Skip to main content

As informational meeting approaches, echoes of November 2004, and some pending questions

More than four-and-a-half-years after their first informational meeting on Atlantic Yards, Community Boards 2, 6, and 8 tomorrow will sponsor another informational meeting, at Long Island University from 6 to 9 pm, under similar conditions, but with a different lineup.

The 11/29/04 meeting, held at the Klitgord Auditorium of New York City Technical College, was essentially The Plucky Jim Show,"to quote the Brooklyn Downtown Star, which reported on the polished answers of Forest City Ratner's now-departed Atlantic Yards point man, Jim Stuckey.

Stuckey at that point maintained the partly line that "We are not trying to divert funds that are in play today... [Any funds] will be based on incremental revenues that will be brought in by the project.” However, the direct subsidies are up to $305 million, and indirect subsidies and tax breaks are worth at least several hundred million dollars more.

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn complained that groups that supported the project got ushered in ahead of ordinary citizens.

The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) did not send an official representative., saying its presence was premature. This time both the ESDC and Forest City Ratner are expected to send representatives.

The rules

According to the rules of the 2004 session:
  • Audience members must be courteous to all speakers;
  • Signage or other visual obstructions are not permitted in the auditorium
  • Questions will be submitted on index cards (provided at sign-in)
  • The moderator reserves the right to edit questions for clarity
While I haven't seen the rules for Wednesday, CB 6 District Manager Craig Hammerman, who had the unenviable role of moderating in 2004, said that the meeting will run in much the same manner. Project representatives will make a presentation, then attendees will be able to submit questions on index cards.

"The community is going to have an unlmited amount of time at the public hearings," Hammerman said, referencing the two-day public hearing to be held on July 29 and July 30. Rather than an opportunity to make statements, the meeting is an effort to make sure that facts get out about changes in the Modified General Project Plan (GPP) that will be subject of the hearing, so people can be prepared to testify.

Questions should be "closely tethered to the subject," he said, though, I suspect that the subject of the Modified GPP still points to a lot of potential questions.

Some questions

Below are a few questions I hope get asked--I'll be trying to ask a few others.

1) Why won't a site plan be released before the public hearing next week?

2) Why haven't any new renderings of the arena been released? The renderings released last month--example above--are said to be preliminary.

3) Why aren't there any renderings with the massive signage--150 feet wide and 75 feet high--allowed? Will any of the renderings show the street-level perspective on the signage, rather than a helicopter-level perspective (right), as in 2006?

4) I already questioned how, given the downturn in the economy, the depressed office market in the city, and the numerous unsold and stalled condos in places like Williamsburg, can the expected office tower and 1930 condos (along with 4500 rental units, half of them at subsidized rents) be built on the projected ten-year schedule? And, if not, how does that change the projections for tax revenues from Atlantic Yards, which the ESDC said last month would be higher than initially projected?

5) Given that recent reports indicate that new construction as well as other first-class apartments will rent at figures lower than the rates projected (in 2006) for the highest tier of "affordable housing" (141-160% of AMI), how confident are you that the affordable housing would be less costly than market rate? What percentage of the affordable housing would be at or above market rate?

6) The Modified General Project Plan (GPP) says that, on a present value basis, the Project will generate $652.3 million of City tax revenues and $745.3 million of State tax revenues. Thus the project will generate $944.2 million in net tax revenues in excess of the public contribution to the Project. This maintains numbers from 2006.

Why does the number exclude costs for schools, sanitation, and public safety, as have been included in reports by the Independent Budget Office and even Andrew Zimbalist? Why does it not include affordable housing subsidies? Brownfield tax credits? Green building tax credits? Why does it not include the additional $105 million in subsidies from New York City? Why, if one decline in the projected revenues in 2006 was based on a decrease in expected office space, has the number not been adjusted to account for delayed or nonexistent office space? Do outside economists consider the ESDC's methodology legitimate?

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.