Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena

Anyway...

New York Daily News:
MTA unit backs Ratner's
deal for Nets arena
BY PAUL D. COLFORD
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, September 13th, 2005

Do the $100 million deal with Ratner.

That's what the MTA real estate division recommended yesterday to agency board members, who are expected to vote tomorrow on developer Bruce Ratner's sweetened bid to build a Nets arena in Brooklyn.

The written summary of negotiations between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Forest City Ratner Cos. confirms that the developer doubled his original July offer of $50 million to build atop the Atlantic Ave. railyards.

The 8.3-acre site, marked by the below-street-level yards of the Long Island Rail Road, stretches from Fifth Ave. to Vanderbilt Ave., between Pacific St. and Atlantic Ave. It is crucial to Ratner's grand plan for a 21-acre development to be anchored by an 18,000-seat arena for the Nets, which the developer owns.

The project, due to get $200 million in state and city subsidies, also calls for 6,000 housing units in 15 apartment buildings, 1.2 million square feet of office space, and stores. "I'm thrilled that he doubled what his offer was," MTA board member Barry Feinstein said, "but I still have a few questions about the value of the amount now being offered."

Transit sources have told the Daily News that the board is expected to approve the deal. In a 12-to-1 vote on July 27, the board gave MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow and Executive Director Katherine Lapp 45 days to negotiate an agreement with Ratner, shelving a competing proposal from Extell Development Co.

Meanwhile, the New York City Independent Budget Office concluded last week that the Nets arena would generate a fiscal surplus of $107 million over 30 years for the city and state. But Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and other community groups, which contend Ratner's profit will dwarf the city's financial gain, have called on the MTA to release the developer's cash-flow projections.

Great news for Brooklyn! :)

The stadium will generate jobs for Brooklyn, his housing will push out people that lived in that area, so i wouldnt say its hands down good news. Ratner always goes after handouts to build. He built NYMEX for no out of pocket and tried to pull the same at NY Times. DOnt expect this to totally happen right away, as he will look for handouts to get more incentives and in the end this project will cost much much more to the city then they think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stern

...Meanwhile, the New York City Independent Budget Office concluded last week that the Nets arena would generate a fiscal surplus of $107 million over 30 years for the city and state...

---

We're supposed to be impressed with a meager $3.4M year? Within 30 years how much will that be worth? What a disgrace.

30 years that will be worth about $500 dollars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kliq6

The stadium will generate jobs for Brooklyn, his housing will push out people that lived in that area, so i wouldnt say its hands down good news.

---

Most of the area of the development no one lives in. It's a railyard. Most of the people who stand to be displaced have been bought out handsomely.

I think the addition of 4,000 units to the local housing market can't help but be good for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrooklynRider

i.e., poor and minority's leave as whites gentrify and jack up rents

---

Just to play devil's advocate (I've read a lot of what you have to say about the sketchy methods of the Ratner deal and agree on many points)...

Unless you are a poor minority, one could accuse you of doing the same in Park Slope, Rider. You can't really apply the knee-jerk gentrification argument to this area, can you? It's a small community that would be affected, and the area is already packed full of big box stores. It's not like the city's going to tear down ft. green to build a stadium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryan

...Unless you are a poor minority, one could accuse you of doing the same in Park Slope, Rider...

---

The argument is valid, but the accountability is misdirected. It would be owners and landlords responsible for gentrification, not tenants. I moved into an apartment that met my needs and my price range.

However, in defense of my neighborhood - and specfically the section of Park Slope I live in - a political alliance and non profit organization was formed to ensure that the long-term poor and, in this neighborhood, latino residents were not displaced. Much of the negotiation over rezoning along the Fourth Avenue corridor hinged on these issues.

It was sensible development with community input. Ratner's plan doesn't integrate at any point with the surrounding neghborhoods. It's a square peg being pushed into a round hole. And, since it won't fit in that hole he is taking over the whole puzzle board and cutting it up to force his piece to fit in.

I think landlords would just say that they are renting tho whomever they find who will pay rents that is most profitable. That they are just using their property to their best advantage, just like you're living in an apt that best suits your situation. I think that if you're going to play the gentrification card, then tenants are just as complicit as landlords are, though it's easier to blame the first couple waves of them (e.g. hipsters in Williamsburg "colonizing" poor neighborhoods) than the waves that follow. Again, I don't really think that is important element of the ratner deal - there's worse things to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryan

...it's easier to blame the first couple waves of them (e.g. hipsters in Williamsburg "colonizing" poor neighborhoods)

---

One big difference in parts of Williamsburg is that many of the first wave residential tenants moved into areas / buildings that were formerly zoned solely for manufacturing, and thereby did not displace any residential tenants. Similar to the situation in SoHo 25 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryan

...I think that if you're going to play the gentrification card...

---

I'm not sure who is "playing the gentrification card". Gentrification happens. It is gradual. Ratner's plan is instantaneous.

You brought up gentrification. I am arguing (badly, apparantly) that it's not the most important thing to discuss in this deal.

It seems like a red herring you could throw at any development in any context. You haven't convinced me that there is a significant displacement of poor people or an entrenched community of any size (after the plans were revised). Aren't there worse thing about this deal, like the misuse of taxpayer money, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryan

... Aren't there worse thing about this deal...

---

Yes!

there is alot worng with this deal, such as the MTA today starting a campaign to get a large bond approved in the November election so they can start some capital projects, by having us the people take on more of there debt, while they take a ratner deal that will only generate about 3.5 milllion per year over 20 years and only $100 million for land that could go for much much more, as offered by another developer, who builds projects on his own resources, not boorowed money like ratner always does ferom governments

What's the arguement for always trying to keep people in areas they can't afford again? It seems to slip my mind.