Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park FAQ, timeline, and infographics (pinned post)

2 comments

The devil's in the details: the Bedford-Union Armory flap has echoes of some Atlantic Yards obfuscation

One lesson from Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park is that the devil's in the details. And those details may not be available in official announcements and press releases--which means the formal agreement must be found to pin things down.

And then--guess what--there might be a divergence, as we've learned in the past week about the Bedford-Union Armory in Crown Heights, which I'll discuss below.

Atlantic Yards example 1

One prime example was the 2014 announcement of a settlement, reached to avoid a lawsuit on fair-housing grounds, that set a new May 2025 deadline for all 2,250 affordable apartments, with penalties for non-performance, and the start of at least 590 affordable apartments within a year. 

That settlement was reached by the BrooklynSpeaks coalition with the state of New York and original developer Forest City Ratner, which didn't want anything to jam up a planned majority investment by Greenland USA.

The BrooklynSpeaks press release quoted Michelle de la Uz, Executive Director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, as saying that "the community finally gets the affordable housing it was promised 10 years ago."

But that wasn't true--the agreement was silent on that issue, and the New York Times exclusive got it wrong (which initially misled me), stating:
The new agreement specifies that a portion of affordable units would be for low-income families of four that make $48,000 or less, moderate-income families earning up to $88,000 a year, and middle-income families earning up to $104,000.

That was partly on me (and the rest of the press), for not reading the official document carefully enough that day, but we were misled by both BrooklynSpeaks--and the rest of the many endorsers. And we should've read the underlying document again. 

After all, we got two "100% affordable" buildings with 65% middle-income units, with most (50%) at the upper middle-income "band," which was supposed to be just 20% of the project. 

Atlantic Yards example 2

Another was my own initial omission (which most others didn't bother to analyze). When I scanned the project's Development Agreement, reluctantly revealed by New York State in January 2010, I focused on the (important) fact that the Atlantic Yards developer had 25 years to finish the project, not the long-estimated ten years. (There was no press release.)

But I missed--for a while--that the Development Agreement defined affordable housing as income-targeted housing participating in a government program. (Of course, if they'd posted the Development Agreement online rather than provide limited time to read documents in person, that would have been easier to suss out.)

That meant that it could be skewed toward middle-income households, rather than reflect the more varied configuration--with low- and moderate-income households--promised in the Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding and Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement.

The armory controversy

The most recent example involves the redevelopment of the Bedford-Union Armory in Crown Heights. I didn't cover that development battle because, first, it was not Atlantic Yards-adjacent and second, well, nobody was paying me to write freelance articles. 

Moreover, others were covering it steadily, notably DNAinfo, well--at least until it got suddenly shut down in November 2017, three weeks before a crucial agreement was announced by Council Member Laurie Cumbo.

That agreement, announced by Cumbo in this 11/21/17 press release, notably stated:
Council Member Cumbo also negotiated several requirements to ensure that the state-of-the-art recreation center at the Armory will be truly affordable and accessible to Crown Heights families.

At least 50% of memberships will be reserved for community members at discounted rates of just $10 a month for adults and $8 for a child under 16.
That implied an open-ended total. Here's coverage from Curbed:
At least 50 percent of the memberships will be reserved for local residents at discounted rates of $10 per month for adults and $8 per month for a child under 16.
Bklyner reported similarly, while City Limits was more vague and the Brooklyn Paper didn't mention the rec center memberships. The Mayor's statement focused on housing.

No one looked at the underlying document, because--I supposed--it hadn't been released at the time. And nobody asked in the weeks, months, and years going forward. Until recently.

Checking back

As the armory rec center prepares to open, The City (a relatively recent nonprofit news site), has been checking up, first with the 9/12/21 Crown Heights Armory Pool Offers Kids’ Swimming Lessons — for $50 a Half Hour, noting that "Residents are still waiting for details on possible class discounts as the Major Owens Community Center readies to open."

Then reporter Gabriel Sandoval on 9/30/21 wrote New Crown Heights Armory Rec Center Falls Short on Community Discounts, Council Member Charges, quoting a sardonic and stressed Cumbo as claiming the project was a disaster.

From The City:
The developer, BFC Partners, said 250 discount memberships will be available for as little as $10 a month and $8 for children. The area served by the new rec center has 45,000 low-income residents, according to census estimates.

....Cumbo now says the Council has no leverage to improve the community benefits package — in part because no formal documentation exists.

“There is no agreement,” she said. “Nothing was ever written.”

That, however, wasn't true. New York Post reporter Nolan Hicks fairly quickly acquired an original document--a letter from the Mayor's Office to Cumbo, the same date as her press release--which specified that 250, albeit as a minimum.

So The City and Cumbo didn't know about that? 

The aftermath

Given what Hicks found, I expected an article from the Post--but no. 

Nor did a follow-up come from other news outlets, and that's a sign of the even more stretched (or--take your pick--anemic) local press.

Then, in a 10/6/21 Medium post, My real thoughts on the Bedford Union Armory, Cumbo charged that she was a victim of a gotcha reporter (nope); that she shouldn't have taken the call (agreed; btw, my recent dealings with her office have been all by email, which allows for more considered comment); that her accomplishments as a Council Member have been overlooked.

Her letter closed:
So many people are trying to uncover some conspiracy theory behind what’s going on at the Armory. But I will tell you what I’ve seen. I’ve seen my team and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), the Advisory Board, the Mayor’s Office, and BFC Partners show up day in and day out to attempt to deliver a recreation center and housing for our community in the midst of a global pandemic. I’ve seen agency heads and construction workers risking their lives to work through the complications of this project. I’ve seen the Project Manager, Eric Woodlin, battle through his own COVID diagnosis while continuing to manage the construction site from home. I’ve seen pregnant women on the EDC staff come to meetings double-masked to work out the complicated matters of opening the Bedford Union Armory, and there are many. There are original agreements and community benefits agreements that we are trying desperately to implement to make the Armory accessible and affordable to all while recognizing that the capacity of the Armory is now greatly limited because of COVID restrictions. Many of the instructors of the not-for-profits refuse to get vaccinated and many parents of children aged 12 and older do not want to get their children vaccinated. That is the age group the Armory was designed to serve. Many of the organizations that were closed during the pandemic are now operating in the red, have lost the audiences that they once served, and are having difficulty revving up to perform at the capacity needed to meet their operating costs. The issues are many but solvable if we are able to focus on them versus taking time to respond to people who are hell-bent on seeing the project fail. We are finding ways to serve every child despite their vaccination status.

What we need right now is for everyone to roll up their sleeves and offer solutions to assist this project in getting off the ground during the most challenging time in world history. This project is TOO BIG, TOO IMPORTANT, TOO CRITICAL TO FAIL. There will be false starts, trial and error, and organic growth that will be driven by the community to best serve the needs of central Brooklyn as well as lots of evaluations during the process to get it off the ground. THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO ENDING THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC IN OUR COMMUNITY and right now we need all hands-on deck to help get this right for our children and future children. We can’t afford to lose any more of our children.
(Emphasis added)

So she didn't quite address the issue, or her failure to remember that there was an agreement, but implied that the 250 minimum might be exceeded. But as The City reported, in Brooklyn Armory Rec Center Deal Documents Debunk Claims on Affordable Memberships:
The up-to-99-year pact with the city Economic Development Corporation (EDC) for the new Major R. Owens Health and Wellness Community Center, scheduled to open Oct. 27, allows developer BFC Partners to continue an announced 500 first-year limit on the total number of memberships indefinitely if it chooses.
Yes, the devil's in the details. From that article:
THE CITY got and reviewed excerpts from the lease detailing the community benefits. EDC declined to provide the lease itself, demanding a formal Freedom of Information Law request to obtain the document.
Cumbo's letter was republished by the BK Reader, and largely criticized on Twitter, though she was defended by NY 1 anchor Errol Louis:
"The developer is abiding by the agreement!" commented YIMBYist Ben Carlos Thypin. "Many people may not like the agreement but that’s not news."

Well, yes and no. 

There is an agreement. However, no one among the city, the developer, the Council Member, advocacy groups, and the press had bothered to make it public--or look for it--for nearly four years.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment