Another Lulu: Revisiting the Yankee and Mets Stadium Scams

We are going to bury the report of our own mistake in the expression of further outrage. Not long ago we reported on the tricky way that the New York City Industrial Development Agency was “noticing” hearings this Thursday for the issuance of still more tax-exempt bonds for the Yankees and the Mets. (See: Saturday, December 20, 2008, Legal Notice! A Hearing May or May not Be held! (It Depends, Call Us!)). We expressed our evaluation that the “notice” was not legally sufficient since it did not actually inform the public the required number of days in advance whether or not a hearing would be held. In the same spirit of keeping the public on tenterhooks the IDA also was making available only at the last minute information important for the public comment. Our mistake was that apparently the currently required period of legal notice for the hearing is ten days rather than thirty.* That does not change our main objections or the fact that we still think the notice given for the hearing was inadequate since actual notice was less than the required ten days.

* (Apparently the required period of statutory notice is now ten days. Historically it was ten days. Then it was changed to thirty days. The statutory thirty day requirement recently rolled back to the original ten day requirement though there is an ongoing effort to reinstate thirty days. With the rollback, the technical specification that the public was to be provided with cost benefit information needed to make its comment worthwhile also rolled back and is part of what should be reinstated when the law is again brought up to date. The IDA’s notice played around with craftily purporting to fulfill all these requirements while actually complying with none of them.)

The IDA’s Craft to Shortchange the Public and What Will be Heard

In our previous post we criticized the IDA’s craft used to shortchange the public in the hearing process. Implicitly, such tactics show the IDA is not interested in either the public commenting effectively or in “hearing” what the public has to say. That the IDA is not interested in honestly evaluating and taking into account what the public has to say is further apparent from the following reported in a Good Jobs New York press release. First the IDA scheduled the consideration of the issuance of the $454 million in proposed additional tax-exempt financing for the new Yankee and Mets Stadiums for Inauguration Day! Now it has rescheduled that consideration even less opportunely for just one day after the hearing. Presumably, they figure that staff doesn’t need to absorb or pass along to the IDA board any input from the public because the decision about how the board should be voting is considered to have already been made. (See: December 23, 2008, Good Jobs NY Press Release: Bloomberg’s Economic Development Office Announces Rushed Vote on More Bonds for Yankees’ and Mets’ Stadiums.)

For some quick reference to quickly establish some background, we quote from the above No Land Grab post:

Moreover, the public financing scheme approved by the IDA in 2006 for the new Yankee Stadium is under investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Domestic Policy and by State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. Earlier this month, for example, Brodsky revealed evidence that suggests communication between City and Yankees’ officials led the city to artificially inflate land values to support more bond debt.

“It is outrageous for the Bloomberg Administration to rush additional public financing for the wealthiest teams in baseball while city, state and federal legislators are grappling with the worst budget crisis in decades,” said Bettina Damiani, Project Director of Good Jobs New York. “How do entertainment corporations outrank the city’s infrastructure and employment needs?”

Comptroller Thompson Calls for a Postponement of the IDA’s Vote and Asks About IDA Competence and the Public Being Misled

New York City Comptroller, Bill Thompson, issued a press release today calling for the IDA’s vote to be postponed. (See: THOMPSON: CITY MISMANAGED COST ESTIMATES FOR STADIUM FINANCING.) In it he points to concerns about the IDA intentionally misleading the public. Quoting some pertinent portions from the release:

“While our financial review cannot determine intent, this incredible mismanagement begs the question: Was this plain old incompetence or a blatant attempt to mislead the public?” Thompson said. “Either way, New Yorkers now have a box-seat view of fiscal mismanagement.”

* * * *

Thompson cited the following as examples of faulty cost estimates:

* The demolition of the existing Yankee Stadium was estimated at more than 50% less than the true cost.
* Failure to conduct environmental reviews, which would have taken into account the existence of, and necessity to remediate, oil tanks on the waterfront site of a planned new park.
* Underestimation of the cost for a rooftop park and retaining wall resulting in cost escalations of 30%; the price tag now stands at $44.5 million.

* * * *

Similarly, the cost to the City for a luxury suite will total $1,250,000 annually, while other luxury suite purchasers will pay between $600,000 and $850,000. Under terms of the new agreement, the City has agreed to let the Yankees market the suite with a minimum payment of $100,000 per year. {for some Noticing New York thoughts on this see: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Mayor’s Focus on City Planning Matters: Some Quantified Analysis}

“Anybody can see that this is simply a bad deal for New York,” Thompson said. “Yet it is the kind of financial incompetence that the Administration has consistently demonstrated when it comes to the new Yankee stadium. And incredibly, the Yankees are asking for more money and the Administration wants to give it to them without getting anything in return.”

* * * *

“For all these reasons, I am calling for the vote to be postponed so that the City can negotiate a better deal,” Thompson concluded.

In November 2008, an audit conducted by the Comptroller’s office found that the Yankee’s underpaid the City more than $11 million in rent over a two-year period. As a result, the Yankees have since paid the City $7,352,519 plus interest of $635,132. The Yankees still owe the City another $4,035,636.

IDA Executives Subpoenaed by the Assembly

Another press release was issued today by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s office stating that the Assemblyman who is Chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions, has, together with Chairman James Brennan (D-Brooklyn) of the Committee on Cities, “issued subpoenas yesterday to Seth Pinsky, Chairman of the Board of the New York City Industrial Development Agency, and Randy Levine, President of the New York Yankees, to appear at the Committees' hearing tomorrow, January 14th, 10:00 A.M., at 250 Broadway, Room 1923 (19th Floor), and deliver documents regarding the public financing of the new Yankee Stadium.” That press release also quotes Assemblyman Brennan:

"It is obvious that additional public subsidy for the Yankees is both inappropriate and unnecessary and the New York City IDA should halt further tax-exempt financings based on diverted property taxes"

Misleading the Public, a Hearing Habit (Like Bloomberg Misleading the Public)

Want another example of the way that the IDA goes out of its way to “mislead the public” ? Consider that it is being proposed that $370.9 million in additional bonds will be issued for Yankee Stadium. (This does not include an additional $60 million in refunding bonds. Of the $370.9 million there will be $259 million in bonds that are triple tax-exempt, exempt from federal, state and local taxation, and $111.9 million that will just be exempt from state and local taxes. The hearing notice focuses on not telling the public about the exemption from state and local taxes by expressing things this reverse way (emphasis supplied):

Up to $259,000,000 of tax-exempt and/or federally taxable revenue bonds, up to $111,900,000 of federal taxable revenue bonds and approximately $60,000,000 of tax-exempt refunding revenue bonds. . . .

That is exactly in line with the way Mayor Bloomberg is playing it when he keeps misinforming the public that these bonds do not involve expense to local New Yorkers. (See: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, Who Gets Clipped? Bloomberg Radio Clip on Stadium Financing and Monday, December 15, 2008, Stadium Finance: Mayor, Professing to Know Numbers, Should Know He Can’t Have It Both Ways (Unless He’s Keeping Two Sets of Books.)

Concerned Public Should Testify but Will Have Its Work Cut Out for It to Do So

Concerned members of the public should do everything they can to testify at the hearing, but you will have your work cut out for you. Keep an eye out for guidance likely to be available from Good Jobs New York.

There are cost-benefit documents now available to the public though they will be difficult to absorb: For the Yankees and for the Mets. (See: Wednesday, January 07, 2009, Documents emerge about stadium subsidies; mayoral candidates shy away from criticism and City Releases 116-Page Obfuscation of Stadium Deals, by Neil deMause, January 6, 2009)

Recently discovered (though the last-minute chance for public diligence is daunting): “Last Tuesday's paperwork on the New York Yankees and Mets tax-free bond requests includes word that the city will also be voting this week on exempting the teams' new stadium costs from mortgage recording and construction sales taxes, as their initial costs were.” See: Field of Dreams: January 12, 2009 Yanks bond request includes $11m tax break.

Jim Dwyer and a Few Things That Might Be Said Including Quoting the Mayor

For a good overview of some of the things one might say at the hearing, we refer you to the excellent recent piece of Jim Dywer’s: At the New Yankee Stadium, Sanity Rides the Bench, January 9, 2009. Some quotes:

This is more. New. In addition to. On top of the $942 million in previous financing, and $660 million that the city is pitching in to replace parkland sacrificed for the new stadium and transportation improvements.

What is the team going to spend the new $370 million on?

Here are some items on the submission filed with the city’s Industrial Development Agency: $10.5 million for “suite level upgrades,” and $5 million more for “public washroom upgrades,” and $1.1 million to “upgrade suite seats, field seats” and areas where disabled fans will sit.

Mr. Dwyer is even able to quote Mayor Bloomberg to make obvious points:

In 2002, soon after Michael R. Bloomberg became mayor, he announced that he was canceling stadium deals made in the last hours of the Giuliani administration.

“At the moment, everybody understands that given that the lack of housing, given the lack of school space, given the deficit in the operating budget, it is just not practical this year to go and build stadiums,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“You have to set priorities, and the priorities this year do not allow for the construction of sporting stadiums.”

The city is now in much worse shape. Every agency that serves the public is being cut.

Additional Bonds as an Inducement for Stadiums That Are Already Built?

The fact of the matter is that the stadiums are already built. The cost benefit analysis offered by the IDA conflates the value of issuing these additional bonds with the value of having the stadiums which already exist. The stadiums are not going anywhere if more bonds are not issued for the purpose slathering additional benefit on the Yankees and the Mets. They are contractually obligated and to say otherwise would be to say that the city really doesn’t know what it is doing. In fact, there is nothing that even says that if the Yankees and the Mets want additional frills they won’t ultimately pay for them out of their own pocket the way all stadiums were once typically financed.

A Few More Impediments to Testifying at the Hearing (Plus an Updated Pone Number)

Here are some other impediments to testifying at the hearing. If you call the published number that the non-notice notice for the hearing gave, (212) 312-3542, as we did today, you may be told, as we were, that information is still not available as to whether the hearings will actually be going forward for these two issuances of bonds. You may be told that you needn’t RSVP in order to attend the hearing, but we recommend RSVPing and calling another number, 212-312-3598, (not in the non-notice and which we got from Good Jobs New York). Ask to speak to Fran Tufano. Query: if you don’t RSVP to give the IDA contact information, how will the IDA ever tell you that the hearings are going forward? (Ms. Tufano seems definite that the headings will be held on Thursday and that, however awkwardly precipitous it might be, the plan is to have the board vote the very next day.)

What We Were Able To Find out About the Additional $60 Million in Refunding Bonds (Representing Additional Public Cost)

Since there are $60 million in refunding bonds proposed to be issued, we wanted to know when, after the refunding bonds were issued, the bonds that they refund will be redeemed. The issuance of refunding bonds represents an additional transaction (which throws money to Wall Street professionals involved), but the point of our question goes to calculating the cost to the public of issuing these additional tax-exempt bonds. It goes to the question of what period two sets of tax-exempt bonds will be outstanding: Both the original bonds and the refunded bonds. This is what we were informed:

The proceeds of the refunding bonds will be held in escrow and invested in defeasance securities to the maturity or earlier optional redemption date of the series of bonds to be refunded. The decision of which series of bonds will be refunded is still being determined by the underwriter. Currently they are planning on defeasing the series 2009-2015 CPI bonds, which all mature prior to 2028. They are also considering defeasing a portion of the term bonds maturing in 2046. Those would be defeased to the optional call date in 2028.

That means that until that optional 2028 call date, there will be two sets of bonds outstanding. In calculating the additional costs to the public bear this in mind: $60 million in refunding bonds, which will be additional bonds simultaneously outstanding for a substantial period of time, should be added to the other $454 million for a total $515 million in additional new bonds.

A New Year’s Revolution List (Starting 2009 Off Clean: Pull the Plug On Atlantic Yards)

It is time to pull the plug on Atlantic Yards, go back to the drawing board and get going with a better designed, fairer, clean-slate project that can proceed faster at less public expense and greater benefit. We’d soon be most of the way there by bidding out a version of the UNITY plan proposal to multiple developers. The proposed Atlantic Yards developer, Forest City Ratner, is clinging to a strangely formulated circumlocution that it is using to string along its investors: That FRC has an “entitlement” to decades of undefined development in the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint. Forest City Ratner’s “entitlement” is a just a made-up term. It stands for nothing legal and, at best, is a claim upon politicians not the public. (Honestly, what more does anyone thinks it means than, "We gave campaign contributions?")

Forest City Ratner never bid to become the developer of Atlantic Yards. Giving a decades-long monopoly on acre upon acres of Brooklyn development to a bankrupt developer with bankrupt ideas who is forever looking for opportunities to raid the public till for additional subsidy is hardly the model we should be following. Forest City Ratner is the same developer who has the twisted notion that its ravaging of Prospect Heights and its environs with blight will strengthen its tenuous chances of being permitted to develop the area. Obviously, Forest City Ratner will be generating more blight until it is extracted out of the picture.

Governor Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg or even the City Council each have the independent ability to initiate the action of extracting Forest City Ratner from the picture. Let’s consider how they are going to do it.

Consider this a wiki-piece. We are throwing out ideas in the list below that consists of various thoughts about ways to terminate Ratner’s “entitlements.” We invite anyone to contribute additional ideas to the list. How good an idea does one need to send Ratner and his “entitlements” packing? It probably won’t take much to bid adieu to Forest City Ratner. Remember that even were Ratner to protest, the courts are going to be sympathetic to the government seeking to follow a good government course of action.

1. Entitlements? Where would they come from? There was no contract to begin with. There is no such thing as a legally enforceable "agreement to agree." A contract has to be reasonably specific from both ends about what is going to be done in order to be enforceable.

2. Next, the project is no longer what was approved. For instance, there should be no obligation to do a $950 million arena when what was approved was a $637.2 million arena.

3. It is easy to simply note that more approvals are needed and that they won't be forthcoming. An example: the Public Authorities Control Board approval taking the arena up to $950 million.

4. Housing subsidies should not be given unless there is a competitive bid for the parcels of project being financed. That knocks Ratner totally out of the box. The housing agencies have not contracted to give (non-bidding) Ratner subsidy and they shouldn’t.

5. Then there are the various breaches on Ratner's part.

6. It is also possible to throw Ratner out based on misrepresentations.

7. If all else fails, terminate and give Ratner damages. The courts will never allow him substantial damages. (Among other things, think back to the misrepresentations and no-bid aspects of his project.)

8. To get out of financing the arena, bond counsel can observe that they don't consider that proper legal opinions can be issued on the bonds. (It could be the current bond counsel or there might even be a reason to switch to bond counsel as a first step, given everything that has gone on with Yankee Stadium and a history of odd real estate assessments on these deals.)

9. Ratner’s so-called “entitlements” can be voided for public policy reasons.

10. Eminent domain could be used to wipe out whatever “rights” Ratner thinks he has.

11. Then there is the simple expedient of just settling the law suits- Why? Because the state knows that there is plenty in its files which would cause the litigation to be lost if it is divulged.

12. Because of various bait and switches, what was contracted for was never properly approved. There are therefore no valid “contracts” because they would all be ultra virus. An ultra vires defense can also be asserted to the extent that authorizing legislation has been exceeded.

13. Recind city and state appropriations. Take advantage of the fact that this project is being done over the course of so many years that appropriations for it can always be recaptured because the City Council and/or the state legislature this year doesn’t have to spend what once upon a time a prior City Council and/or the state legislature decided it wanted to spend.

14. Have the city rezone the entire area for something more appropriate. Override ESDC’s zoning override. (And don’t re-override it back again.)

The above is not intended to be inclusive. Nor have we ordered ideas, putting the best first. Pretty much any one idea would suffice in itself though there is always the option of using ideas in combination. As we said, consider this a wiki-endeavor, so we are soliciting additions.

One place the ideas should be coming from is Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). As has been reported, there was a meeting the beginning of this week where gathered legislators were presented with the status of the dreadful mess that ESDC and Forest City Ratner have made of things. (See: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, Details on AY housing point to 80/20 rentals, not condos, in a smaller Phase and Developer of Atlantic Yards project delays condo plan, by Jotham Sederstrom, Tuesday, December 23rd 2008.)

The way the meeting should have concluded is that ESDC Chairwoman Marisa Lago should have asked the Forest City Ratner people to leave the room and she should have thereupon addressed the assembled legislators to say, “Here are our favored options for terminating our relationship with Forest City Ratner.” If this did not happen, upon Marisa Lago’s initiative, the request for the Forest City Ratner representatives to leave the room should then have come from the legislators present. Our legislators should have then asked Ms. Lago to present the termination options.

If neither of the above happened, each of the legislators involved in the meeting should be contacting Ms. Lago in follow-up, asking for a detailing of the preferred termination options. All it takes to get moving is for people to decide that pulling the plug on Atlantic Yards is what we are going to do and for the government lawyers to get creative because this is the time we are going to do it.

We are happy to add additions from the government lawyers to our wiki-list.

We understand that the legislators who were involved with Monday’s meeting and should be equipped with the identified option to terminate Forest City Ratner are as follows: City Council member (and candidate for City Comptroller) David Yassky, City Council member (and candidate for Public Advocate) Bill deBlasio who sent a represntative, City Council member Tish James, Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke, New York State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, New York State Assembly members James (Jim) F. Brennan, Joan L. Millman, and Hakeem Jeffries.

Let’s see what they can send in to add to our wiki-list.

MAS Prescience on Subject of One Developer: Could Prescience Have Been Greater?

Atlantic Yards Report today has a pickup from our recent Willets Point series, noting the prescience of the Municipal Art Society in advocating the superiority of the multiple-developer model used at Battery Park City and Queens West over the ineffective one-developer model envisioned for the Willets Point megadevelopment. The one-developer model is the same approach that is now failing at Atlantic Yards megadevelopment (Sunday, December 07, 2008, The prescient MAS: "The One-Developer Model has not proven effective").

Abandonment of Public Sector Responsibility and Materializing Risk

The MAS advocacy was in its August 13 comments before the City Planning Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Willets Point. MAS advocates in its comments that megadevelopment should properly be overseen by the public in part because:

By eschewing the public sector’s responsibility to prepare the site and provide the public infrastructure necessary for redevelopment, the City is running the risk that the development at Willets Point, as at Atlantic Yards, will stall indefinitely.

Atlantic Yards Report points out that MAS’s comments were written:

before the suspension of infrastructure work at the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard further stalled the AY project.

Important Question on MAS Prescience

MAS’s indisputable prescience is laudable, but we need to ask one important question. Could MAS have improved upon its prescience? We think the answer is yes.

Support for MAS

We revere MAS. It is as a superb organization and we recommend that people become members and contribute financially to MAS. The organization is indispensable in an era when the Bloomberg administration continually steers the city into indefensible and destructive real estate megadeals. Among other things MAS has provided invaluable forums for discussion about the direction the city is taking in which deep misgivings about all aspects of Atlantic Yards repeatedly become important topics. MAS’s Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York exhibition, series of panels and walking tours are an example the resources they provide. They were part of the inspiration for our Jane Jacobs’ Report Card. (See: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, Jane Jacobs Report Card for Atlantic Yards . . .Megadevelopment Gets an “f”.)

Improving Upon MAS’s Prescience

Here is where MAS’s clear sightedness falls short. We have been urging a mutideveloper model for Atlantic Yards as far back as we can remember and we were very glad to see it is an important part of the proposed alternative Unity Plan. In contradistinction to the UNITY plan, MAS and Brooklyn Speaks, of which it is a part, have been described as having a "mend it don't end it" stance regarding Atlantic Yards. (See: Monday, December 03, 2007, Pragmatism vs. principle: a look at the MAS & Atlantic Yards) What does this mean? The devil is in the details.

"Mend it don't end it"is actually a continuum and a plan like the UNITY plan is not an “end it” plan since it envisions that a project will be built. Perhaps the key difference between the UNITY plan and the Brooklyn Speaks version of "mend it don't end it” is that the UNITY plan has called for a multiple-developer model whereas the “prescient” MAS and Brooklyn Speaks have yet to do so.

March 2008: Multiple Developers; What We Called for

Back in March of this year we said that it was well past time for Brooklyn Speaks to update its negotiating posture in dealing with Atlantic Yards. We said:

Brooklyn Speaks has been ineffectively looking for the compromise of a reduced, better designed project. This goal is somewhat vague and makes the mistake of presuming that Ratner is to be left in place.

* * * *

There cannot be effective negotiation with Ratner if the alternatives are between Ratner Alternative A, Ratner Alternative B, Ratner Alternative C and Ratner Alternative D.

* * * *

Brooklyn Speaks needs to go beyond stating principles. It needs to be setting forth specific definite bottom line requirements that it should pursue in a hard and fast way.

(See: Effective Action Needed From Brooklyn Speaks, BHA, etc. Picked up and posted by No Land Grab, March 19, 2008.)

We set forth enumerated positions that we said Brooklyn Speaks should insist upon as a bottom line in the negotiations, seven in all. Included among them was avoidance of all unnecessary street closings and the creation of additional streets. This would create, as the UNITY plan does, separate parcels that could easily be bid out to multiple developers. Most important, we said that this should be taken advantage of by not continuing to treat the project as a megadevelopment that Forest City Ratner has the right to develop on a no-bid basis. We said:

Do Not Permit Ratner to Use the Megadevelopment as an Excuse or Mechanism to Receive No-bid Subsidy. - - Housing subsidies are scarce and need to be appropriately distributed. Ratner’s project with its super density has been designed with the idea that Ratner will soak up, without having to bid or compete for it, a great deal or all of the subsidies that would normally be available to others. That should not be permitted. Ratner should not be permitted to get any housing subsides on a no-bid basis. Accordingly, the prerequisite should be that Ratner will get no housing subsidies at all unless the various blocks and building sites upon which housing will be built are individually put out to bid. There should simply be no no-bid housing subsidies. That will also eliminate much of the below-market land price subsidy which the MTA is proposed to give Ratner and which would be inappropriate. Any bid that Ratner wins in a fairly conducted process will result in housing subsidy being able to flow to Ratner for that block, if available.

Other Problems With the “One-Developer Model”

“Materialization of the risk that the development at Willets Point, as at Atlantic Yards, will stall indefinitely” is just one reason that the public sector should not eschew its responsibilities by turning all control over to a single developer. Others are:

1. It makes any bid process ineffective which means
a. Higher cost, and
b. Unfair benefits and windfalls to the developer
2. It slows the project down (to the speed of one developer with a guaranteed hold on the project)
3. It creates a developer-driven dynamic where the developer has free rein in designing a project to meet its own goals instead of the public’s. It is not then surprising when the most recognizable characteristics of Atlantic Yards is that its design is intended to be a subsidy-absorbing supersponge with inappropriate eminent-domain-abusing superdensity.

June 2008: Atlantic Yards Governance Bill Emerges and We Again Call for Multiple Developers

In June, a proposed Atlantic Yards Governance Act emerged that was backed by MAS. The proposed legislation should probably be viewed as part of a "mend it don't end it" strategy. Proposed legislation can become anything, but the proposed legislation at the time did not call for a multiple-developer model. (See: Atlantic Yards Report: Friday, June 13, 2008, An AY governance bill emerges, aimed at 2009 and Tuesday, June 17, 2008, Push for AY Development Trust begins; how much power would it have?)

We were critical. In a comment on the first of the two above Atlantic Yards Report stories on the proposed legislation we reiterated among other of our points that Ratner should not “be permitted to use the Megadevelopment as an excuse or mechanism to receive no-bid subsidy, instead, the project” should “be bid out and awarded to multiple developers who could work concurrently to construct it faster and with greater leverage of any public funding provided.” We also wrote:

To be effective, the Atlantic Yards Governance Act (should it be called the Vanderbilt Yards Atlantic Avenue Area Governance Act?) is going to need to provide for a fair amount “back to the drawing board” work otherwise there won’t be principled development, community involvement, a good project, or effective negotiation when it comes to subsidies- The old axiom is that you don’t want to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen- By the same token, we don’t want to appoint a posse whose job it is to sit around on the corral fence rails and admire horse-rustling-thief-Ratner riding off into the sunset.

We followed up in a comment when Atlantic Yards Report was reporting that the Empire State Development Corporation was lobbying for inappropriate stadium subsidy. (See: Monday, June 16, 2008, As IRS moves to close "loophole," ESDC fights for AY funding scheme) We wrote (in part):

I was at the press conference today for the Atlantic Yards Governance Act bill being supported by Assembly members Hakeem Jeffries and Jim Brennan, and City Council members Letitia James and David Yassky as well as the Municipal Art Society and Brooklyn Heights Association. “The Campaign to Reform the Governance of Atlantic Yards.” . . .

The bill could hold some promise.

The watchword phrase of the press conference was that the legislation is desperately needed so that there can be “accountability to the community.”

Accountability to the community cannot be achieved unless the public and its officials have real negotiating power when dealing with Forest City Ratner. . .

We thereupon continued with reasoning that we essentially restated in a comment the following day (in the second of above Atlantic Yards Report stories that ran June 17 the day after the press conference held for the legislation).

Treating Ratner as having a theoretical monopoly on development in the Atlantic yards area makes it virtually impossible to negotiate with him in more ways than one. It facilitates Ratner’s recent bullying threats to leave the public with a Ratner-created-wasteland unless the public antes up more subsidy in an amounts he has not yet even specified. Further, “fundamental” “power dynamics” are also affected by such a “monopoly” because a monopoly precludes other developers becoming part of the dynamics as an economic constituency with whom the public can ally in moving toward better plans and design.

It is of primary importance that Ratner’s theoretical monopoly on development in the area of Atlantic Yards be roundly disavowed. There is no reason to give the idea any credence or legitimacy. This is not an approved project. Subsidies, financing and a multitude of other arrangements for the Ratner vision of Atlantic Yards have never been approved and the Ratner vision also needs to go back to the PACB before it can ever move forward. The Ratner vision is also already a far different project than the Ratner vision that George Pataki tried to ram through in the final days of his administration. Plus, there are many more changes to come beyond Ms. Brooklyn’s recent conversion to the stack of discarded pizza boxes which Gehry now refers to as “Building 1.”

Clear Vision for the Future

Yes, MAS could have been more prescient. Sometimes clairvoyance (from the French meaning "clear" "visibility") is simply a matter of acknowledging to yourself, without censorship, what you already know, and being willing to honestly express it. MAS as part of Brooklyn Speaks could have been insisting from the beginning that Atlantic Yards should not proceed on the basis of a one-developer plan. Having not insisted upon it from the beginning, MAS and Brooklyn Speaks should certainly be empathically insisting upon it now.

Charitable Concluding Thoughts

We noted above that MAS is as a superb organization and we recommend that people become members and contribute financially to MAS. If this holiday season people want to make a gift in the spirit of giving to the general community of the city at large we would suggest they would do excellently by contributing to MAS. We might also suggest that, when they make their gift, they include a note suggesting that MAS, together with Brooklyn Speaks, increase their effectiveness with respect to Atlantic Yards by demanding that Atlantic Yards be bid out to multiple developers. We also suggest that people reserve a large amount of whatever they can give to make a sizable donation to Develop Don’t Destroy which has served the public well by taking very effective action against the project. Develop Don’t Destroy, which is in favor of development, is already opposed to the “one-developer model”so you will not need to include a similar note when you send them funds. (Here is a donation- tax deductible - link for DDDB.)