Skip to main content

Judge, deferring to MTA version of the case, dismisses lawsuit challenging revision of Vanderbilt Yard deal

As I wrote last week, the case challenging the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's revision of the Vanderbilt Yard deal with Forest City Ratner was an uphill battle for the plaintiffs, given that the legal standard are highly deferential to the agency.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman, in a ruling issued yesterday, dismissed the case. He wrote that not only did the plaintiffs--AY opponents Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, joined by four elected officials and the Straphangers Campaign--not have standing to challenge the alleged violation of the Public Authorities Accountability Act (PAAA), even with standing they couldn't make their case.

They charged that the PAAA, passed in 2005, requires an independent appraisal of the property and that a seller seek out competitive offers.

DDDB said it was considering an appeal and pointed to the MTA's willingness to leave $80 million on the table--money the agency asserts it will ultimately get--at a time of severe service cuts.

Stallman, in deferring to the MTA's version of the case, agreed that the limited response to the original 2005 RFP--only Extell responded along with Forest City Ratner--was due to "the unusual nature and scope of the project" rather than FCR's inside track.

Agreeing with the MTA

Stallman agreed with the MTA that the original plan and revised deal were essentially the same, subject to two modifications: the $100 million price would instead be $20 million down for the arena block, with the rest paid over 22 years, and the replacement railyard was value-engineered.

He also agreed that the process by which only two developers answered the RFP in 2005 was fair.

He left out the generous 6.5% interest rate granted Forest City Ratner and the extended time to operate a temporary railyard. He didn't comment on the rather surprising suggestion, by MTA CFO Garry Dellaverson, that FCR had the MTA over a barrel, rather than vice versa, given the developer's need to get the deal done in order to reap tax-exempt bonds by the end of the year.

Stallman didn't comment on the implication that the requirement of Forest City Ratner to leave an $86 million letter of credit to complete a railyard valued at $147 million cast doubt on the total valuation of the deal by the MTA and developer.

(Yes, the MTA would still have development rights, should FCR walk.)

And while the MTA argues that the 2005 Forest City Ratner bid ($100 million cash, after an initial offer of $50 million) was overall more valuable than the bid from rival Extell ($150 million cash), there's no way to fully compare them, because the MTA never let Extell develop its bid and thus offer comparable or greater noncash elements.

Standing

A non-bidder does not have standing to challenge the award of a contract by a public authority, Stallman wrote. The claim that elected officials represent users of the transit system who might be affected by the project is vague, without specific injury or interest required for standing.

As for DDDB, Stallman said that one claim for standing--that it aims to promote accountability--is "so broad and vacuous as to erase the concept itself." And he said DDDB's public statement of a competing offer at the June 24 board meeting was not a formal, detailed plan, and DDDB had not proven that it met the criteria of an RFP.

Otherwise, he said, opponents of other projects could claim to be last-minute bidders "and thereby bootstrap standing to challenge the determination."

In other words, the only aggrieved party was the losing bidder, Extell.

Allowing standing?

The petitioners argued that, because the contract award process and project are matters of public concern, the court should relax the requirements of standing.

Stallman disagreed, but wrote that he recognized there might be a larger issue at stake:
It is not for this Court of first instance to depart from the recognized rules of standing. Nevertheless, this Court is troubled that, were standing interpreted too restrictively, hypothetically there could be no way of judicially challenging what could be a clear violation of the appraisal and bidding provisions of the PAAA (e.g., if a rogue agency gave away land or contract, without appraisal or any public bidding process, to an official's relative or a political crony). It is appropriately within the province of the Court of Appeals to consider whether a different standard for standing should be applied to the subject provisions of the PAAA.
So Stallman did get to the merits of the case, observing that a long appeal limited to the standing issue, without an adjudication of the merits, would not be in the public interest, and noting that the issues of standing and merits are intertwined.

Need for an appraisal and a fair RFP?

Stallman disagreed with Forest City Ratner that no appraisal was required. He wrote:
Ratner, given the broad, remedial purpose of the PAAA, an appraisal was required. Assuredly, given the unusual nature and scope of the project, only two experienced developers--FCRC and Extell--came forward in response to the RFP in 2005, and the MTA, for rational reasons, not subject to review here, rejected Extell's bid.

...The MTA had a rational basis for believing no other responsible developer would come forward, and for continuing to negotiate with FCRC to refine the plan and bring it to fruition, without yet again initiating a new bidding process.
Yes, that decision is not subject to review, but the limited response might be attributed not to "the unusual nature and scope of the project"--remember, the bidders were bidding to develop the Vanderbilt Yard, not the Atlantic Yards project--but the fact that Forest City Ratner had been anointed the site 18 months earlier.

The robust responses to an RFP for the Hudson Yards site and to a similar request for the Willets Point site suggest much greater developer interest when one developer doesn't have an inside track.

A new plan?

Early in the decision, Stallman observed:
The resolution cannot be analyzed as a separate, newly minted plan in a vacuum. Rather, it was the culmination of a long negotiation process, prolonged by the extensive public land use process and debate, including environmental review and public hearings concerning the entire Atlantic Yards project, many lawsuits and the vicissitudes of planning and financing such a large development process, which was further complicated by the onset of the national economic crisis in the summer and autumn of 2008.
Later, he added:
If every change were to be viewed as a new plan so as to trigger anew each mandated review process, no development plan could ever reach final approval--let alone ultimate completion.
He said there was no dispute that a new appraisal would have estimated the site to be worth less than the 2005 appraisal. And he agreed that the value of Forest City's obligations had increased.

What he didn't examine--because it wasn't part of the case--was whether Extell's bid could have been more valuable:
To the extent that the petitioners suggest that there were legal infirmities in the 2005 RFP and the proposal selection process, the rejection of the Extell bid, or the 2006 SEQRA environmental review, or the December 13, 2006 MTA Board resolution which, in essence, affirmed the substance of the FCRC proposal, those determinations become final when taken and are not subject to review here.
He noted that the PAAA has an exception which allows public bidding to be bypassed if the disposal of the property is intended to further public welfare or economic development, and that the MTA had determined that.

He then deferred the Court of Appeals, which "found that the Atlantic Yards project constituted a public use." More precisely, the Court of Appeals deferred to the ESDC's finding of a public use.

Responding to the charges

Stallman wrote that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the plan gives the MTA less than the estimated market value and had not shown that the MTA did not attempt to "obtain such competition as was feasible under the circumstances," saying that the "process began with an open, competitive RFP."

The economic downtown and declining market "would have made solicitation of new bids a futile and unreasonable gamble," a statement challenged by the response in Willets Point. And, he wrote, it might have exposed the MTA to litigation by FCR.

The four elected officials named as plaintiffs are State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, Assemblymember Jim Brennan, Assemblymember Joan Millman, and City Council Member Letitia James. The case was known as Montgomery, et al vs. MTA.

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.