Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment, a sales and marketing arm of the Barclays Center, today announced that Willis Group Holdings plc, the global insurance broker, has become a major partner of the planned Barclays Center in Brooklyn.
...

As part of its integrated marketing platform within the arena, the Willis brand will be displayed prominently as the exclusive sponsor of the Barclays Center's 38 Loge Boxes. The Willis name also will appear in all marketing and advertising associated with this premium seating, including a significant presence on Barclayscenter.com.
...

"Brooklyn is a great global brand that's reaching new heights with the Barclays Center. The borough has earned a storied place in sports mythology, from the heroics at Ebbets Field to being the birthplace of legends such as Vince Lombardi, Joe Torre and Joe Paterno," said Joe Plumeri, Chairman and CEO of Willis. "Willis helps manage the world's most complex risks, and we look forward to both helping the Barclays Center through its multi-faceted construction process and, when the arena is opened, to working with Mikhail Prokhorov, Bruce Ratner, Brett Yormark, Jay-Z and their team to carry Jackie Robinson's legacy forward and bring a new generation of champions to Brooklyn and New York."

...Would you believe that Russia's second-richest man would be carrying Jackie Robinson's legacy forward?

See Scott Turner's (of Fans for Fair Play) November 2005 takedown of the difference between the Nets and the Dodgers.

Even the Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking at the groundbreaking in March, saw a distinction.

"When I was growing up in Brooklyn, my mother used to tell me about how it made her feel, that she could go to Ebbets Field before I was born, and see Jackie Robinson play. Jackie Robinson was the first black to own--to be able to play in major league baseball. He played his first games right here in Brooklyn and broke the color line in terms of major league baseball players. I'm glad I lived to see the color line in ownership broken in Brooklyn, where we've gone from Jackie to Jay-Z, where we can not only play the game but we can own a piece of the game. So my mother saw Jackie and my daughters will see Jay-Z--we have come a long way."

Members of the public should root for an owner, one who owns a tiny piece of the team?

Sharpton somehow neglected to point out that in June 2006, the majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, announced that Brooklyn-born Michael Jordan would become the second-largest investor--two black men running a basketball team.

Today we have yet another case of Atlantic Yards revisionism and falling down the memory hole (this one particularly surreal) is noted by Norman Oder. It is the third instance in less than three weeks that he has pointed to. This time it is City Planning Deputy Director Sandy Hornick.

Hornick seems to think there was an Atlantic Yards process in which to participate and negotiate and that opponents chose not to participate.

That is utter nonsense.

The opposition studiously participated in the barely existent process (two hearings on the environmental disclosure statement), while Ratner partners and Atlantic Yards proponents studiously disrupted the meager "process" that did take place. The opposition forcfully made the case, over and over, that they wanted a meaningful, democratic process in which to participate—but there simply wasn't one.

That is the original sin of Atlantic Yards. Shame that a city planning official doesn't get that (or know that), even worse that he gets it all backwards.

From Oder's Atlantic Yards Report we post a lengthy excerpt because Hornick's comments are truly staggering and disturbing:

Atlantic Yards down the memory hole, again; DCP official suggests the project was an example of public participation

It was a throwaway moment, almost, at Land Use and Local Voices, a conference July 21 co-sponsored by the Municipal Art Society and Manhattan Community Board 1.

But it was another example of how Atlantic Yards may be falling down the collective memory hole, and how even a top bureaucrat at the Department of City Planning doesn't understand the project, suggesting it as an example of effective public participation for some.
...

During a panel analyzing what's distinct about the city's land use process, moderator Ethel Sheffer, former president of the New York Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association, addressed panelist Sara Logan, Chair, Housing and Land Use Committee, Bronx Community Board 6, a mostly Hispanic area in the central Bronx with a significant fraction of people on public assistance.

How can people participate in the land use process, Sheffer asked, and do they feel burdened by hosting facilities that do serve a citywide purpose?
...

The segue to AY

Next up was Sandy Hornick, Deputy Director for Strategic Planning, NYC Department of City Planning, who said he had two comments. His second acknowledged the difficulty of siting such facilities.

But his first was an odd segue into Atlantic Yards.

"To tie leadership and participation together, I think in a city like New York, effective leadership inevitably means, somehow, bringing in enough of the constituencies to make that leadership effective," he said. "Let's use the example of original Mayor [Richard] Daley in Chicago: we don’t have that kind of concentrated power, and since Robert Moses, we have a conscious design not to let anybody ever get that kind of power again. We spread it out, and the only way to do it is a participatory way, that you build enough constituents that support it."

"And to just use a project that wasn’t really a [Department of] City Planning project, the Atlantic Yards project was extremely controversial-- by the way I live 1000 feet from it and did not work on it," he said.

(Actually, he lives about 1500 feet from it, by my calculation, just a little closer than I do.)

"But the people who did it--there were clearly some constituencies who chose never to participate in the process, to always oppose it," he said, "and there were other constituencies who chose to get something out of the process and may, if [it] really goes forward, may get all those commitments of affordable housing, and so on. But the nature of our process requires participation.
"

What did he say?

Let me try to analyze Hornick's off-the-cuff and not very considered comments.

There were clearly some constituencies who chose never to participate in the process, to always oppose it

What process does he mean? The city's land use process was bypassed. Those who opposed and criticized the project participated very much in the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) review of the project. They filed numerous comments, which were both responded to and ignored.

In fact, they participated in the official process more than did project supporters. The latter simply cheered for the project as it stood, or mutated. The former tried to analyze the impacts.

(As I wrote 9/19/06, the final community forum crystallized into farce, when a job-seeking single mother asked opponents in the audience, “Why are you talking about the environment?” The Sierra Club's Timothy Logan responded, "Because it’s an environmental impact hearing.")

there were other constituencies who chose to get something out of the process

Those constituencies got something out of a process, but it wasn't the process, because the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) resulted from a private agreement between Forest City Ratner and several community groups, most with no track record. That private agreement was concluded before the official ESDC process began, and it was used to justify an override of zoning for the developer.

At a later panel during the July 21 conference, CBAs were roundly criticized.

may get all those commitments of affordable housing

Well, the individuals who supported the affordable housing are, statistically speaking, unlikely to gain access to it, given that a relatively small amount of housing--perhaps half of the subsidized units--that would be affordable to the constituency of ACORN, and housing will be distributed by lottery. (ACORN, of course, would gain institutionally from managing the housing, or the selection process.)

The affordable housing is less a commitment by the developer than a claim on (perhaps) scarce public subsidies to build it.

But the nature of our process requires participation.


OK, but Atlantic Yards wasn't our city process, so there was no opportunity for even truncated participation under the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.

So the three affected Community Boards, which would have had an advisory role under ULURP, were ignored, despite expressions of opposition and concern.

The problem: a fait accompli

I think Hornick's example ran aground when he brought up Daley and Moses. The ESDC process may be closer to that of Daley and Moses than it is to the city process. (Remember, planner Alexander Garvin wrote that the Urban Development Corporation, the ESDC's official identity had "truly amazing powers" when it was approved in 1968.)

Introducing his example, Hornick said:

We spread it out, and the only way to do it is a participatory way, that you build enough constituents that support it.

That's exactly what didn't happen with Atlantic Yards.

It was a done deal from the start. Remember Chris Smith's August 2006 cover story in New York magazine:

Every time I begin to buy into the lyrical people-have-the-power rhetoric of the opposition, to fantasize that Goldstein’s impending eminent-domain lawsuit has a prayer of succeeding, or to get revved up about the density trivia, someone smacks me back into reality. Most recently, it was a prominent Democrat. “In some cases, an army of Davids could take down Goliath,” he said. “But not this one. It’s a fait accompli.”

In City Council hearings, Pinsky lets Atlantic Yards fall down the memory hole, claiming "certain elements" of the project have been accelerated

Atlantic Yards is falling down the memory hole.

In two City Council committee hearings, held in March 18 and May 25, New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYC EDC) President Seth Pinsky made some questionable statements regarding Atlantic Yards, but was not called to account.

• He mischaracterized the timing and size of the city's investment
• He claimed there were new incentives to get the project done on time, but those incentives don't conform to the timetable his agency used to calculate city revenues
  
• He made new claims about the total of city spending on Atlantic Yards, but hasn't provided full details
  
• He cited, but didn't at the time provide, a new cost-benefit analysis that seems dubious under scrutiny, given that it presumes a both a full buildout and one accomplished in ten years
• He didn't point out that the city's new analysis represents a 20% decline in city revenue (though, likely, it's merely a more honest calculation than its predecessor because it incorporates certain costs)
  

Pinsky has a lot on his plate, so maybe he can't be expected to get everything right. But if he gets it wrong, why do all the errors come in defense of the project?

More scrutiny needed

That's an argument for an oversight hearing, as new City Council Member Brad Lander and veteran Letitia James have requested.

"It is the largest project in Brooklyn, and will have a massive impact on the neighborhoods around it," Lander said. "There are many unanswered questions, both about the project itself, and about a wide range of City services (transportation, public safety, affordable housing, public schools, open space, etc). Tish [James] and I have made repeated requests for such a hearing, and we will keep pushing for it."
...

Doctoroff posits justification for Atlantic Yards: Downtown Brooklyn “needed more of a center” (but there was no plan until FCR stepped forward)

Former Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Dan Doctoroff has to be feeling pretty good. He didn't bring the Olympics to New York, and that smarts, and he couldn't get the West Side Stadium passed.

But he got most of the Bloomberg administration's ambitious land use agenda passed during his six-year tenure, which ended in 2007.

Now, in his genial, confident way, Doctoroff can look back and contend, as he has before, that he managed to thread the needle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses, to get projects passed with sufficient public input and without much displacement, to make omelets (in Moses's famous formulation) but without breaking eggs.

And if he's not challenged--as he was back in 2007 by Majora Carter, then of Sustainable South Bronx--he just might get away with it. Doctoroff had said, as he's said since, that he and the administration had gotten better at listening.

Carter said they hadn't done enough, that they had to "really, really listen." She added, "The interesting thing about listening is you have to do it openly and not have a predetermined idea set.”

And Doctoroff might get away with claiming, as he did last week, that Atlantic Yards was primarily a product of city guidance, rather than a project presented by a developer with good connections.

...

“There are some places where things are big,” so as a result the weight of the project falls on a community, he said in response to his interlocutor.

“Would you say Atlantic Yards is such case?” Goldberger asked, diplomatically leading the discussion.

Doctoroff paused to get his bearings. (The video should be available on Urban Omnibus next week.)

“We had a view about Downtown Brooklyn, which was we needed to have an alternative to New Jersey,” Doctoroff replied, evading the question a bit. “If you look at what happened in the 1990s, and look at office space New York lost to New Jersey… in part because we did not have a modestly priced office market. The obvious alternative was Downtown Brooklyn…”

That’s true, and that’s why the city rezoned Downtown Brooklyn. That rezoning that did not include Atlantic Yards and it turned out to have missed the market, given that it became far more lucrative for developers to build condos (and without any reciprocal obligation to build affordable housing).

“But it lacked a series of amenities,” Doctoroff continued. “It lacked parkland.. Brooklyn Bridge Park. It lacked housing… It lacked retail, it lacked hotel, it lacked zoned office space… We thought it also actually needed more of a center, more of a draw, to make it more appealing, and that was the reason for Atlantic Yards… and therefore Atlantic Yards and Downtown Brooklyn had a purpose for the city, from a strategic perspective, that was much bigger than immediate community.. I said publicly in retrospect, rather than going through state process [for Atlantic Yards], we probably should have gone through ULURP.. I think at end of day things wouldn’t have been different, but plans might have been modestly different.”

He’s right that the city would’ve rolled over Council Member Letitia James, but she and the local Community Boards would’ve been heard.

But let's check some facts. Atlantic Yards wasn’t designed as a draw to make Downtown Brooklyn more appealing, since Atlantic Yards doesn’t even fit on the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership’s map–it’s off to the southeast, with the site in Prospect Heights.

Rather than act proactively, the city acceded to Forest City Ratner’s plan.

“We didn’t decide to take a look at the yards,” said Winston Von Engel, Deputy Director of the Brooklyn office of the Department of City Planning, in March 2006. “They belong to the Long Island Rail Road. They use them heavily. They’re critical to their operations. You do things in a step-by-step process. We concentrated on the Downtown Brooklyn development plan for Downtown Brooklyn. Forest City Ratner owns property across the way. And they saw the yards, and looked at those. We had not been considering the yards directly.”

Or consider that the proactive posture that characterized Doctoroff’s work doesn't apply to AY. Andrew Alper, then president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, testified at the 5/4/04 City Council hearing that “they came to us, we did not come to them. And it is not really up to us then to go out and try to find a better deal.”

...

There's no doubt that the addition of Mikhail Prokhorov to the roll call of team owners makes the American sports landscape a more interesting one. We're starting to have some second thoughts about how much he means any of the things he says, however.

Case in point is an interview that Prokhorov gave to Nets Daily on Monday while he was flitting through the sky on his Gulfstream. The first question had to do with the departure of team president and general manager Rod Thorn and the search for a replacement who would help the Nets fulfill Prokhorov's promise of a championship within five years. The owner professed to be in no rush to hire a new man because, as a new owner, "I need to touch and smell everything myself and this takes some time."…

That doesn't mean Nets games aren't going to be more fun this season. Here's Prokhorov on what the team's got planned to keep fans entertained when they head out to Newark:

"We’re looking at hiring the Red Army choir to perform at half-time along with Russia’s top dancing bear collective.  Not to mention the Russian spies recently sent back to Moscow. We will be organizing their comeback tour to Newark.   I’m sure it will be a great hit."

Virtually ignored by the Charter Commission report: a strong mayor, weak Borough Presidents, and the fact that there's "no real local government"
Atlantic Yards Report

The news from the city's Charter Revision Commission is that a vote on term limits (and maybe Instant Runoff Voting) are apparently on the agenda, but more substantive change, regarding issues like more public input into land use and expanded power of Borough Presidents, is not.

That's plausible, given the tight schedule to get measures on the November ballot, but the commission's staff report was dismissively brief, ignoring many legitimate criticisms posed by the Borough Presidents and others.

As the Staten Island Advance reported yesterday, that ticked off one Commission member:

"The fact the conversation on borough presidents and community boards warrants maybe two paragraphs, to me is utterly disrespectful to the communities," said Carlo A. Scissura, who is chief of staff to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.

The fundamental problem

The failure to address the BPs' concerns reflects a larger issue, one that doesn't get traction in the Commission report, and one that explains the hundred successful rezonings under Mayor Mike Bloomberg and his ability to get agencies to march in lockstep to support projects like Atlantic Yards.

"The fundamental principle in this city is that there’s no real local government," suggested Gerald Benjamin, a professor at SUNY New Paltz, speaking at a June 10 hearing of the Commission. So "trapping the discourse as to whether the Borough President should have a guaranteed budget… drives discussion to margin rather than core."

That, to City Pragmatist blogger Alvin Berk, chairman of Brooklyn Community Board 14, was exactly the wrong thing. He wrote:

Benjamin, comparing NYC with other cities, observed that “the fundamental principle in this city is that there’s no real local government,” and then gave the 2010 commission an excuse to avoid this issue by commenting that its time frame forces it to “trap the discourse” at the marginal level of deciding whether borough presidents’ budgets should be formulaic, instead of considering what their duties and powers should be.

What next?

City Limits reported:

Adam Friedman, the executive director of the Pratt Center for Community Development, which has recommended comprehensive changes to the city's land use process, says he is "cautiously optimistic" that the panel might pursue a wider agenda than the staff has recommended.

"The dilemma everyone faces is that, yes, it is very complex. There's something about the commission process that makes it very hard to deal with complex issues," he says. But if the current panel has too little time, Friedman says, it's important not to waste time starting the next one. "If it's too complex to get onto the [November] ballot, you have to start right away on the 15-month process of hearings" for the next commission, he says. The current commission, or a new one, must be reappointed to begin that process.

...

Markowitz's take

Markowitz, in his April 20 testimony, also asked for broader powers for the BPs including formula-based yearly budgets for borough presidents, public advocate and community boards; a determination, not recommendation, in ULURP, requiring a CPC and City Council supermajority for an override; and “advice and consent” role in the appointment of borough commissioners of mayoral agencies; and a consistent budget for community boards.

As he testified:

So when it comes to things like land use, economic development, affordable housing, and ensuring equitable distribution of city resources, Borough Presidents are truly the only elected officials charged with considering the needs of each borough as a whole.

We are elected with more votes than any office other than the three citywide offices in this city (and sometimes, we even get more votes than those running for citywide offices do in our boroughs!). These voters elect us expecting that we have the power to help them — to be ombudsmen, ambassadors, and most importantly, to be a voice independent of city council and city hall. They look to us as the “chief executive” of the borough, with the power to plan and implement and truly fight for their interests.

Consider this: Brooklyn is home to 2.6 million residents. If it were its own city, it would be the fourth largest “city” in the United States. As it stands, I absolutely view my office as the “nerve center” of Brooklyn, and I leverage our land use powers and capital budget, as well as the power of the press and “bully pulpit,” to forge partnerships that result in economic development and more responsive, better city services. And of course, to make sure Brooklyn always gets its fair share.

Some might say I’ve been effective (well, those who like what I’ve done), but frankly, to truly be effective — to be able to do what voters entrust us to do, to be the independent voice and essential “checks and balances” in a “strong mayor” system — the position of borough president must be enhanced, with a stronger voice on land use issues, a more robust executive role with regard to borough commissioners and agencies, and an independent budget determined by formula — not, as it now is, by the subjective yearly decisions of the City Council and the Mayor.

...

Unelected government

Only late in the hearing did a former Staten Island Council Candidate, John Tabacco, bring home some oddities in the discussion.

"It’s odd that tonight’s panel would be to talk about structure, because, when you look at the political landscape.. there seems to be no structure these days,” he said. “When you look at New York state, we have an unelected governor, we have an unelected comptroller, we have an unelected lieutenant governor, we have an unelected senator, and many would argue that we have a mayor who was not legally elected." (Emphasis added.)

That comment, as with Benjamin's observation that "there’s no real local government," lingers out there for any student of democracy as practiced in this city and state.

Yancey Strickler and Perry Chen's Kickstarter.com, the innovative startup that allows anyone and everyone to help back a creative idea through micro-funding, is now celebrating a selection of its successful film projects with the Kickstarter Film Festival.

The shindig, held in collaboration with Rooftop Films, will screen 90 minutes of 12 films. Narrowing it down, Stickler told us via-email, was tough.

"We've had well over 5,000 projects on Kickstarter at this point, so there was a lot to choose from," Strickler said. "The festival lineup is weighed towards early favorites. Many of these are some of the earliest Kickstarter projects, some of the first to stun us with their passion and creativity."

The chosen few include stop-motion film Little Brass Bird by way of Chicago, Battle of Brooklyn, about a Brooklyn neighborhood's resistance to the Atlantic Yards development project, and the extended trailer for The Woods, Matthew Lessner's Lord of the Flies take on the digital age. Some will be shown in their entirety, but most of the screenings are extended introductions at four to twenty minutes long.


... Presale sold out, and though additional tickets will be for sale at the door, we suggest you get there early. And don't head out before the afterparty.

Old American Can Factory, 232 3rd St., Gowanus, Brooklyn, (718) 237-4335. Friday, July 9. Doors 8 P.M. Films 9 P.M. Afterparty 11:30 P.M. $10.

MTA sells off subway name rights for cheap
Metro NY by Carly Baldwin

What a deal! Developer Forest City Ratner is only paying the MTA $4 million to add the Barclays Center name to the Atlantic Terminal station for 20 years.

It’s a bargain compared to the $5.4 million AT&T will pay to turn Philadelphia’s Pattison Avenue SEPTA station into the AT&T station for five years.

“The MTA doesn’t seem to drive a hard bargain,” said Daniel Goldstein of Develop, Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, an opponent of the arena. “Barclays is getting their name spread across the subway system and to get only $200,000 a year out of it is offensive.”

Atlantic Terminal will be a gateway to the Barclays Center, future home of the Nets. SEPTA is renaming a station entirely after a corporation, said an MTA spokesperson, while the MTA will merely tack Barclays name onto the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. station in 2012.

Barclays hasn’t said what it is paying the Nets — hundreds of millions, according to reports — for naming rights to the sports complex. But Forest City Ratner, on behalf of Barclays, will only give the cash-strapped MTA $200,000 each year.

“They should have gotten more money for what they’re doing,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign.

Ratner: Vandeweghe deserved better
ESPN The Magazine
by Ric Bucher

Bruce Ratner is shedding a few crocodile tears over the team's dismissal of Kiki Vandeweghe.

Bruce Ratner remains a minority partner in the New Jersey Nets, so he's not at liberty to question the decisions made by the team's new majority owner, Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. But if there's one consequence of the new regime's attempt to distance itself from last season's nearly historic -- as in historically bad --12-70 record that bothers him, it's how assistant general manager Kiki Vandeweghe was sent packing.

Enough so that Ratner's conscience apparently compelled him to speak out about it. Especially now that team president Rod Thorn is stepping aside as well and the team is in search of new leadership altogether.

"He didn't go out the way he should have," Ratner said now of Vandeweghe. "The team is in a really good position and he was instrumental in putting it there."

Ratner's conscience? We wonder if Bruce also feels that Daniel Goldstein "didn't go out the way he should have."

That said, Ratner doesn't see the Nets bringing Vandeweghe back. His gratitude for Vandeweghe's work and guilt over how he was dismissed stops short of going to bat for him.

"It's Mikhail's team now and he wants to put his stamp on it," Ratner says. "I can understand that."

article

NoLandGrab: You're a stand-up guy, Bruce. Maybe if you hadn't been desperate for Proky's cash to keep your crooked Atlantic Yards deal afloat, Kiki would still have a job. But that's not how it went down. So shut up already.

State Comptroller's audit slams MTA's real estate stewardship, omits Vanderbilt Yard; MTA claims success in AY deal, Barclays station naming rights
Atlantic Yards Report

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, in an audit report [PDF] issued yesterday, slammed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) stewardship of its real state portfolio, including the failure to claim what the New York Post termed "a whopping $9 million in back rent" from commercial tenants and the failure to sell $12 million worth of air rights.

Curiously enough, the audit (embedded below) omits any mention of the controversial 2005 deal to sell the Vanderbilt Yard to Forest City Ratner, which had such an inside track all but one other bidder was deterred (though that bidder offered more in cash).

Nor is there mention of renegotiation of the Vanderbilt Yard deal in 2009, with the MTA leaving $80 million of the originally pledged $100 million to instead be paid over 22 years, and accepting a replacement railyard smaller than promised and worth $100 million less.

(Could there be any connection to a campaign contribution from Bruce Ratner to DiNapoli?)
...

Full article

Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov recently completed his first Manhattan property deal since becoming owner of the New Jersey Nets, taking office space in the Seagram Building on Park Avenue.

His private investment firm, the Moscow-based Onexim Group, has agreed to lease about 2,500 square feet on the 26th floor of the famous building designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson, said a person familiar with the matter.

Mr. Prokhorov plans to use the space as his business office when he's in town and it will serve as an office for the Nets basketball team, this person said.

article

NoLandGrab: Surely that can't be right. The owner of the future Brooklyn Nets would want to have his office in Brooklyn, wouldn't he? Maybe in the flagship new Atlantic Yards office tower that Bruce Ratner will start building any day now. Oh, wait...

Crain's NY Business, NYC office construction at near standstill

Building starts in first four months of 2010 fall to lowest level in years, with 99% of the work coming in alterations and renovations.

New York City office construction is at a virtual standstill, according to the New York Building Congress, a nonprofit group that represents the construction industry. However, there are signs of a possible recovery in coming years.

According to the group's review of multiple data sources, the value of office construction starts sank to a mere $163 million in the first four months of 2010. At that pace, the value of starts for the year as a whole would come to just $489 million, compared with $2.6 billion in 2009 and $1.3 billion in 2008.
...

Currently, the majority of office construction work is in the alterations and renovations category, rather than new ground-up construction. For the first four months of 2010, alterations accounted for more than 99% of all construction starts as measured by value—$162.3 million, versus $700,000 in new construction. In 2009, alterations accounted for $1.7 billion of the $2.6 billion in office starts.

While the data doesn't suggest an imminent turnaround, a review of historical construction data, as well as recent employment and leasing trends, suggest that the office market outlook will be one of gradual absorption of available space, potentially followed by renewed expansion, for the next few years.

NLG: But let's not let this news stop the Empire State Development Corporation from claiming the full Atlantic Yards project will be completely built in 10 years.

Is ten-year AY schedule reasonable? Judge puts ESDC on the defensive as Development Agreement is scrutinized in 75-minute reargument

In an unusual reargument of a case that was argued January 19 and decided March 10, a lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) was put on the defensive yesterday, forced to acknowledge that there are far fewer penalties for delays in completing the Atlantic Yards project as a whole than those for the first phase, which includes the arena and three towers.

Will it make a difference? It’s hard to predict a yes, given that courts generally defer to agencies like the ESDC.

But the fact of the reargument itself--and the uncomfortable facts in the belatedly-released Atlantic Yards Development Agreement--suggest that, at the least, New York County Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman will chastise the agency, if not order a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) or otherwise throw a wrench into the project.

After all, in her March 10 ruling Friedman criticized the ESDC’s “deplorable lack of transparency” and acknowledged that the ESDC’s use of a ten-year timeframe for the project buildout in the Modified General Project Plan (MGPP) was supported “only minimally.”

The MGPP, approved last September, was amplified and modified by the Development Agreement, signed in December but released in January. And yesterday Friedman steadily put ESDC lawyer Philip Karmel through a careful cross-examination.

75-minute hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Friedman said she’d allow only 40 minutes of argument, but she spent 75 minutes listening to and questioning Karmel and lawyers for two groups of community petitioners. The latter had asked her to reconsider the ruling that the project's ten-year timeline was legitimate and that an SEIS was not necessary.

Key to the motion for reargument is the Development Agreement, which was not released until about a week after the oral argument in January--despite a pledge to release it earlier--and which Friedman had refused to add to the case.

Though Atlantic Yards may seem like a done deal--eminent domain was approved months ago and (perhaps not coincidentally) Forest City Ratner announced yesterday that concrete had been poured for the Atlantic Yards arena--attorneys for the ESDC and FCR evinced some tension, a sign that the courts remain a wild card.
...

An interview with Jeff Baker

After the hearing, I interviewed Jeff Baker, attorney for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and allied groups. He explained his contention that there are no significant damages for delays.

As for the general clause that the ESDC claims could impose penalties up to $10,000 a day Baker said that "only would apply to the section that they have to use commercially reasonable efforts. So it stretches the imagination to believe that ESDC at any point in the relatively near future could bring an action and say you’re not using commercially reasonable efforts."

Beyond that, he noted, "it is a minor amount of penalties, in comparison to the size of the project, and the size of the liquidated damages provision, which apply to Phase 1."

As for the claim that no SEIS is necessary, Baker noted that the ESDC's Technical Memorandum "only looked at a few year delay." (It was five years.) "It did not into account the blighting impacts [of a delayed project]... You can’t say they took a hard look at the issues, when they didn’t identify the issue.... and then finally, they didn’t consider the fact that, are they really alleviating blight?"

What happens if the petitioners are successful? "If she does that, she annuls the resolution, the question is, what happens in the meantime if they go back to reconsider it?" Baker said in the interview, musing aloud. "Might they have a legal basis to claim that the arena can go forward, that Phase 1 can go forward?... All the determinations by ESDC based on the purported benefits of this project were for the whole thing. They never divided this project and said, we’ll just do an arena."

"We’re encouraged that she granted us this hearing," he said. "Obviously the judge had concerns the Development Agreement does not on its face provide the assurances that she was led to believe were there. We’re cautiously optimistic that she’ll agree that... she felt they barely met the legal standard before--they’ve now lost one of the legs of their argument--and now it’s not enough."

Leading off

Baker, leading off in court, reminded Friedman that she based her ruling on three separate factors: a study of the housing market by the consultant KPMG, the financial incentives for Forest City Ratner to recoup its investments, and the ESDC’s assurances that the Development Agreement would enforce “commercially reasonable” efforts to move forward.

The Development Agreement, actually, had been signed but not released, and that’s what Baker concentrated on. An attorney based in Albany, Baker’s short with a close-cropped beard and a deep-voiced delivery, a welterweight who, yesterday at least, threw consistent punches.

Phase 1 vs. Phase 2

For the purposes of the hearing, Baker said he’d concede that there are a variety of incentives to complete the arena and three towers of Phase 1, though FCR has 12 years--an outside date that, in itself, casts doubt on the ten-year timetable. “For Phase 2, there are no assurances,” he said.

(Baker did not mention what I consider to be powerful evidence of the ESDC’s obfuscation. While the MGPP included no timetable for the third tower in Phase 1, just "on or before a date certain," the Development Agreement says the third building doesn't have to start for ten years.)

He explained that, under Section 17.1 of the Development Agreement, there are various events of default that trigger “meaningful damages.”

But the developer has 15 years to begin construction of the platform over the Vanderbilt Yard, he said, and faces “no meaningful penalty” other than being unable to proceed with the rest of the project.

Similarly, if the project’s not completed in 25 years, then it can be terminated, without any financial penalties. Even with that, Baker noted, the ESDC has two years to serve the notice of termination.

He also noted that “abandonment” of the project is defined only as abandonment of Phase 1.

Friedman asked about the specific penalties in 17.2(a)(x)--from $1000 to $10,000 a day for default. Baker said it was a “general, catch-all” clause that did not apply to sections where damages and timetables were delineated. “Specific provisions in the contract trump a general term,” he said.

“This agreement flies in the face” of the statement that they expected to require commercially reasonable efforts to complete the project in ten years, he said.

FCR economics

“The whole deal is structured to allow Forest City Ratner to recoup its financial investment in Phase 1,” Baker said, noting that condemnation of the site, once planned in one phase, has been segmented into multiple phases.

Friedman asked him to explain the basis of his statement.

Baker said it was a common-sense analysis of the document. Given that there are no financial penalities for Phase 2, he said, “all they do is lose the right to develop the project.”

“Is it your position that there are no penalities in the Development Agreement if the project is terminated by ESDC?” Friedman asked.

“If it’s terminated after Phase 1, I don’t think so,” Baker replied.
...

Judge drills down

“Now it is true,” Karmel allowed, “that the Development Agreement does contain outside dates” that are considerably extended beyond the official timetable.

After Friedman queried him about the project effective date--when Phase 1 properties are cleared, which should be July 31--she drilled down, putting Karmel on the defensive.

“Do you take the position that there are any liquidated damages either for failure to commence Phase 2 work by the dates provided or the failure to complete Phase 2 by the outside Phase 2 complete date?” Friedman asked.

“Yes, Your Honor,” Karmel responded, his tone becoming more deferential. He cited the sections in 17.1 and 17.2, indicating the potential for penalties of $1000 to $10,000 a day.

“Is this the only provision that covers Phase 2 events of default?” asked the judge.

“It is the only provision relevant to liquidated damages,” Karmel responded.

Are there any other events of default regarding Phase 2 outside 17.1(m), Friedman asked.

“I don’t believe so, Your Honor,” Karmel responded.

She pointed to 17.2(a)(ii), which specifies liquidated damages. “It does not cover 17.1(m), correct?” she asked.

“That is correct, Your Honor,” Karmel responded.

Are there any other provisions in the Development Agreement that provide liquidated damages with respect to Phase 2, she asked

“Yes, Your Honor,” Karmel responded, pointing to 17.2(a)(vi).

“This is termination, not liquidated damages, correct?” Friedman asked.

“Yes,” responded Karmel.

“You agree with Mr. Baker, that with respect to default, termination is a penalty?” Friedman asked.

“It’s one,” Karmel said.

What else?

He pointed to the catch-all clause under 17.2(a)(x), which sets the potential for penalties of $1000 to $10,000 a day if Forest City Ratner does not use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the project.

“Are you also claiming that 17.2(a)(x) covers default under 17.1(m) with respect to Phase 2 work?” Friedman asked.

“I think it would depend on circumstances,” Karmel said, suggesting such penalties might kick in if Forest City Ratner walked away from the project or failed to try to complete it. But if the developer was using commercially reasonable efforts but falling behind, that would not be subject to penalties.

(Given that the Development Agreement allows delays for subsidy and market financing unavailability, that seems to be a lot of wiggle room.)

Friedman asked about the $1000 a day penalty under 17.2(a)(x).

“$10,000 a day is the basic penalty,” Karmel responded, but can go down to $1000 a day “if the default is trivial.”

If Forest City Ratner has walked away, and thus had “a material adverse effect on the value of or the use of the Project Site”--language in the Development Agreement--it would be $10,000 a day.

Friedman asked how that might work.

“It depends on facts and circumstance,” Karmel said, adding that “ESDC is closely monitoring the project,” a statement that drew some raised eyebrows from those in attendance.

He insisted that the outside dates were independent of the requirement that commercially reasonable efforts be used. And, he noted that, beyond the penalties, ESDC could go to court to obtain other relief, such as specific performance in the contract.

What the ESDC knew

Friedman asked what exactly the ESDC board knew when it voted last September. Did the MGPP mention the Development Agreement?

No, said Karmel, indicating that it did include the project lease abstracts, which gave up to 25 years to build and thus match up with the Development Agreement.

Friedman rubbed her eyes.

“So, what we have, in the Development Agreement, from a contractual standpoint,” Karmel said, “is a schedule and outside dates.”
...

Blight and remedies

Moreover, Baker said, the extended timetable calls into doubt one of the fundamental justifications for the project--the elimination of blight--given the continuation of interim surface parking and construction staging over what could be 25 years.

As for Braun’s statement that the project is already moving ahead, Baker said most of the investments are for general utility work, or could be used for a revised project, one that is smaller and does not have as many community impacts.

(The irony is that Forest City Ratner got the project approved based on a certain size that projected affordable housing and tax revenue, but already has permission to build a smaller project.)

Should Friedman rule for the petitioners, he said, she should hold another hearing on what work should be enjoined, whether it be the arena or Phase 1.

“The fact that they purchased steel is not a vested rights claim,” he said.

And that was it.

Bottom line

Give Friedman a few weeks or months to decide.

As I wrote in May, Friedman, in her earlier ruling, said the horse had essentially left the barn, and that any relief regarding Atlantic Yards should rest with the political process.

So it's doubtful she's going to stop the arena. And an SEIS is an open question. But it's not unlikely she'll have something to say about the Development Agreement.

"Under the limited standard of SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review, the court is constrained to hold that ESDC's elaboration of its reasons for using the 10 year build-out was supported — albeit, in this court's opinion, only minimally — by the factors articulated by ESDC." (Emphasis added.)

The Court had no choice but to ignore the crucial Development Agreement documents that prove the project would take at least 25 years, because the ESDC had not made the agreement part of the public record, and had not accurately reflected the elements of that agreement.

If, as the Court ruled, the ESDC's rationale was "only minimally" supported before, it would seem that that minimal support erodes entirely due to the facts subsequently revealed in the Atlantic Yards Development Agreement.

What is the significance of this case and the possible outcomes? Please read more from Norman Oder on his Atlantic Yards Report. Oder writes:

...Given general judicial deference to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and other agencies, it's a long shot to expect a ruling in favor of the petitioners, community groups organized by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and BrooklynSpeaks.

However, the petitioners have some inconvenient facts to air in court regarding the dubiousness of the official ten-year project timeline.

If the case is successful, it could severely slow the project--at least the non-arena portion--by requiring new analyses of the project's environmental impact...

Brooklyn pastor, congregation protest at Garden, ask NBA to fully vet Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov
NY Daily News by Matt Gagne

Pastor Clinton Miller of the Brown Memorial Baptist Church in Brooklyn and dozens of congregation members protested in front of the Garden Thursday afternoon to express their disappointment in the NBA's appointment of Mikhail Prokhorov as the Nets' majority owner.

Wearing a grey pinstriped suit with a gold tie, Miller drew the attention of bystanders and passersby on the corner of 33rd St. and 7th Ave. as he called for the league to investigate the business dealings of Prokhorov, the Russian billionaire who has stirred controversy for his alleged ties to Zimbabwe's repressive government.
...

"We're not here to say he shouldn't be the owner of the Nets," said Miller, who added that he hoped Thursday's protest would lead to a meeting with Stern. "We seek clarification and clarity on the business ties of Mikhail Prokhorov and his connections to Zimbabwe. If we don't get clarification, who can outwardly support an NBA franchise that comes to our borough?"

And

Atlantic Yards Under Construction, Brooklynites Attack Nets Owner
NY Observer

As NBA fans lined up in anticipation of the NBA Draft Thursday night, Rev. Clinton Miller spoke to a small crowd about what he called the NBA's "double standard" for owners and players and how a company that Mr. Prokhorov partially owns has alleged ties to Zimbabwe, a country the U.S. holds sanctions against.

Some of those gathered held signs with slogans like "NBA DAVID, GET STERN WITH THE OWNERS" and "DID THE NBA REALLY VET THE NET(s)?"
...

Attending the protest was Daniel Goldstein, the longtime holdout who lived in the Nets arena footprint until he finally sold his apartment to arena developer Bruce Ratner earlier this year.

"I think that the NBA is playing with fire in that they looked the other way and didn't fully investigate Prokhorov because they are desperate for the money he is bringing to the Nets and I think it's going to burn them in the end," Mr. Goldstein told the Observer at the protest.

Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov was in the country yesterday, but not in the area: He accompanied Russian president Dmitri Medvedev to Washington, met briefly with Barack Obama, and attended the U.S. Chamber of Commerce symposium held a block away from the White House.

Court of Appeals, citing precedent in Atlantic Yards case, overturns lower court ruling blocking eminent domain for Columbia expansion

In less than four weeks after a contentious oral argument, the state Court of Appeals brought an unsurprising end to the Cinderella story that was the Columbia University eminent domain case, ruling unanimously--though with a very reluctant concurrence--that the courts should defer to the Empire State Development Corporation in its finding of blight.

As I reported after watching the oral argument in Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp., the judges--including Atlantic Yards dissenter Robert Smith--felt bound by their decision in the Atlantic Yards case last November, a decision that was glaringly ignored by the two-judge plurality who shortly afterward ruled against the ESDC in the Columbia case.

Wrote Smith:

I concur in the result on constraint of Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. The finding of "blight" in this case seems to me strained and pretextual, but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein. Accepting Goldstein as I must, I agree in substance with all but section VI of the majority opinion.

The decision, I wrote, would hinge on how seriously the court took allegations of bad faith by the ESDC and biased methodology by its consultants. Answer: not much.

The court ignored a memo from an ESDC lawyer, as cited by property owners' attorney Norman Siegel, that stated, We are going to manufacture support for condemnation.

Nor did the court look at Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, which set out guidelines--such as when a sweetheart deal was indicated--for when courts should apply greater scrutiny.

Appeal coming

According to the Observer, Nick Sprayregen, who owns Tuck-It-Away storage company and has spent more than $2 million on legal cases--more than twice as much as has been spent in the Atlantic Yards cases--vowed to appeal.

"This decision, if not overturned, will allow eminent domain abuse in New York to become even worse than it is now," he wrote. "In effect, this court is sending a clear signal that a blight designation, even is caused by the very developer seeking the use of eminent domain, is acceptable."

Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ), stated, “The sad truth is that, in New York, the government not only can hand your property over to private developers for no better reason than that it likes them more than it likes you, but it does so on an alarmingly regular basis.”

The IJ, which brought the controversial Kelo v. New London case to the Supreme Court in 2005, this week singled out the Goldstein case and New York as outliers in the national trend to tighten eminent domain laws.

Variable coverage

The oral argument in the case got little coverage.

Today, among articles I checked, only the Associated Press's Michael Virtanen, WNYC's Matthew Schuerman, and New York Observer's Eliot Brown got it right, explaining that Smith's concurrence was compelled by the decision he disagreed with in the Atlantic Yards case.

The New York Times reported simply that "Smith agreed that the state had the power to decide what constituted blight." The New York Law Journal similarly reported that Smith "agreed with all of the Court's ruling except the part" regarding a civic project.

Crain's New York Business ignored Smith's concurrence.

A mistaken AY mention

The opinion of the court, written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, contained a erroneous reference to the AY case:

Most recently, in determining that the area in downtown Brooklyn, known as the Atlantic Yards, was blighted, ESDC relied upon an AKRF neighborhood conditions study (see Matter of Goldstein, 13 NY3d at 518).

It's not downtown, and it's not known as "the Atlantic Yards." But Forest City Ratner's clever branding, teamed with shorthand, leads to errors.

Fundamental deference to ESDC

Wrote Ciparick:

In Matter of Goldstein, we reaffirmed the longstanding doctrine that the role of the Judiciary is limited in reviewing findings of blight in eminent domain proceedings (see id. At 526). Because the determinations of blight and public purpose are the province of the Legislature, and are entitled to deference by the Judiciary...

Here, the two reports prepared by ESDC consultants -- consisting of a voluminous compilation of documents and photographs of property conditions -- arrive at the conclusion that the area of the Project site is blighted. Just as in Matter of Goldstein, "all that is at issue is a reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the area in question is in fact substandard and insanitary," which is "not a sufficient predicate . . . to supplant [ESDC's] determination" (13 NY3d at 528).

Blight standards too vague?

Ciparick also dismissed a challenge to the state's blight standards:

In addition to attacking the neighborhood blight studies and ESDC's determination based on those studies, petitioners also challenge the constitutionality of the statutory term "substandard or insanitary area" (see Uncons Laws §§ 6253 [12] and 6260 [c] [1]). They argue that we should find this term void for vagueness. This contention is likewise unpersuasive.

Not only has this Court, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that blight is an elastic concept that does not call for an inflexible, one-size-fits-all definition (see Berman v Parker, [1954]). Rather, blight or "substandard or insanitary areas," as we held in Matter of Goldstein and Yonkers Community Dev. Agency, must be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, because the UDC Act provides adequate meaning to the term "substandard or insanitary area," we reject petitioners' argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

...Continue reading.

...Judge Robert S. Smith said he agreed with all of the Court's ruling except the part explicitly extending eminent domain consideration to most, if not all, educational and recreational projects.

"Surely this approach will, in some imaginable cases, cause the statute to be unconstitutional as applied: would anyone seriously suggest, for example, that private tennis camps or karate schools ('educational' uses), or private casinos or adult video stores ('recreational' uses), qualify as 'public' uses in the constitutional sense?" Judge Smith wrote in a brief concurring opinion.

New York’s Eminent Domain “Blight” Grows
JONATHAN TOBIN. Commentary Magazine

The ruling of New York’s Court of Appeals — the state’s highest judicial body — in favor of Columbia University’s bid to have the property of landowners who will not sell their land to the institution condemned is another depressing chapter in the sorry history of the corruption of the use of eminent domain.
...

Referring to another eminent-domain case in which the Court had recently ruled in favor of the effort to bulldoze businesses and apartments in order to make way for a new basketball arena and other real-estate projects in the Atlantic Yards section of Brooklyn, the decision, which was written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, claimed that “if we could rule in favor of a basketball arena, surely we could rule for a nonprofit university.”

But in making this point, Judge Ciparick revealed that what is on display in this decision is not the application of a coherent legal principle but rather merely the justification of an act of judicial tyranny. In this way, New York has ratified a procedure by which the powerful, be they the real-estate developers who own the NBA Nets or the trustees of one of America’s most prestigious universities, can simply force small property owners out of their businesses and homes for the sake of the convenience of the wealthy and of those who are better connected to power brokers. This means that the state has the power to label any property as “blighted” in order to create a legal fiction device that allows powerful interests to acquire it without the consent of its owners. This is state-sponsored theft by any definition and the fact that it is practiced on behalf of a “nonprofit university,” as well as an NBA team, does not make it any less odious.

This case, like the outrageous Kelo decision by the United States Supreme Court, which allowed New London, Connecticut to seize private homes to benefit a large corporation (that wound up not building anything on the ruins of the condemned property anyway) ought to inspire a groundswell of support for reform of emine-ntdomain laws. Unless and until such laws are amended to restrict state seizures to cases of properties that are actually blighted and which could be used for a genuine civic purpose rather than merely for the benefit of large, powerful, and wealthy developers, the property rights of every American remain at risk.

...Even the member of the court who is most skeptical of the use of eminent domain, Robert Smith, approved, issuing a concurring opinion. Mr. Smith was the lone dissenter in a case that challenged the use of eminent domain to build a basketball arena and housing in Brooklyn, brought by Daniel Goldstein and other landowners.

"The finding of 'blight' in this case seems to me strained and pretextual, but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein," Mr. Smith wrote. "Accepting Goldstein as I must, I agree in substance with all but section VI of the majority opinion."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Robert S. Smith agreed that the state had the power to decide what constituted blight, but he wrote that the court should not have brought up the issue of what constitutes a “civic purpose,” because it opens the door to any purported “school,” even a tennis school, to have land assembled for it through eminent domain.

NEWS ADVISORY -- June 23, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from Brown Memorial Baptist Church Pastor, Reverend Clinton Miller

On Thursday, June 24th (NBA Draft Day)
Noon

BUSLOADS OF RESIDENTS TO JOIN CLERGY AND
ELECTED LEADERS
TO PROTEST NBA’S DECISION TO ACCEPT
MIKHAIL PROKHOROV AS MAJORITY OWNER OF THE NETS

Group cites a failure of NBA Commissioner David Stern to thoroughly investigate Prokhorov, his ownership in a questionable investment bank and disappointment in Stern and his failure to respect global human rights 

NEW YORK, New York – On Thursday, June 24 at noon, busloads of Brooklyn residents will travel across the Brooklyn Bridge to Madison Square Garden with area clergy members, lead by Pastor Clinton M. Miller of Brown Memorial Baptist Church, and elected officials to protest the NBA’s decision to accept Mikhail Prokhorov as the majority owner of the Nets basketball franchise.   

In a tersely worded letter signed and delivered to NBA Commissioner David Stern, more than 300 residents, community organizations and congregations have called on Commissioner Stern to open a thorough investigation of Prokhorov and Renaissance Capital, an investment bank of which he is part owner. It is alleged that Renaissance Capital violated U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe.

According to the letter, “…it is only fitting that the league should respect global human rights. Anything less would be morally wrong and could potentially ensnare the NBA, its member clubs, and personnel in complex international human rights violations…”

The Nets were purchased by Forest City Ratner Companies in 2004 as part of a package development deal called Atlantic Yards. Finally passing many hurdles – including community opposition – the controversial development has begun. The Nets are expected to play in Brooklyn by the 2012 season.

WHO:
Rev. Clinton M. Miller, Pastor, Brown Memorial Baptist Church; elected officials; Brooklyn residents

WHAT:
Protest and rally

WHEN:
Thursday, June 24 at 12:00 p.m.

WHERE:
The Theater at Madison Square Garden
W. 33rd St. and 7th Avenue, Manhattan

Oral argument has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 29th at 11am on the case DDDB et al. v. ESDC. The argument is on the motion by the petitioners asking the court to reconsider and reargue their challenge to the state's September 2009 approvlal of the Atlantic Yards Modified General Project Plan.

Judge Marcy Friedman had ruled for the ESDC Bu the plaintiffs, DDDB and 19 other community groups, as well as BrooklynSpeaks, asked the court to allow reargument in light of new evidence found in the Atlantic Yards Development Agreement between ESDC and Ratner ,which had been made public only after the case was argued.

Details on the oral argument:
Tuesday, June 29. 11 AM
60 Centre Street, Room 335
Manhattan

The ruling on the original case—which challenged the ESDC's September 2009 approval the Modified General Project Plan—hinged on whether or not there was a rational basis for the ESDC to claim the project would take ten years.

In the March 10th ruling, the Court wrote:

"Under the limited standard of SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review, the court is constrained to hold that ESDC's elaboration of its reasons for using the 10 year build-out was supported — albeit, in this court's opinion, only minimally — by the factors articulated by ESDC." (Emphasis added.)

The Court had no choice but to ignore the crucial Development Agreement documents that prove the project would take at least 25 years, because the ESDC had not made them part of the public record, and had not accurately reflected the elements of that agreement.

If, as the Court ruled, the ESDC's rationale was "only minimally" supported before, it would seem that that minimal support erodes entirely due to the facts subsequently revealed in the Atlantic Yards Development Agreement.

"Slowly but absolutely surely you will have Brooklyn Knick fans, particularly the younger generation, become Nets fans, especially if they live in Brooklyn," said Ratner. "I also think it will be somewhat true for Staten Island, somewhat true for Queens and for Long Island certainly."

"Why should people get to see plans? This isn't a public project."

"I've done a lot of projects, I have never, ever seen a project get less protest than this."

A Russian Billionaire, the Nets and Sweetheart Deals
By Norman Oder. New York Times

The Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov, the Nets’ new majority owner and the N.B.A.’s first overseas owner, magnetized members of the news media during his recent whirlwind tour of New York.

Prokhorov, a 6-foot-8 kick boxer, international playboy and shrewd businessman, did his best to make people forget the team’s performance last year at the dreary Izod Center in East Rutherford, N.J. He was droll (“America, I come in peace”), playfully evasive about changing the team’s name and confident of a championship in five years “maximum.”

As Prokhorov, Russia’s second-richest man, dangles cash for a coach, free agents and first-class facilities, let’s not forget the money that he and his business partner Bruce C. Ratner saved because of taxpayer help for the arena under construction in Brooklyn. The help includes eminent domain, major subsidies, a naming-rights giveaway and bad, undemocratic urban planning.

...

Prokhorov considers himself a “self-made man.” But his purchase of the metals firm Norilsk Nickel came about because of a process that was probably not even legal under Western standards, a business partner told “60 Minutes.”

In Brooklyn, the arena process passed legal muster, as courts generally defer to state agencies. Still, as I’ve written for more than four years in my blog, Atlantic Yards Report, it was an insider’s game.

Ratner, whose company spends a lot on lobbying, needed a key piece of public property, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard; city and state officials signed on without putting the site up for bid.

When the M.T.A. belatedly sought bids, the sole rival developer offered three times more cash than did Ratner’s firm. Yes, Ratner’s overall bid was seen as more valuable, but the agency chose to negotiate solely with Ratner. Last year, when Ratner’s firm hit cash-flow problems, the M.T.A. agreed to sweeten the rail yard deal even as it cut services.

The arena could not be built without eminent domain, the power of the state to take private property for public use — or “public purpose,” as it has evolved — with just compensation. The problem? The justification in Brooklyn was the removal of blight, which the state describes vaguely as “substandard and insanitary” conditions that bring a neighborhood down. There were luxury condominiums inside the Atlantic Yards site. Many remain nearby. State claims of high crime at the site? Actually, the high crime nearby is at Ratner’s malls.

“Sports entertainment corporations” (an apt term from Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York) have been quite successful at getting the public to pay for sports facilities. The financing for the nearly $1 billion Barclays Center is more subtle, but the public still pays significantly.

Consider that the state and the city each allotted $100 million, ostensibly for infrastructure like utilities. The city’s subsidy, part of which could be used for land, went solely to reimburse Ratner for property he bought from residents and businesses.

Later, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg allotted $105 million for infrastructure. That was not enough; Bloomberg agreed last year to shift $31 million from that sum to land, making it likely that future mayors will be asked to pay more for infrastructure. The New York City Independent Budget Office calls the arena a net loss for taxpayers.

A more direct gift involved arena naming rights, once reported at $400 million, now at least $200 million.

Why do the arena operators keep the naming-rights revenue for what the state calls a publicly owned arena?

“It’s part of the financing for the project,” according to a representative of the Empire State Development Corporation, whose unelected board approved the project, overriding local zoning.

The fig leaf of public ownership allows Ratner and Prokhorov to benefit from $511 million in tax-free bonds for the arena, saving them perhaps $150 million in a type of financing structure the Treasury Department now disallows.
...

Prokhorov’s strategy, off to a flying start, is to build a dynasty, become a household name in North America and open investment opportunities.

But the arena process should have been fair, and he should have paid full freight. Surely he can afford it.