Skip to main content

Decoding "shovel-ready": AY railyard may seem eligible, but with a huge bailout asterisk (and wouldn't be "fully vetted")

Last Wednesday, the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) Atlantic Yards Ombudsman, Forrest Taylor was asked the definition of “shovel-ready,” the term used in discussion of projects eligible for federal stimulus funding.

“I think that ‘shovel-ready' will be a federal term,” Taylor said.

Perhaps, but there's no formal federal definition of shovel-ready, according to NPR. But the Federal Highway Administration's (FHA) "ready to go" designation seems a rough equivalent, NPR suggested last week, encompassing projects that have gotten through design work and environmental approval. And a New York definition, as I describe below, seems similar.

AY bailout?

The Atlantic Yards railyard might seem to qualify, though not the project as a whole, given that Forest City Ratner does not control the property. But the railyard would require a huge bailout asterisk, connected to FCR's lobbying.

As I've written, the difference between using federal funds for "shovel ready" city/state/MTA transit projects and using them for Atlantic Yards-- is that the former, unlike the latter, would not relieve a private developer of a previous commitment. (And, of course, federal aid to a private developer that relieves the developer of its costs and boosts the value of the team should mean federal ownership of the project and/or team.)

[Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn quotes former Forest City Ratner point man Jim Stuckey, who said in September 2005, "That's not built with funny money - that's built with real cash."]

Rather, as Rep. Mike McMahon told the Brooklyn Paper, federal money should pay for not-yet-funded Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) projects like renovation of train stations.

The railyard wasn't on a draft list of eligible projects, according to the New York Observer.

$182 million savings?

The reconstruction of the Vanderbilt Yard would be a $182 million project, at first. Forest City Ratner claimed its bid of $100 million cash plus the $182 million yard and other enhancements was worth $379.4 million. FCR's cash bid was doubled from $50 million after the MTA agreed to negotiate exclusively with the developer; though rival Extell, which bid $150 million in cash, was not given the opportunity to negotiate.

The MTA’s own appraiser calculated the value of the railyard site at $271.2 million and the cost of a new yard at $56.7 million, saying the agency should have gotten $214.5 million in cash.

Quizzical ignorance

Governor David Paterson and Senator Chuck Schumer, who last week expressed quizzical ignorance of whether Atlantic Yards would be eligible for infrastructure funding, should know better.

And beyond that, they skate on thin ice by advocating funds for a project which has no timeline and no design.

More legitimate scenario

Consider a more legitimate alternate scenario. What if, prior to putting the railyard site up for bid, the MTA had decided to invest public funds into moving the railyard function and building a deck, thus making the package far more attractive to investors?

In that case, federal funds could supply the jump-start. Instead, Forest City Ratner's bid for the railyard included a pledge to move and modernize the railyard, part of a package claimed to be worth $435 million to the MTA. A federal bailout would go directly to the developer's bottom line.

Transparency along the way

The apparent plan faces another significant hurdle. An overview of the stimulus package released by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office points to the need for transparency and fair dealing:
Governors, mayors, or others making funding decisions must personally certify that the investment has been fully vetted and is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

But there's already evidence that work at the railyard has not been "fully vetted." Consider that the ESDC asserted, taking a cue from Forest City Ratner, that "the temporary suspension of work at Atlantic Yards is due to pending litigation. Once it has been resolved, work will continue. Stating that this site is not 'shovel-ready' was inaccurate."

Did Forest City Ratner explain to the ESDC why it had stopped work, and whether it was caused by litigation? No.

The only document I could find, after filing a Freedom of Information Law request, was an email (right) that quoted an FCR employee saying the developer "had completed the work needed thus far."

There was no explanation, for example, of how and why litigation had stopped work on a partially completed trestle (right).

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

In other words, the evidence suggests that the developer ran out of money, or decided not to spend any more money, while waiting for either new funding and/or the close of litigation.

And there's been no statement from either the developer or the ESDC explaining how the work suspension comports with the developer's claim, in sworn affidavits, that:
FCRC’s construction schedule has been carefully drawn to allow the arena to be ready for the 2009-10 season by commencing work now on vacant properties that are owned by FCRC, the MTA and the City, with work on properties that are owned or occupied by other parties deferred until the pending judicial challenges to the Project have proceeded to a point where ESDC is in a position to actually use its powers of eminent domain to acquire title to and possession of those properties.

The definition in New York

The ESDC and the Governor's Office for years have been working together on state program known as Shovel Ready Certification, essentially a "pre-permitting" program.

The explanation is logical:
Having an economic development site certified as a "Shovel Ready Site" means that the local developer has worked proactively with the State to address all major permitting issues, prior to a business expressing interest in the location. This advance work creates a site where construction can begin rapidly, once a prospective business decides to develop a facility there.
(Emphasis in original)

In other words, "shovel ready" means that the developer of a site has prepared it to attract new investments by businesses that would operate there. (Here's the self-evaluation checklist for developers.)

Analogously, in the case of projects eligible for federal funding, the definition would apply to a government agency that has already gotten permits but just hasn't raised the money yet.

The state's "Shovel Ready" program does involve grants from the Build Now-NY program. In the program, competitive grants "help local communities pay for professional services related to engineering studies, environmental assessments, and legal support."

In other words, the funds help get the sites "shovel ready." They don't pay for what happens next.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.