Skip to main content

Weasel words and ambiguous language: selling the Brooklyn Arena and Infrastructure Project to immigrant investors whose English may be shaky

Part 15 of a series

The effort by the New York City Regional Center (NYCRC), the private investment pool federally authorized to accept immigrant investor funds, and developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) to raise $249 million from 498 Chinese millionaires under the EB-5 immigration program may be legal, but there is ample reason to question whether it will serve the public interest.

Part 1 of this series concerned the seven-year extension available on Phase 1 of the project should Forest City Ratner not repay the EB-5 loan. Part 2 estimated the developer could save at least $191 million. Part 3 examined the sales effort in China, with the arena front and center, even though it's already funded.

Part 4 reported on claims made in China, on video and in person, by public officials supporting the project. Part 5 concerned the value of the development rights, contrasted with those in last year's deal for the Vanderbilt Yard. Part 6 described reasons to think the development rights are overvalued.

Part 7 explained why China is such a popular target for those seeking EB-5 investors
. Part 8 provided another reason why the Nets played exhibition games in China in October. Part 9 cited the curious avoidance of Mikhail Prokhorov during the pitch in China.

Part 10 noted NYCRC's belated announcement of the project in a newsletter. Part 11
described misleading promotion in the Chinese media and by Chinese firms working with the NYCRC. Part 12 covered the proclamations that are part of the pageantry in China.

Part 13 concerned the role of the NYCRC's preferred law firm. Part 14 linked the land loan to a previous one from Gramercy Capital. Part 15 analyzed the use of weasel words and ambiguous language. Part 16 took another look at a web video pitching the project.

The wrap-up and FAQ is here.


===================================

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."--Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll

One signal feature of the Atlantic Yards project being marketed to green card-seeking immigrant investors is the strategic use deployment of language, including weasel words and ambiguous terms.

Such language is tough to decipher for a native English speaker. It must be doubly difficult for potential investors in China, relying on their second language or listening in translation.

After looking at publicity material and listening to pitches from the New York City Regional Center (NYCRC), the privately-owned, government-authorized investment pool soliciting investors, I can offer a preliminary lexicon for this curious promotional effort.

What's the project?

When representatives of the NYCRC address potential investors, they generally refer to the Brooklyn Arena and Infrastructure Project, referring to the arena, associated infrastructure, and a new railyard.

But New York City and State officials tend to refer to the Atlantic Yards project.

For example, the proclamation (left) issued by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), as promoted on the web site of the Kunpeng consultancy, says the capital sought "is vital to the initial stages of one of the most important public/private development initiatives in New York City today and one of the largest job-creating projects in over a decade."

Why it matters: The larger Atlantic Yards project is the one approved by the state, and the one that would deliver a much larger quantity of jobs and tax revenues. No government agency approved the smaller project described in China.

What exactly is pre-approval?

Representatives from the NYCRC regularly claim that the project is pre-approved. In doing so, they suggest that a general bureaucratic decision from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) means certainty for investors.

"This project has been completely pre-approved by USCIS for the benefit of you and your family," the NYCRC's Gregg D. Hayden told prospective investors at one session. That, he said, means that "immigration risk"--the chance that sufficient jobs would not be generated for each investor--would be eliminated.

The USCIS says it doesn't pre-approve benefits, as noted by a spokeswoman. "The only way to know if the USCIS has reviewed and approved the actual project you are considering investing in is to insure an investor has already had an approved I-526 petition on that exact project," says the another EB-5 firm, CMB Export.

Why it matters: The term pre-approval seems aimed at convincing investors they have nothing to worry about. While there's a presumption that approval of a regional center and its project means their methods have been endorsed, each individual investor's application--not simply the exemplar--must be examined.

After all, the USCIS will take another look in certain cases, such as when misrepresentation and fraud are alleged.

What is abundant job creation?


According to NYCRC's Hayden, in a webcast (at 2:48), there's "abundant job creation that we are producing with this project." That refers to the Brooklyn Arena and Infrastructure Project--the arena, infrastructure, and railyard--not the entire Atlantic Yards project.

Jobs are calculated via an economist's report. There's no reason to think that the jobs calculated--7696, far more than the 4980 needed, ten per investor--have anything to do with the number of people who might be seen at the Atlantic Yards site, or even the number for the project as a whole in official estimates by the Empire State Development Corporation.

Why it matters: The phrase is used to convince potential investors that they will meet the requirements of federal immigration law: ten jobs per investor.

But the calculation seems to make a mockery of the immigration program, which aims to generate investment that actually creates jobs. This investment, in significant part, likely would substitute lower-cost funding for higher-cost capital rather than serve as seed money or matching funds.

In conjunction with whom?

The cover of a project brochure presents logos from the city and state governments.

According to a NYCRC video, the the NYCRC is offering "EB-5 investors another secure, job-creating project in conjunction with the government of both the state of New York and the city of New York."

The term in conjunction with also appears in an NYCRC newsletter.

What's the relationship between the city and state governments and the NYCRC? Nothing beyond a finder's fee for the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Recognition Agreement signed by the Empire State Development Corporation.

Why it matters: The term in conjunction with suggests a level of partnership or agreement, aimed to give confidence to investors.

By contrast, the EB-5 firm CMB Export states that the projects it offers are unique because government bodies are actually on the hook.

What does certified mean?

"The New York City Regional Center also has its entire document set certified by the Chinese embassy, for your benefit," Hayden told audience members at one session in Beijing.

"The report has been certified by the Chinese Embassy," the NYCRC said in a video.

Why it matters: Those sound impressive, almost like a guarantee. However, as best as I've been able to discover, certified merely means that the embassy agrees that the documents are genuine. It doesn't mean that the contents have been vetted.

A murky completion guarantee

"Forest City Enterprises has signed a completion guarantee with the State of New York," says the narrator of a project video. "This agreement with the government obligates Forest City to complete key aspects of the project, such as the Barclays Center arena and new subway entrance."

At one session for investors, the NYCRC's Hayden went further, suggesting that the completion guarantee provided "the safety and security to know that this project will be completed by the second quarter of 2012." In doing so, he implicitly tacked on the railyard, which need not be completed until 2016.

Why it matters: a completion guarantee sounds impressive. In this case, the completion guarantees were signed for two of the three project elements--and a large majority of the total cost--before the immigrant investors' funds were ever sought.

If such potential investors recognized that, they might ask if funding for those elements could truly be used to calculate job creation.

Moreover, they are not told that the one element of the project for which there is no 2012 completion guarantee is the element that would be funded, predominantly or exclusively, via immigrant investors' funds.

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…

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…