MTA Finance Committee Approves New Ratner Deal
As was widely expected, the MTA’s finance committee yesterday approved a revised agreement with Bruce Ratner that would allow the developer to defer $80 million of the $100 million he initially agreed to pay the Authority for railyards; the full MTA board votes tomorrow. According to The Times, the payments would be only $2 million…
As was widely expected, the MTA’s finance committee yesterday approved a revised agreement with Bruce Ratner that would allow the developer to defer $80 million of the $100 million he initially agreed to pay the Authority for railyards; the full MTA board votes tomorrow. According to The Times, the payments would be only $2 million a year between 2012 and 2015 and then $11 million a year for 15 years; the Brooklyn Paper reports that the interest rate comes out to 6.5 percent. In a what may end up being the quote of the year, MTA finance chief Gary Dellaverson said of the deal, “It’s not quite as good as we had hoped.” Priceless.
Ratner to Get Huge Break from MTA [Brooklyn Paper]
Developer Seeks to Defer Payments on AY Site [NYT/Cityroom]
New Brooklyn Arena Deal Unveiled [AP]
Big Week for Atlantic Yards Sweetheart Deal-Making [Brownstoner]
Photo by Tracy Collins
Describing this as a new ‘deal’ is a little inaccurate. There’s no reason to think he’ll actually ever pay the amount he’s now proposing, given how much he’s already changed the scope and timing of the project from what was originally sold to the public.
The whole problem with DDD is that they continued to sue on the basis of eminent domain– which was only ever meant as a delay tactic because there was no way they could win.
All you yahoos who whine about eminent domain abuse please read Kelo v. City of New London, a Supreme Court case settled in 2005– the case which essentially determined that Ratner would win (and he did) every single court challenge. While I don’t agree with that case, or eminent domain for private business, its the ruling precedent and once the Supreme Court refused to hear the AY case in June of 2008 it meant there was no legitimate way DDD could stop AY.
Especially from June 2008 on, their strategy was playing a game of chicken with the financing environment. At that point they had no more legit way to stop AY and so they should have given up. Because they didn’t is why we’re saddled with a worse deal now than we would have gotten then.
It would be like your spouse went to Vegas, got into a high stakes poker hand, had 30k on the table and then the last card dropped and it went from a situation where they might have won to where there was zero chance to win. If, at that point, they raised the pot 20k more (knowing they couldn’t win) you can certainly be pissed off about that last 20k– even if the first 30k was a rational, well planned bet.
After June 2008, DDD bet on an empty bluff and so everything that changed from the city’s bargaining position in June 08 to now is entirely their fault.
And WE get a fare increase because the MTA is in the pocket of the billionaire politicians and developers.
Extell was willing to pay 50MM more than Ratner, correct, and no arena in their plan, which is a plus in my book. Should have gone with them – but hey, the deal with Ratner was decided before the RFP went out to others…
I”t is partly DDD’s fault”
Bullshit. There’d been endless other excuses for non-compliance, more public money, fewer “affordable” units, and delays if DDDB weren’t around. The whole project was overblown and iffy from the start, which is a charitable way of saying it was close to fraudulently marketed and sold.
For MTA to compound their idiocy by allowing Ratner off the hook is unconscionable.
“It’s not quite as good as we had hoped” [but we’re worried we’ll perhaps get nothing at all if we don’t accept what’s on the table.]
“It’s not quite as good as we hoped.” #$#@%ing priceless. We get robbed blind and it’s not quite as good as we hoped. Thank god elections are coming up.
It is partly DDD’s fault.
“develop don’t destroy is also managing to fuck the mta by stalling this in court.”
This is classic. It’s the project opponents’ fault that the project sponsor is a corporate welfare queen who is now welching on his promises?