 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
tel/fax:
718.362.4784
Please note our new postal address when sending
contributions to the legal fund:
121 5th Avenue, PMB #150
Brooklyn, New York 11217
About DDDB
Our coalition consists of 21 community organizations and
there are 51 community organizations formally
aligned in opposition to the Ratner plan.
DDDB is a volunteer-run organization. We have over 5,000
subscribers to our email newsletter, and 7,000 petition
signers. Over 800 volunteers have registered with DDDB
to form our various teams, task-forces and committees
and we have over 150 block captains. We have a 20 person
volunteer legal team of local lawyers supplementing our
retained attorneys.
We are funded entirely by individual donations from the community at large
and through various fundraising events we and supporters have organized.
We have the financial support of well over 3,500 individual
donors.
More about
DDDB...
|
|
|
|
 |
ARCHIVES:
By Date|
By Category|
Text Search
|
Ratner Admits That Atlantic Yards, As Proposed and Approved, Was Never Financially Feasible
Was Atlantic Yards ever feasible as proposed in 2003, as approved in 2006, re-approved in 2009 and as presented to state court in 2010? No. Who says so? Bruce Ratner admitted as much in comments made to the Wall Street Journal yesterday upon a release of new Atlantic Yards tower renderings shrouded more in uncertainty than the press reaction would lead one to believe:
The project's planned 6,400 apartments—and particularly the 2,250 units pledged for low- and middle-income tenants—were a key selling point for the development when it was approved by the state over neighborhood criticism in 2006. It was later stalled by lawsuits contesting the use of eminent domain, and then slowed by the economic downturn.
Now Forest City has told government officials that the high proportion of affordable apartments has made it difficult to make the economics work for the towers, despite a surprisingly strong rebound in the rental market.
Previously, the company asked the city for additional subsidy to make the first Atlantic Yards tower move forward, to no avail.
Mr. Ratner said Thursday that the existing incentives for developments where half the units are priced for middle- and low-income tenants "don't work for a high-rise building that's union built."
He added that he had "accepted the fact that we're not going to get more subsidy."
(Emphasis added.)
Well, in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Forest City Ratner proposed, had approved and claimed that it would build half of its rental units as "affordable" with union labor. So what changed? Note that Ratner did no say that the changed economy is the reason his approved plan doesn't work or that the existing incentives today are different than what they were when the project was proposed and approved.
What changed? Just the candor that the project has proposed, hyped and approved was never feasible from the start. But government, Ratner and ESDC were warned that the project was not financially feasible. Norman Oder, looking at the same "stunning" remark from Ratner writes:
...The state approved Ratner's revised proposal in 2009, with a report by KPMG saying that yes, it was plausible to build out the project in ten years, thanks mainly to the demand for subsidized housing. KPMG's report was questionable mainly for its unrealistic estimates regarding the condo market, not the market for mixed-income rentals.
The warning
The state was on notice. A 2009 report by the Kahr Real Estate Group, commissioned by the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, warned:
It is extremely unlikely that the full project can be financed and completed within 10 years at a profit by a private sector developer without substantial subsidies in excess of what has already been currently proposed.
That's exactly what Ratner admitted today and why he's seeking concessions from unions and/or building modular.
Two years ago, did anyone official heed the warning? No.
"Different opinions," Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) Senior Counsel Steve Matlin said dismissively on 9/17/09, contrasting the KPMG study with the more pessimistic Kahr report.
Posted: 11.18.11
|
|
|
|
