Atlantic Yards, How You've Changed
This chart put together earlier this week by the Brooklyn Speaks coalition pretty much, well, speaks for itself. You can check out the entire presentation here.
Atlantic Yards Then and Now [Brooklyn Speaks]
50 Comments
By FtGreeneCorey on March 5, 2010 9:40 AM
By rukiddingme on March 5, 2010 9:49 AM
Nice try FtGreeneCorey, but you can't give DDDB that much credit. How about many of the numbers were inflated/incorrect to begin with and without real oversight by ESDC it was easy to pull off.
By Arkady on March 5, 2010 9:49 AM
More likely specious specs in the original pitch.
By Maly on March 5, 2010 9:53 AM
Do you mean to say that a backroom deal shrouded in secrecy turns out to benefit no-one but the politicians' re-election funds and the developer? Shocked. I am shocked.
By slopefarm on March 5, 2010 9:57 AM
FGC, if you were correct, it would still be a monumental business error not to have factored litigation delays into the projections. Any idiot, with whatever views on AY's merits, could have seen the litigation coming a mile away.
Here's a Q for you counterhistorians:
Which scenario gets it built faster -- (a) litigation as is, but a continued robust economy with no credit crunch; or (b) no litigation at all but economy as is?
By Butterfly on March 5, 2010 9:57 AM
i love the "Affordable Units" label. why dont they just label the other ones the Unaffordable Units? Why not just label them Residential Units and Luxury Welfare Suites? Why no real distinction between the two? The "Affordable Units" are basically just greased palms units anyway, and the other units are "Market rate", right? yeah... that's what i thought.
*rob*
By Johnny on March 5, 2010 10:05 AM
So Ratner gets a reduction of $230 million on the Yard (difference between what he laid and other firm bid) and we gave him $50 mill for 300 affordable housing units?
Leaving out the $8 million loss from economic development (which excludes all ancillary measures like pollution, congestion and my favorite, higher con-ed rates for all of us) we paid Ratner $1 million per unit for affordable housing.
Karl Marx would find what passes as capitalism these days absolutely hysterical.
By Montrose Morris on March 5, 2010 10:12 AM
Disgusting. I can't understand how pro-AY people can look at these figures and still find nothing wrong with the whole operation. Negative $8mil over 30 years????? Talk about blight - 7 acres of parking? Yep, that must be that great legacy for Brooklyn some people were touting.
By Brooklyn Chicken on March 5, 2010 10:17 AM
The blacktop "temporary" parking lot particularly sticks in my craw. Talk about blight. Talk about encouraging automobile traffic. The whole thing makes me ill.
By Heather on March 5, 2010 10:21 AM
Seven acres of parking! That will solve all the parking problems for Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights!!! And just think, they're projecting it will only take a single decade to build all of that parking!
By Heather on March 5, 2010 10:23 AM
I think I'm going to go out and buy a car. Or maybe three. Why not? There will be space for them with the new Atlantic Yards.
By FtGreeneCorey on March 5, 2010 10:24 AM
Well Judge Gerges certainly seemed to agree that, in rejecting the claims of DDDB, most of the changes to the project were due to years of litigation. It's in the judicial record.
Furthermore, the only precedential case to draw upon (by either party), Lechter (which relates to the redevelopment of Times Square using eminent domain) clearly states that, where changes and delays to a project (administered by the State Development Authority) are the result of litigation challenging (and ultimately delaying) said project, there is no need for the State Development Authority to "start over" as a result of such changes and delays.
The bottom line is that DDDB's strategy was NEVER to "win" any of the court cases (both case law and statutory law were CLEARLY always in favor of the State and the developer). Rather, their strategy from day one was to delay, delay, delay, in hopes that one or more of the following would occur: (i) economic conditions would sour, (ii) political will for the project would sour, and/or (iii) the developer would get frustrated by the delays and sour on the project.
Full marks to DDDB that (i) above, did in fact occur...but unfortunately for them (ii) and (iii) never did.
This is simple elementary school cause and effect. (a) Atlantic Yards Project Oppontents file multiple lawsuits on State and Federal levels aimed at stopping Atlantic Yards Project; which resulted in (b) EDSC and FCR spending 6 years defending against such lawsuits; which ultimately led to (c) 6 years of delays to Atlantic Yards Project while lawsuits were being adjudicated.
By foolscap on March 5, 2010 10:27 AM
What makes you think that any of the information that BrooklynSpeaks wrote is correct and not spin? It's not like they are an impartial observer.
If I posted the spin from Ratner, would you now comment on how great the project is?
By Bob Marvin on March 5, 2010 10:28 AM
Heather,
We'll have to get the powers that be to subsidize some "affordable" parking :-)
By antidope on March 5, 2010 10:36 AM
still in favor here.
if there is some corruption in the project, go after the potentially guilty parties.
but in case you didn't notice there's been a huge financial event that might not have been forecast in the original numbers.
why is this still considered a sweet deal for ratner? doesnt his payoff come on the resi tower side? how do long delays and massive reduction in numbers help that business proposition? he had to give away most of his franchise (which will increase in value as Bkln Nyets) to get it funded.
still this project does no favors to real estate listings in the shadow of the construction like yesterday's hotd revisited.
still really hate the idea of parking lots.
By Johnny on March 5, 2010 10:40 AM
DDDB's other strategy -
(IV) New Yorkers would wake up to the fact that New York taxpayers were being fleeced by perhaps the biggest corporate welfare scam in New York's history and stop it.
Despite a great deal of "elementary school" logic to see this, it didn't happen either.
By Grand Pa on March 5, 2010 10:45 AM
A classic bait and switch.**
Extensive government subsidies Check
Tie project to superstar architect(s) Check
Sell the public on said superstar architect(s) designs Check
Promise an extensive development of many buildings Check
Insist on additional government subsidy Check
Replace approved superstar designs with a cheaper one
that would have never been approved initially Check
Build a mere fraction of what was promised Check
** See also the World Trade Center Redevelopment.
So do you think Ratner and Silverstein compare notes when they run their scams?
7 acres of parking. HA!
By bkhabitant on March 5, 2010 10:45 AM
Hmm, so the MTA and city are crying about the MTA's $400m budget shortfall this year. Meanwhile the city is giving AY $236m in subsidies and MTA agreed to sell the land for $120+m less than its appraised value.
I'm not a math genius but does anyone else think it might have made more sense to refuse the subsidies to AY and sell the land for its actual value thereby offsetting the MTA's budget shortfall? Call me crazy but that seems like a better result than destroying two or three of Brooklyn's best neighborhoods and pulling $400m out of city coffers in exchange for the worst basketball franchise and 7 acres of lined pavement.
By swngnmonk on March 5, 2010 10:47 AM
Has it occurred to anyone that those 7 acres of 'temporary' parking will be of great benefit to the arena? I mean, look at every other 20k seat arena in the country - acres and acres of parking. They'll be able to charge $20/car on event nights no problem.
By BoringHillDotCom on March 5, 2010 10:51 AM
Why does everyone hate DDDB? (I'm neutral)
Why are some people so sure AY is a good thing?
By architect66 on March 5, 2010 10:53 AM
barf.
By Heather on March 5, 2010 10:53 AM
Plus, we people living in the arena's shadow can probably moonlight selling beer and sundries to the tailgaters! Or just start stealing gps units.
By Montrose Morris on March 5, 2010 11:00 AM
DDDB and all others on record opposing AY would not have been able to litigate for years if there hadn't been plenty of material for lawyers and opposition to work with.
If FCR, the City and State had been above board in the first place, then there would be construction going on as we speak. There was no need for eminent domain, a project could have been designed with the land FCR had already, or would have bought without displacing people and business that didn't want to sell. He could have worked with, or around Ward's Bakery, there was no need to tear it down. If they hadn't have had to have some gigantic ego-driven, look how big my appendage is, mega-project, they could have possibly garnered some community support, and public approval.
If the city and state had not been so enamoured with the whole gigantic-ness of the thing, that they were willing to give FCR ANYTHING they wanted, including valuable, MTA property that could have been sold at market rate, intead of given away, that would have been a start.
The list of "shoulda, couldas" is really, really long, but in the long run, I'd have to say that FCR's mess is their own making, not DDDB's, but we, the residents and taxpayers are going to be paying for it for generations.
By bessie2 on March 5, 2010 11:01 AM
My bet is that the additional acreage will continue to flourish as rat hotels. The chain link fences and bales of hay aren't going anywhere for a long time.
By mimi on March 5, 2010 11:04 AM
What I find pathetic is that the MTA is now taking free passes away from school children (in the middle of a recession/depression) while selling the train yards to Ratner for millions of dolloars less than their value. Truly reprehesible behavior on the part of the MTA and the government.
By Jeff_Togo on March 5, 2010 11:05 AM
This project has been frightening from the outset (not withstanding a utopian view of a designer's easel and a bit idealism). Now it's just depressing.
Looks like there's plenty of green space...on Ratner's balance sheet.
By bxgrl on March 5, 2010 11:09 AM
Wasn't one of the things most touted was that the Arena would not have acres of parking- people would depend on public transportation to get to and from events and there would be minimal impact on traffic and streets? Another lie exposed for what it is.
By DitmasSnark on March 5, 2010 11:19 AM
Epic fail. On our dime.
By Johnny on March 5, 2010 11:38 AM
The massive corporate welfare aside, the traffic is going to kill this entire area for decades. Several hundred million tons of construction equipment and material will clog the streets, forcing cars that currently took the main roads onto the Brownstone streets.
And at the end of it, when hundreds of millions of our tax dollars have been spent, the Nets renegotiate for even more tax subsidies or they head to Newark and the costs to the taxpayer continue to pile up.
Go take a look at Clinton Street in Brooklyn Heights at rush hour. Now imagine that everywhere within a 20 block radius. You gotta hand it to Ratner, using our own money to $%#$ ourselves is a scam Lex Luthor would've been proud of.
By Brooklyn Red on March 5, 2010 11:42 AM
The Brooklyn Speaks website not only has an eye-catching example of "AY then and now" but it also carefully outlines the significant problems associated with the whole approval process - which, again, never had a public referendum, nor an opportunity for public input, although the public is paying through the nose for AY - both in terms of taxpayer subsidies and the kinds of reduction in MTA service we are now seeing (not to mention the environmental impact). Blaming DDDB for the changes in scope is really blaming the victim - this has been, from the very beginning, a political boondoggle - Grandpa's checklist outlines it very well. And no, not everybody hates DDDB - a lot of us are grateful for DDDB and Brooklyn Speaks.
(Hope all the pro-AY proponents like the parking lot that will be on 4th between Atlantic and Pacific - that's sure going to help efforts to improve 4th Ave, ease traffic, and make the neighborhood more livable)
By Johnny on March 5, 2010 11:50 AM
Just wanted to make sure everyone realized this - we're already paying higher utility rates because of AY. The infrastructure upgrades needed to support the initial 6,000 housing units were used as leverage to increase our rates 2 years ago.
Note that since the residential portion of the plan has been reduced and none of the utility infrastructure upgrades have happened, the rate increase we pay every month has not been retracted.
And we can't afford to give kids a free ride to school on the subway.
By Brooklyn Chicken on March 5, 2010 12:05 PM
You said it, bxgrl.
It beggars the imagination that anyone besides Bruce Ratner and those whose pockets he is lining could be in favor of this dishonest boondoggle.
While what has happened -- and will happen -- is "legal," that doesn't make it right. The process and likely its result are wrong in every sense of the word. Other places have passed laws to stop this sort of thing, and if we ever have real reform in Albany (one can dream), more transparency will have a shot of preventing such a travesty from reoccuring.
By Sparafucile on March 5, 2010 12:23 PM
The idea that the arena's mass transit access would mean little vehicular traffic is laughable to anyone who is paying attention. The Garden, which is right on top of Penn Station, gets over 30% of its weekday patronage, and about 50% of weekend, by private vehicle. Why would the Rat's Nest, or whatever it's going to be called, generate less traffic? Our only hope is that events here are as sparsely attended as those at Izod Center.
By bxgrl on March 5, 2010 12:43 PM
Sparafucile- yes, and those of us who pointed out this obvious delusion were slapped down as being just plain wrong. In fact every refutation to the fantasy Ratner was selling only got us labeled "NIMBY." Seeing it laid out in black and white shows how naked is the emperor in his new clothes.
The MTA will increase fares for the rest of us. And take way student cards. And cut services to the very neighborhoods that AY is located. Remember Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere? They got nothing on us.
By Butterfly on March 5, 2010 12:56 PM
it's not the MTA's responsibility to provide students with free metrocards. it's the state governments! most of those brats dont even use them to actually go to school anyway.
*rob*
By grand army on March 5, 2010 1:06 PM
Total lack of public process/transparency = total corporate welfare for developer. At least Bloomberg has been honest in his support for private developers on the public dollar (not that I approve) but it's really time we fired hypocrites like Sheldon Silver who allowed this to go through on his watch.
Btw, anyone who has used the new Atlantic Ave subway exits may -- like me -- have wondered why it was built with no escalators. Two tiny elevators but no escalators. Long, steep walk down to the 2/3/4/5 platforms. Then another long walk down to the Q/B/N/R level. Can't wait to see the beer sodden masses navigate their trips home after a game.
By southbrooklyn on March 5, 2010 1:32 PM
Montrose Morris NAILS IT.
By Montrose Morris on March 5, 2010 1:38 PM
I grew up in rural NY State, where the only way to get to school was the school bus, or by car, for most kids, it was way too far to walk, unless they lived in town. Now, since they consolidated several towns' schools into one mega-school, located outside of everyone's walking sphere, that isn't even an option. The school buses were paid for by local residents' taxes. I have no problem having my NYC taxes now pay for Metrocards for students, even though I don't have kids. How can they expect an average working and middle class family to come up with an additional $100 bucks a month, especially when those who need it most probably have 2 or more kids in the family? A lot of these kids will either not go to school at all, or jump the turnstyle and get a record and a fine, along with not getting to school.
I disagree Rob, most kids use the cards to get to school. Especially those kids who come from far away to go to the high schools of their choice. I wouldn't want to explain to some kid from ENY who works his butt off and gets into Stuyvesant, or some other good public high school, that he can't go because his poor family can't afford the monthy metrocard, because the MTA thinks it's better to cozy up to uber-rich developers, not school children.
By Brooklyn Red on March 5, 2010 1:49 PM
Yet again, well said MM
By FtGreeneCorey on March 5, 2010 1:54 PM
Look, here's the bottom line when it comes to DDDB and the other anti-AY groups. If their ultimate goal was to stop Atlantic Yards, as opposed to spending hundred of thousands of dollars collected from donors pursuing the litigation route, they would have been better served using that same money to lobby Albany and finding a sympathetic advocate (such as Perkins) to change New York's eminent domain laws (live virtually every other State did following Kelo). In the end, that would have probably been a more successful course of action.
The litigation route was ALWAYS going to lose, whether it took 5 years, 10 years, 15 year...these meritless lawsuits merely delayed the inevitable. I'm not sure how many lawyers are on this blog, but I'm an attorney, and both the case and statutory law in New York State are crystal clear in favor of the State and the Developer in this instance. In going the litigation route DDDB and the other anti-AY groups were hoping for the equivalent of the legal "hail mary"...unfortunately for them, they never got it.
By grand army on March 5, 2010 2:13 PM
FGC: If you think Albany politicians were NOT lobbied on AY issues (including, obviously, eminent domain) then you are very very far from the epicenter of this debate. It's easy to pontificate from the sidelines. But many Brooklynites have spent years campaigning around AY issues -- and I don't just mean DDDB members.
By bxgrl on March 5, 2010 2:13 PM
MM said it right. If there was nothing to discuss, the litigation would have been over a long time ago. And eminent domain is an iffy area- even though he law says it can happen for private developers, there is no law saying it is a given if a private developer wants your property he is automatically entitled to it. If DDDB lawsuits had no merit, why were there so many lawyers willing to take it on- and much of the work was pro bono?
Yes, they could have used the money to lobby Albany- but even you have to agree, getting anything done in Albany takes far more time than litigation, and judging from the talent pool we have up there, would be a waste of time anyway.
I think the real story is that DDDB brought the facts of how bad a deal this really is to light. Politicians are whining because they now have to actually explain themselves. The MTA looks even more incompetent and sleazy than ever before. That chart up top wouldn't be visible but for DDDB and AY opponents forcing FCR into court. Ratner may want to roll over on Brooklyn but thankfully there are those who refused to let them do it without a fight.
By FtGreeneCorey on March 5, 2010 2:41 PM
Grand Army...all I'm saying is that the law is what it is...so the best bet is to CHANGE the law.
By Pigeon on March 5, 2010 4:23 PM
Remember when developers tore down the old Penn Station to build Madison Square Garden?
I fear that the disappointment we will feel (if we live long enough) when AY is completed will be similar, if somewhat smaller in scope.
By grand army on March 5, 2010 4:50 PM
FGC: The law will only change when members of the NYS legislature decide it's their job to make laws. Currently they roll over for "the three men in a room" (aka Silver, Smith, Patterson) and content themselves with collecting their salaries. Government at the state level in New York is so bad we might as well be in Louisiana or Alaska. It's for this reason that activists often choose to pursue litigation. Though just to reiterate, MANY efforts have been made since AY was first announced in 2003 to work with state senators and assembly people. With a few honorable exceptions, the majority don't care. Especially not when jobs and affordable housing (both pure fairy tales in the case of AY) are the crack cocaine of elected officials.
By morralkan on March 5, 2010 5:05 PM
Most of the kids who have metrocards actually DO use them to travel to school. As a former teacher, I saw the kids in my class who had obviously traveled from great distances to get there.
No Child Left Behind requires school districts to provide open access (within capacity restraints) for students from underperforming schools to higher performing ones. While Obama may want to change NCLB, it is the current law. If metrocard subsidies are taken away, won't that be a violation of NCLB since students will be financially prevented from having those choices? (unless they are wealthy; most of the students from the lower-performing schools are not awash in money). Lawsuits anyone? Oh, I did forget, under Emperor Bloomberg, (virtually) all schools are now A's and B's, so I guess few pupils really will be affected and they'll be stuck in schools which really are subpar.
One last note: If Ratner's housing ever gets built, as i remember, there were no plans for any school buildings to be part of the project. Just where will the resident children of Atlantic Yards attend school?
Sorry, one more last note: Gehry's buildings were the UGLIEST monstrosities imaginable. I won't be sorry if anything other than G. designs are eventually built in AY.
By harriet on March 5, 2010 5:52 PM
@foolscap
The BrooklynSpeaks document is not just spin. It's based on the ESDC documents. It's worth reading the documents.
IMHO, many project opponents have done their homework, and many AY supporters don't know what they are defending.
By DDDB on March 5, 2010 11:55 PM
FtGreeneCorey . There were 3 senate bills to reform eminent domain and 1 assembly bill to reform eminent domain back in 2005 after Kelo. They all never made it out of committee.
The political fix was in on AY well before the public even knew the project existed. DDDB's goal has always been to stop the project. I think we've made that quite clear. And we've pursued that goal politically and legally.
And on top of all that, FCR retained all of the top lobbyists before announcing its project, and none of them would be willing to go against FCR, the city or state anyway, on this project.
But the bottom line is that armchair guidance about what should have been done is just armchair guidance based on a misapprehension of the political fix which has always been the fundamental problem with AY—all the rest are just symptoms of that illness.
By Improved Prospect on March 7, 2010 11:59 AM
FGC: You need to check your facts.
The project was approved in late December 2006. It is now March 2010 and a groundbreaking is scheduled for next week. DDDB's eminent domain litigation and environmental litigation began in 2007. The delay litigation caused is not six years, it is a little over three years.
The project was originally approved in 2006 without any enforced timetables for the second phase of the project, which is where most of the affordable housing and open space is located. An awful lot of good government and civic organizations, not just DDDB, noted that the second phase is unlikely to be built within ten years as was promised at the time. Real estate is cyclical, and most have always expected it at the best to be built on the timetable of around 25 years now established in the new project agreements. The project timetable has always been unrealistic and deceptive.
This has not stopped the ESDC from assessing the value of the project to the public on the basis that it will be built in full in ten years even though last year then head of the ESDC said it would take "decades." It will not stop Forest City Ratner in the future from citing the fantasy project timetables as reasons they can't or won't mitigate unanticipated circumstances like the surface parking lots being in place longer than they are supposed to be.
By Big Jugs on March 8, 2010 7:27 PM
D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Cariño
added September 2, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Il Cantuccio
added September 1, 2010 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Double Windsor
added August 31, 2010 12:00 PM in Windsor Terrace -
Blue Bottle Coffee
added August 30, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Vamos al Tequila
added August 27, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint -
Cafe Colette
added August 26, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Cafe Grumpy
added August 25, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint, Park Slope -
Miranda
added August 24, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Van Leeuwen Artisan Ice Cream
added August 23, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint -
Saltie
added August 20, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg
Hmmmm...I wonder why the project has changed so much? 6 years of frivolous (and fruitless) litigation perhaps?