« Goldman: NYC Prices Have a Ways to Go Open Thread »

January 9, 2009

City Spends Almost $40 Million on Two Downtown Lots

408-Albee-Map-0109.jpg
willoughby-park-0109.jpgThe action keeps getting hotter in Downtown Brooklyn. In recent days we've reported several significant transactions between United Land and Avalon Bay on the block bounded by Bridge, Willoughby and Duffield. Now comes news of two mega-deals one block east between Duffield and Albee Square. At the end of December, the City of New York paid $23,500,000 to buy 213 Duffield Street, a 16,500-square-foot lot with about 200,000 square feet of buildable floor area; in a separate transaction, the city also dropped $15,000,000 for a contiguous 8,746-square-foot lot at 408 Albee Square with about 100,000 square feet of air rights. All told: $38,500,000 for 300,000 buildable square feet. Anyone know what the city has up its sleeve? Update: As per the first commenter, this does look like where the city is planning to create Willoughby Square Park; there is, we believe, also supposed to be a parking garage underneath the park. Thanks, Zinka.
408 Albee Square [Property Shark] GMAP
213 Duffield Street [Property Shark] GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:01 AM | Comments (13)
Categories: Development, Downtown Brooklyn

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7897

Comments

Aren't these where the city plans to build Willoughby Square (a "park" on top of a parking garage)?

Posted by: zinka at January 9, 2009 10:25 AM

i believe zinka is correct. this is going to be a park.
i'm wondering if the citypoint project is going to get off the ground. anybody know?

Posted by: friend_or_foe at January 9, 2009 10:27 AM

The City Point developers are trying to get additional tax subsidies from the city. With all of the private development actitity going on in downtown brooklyn, I was wondering when the city was going to step up to the plate on the infastructure front. I'm sure the developers would not have been happy spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new projects if the city declined to move forward on Willoughby Square Park and the Flatbush Avenue streetscape project

Posted by: FtGreeneCorey at January 9, 2009 11:10 AM

Can anyone explain why eminent domain is acceptable when used down the block so FCRC can build an arena, etc, but when it is time to build a park, the city shells out 38M for a park.

I'm not opposed to eminent domain generally, but I believe it should only be for projects that are 100% public use (or taken then rented out by the city for income).

When you look at the deed transfers and corporate records, both properties were apparently owned through a larger company called Laramie Dawson, which has no webpage, but the primary results of a google search for that are the numerous political contributions made by its principal, David H. Feinberg.

When eminent domain appears to be used only as a method for private developers to cut costs and/or line their pockets with taxpayer money, but is not being used to build a park, well IMHO, that is a good reason for Bloomberg to limit himself to 2 terms.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at January 9, 2009 1:06 PM

Keep digging. Keep watching.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 9, 2009 2:36 PM

Knick', I believe these are negotiated sales. Owners in the Willoughby Square footprint that are not able to agree to a sales price with the city will have their property taken by eminent domain. Those owners can then go to court and haggle over the appraised value.

If I remember correctly, 213 Duffield used to house a city agency of some sort; HRA? Reaching a settlement with a party that the city has done business with in the past might have been an easier (or something) process than the other negotiations.

Also, Willoughby Square will not be a "park," at least not in the sense of owned by the city. It will be more like the Metrotech Commons.

Posted by: g man at January 9, 2009 2:44 PM

g man:

I appreciate your comments, but how is this not going to be city property? The city is now the current owner.

Also, the sale value of the land was about $128/ft for a teardown (38.5M / 300,000 sq ft). The fair market value of that land is way below that value. We pay for corporate counsel attorneys regardless of the amount of work they perform. I believe any judge would have given a price that was 1/2 that amount.

The only thing I see here is a one-sided deal for a real estate developer, but nothing about this is truly benefiting the taxpayers.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at January 9, 2009 3:05 PM

Knick,
Even when eminent domain is invoked the government still has to pay for the property it takes. Governments almost always try to negotiate a settlement before invoking eminent domain. That's what happened with everyone who was amenable in the Atlantic Yards project footprint. Eminent domain was only required for those who wouldn't sell.

Posted by: Peter18 at January 9, 2009 7:09 PM

A plan to attract more drivers to downtown Brooklyn. Is this a leftover from the Moses era?

Posted by: mgm at January 9, 2009 7:21 PM

Peter18:

I'm well aware of the negotiation process involved with eminent domain. I am commenting that the application of that policy is inconsistent given the high prices paid these Albee Square parcels.

I think the city would have gotten a significantly better deal in court. Since "Cost of litigation" is not an issue (please read my first post in this section) I am guessing that this was a sweetheart deal because of connections and political contributions made by Laramie Dawson.

While the days of abusing the "blight" tag are done, this property was not special (mostly parking lots) so this could have been an opportunity to save the taxpayers ten million (or more). Unlike Rater, this is 100% public use - why not get the best deal for the people. Isn't that the whole idea of eminent domain?

Given that the city is closings schools and fire stations, this whole situation fails the "smell test" in my opinion.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at January 10, 2009 10:42 AM

Knick', a municipality is sometimes an interim owner in urban renewal schemes. For an example, think of any now privately-owned residential development on a super-block. The municipality takes control of the site, then sells or gives it to a developer.

I can't say I know what property in downtown Brooklyn sells for per developable square foot. But here's an interesting twist to your argument that the city over-paid: how do all the hold-outs not get the same price in court now that the city has established comparable value in a purportedly arms-length deal?

Posted by: g man at January 10, 2009 8:57 PM

Yes, Mgm, this is a leftover from the Bob Moses era, specifically Downtown Brooklyn Partnership President Joe Chan, who thinks that people who drive don't count.

http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-chan-is-at-it-again.html

Posted by: Capn Transit at January 11, 2009 6:11 PM

Correction: Joe Chan, who thinks that people who drive are the only ones who count.

Posted by: Capn Transit at January 11, 2009 6:12 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions