The lack of coverage and analysis of the Atlantic Yards financial documents released yesterday is pretty astounding. Radio silence from the Times and the Daily News, Metro mentioned it at the end of an article about a different aspect of Yards, and The Post wrote a reasonably in-depth article about what the docs revealed but held off from weighing in on their usefulness or credibility. The Sun was the only paper that delved a bit into the response of critics of the project, even editorializing that “there does not seem to be enough information to make an accurate estimate of Forest City Ratner’s return.” This is the same conclusion that David Smith, an affordable housing expert in Boston, came to when Norman Oder presented him with the documents. “These cash flow schedules are like a Japanese landscape watercolor; fascinating and evocative in their own right but only lightly drawn, he wrote in response. They make one hungry for more detail, without which it is impossible to have a properly informed opinion about either the expected profit the developer may make relative to the risk, or whether the public is receiving fair public benefit for the public resources contributed.” Oder also noticed that the projections include more affordable units in Phase 1 than initially indicated by the City Planning Commission but qualifies that by pointing to the footnote that says, “For discussion purposes only. Actual results may vary.
Three Pages of Mystery [Atlantic Yards Report]
Critics Deem Atlantic Yards Documents Insufficient [NY Sun]
Ratner Nets Brooklyn Bonus [NY Post]
The Jackhammers Begin [Metro]
Photo by lachance