Atlantic Yards, the Nets, and the Times
Atlantic Yards seems to be in the hot seat this week due to the Court of Appeals case that began on Wednesday regarding the state’s use of eminent domain to acquire land for the development project. Here’s a round-up of recent comments, from the Atlantic Yards Report, the Wall Street Journal, and Develop Don’t Destroy…
Atlantic Yards seems to be in the hot seat this week due to the Court of Appeals case that began on Wednesday regarding the state’s use of eminent domain to acquire land for the development project. Here’s a round-up of recent comments, from the Atlantic Yards Report, the Wall Street Journal, and Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. The WSJ points out that if the Yards wins in court, its next big challenge will be “selling the development to a skeptical bond market.” The $700 million bond sale needed to fund the project comes at a time when sports spending is receding and the bond market is still shaky. The article adds: “If developers of the Atlantic Yards project don’t issue bonds by Dec. 31 to fund the arena’s construction, the debt will lose tax-exempt status, which would kill the project.” And concerning the arena’s prospective occupants, the Nets basketball team, the Atlantic Yards Report writes that there’s some jostling in New Jersey regarding what to do with the team until it moves to Brooklyn. Regarding legal matters, the Report also questions why Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries didn’t join the lawsuit against the MTA for its dismissal of due process during the sale of land to developer Forest City Ratner, especially since his neighboring assemblymembers, Jim Brennan and Joan Millman, did join. Jeffries said that participating in the lawsuit would compromise his power of advocacy, but the Report wonders if he’s simply hedging his bets. Finally, several sites made a stink that The New York Times failed to run a print article about the opening arguments of the eminent domain case on Wednesday. Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn wonders whether the Times is avoiding the topic because its Manhattan tower was built with the use of eminent domain.
Sale of Arena Debt Is Tough Shot [WSJ]
WSJ Calls Arena Debt a ‘Toss Up’ [AYR]
Newark Mayor Booker Focuses on Temporary Nets Move [AYR]
Jeffries Agrees with Plaintiffs But Won’t Join Them [AYR]
Something Is Wrong at the Times [DDDB]
Photo by Tracy Collins
http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2009/10/for-a-few-years-there.html
“For a few years there, it seemed like the New Jersey Nets were definitely going to move to an arena-like jumble in Brooklyn designed by the world’s most famous architect. Then the project was delayed by lawsuits filed on behalf of a group of rabble-rousing locals who meet in a dive bar. Then a bunch of complicated bets based on bogus mortgages given to random people in the suburbs of Phoenix went to hell, and no one anywhere could get money to build anything, let alone an arena and massive luxury-housing development. Then the richest man in Russia decided he would pay for everything, although the architect and his expensive fancy-pants design had already gotten canned. Also, one of the main community groups supporting the project had its credibility undermined when two twentysomething kids tricked one of their representatives into talking on-camera about how prostitutes can cheat on their taxes. So if there’s anything to be taken away from the story of the Brooklyn Nets, it’s probably that we have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen next in the story of the Brooklyn Nets.”
Smooth sailing…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
bxgrl – He’s bought a part of the team, not the building project, but his money was thought to be helpful to FCR.
I’m confused- where does the Russian backer figure in all this now?
Um, jscheff, unless I am missing something, I think you are not correctly describing the nature of the proceedings. These were not “opening” arguments, these were oral arguments. There won’t be further proceedings, just a written decision from the court resolving the case. I noticed this in your write-up the other day, too, where you described the case as beginning. Oral argument is typically a one-time event. Opening argument is what a trial lawyer does to introduce a jury to his/her case at the start of a jury trial.
Let’s hear a rousing chorus for why the garment center is now toast. I used to use B & J’s all the time. This is the kind of planning stupidity that gets me so angry.
Probably also doesn’t hurt to mention that the Times building is a Forest City Ratner built complex. I didn’t know they used eminent domain to build that. They destroyed almost a complete block of garment center buildings, a busy parking garage which had a busy, and excellent fruit and veggie market in it on 40th St, and stores and buildings on 8th Ave to build the center. A case might be made for the 8th ave buildings, but the garment center buildings were busy and productive. The most prominent business removed was a very popular fabric store called B&J’s. They ended up on the second floor of a showroom building on 7th and 38th, and I’m sure their business has never been the same. In fact, the whole block of fabric stores on 40th is almost gone, businesses that had been there for generations.
Good round up of articles — clearly the NYT is not comfortable pursuing this story. I hope the opposition is successful and was glad to hear of the suit against the MTA.
that area looks even shittier from that angle.