Skip to main content

Three months after AY was approved last year by the ESDC, the Development Agreement allowed for even gentler deadlines

Would you believe that, in three short months last year, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) took gentle deadlines for the Atlantic Yards project and relaxed them further?

In doing so, it made further mockery of its dubious claim that the Atlantic Yards would be completed in a decade.

The ESDC's September 2009 approval of the Atlantic Yards 2009 Modified General Project Plan (MGPP) proposed penalties for delays on only the first three towers and claimed, vaguely, that Forest City Ratner would have to "use commercially reasonable efforts" to build the project in ten years.

That was all to come in a secretive process, the professed arms-length negotiation of the Development Agreement.

And when those documents were signed in December 2009, the state agency provided even more generous deadlines regarding those first three buildings, no teeth to the term "commercially reasonable," and an completion date of 25 years.

Delayed revelation

The penalties were not revealed until January--when the Development Agreement was finally made available for inspection to those of us willing to visit the ESDC offices.

That was one week after the oral argument in a state Supreme Court case challenging the ESDC's professed ten-year timetable in the project--and two weeks after the ESDC initially said the documents would be made available.

Was the ESDC's unwillingness to reveal the Development Agreement before the oral argument an effort to avoid uncomfortable facts? It sure seems so.

The Development Agreement's provision of a 25-year deadline is now the subject of two motions--by groups allied with Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and BrooklySpeaks--asking state Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman to reconsider her decision deferring to the ESDC's ten-year timetable. (The Development Agreement was also not entered into the record of the case.)

Light penalties relaxed even more

Beyond that, it's notable how the ESDC fudged the timetable in the MGPP, only to relax the penalties even more. From the MGPP:
The build-out of the Project is likely to occur in two phases, with the Project elements on the Phase I Site and the Upgraded Yard (collectively, "Phase I") anticipated to be completed by 2014 and the Project elements on the Phase II Site (collectively, "Phase II") anticipated to be completed by 2019....

Phase I - Arena Block and Site 5
The Project Sponsors expect to commence construction on the first non-Arena building within six months of ESDC's delivery of vacant possession of the Arena Block to the Project Sponsors, but in all cases, on or before the third anniversary of ESDC's delivery of vacant possession of the Arena Block to the Project Sponsors; the second non-Arena building within six months following the commencement of construction on the first non-Arena building, but in all cases, on or before the fifth anniversary of ESDC's delivery of vacant possession to the Arena Block to the Project Sponsors; and the third non-Arena building within six months following the commencement of construction on the second non-Arena building, but in all cases, on or before a date certain agreed to by ESDC and the Project Sponsors. The Project documentation to be negotiated between ESDC and the Project Sponsor will require the Project Sponsors to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve this schedule and to complete the entire Project by 2019. The failure to commence construction of each building would result in, inter alia, monetary penalties being imposed upon the Project Sponsors.
(Emphases added)

First, while the MGPP says each of the three buildings should start within six months of each other, the Development Agreement allows for two-year gaps.

Ten-year deadline impossible

How could Forest City Ratner be required to achieve "this schedule"--with construction on the second tower not starting for up to five years--and also complete the entire 16-tower project in ten years?

The MGPP included no timetable for the third tower, just "on or before a date certain."

The Development Agreement (excerpt above; document embedded below), however, says the third building doesn't have to start for ten years.

If the third non-arena building doesn't have to start for ten years, how could the project be completed in ten years?

Had this deadline been included in the MGPP, it would've made a further mockery of the claim that the developer would be compelled to use "commercially reasonable efforts" to finish the project by 2019.

(As BrooklynSpeaks attorney Al Butzel pointed out, there's no accepted definition of the term "commercially reasonable.")

The deceptions of inter alia

Let's take another look at this passage:
The Project documentation to be negotiated between ESDC and the Project Sponsor will require the Project Sponsors to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve this schedule and to complete the entire Project by 2019. The failure to commence construction of each building would result in, inter alia, monetary penalties being imposed upon the Project Sponsors.
Inter alia means "among other things." It helps deflect attention from the actual penalties in the Development Agreement.

Only the failure to commence construction of the three Phase 1 buildings mentioned in the passage above--the three towers--would result in monetary penalties. Those penalties could reach $5 million per building (over the course of a decade), though they could be deferred in the absence of affordable housing subsidies.

The failure to commence construction of the other two Phase 1 buildings would not result in monetary penalties. Nor would the failure to commence construction of the eleven Phase 2 buildings.

So, that passage might more accurately have said:
The failure to commence construction of three buildings would result in monetary penalties being imposed upon the Project Sponsors, while the failure to commence construction of the rest of the project might result in the ESDC taking back pieces of the project site.
Phase 1 vs. Phase 2

The paragraph on which I've focused appears in the section devoted to Phase 1. The section devoted to Phase 2 contains no language about enforcing deadlines.

However, whether sloppy draftsmanship or devilish deception, the paragraph could leave the impression that it addresses penalties for Phase 2, since the sentence about penalties for "each building" appears after a sentence referring to the entire project.
Atlantic Yards June 2009 Modified General Project Plan

Atlantic Yards Development Agreement Section 8

Comments

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…

No, security guards can't ban photos. Questions remain about visibility of ID/sticker system.

The bi-monthly Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Community Update meeting June 14, held at 55 Hanson Place, addressed multiple issues, including delays in the project, a new detente with project neighbors,concerns about traffic congestion, upcoming sewer work and demolitions, and an explanation of how high winds caused debris to fly off the under-construction 38 Sixth Avenue building. I'll have more coverage.
Security issues came up several times at the meeting.
Wayne Bailey, a resident who regularly takes photos and videos (that I often use) of construction/operations issues that impact residents, asked representatives of Tishman Construction if the security guard at the sites they're building works for them.
After Tishman Senior VP Eric Reid said yes, Bailey asked why a guard told him not to shoot video of the site, even though he was on a public street.

"I will address it with principals for that security firm," Reid said.
Forest City Ratner executive Ashley Cotton, the …

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 Matzav.com 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…

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park graphic: what's built/what might be coming (post-dated pinned post)

Click on graphic to enlarge. This is post-dated to stay at the top of the blog. It will be updated as announced configurations change and buildings launch. The August 2014 tentative configurations proposed by developer Greenland Forest City Partners will change, and the project is already well behind that tentative timetable.


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 …

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…