It's plain to see, not in black and white but in bright color.
The asterixes in the three properties owned by Henry Weinstein (see oval) indicate: FCRC has closed on an option to take by assignment the lessee's interests under the ground leases for these properties. However, the property owner has objected to such assignments.
More than an objection
Last year I acquired a new map, dated August 2008. It was produced apparently by Forest City Ratner, but it's in the same style as the map used by the ESDC, so it may have been produced by or for the agency.
Rather than the blue-green indicating control by FCR, the map uses the color white to indicate that Weinstein's properties are not controlled by the developer.
The asterixes indicate:
FCRC acquired ground leases on these sites, but fee owner objected and sued to terminate ground leases. The Court declared lease assignments invalid and leases terminated. The decision is being appealed.
What's the default?
But the case was in court when the first map was issued. Rather than allowing the default description--Weinstein's properties in purple--be in Forest City Ratner's favor, shouldn't the portrayal have been more neutral?
So, do ESDC officials recognize, in retrospect, that they should have created a more honest map?