« The San Fran-Brooklyn Love Connection Plan for 3rd Ave Hotel Brings Gowanus Total to 7 »
March 31, 2008
Docs: Low Disclosure Req'd From Ratner For ED Seizure
Bruce Ratner would only be required to show his financing plan for the Atlantic Yards arena, not its office and residential towers, for the state to seize property and leases spread across the project's 22-acre footprint. According to the recently released AY funding agreement, "Prior to, or simultaneously with, [Empire State Development Corporation] acquiring title to any portion of the Project Site by condemnation, Developer or its Affiliates shall (i) provide a financing plan, subject to the reasonable approval of ESDC, for the financing of the Arena, and (ii) cause the closing to occur under the acquisition contract for the LIRR Vanderbilt Yard." Most of the property the state plans to seize is not in the arena footprint, and the promise of 2,250 units of affordable housing was a central argument in justifying the use of eminent domain. Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt pointed out that prior to the state approving Atlantic Yards, "We have provided a complete financing plan for the entire project ... which outlines in detail all the components of the plan." That plan, dated late 2006, expected the residential and commercial towers to be largely financed by affordable housing bonds and mortgages. ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston said in an email exchange, "The residential piece is the most important component and we are working with the developer to ensure that it is delivered."
Lead Atlantic Yards opponent Daniel Goldstein was momentarily speechless last night when read the terms for seizing his condo, which is located in the center court of the planned arena. "This idea that they're going to condemn 22 acres when the only thing they can assure is an arena, it's an abomination... it's crazy, it's unethical." Goldstein contends that "the state needs to assure that there are financing agreements for the affordable housing before they proceed with condemnation." In a recent interview with The New York Times, Ratner indicated he intends to finish the entire project, but said his inability to find Miss Brooklyn an anchor office tenant and the tightened bond market could delay everything but the arena for years. He's made more headway in financing the arena, now tagged at nearly $1 billion: Barclays Bank agreed to pay $400 million for its naming rights, less than two-thirds the total expected from sponsorship deals according to the 2006 financial plan. Luxury suite and loge box revenue would bring in even more, staring at $38 million a year and steadily increasing.
AY Funding Agreement: This Could Take Forever [Brownstoner]
540G will get you a ritzy suite in new Brooklyn Nets arena [Daily News]
Slow Economy Likely to Stall Atlantic Yards [New York Times]
State Never Saw Business Plan For Atlantic Yards Project [NY Sun]
Entire Atlantic Yards funding agreement (37 parts) [Empire State Development Corporation]
Photo by threecee.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4386
Comments
1) Affordable housing is included purely for propaganda purposes. The folks in the government understand on some level that a state sponsored lottery for housing is not a solution to the housing crisis. They do understand that increasing supply is what is necessary. The simple fact that a train yard and adjacent blocks (that are mostly industrial) are being replaced with housing is, in and of itself, justification for eminent domain action.
2) Part of the reason the AY project is being pushed forward is to bring Brooklyn into the modern era and prove that high density develop works just as well here as anywhere else.
3) Goldstein's opinions regarding sanity and ethics are irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the right of government authorities to utilize eminent domain for this purpose. It is the responsibility of every citizen to accept the execution of the law by the state. This matter - from an ethics standpoint - is decided.
Posted by: Polemicist at March 31, 2008 11:05 AM
what housing crisis would that be?
Theres homes all over the country sitting vacant, boarded up. Go to Buffalo, Pitssburgh, Cleveland, look around. Cities with whole empty hoods. Empty houses being demolished by cities becuase they attract vagrants and drug users. Theres no crisis apart from the fake one-created by those with a vested interest in seeing more unnecessary development.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 11:09 AM
"It is the responsibility of every citizen to accept the execution of the law by the state."
Until they come kicking down YOUR door, eh Polemecyst?
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 11:22 AM
"It is the responsibility of every citizen to accept the execution of the law by the state. This matter - from an ethics standpoint - is decided."
Wow. I guess there's no more need for polemicists if we listen to Polemicist, because all we have to do is listen to our wise leaders.
More importantly, I believe that the AY eminent domain determination by the state does not follow the constitution, even using the Kelo decision as a guide. So doesn't that require that I fight the illegal confiscation of private property?
Posted by: harriet at March 31, 2008 11:54 AM
Scumbag-developer-man and his payroll politicians never stop working when it involves stealing your homes and you money. Let this be a lesson to us all!
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 12:58 PM
I could be wrong but didnt he pay over market rate to everyone in AY's path?
The money he paid would buy a compound in W. Virginia for all these anti-govt nuts to plan for their revolution.
Posted by: slick at March 31, 2008 1:02 PM
"Part of the reason the AY project is being pushed forward is to bring Brooklyn into the modern era and prove that high density develop works just as well here as anywhere else" -
Isn't this kind of development - high rises with demapped streets and windswept open spaces completely discredited. It is an artifact of the '70's. Even at ground zero they are restoring the streets that were taken away when the project was built. What about Jane Jacob's and her ideas? I think you are the one whose ideas are dated.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 1:05 PM
Slick,
You are wrong. One could maybe argue that Ratner overpaid relative to current zoning, but since the State is determined to allow him to build at several times what the current zoning allows, he's actually getting a bargain. Not to mention one that benefits from the threat of eminent domain.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 1:39 PM
11:09
Are you trying to say that real estate development inherently results in higher prices?
11:54
The proper forum for this issue is in the State Capital building in Albany. That debate is now over.
If it comes to a point where we can no longer trust our system of government to reflect the ethics of the people, the only solution is rebellion.
Really, is this very minor issue something you believe revolutionaries will rally around? I know, reading this site and listening to that nut goldstein can make it sound like this is a popular issue - but I assure it is not.
Advocating armed insurrection is treason and is a crime. You live in the most free country in the world. Show some respect, and try to maintain a level head in these turbulent times!
1:02
For many properties, FCR did pay above market. The condemned properties will be purchased at a market value, based on the prior zoning, as decided in court.
1:05
Not really. The reasons for removing the street grid have more to do with the engineering challenges of building over the train yard than creating a tower in the park style development.
Posted by: Polemicist at March 31, 2008 1:53 PM
1:39
Condemnation law in New York State is quite specific - market value is decided based upon the zoning at the time of the taking.
Posted by: Polemicist at March 31, 2008 1:57 PM
We live in the most free country in the world and yet I can have my phone tapped without a warrant and now apparently I can have my home seized if someone wants to build a stadium for their sports team.
What's that line about vigilance being the price we pay for freedom? Guess we fell asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: Johnny at March 31, 2008 2:01 PM
You don't live in the "most free country in the world"? You can't even fly to Cuba. I can't believe you swallow that line.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 2:14 PM
I have to say reading what some of you wrote makes me smile. AY will be built Ratner just recieved financing for 8 Spruce Street aka Ghery's Beekman Tower. The Stadium will come first; followed by the commercial/residential development. The only thing the selfish ass junkies as DDDB did was delay the project a little. I guess the credit crunch isnt working out to the way these socialists imagined it would. Go to Cuba and sing about freedom. You'll be thrown into a prison and get your ass waxed by pedro.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 2:23 PM
Yes, Johnny, there are limits to freedom. Just ask anyone who owns a rent-stabilized building - they cannot charge the rents they want to. Also ask anyone owning a home in a landmark district - they cannot make alterations to the facades of their own property outside of strict guidelines. So much for freedom...
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 4:06 PM
Goldstein's apartment has been rendered worthless. He owns an apartment in a condo building that is 99% owned by one entity. His apartment is worth only something to one entity as he lives in a vacant building. The condo association can be dissolved and really leave him in bind.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 4:46 PM
How can anyone defend this? Whether you like or dislike Daniel Goldstein and DDDB's antics, how can anyone support the seizing of someone else's property by a private developer for a private purpose? How is it that this does not outrage you?
You would all be carrying torches and pitchforks in the streets if it were your property.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 6:00 PM
"You would all be carrying torches and pitchforks in the streets if it were your property."
No, not if some developer offered me 2.5X what my property was worth, I wouldn't. I love my home, but I'm not stupid enough to pass up a deal like that.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 6:33 PM
I agree. It's difficult to cast as a victim someone who made a killing on a home they owned less than a year. I only wish that would happen to me.
Posted by: guest at March 31, 2008 9:14 PM
Agreement to a plan that allows Ratner to destroy acres of worthwhile occupied buildings so that they can lay fallow as parking lots for a decade, or two, or three, means that government officials are not protecting the public. Not even thinking about the public- The nonsense of such a plan must make one wonder whether these government officials even know to negotiate the best way to get an arena built. (I don’t happen to think one belongs here- In this I am unusually allied with Robert Moses in my thinking on this.)
And NO, absolutely not, if you know anything about eminent domain and this kind of abuse you would know that those whose land is being condemned don’t get anywhere near market value while someone like Ratner gets an eminent domain windfall (and a lot- Billions- of no-bid subsidy)-
Now here is a question: Why should the value of any zoning increase go to Ratner (getting the land without even bidding for it) and not to the owners who expected an increase was coming? And why, if an upzoning should occur here, should all that upzoning that creates value occur on, only on, and nowhere else than on land that Ratner wants to get with no bid?
How about a little rule of law here? A little fair play?
Posted by: MDDW at March 31, 2008 9:54 PM
Polemicisit - i saw your comments about market value being determined by zoning at the time of seizure.
I guess that you mean FAR by zoning at the time. But how is price per buildable sq ft calculated?
I imagine the calc would be:
Buildable FAR X price per sq
Do they take comps into consideration? And if the properties are going to be seized and demolished are the comps just land? Do the existing structures receive any value?
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:21 AM
Re 6:33:
Sounds like this is your version of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, unless they own their home less than five years, in which case government insiders can confiscate their home and give it to their friends with dubious claims of potential public benefit."
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:20 AM
I LOVE the way that the pro Ratner (paid for by?) poster is accusing AY opponents as being "socialist"...while supporting a bloated state project which involves seizing private property against the wishes of homeowners who do not want to sell and turning it over to (i suppose) someone whose need is greater..
and.....Let me get this straight, a developer, at least a well connected one, can come along say "i kinda wanna build this and wink wink, I will really, really try to build affordable housing...but I don't know if I have the money for it...can you condemn 22 acres of private property for me and force owners to turn it over?"
The State's answer.."sure, Bruce!"
But as usual the Ratner supporters silly non arguments "hey who wouldn't want to sell their property if they were offered 2x the value" (and if you dont' we'll take it from you anyway) show just how wrong they are.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:33 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.