Sparks Fly over Bailout for Downtown Development
At a public hearing on Thursday, debate arose over the plan to grant CityPoint, the stalled Downtown development, $20 million in tax-exempt stimulus bonds. The proposed development, on the Fulton Mall, would include retail and office space as well as mixed-income housing, and supporters of the project, including Borough President Marty Markowitz, say that it…
At a public hearing on Thursday, debate arose over the plan to grant CityPoint, the stalled Downtown development, $20 million in tax-exempt stimulus bonds. The proposed development, on the Fulton Mall, would include retail and office space as well as mixed-income housing, and supporters of the project, including Borough President Marty Markowitz, say that it will bring jobs to the area, boost the local economy, and promote further development in the area. Seth Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation and chair of its Capital Resource Corporation, the group that will decide on the stimulus request on Tuesday, told The Brooklyn Paper that the bonds will cost $308,000 in tax revenues over 30 years, but the project will generate $340,000 in construction-related tax revenues, $5.7 million in tax revenue from ongoing operations, and the creation of 100 construction jobs and about 70 permanent retail jobs in the portion of the development built from stimulus dollars. Opponents say that the developers don’t deserve a bailout for a risk that bottomed out, and they question how much the project would actually benefit the neighborhood: the jobs created are of low quality; national retailers might displace local merchants; and the affordable housing will still be too expensive for some low-income families in the area. John Tyus, a member of Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, told the Paper, “Fundamentally, this project does nothing to benefit the Brooklyn community, and this is a straight-up Bloomberg bailout of developers who speculated and made poor financial decisions.” GMAP
Foes and Supports Clash over $20-mil Fed Bailout [Brooklyn Paper]
City Point Gets Financing Boost from The Feds [Brownstoner]
but im not. grrrrr why do i always get accused of that? it’s really annoying.
*rob*
> ‘cept im not a troll buddy boy.
But you are, Blanche, you are.
‘cept im not a troll buddy boy. i just call it like it is. and sometimes isnt. perhaps my previous statements werent as nice as they could have sounded. sorry about that. sometimes i feel like the entire country is one giant state of perpetual whine. myself included!
*rob*
G-Man
“A low quality job has a salary too low to allow independent living, doesn’t offer health insurance or other benefits, doesn’t teach the employee new skills or otherwise provide for advancement, or merely some of these characteristics.”
Actually many retail jobs do provide Health Ins, and EVERY job teaches employees new skills and provides for advancement – especially when compared to unemployment.
As for bailing out the developer…
this is hardly a bailout – it is TAX-EXEMPTION – that is the city is foregoing taxes that it has not (and may NEVER) collect on a development that may not ever get started. and the TOTAL bill is $340,000 over 30 years.
Which ignoring the taxes that will be collected on wages, sales, etc… if the construction starts – is probably worth that much to Brooklyn simply to avoid a multi-decade vacant land site on one of the most important strips in Brooklyn. Think about what this empty lot costs Brooklyn by virtue of the fact that virtually ANY person, institution, or Corporation that is thinking about moving,or investing in Brooklyn will have to pass a horrible vacant lot on their trip into our Boro. Not to mention the depression on the current RE values in the immediate area – whose sales/transfers and assesments generate significant tax revenue for the city/state.
Finally if I am not mistaken, the developers Sitt and now Arcadia (I believe) do not own the land but instead control it through a 99year lease (I could be wrong but it is how I recall the deal being done) Forcing the collapse of the development would also hurt the city as the residual owner.
And what about the “$20 million in tax-exempt stimulus bonds?” That’s the real story, no? Good investment or bad?
Back when comments like Rob’s could be posted here anonymously, he would have been accused of being a troll.
then dont have kids if you cant afford them. i still fail to see the problem here. maybe im in a monday morning funk, but a lot of people agree with me.
you CAN survive fine on a burger king job.
*rob*
In addition to all of this crony-inspired “stimulus” package, the CityPoint developers have privatized Albee Square for their own front yard, forcing a detour of the B-38 bus which slows down many thousands of daily commuters for CityPoint’s own private gain.
None of these numbers add up either – the funding and the supposed “benefit” are totally out of proportion to this outsized project.
Bloomberg should be more alert to this kind of community issue, especially if he intends to be re-elected (this is looking more and more doubtful, with results like this!) The CityPoint plan – especially if they’re crying for stimulus dollars – HAS to accommodate the Fulton St. buses, which are some of the most heavily used bus lines in Brooklyn. These buses would supply both the shoppers and the supposed “green initiative” which the mayor’s office is always pretending to be concerned about.
Rob,
That is heartless. There are many people with degrees who are either out of work right now or have had to accept much lower paying jobs after being laid off, sometimes from jobs they’ve had for years.
Low quality jobs may pay minimum wage and a bit more. The take-home pay is always below what is considered a living wage and sometimes the family might still be at the poverty line. This is especially true in single-parent households where the one parent works full-time but at one of these low paying retail jobs.
Thanks to Gman for pointing out some other issues.
Rob, is this your Monday mood? That is an absurd statement. G-man is absolutely correct. As someone who often complains about your job, I would think you’d be more sympathetic.