Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park infographics: what's built/what's coming/what's missing, who's responsible, + project FAQ/timeline (pinned post)

TRD "source": Hudson asked 962 Pacific owner to build "100% affordable" housing elsewhere & give $5-$10M? (Note: owner never released requested financials.)

The predictable Real Deal coverage yesterday of the 962 Pacific rezoning drama, Council member crushes Crown Heights project, offered one very interesting (albeit shakily credible) nugget--more below--and claimed that "[t]he decision will delay the project for a year or two and could prevent it from happening at all."

Whether the project would be built as proposed and negotiated with Brooklyn Community Board 8 is in doubt, for sure, though surely something will be built after the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan (AAMUP), the broader neighborhood rezoning, is passed.

As I wrote, Hudson now faces pressure to ensure that the benefits from the AAMUP, in terms of affordable housing (and even job-creating space) match those proposed for 962 Pacific.

However, had the proposal by Nadine Oelsner's HSN Realty (and a future developer as partner or new owner) passed, that would not necessarily have delivered it faster, since the "shovel-ready" project also depended on financing and a successor to the 421-a tax break.

In other words, the project was not necessarily delayed.

Hudson asked for more?

From the article:
Hudson reached out to Oelsner through an intermediary and offered to bless the rezoning if the developer would build 100 percent affordable senior housing at another site, a source close to the developer said. She also asked for $5 million to $10 million to be placed in a fund for affordable housing that would be managed by a third party, the source said.

Hudson did not respond to a request for comment.
That's... interesting, if true. (Take it with a big grain of salt, and consider that it's being used to make Hudson look bad.)

As I wrote, Hudson might have been able to justify approval of the 962 Pacific proposal had she negotiated even more from the developer, which stood to gain from a huge increase in value.

In this case--again, relying on an uncertain "source"--she apparently asked for a lot. 

Was that too much? Well, the developer balked, but remember, Oelsner never responded to a Community Board 8 request to share financial projections. So we can't tell how much upside Hudson's apparent counter-proposal would left for Oelsner.

Either way, such lack of transparency from both sides, and last-minute negotiation, is no way to do development.

Community loses?

The kicker, from The Real Deal:
“I think it’s unfortunate that the community is going to have to wait longer for some important benefits that they need and deserve,” said Michelle de la Uz, a former City Planning Commission member who has been following the Pacific Street drama.
As I wrote, there's a case to be made that this proposal offered more than nearby rezonings and even more than the AAMUP, as currently proposed, just as there was a case that Hudson could've asked for more.

But de la Uz is no disinterested observer.

A previous TRD article stated that de la Uz was "not involved in the project," which I criticized by pointing to the Brooklyn Borough President's statement that the applicant had partnered on affordable housing with the Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), which de la Uz heads. 

And FAC would've likely been the recipient of the $50,000 in anti-displacement services promised in a "Community Benefits Agreement."

Nor does it mean that, had the proposal passed, that the "important benefits" would've been delivered promptly, given the financial factors.

So I edited the kicker.