Skip to main content

Asking feds not to approve tax-exempt bonds for AY arena, DDDB criticizes city/state letter

In a letter (right), Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) has urged the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) not to believe the 5/8/08 letter (below) sent to them by the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) urging that federal government allow PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) to be used for the planned Atlantic Yards arena.

Some of those criticisms were first reported in this blog: the letter overstates how much land Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner actually controls and it fails to point out that, at least according to available evidence, the foregone property tax might be much less than the anticipated PILOT payment. Also, DDDB points out that the city and state overstate the amount of progress achieved on the project.

Closing the “loophole”

The chief counsel of the IRS has said the agency wishes to close a “loophole” that allowed use of PILOTs to pay back tax-exempt bonds for sports facilities, given that PILOTs--a fixed amount set for bond repayments--would not realistically replace the foregone property taxes, which should fluctuate over the years.

The city and state, who saw PILOTs for the Yankees and Mets stadiums each approved under what is known as a Private Letter Ruling (PLR), essentially want those PLRs to be grandfathered in, and that PILOTs be allowed to repay additional bonds for those stadiums. The city and state also want the OK for arena PILOTs, contending that plans for the arena were well under way when the stadium PILOT plans were approved in 2006.

A proposed IRS rule remains under discussion, a Treasury Department spokesman told the New York Observer last week.

At stake is a benefit --the difference between tax-exempt and taxable bonds--to arena developer Forest City Ratner worth an estimated $165 million on $800 million worth of bonds for a $950 million arena. The burden would fall mainly on federal taxpayers--hence the interest of the city and state in getting it passed. Should the “loophole” not be preserved for the arena, there might be increasing pressure on the city and state to increase local subsidies for the facility.

While DDDB’s concerns may be seen as more parochial than concerns about tax-exempt financing for sports facilities expressed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, the specific criticisms in the letter likely had not been raised previously in direct communication to IRS and the Department of the Treasury.

(Note that the DDDB letter could use some further proofreading.)

Warning of slant

The letter begins with cautions:
Assertions in the Ratner Arena Letter regarding the bonding for that arena leave out key pieces of information and make misleading and politically slanted arguments, and as such compel the IRS to conduct a review with a heightened level of scrutiny and due diligence.

...Since the time the project was initiated by the developer, ESDC has frequently been a conduit for information about the project obtained from the developer, not in it own possession, and not subject to its own independent verification. We hope that the IRS will not be accepting of assurances from those who are not carefully verifying that which they assert to you.

The PILOT deal

The city/state letter asserts that the developer will pay a semi-annual PILOT “not to exceed the full real estate taxes which the City would assess were the Arena Building Site and the Arena not exempt from such taxes and the LDC shall have the right to pledge such PILOT payments to service the LDC’s tax-exempt bonds.”

The DDDB letter warns:
However, the Ratner Arena Letter fails to explain that ESDC/LDC/FCRC will not peg the PILOT to any actual assessed foregone property tax, but rather will fabricate a number working backwards from their calculation of what is necessary to pay the debt service to pay towards the private arena facility.

What are property taxes?

The letter cautions:
According to information available, if the PILOTS cannot exceed the foregone property taxes—as stated in the Ratner Arena Letter—then the PILOTS will not come anywhere near paying off the $800 million in tax-exempt bond financing FCRC has stated it will pursue for its currently price $950 million arena. If the PILOT were really pegged to foregone taxes, the developer would be approximately $40 million dollars short of the roughly estimated $48 million annual bond payment. If those numbers are not precise, it is clear that FCRC would be substantially short of the roughly estimated annual bond payment if the PILOT were truly pegged to assessed property tax.

While the amount of foregone taxes actually remains unclear, there are clues that the total would be much less than the annual $48 million needed to pay off $800 million in tax-exempt financing. The letter cites AYR’s citation of a foregone property tax exemption of $11 million for Madison Square Garden, according to the Independent Budget Office.

The PILOTs for the Mets and Yankees stadiums have already been assessed, and match up with the bond repayments. The DDDB letter states:
We believe the assessed taxes for the Mets and Yankees are also made up numbers having nothing to do with foregone taxes. But the reason the Nets assessment is missing is not because the IDA and ESDC cannot estimate the assessed property taxes for the improved arena site (the arena is not under construction, has not broken ground, and currently cannot break ground), but rather because it is that only after FCRC calculates the arena construction cost and the tax-exempt bond financing it requires, will it be able to make up a PILOT value necessary to pay the debt service BUT call it “Annual Estimated Taxes” as in Exhibit D of their letter.

Were ESDC to provide for you today the estimated taxes, the developer would be boxed into a corner from which it would have trouble removing itself when the arena cost increases again as it is certain to do.

Substantial spending?

The DDDB letter argues out that the city/state letter “blatantly" states that Atlantic Yards has made significant progress, given that the city/state letter notes that “Substantial amounts have been spent on the Project,” including “$219 million prior to 2007 (of which $47 million related to the Arena).”

Clarifying the ambiguity, I noted in June that the money was spent by the developer, though actually, some was a pass-through of $55 million in city and state funds, as well.

The $47 million, DDDB points out, is a little less than 5% of the cost of the $950 million arena, arguing that the “expenditures are for needed basic infrastructure in the area, independently necessary for public purposes without regard to the proposed development.”

That’s what the city has said, but I’m not so sure that the money would be used for any development; the scale of the Atlantic Yards project likely requires a different amount of infrastructure.

Timetable questions

DDDB challenges the chronology in the city/state letter, which, in attempting to illustrate “substantial progress,” offers this claim:
The Project commenced in 2003; the Arena is anticipated to be completed in 2010, and the balance of the Project is expected to be built over the next decade.

DDDB argues:
These claims are palpably, self-servingly and cynically false.... This is one example of why the IRS should be reviewing all the assertions in the Ratner Arena Letter with rigorous skepticism and rejecting many of them.

DDDB points out that, when the project was announced, the arena completion was set for 2006. Further, DDDB notes that the the letter fails to cite the State Funding Agreement that allows 6-plus years to build the arena after the close of litigation and delivery of property by emiment domain, 12-plus years to build the rest of Phase 1, and no timeline to build Phase 2, which would contain most of the project.

Whose burden?

DDDB suggests that there's no obligation to allow PILOTS: The Arena is about luxury skyboxes and naming rights.... A non-binding promise to FCRC made four years ago with respect to an inchoate and since much altered project should not be overlaid to bootstrap FCRC into tax loophole benefits on the backs of federal, state and local taxpayers...

Of course, the city and state want tax-exempt bonds to save state and local taxpayers subsidies that federal taxpayers could provide.


  1. This post notes that the City and State are interested in pursuing the federal loophole (an estimated $165 million benefit to the developer- the difference between tax-exempt and taxable bonds) because the burden of providing it “would fall mainly on federal taxpayers.”

    The idea that the burden of the $165 million would fall mainly on the federal taxpayers may be a cynical selling point for giving money to Ratner. Perhaps some of the public officials cynically selling the idea have, without thinking about it, bought in to what they are selling. Nevertheless, focusing just on the $165 million that would be paid for by the federal taxpayers (which we all are) distracts from the bigger picture involving significant local costs.

    While around $165 million of subsidy would come from the federal taxpayers, local taxpayers would be giving up a lot more.

    For starters, to build the arena, high-quality tax-paying residential buildings that were recently renovated will be demolished and taken off the tax roles. The possible development of other tax-paying buildings will be precluded.

    Then we can get into the local taxpayer subsides.

    Neither Ratner nor ESDC are freely providing figures but the following reasonably reliable projections are worth considering. Assuming that the federal taxpayer’s burden is $168.07 million (my more specific figure) then the local taxpayers will still pay the following for the arena:

    $8.43 million will be paid by the City taxpayers for the bonds
    $15.40 million will be paid by the State taxpayers for the bonds
    $17.44 million will be paid by the City and State in surrendered sales taxes
    $45.80 million will be donated by the MTA via a write-down for part of the land on which arena will be built
    $26.81 million will be donated by the City in the form of city-owned land on which the arena will be built. (A $10.02 million site and a $16.79 million site.)
    $1,032.74 million will be forgone (Present Value) real estate taxes which the City will not collect. (If arguably this figure should be lower, then arguably the math necessary for the federal loophole for the bonds to be tax-exempt can’t apply.)

    So, of $1.31469 billion, the federal taxpayers’ burden would be $168.07 million (with an “m”) and state and local taxpayers will shoulder $1.14662 billion (with a “b”). So I don’t respond to the cynical sales pitch about the benefits of sticking it to the federal taxpayer.

    Next, it doesn’t make much difference what burden the federal taxpayer shoulders if the money flowing from the subsidy goes to Cleveland (Ratner’s home base) rather than New York.

    I have earlier provided an analysis of where these subsidies wind up, the “incidence” of the subsidies in economic terms- (See: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 “Deconstructing Professor Zimbalist's dubious defenses of his radio appearance”

    The fact is that the way these subsidies work, granting of the federal loophole becomes a mechanism that transfers money not to our local economy but away from it.


    This post talks about the relatively small amount which the City says has been spent to date on infrastructure. AYR expresses doubt that the expenditure would be used for any other development because “the scale of the Atlantic Yards project likely requires a different amount of infrastructure.”

    With respect to the money that has been spent to date on infrastructure, here are the possibilities:

    1. Without Atlantic Yards or an alternative project of a more reasonable scale, NOTHING would need to have been built at all in terms of infrastructure in the neighborhood.

    2. Even without Atlantic Yards or an alternative project of a more reasonable scale, all or most of infrastructure such as has been already worked on would need to have been built in the neighborhood or would be still be beneficial.

    3. Only with Atlantic Yards or an alternative project of a more reasonable scale would all or most of the infrastructure such as has already been worked on would need to have been built in the neighborhood or would be beneficial.

    4. Only with Atlantic Yards (and not an alternative project of reasonable scale) would all or most of the infrastructure such as has already been worked on would need to have been built in the neighborhood.

    5. Only with a version of Atlantic Yards that would include the arena would all or most of the infrastructure such as has already been worked on would need to have been built in the neighborhood.

    Obviously, the arena has always been at very significant risk of not proceeding. The rest of Atlantic Yards is also at substantial risk of not proceeding as planned since it might be replaced by another project of more reasonable scale. In evaluating these risks, our public officials would have been putting our public money at risk only if #1, #5 or, to a lesser extent #4 are true. I would expect that if the truth is ascertainable, we will discover that our public officials did not put our money at risk in this fashion. They probably behaved with greater prudence and hedged their bets. That would mean that either #2 or #3 is the actual situation with respect to the expenditures that have occurred so far.

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barclays Center/Levy Restaurants hit with suit charging discrimination on disability, race; supervisors said to use vicious slurs, pursue retaliation

The Daily News has an article today, Barclays Center hit with $5M suit claiming discrimination against disabled, while the New York Post headlined its article Barclays Center sued over taunting disabled employees.

While that's part of the lawsuit, more prominent are claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, with black employees claiming repeated abuse by white supervisors, preferential treatment toward Hispanic colleagues, and retaliation in response to complaints.

Two individual supervisors, for example, are charged with  referring to black employees as “black motherfucker,” “dumb black bitch,” “black monkey,” “piece of shit” and “nigger.”

Two have referred to an employee blind in one eye as “cyclops,” and “the one-eyed guy,” and an employee with a nose disorder as “the nose guy.”

There's been no official response yet though arena spokesman Barry Baum told the Daily News they, but take “allegations of this kind very seriously” and have "a zero tolerance policy for…

Behind the "empty railyards": 40 years of ATURA, Baruch's plan, and the city's diffidence

To supporters of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, it's a long-awaited plan for long-overlooked land. "The Atlantic Yards area has been available for any developer in America for over 100 years,” declared Borough President Marty Markowitz at a 5/26/05 City Council hearing.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, mused on 11/15/05 to WNYC's Brian Lehrer, “Isn’t it interesting that these railyards have sat for decades and decades and decades, and no one has done a thing about them.” Forest City Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco, in a 12/19/04 New York Times article ("In a War of Words, One Has the Power to Wound") described the railyards as "an empty scar dividing the community."

But why exactly has the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard never been developed? Do public officials have some responsibility?

At a hearing yesterday of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, Kate Suisma…

Barclays Center event June 11 to protest plans to expand Israeli draft; questions about logistics

At right is a photo of a poster spotted in Hasidic Williamsburg right. Clearly there's an event scheduled at the Barclays Center aimed at the Haredi Jewish community (strict Orthodox Jews who reject secular culture), but the lack of English text makes it cryptic.

The website explains, Protest Against Israeli Draft of Bnei Yeshiva Rescheduled for Barclays Center:
A large asifa to protest the drafting of bnei yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel into the Israeli army that had been set to take place this month will instead be held on Sunday, 17 Sivan/June 11, at the Barclays Center in Downtown Brooklyn, NY. So attendees at a big gathering will protest an apparent change of policy that will make it much more difficult for traditional Orthodox Jewish students--both Hasidic (who follow a rebbe) and non-Hasidic (who don't)--to get deferments from the draft. Comments on the Yeshiva World website explain some of the debate.

The logistical questions

What's unclear is how large the ev…

Atlanta's Atlantic Yards moves ahead

First mentioned in April, the Atlantic Yards project in Atlanta is moving ahead--and has the potential to nudge Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn further down in Google searches.

According to a 5/30/17 press release, Hines and Invesco Real Estate Announce T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards:
Hines, the international real estate firm, and Invesco Real Estate, a global real estate investment manager, today announced a joint venture on behalf of one of Invesco Real Estate’s institutional clients to develop two progressive office projects in Atlanta totalling 700,000 square feet. T3 West Midtown will be a 200,000-square-foot heavy timber office development and Atlantic Yards will consist of 500,000 square feet of progressive office space in two buildings. Both projects are located on sites within Atlantic Station in the flourishing Midtown submarket.
Hines will work with Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture (HPA) as the design architect for both T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards. DLR Group will be t…

Not quite the pattern: Greenland selling development sites, not completed condos

Real Estate Weekly, reporting on trends in Chinese investment in New York City, on 11/18/15 quoted Jim Costello, a senior vice president at research firm Real Capital Analytics:
“They’re typically building high-end condos, build it and sell it. Capital return is in a few years. That’s something that is ingrained in the companies that have been coming here because that’s how they’ve grown in the last 35 years. It’s always been a development game for them. So they’re just repeating their business model here,” he said. When I read that last November, I didn't think it necessarily applied to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, now 70% owned (outside of the Barclays Center and B2 modular apartment tower), by the Greenland Group, owned significantly by the Shanghai government.
A majority of the buildings will be rentals, some 100% market, some 100% affordable, and several--the last several built--are supposed to be 50% market/50% subsidized. (See tentative timetable below.)

Selling development …

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…

"There is no alternative": DM Glen on de Blasio's affordable housing strategy

As I've written, Mayor Bill de Blasio sure knows how to steer and spin coverage of his affordable housing initiatives.

Indeed, his latest announcement, claiming significant progress, came with a pre-press release op-ed in the New York Daily News and then a friendly photo-op press conference with an understandably grateful--and very lucky--winner of an affordable housing lottery.

To me, though, the most significant quote came from Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, who, as the Wall Street Journal reported:
said public housing had been “starved” of federal support for years now, leaving the city with fewer ways of creating affordable housing. “Are we relying too heavily on the private sector?” she said. “There is no alternative.” Though Glen was using what she surely sees as a common-sense phrase, it recalls the slogan of a politician with whom I doubt de Blasio identifies: former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative who believed in free markets.

It suggests the limits to …