Showing posts with label ACORN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACORN. Show all posts

Friday, July 18, 2008

National ACORN's (episode of) scandal, and NY ACORN's dubious Brooklyn stadium deal (in 2000)

This includes the fourth of a multi-part interview (conducted May 28) with Neil deMause, the Brooklyn-based co-author of the book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, and writer of the companion web site. He testified at a 3/29/07 Congressional hearing that questioned taxpayer financing of stadiums, convention centers, and hotels.

The national housing and advocacy group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been in the news for covering up (for eight years) an embezzlement by the founder’s brother, and while that doesn’t necessarily put a cloud over New York ACORN, the state affiliate, some defenses of ACORN deserve challenge.

Lawyer and activist John Atlas, who’s writing a book on ACORN, wrote on The Huffington Post that ACORN has been subject to “vicious attacks from business lobbyists, conservative politicians, and right-wing media.” He later added, “It also has critics on the Left, some of whom are jealous of ACORN's success and others of whom disagree with ACORN's tactics or its willingness to forge compromises in order to win victories for its members.”

Well, some on the left, such as this former organizer, point out that ACORN does not always practice what it preaches, especially in regard to its employees. Indeed, the organization's "listening" sounds somewhat like the "listening" New York ACORN claimed led to the Atlantic Yards affordable housing deal.

In Brooklyn, ACORN’s uncritical—gagged, actually—support for Atlantic Yards has generated criticism from people around the political spectrum, including affordable housing activists. And City Council Member Letitia James, the project’s leading political opponent, was elected on the line of the Working Families Party, co-founded by ACORN.

Debating with ACORN

Here's my response to Atlas's earlier defense of the Atlantic Yards deal, pointing out some gaps in his arguments.

ACORN founder Wade Rathke wrote 3/1/07 on his blog about AY:
Surprisingly, we found ourselves on the opposite side of the divide among the Park Slope liberals and others who were unwilling to join us in making the diversity of the community the core issue.

The impression many have, for example as framed in a 2/28/06 debate between ACORN's Lewis (right) and DDDB's Candace Carponter, is that the tension is between "equity" and "livability." But you could have that same debate if the government itself were building a large project. With Atlantic Yards, there are additional factors: a deeply flawed public process and a developer willing to play hardball to achieve what is, essentially, a private rezoning (with a privately negotiated bonus for affordable housing).

A stadium deal in 2000

Maybe some ACORN critics fall into the categories listed by Atlas, but some have looked closely at ACORN’s tactics and found them questionable. And ACORN New York Executive Director Bertha Lewis, lionized by Atlas as “widely respected,” is an energetic advocate whose focus on delivering a deal (for members? for the organization?--since it would benefit from an administrative role) sacrifices the organization's voice on other aspects of the AY debate.

Lewis appears in the July 2000 issue of Here magazine, in a long piece by deMause headlined The Battle of Brooklyn, about effort to put a minor league baseball stadium on the Parade Grounds below Prospect Park. The plan would have displaced half the fields (baseball, soccer, football) for two years but promised renovated facilities in the end, and some long-suffering users of the fields backed it. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, calling the stadium a temporary structure, attempted to exploit a loophole to avoid the city’s land use review process.

ACORN entered the fray, leading the Save the Parade Grounds Coalition. Both ACORN and then-Brooklyn Borough President Howard Golden filed lawsuits against the stadium project. (Golden didn’t oppose a stadium, but wanted an unaffiliated team rather than the single-A minor-league team promised by the Mets.)

ACORN's settlement

Then, unbeknownst to some coalition partners, ACORN announced a settlement. Wrote deMause:
The on-field parking is gone, the size of the ballpark has been scaled back, and the Mets have agreed to employ local residents and bring players and coaches to talk at a local public school. "Everything we asked for, they consented," says an ACORN member. "This Mets stadium coming here is a blessing in disguise."


But Golden persisted in the lawsuit, the city caved, and the stadium moved to private land in Queens on the campus of St. John’s University, outside of any land use review. And Golden allocated $10.3 million from his capital budget to restore the Parade Grounds.

And what about ACORN? deMause wrote:
(Bertha Lewis, who had publicly declared that there was no way to get renovation without the Mets ballpark, is unrepentant, insisting that "there's no way Golden would have come up with the money if we hadn't been pressuring him," and pointing to the loss of the 40 jobs that had been promised to accompany the new ballpark.)

A journalist becomes more skeptical

I asked deMause about that episode, which he initially covered for the Village Voice.

Q. That experience seemed to make you rather cynical about ACORN.

A. It was Bertha [Lewis] and this guy, George [Dames, from the North Flatbush Youth and Community Coalition], who was a local guy from Flatbush, who were sort of pushing the opposition to the Mets, this temporary stadium in the Parade Grounds. Everything was going pretty well for the opposition, they had this court case going, suddenly, Bertha calls me and says, Come to the press conference, we cut a deal, and George and a lot of these folks weren’t at the press conference, because they didn’t know about it.

And they had struck this deal: the Mets were basically going to give money to pet projects of ACORN, or give it to community stuff, but Bertha would be the rainmaker for it.… and Howard Golden, the borough president, was not on board with the deal: I’m still suing.

The Mets finally gave up, played at St. John’s for a year or two, and wound up in Coney Island permanently. Bertha’s deal never wound up going anywhere, Golden finally came up with money to do the renovations of the parade grounds. Bertha said: it’ll never happen any other way, at least we’ll get it renovated, we have to let the Mets in--and then it happened. It wasn’t a ton of money.

As everyone now knows the City Council and Borough President can find $10 million if they need to. So it was remarkable seeing her as this firebrand, I’m going to tell the Mets to go to hell, they will never set foot in the Parade Grounds and then do this complete sudden turnabout and she said, OK, fine, I’m on board with it.

The AY contrast

Q. Was there a parallel with the Atlantic Yards affordable housing agreement signed by ACORN?

A. It just happened much earlier in the Nets deal. She sold out or bought in, depending on how you want to put it, very early. Ok, fine, if you’re going to give me what I want, then I’ll go for it. There are arguments for doing CBAs [Community Benefits Agreements] where, if developer does do enough things for the community, then that’s OK, people buy in.

The problem of course is that Bertha didn’t get together with everybody in the community and say, OK, let’s figure out what the community wants, and let’s present a list of demands to Ratner and, until you make us all happy, we’re not going to go along with it. It’s that I’m going to cut a deal for myself and everybody else is then the enemy.

So, yeah, speaking of people who’ve lost credibility. I mean, ACORN’s done a lot of good things, and I’m sure Bertha has done good things in her time, but she definitely has this capacity for selling her support for projects based more on narrow self-interest of her and the organization rather than what’s good for community or the city. That’s disappointing, to say the least.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

As groups lobby against tax-exempt bonds for sports facilities, is WFP hamstrung by ACORN's AY deal?

There seems to be a consensus among good-government and neighborhood activist groups that tax-exempt bonding for sports facilities, as keyed to the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deals crafted for the new Yankees and Mets stadiums, and planned for the Atlantic Yards arena, is bad public policy. The loss to the federal treasury often benefits sports team owners more than the public at large.

That's why two letters issued yesterday said very much the same thing--but with a curious discrepancy that suggests that the housing group ACORN's role in the Atlantic Yards project may have hamstrung the Working Families Party from explicitly criticizing tax-exempt bonds for the AY arena.

Coalition letter

Yesterday, a coalition of groups, notably Good Jobs New York, the New York Public Research Interest Group, the anti-AY group Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and the Yankees resisters at Save Our Parks, sent a letter to New York State's Congressional delegation, asking them to "clearly communicate to the Treasury Department and the IRS that its regulations should be clarified to ensure that in the future no sports facilities will be eligible to receive federal tax exempt financing." (Click on graphics to enlarge.)

In other words, even though the Yankees and Mets were able to use a "loophole," in the words of the chief counsel of the IRS, to use PILOTs to pay off stadium construction, they shouldn't be allowed to gain any more tax-exempt bonds. Nor should Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner, even though city and state officials are lobbying Washington to make sure that these projects escape a proposed new regulation tightening the availability of such bonds.

The WFP effort

Yesterday the New York Working Families Party asked supporters to send a message urging Mayor Mike Bloomberg to stop lobbying to help the Yankees get more tax-free bonds. The message, which mentioned neither the Mets stadium nor the Nets arena, pointed out, as did testimony by Good Jobs New York and others at a Congressional hearing last October, that subsidies for sports facilities can divert funds from critical infrastructure.

Yesterday, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn posted an email sent out by the WFP, signed by several officials, including WFP Co-Chair Bertha Lewis, executive director NY ACORN, and a signatory of the Atlantic Yards Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a staunch supporter of the project.

The letter also cited only the Yankees Stadium but laid out the broad policy argument, calling it "very sensible" for "private sports teams [to] not have access to tax-free bond money meant for public development projects."

The letter added, "If they succeed, other sports teams in NYC, and around the country, could see billions more in public money heading their way."

The policy argument applies, obviously, to the Atlantic Yards arena. Indeed, as DDDB points out, Forest City Ratner could proceed with taxable bonds. But that could cost an estimated $165 million in revenue, reason enough to doubt Bruce Ratner's nonchalance in claiming the project would be funded no matter what.

WFP neutral?

As a Working Families Party representative commented on this blog in September 2006, the WFP is neutral on Atlantic Yards. Indeed, City Council Member Letitia James, the most prominent political opponent of AY, is an WFP member.

Then again, given that ACORN is a founder of the WFP, the party can't ignore ACORN's position. So, even though the WFP could legitimately mention all three sports facility projects, it chose to mention only the Yankees deal.

ACORN hamstrung WFP on this issue?

Why? I'll speculate that the WFP faced some internal pressure from ACORN, which is required, according to the Housing MOU (above) to "take reasonable steps to publicly support the Project by, among other things, appearing with the Developer before the Public Parties, community organizations and the media as part of a coordinated effort to realize and advance the Project and the contemplated creation of affordable housing."

Though that clause strikes me as difficult to enforce, I can't imagine that Forest City Ratner is happy with anyone lobbying public officials to tighten regulations on tax-exempt bonds. So if Lewis and ACORN were going to criticize "corporate welfare," the least they could do was not mention by name one of the chief recipients of such tax breaks.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

And what about those for-sale affordable units? The fine print is vague

A major question raised about the 600 to 1000 affordable for-sale units, on and off-site, announced by developer Forest City Ratner as part of the Atlantic Yards Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is why they were absent from the General Project Plan approved by the Empire State Development Corporation. That wasn't cause for confidence.

The recently-unveiled State Funding Agreement does, however, mention the pledge that's contained in the agreement FCR signed with the advocacy group ACORN.

However, as far as I can tell, the document has no teeth, since it asserts no deadlines and no penalties, though it does assign deadlines for other phases of the project and penalties for failure to meet those deadlines.

For one thing, if FCR doesn't build as many market-rate condos--and all housing is now on hold--the MOU appears to give the developer an out. Also, the construction of for-sale affordable units depends on unspecified subsidies.

Big pledge?

The developer, in a 12/20/06 statement after the approval by the Public Authorities Control Board, suggested that the total was ironclad, even if some onsite units were a goal rather than a certainty:
As part of the affordable housing program, FCRC has already agreed to build 600 to 1,000 affordable home ownership units on or off site. Today, FCRC announced that it will seek to build at least 200 of these affordable home-owner units on site (they will be part of the proposed 6,430 units of housing already approved as part of the Atlantic Yards FEIS/GPP). FCRC will also seek to build the remaining affordable home-owner units as close to Atlantic Yards as possible.

Has condo plan changed?

Here's the pledge from the MOU for affordable condos:
For sale housing - Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the MOU, Developer and ACORN will work on a program to develop affordable for-sale units, which are intended to be in the range of 600 to 1000 units, over the course of ten (10) years and can be on or off site. It is currently contemplated that a majority of the affordable for-sale units will be sold to families in the upper affordable income tiers.

That ten-year promise has not surfaced elsewhere. Note that the pledge of 600 to 1000 for-sale units, however, was meant to match, at least in part, the 1930 market-rate condos added to the plan, to help achieve the 50/50 affordable housing goal.

But read the fine print: If the projected number of residential units should increase for any reason that the Developer determines to be economically necessary, both the Developer and ACORN will work towards developing a program that follows the same guidelines and principles set forth in this document.

In other words, the for-sale affordable units depend on the market-rate condos. That's logical, but it also means that if those condos don't get built--or are built over a very long period--the affordable for-sale units could lag as well.

What the document says

Perhaps that's why the State Funding Agreement (Part 34) is so vague:
Developer shall provide 600-1000 units of affordable home ownership units [sic] as close to the Atlantic Yards project site as possible, including but not limited to the following neighborhoods: Prospect Heights, Fort Greene, Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Clinton Hill and Park Slope. Developer shall seek to build 200 of these affordable home ownership units directly on the Atlantic Yards project site (assuming the appropriate subsidy required to fund these affordable home ownership units is available and the density levels approved in the ESDC GPP are maintained). Developer shall seek to make the affordable home ownership units affordable to families with income up to 150% of AMI and to make homeownership opportunities available to families with incomes below 100% AMI.

However, despite seemingly forceful language ("shall provide"), the document, as far as I can tell, offers no guarantees or sanctions for failure to meet the target.