfacilities return little in economic benefit to the taxpayers, why not scrap the arena in favor of more needed projects?
29) Do you like the UNITY plan for Brooklyn?
An alternative to the stalled Atlantic Yards boondoggle has been endorsed by many of the area's city and state representatives for many reasons, including that because many developer would be involved it's actually more likely to get built. Your officehas been studying the plan; what do you think of it and the recommendations of the city and state legislators?
35) Vanderbilt Yards
FCR's Atlantic Yards project will forever be known as a project that came out of three men in a room. You are now one of those men. How can you support the poster child for cronyism and corruption?
I'll point out that final question was posted long after Paterson had left the air.
Is Atlantic Yards the most important issue facing Paterson? No, and there were even more questions about the fate of the MTA.
There was only one question about Moynihan Station, which, though less controversial--though hardly less complicated--than Atlantic Yards, is probably more important. Then again, it's AY that may be the Penn Station of our generation.
AY was a legitimate topic; four critical questions on AY were among the 31 posted on the WCBS web site before the 4 pm interview.
One question posed online was:
With the state in dire fiscal straits, why are you supporting the costly Atlantic Yards project, which may end up costing the state and New York City as much as $2 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks? Since many fiscal experts believe that sports facilities return little in economic benefit to the taxpayers, why not scrap the arena in favor of more needed projects?
(That $2 billion figure is highly debatable.)
On the air
A variant of the question was asked (about 11:15 into the program): "With the state in such dire fiscal straits why are you supporting this costly project, which according to this writer may end up costing the state and New York City about 2 billion in subsidies and tax breaks?"
Paterson's response: "There is a point that the listener correctly has addressed, that if it starts to become too costly, a lot of these projects that we were for, we might have to change our mind. To this point we don't think that we are there with the Atlantic Yards and continue to try to help them."
Does continuing to try to help mean simply moving ahead or does it mean additional subsidies, which Forest City Ratner seeks?
Whiffing on naming rights
During the interview, Paterson said he was opposed to selling state assets but not averse to leasing them. Asked about naming rights, as in “the Company Y state office building," Paterson responded, "Well, we’ve got [the new Mets stadium] CitiField"--he chuckled—“and that might be a way to do it, but I wouldn’t want to change the names of any of the facilities that we have honored great New Yorkers in the past…”
Still, the governor said, he was open to more options than previously.
The fact is, “we” don’t have CitiField, nor the Barclays Center, the corporate name of the planned Atlantic Yards arena. The naming rights go to the team owners.
But why? In an interview published last month, author Neil deMause observed, "There’s no reason for this to be private money. If the public is building the stadium, if the public is owning the stadium, why should the team get to slap a name and get the money from it, or consider the money from it that pays off the stadium as paying off their share?"
Maybe it's time to reconsider.
[Update: A reader suggests that Paterson's "we" was merely a reference to the concept of naming rights, not a claim that the state was benefiting from CitiField. Well, the governor probably does know better. However, I'd still contend that his formulation--without the acknowledgment that the public doesn't benefit--was misleading to listeners.]
Other AY questions
Among the questions posted online, five were about Atlantic Yards:
1) What about Atlantic Yards?
With the severe fiscal problems facing the city and state; with the developer unable to put together financing and scrapping all the public benefits; and all the serious unanswered questions about the approval process for Atlantic Yards, will you have the PACB review this project's approval?
3) More Money for the MTA
The MTA has an agreement to sell their 8-acre rail yard in Brooklyn to developer Bruce Ratner for 100 million, even though the MTA appraised the land at $214.5 million. that deal has not actually closed. Wouldn't it make sense for the Governor to have the MTA void that deal and put the rail yard out for bid to multiple developers and get at least $100 million more for the supposedly cash strapped MTA?
6) Atlantic Yards
With the state in dire fiscal straits, why are you supporting the costly Atlantic Yards project, which may end up costing the state and New York City as much as $2 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks? Since many fiscal experts believe that sportsfacilities return little in economic benefit to the taxpayers, why not scrap the arena in favor of more needed projects?
29) Do you like the UNITY plan for Brooklyn?
An alternative to the stalled Atlantic Yards boondoggle has been endorsed by many of the area's city and state representatives for many reasons, including that because many developer would be involved it's actually more likely to get built. Your officehas been studying the plan; what do you think of it and the recommendations of the city and state legislators?
35) Vanderbilt Yards
FCR's Atlantic Yards project will forever be known as a project that came out of three men in a room. You are now one of those men. How can you support the poster child for cronyism and corruption?
I'll point out that final question was posted long after Paterson had left the air.
Is Atlantic Yards the most important issue facing Paterson? No, and there were even more questions about the fate of the MTA.
There was only one question about Moynihan Station, which, though less controversial--though hardly less complicated--than Atlantic Yards, is probably more important. Then again, it's AY that may be the Penn Station of our generation.
Flashback 2005: sports economist Zimbalist on the AY exception
In the June 2005 issue of the Brooklyn-based 'zine Stay Free, an interview (headlined Hoop Schemes) shows sports economist Andrew Zimbalist poking holes in sports facility studies, but insisting his study for developer Forest City Ratner was an exception.However, a paired interview with Zimbalist's intellectual foil, Neil deMause of Field of Schemes, shows some contradiction in the professor's calculations.
STAY FREE!: Another thing you said was that, when it comes to public financing, the term "self-financing" for stadiums is often misleading.
ZIMBALIST: The evidence on public investments and their fiscal impact on municipal budgets is that they break even at best, but if you throw in all of the resources behind a stadium--the value of the land, tax abatements, rent subsidies, infrastructural maintenance, additional security by the city, additional sanitation--then in the large majority of cases the city or state is putting up tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to either partially or entirely finance the construction of the stadium. Neither the rental payments nor the revenue-sharing payments that the city gets back cover all of the direct and indirect expenses.
Yet Zimbalist on the Brian Lehrer Show recently insisted incorrectly that Forest City Ratner was merely relying on as-of-right benefits. And, of course, he ignored costs for additional security and incorrectly speculated there would be no additional public contribution.
The AY exception
A little later in the Stay Free! interview, AY came up.
STAY FREE!: But it is probably fair to say that the benefits are oversold.
ZIMBALIST: They are always oversold. Except in the case of my study for the Atlantic Yards arena, of course! What is true is that if this stuff is done properly it can relocate economic activity within a metropolitan area. So if it is your desire as a city planner to develop one part of the city at the expense of another, a stadium or an arena can contribute to that.
...The lion's share of the benefit--or maybe all of it--in my initial study, had to do not with the arena but with the other features of the investment.
Skepticism from deMause
STAY FREE!: Zimbalist said that the Nets arena would be roughly break-even. You said possibly optimistic . . .
DeMAUSE: Yes, in terms of what the city would get back. If the city spent several hundred million dollars on it, it could get back that amount in tax revenue. But that is assuming a lot. It's assuming that a lot of people who are currently going to Nets games in New Jersey are going to switch over and come to Brooklyn; otherwise, people are spending the same amount in the city. The money is just going to the Nets instead of, say, a movie theater. It is a best-case scenario that we make our money back. At that point the question is: are there other things the city could be doing with this money?
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
State eminent domain suit filed, raises new state claim; hearing in January?
As expected, the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case has taken a last-ditch trip to state court and, though some of the arguments have already been dismissed in the (likely) more hospitable federal court system, the case filed Friday adds a novel claim, based on grounds untested in court, which might make the argument interesting.
Thus, it looks like the Atlantic Yards legal battle will not be resolved until 2009, despite developer Bruce Ratner’s stated claim--which itself represents a slowdown in the timetable--that groundbreaking would begin in January. (Two other lawsuits are pending, as well as questions over project financing.)
Nine plaintiffs--two fewer than in the recent Supreme Court eminent domain appeal and five fewer than the total plaintiffs in the federal case--have filed suit against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the only potential defendant under the state Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). In the federal case, which was dismissed at the trial and appellate court levels and refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, city and state officials were named as defendants, along with developer Forest City Ratner.
Reaction from FCR, ESDC
Forest City Ratner issued a statement: “The courts have repeatedly upheld the public benefits of the Atlantic Yards project,” [Bruce] Bender said, explaining that the project will create thousands of needed jobs and affordable homes. “As expected, opponents have filed another law suit opposing the State’s right to use eminent domain. We’re fully confident that the courts will once again agree that this project is in the public’s interest.”
ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston said, "At this point, we will not be commenting on pending litigation."
[Oddly enough, the new lawsuit didn't get covered in any of the four daily newspapers today. It was covered in yesterday's Observer, online.]
Lawsuit claims
“This is a case about the misuse of government’s power to take property by eminent domain and the betrayal of public trust in service to the interests of a private developer,” argues the lawsuit, filed in the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department, which--rather than a trial court--is tasked (see EDP § 207) with expeditiously hearing local claims under the EDPL.
The charges mostly echo those in the defeated federal lawsuit: “The deal was struck behind closed doors; without first creating a comprehensive development plan or so much as considering a single alternative to Ratner’s plan for development of the area; without a bidding or competitive selection process of any kind for the project as a whole, including the privilege of being given Petitioners’ homes and businesses after they are seized by ESDC; without a true competitive process for the property owned by the Metropolitan Transit Authority; and without a process to allow for meaningful community input.”
Potential case timing
Within three months after the ESDC’s legal answer, the petitioners will file their brief to support the lawsuit. After that, the ESDC has 30 days to file its answer and petitioners have ten days to file an answering brief. Thus, if the ESDC files its response by the end of August, the petitioners would have until the end of November to file their brief, the ESDC would have until the end of December to file its answer, and petitioners would have to file the final legal papers by January 10, and oral argument would be conducted sometime after that.
Thus, while the ESDC likely will move for the entire case to be dismissed, it’s also likely that the Atlantic Yards legal battle might not be resolved until 2009.
Two fewer plaintiffs
Three of the original plaintiffs, all residential tenants, reached settlements before the Supreme Court appeal. That left 11 plaintiffs.
Two plaintiffs who were on that appeal but who are not in the state case are Jerry Campbell, owner of two houses on Dean Street east of Sixth Avenue, as well as Aaron Piller and his family firm Rockwell Property Management, which operates a commercial building at 666 Pacific Street, east of Sixth Avenue, both part of the rectangle just east of the bottom half of the arena block.
“They chose not to join the lawsuit,” said Daniel Goldstein, a plaintiff in the case and a spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, which has organized and raised money to fund the case, though it is not a plaintiff.
Campbell told me he was not in negotiations nor seeking settlement regarding his property.
I wasn't able to reach Piller, who had not been a plaintiff in the original federal lawsuit. He had filed a separate federal claim, which was consolidated with the main federal lawsuit.
The question of public use
“The exercise of eminent domain to seize Petitioners’ homes and businesses not only violates the EDPL; it is unnecessary,” the new lawsuit contends. “Large-scale development in this section of Brooklyn can be done successfully and profitably without taking a single piece of privately owned land. ESDC’s decision to take Petitioners’ properties serves only one purpose: to allow Ratner to build a Project of unprecedented size (adjacent to property he already owns), and thus to reap a profit that ESDC never bothered to even consider.”
Well, it also serves the purpose of building an arena at this site--which would require eminent domain. (An arena in Coney Island would not.)
The lawsuit says that private property can be taken through the power of eminent domain only if the taking is for public use, but--since it’s a petition rather than a brief--it doesn’t mention that two federal court decisions have in essence affirmed public use. [Updated: To clarify, the decisions (trial court, appellate) upheld the dismissal of the case based on a failure to state a claim, thus deferring to the ESDC's findings of public use, though they didn't evaluate public use independently.]
It states that the project bypassed “City procedures mandating meaningful local review, planning, democratic oversight and community input.”
The Takings Area
As in the federal case, the lawsuit makes a distinction between the part of the project in the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA)--essentially the north side of Pacific Street and above--and the Takings Area, the area on the north side of Dean Street and south side of Pacific Street that includes the plaintiffs’ properties.
The lawsuit notes that the Takings Area was never designated or targeted for redevelopment by any government authority prior to the project announcement, never declared blighted until 2006, and, instead, “rests smack in the middle of some of the most valuable real estate in Brooklyn.” (The lawsuit claims that “most of the Takings Area was rezoned” in the decade preceding AY; actually, there were several spot rezonings in less than half the area.)
New evidence
The lawsuit points to two city officials who made meaningful commentary not previously raised in court. At a public hearing of Borough President Marty Markowitz’s Atlantic Yards Committee on 3/17/06, Winston Von Engel of the Department of City Planning’s Brooklyn Office said the city had not been considering redeveloping the area because the rail yards “belong to the Long Island Rail Road. They use them heavily. They're critical to their operations.... Ratner owns property across the way. And [he] saw the yards, and looked at those. We had not been considering the yards directly."
It also points to the testimony, at a City Council hearing 5/4/04, of Andrew Alper, the President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation:
This particular project came to us. We were not out soliciting, we were developing a Downtown Brooklyn Plan, but we were not out soliciting a professional sports franchise for Downtown Brooklyn. The developer came to us with what we thought was actually a very clever plan. It is not only bringing a sports team back to Brooklyn, but to do it in a way that provided dramatic economic development catalyst in terms of housing, retail, commercial jobs, construction jobs, permanent jobs. So, they came to us, we did not come to them. And it is not really up to us then to go out and try to find a better deal.
The suit leaves out the rest of his quote:
I think that would discourage developers from coming to us, if every time they came to us we went out and tried to shop their idea to somebody else. So we are actively shopping, but not for another sports arena franchise for Brooklyn.
In the federal case, an appellate court dismissed the question of sequence, saying it did not matter if the project was proposed by a private developer--but did not address the contrasts with the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision, where public funds were committed before most private beneficiaries were known.
The MTA role
The lawsuit also points to two statements by the the MTA’s chief spokesman in 2004 that Forest City Ratner already had the railyard in a private deal. It cites a “sham” RFP process, lasting 42 days, giving Forest City Ratner significant advantage. Rival developer Extell offered $150 million in cash, versus Ratner’s $50 million, far less than the $214.5 million appraised value. (Forest City Ratner values the entirety of its bid as much higher.)
Extell, the suit notes, was willing to provide a pro forma statement of expected revenues, but Forest City Ratner did not.
Also, by contrast, the Brooklyn RFP was 42 pages, while the MTA’s July 2007 Hudson Yards RFP was 1369 pages.
The lawsuit also charges that public hearing was inadequate.
Public use?
It calls the ESDC’s determination of public use a pretext. First, the stated goal of elimination of blight has no basis in fact, the suit says, noting that the original justification was economic development and pro sports. The blight study by consultant AKRF, which only conducts “pro-development” studies, according to the lawsuit, considered only the AY footprint, and cited “underutilization” as a blight criteria.
The arena, the suit contends, would be financial loss for the city. The IBO has not formally recalculated, so the issue is murky, actually.
“The Project will not create affordable housing,” the suit asserts, noting that affordable housing funds are scarce, there’s no established timeline, and the project would create secondary displacement.
Benefit to Ratner
The suit says no true analysis of the public use can be made without scrutinizing the benefit to Ratner, including discretionary perks, “a government blank check” for “extraordinary infrastructure,” eminent domain to acquire property and evict rent-stabilized tenants, and more.
It’s unclear whether that’s required under state law.
Benefit secondary to Ratner’s?
The first claim is that the public does not benefit or, if it does, such benefit is “secondary and incidental to the benefit that inures to Ratner.” Without citing by name the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, on which the federal eminent domain challenge relied, the lawsuit claims that the Project “is not the product of a carefully considered development,” an element that the Kelo majority cited, and the “beneficiary of the land transfer by eminent domain was known long before the determination to proceed,” an element that violates the formulation in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s non-binding concurrence in the case.
It also points out that the “substantial public financing and incentives provided for the program were not put in place before the developer was known and were only promised to Ratner,” which also reflects Kennedy’s formulation.
Differential treatment
A second claim argues that it was not rational for Ratner and the ESDC to spare the property of persons with more power and clout--most of the block cut out of the footprint between Dean and Pacific streets and Sixth and Carlton avenues, which includes Newswalk, a development by Shaya Boymelgreen, who also had sold property to Forest City Ratner.
While it may indeed have been more rational to select properties in a contiguous shape--or even to include a vacant lot adjacent to but not part of the 100-foot-wide stretch on this block--it’s likely ESDC will argue that the block, as a whole, is in better shape than the other footprint blocks. (It is, but the difference between the five houses--at left in the photo--scheduled for demolition and their neighbors on Dean Street is hardly great.)
Denial of due process
The petitioners, according to the lawsuit, have a valuable property interest in their homes, businesses, and leases, but have been denied “their property interest without due process of law.”
State Constitutional claim
The novel state claim relies on Article 18, section 6 of the New York State Constitution, which provides that no loan or subsidy shall be made to aid any project unless the project contains a plan for the remediation of blight and the “occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas.”
However, the suit states, the project is not “restricted to persons of low income” and no preference has been given to “persons who live or shall have lived in such area,” the petition claims. Actually, residents of the three adjacent Community Board districts would be given preference in access to the project’s affordable housing.
Article 18 concerns housing; its text:
§6. No loan, or subsidy shall be made by the state to aid any project unless such project is in conformity with a plan or undertaking for the clearance, replanning and reconstruction or rehabilitation of a substandard and unsanitary area or areas and for recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant thereto. The legislature may provide additional conditions to the making of such loans or subsidies consistent with the purposes of this article. The occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas. The defense on this will be interesting. The ESDC may argue that the $100 million, is directed at the arena alone. However, section 6 seems to contemplate that eminent domain used for recreational and other facilities can include housing. Perhaps the ESDC will argue that other sections of the state constitution may offer different guidance.
Any precedent?
I asked plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff if there were any precedent regarding section 6. He responded that there was no precedent, which (to me) makes the claim dicey, despite what might seem a strong argument on its face:
If your question is whether or not ESDC/UDC has used its powers in the past to condemn land and provide bonds/loans/subsidies and the like to developments that were not restricted to aiding persons of low income, the answer is, of course, yes. So, in a very narrow sense, there is precedent that ESDC/UDC has done this in the past, which to me only means that it has violated this provision of the NY Constitution in the past.
There is no legal precedent that I know of that addresses the issues raised by this particular claim. Article 18 of the Constitution was enacted in 1938 after the constitutional convention of that year (the last one to be enacted by a vote of the people). Section 2 grants the legislature the power to delegate its eminent domain power to local governments and "public corporations." Section 6 restricts loans or subsidies to projects that are (or presumably will be) occuppied by low income persons who live or have lived in the area. Section 10 says that nothing in this Article 18 "shall be deemd to authorize or empower the state, or any city, town willage or public corporation to engage in any private business or enterprise other than the building and operation of low rent dwelling houses for persons of low income as defined by law, or the loaning of money to owners of existing multiple dwellings as herein provided."
I read Article 18, sec. 6 as a substantive restriction that attaches whenever the government seeks to both (1) clear slums or blighted areas and (2) replace slums with housing for persons with low incomes by providing loans or subsidies. If both condition are met, as ESDC alleges they here are when it claims that the purpose of the project is to remedy blight and provide affordable housing, than sec. 6 requires, that the housing be restricted to low-income (which presumably cannot include luxury condos and corporate sky boxes) with preference given to residents who lived in the footprint in the first place.
Thus, it looks like the Atlantic Yards legal battle will not be resolved until 2009, despite developer Bruce Ratner’s stated claim--which itself represents a slowdown in the timetable--that groundbreaking would begin in January. (Two other lawsuits are pending, as well as questions over project financing.)
Nine plaintiffs--two fewer than in the recent Supreme Court eminent domain appeal and five fewer than the total plaintiffs in the federal case--have filed suit against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the only potential defendant under the state Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). In the federal case, which was dismissed at the trial and appellate court levels and refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, city and state officials were named as defendants, along with developer Forest City Ratner.
Reaction from FCR, ESDC
Forest City Ratner issued a statement: “The courts have repeatedly upheld the public benefits of the Atlantic Yards project,” [Bruce] Bender said, explaining that the project will create thousands of needed jobs and affordable homes. “As expected, opponents have filed another law suit opposing the State’s right to use eminent domain. We’re fully confident that the courts will once again agree that this project is in the public’s interest.”
ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston said, "At this point, we will not be commenting on pending litigation."
[Oddly enough, the new lawsuit didn't get covered in any of the four daily newspapers today. It was covered in yesterday's Observer, online.]
Lawsuit claims
“This is a case about the misuse of government’s power to take property by eminent domain and the betrayal of public trust in service to the interests of a private developer,” argues the lawsuit, filed in the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department, which--rather than a trial court--is tasked (see EDP § 207) with expeditiously hearing local claims under the EDPL.
The charges mostly echo those in the defeated federal lawsuit: “The deal was struck behind closed doors; without first creating a comprehensive development plan or so much as considering a single alternative to Ratner’s plan for development of the area; without a bidding or competitive selection process of any kind for the project as a whole, including the privilege of being given Petitioners’ homes and businesses after they are seized by ESDC; without a true competitive process for the property owned by the Metropolitan Transit Authority; and without a process to allow for meaningful community input.”
Potential case timing
Within three months after the ESDC’s legal answer, the petitioners will file their brief to support the lawsuit. After that, the ESDC has 30 days to file its answer and petitioners have ten days to file an answering brief. Thus, if the ESDC files its response by the end of August, the petitioners would have until the end of November to file their brief, the ESDC would have until the end of December to file its answer, and petitioners would have to file the final legal papers by January 10, and oral argument would be conducted sometime after that.
Thus, while the ESDC likely will move for the entire case to be dismissed, it’s also likely that the Atlantic Yards legal battle might not be resolved until 2009.
Two fewer plaintiffs
Three of the original plaintiffs, all residential tenants, reached settlements before the Supreme Court appeal. That left 11 plaintiffs.Two plaintiffs who were on that appeal but who are not in the state case are Jerry Campbell, owner of two houses on Dean Street east of Sixth Avenue, as well as Aaron Piller and his family firm Rockwell Property Management, which operates a commercial building at 666 Pacific Street, east of Sixth Avenue, both part of the rectangle just east of the bottom half of the arena block.
“They chose not to join the lawsuit,” said Daniel Goldstein, a plaintiff in the case and a spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, which has organized and raised money to fund the case, though it is not a plaintiff.
Campbell told me he was not in negotiations nor seeking settlement regarding his property.
I wasn't able to reach Piller, who had not been a plaintiff in the original federal lawsuit. He had filed a separate federal claim, which was consolidated with the main federal lawsuit.
The question of public use
“The exercise of eminent domain to seize Petitioners’ homes and businesses not only violates the EDPL; it is unnecessary,” the new lawsuit contends. “Large-scale development in this section of Brooklyn can be done successfully and profitably without taking a single piece of privately owned land. ESDC’s decision to take Petitioners’ properties serves only one purpose: to allow Ratner to build a Project of unprecedented size (adjacent to property he already owns), and thus to reap a profit that ESDC never bothered to even consider.”
Well, it also serves the purpose of building an arena at this site--which would require eminent domain. (An arena in Coney Island would not.)
The lawsuit says that private property can be taken through the power of eminent domain only if the taking is for public use, but--since it’s a petition rather than a brief--it doesn’t mention that two federal court decisions have in essence affirmed public use. [Updated: To clarify, the decisions (trial court, appellate) upheld the dismissal of the case based on a failure to state a claim, thus deferring to the ESDC's findings of public use, though they didn't evaluate public use independently.]
It states that the project bypassed “City procedures mandating meaningful local review, planning, democratic oversight and community input.”
The Takings Area
As in the federal case, the lawsuit makes a distinction between the part of the project in the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA)--essentially the north side of Pacific Street and above--and the Takings Area, the area on the north side of Dean Street and south side of Pacific Street that includes the plaintiffs’ properties.
The lawsuit notes that the Takings Area was never designated or targeted for redevelopment by any government authority prior to the project announcement, never declared blighted until 2006, and, instead, “rests smack in the middle of some of the most valuable real estate in Brooklyn.” (The lawsuit claims that “most of the Takings Area was rezoned” in the decade preceding AY; actually, there were several spot rezonings in less than half the area.)
New evidence
The lawsuit points to two city officials who made meaningful commentary not previously raised in court. At a public hearing of Borough President Marty Markowitz’s Atlantic Yards Committee on 3/17/06, Winston Von Engel of the Department of City Planning’s Brooklyn Office said the city had not been considering redeveloping the area because the rail yards “belong to the Long Island Rail Road. They use them heavily. They're critical to their operations.... Ratner owns property across the way. And [he] saw the yards, and looked at those. We had not been considering the yards directly."
It also points to the testimony, at a City Council hearing 5/4/04, of Andrew Alper, the President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation:
This particular project came to us. We were not out soliciting, we were developing a Downtown Brooklyn Plan, but we were not out soliciting a professional sports franchise for Downtown Brooklyn. The developer came to us with what we thought was actually a very clever plan. It is not only bringing a sports team back to Brooklyn, but to do it in a way that provided dramatic economic development catalyst in terms of housing, retail, commercial jobs, construction jobs, permanent jobs. So, they came to us, we did not come to them. And it is not really up to us then to go out and try to find a better deal.
The suit leaves out the rest of his quote:
I think that would discourage developers from coming to us, if every time they came to us we went out and tried to shop their idea to somebody else. So we are actively shopping, but not for another sports arena franchise for Brooklyn.
In the federal case, an appellate court dismissed the question of sequence, saying it did not matter if the project was proposed by a private developer--but did not address the contrasts with the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision, where public funds were committed before most private beneficiaries were known.
The MTA role
The lawsuit also points to two statements by the the MTA’s chief spokesman in 2004 that Forest City Ratner already had the railyard in a private deal. It cites a “sham” RFP process, lasting 42 days, giving Forest City Ratner significant advantage. Rival developer Extell offered $150 million in cash, versus Ratner’s $50 million, far less than the $214.5 million appraised value. (Forest City Ratner values the entirety of its bid as much higher.)
Extell, the suit notes, was willing to provide a pro forma statement of expected revenues, but Forest City Ratner did not.
Also, by contrast, the Brooklyn RFP was 42 pages, while the MTA’s July 2007 Hudson Yards RFP was 1369 pages.
The lawsuit also charges that public hearing was inadequate.
Public use?
It calls the ESDC’s determination of public use a pretext. First, the stated goal of elimination of blight has no basis in fact, the suit says, noting that the original justification was economic development and pro sports. The blight study by consultant AKRF, which only conducts “pro-development” studies, according to the lawsuit, considered only the AY footprint, and cited “underutilization” as a blight criteria.
The arena, the suit contends, would be financial loss for the city. The IBO has not formally recalculated, so the issue is murky, actually.
“The Project will not create affordable housing,” the suit asserts, noting that affordable housing funds are scarce, there’s no established timeline, and the project would create secondary displacement.
Benefit to Ratner
The suit says no true analysis of the public use can be made without scrutinizing the benefit to Ratner, including discretionary perks, “a government blank check” for “extraordinary infrastructure,” eminent domain to acquire property and evict rent-stabilized tenants, and more.
It’s unclear whether that’s required under state law.
Benefit secondary to Ratner’s?
The first claim is that the public does not benefit or, if it does, such benefit is “secondary and incidental to the benefit that inures to Ratner.” Without citing by name the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, on which the federal eminent domain challenge relied, the lawsuit claims that the Project “is not the product of a carefully considered development,” an element that the Kelo majority cited, and the “beneficiary of the land transfer by eminent domain was known long before the determination to proceed,” an element that violates the formulation in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s non-binding concurrence in the case.
It also points out that the “substantial public financing and incentives provided for the program were not put in place before the developer was known and were only promised to Ratner,” which also reflects Kennedy’s formulation.
Differential treatment
A second claim argues that it was not rational for Ratner and the ESDC to spare the property of persons with more power and clout--most of the block cut out of the footprint between Dean and Pacific streets and Sixth and Carlton avenues, which includes Newswalk, a development by Shaya Boymelgreen, who also had sold property to Forest City Ratner.
While it may indeed have been more rational to select properties in a contiguous shape--or even to include a vacant lot adjacent to but not part of the 100-foot-wide stretch on this block--it’s likely ESDC will argue that the block, as a whole, is in better shape than the other footprint blocks. (It is, but the difference between the five houses--at left in the photo--scheduled for demolition and their neighbors on Dean Street is hardly great.)Denial of due process
The petitioners, according to the lawsuit, have a valuable property interest in their homes, businesses, and leases, but have been denied “their property interest without due process of law.”
State Constitutional claim
The novel state claim relies on Article 18, section 6 of the New York State Constitution, which provides that no loan or subsidy shall be made to aid any project unless the project contains a plan for the remediation of blight and the “occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas.”
However, the suit states, the project is not “restricted to persons of low income” and no preference has been given to “persons who live or shall have lived in such area,” the petition claims. Actually, residents of the three adjacent Community Board districts would be given preference in access to the project’s affordable housing.
Article 18 concerns housing; its text:
§6. No loan, or subsidy shall be made by the state to aid any project unless such project is in conformity with a plan or undertaking for the clearance, replanning and reconstruction or rehabilitation of a substandard and unsanitary area or areas and for recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant thereto. The legislature may provide additional conditions to the making of such loans or subsidies consistent with the purposes of this article. The occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas. The defense on this will be interesting. The ESDC may argue that the $100 million, is directed at the arena alone. However, section 6 seems to contemplate that eminent domain used for recreational and other facilities can include housing. Perhaps the ESDC will argue that other sections of the state constitution may offer different guidance.
Any precedent?
I asked plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff if there were any precedent regarding section 6. He responded that there was no precedent, which (to me) makes the claim dicey, despite what might seem a strong argument on its face:
If your question is whether or not ESDC/UDC has used its powers in the past to condemn land and provide bonds/loans/subsidies and the like to developments that were not restricted to aiding persons of low income, the answer is, of course, yes. So, in a very narrow sense, there is precedent that ESDC/UDC has done this in the past, which to me only means that it has violated this provision of the NY Constitution in the past.
There is no legal precedent that I know of that addresses the issues raised by this particular claim. Article 18 of the Constitution was enacted in 1938 after the constitutional convention of that year (the last one to be enacted by a vote of the people). Section 2 grants the legislature the power to delegate its eminent domain power to local governments and "public corporations." Section 6 restricts loans or subsidies to projects that are (or presumably will be) occuppied by low income persons who live or have lived in the area. Section 10 says that nothing in this Article 18 "shall be deemd to authorize or empower the state, or any city, town willage or public corporation to engage in any private business or enterprise other than the building and operation of low rent dwelling houses for persons of low income as defined by law, or the loaning of money to owners of existing multiple dwellings as herein provided."
I read Article 18, sec. 6 as a substantive restriction that attaches whenever the government seeks to both (1) clear slums or blighted areas and (2) replace slums with housing for persons with low incomes by providing loans or subsidies. If both condition are met, as ESDC alleges they here are when it claims that the purpose of the project is to remedy blight and provide affordable housing, than sec. 6 requires, that the housing be restricted to low-income (which presumably cannot include luxury condos and corporate sky boxes) with preference given to residents who lived in the footprint in the first place.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Bruce Ratner makes it official: AY arena would open in mid-2011 (best-case scenario)
Despite public statements to the contrary, as on the Barclays Center web site (right), 
the New Jersey Nets have three, not two, more years at the Izod Center in the Meadowlands--and that's in a best-case scenario.
The word comes directly from Forest City Ratner president (and Nets majority owner) Bruce Ratner, who indicated to shareholders in June that construction would start in January and take two-and-a-half years--a timetable far different from the developer's and team's public statements, including to season ticket-holders.
Indeed, just last week, during a July 30 Fox Business Channel segment (go to 3:43), Nets Sports & Entertainment President CEO Brett Yormark claimed, "We plan on breaking ground in November and being there for the '10-'11 season."
[Update: FCR's Bruce Bender tells the Observer: "It is not a new schedule. I think Bruce was just stating that the schedule in place is in fact very aggressive. We plan to break ground this fall and are working to open in calendar year 2010. While that's the goal, if it is not met then it would end up being calendar year 2011."
That's about as trustworthy as Chuck Ratner's clarification last year, when, after slipping and indicating the arena would open in 2010, insisted that he meant 2009.]
In May, claims of 2010
Yormark was consistent with the developer's rhetoric. Remember, in a May 4 op-ed in the Daily News (excerpt at right), Bruce Ratner stated that the developer aimed "to break ground on the Barclays Center later this year," then "break ground on the first residential building," complete and open both at the same time, then "break ground on the next residential tower in 2010."
That sequence suggests a 2010 arena opening; indeed, the accompanying Daily News article reported 2010 as the arena opening date. (Note that the FAQ on the Atlantic Yards web site
(below) leaves some wiggle room, because it does not indicate that construction on the second residential tower would begin after the arena and first tower were completed.
Governmental officials buy the 2010 opening date. In a 5/8/08 letter to the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury Department, arguing that the AY arena deserves tax-exempt bonds under a more lenient standard, the New York City Industrial Development Authority and the Empire State Development Corporation repeated the claim that the arena was anticipated to open in 2010.
In the May 12 Sports Business Journal, Yormark said the arena would open in time for the 2010-11 season.
However, a May 15 press release announcing the sale of luxury suites promised an opening in "calendar year 2010," which I suspect might mean New Year's Eve, given that the three-year bridge reconstruction schedule ends in January 2011.
In June, candor about 2011
A month later, at the June 19 annual meeting in Cleveland of Forest City Enterprises, parent of Forest City Ratner, Bruce Ratner revised his prediction by one year, to mid-2011, which means the arena would open for the 2011-2012 season, three seasons from now.
While the webcast of the meeting has expired, the transcript is available (for sale) and has not been corrected, so I'm assuming this segment is correct:
WILBUR BLACK: I'm [Wilbur Black], and I've been attending for many years. We were wondering, my grandson, was wondering about your New York Nets -- or New Jersey Nets, the situation on that...
ALBERT B. RATNER: Okay. Bruce, do you want to answer the Nets question?...
BRUCE RATNER: I don't know whether your grandson is a Nets fan or a Brooklyn fan or both so I know how to answer the question. But we're doing very well on the Atlantic Yards project. Our hope is that we can close our loans and close the transaction by the end of the year. And then it will be about two and a half years to build our arena, and then the Nets will move from New Jersey to Brooklyn. So, we're working hard at it, and I think we're finally close to a closing.
(Emphasis added)
If it takes 2.5 years to build the arena, and construction starts in January 2009, the arena would open in July 2011. Still, keep in mind that the Nets have extended their lease in their current facility to 2012-13, just in case.
Also keep in mind that there's no certainty that groundbreaking for the arena would occur in January--legal cases, including the just-filed state eminent domain lawsuit, may still be pending.
Misleading the public and ticket holders
Beyond the regularly misleading statements to the public, Forest City Ratner has been deceiving season ticket-holders. On July 8, NetsDaily reported, some 40 such supporters were told at an event in Manhattan that the team “anticipates” playing in the Barclays Center during the 2010-11 season.
That was more than two weeks after Bruce Ratner told shareholders in Cleveland something very different.
As noted, Yormark repeated that timetable during the July 30 Fox Business Channel segment.
Last year, it was 2009
Remember, when the project was announced in 2003, the arena was to open in 2006. When the project was approved in December 2006, the construction schedule anticipated an arena opening in October 2009.
Speaking to investment analysts in March 2007, Forest City executive VP Bob O'Brien slipped and said that "hopefully" the "ball team" would open in 2010, and Forest City CEO Chuck Ratner seconded that.
Ratner soon tried to recover, issuing a statement, "We remain committed to our goal of opening the arena in time for the 2009-2010 NBA basketball season.” I pointed out that was unlikely, given the delays in the construction schedule.
In April 2007, then-FCR executive Jim Stuckey claimed in court papers that "The current work is proceeding in accordance with an intricate schedule that is intended to allow the new arena to be completed in time for the Nets to relocate there for the 2009-10 National Basketball Association season."
In May 2007, Nets president Rod Thorn acknowledged the move could be in 2010.
In September 2007, Yormark told WFAN the arena would open for the 2009-10 season.
At the end of October, when the basketball season began, Bruce Ratner began what No Land Grab called a "soft release," acknowledging that sometime in 2010 was more likely.
Several media outlets, in early January, began reporting the 2010 date, despite evidence, from the bridge reconstruction schedule, that the real story was 2011.
Later in January 2008, FCR executive MaryAnne Gilmartin claimed in court papers, "The current work is proceeding in accordance with an intricate schedule... that is intended to allow the new arena to be completed in time for the Nets to relocate there in 2010."
In May 2008, Yormark told Sports Business Journal the arena would open in time for the 2010-11 basketball season. Soon after that, the claim became "calendar year" 2010.
Now, as Bruce Ratner acknowledged, the target is 2011.
They have even more time
Meanwhile, in September 2007, FCR and Empire State Development Corporation signed a State Funding Agreement that gives the developer six years after the exercise of eminent domain and the conveyance of property to build the arena.
(That deadline, actually, was in the revised General Project Plan. The State Funding Agreement wasn't made public until March of this year.)
So that extended lease in New Jersey might be a good fallback
the New Jersey Nets have three, not two, more years at the Izod Center in the Meadowlands--and that's in a best-case scenario.The word comes directly from Forest City Ratner president (and Nets majority owner) Bruce Ratner, who indicated to shareholders in June that construction would start in January and take two-and-a-half years--a timetable far different from the developer's and team's public statements, including to season ticket-holders.
Indeed, just last week, during a July 30 Fox Business Channel segment (go to 3:43), Nets Sports & Entertainment President CEO Brett Yormark claimed, "We plan on breaking ground in November and being there for the '10-'11 season."
[Update: FCR's Bruce Bender tells the Observer: "It is not a new schedule. I think Bruce was just stating that the schedule in place is in fact very aggressive. We plan to break ground this fall and are working to open in calendar year 2010. While that's the goal, if it is not met then it would end up being calendar year 2011."
That's about as trustworthy as Chuck Ratner's clarification last year, when, after slipping and indicating the arena would open in 2010, insisted that he meant 2009.]
In May, claims of 2010
Yormark was consistent with the developer's rhetoric. Remember, in a May 4 op-ed in the Daily News (excerpt at right), Bruce Ratner stated that the developer aimed "to break ground on the Barclays Center later this year," then "break ground on the first residential building," complete and open both at the same time, then "break ground on the next residential tower in 2010."That sequence suggests a 2010 arena opening; indeed, the accompanying Daily News article reported 2010 as the arena opening date. (Note that the FAQ on the Atlantic Yards web site
(below) leaves some wiggle room, because it does not indicate that construction on the second residential tower would begin after the arena and first tower were completed.Governmental officials buy the 2010 opening date. In a 5/8/08 letter to the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury Department, arguing that the AY arena deserves tax-exempt bonds under a more lenient standard, the New York City Industrial Development Authority and the Empire State Development Corporation repeated the claim that the arena was anticipated to open in 2010.
In the May 12 Sports Business Journal, Yormark said the arena would open in time for the 2010-11 season.
However, a May 15 press release announcing the sale of luxury suites promised an opening in "calendar year 2010," which I suspect might mean New Year's Eve, given that the three-year bridge reconstruction schedule ends in January 2011.
In June, candor about 2011
A month later, at the June 19 annual meeting in Cleveland of Forest City Enterprises, parent of Forest City Ratner, Bruce Ratner revised his prediction by one year, to mid-2011, which means the arena would open for the 2011-2012 season, three seasons from now.
While the webcast of the meeting has expired, the transcript is available (for sale) and has not been corrected, so I'm assuming this segment is correct:WILBUR BLACK: I'm [Wilbur Black], and I've been attending for many years. We were wondering, my grandson, was wondering about your New York Nets -- or New Jersey Nets, the situation on that...
ALBERT B. RATNER: Okay. Bruce, do you want to answer the Nets question?...
BRUCE RATNER: I don't know whether your grandson is a Nets fan or a Brooklyn fan or both so I know how to answer the question. But we're doing very well on the Atlantic Yards project. Our hope is that we can close our loans and close the transaction by the end of the year. And then it will be about two and a half years to build our arena, and then the Nets will move from New Jersey to Brooklyn. So, we're working hard at it, and I think we're finally close to a closing.
(Emphasis added)
If it takes 2.5 years to build the arena, and construction starts in January 2009, the arena would open in July 2011. Still, keep in mind that the Nets have extended their lease in their current facility to 2012-13, just in case.
Also keep in mind that there's no certainty that groundbreaking for the arena would occur in January--legal cases, including the just-filed state eminent domain lawsuit, may still be pending.
Misleading the public and ticket holders
Beyond the regularly misleading statements to the public, Forest City Ratner has been deceiving season ticket-holders. On July 8, NetsDaily reported, some 40 such supporters were told at an event in Manhattan that the team “anticipates” playing in the Barclays Center during the 2010-11 season.
That was more than two weeks after Bruce Ratner told shareholders in Cleveland something very different.
As noted, Yormark repeated that timetable during the July 30 Fox Business Channel segment.Last year, it was 2009
Remember, when the project was announced in 2003, the arena was to open in 2006. When the project was approved in December 2006, the construction schedule anticipated an arena opening in October 2009.
Speaking to investment analysts in March 2007, Forest City executive VP Bob O'Brien slipped and said that "hopefully" the "ball team" would open in 2010, and Forest City CEO Chuck Ratner seconded that.
Ratner soon tried to recover, issuing a statement, "We remain committed to our goal of opening the arena in time for the 2009-2010 NBA basketball season.” I pointed out that was unlikely, given the delays in the construction schedule.
In April 2007, then-FCR executive Jim Stuckey claimed in court papers that "The current work is proceeding in accordance with an intricate schedule that is intended to allow the new arena to be completed in time for the Nets to relocate there for the 2009-10 National Basketball Association season."
In May 2007, Nets president Rod Thorn acknowledged the move could be in 2010.
In September 2007, Yormark told WFAN the arena would open for the 2009-10 season.
At the end of October, when the basketball season began, Bruce Ratner began what No Land Grab called a "soft release," acknowledging that sometime in 2010 was more likely.
Several media outlets, in early January, began reporting the 2010 date, despite evidence, from the bridge reconstruction schedule, that the real story was 2011.
Later in January 2008, FCR executive MaryAnne Gilmartin claimed in court papers, "The current work is proceeding in accordance with an intricate schedule... that is intended to allow the new arena to be completed in time for the Nets to relocate there in 2010."
In May 2008, Yormark told Sports Business Journal the arena would open in time for the 2010-11 basketball season. Soon after that, the claim became "calendar year" 2010.
Now, as Bruce Ratner acknowledged, the target is 2011.
They have even more time
Meanwhile, in September 2007, FCR and Empire State Development Corporation signed a State Funding Agreement that gives the developer six years after the exercise of eminent domain and the conveyance of property to build the arena.
(That deadline, actually, was in the revised General Project Plan. The State Funding Agreement wasn't made public until March of this year.)
So that extended lease in New Jersey might be a good fallback
Sunday, August 03, 2008
For the Nets, departed star Jefferson could still sell (discounted) jerseys
You've got to hand it to the relentless marketers behind the New Jersey Nets. Former star Richard Jefferson may have been expunged from the Atlantic Yards web site after he was traded to Milwaukee in June, but some product remained in the Nets' team store (right) until last week. (It's gone now.)I didn't get a screenshot, but, for a brief moment last week, Jefferson and Yi Jianlian, who switched teams in the trade, appeared (virtually) together in Nets uniforms.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Report suggests solutions for small businesses after the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning
On July 24, I wrote about the unanticipated impacts of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning and wondered what policy changes might emerge. A new report, Out of Business: The Crisis of Small Businesses in Rezoned Downtown Brooklyn, from FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality) and the Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center cites extensive displacement of small business (mainly run by immigrants) and suggests four policy solutions, including grants and reserved commercial space. (Here's a video from the press conference--and another.)
Joe Chan, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, the public-private organization steering the rezoning, offered a noncommittal quote to Brownstoner, which offered some lengthy coverage yesterday: "Downtown Brooklyn is one of the fastest growing urban centers in America. The redevelopment activity in the area brings with it jobs and a permanently enhanced local economy. The Downtown Brooklyn Partnership with its BID partners work to connect small business owners with available resources and appropriate service providers." (It has, in some cases, but not enough, according to FUREE.)
Solutions in the report
The first solution involves grants:
1. Create a small-business assistance fund for Downtown Brooklyn businesses.
New York City should support immediate and long-term financial assistance to area small-businesses. In the short-term, city dollars and developer contributions should be channeled into a fund that would address the hardships faced by small businesses displaced by the rezoning. Displaced small-businesses need to be compensated for their relocation and moving costs, for increased costs incurred by being forced to move when rent is at an all-time high, for lost revenue due to displacement, and for the advertising and marketing needed to rebuild their customer base. Displaced workers need high-quality job training and placement services.
New York already has active Business Relocation Assistance Corporations (BRAC). The Greenpoint-Williamsburg BRAC disburses grants of up to $50,000 to displaced businesses so long as they relocate within the five boroughs and the recent rezoning in Harlem also included a fund for displaced small-businesses. Finally, in addition to a flat reimbursement, the city fund could subsidize low-interest small-business loans or offer a loan-forgiveness program for businesses displaced by development.
This is a political decision. If the rezoning creates more wealth, shouldn’t some of that wealth be shared? How much?
Affordable space
2. Secure affordable commercial-space for small businesses.
Before the first brick is laid on new construction, the city, developers, and independent businesses must agree on a way to maintain space for the small businesses that enhances the neighborhood’s character. Since redevelopment raises area rent and is marketed to a different customer-base, small businesses must be given a chance to adapt to the changed competitive market. New developments, particularly those such as City Point at Albee Square Mall that displaced small businesses, should be mandated to provide 15% of their space to local businesses at subsidized rents. This allotted commercial space should go first to previous tenants and then to local minority- and woman-owned small-businesses.
There are models to point to for this type of community support: in San Jose, developers working on a $140 million multi-use project set aside 10% of retail space for existing downtown small-businesses…. Finally, in all cases new developments should practice targeted local hiring for displaced workers and residents of the surrounding community.
In some cases, tax breaks are granted for new housing in exchange for some subsidized units. This transfers it to the commercial side, though it’s clearly a less established concept.
Additionally, FUREE recommends increasing affordable land supply by developing upper-floor retail in Downtown Brooklyn for small businesses. With careful planning, the activation of vacant upper-stories for small-business use could help sustain the area’s diverse retail mix. Specifically, the underutilized upper-floors of many buildings on the Fulton Street Mall present a remarkable economic opportunity for the area. By tapping this space for mixed-use occupancy, both local entrepreneurs and shoppers will be better served and Downtown Brooklyn’s dynamism will endure.
Well, those floors are underutilized, but only certain retail establishments thrive with off-the-street access. Brownstoner’s Sarah Ryley reports that “a prominent local broker explained to us that Fulton Mall's retail space is so lucrative that landlords actually removed stairwells and elevators in many of the buildings to create more ground-floor space” and landlords stopped maintaining lower-rent upper floors.
More input
3. Ensure community and small-business participation in the decision-making process of public and private developments.
Before an urban area goes through revitalization it is important to have a system or policy in place that allows the community and small businesses to have input on projects that will ultimately affect them. Planning codes that attempt to limit formula retail-stores, such as those implemented in San Francisco, can include a clause that requires residents and businesses in the surrounding area to be notified of proposed developments.
Once notified, the community has the option of requesting a public hearing and subjecting the applicant to additional assessment that should focus on the effect of the new plan on community stakeholders. By starting a project with a community impact review, new commercial developments won’t be able to begin until all affected parties are served.
This may be the most contentious solution (though all likely will meet resistance), given the unwieldiness of deciding what community gets to speak.
FUREE also recommends that the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership consult with area small-business owners as they spend millions on extensive streetscape improvements in the area. To date, small-business owners have not been included in any discussion of streetscape improvement, despite the fact that they have unique and valuable insights...
How hard would it be to consult?
The broader challenge
The fourth solution speaks to a broader challenge:
4. Implement long-term protections for small businesses in Downtown Brooklyn and all of New York City.
Gentrification and the subsequent displacement of small business are not unique to Downtown Brooklyn. Several neighborhoods around New York City are experiencing different versions of the same story and are attempting to organize around this issue. City government must develop holistic, broad-based policies to account for the peril its rezoning has wrought on local communities. These solutions include commercial rent control, zoning and land-use policies limiting big-box stores that don’t benefit the community, requiring community impact reviews before major developments are allowed to break ground, and tax breaks for small businesses and the property-owners who rent to them.
Moreover, protections against landlord harassment and outlawing eminent domain for the sake of private development would also greatly safeguard small businesses in changing neighborhoods. Many of these strategies have been implemented in large and small cities around the country to great success.
This points to the general sense, in multiple neighborhoods, that New York may be “losing its soul,” an issue raised last year in the first Jane Jacobs panel. It’s worth a look beyond Downtown Brooklyn.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Brooklyn Ratners or the Ratner Nets? What if team names in the U.S. were more like those in Japan?
This is the fifth of a multi-part interview (conducted May 28) with Neil deMause (photo below), the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site. He testified at a 3/29/07 Congressional hearing that questioned taxpayer financing of stadiums, convention centers, and hotels.Q. I noticed in your book that you think a more honest approach to the names of sports teams would be the Japanese one, taking the names of owners, so we'd have the Steinbrenner Yankees or the Turner Braves--or, I might add, the Ratner Nets.
[Japanese team names include the Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters, named for major shareholder Nippon Ham, and the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, named for SoftBank.]
A. The teams are named for the corporations that own them. But then so are the New York Red Bulls, because they’re owned by Red Bull sports drink. The WNBA Connecticut Sun are owned by the Mohegan Sun casino and play there, basically bought and moved there to be a selling point for the casino.
There was talk at one point of moving the Grizzlies, when they were moving to Memphis, where FedEx is based, and naming them the Memphis Express, and that would be part of the naming rights deal.[Actually, the NBA forbids corporate nicknames.]
There’s the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim [now just the Anaheim Ducks], who were named after a Disney movie and [formerly] owned by Disney. It’s just not quite as blatant is it is in Japan. At this point the stadiums are all named after corporations. At this point, the teams are corporate names. What are the New York Yankees if not a corporation? They just happen to be named after themselves.
And in Brooklyn?
Q. So, in Brooklyn, [if the Nets move,] it should be the Brooklyn Ratners?A. Maybe the Brooklyn Barclays. There’s no reason not to do that, except I think there’s still a little bit of squeamishness among fans about having that much of a corporate name. You could be wearing this on your hat and shirt, you don’t want it to be just a corporate logo.
Again, we’re breaking new ground. In international soccer they do it, in auto racing they do it. I think we’re headed in that direction. I think certainly the logos on the uniforms at some point. So if, 20 years down the road, the Nets may have a uniform that says Nets in small letters, and--I’m trying to think of a big Brooklyn company--
Q. KeySpan [actually, now NationalGrid]
A. --and say KeySpan in big letters, what’s the [real] team name?
Sports, or business?
Q. Bettina Damiani [of the watchdog Good Jobs New York] calls the teams “sports entertainment corporations.”
A. I think that’s a fair way of putting it. It’s an entertainment industry, just as much as the movie business is. It happens to be around sports, but they could as easily be selling something else. Half the time they are selling something else. They’re clothing companies as much as they’re sports teams. They’re selling jerseys. On some level, the teams are just the hook for the merchandise--
Q. --That’s why Brett Yormark is there--the marketing guru for the Nets.
A. --in the same way that Hannah Montana is less a TV show than a toy line. I think there’s a level on which sports teams are less sports teams than they are souvenir marketing devices.
Nets investor's lawsuit against Ratner dismissed
I hadn't written about it when it was filed in May 2007, but a lawsuit by Nets investor Eugene Greene, claiming that Nets majority owner Bruce Ratner reneged on promises of inner-circle perks as a member of the team's Board of Governors, has been dismissed by a State Supreme Court judge.
The story appeared July 25 in the New York Law Journal, which later posted the opinion. It hasn't been picked up because--perhaps--the publication is subscription-only and few people noticed.
Greene's lawsuit, which sought $20 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages and featured the alleged claim that Ratner executives told Greene he'd been "f----d" out of the deal, drew some tabloid-like coverage from the Brooklyn Paper and three dailies, as rounded up by No Land Grab. Also see DDDB.
From the decision
Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn's decision cites some information that hadn't surfaced earlier:
Although not alleged in the complaint, plaintiff has acknowledged, in his Memorandum of Law submitted in opposition to the motion, that the $6,000,000 investment was returned in 2004... and that he now seeks only the value of what was promised to him for the work he performed on behalf of defendants...
And what was that value? The decision notes that Greene acknowledges that there was no "express written or oral agreement specifying the exact terms" of his compensation.
Greene's lawyer, Jonathan S. Sack, told the New York Law Journal that Greene was considering an appeal.
The story appeared July 25 in the New York Law Journal, which later posted the opinion. It hasn't been picked up because--perhaps--the publication is subscription-only and few people noticed.
Greene's lawsuit, which sought $20 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages and featured the alleged claim that Ratner executives told Greene he'd been "f----d" out of the deal, drew some tabloid-like coverage from the Brooklyn Paper and three dailies, as rounded up by No Land Grab. Also see DDDB.
From the decision
Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn's decision cites some information that hadn't surfaced earlier:
Although not alleged in the complaint, plaintiff has acknowledged, in his Memorandum of Law submitted in opposition to the motion, that the $6,000,000 investment was returned in 2004... and that he now seeks only the value of what was promised to him for the work he performed on behalf of defendants...
And what was that value? The decision notes that Greene acknowledges that there was no "express written or oral agreement specifying the exact terms" of his compensation.
Greene's lawyer, Jonathan S. Sack, told the New York Law Journal that Greene was considering an appeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
