Oder Does The Times
After years of (rightly) criticizing The New York Times for its failure to bring a critical eye and adequate resources to its coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, Norman Oder, publisher of the Atlantic Yards Report, got his own essay (that’s what The Times calls it; he calls it an Op-Ed) in the paper of…
After years of (rightly) criticizing The New York Times for its failure to bring a critical eye and adequate resources to its coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, Norman Oder, publisher of the Atlantic Yards Report, got his own essay (that’s what The Times calls it; he calls it an Op-Ed) in the paper of record. A central point of the essay, and the one that he parses further in a follow-up post on his blog, is that public officials might have thought harder about handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies if they’d known that someone with unlimited financial resources–in this case Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov–would end up being the beneficiary. “All was forgotten as flashbulbs popped for Prokhorov, as was the notion that had a man worth nearly $18 billion put his hand out for subsidies, someone might have called foul.” Lest the appearance of Oder’s piece on The Times give the impression that the paper has changed tack on Atlantic Yards, it’s accompanied by another criticism-free profile, this one of Ratner, in today’s sports section, the main point of which appears to be to stir up conflict between him and Madison Square Garden chief Jim Dolan.
A Russian Billionaire, the Nets and Sweetheart Deals [NY Times]
Ratner Content to Succeed in the Shadows [NY Times]
My Time Op-Ed [Atlantic Yards Report]
Photo by gilly youner
” I think the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods would prefer the hole in the ground even before you factor in the public fleecing.”
OK, ignoring the loaded use of “public fleecing”, as if the use of the term demonstrates anything other than bias on the part of the author…
OK, sure, the immediate locals don’t want to be near an arena. I think 20 years from now the rest of Brooklyn will be proud of their basketball team. Good thing the vocal few (the neighbors) failed to stop a project that is for the greater public good. If the NIMBYs always won NYC wouldn’t exist as we know it.
“I can’t stand defeatism”
Lechacal, in that case you understand why people continue to fight AY rather than burying their heads in the sand and rationalizing what is a dreadful project on multiple levels.
“It’s not like we are getting the Lakers or the Celtics here.”
What about getting the celtics back when they sucked eggs? I can’t stand defeatism.
Benson, if the choice is between a hole in the ground and the area around Madison Square Garden on a game night, I think the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods would prefer the hole in the ground even before you factor in the public fleecing.
Oh and remind us what we have won for putting up with all of this construction – an arena to host an NBDL team. It’s not like we are getting the Lakers or the Celtics here.
In response to both Boerum Hill at 11:19 and Johnny at 11:22:
You are right that only the developer is “enriched” in the traditional sense. (after all, only the developer puts in risk equity). But the idea is that a sports arena enriches the entire community in a lot of ways. Increased tax revenue from businesses, team spirit, etc. These deals are made in a way that gives the developer a reasonable prospect of making a nice equity return. In exchange for that, the developer puts in risk equity – and the community gets a sports franchise to enjoy.
Boreum Hill;
So let me get this straight:
-Small projects in which a few folks are able to get new apartments at below-market rent via a lottery = public good.
-Large project in which a significant number of folks will be able to get apartments at below-market rents + new stadium + filling up an eyesore of a hole in the ground is NOT a public good.
Thanks for the clarification!
“One, the scale of the public component is staggering. Between misdirected public housing funds, our largess and naming rights from Barclays, Ratner managed to do this all on our dime.”
Naming rights from Barclays? How is that our dime? Please don’t say TARP…
The subsidies are just icing on the cake to what is a bad project. Unfortunately, the true cost of this project is not the millions of dollars of subsidies but the fact that this thing is actually going to get built – creating a construction zone for years, bringing more traffic to the surrounding neighborhoods and generally degrading the quality of life for those who live here. Supporters of AY seem to forget that. I don’t live near AY but feel bad for those who do – not only is the city wasting money and ultimately dipping into taxpayers pockets, but in doing so is destroying the resale value of property owners’ homes etc.
Personally, instead of giving millions to developers for a project fo at best debatable benefit to the community, I would rather have seen the city use the money to a. improve the MTA situation or b. save other programs that the city is now cutting such as the day care centers, senior centers and swimming pools discussed yesterday.