Skip to main content

The EB-5 story: WSJ offers less skepticism than Houston Chronicle; federal agency announces plan to streamline applications

One of the lessons of the Atlantic Yards saga, and highlighted in the film Battle for Brooklyn, is the importance of a skeptical approach to the media.

Nowhere is such skepticism more important than in coverage of the EB-5 phenomenon, in which would-be immigrants trade purportedly job-creating investments for green cards for themselves and their families.

Despite ample evidence that the program is dubious, especially related to the Atlantic Yards project, the Wall Street Journal yesterday proceeded with some shoddy journalism, in an article headline Program Gives Investors Chance at Visa.

It's in line with the Journal's lame coverage in February, which ignored misrepresentations made by the New York City Regional Center, the first investment fund in the city that recruited investors, in signing up Chinese and Korean millionaires to invest in the Atlantic Yards project.

Explosive growth

The new article begins:
A 38-story luxury Times Square Hotel. A medical center, hotel and condominium development in downtown Flushing. And New York City's reportedly first Proton Therapy Cancer Treatment Center.

All rely on an unusual source of funding: immigrants who invest $500,000 for a shot at a shortcut to permanent residency.

During the past year, four new groups in New York City have been designated regional centers by the federal government, enabling them to market their projects in foreign countries to raise capital. Nationwide, there are now more than 140 centers, compared to 11 in fiscal year 2007.

As traditional financing options have dried up, developers suddenly have turned to the program to fund projects that might otherwise be ignored.

"That money is not available elsewhere," said George Olsen, managing principal at New York City Regional Center LLC, the first regional center to operate in the city.
That's not so.

The money is not available at the near-zero low interest rate that developers like Forest City Ratner seek.

The obligatory caveat

The article continues:
The program has its critics. They say it has been pitched at times to foreigners as a sure-fire way to get a green card or as a risk-free investment—which it's not.

Some immigrants have experienced deteriorating investments and been sent home packing after developments flop. Since all of the regional centers in New York City are relatively new, none of the investors have reached the point where they would have applied for permanent residency.

Michael Gibson, who researches EB-5 projects for investors through his Florida-based business, said it's hard to monitor what overseas agents are pitching to foreign investors. He said there have been cases of regional centers giving the impression that they are connected with the government.
Um, like the New York City Regional Center's promotion of Atlantic Yards?

What about AY?

The article and accompanying graphic offer divergent portrayals of Atlantic Yards. The text states:
The New York City Regional Center has raised $60 million for the Brooklyn Navy Yard and $65 million for Steiner Studios, a film and television studio in Brooklyn. The center is in the process of raising $249 million to pay for infrastructure costs for developer Forest City Ratner Cos.'s Nets basketball arena in Brooklyn, its biggest project so far. And it's raising $77 million for developer Dermot Co. to rehab the Battery Maritime Building in Lower Manhattan, where the developer plans to add a 67-room hotel.
(Emphasis added)

Infrastructure costs? Most likely the money would go to pay off a land loan.

Moreover, the graphic (click to expand and clarify) indicates that the money would go to "the new Brooklyn arena for the Nets."


Not really. It might support related infrastructure, or pay off a land loan for part of the arena site.

But it wouldn't pay for arena construction and, crucially, the investors--despite enormous arena-related promotion--would not get a stake in the arena, just a share in future development rights to housing towers.

Creating jobs

The article states:
The New York Immigration Fund is raising about 30% of the estimated $250 million needed for the Times Square Hotel through the EB-5 program, said Robert Roe, vice president of the group. "Immigration can be a very polarizing topic but we feel this program is a great program," he said. "You're creating jobs locally and you're not using any taxpayer assistance."
As the Empire State Development Corporation has acknowledged, with Atlantic Yards, no new jobs would be created beyond those originally forecast. Rather, the developer would save money.

Federal inattention

The federal agency in charge of the EB-5 program, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), seems far more concerned with streamlining the program, ensuring that it works faster.

Hence the 5/9/11 announcement headlined USCIS Proposes Significant Enhancements to EB-5 Visa Processing to Help America Win the Future:
Actions Will Streamline Program Designed to Create Jobs
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today proposed significant enhancements to the administration of the USCIS Immigrant Investor Program, commonly referred to as the EB-5 Program—transforming the intake and review process for immigrant investors as part of the Obama administration’s continued commitment to improve the legal immigration system and meet our economic and national security needs for the 21st century.
The EB-5 Program makes 10,000 visas available annually to immigrant investors who invest in commercial enterprises that create at least 10 U.S. jobs. EB-5 investors may petition independently or as part of a USCIS-designated Regional Center.
“Congress created the EB-5 Program in 1990 to attract investors and entrepreneurs from around the globe to create jobs in America,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. “We are dedicated to enhancing this program to ensure that it achieves that goal to the fullest extent possible.”
USCIS is proposing three fundamental changes to the way it processes EB-5 Regional Center filings. First, USCIS proposes to accelerate its processing of applications for job-creating projects that are fully developed and ready to be implemented. USCIS will also give these EB-5 applicants and petitioners the option to request Premium Processing Service, which guarantees processing within 15 calendar days for an additional fee.
Second, USCIS proposes the creation of new specialized intake teams with expertise in economic analysis and the EB-5 Program requirements. EB-5 Regional Center applicants will be able to communicate directly with the specialized intake teams via e-mail to streamline the resolution of issues and quickly address questions or needs related to their applications.
Third, USCIS proposes to convene an expert Decision Board to render decisions regarding EB-5 Regional Center applications. The Decision Board will be composed of an economist and adjudicators and will be supported by legal counsel.
This proposal will be online until June 17, 2011, for public comment—providing stakeholders an opportunity to offer feedback on the proposed changes to the administration of the EB-5 Program.
It was seen by one commentator as good news for commercial real estate projects that needed investments.EB 5 Proposal 18May11

Skeptical coverage in Houston
The Houston Chronicle has joined Reuters and this blog by casting a (partly) skeptical eye on the EB-5 program, in a 5/23/11 article headlined Federal program offers investors visas, a lot of risk: Some Texas companies that handle the deals have legal problems, other issues:
The program lacks transparency. While the government estimates that EB-5 investments have generated $1.5 billion for the U.S. economy since 1990, USCIS does not publicly disclose how well individual regional centers perform.

The agency denied requests from the Chronicle for information on which centers have successfully helped EB-5 applicants to receive visas or to become green card holders.

Immigration officials say they are working to improve oversight of the regional centers, which have grown rapidly in recent years.

On Thursday, the agency proposed changes to the program, including creating a "decision board" that includes economists and legal counsel to help vet the regional center applications. The agency also plans to hold already established regional centers accountable by requiring them to file more detailed annual reports, said USCIS spokeswoman Maria Elena Garcia-Upson.

Experts from within the EB-5 industry praised USCIS for efforts to reinvigorate and revise the EB-5 program, but warned that more needs to be done - and quickly - to help protect investors.

"If I were an investor, I would run," said Michael Gibson, managing director of USAdvisors.org, which specializes in investigating regional centers for potential EB-5 investors. "There are so many people out there who have checkered backgrounds and suspect projects that for an investor, it's extremely important that they do due diligence on all of the claims made by the centers," he said.
An economist's modest proposal

Libertarian economist Gary Becker, in a 2/21/05 post on the Becker-Posner Blog, suggested that the right to immigrate be sold, perhaps for a $50,000 fee:
In summary, charging a fee to immigrate would raise tax revenue, increase the number of immigrants accepted, and also raise the quality of those accepted. It is a win-win situation for countries accepting immigrants, and for the vast majority of persons who would like to immigrate.
Here's his response to comments. Here's a 2008 update and a June 2010 article in The Economist.

Note that Becker's suggesting ways to monetize and regulate what is often illegal immigration, not address investment immigration.

But if we are going to sell entry to the U.S.--and surely that's what the EB-5 program is--shouldn't the main benefit go to the public, rather than to private enterprise?

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…