After my queries regarding the affordable housing chart, ESD says it's "performing due diligence" after conveying the developers' information.

My newsletter yesterday analyzed and critiqued the Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park affordable housing chart provided by Empire State Development (ESD) after a request from the Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation.

See A Dive Into Affordability Prompts a Metaphysical Question, subtitled "If apartments open to middle-income households rent for well below the maximum, do they qualify as moderate-income?"

A week earlier, I had pointed out one discrepancy, and shared it with ESD, the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project: the chart ignored the swap of eleven middle-income units at 535 Carlton Ave. for moderate-income ones, thus enabling big tax savings down the block at the 550 Vanderbilt condo building. 

See The "Zoning Lot" Hustle, subtitled, "In 2017, eleven rental apartments got cheaper. That saved condo buyers down the block millions."

Moderate- or middle-income?

I then found another potential discrepancy: I initially counted 24 studio apartments at 662 Pacific Street as middle-income, since they were open to households earning up to 130% of Area Median Income (AMI).

But 24 apartments in ESD's chart were listed as moderate-income. I agreed, tentatively.

My conclusion was that they were classified as such because the rents, set at 90% of AMI, were open to moderate-income households.

But I had a big caveat: were the apartments, indeed, filled by moderate-income households paying about 30% of their incomes, or by middle-income ones getting a significant bargain? We don't know yet and without that, we should withhold conclusions.

ESD due diligence

On Sunday, more than one business day before my deadline, I contacted ESD, pointing out my previous conclusion regarding 535 Carlton and asking if the 24 units added to the moderate-income category--compared to my initial totals--were from 662 Pacific.

I didn't get a response before publication, but got one later yesterday: 

The data reflecting the completed affordable housing units presented to the AYCDC directors on March 26, 2024 was provided to ESD from the developers within the last year. ESD is currently performing due diligence in verifying these numbers.

So ESD hadn't yet performed due diligence? 

There's nothing wrong with asking the developers for their totals. But ESD could/should ask them to show their work, so it should be easy to do due diligence.

The shift of 24 units to a somewhat more affordable category makes the project look better, so it's understandable that the developers--and ESD--might have framed it that way. (So does the shift of eleven units, but everyone forgot that one.)

I'm not sure affordable housing advocates would agree, at least not until we know who's actually in those apartments.