The BrooklynSpeaks Advice on Tomorrow's Meeting--and What's Missing
The coalition has worthy words on affordable housing, density, open space, and accountability. But it shouldn't ignore the concessions likely sought, the trade-offs, and the bad faith.
Before the meeting tomorrow night—the first of four workshops seeking input on a future Atlantic Yards plan—let me address the suggested input from the coalition BrooklynSpeaks, which has the ear of local elected officials.
BrooklynSpeaks in 2014 negotiated the new 2025 deadline for the project’s affordable housing, which was not enforced.
(I’m not sure if other groups are organizing for the meeting, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear construction union reps argue that we need to “build to create jobs and housing” and self-described YIMBYs to say “we need more housing.” Those statements, though not unreasonable, run into the complexities described below.)
The BrooklynSpeaks posting, What Empire State Development needs to know about housing, density, open space and accountability at Atlantic Yards, makes valuable points—especially about affordable housing priorities, public control of open space, and the need for the arena company to fund a special enforcement district—but in my view is insufficient.
I’d say the entire process, though potentially useful, is tainted by bad faith, as I wrote in the article linked below.
How can we trust Empire State Development (ESD) if they can’t tell us that a giant two-tower project at Site 5 already has their support?
Or if they suggest that the two railyard blocks are a blank slate, rather than with towers of specific height and bulk already approved? (Yes, that configuration likely will change, but we should be told where things stand.)
What about the concessions?
Crucially, BrooklynSpeaks doesn’t address the elephant in the room: the concessions—subsidies, tax breaks, cheap financing, additional bulk, new timetable—that the new development team, a joint venture led by Cirrus Real Estate Partners and LCOR, is expected to seek.
How can future public benefits, such as promises of affordable housing and open space, be analyzed without assessing what the developers seek from ESD?
For example, the developer has indicated it will seek public help for the platform needed to support development over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) two-block Vanderbilt Yard. Previously, that was not a public responsibility.
Also, it’s likely the developer will seek permission to build additional square footage in the towers over the railyard. However, original developer Forest City Ratner had to bid to buy those development rights; payments to the MTA were taken over by successor Greenland USA and are now the responsibility of the joint venture.
Doesn’t additional public property deserve compensation?
I wrote yesterday about how third-party experts could assess both the financial feasibility and the public contribution. Such experts also could address the tension between fiscal feasibility and neighborhood impacts.
Maybe this is strategy from BrooklynSpeaks, and they’ll address these issues in later testimony.
BrooklynSpeaks on affordable housing payments
From BrooklynSpeaks:
The $12 million offered by the development team in lieu of agreed-upon damages for failure to meet the May 2025 affordable housing deadline isn’t enough to make up for 877 delayed affordable apartments. [Note: I count 876] The project’s obligation is to pay $2,000 per month for each delayed apartment—likely amounting to more than $160 million by the time new housing would be ready. The State must ensure the damages are collected and paid to the City Housing Trust Fund as agreed, so they can help accelerate completion of more than 800 100% affordable apartments on City-owned land approved under the AAMUP rezoning.
They’re right that the penalty should be enforced, but the gubernatorially controlled ESD seems unwilling to enforce it, and the new developers surely don’t want to pay it.
If BrooklynSpeaks won’t go to court—it threatened a lawsuit in 2014 to gain the new affordable housing timetable and a new advisory organization, the Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation, in a settlement—it’s unclear what leverage they have.
Note that former master developer Greenland USA, which would have been liable for the penalties (and threatened to sue, which deterred ESD), still has an economic interest in the project.
I’ve suggested that New York State has significant leverage over Greenland regarding the proposal to move bulk from B1, the tower once slated to loom over the arena, across Flatbush Avenue to Site 5, longtime home of the big-box stores P.C. Richard and Modell’s, to create a giant two-tower project.
In other words, Greenland would recoup value from those parcels, so the state could claw some of that back.
BrooklynSpeaks on affordable housing configuraton
From BrooklynSpeaks:
Atlantic Yards affordable housing produced so far has not matched affordability levels committed in the 2005 Affordable Housing MOU.
Indeed, and it’s worse, because the definition of “low-income,” up to 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) in the original project plan1, has risen significantly, as shown in the graphic I produced below.
To fulfill the spirit of the 2005 promise, the project would have to deliver more deeply affordable housing—units below 30% of AMI.
From BrooklynSpeaks:
The priority is for the developer to provide the missing 1,031 moderate, low- and very low-income apartments from the existing approved project density. Thirty-five percent of additional housing from any change in density must be offered to tenants earning an average of 60% of AMI with at least 10% of the units offered at 40% of AMI or below. These deeply and permanently affordable units must be in addition to other “workforce” housing anticipated to be part of a new plan. The additional affordable housing must be completed in proportion to market rate and workforce housing, not pushed to the end of the plan.
That’s an important argument: the units should come from the 6,430 apartments already approved, with 3,218 left.
So, even if there are only 876 (or 877) missing from the 2,250 below-market units required by 2025, 1,031 more are needed.
As to additional apartments resulting from “any change in density”—more units from Site 5 and/or the railyard sites—it’s reasonable to ask for low-income units.
The 35% request contrasts with the 25% requirement under New York City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, so this may be a position subject to negotiation.
BrooklynSpeaks on local preference
From BrooklynSpeaks:
Residents of Brooklyn community districts 2, 3, 6 and 8 should receive preference in lotteries for future affordable housing at the site, including residents displaced from those districts since Atlantic Yards’ approval in 2006.
That proposal has two parts. First, consider current local residents. City policy has changed: instead of designating 50% of the units for locals in affordable housing lotteries built via city (not state) subsidies, now only 20% of those slots will be assigned; in five years, the percentage will drop to 15%.
So BrooklynSpeaks seems agnostic on percentages. They also implicitly argue that units built with state subsidies—such as the last four Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park towers, which relied only on the state 421-a tax break—also should be subject to preferences. That’s not required, but it could be.
Regarding preference for those displaced, that’s been a longtime BrooklynSpeaks position. There’s a moral argument: those displaced are more deserving than, say, new arrivals.
The city, however, has denied the request for retroactive community preference, and I suspect no public agency wants the logistical challenge.
BrooklynSpeaks on changes to approved density
From BrooklynSpeaks:
A tower resulting from a density transfer to Site 5 must include a setback along Pacific Street to harmonize with the context of existing low-scale buildings across the street. No loading dock for the building should be located on Pacific Street.
Those are reasonable proposals, but BrooklynSpeaks is notably agnostic on the scale of the Site 5 project. Should it have towers, as the state seems to support, rising as high as 910 feet, with a total of 1.242 million square feet?
After all, as I reported, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 25.5, a common measure of bulk as a multiple of the underlying lot, for Site 5 would be astoundingly large, more than twice that of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning and more than 50% larger than the spot rezoning for the 80 Flatbush (aka Alloy Block) project.
BrooklynSpeaks on the plaza bonus
From BrooklynSpeaks:
In the event of a density transfer to Site 5, as compensation for retaining the existing “temporary” public plaza, the arena owners must fund a special enforcement district to manage illegal parking and idling, as well as regulations on construction-related activity.
That’s important reciprocity, since it recognizes that arena operator BSE Global, controlled by Joe Tsai (and the Koch family), gains hugely from the plaza, given its role in managing arena crowds and supporting advertising and promotion.
It shouldn’t get the plaza for free. Moreover, the enforcement district also should address noise from the plaza, since that was never studied.
However, I think the public could ask for more from the arena operator, since BSE Global, with ever valuable properties boosted by the state-enabled arena and tax-exempt site, is one of the few big Atlantic Yards winners.
BrooklynSpeaks on open space and public space
From BrooklynSpeaks:
The promised Urban Room was never built, and damages for non-performance were not collected. A requirement for an interior public gathering place must remain in the new plan. The space must be managed by an appropriate non-profit organization or public agency.
The site for such indoor space likely would be Site 5, catercorner to the arena.
From BrooklynSpeaks:
Open space must be designed with meaningful input from the community and its elected representatives.
Completed open space must be managed by the NYC Parks Department, funded by owners of buildings on the site.
The latter point is low-key but important. As I’ve written, the Pacific Park Conservancy, funded by the building owners, is a phantom, and management and oversight seems to have fallen through the cracks. It’s lost credibility.
BrooklynSpeaks on accountability
From BrooklynSpeaks:
Local elected representatives must be meaningfully represented during negotiation and execution of the new plan.
The new plan must be independently reviewed to confirm financial feasibility, with results shared with elected officials.
“Meaningful” representation is in the eye of the beholder. Does that mean the local elected officials can organize third-party analysis?
As to the independent review, that’s a start, but fiscal feasibility shouldn’t be the only thing assessed.
From BrooklynSpeaks:
Enforcement of developer commitments for the next phase of the project must be agreed in advance of environmental review, and must not depend solely on the discretion of ESD.
That refers to ESD’s decision to refrain from enforcing the affordable housing penalties. There should be more accountability going forward.
For now, BrooklynSpeaks hasn’t proposed a new oversight body or structure, but it might resurrect past proposals, like the Brooklyn Crossroads Local Development Corporation, as shown in the image above.
Today, New York City considers 80% of Area Median Income as “low-income.” That means a one-bedroom apartment could rent for $2.430 to someone earning up to $90,720. (That’s not a typo.) AMI is skewed by the inclusion of wealthy suburban counties, and the rent levels skewed by a High Housing Cost Adjustment.