Skip to main content

"Junkyard Bonds" get tossed in garbage truck, but are state officials listening? What about the "loophole" allowing the BALDC to avoid scrutiny?

Well, it was a very clever idea for a demonstration: dump Forest City Ratner's "Junkyard Bonds"--illustrated with images of developer Bruce Ratner and Governor David Paterson, plus the corporate logos of bond ratings agencies and the underwriter--into a garbage truck to illustrate their questionable quality and the many doubts about the procedure behind them. Wall Streeters walked by with bemusement as a few dozen protesters gathered, followed by cameras.

(Photo and set by Adrian Kinloch)

But is anyone in charge listening? Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), which organized the demonstration (complete with garbage truck from Crown Container, a business fighting eminent domain in Willets Point) held outside at noon yesterday outside ratings agency Standard & Poor's in Lower Manhattan on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

The letter asked that they investigate both the bond structure and "bad faith acts committed by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in its advocacy for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project and Columbia University's expansion, particularly in pursuit of eminent domain for these two entities."

Some of the questions are more serious than others, as I suggest below. Probably the most important one concerns the ESDC's creation of the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC), which, however legal, skirts the review of the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) and Comptroller, because only subsidiaries which have the same members or directors as the ESDC or Job Development Authority are included.

Given that BALDC has different directors than the JDA and is thus not subject to PACB review, "this is an absurd and incongruous result," wrote DDDB attorney Jeff Baker, citing a "loophole... to allow $500 million of bond financing to avoid third-party scrutiny and the protections established by the legislature when the PACB was established in 1976.

(Photo and set by Tracy Collins)

As underwriter Goldman Sachs proceeds to market the bonds--the tax-exempt bonds are actually rated one notch above junk, while the taxable bonds are rated junk-- the two state officials have a short window in which to respond, much less take action.

And Paterson, despite a public pledge on December 1 to conduct "an objective and fair hearing" into Atlantic Yards, has yet to make a further public statement, while his ESDC persists in both the Atlantic Yards and Columbia projects.



(Above, the contrast between the garbage truck and the tower next to it. Videography by Jonathan Barkey.)

Who was there

While City Council Member Letitia James, a staunch opponent of the project, participated in the protest, no other elected officials showed up. Nor has Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a persistent after-the-fact critic of the New York Yankee stadium deal and the leader of the legislature's just-concluded epic effort to reform state authorities (like those in charge of AY and its bonds), raised his voice.

The Daily News sent a reporter--the only story in today's paper concerns not the protest but a brief on the effort to reopen the eminent domain case-- as did News12 and a couple of radio stations (WBGO, WCBS). But neither the major TV stations nor the Times showed up.

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

Also participating in the protest were representatives of Good Jobs New York and the groups fighting the Columbia expansion.

Fiscal laxity, fiscal crisis

But the questions shouldn't be dismissed. Even if subsidies have already been issued, the state commitment of resources to Atlantic Yards contrasts with the current fiscal crisis. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's willingness to revise a deal with Forest City Ratner and get less cash--despite its leverage--also contrasts with the imminent "doomsday budget" facing the agency.

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

And, while the $500 million in tax-exempt bonds authorized by the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC) are supposed to be non-recourse, with no risk to the state, state officials have refused to rule out the possibility that the state would bail out the bondholders should revenues not meet expectations.

DDDB suggested that the same criticisms raised of public authorities apply to the BALDC, which is operating "in the dark" and "without any oversight":
BALDC, comprised of six anonymous people, is poised to sell $500 million in triple tax-exempt, bonds for Forest City Ratner’s (FCR) Nets basketball arena—the most expensive arena in the world. The bonds would be paid for with diverted tax money—Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOTS). As with previous actions by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), there are simply too many unanswered questions, putting the State at high risk.
Below, James--who asks what's happened to the review Paterson promised, among other questions--and DDDB's Scott Turner and Daniel Goldstein speak at a press conference. Videography by Jonathan Barkey.



DDDB posed a list of questions, which I'll take a preliminary shot at evaluating, in italics.

Questions for the ESDC/JDA and BALDC

• Why are bonds being issued for an arena that NYC’s Independent Budget Office said will be a $220 million net loss for NYC?
Because elected officials want to cut the ribbon on an arena. Because the ESDC doesn't believe the IBO--though the ESDC's arguments aren't too convincing. Because of inertia.

• How much of a net loss will the rest of the Atlantic Yards (AY) project be now that it has been converted to a multi-decade option on a no-bid monopoly for Forest City Ratner? What happens if it is never built?
If it's never built, the developer would have to pay back the subsidies--or go to court to resist doing so. No one has ever done a full and rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the project as a whole built over ten years or over a more likely lengthier completion period: 15, 20, 25, or 30 years.

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

• FCR just defaulted & renegotiated a loan for land in the AY site, so how will they raise the equity they need for the arena?
That's not necessarily a sign of cash-flow difficulties; it could simply be some very tough bargaining.

Below, the bonds go into the garbage truck. Videography by Jonathan Barkey.



Questions for Rating Agencies (Moody’s and S&P)

• Why can’t Moody’s answer why they envision 225 annual arena events when Ratner projects 200 events?
Because they apparently were sloppy. (Ratner said at least 200 events.) This does remind us of the many questions raised about ratings agencies, private companies that play an important public role. But ticket revenues are only a portion of the revenue stream expected, so the number of events may not be crucial.

• Basketball hosts 41 games without playoffs. How will the arena meet 220 events? Where is the independent analysis backing Ratner’s projections?
Well, S&P, where the demonstration was held, actually considers 220 events "aggressive"--but still rated the bonds investment-grade, again based on other factors.

• Why does the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) for the bonds claim that all that is necessary for professional hockey in the arena is ice-making equipment, when it appears the arena isn’t large enough to accommodate an NHL hockey rink?
The POS consists of several components, including a market analysis commissioned by Forest City Ratner. That market analysis both suggested the possibility of NHL hockey and omitted the issue of arena capacity. But the POS also says that minor league hockey--not NHL hockey--is expected. So the POS is contradictory and anyone reading it should look at it carefully.

(Photo by Adrian Kinloch)

• How does the team with the worst record in the NBA, a pitiful NJ fan base, no Brooklyn fan base and an untested facility get the same exact bond rating as the leading sports franchise in the world—the NY Yankees—particularly when recent experience has shown that even a great team like the Yankees has been unable to sell their luxury seats?
The marketing study does suggest a demand for--well, an interest in--luxury suites as well as a market for events like concerts, given the relative lack of seats in New York City compared to other cities. But it's a good question: if the Nets are shedding fans; can they really swing the same demand for a luxury product if they move to Brooklyn?

• 12/10/2009 was the sixth anniversary since the project was announced with an arena completion date of 2006: How is it reasonable to say in the Preliminary Official Statement that the arena will be completed by June 2012?
Well, there are even incentives to finish sooner. But it's curious to not see any acknowledgment of the challenge of building on such a tight site--unlike the recent stadium construction in Queens and the Bronx--or the possibility that continued litigation could slow the project, if not stop it.

• Why is the POS litigation risk assessment—MTA’s violation of the Public Authorities Accountability Act, two lawsuits against the ESDC’s September approvals—reliant only on FCR, ESDC & MTA, rather than independent legal opinion?
I don't know what the standard practice is, but the opinion is aimed at bond buyers. The state and city have committed resources, so it would make sense for someone--Cuomo, DiNapoli, Brodsky--to want another opinion.

• Why doesn’t the POS include the renewed eminent domain challenge to AY after the ruling against Columbia University?
Because the POS was issued before the challenge was renewed. Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be giving an update to any bond buyer?

(Photo by Adrian Kinloch)

• What if Mikhail Prokhorov is not approved by the NBA, or walks away from his Letter of Intent – How does that affect the viability of the Project, and thus, the ability to repay the bond buyers?
That's a good question.

• Why didn’t Fitch rate the arena bond?
Because they didn't need a third rating.

Below, a News12 reporter produces a story on the protest.



Questions for Public Officials (particularly Paterson, Cuomo, DiNapoli):
• Why isn’t this $500 million triple tax-exempt bond being reviewed and considered by the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) and State Comptroller? Why has the BALDC been created under the JDA, rather than as a subsidiary of the ESDC, the lead agency on the Atlantic Yards Project—particularly when PACB approval was necessary in 2006 for a substantially less risky and different transaction?
>> 20% smaller arena that costs 70% more than approved in December 2006 ($637 million then, $1.1 billion now).
>> Less functional arena (appears to be unsuitable for hockey).
>> Proposed new team owner and new partial owner of the arena—Mikhail Prokhorov.
ESDC officials should have made sure this all was kosher. But even if it is, the public officials should tell us, and tell us--as with other activities regarding public authorities--whether it's good policy, given the questions raised by Baker.

(Photo by Adrian Kinloch)

• When will Comptroller DiNapoli and Attorney General Cuomo investigate this financing structure and its evolution?
That's a big pending question.

• The bonds reportedly will not be insured. If the bonds default, won’t the state cover them to avoid a bad credit rating?
Ditto.

• Why are PILOTs being misused and the land value being inflated? What is the tax assessment & what is the PILOT amount?
PILOTs are being used in the same way they were for the Yankees and Mets stadiums--a dubious but not illegal practice. The land value seems inflated (and thus worthy of an oversight hearing), but, interestingly enough, after the IBO warned that land assessments would lead to PILOTs insufficient to support a $678 million tax-exempt bond, the bond was reduced to $500 million.

• Why are bonds being issued when ESDC board didn’t approve the new smaller arena and did not do a review or background check of the new proposed Nets owner Russian investor Mikhail Prokhorov?
Good question. They didn't approve a smaller arena. And Prokhorov's purchase wasn't announced until after the ESDC board acted.

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

• Why has Gov. Paterson told the Legislature to make cuts in healthcare & education but he won’t cut this pork that he controls?
Because the (initial) spending on Atlantic Yards has already been committed.

Below, DDDB's Goldstein answers press questions. Videography by Norman Oder.



"We believe these bonds should have been rated junk," Goldstein said, noting that the most recent bonds for Yankee Stadium got the same rating, and the Yankees are a more solid franchise. "There's a big question as to whether these bonds can be paid back."

"We hope to hear from Cuomo," Goldstein added, "but he only got this letter we sent on Friday." He said there was no legal action contemplated regarding the bonds. Keep watching the video to see protesters chanting, "Ratner's bonds are junk bonds."

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.