Today's Atlantic Yards meeting likely to address Related's role in railyard sites, expansion of Site 5, and perhaps leasing the arena plaza.

Well, the Board Materials (bottom) for today's meeting of the (purportedly) advisory Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC) have been posted and, as is typical, they're not very illuminating.

Beyond the previously noted Agenda, typical in its opacity ("Updates and Follow-Ups"!), the Board Materials otherwise contain minutes from last month's meeting.

Surely, however, the meeting will include discussion of the expected entry of Related Companies into a joint venture to develop six railyard sites. 

(Will they discuss Related's apparent record of not paying back EB-5 investors? Will they recognize that if Greenland USA, which is losing those six sites to foreclosure, had structured its EB-5 financing more cleverly, they might have just held onto the money?)

More changes: Site 5

Along with that, expect discussion of Exhibit K, a document in which Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project, has apparently committed to increasing the scale at Site 5, the parcel across Flatbush Avenue from the arena block, while leaving the plaza intact.

Unofficial rendering

The question, as AY CDC Director Gib Veconi pointed out at last month's meeting, is whether ESD agreed to the various changes, which should be subject to environmental review, before the latter process started. 

The answer was, basically, yes, though the plan might be tweaked. I wouldn't be surprised if it's combined with Related's plan.

What about the plaza?

As I wrote, in Exhibit K at right, Greenland got ESD to support a larger project than previously proposed, with the taller tower rising 910'.

Not only would the agreement, in its first clause, eliminate the B1 tower, it also would eliminate the Urban Room, the publicly accessible glass atrium attached to the tower and "make the current Urban Experience"--the plaza--permanent.

"If we we're now kind of obligated to accept this idea that the public plaza outside of Barclays Center has to be permanent," Veconi continued, "may I ask who owns?—ESD owns that, but is it actually at this moment being leased as part of the arena lease, the arena operators lease that space from you?"

That question wasn't answered, but perhaps we'll learn more today.

I've argued that, given the value of the plaza and the skyrocketing value of the Brooklyn Nets and the arena operating company, ESD should require some payment from Joe Tsai (and the Koch family), who reap the benefits. 

Minutes minimized

Those minutes, by the way, are inadequate. Here's one excerpt, regarding two written comments received before the meeting:

Chair Kummer explained the first comment concerned a legal issue relating to the propriety of conducting an Executive Session; and the second comment raised a general concern about future development in the B6 and B7 sites but also raised some concerns about traffic congestion issues in the general development zone. Chair Kummer requested that the staff review those comments and consider whether it's appropriate to refer them to NYCDOT or to the NYPD. He also suggested that the commenter attend the Quality of Life meetings where these issues are raised.

(Emphases added) 

Quality of Life meetings?

As I wrote in my coverage, Kummer suggested "that we have Quality of Life meetings where issues are raised. I’m not sure when the next one is scheduled, but if it’s a continuing problem with traffic congestion. related arena events. or anything else, [they] should definitely come to Quality of Life meetings and raise them."

No one pointed out--and thus it's not in the minutes--that there has not been such a meeting, previously held bi-monthly, for more than 18 months, since February 2023. 

Executive Session issues

As I wrote, Kummer stated, "The first comment concerned a legal issue relating to the propriety of going into Executive Session, which I have referred to agency counsel."

That didn't fully describe my comment.

Yes, I questioned the (unspecified) justification for discussing the "Platform Site Update (Oral Report)" in Executive Session, excluding the press and public. My arguments were not met with any substantive justification by agency counsel during the meeting.

I also noted that no justification had been publicly provided, nor did the two ESD public affairs reps I contacted answer my query about the justification.

Also, I wrote that providing the Agenda less than 24 hours before the deadline for public comment surely hampers public comment, and that, substantive pre‐meeting public comment is precluded when no board materials, other than a barebones Agenda and past Minutes, are provided beforehand

In other words, Kummer, who heads a body that, among other things, is supposed to evaluate "the quality and effectiveness of monitoring, support and other services," didn't address that. But if it wasn't articulated, then it's not in the minutes. 

Am I going to have to make a public comment about the inadequacy of the treatment of my public comment? "It's Orwellian, almost."