New state-Ratner deal has ‘clause’ for concern

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

State development officials are drafting a new deal with Bruce Ratner that will give the Atlantic Yards developer a loophole out of the project’s main selling point: thousands of units of affordable housing.

New language quietly inserted into a Sept. 17 lease proposal between the Empire State Development Corporation and the Downtown-based developer now make the construction of the long-promised 2,250 units of below-market-rate housing “subject to governmental authorities making available … affordable housing subsidies.”

None of the prior agreements — including two approved general project plans — made the affordable housing conditional on any state or local support. Ratner was required to build the units whether subsidies were available or not.

And such subsidies are in very short supply.

Last year, before the worst of the recession even hit, local experts were sounding the alarm about a coming shortage of affordable-housing money. At the time, there weren’t even enough bonds to meet existing demand.

“It’s highly unlikely Forest City Ratner will be able to get the amount of subsidies that [it needs for the] affordable housing,” said Councilman David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights).

Prior agreements between the state and Ratner did refer to taxpayer subsidies — the latest project plan approved in June, for example, said that “the affordable units are expected to be built as part of the mayor’s ‘New Housing Marketplace Plan’ and … financed through tax-exempt bonds provided under existing and proposed city and state housing programs” — but the subtle change in language from “expected” to “subject to” not only had critics howling this week, but also rushing off to court.

“ESDC has quietly made the ‘affordable’ housing conditioned upon public subsidies, in contradiction with [the project’s] approval document,” said Candace Carponter, a lawyer who advises the main opposition group, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, which is one of the parties on this week’s lawsuit (see chart).

Carponter expressed a certain irony that Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn is in the position of “holding Ratner accountable” on affordable housing considering that the project’s main booster, ACORN, signed onto a Community Benefits Agreement with Ratner specifically because of the affordable housing component.

If anyone should be upset about the change in language, it should be Bertha Lewis, ACORN’s chief organizer, Carponter suggested.

But under the agreement, ACORN and Lewis are contractually barred from saying anything negative about the project, and, as such, both maintained their optimism this week.

“We are, of course, disappointed by the delays brought about by endless litigation, [but] we remain confident that, at the end of the day, Atlantic Yards will mean thousands of new units of affordable rent regulated housing and new home ownership opportunities for working families,” Lewis said in a statement.

A spokesman for the ESDC questioned Carponter and her legal team’s reading of the new development agreement.

“The referenced language does not absolve the developer’s obligation to develop affordable housing,” said ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston.

“It has always been envisioned that there will be affordable housing subsidies. If housing subsidies are not made available … then the developer will be permitted additional time to develop the housing.

“Upon completion of the project, there will be no less than 2,250 units of affordable housing and the project documents will mandate that,” Johnston added.

Johnston said that the entire project — all 16 skyscrapers, the basketball arena, eight acres of publicly accessible open space, thousands of units of housing, office space and retail stores spanning from Fifth Avenue in Park Slope to Vanderbilt Avenue in Prospect Heights — would be completed by 2019.

That date seems impossible, especially in light of a June agreement between Ratner and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that allows the developer to buy the development rights from the transit agency over the 22 years, or until 2031.

That extended timetable was also challenged in court this week by opponents.

“As a Land Use Improvement Project under [state law], ESDC [must show] that it has a plan to alleviate blight,” said DDDB lawyer Jeff Baker.

“But they only considered a plan completing in 2019, when they know it won’t be completed until at least 2031.

“If the project [takes that long], might there be a more effective blight removal plan?” Baker asked.

“Will it have the same economic and social benefits if it goes that long? ESDC willfully stuck its head in the sand regarding the new Ratner deal with the MTA [which] guarantees that the project, contrary to the legal requirement to remove alleged ‘blight,’ will exacerbate the ‘blight’ and make it permanent.”

Updated 5:15 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Peter from Clinton Hill says:
Wake up Brooklyn! You're be hoodwinked!
Oct. 22, 2009, 4:55 am
Norman Oder says:
I reported on the affordable housing issue on September 17:
Oct. 22, 2009, 5:10 am
Moshe Aron Kestenbaum from Williamsburg ODA says:
Let get this right " If I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we'd call it "THEFT". If when the government does it, that theft is called "legal" .
Oct. 22, 2009, 7:07 am
T from Crown Heights says:
I don't understand why people seem to think "affordable housing" is a prima facie good thing -- it seems to mean that one's tax dollars simply get used to make one's neighborhood a worse place to be. I'm not saying this from an ensconcement in Larchmont; where I am in Crown Heights, most of the surrounding buildings are subsidized ... and my neighborhood is a disaster. The upshot is you have an area of beautiful pre-wars minutes from Manhattan ... and quality of life is absurdly low.

Similarly, when I lived in Ukraine, everyone -- everyone -- lived in filth. The loftiest academic has the same exact Soviet apartment, and in the same building, as the lowest track suit-wearing goon. That means the drunks come home, pee all over the elevator and sing songs in their apartment, and the academic simply has to deal with it. Not surprisingly, the inability, in a place where all housing is so mixed, to move away from people you don't really want to live with and instead congregate amongst those you'd rather live near, is a huge disincentive against ... almost anything. Why work hard to earn a bit more when it just means you'll have to move to a slightly better-located part of town but have the same pee-stink in your hallways and yelling coming from the neighbors all night? Why take care of your apartment when you need to ride an elevator that frequently breaks to access it?

If people, rich or poor, want to live in an "affordable" neighborhood, they will. And if people, rich or poor, would rather live among wealthy people, well, let them take their education and career a little more seriously, or put in an extra few hours at work, and they too will. That, in a nutshell, is humanity.

Let people live where they want, and let there be an objective, transparent and open way to do so. There is no system on earth that works as well as putting down simple rules and letting people follow them to achieve their goal. That applies to business, science, language and housing/settlement patterns. Once you have an outside player gaming the system, picking favorites (including via lottery), and giving some, seemingly at random, benefits that others don't receive -- that's when the system breaks.

Why? Because creating entitlements that some can obtain at random creates impressions that a system is rigged, unfair and that others are benefiting without reason -- and that's what the reality is in a system with entitlements to "affordable housing" or subsidized housing, etc.
Oct. 22, 2009, 5:48 pm
Bradley from Cobble Hill says:
To T from Crown Heights..

Your points become even weaker when you factor in the overwhelming preference to development of LUXURY housing that had been allowed to occur all over the city. Atlantic Yards as first envisioned STILL wouldn't even begin to offer close to a reasonable counterbalance for the rest of us who aren't the occasional uptight snobs.
Oct. 23, 2009, 1:41 am
mike thomas from kensington says:
T from Crown Heights?
we are not talking about a system with entitlements to affordable housing.
its a system where ED was used, sweatheart deals, political endorsements, promises of jobs, affordable ON Site shousing and much more was we are not talking about a system where people are claiming entitlement to affordable housing, they are arguing about a system that let a developer claim entitlements by making promises of providing affordable housing.
Oct. 23, 2009, 9:25 am

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: