Flashback 2019: ESD said it was "very serious" about 2025 affordable housing commitment, but wouldn't pressure the developer. Nor would advisory AY CDC.
The Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC), established as part of the settlement that led to the looming end-of-month deadline to deliver the remaining 876 units of affordable housing (of 2,250 total), was charged with “monitoring the delivery of public commitments.”
Following up
I call the AY CDC "advisory" or "(purportedly) advisory," because it's too often been a rubber stamp for, or ignored by, the parent Empire State Development (ESD), which oversees/shepherds the project.
At the most recent meeting, March 25, AY CDC Chair Daniel Kummer agreed that the body should meet in late April or May for an update on the housing deadline.
However, no meeting has been scheduled, nor has ESD responded yet to my query about it. We don't know yet whether ESD will uphold the $2,000/month penalties for missing affordable housing, or announce a pause or renegotiation.
No pressure on ESD
It's worth looking back at a March 15, 2019 meeting, when the AY CDC board, in two 3-2 votes, refused Director Gib Veconi's motion to pressure ESD to seek a building-by-building timetable from developer Greenland USA. (I first wrote about it March 21, 2019.)
The timetable request was hardly radical. After all, in 2014, the joint venture Greenland Forest City Partners (GFCP) circulated a map (below) and also produced a chart (further below) regarding the potential project buildout, in terms of timing and affordability, with the final buildings coming in 2025, thus meeting the affordable housing deadline.
That plan quickly got stale as buildings were delayed. In November 2016, Forest City Realty Trust, then a 30% owner of the project going forward, announced it would pause development, given a glut of market-rate units in and around Downtown Brooklyn, tax changes, and other cost pressures.
Greenland USA had since acquired all but 5% of Forest City's stake, which was taken over by Brookfield Properties. It later sold development leases to three parcels to two other developers, TF Cornerstone and the Brodsky Organization, and partnered with Brodsky on a fourth site.
Requesting an updated map
At a January 2018 meeting of the AY CDC, then-board member Barika Williams noted that the old schedule was off track.
Scott Solish, representing Greenland USA, responded that, as the developer moved ahead, it would be easier to update the map and show how each new building fits into the long-term goal.
"Maybe as a solution, can we get an updated one of these?" Williams asked, regarding the timetable.
"It'll probably be sometime later this year," Solish said.
That never happened, and Williams left the board that year.
At the March 2019 meeting, Solish--who has since left Greenland-- did reveal an updated project map, but it did not address the timetable.
Getting to more affordable units
Groundbreakings that month for B15 (to be built by Brodsky) and the following month for B4 (to be built by Greenland and Brodsky) were expected to add 312 and 860 total units respectively, of which 30% would be affordable, conforming to various options within the city's revamped 421-a tax break, Affordable New York.
That would mean 352 affordable apartments, contributing to a total of 1,134 affordable units, slightly more than half of the required 2,250 units, as shown in the slide above.
Subsequently, TF Cornerstone was expected to break ground on B12 and B13, with about 800 units, at least 25% affordable. It turned out to be 30%.
At the meeting, as shown in the video below, board member Veconi, who's stressed affordable housing as a local advocate and leader of the coalition BrooklynSpeaks, noted that the new buildings being discussed "were programmed somewhat differently" as of 2014, when the developer planned more 100% market-rate buildings and 50% affordable ones. as in the map at top.
But plans and subsidy programs change, he noted. "It looks like these are being built with rental [units] to qualify for the Affordable New York 421-a program, which has options for 25% and 30% affordable housing." Indeed they were, all with 30% affordability and all middle-income units.
Veconi cited the 2014 schedule, in which four of the last six towers--to be built over the railyard-- were to have 50% affordable units. "If you project 25% affordable across the remaining railyard buildings," he said, "which is originally where those units were supposed to go, you don't get to 2,250 units for the project."
One solution, I speculated at the time, might be to build a tower with a much greater percentage of affordability, or to include a significant chunk of affordable units in Site 5, the proposed two-tower project at the parcel across Flatbush Avenue long occupied by P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell's.
ESD assertions
ESD executive Marion Phillips III, who was then AY CDC President (but has since left), said, "Gib, you make a good point. I think the point of giving us what your projections look like is very helpful." He added that ESD is "very serious about two commitments that are in the 2014 agreement."
One was that the developer maintain a minimum 35% affordable housing threshold until 1,050 affordable units are built. That should have been--and was--be easy to meet, since the construction of B4 and B15 whould leave the percentage at 47%, as noted in a screenshot above.
"I don't think we need to worry about if they stay at 25%," Phillips said. "Our goal is 2,250. Obviously, they're going to have to increase their percentage of affordable in those [future] buildings to reach that goal. We're not going to let them out of that agreement. So, going forward... they won't be able to do 25%."
Pushing back
"I'm sorry, I just want to make the point," Veconi responded, "that this agency is charged with overseeing the public commitments of the project. And affordable housing is the key public commitment of this project. I understand that the developers have the right to transfer development rights to parcels within the project. But so far, these transfers have been made under the theory that later on we'll make up for a shortfall in affordable units, with subsequent buildings. I would much prefer to see a schedule that explained how that was going to happen, at least in theory now, than waiting for a time when those project are looking to be financed."
In response to Veconi's query, Phillips said ESD would hold Greenland responsible. "The responsibility is still being held on Greenland, which makes logical sense to us," he said. "And Greenland has agreed to that."
It's worth looking back at a March 15, 2019 meeting, when the AY CDC board, in two 3-2 votes, refused Director Gib Veconi's motion to pressure ESD to seek a building-by-building timetable from developer Greenland USA. (I first wrote about it March 21, 2019.)
It was a questionable decision, because, despite promises from ESD that it would hold fast on the deadline, the requirement likely couldn't met, I wrote at the time. Now, of course, it's obvious.
Apparently not enough board members know, or care, that one lesson of Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park is that all promises require scrutiny, I noted. As Cy Richardson, then an AY CDC Director, observed, "I've grown into a cynical individual, particularly as it relates to public-private partnerships."
He was right.
About that mapThe timetable request was hardly radical. After all, in 2014, the joint venture Greenland Forest City Partners (GFCP) circulated a map (below) and also produced a chart (further below) regarding the potential project buildout, in terms of timing and affordability, with the final buildings coming in 2025, thus meeting the affordable housing deadline.
 |
| 2014 predictions, hardly credible |
That plan quickly got stale as buildings were delayed. In November 2016, Forest City Realty Trust, then a 30% owner of the project going forward, announced it would pause development, given a glut of market-rate units in and around Downtown Brooklyn, tax changes, and other cost pressures.
Greenland USA had since acquired all but 5% of Forest City's stake, which was taken over by Brookfield Properties. It later sold development leases to three parcels to two other developers, TF Cornerstone and the Brodsky Organization, and partnered with Brodsky on a fourth site.
Requesting an updated map
At a January 2018 meeting of the AY CDC, then-board member Barika Williams noted that the old schedule was off track.
Scott Solish, representing Greenland USA, responded that, as the developer moved ahead, it would be easier to update the map and show how each new building fits into the long-term goal.
"Maybe as a solution, can we get an updated one of these?" Williams asked, regarding the timetable.
"It'll probably be sometime later this year," Solish said.
That never happened, and Williams left the board that year.
At the March 2019 meeting, Solish--who has since left Greenland-- did reveal an updated project map, but it did not address the timetable.
Getting to more affordable units
Groundbreakings that month for B15 (to be built by Brodsky) and the following month for B4 (to be built by Greenland and Brodsky) were expected to add 312 and 860 total units respectively, of which 30% would be affordable, conforming to various options within the city's revamped 421-a tax break, Affordable New York.
 |
| From AY CDC presentation, March 2019; the totals have since increased |
Subsequently, TF Cornerstone was expected to break ground on B12 and B13, with about 800 units, at least 25% affordable. It turned out to be 30%.
So there's a total, as of now, of 1,374 affordable units.
 |
Questions about the timetable
At the meeting, as shown in the video below, board member Veconi, who's stressed affordable housing as a local advocate and leader of the coalition BrooklynSpeaks, noted that the new buildings being discussed "were programmed somewhat differently" as of 2014, when the developer planned more 100% market-rate buildings and 50% affordable ones. as in the map at top.
But plans and subsidy programs change, he noted. "It looks like these are being built with rental [units] to qualify for the Affordable New York 421-a program, which has options for 25% and 30% affordable housing." Indeed they were, all with 30% affordability and all middle-income units.
Veconi cited the 2014 schedule, in which four of the last six towers--to be built over the railyard-- were to have 50% affordable units. "If you project 25% affordable across the remaining railyard buildings," he said, "which is originally where those units were supposed to go, you don't get to 2,250 units for the project."
One solution, I speculated at the time, might be to build a tower with a much greater percentage of affordability, or to include a significant chunk of affordable units in Site 5, the proposed two-tower project at the parcel across Flatbush Avenue long occupied by P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell's.
Getting to 2,250 units
In response to Veconi, Greenland's Solish suggested they'd made progress, since, among the next buildings to start, there had been--as of 2014--no affordable units proposed for B12, B13, and B15.
In response to Veconi, Greenland's Solish suggested they'd made progress, since, among the next buildings to start, there had been--as of 2014--no affordable units proposed for B12, B13, and B15.
That was kind of changing the subject.
"In addition, Greenland Forest City is in design of B5, and commencing design of B6 and B7," he said, "so we'll be coming back with additional information as that design progresses."
Update: as Veconi noted later on Twitter (bottom), ESD had been given a purported program for buildings B5, B6, and B7, as I later wrote, though there
ESD assertions
ESD executive Marion Phillips III, who was then AY CDC President (but has since left), said, "Gib, you make a good point. I think the point of giving us what your projections look like is very helpful." He added that ESD is "very serious about two commitments that are in the 2014 agreement."
One was that the developer maintain a minimum 35% affordable housing threshold until 1,050 affordable units are built. That should have been--and was--be easy to meet, since the construction of B4 and B15 whould leave the percentage at 47%, as noted in a screenshot above.
"I don't think we need to worry about if they stay at 25%," Phillips said. "Our goal is 2,250. Obviously, they're going to have to increase their percentage of affordable in those [future] buildings to reach that goal. We're not going to let them out of that agreement. So, going forward... they won't be able to do 25%."
Pushing back
"I'm sorry, I just want to make the point," Veconi responded, "that this agency is charged with overseeing the public commitments of the project. And affordable housing is the key public commitment of this project. I understand that the developers have the right to transfer development rights to parcels within the project. But so far, these transfers have been made under the theory that later on we'll make up for a shortfall in affordable units, with subsequent buildings. I would much prefer to see a schedule that explained how that was going to happen, at least in theory now, than waiting for a time when those project are looking to be financed."
In response to Veconi's query, Phillips said ESD would hold Greenland responsible. "The responsibility is still being held on Greenland, which makes logical sense to us," he said. "And Greenland has agreed to that."
Today, of course, Greenland is a zombie developer, on the brink of losing the six railyard sites in a foreclosure process that began in November 2023. No new developer has signed on, though ESD has been talking--and, apparently negotiating--with Cirrus Workforce Housing and its joint-venture partners.
The first proposed motion
Veconi proposed a motion, as described in the above video: that the board request the terms of affordable housing commitments between Greenland and the transferees, and also a breakdown of the proposed allocation of affordable units across the project, within 90 days.
Phillips, despite his previous rhetorical nod to the reasonableness of Veconi's request, was not in support.
"Greenland's not required to give us a projection, and I'm not trying to put them in a position so that we can play gotcha," he said. "They have a responsibility, and we plan to hold them to a responsibility, for 2,250 units. Y'know, your request for them making a projection I think is helpful and useful, but at the end of the day, the commitment of meeting the goal that we set is nonnegotiable on our end."
"If they have projections," Phillips said, "we will circulate them and share them with you."
The first proposed motion
Veconi proposed a motion, as described in the above video: that the board request the terms of affordable housing commitments between Greenland and the transferees, and also a breakdown of the proposed allocation of affordable units across the project, within 90 days.
Phillips, despite his previous rhetorical nod to the reasonableness of Veconi's request, was not in support.
"Greenland's not required to give us a projection, and I'm not trying to put them in a position so that we can play gotcha," he said. "They have a responsibility, and we plan to hold them to a responsibility, for 2,250 units. Y'know, your request for them making a projection I think is helpful and useful, but at the end of the day, the commitment of meeting the goal that we set is nonnegotiable on our end."
"If they have projections," Phillips said, "we will circulate them and share them with you."
In other words, ESD was not willing to push the developer. (Was it really a "gotcha" question?)
Veconi got a second from urban planner Cy Richardson (an appointee of Borough President Eric Adams), a Senior VP at the National Urban League.
Is housing deadline negotiable?
"Can you say that [housing total and deadline] will never be negotiable?" Richardson asked Phillips.
Phillips responded with a few weasel words. "At this point, I'm very clear, [ESD head] Howard's [Zemsky] very clear, we're not negotiating that number down, at all. I have been given very clear instructions that we're not negotiating that number."
Veconi got a second from urban planner Cy Richardson (an appointee of Borough President Eric Adams), a Senior VP at the National Urban League.
Is housing deadline negotiable?
"Can you say that [housing total and deadline] will never be negotiable?" Richardson asked Phillips.
Phillips responded with a few weasel words. "At this point, I'm very clear, [ESD head] Howard's [Zemsky] very clear, we're not negotiating that number down, at all. I have been given very clear instructions that we're not negotiating that number."
(Zemsky is gone as well, but the ESD takes its marching orders from the governor.)
Tamara McCaw, the acting chair of AY CDC (and a gubernatorial appointee), asked Veconi to clarify the motion. He said it had two parts: first, for Greenland and the transferees to provide the terms of the affordable housing agreements the upcoming buildings and second, for Greenland to project how it intended to meet the 2,250 unit requirement.
Veconi and Richardson voted yes, while board members Daniel Kummer (a gubernatorial appointee), John Heyer (a state Senate appointee), and McCaw were opposed.
As I wrote, a slightly different board configuration, with a few more critical voices, might have produced a different result, though presumably a full board complement, dominated by appointees of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, would've nixed the request.
The motion returns, fails again
Later in the meeting, Phillips said that Veconi's motion required a re-vote, because it should have requested that ESD, not the developer, provide the projections.
Kummer suggested that the two elements in the motion be separated.
So Veconi proposed, and Richardson seconded, a motion to request ESD to estimate affordability building by building.
Tamara McCaw, the acting chair of AY CDC (and a gubernatorial appointee), asked Veconi to clarify the motion. He said it had two parts: first, for Greenland and the transferees to provide the terms of the affordable housing agreements the upcoming buildings and second, for Greenland to project how it intended to meet the 2,250 unit requirement.
Veconi and Richardson voted yes, while board members Daniel Kummer (a gubernatorial appointee), John Heyer (a state Senate appointee), and McCaw were opposed.
As I wrote, a slightly different board configuration, with a few more critical voices, might have produced a different result, though presumably a full board complement, dominated by appointees of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, would've nixed the request.
The motion returns, fails again
Later in the meeting, Phillips said that Veconi's motion required a re-vote, because it should have requested that ESD, not the developer, provide the projections.
Kummer suggested that the two elements in the motion be separated.
So Veconi proposed, and Richardson seconded, a motion to request ESD to estimate affordability building by building.
The vote again failed, with the same division.
Kummer, who today chairs the AY CDC, offered a comment: "I want to be clear that in voting no against that motion, I in no way intend to send any message that I view the responsibility of this board to hold the--to assist ESD in holding the developer to the commitments that have been made--is in any way diminished."
"I'm satisfied with Marion's explanation," Kummer continued, "that I think at this point--at this point in time, we can essentially trust all these professionals to do the simple arithmetic that you alluded to, which obviously is a valid point, and to take that arithmetic into account as they plan the future parts of the development project."
Whether we can trust the professionals is an open question. After all, when Kummer last June proposed that AY CDC Directors ask ESD to have the developer propose a residential project on Site 5, catercorner to the arena, ESD officials did not disclose that they had already signed an interim lease for that site.
Kummer, who today chairs the AY CDC, offered a comment: "I want to be clear that in voting no against that motion, I in no way intend to send any message that I view the responsibility of this board to hold the--to assist ESD in holding the developer to the commitments that have been made--is in any way diminished."
"I'm satisfied with Marion's explanation," Kummer continued, "that I think at this point--at this point in time, we can essentially trust all these professionals to do the simple arithmetic that you alluded to, which obviously is a valid point, and to take that arithmetic into account as they plan the future parts of the development project."
Whether we can trust the professionals is an open question. After all, when Kummer last June proposed that AY CDC Directors ask ESD to have the developer propose a residential project on Site 5, catercorner to the arena, ESD officials did not disclose that they had already signed an interim lease for that site.
As I wrote, I was flabbergasted by the gulf between a body set up for oversight and an essentially unaccountable state authority.
Fair warning
Responding to Phillips at the 2019 meeting, Richardson was less sanguine. "I just want to make a point to explain my position... I've grown into a cynical individual, particularly as it relates to public-private partnerships. So my point is: I would like every opportunity to remind the broader community, defined as you would like, of this master commitment... Because I don't want it to be too late when these things have to be renegotiated."
"That's fair," Phillips said.
Responding to Phillips at the 2019 meeting, Richardson was less sanguine. "I just want to make a point to explain my position... I've grown into a cynical individual, particularly as it relates to public-private partnerships. So my point is: I would like every opportunity to remind the broader community, defined as you would like, of this master commitment... Because I don't want it to be too late when these things have to be renegotiated."
"That's fair," Phillips said.
Today, it seems likely the things will "have to be renegotiated."
Veconi said that he shared some of Richardson's cynicism and was concerned that state "would not have recourse" to ensure the delivery of affordable housing.
Phillips said the individual leases, for the buildings expected to proceed, had completion guarantees, "but I believe the larger part of this conversation is far more legal and technical than the person running his mouth right now."
Indeed, Phillips was an external relations specialist, not a legal advisor. So I'll write separately about the actual obligations.
Thx for reminder.
— Norman Oder (@AYReport) May 24, 2025
Tho, as I wrote, the specific configuration in the doc seemed very unlikely.
+tho document *claimed* to offer the configuration that would meet the 2,250 total #affordablehousing units, it did not offer a timetable to meet #AtlanticYards 2025 deadline pic.twitter.com/ljWpZ9z2bk
My bad re "timetable." What I asked 4 in 2019 was an updated schedule of the buildings' programming w/r/t #AffordableHousing, with which it wd be possible to confirm feasibility by May 2025. Phillips said developers didn't have to provide that, not mentioning they already had.
— Gib Veconi (@GibVeconi) May 24, 2025
You sought "a schedule that explained how that was going2 happen"
— Norman Oder (@AYReport) May 24, 2025
We later learned Greenland had offered a schedule of the buildings' *programming* wrt #affordablehousing
Yes, ESD + Greenland should've been more candid @ mtg
Had they been, they would've had to answer Qs re timing
Comments
Post a Comment