If 29 developers are interested in Willets Point, why not the Vanderbilt Yard? Also, no Times scrutiny for Pinsky's projections

Two things jump out from a New York Times article today headlined Concern for Underclass as the City Progresses on Its Willets Point Plan:

Seth W. Pinsky, president of the corporation, said in an interview that the project would create 5,300 new jobs, provide affordable housing and generate $25 billion in investment over the next 30 years. He said that 29 developers had already expressed interest, and that the city would choose finalists this spring.

But opponents of the Bloomberg plan counter that the project is speculative and environmentally unsound.

Contrast with AY

First, if 29 developers have expressed interest in Willets Point, would a similarly large number have jumped at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard and/or the entire Atlantic Yards site?

But the MTA didn't reopen its RFP after Forest City Ratner in 2009 asked to renegotate the Vanderbilt Yard deal, and MTA board member Jeff Kay claimed, "But there is no other market. No one else has come forward with a credible proposal at this time, and we should take advantage of that.”

Optimistic projections

Second, Pinsky should not with any certainty claim such definitive numbers about jobs, housing and investment. Nor should the Times transcribe his claims without a glimmer of doubt.

Rather, he should call it a best-case or optimistic scenario. After all, the numbers for Atlantic Yards have been slashed drastically, due to a reconfiguration of the project, and delays in construction and the likelihood of a partial buildout would further lower the Pollyannish numbers produced.