Stadium Discussion

What Will Be The Name Of The New Home?

  • Etihad Stadium

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Etihad Park

    Votes: 11 45.8%
  • Etihad Field

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Etihad Arena

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Etihad Bowl

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Etihad Yards? Ethihad Yard? Etihad Bridge? Etihad New York? Etihad on the River?
 
What a bunch of libtards.
I also think the math is way off since there are a whole bunch of sunk costs in making the site buildable (close to 200 million according to the YIMBY article). Maybe those other South Bronx sites had similar buildout costs, but at a minimum, the $100 million to build the platform over the site is unique.

He's also conflating the 1276 market rate units at the other Somerset site with this one (i.e there will be 1276 market rate units even if this never happens). So two big math errors, Mrs. Lincoln.

EDIT: According to the YIMBY article:

The affordable housing component would come with a 25,000 square foot medical facility in the base, as well as major amenities for the neighborhood’s children. Up above, there would be approximately 550 affordable and workforce apartments created.
 
What a bunch of libtards.
That's not liberal. Arangure's premise is just stupid. You cant compare buying all the rights that run with land to the right to develop ABOVE a working rail line. The State is looking to add value to an existing parcel with existing uses. That is smart -- whether it is our stadium or something else of benefit to the City.
 
That's not liberal. Arangure's premise is just stupid. You cant compare buying all the rights that run with land to the right to develop ABOVE a working rail line. The State is looking to add value to an existing parcel with existing uses. That is smart -- whether it is our stadium or something else of benefit to the City.

This is what happens when journalists pretend to know stuff. “I know nothing about development but let me dump all over it like I know what’s actually going on.”
 
That's not liberal. Arangure's premise is just stupid. You cant compare buying all the rights that run with land to the right to develop ABOVE a working rail line. The State is looking to add value to an existing parcel with existing uses. That is smart -- whether it is our stadium or something else of benefit to the City.
Yes. He suggests that structuring the deal as a 99-year lease instead of a sale is just to help the team avoid property taxes. But if the team bought the property outright, it would not have to keep the rail yards below. Or the land could be sold encumbered with the requirement that the rail yards stay, which both reduces the sale price and entitles NYCFC to collect rent, both of which of course offsets the RE taxes.