Skip to main content

Liu’s CBA task force recommends reforms; dissenters say it will foster too many CBAs; report buffs AY CBA but guidelines might have reined it in

In a report issued not without dissention, the Task Force on Public Benefit Agreements (PBAs) yesterday delivered to Comptroller John Liu “a proposed framework for public benefit agreements in New York City that would create clear expectations, encourage broad-based participation and result in enforceable public benefits that comply with legal standards.”

Included is an increased opportunity for community input by community boards, local elected officials, and small businesses; by contrast, the Atlantic Yards CBA was negotiated very quietly. Also, given that CBAs like the Atlantic Yards CBA are essentially unenforceable (except by signatories with no incentive to go to court), the Task Force recommended several enforceability mechanisms. Such CBAs also would be monitored by the Comptroller.

Notably, the report (PDF and embedded below) states that “the primary purpose of a benefit agreement is to mitigate project-related impacts”--a rationale absent from the Atlantic Yards CBA, in which the single largest component is affordable housing, a provision that could have been incorporated into any upzoning but which is not a specific response to the loss of housing on the AY site.

Still, the report’s rather rosy view of the Atlantic Yards CBA, the first in the city, may have contributed to the willingness to endorse CBAs.

Dissention and fudging

Four who resigned from the task force, however, disagreed with a report that would incorporate a role for the city in such Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs), eliminate some uncertainty in the development of large subsidizied projects, and, presumably, ensure proliferation of CBAs by ensuring an independent consultant be designated to help elicit and coordinate public participation, as well as to staff the planning process and mediate negotiations.

Four others refused to sign it, according to the Wall Street Journal, while 29 did sign it:
In a letter to the task force co-chairs, four dissenters wrote that the task force's recommendations would create "additional red tape and bureaucracy and ultimately waste taxpayer funds on a new set of city-funded consultants."
(The cost would be proportional to the public assistance provided to the project, and is estimated at between $10,000 and $30,000 per month.)

"I think communities have very serious and legitimate concerns about mitigating the impacts of large developments--which is why I agreed to serve on the task force in the first place," former Task Force Member Julia Vitullo-Martin of the Regional Plan Association told me.

"I was unhappy with the substance of the report, which didn't seem to relate in any way to the recommendations, which were certainly aggressive," she added. "There was no evidence or even solid reasoning for why we should do public benefit agreements in the first place--much less implement them in the proposed cumbersome, bureaucratic fashion that formalizes PBA negotiations before ULURP starts. Then, having distributed whatever benefits & resources are agreed to in this initial phase, the developer must run the familiar, time-honored ULURP gauntlets. Is this any way to do business in a down economy? And do we really want to mandate Atlantic-Yards-type negotiations for every major development in the city?"

In Crain's, columnist Alair Townsend criticized the report in a piece (subscribers only) headlined Alair Townsend: It's absurd to buy project support:
Mayor Bloomberg must speak out forcefully about the absurdity of institutionalizing and codifying the buying of political support.
Major projects

The report suggests standards for “major projects,” which are defined as having at least one of these characteristics (of which AY has the first two):
  • seeking floor area of 500,000 square feet in excess of what is permitted as-of-right
  • with publicly subsidized financing valued at $75 million or more
  • generated through large-scale plans and Special District designations in excess of 27 acres.
The report states:
The most effective way to ensure long-term compliance with this new process is by adopting it into law. In the meantime, we recommend that the Economic Development Corporation voluntarily implement the proposed process by enabling technical assistance to be provided to community coalitions and including PBA terms within development agreements. Because the desirability of adopting benefit agreement standards for New York City- assisted projects applies equally to New York State-assisted developments, we commend the Empire State Development Corporation to do likewise.
Rosy view of AY CBA

As discussed below, the report makes no mention of the payments developer Forest City Ratner has made to its CBA “partners”--a practice CBA experts warn against, nor FCR's bail-out of ACORN.

Nor does it cite the criticism by three local Community Boards that FCR overstated their involvement.

Among the Task Force Members were Bruce Bender and Scott Cantone of Forest City Ratner, and Darnell Canada of Real Economics Building Unity and Innovative Local Development (REBUILD), notable for his public threats at a hearing on AY environmental impacts. Task Force member Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York in 2005 publicly criticized the AY CBA as diverging significantly from more transparent ones in Los Angeles.

Vitullo-Martin added, "Part of the problem is that Atlantic Yards is now so embedded in how people think about CBAs that it can't easily be ripped away--and once you start, you're likely to conclude CBAs aren't a good idea."

According to Gotham Gazette’s Wonkster:
The report is silent on the city’s Industrial Development Agency and its deals (which we covered extensively), despite Liu giving an early indication it might be included in the recommendations.
The rationale

Liu noted the rationale for the study:
“The City fell into the habit of announcing marvelous benefits for the public, such as jobs and affordable housing, in exchange for granting special subsidies to private developers. Too often, however, the promises fail to materialize long after the private developers have received their special subsidies.”
The report acknowledges that the current “project-based arrangement that ties benefits to a particular neighborhood.... [is] a poor substitute for a citywide process that evaluates current and prospective demands for better housing, jobs, health care, child care, schools, opens pace and transit.”

"The Task Force took extra care with recommendations that would meet a community’s needs while not adding undue costs and delays to an already-lengthy and expensive land use process,” Priscilla Almodovar, Task Force Co-Chair and former President of New York State’s Housing Finance Agency and the State of New York Mortgage Agency, said. “If implemented, these recommendations will make development of large projects in New York City more predicable for all stakeholders, including developers, the City, the community and lenders."

The recommendations

The recommendations, according to the official press release, include:
  • Encourage vigorous, broad-based and informed community participation to make public benefit agreements more accountable and more responsive to community needs and potential project impacts.
  • Better equip the respective elected officials and community boards with third-party subject-matter experts who can assist in developing strong terms of accountability and delivery of tangible benefits to the community.
  • The total value of a negotiated package of benefits should be proportional to the size of the subject development, as the primary purpose of a benefit agreement is to mitigate project-related impacts.
  • Contain within public benefit agreements clear, concrete terms and a schedule for delivery of implementation.
  • Ensure enforceability by incorporating public benefit agreement terms into a legally-binding regulatory agreement between the developer and the lead agency and/or a restrictive declaration for review by the City Council.
  • Monitoring by the New York City Comptroller all benefit agreements, related restrictive declarations and development agreements, and issue an annual public benefits agreement compliance report card.
  • Have executed agreements publicly available to facilitate monitoring of implementation, discourage conflicts of interest and to inform residents of potential employment opportunities and other negotiated benefits.
“Time after time, we see press conferences announcing new multi-million dollar subsidized developments that pledge benefits to the community in the form of job creation and economic growth,” said Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York in the press release. “Yet, down the road, evidence often indicates shortfalls on permanent job creation and tax-base growth. It is exciting to see a first plan to create a framework for holding developers accountable to the promises they make.”

The overview

As noted in a report from City Hall:
The task force evaluated the four CBAs that have been signed in the city: Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, Yankee Stadium and the Gateway Center in the Bronx and the Columbia expansion in upper Manhattan, as well as 14 CBAs from elsewhere in the country.
In New York, the problems were grouped into five categories the taskforce found lacking: accountability, fairness, transparency, feasibility and enforceability.
The report cites a March 2010 City Bar Association report that concluded that the city should either refuse to consider CBAs in the land use approval process or consider only those CBAs that conform to clear standards. However, given the high stakes and potential impacts, “communities are unlikely to resist seeking concessions, and developers would be unwilling to cease trying to attract their support,” the Task Force states. “Accordingly, the responsible course of action is to ensure that CBAs conform to clear standards and are guided by the principles of accountability, transparency and enforceability.”

Accountability questions

The report acknowledges numerous questions have been made about accountability:
There is a clear tension arising out of the question of who represents the community. While groups negotiating benefit agreements may take care to involve community residents and local businesses, protect against conflicts of interest, and ensure an inclusive bargaining process, at bottom, there is no consensus as to what the “community” is – whether it is the immediate neighborhood surrounding a proposed project, a larger area, or an advocacy group. In addition, there is no consensus on how a negotiating process can be made more accountable.
The AY summary

The report states:
The first Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) in New York City was executed in connection with the 22-acre development of the Long Island Vanderbilt Railroad yards. In December 2003, Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) announced plans to construct a 19,000-seat sports and entertainment arena that will be the home to the NBA's New Jersey Nets, along with 6,430 units of housing, office and retail space, a hotel and parking on the site. The proposed $4.9 billion project would be the largest NYC development outside Manhattan in more than 25 years.
Actually, when project was announced, it was to have 4500 residential units, with about 2 million square feet of office space, housing 10,000 jobs. Later office space was swapped for 1930 condos. The development would include the 8.5-acre railyard as well as adjacent properties and blocks, rather than be limited to the yards.

The CBA process?

The report states:
In July 2004, FCRC convened a meeting of community groups, including the New York chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD), the Downtown Brooklyn Oversight and Advisory Committee (DBOAC), as well as members of Community Boards 2, 6 and 8 to discuss a community benefits agreement. Regular meetings continued until June 27, 2005, when FCRC signed a CBA with eight organizations (the Coalition) in exchange for their public support for the project.
While this draws on the City Bar report, it’s not accurate. According to an affidavit from Gib Veconi of the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, discussions began in February 2004 and did not represent all community groups.


According to the report:
Under the agreement, FCRC committed to provide an array of benefits, including:
• intent to award at least 20 percent of the total construction contract dollars to qualified minority owned businesses (MBEs) and at least ten percent of the total construction contract dollars to qualified women-owned businesses (WBEs);
• good faith efforts to ensure that at least 35 percent of the construction workers are people of color and 10 percent are female;
leasing of at least 15 percent of the gross retail space to qualified community based businesses;
• a promise to make 50 percent of the 4,500 residential rental units affordable to low- and moderate-income families pursuant to a separate Memorandum of Understanding with ACORN;
• community amenities, including a health center, Intergenerational Center, and at least six acres of parks and open spaces;
environmental mitigations;
• arena-related programs, including seats for community use groups at least ten times per year:
• development of four schools and the funding of capital improvements to libraries and recreational centers at NYCHA properties;
However, none of these have been officially reviewed, and some are essentially meaningless; for example, the environmental mitigation is achieved by following the state-mandated process. And the affordable housing is subject to the availability of subsidies.


The report states:
The CBA sets forth a detailed structure for the implementation of the agreement's provisions. To oversee overall implementation, an Executive Committee composed of representatives of the Coalition and FCRC is to meet bimonthly. The agreement also establishes eight councils to be headed by a Coalition member to address each major subject area. In addition to participating in the Executive Committee and heading its respective Council, specific responsibilities are also delegated to each Coalition member. For example, BUILD is responsible for coordination, management, implementation and initial oversight of workforce development and small business initiatives.
None of the signatories has had a public meeting describing their work

Reporting, Monitoring and Enforcement

The Task Force Report states:
The Atlantic Yards CBA contains clear reporting provisions with respect to the workforce and contracting requirements. Within 30 days after the end of each quarter, FCRC is required to report on the actions taken to fulfill the agreement, including the:
• number of community residents enrolled in the pre-apprentice training initiative, the percentage of minority and women workers, the number who completed training and were hired, the length of time they were employed;
• number of persons placed through the CLE program;
• total number of construction workers and journey level workers, the percentage of them that are minority and women workers;
• total non-construction and construction contracts award and the percentage awarded to community-based, minority or women-owned businesses; and
• status of job fairs, including the number of employers participating, the number of attendees and the status of any applicants filed by them with FCRC or affiliates.

Specific implementation timeframes and reporting requirements are absent with respect to the other CBA terms.

In the event FCRC fails to perform a term or provision, the Coalition must provide written notice documenting the alleged default and offer to meet to resolve the issue. FCRC then has 60 days to cure the alleged default. If the parties are unable to resolve the disagreement, they may request assignment of an independent mediator at FCRC’s expense. The Coalition may also elect to waive the default to pursue binding arbitration or judicial remedies. There are also similar provisions in the agreement to address default by a Coalition member.
But Forest City Ratner is not subject to any oversight beyond its chosen partners.


The report states:
The Atlantic Yards project secured approval from the Empire State Development Corporation in early December 2006 and the Public Authorities Control Board in mid December 2006. The project experienced a series of delays due to prolonged litigation. The project's official groundbreaking occurred in March 2010 and the arena is projected to be completed in the summer of 2012 with residential and commercial components to follow.

Delays in starting the project pushed back implementation of the CBA’s terms, but progress has been made in some key areas (according to information provided by Cantone):
During the initial phases of demolition and construction, FCRC exceeded the total M/WBE prime contract and total contract dollar goals;
• 35 residents from the local community have been placed through FCRC’s Community-Labor Exchange (exceeding the CBAs 1-to-4 requirement);
• A Project Labor Agreement has been negotiated and executed with the construction trade unions and thus far FCRC has secured 200 slots from the construction trade union pre-apprenticeship programs for BUILD graduates;
• BUILD has recently commenced its pre-apprenticeship program and training is underway for 30 individuals; and,
• Discussions are underway with FCRC and the Coalition to implement the affordable housing component of the project’s first residential building, the establishment of a community charitable foundation, and a new charter school as well as other terms of the CBA.
None of this has been subject to public scrutiny.

Missing from the list

In Appendix D of the report, which lists New York City Subsidized Development 2006-2009, which lists developments with subsidized funding in excess of $75 million, Atlantic Yards is not on the list, though it has received at least $131 million in direct funding.
PBA Task Force - Final Report[1]


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…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

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…