Because the state still uses the land. So they aren’t giving t away for less than market value. They keep the market value of the land cause they still own and use it. It’s still their asset.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Because the state still uses the land. So they aren’t giving t away for less than market value. They keep the market value of the land cause they still own and use it. It’s still their asset.
Anyone who wants to build there is doing it out of self interest.
I don't believe the Ronald McDonald house is preparing a $700 Million bid.
Once you realize that the City is going to get fucked in any and all development project, then you start looking around for the best deal possible. Right now the city gets nothing out of this. Similar to the area around Barclays before that was developed. Or Trumps stuff on the Westside Highway.
These developers aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. Any article that complains about the city losing revenue is patently dumb.
I don't believe the Ronald McDonald house is preparing a $700 Million bid.
Once you realize that the City is going to get fucked in any and all development project, then you start looking around for the best deal possible. Right now the city gets nothing out of this. Similar to the area around Barclays before that was developed. Or Trumps stuff on the Westside Highway.
These developers aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. Any article that complains about the city losing revenue is patently dumb.
It's a commercial ground lease, which usually is done at an above-market present value, not below.
Unless I am missing a significant detail (entirely possible), how is the state still getting use of the site?
The rail tracks currently in use will still be operational. The stadium will be decked above them.
A true statement that is not a direct response to anything I said.
A claim was made that the city has nothing to lose. I countered by stating that the city would generate tax revenue if the land were sold that they will not generate if it is leased.
You responded by saying it's not the city's choice, which was not the issue at hand.
To add to affordable housing, that wouldn't necessarily be "used" by the state, but its in their interest.
And an 85,000 square foot park
It is the issue at hand. If the state sits on the land, the city gets zilch. The city will never see any revenue from the site under current conditions - They aren’t a player in the game, they aren’t even watching the game in the same room, they are at best a bystander watching the game on TV with fuzzy antiquated antennas
And the soccer academy for local kids.
I am almost never in favor of stadium projects cause I think the public usually get hosed. But in this case.... it may actually work.
The single biggest issue facing the City of New York is affordable housing.
So here's your choice, give up property tax revenue that may or may not ever exist and get affordable housing, a hospital and community services or let a developer come in and sell high prices condos.
Your choice.
I'm not sure what your point is. The state has decided the land isn't for sale (the air space could be). The City isn't getting that tax revenue no matter what.
If their operation remains changed as a result of the development, yeah... how is it fettered?
The city is ALWAYS going to get hosed. Unless the state decides to build 3,000 units of affordable housing and gift it to the city, the city will always get hosed.
I disagree. Not getting something you want but are not entitled to and not getting something you are entitled to (getting Hosed) are not the same.
The city hosed themselves when they allowed NY State DOT to buy the land in 1982
Here might be a dumb question. If this were to go through, who would actually own the stadium? I'm assuming NYCFC, right? And wouldn't the stadium and other items there be considered "real estate"? So why would there not be taxes on that, outside of the land?
Wouldn’t they be a tenant of the State? As a tenant, do they pay real estate taxes? I don’t know... just putting it out there.
I’m just guessing that the state would own it - it’s built on leased land, so when the lease expires NYCFC isn’t selling it back, they’re packing up he boxes and moving out and leaving the keys with the state.
Edit: I assume it’d be like the WTC. Larry Silverstein has a 99yr lease from the PANYNJ. The PANYNJ owns the land and the end of the lease, Silverstein’s kids(?)/business partners will hand it back over and the PANYNJ will write a new lease to somebody else.
I thought I read in the RFEI the state owns it and we are in a 99 year lease at $500,000/year that will be adjusted for inflation.
That is actually a good deal for the state if I read that correctly. DC United is paying $1/year for their stadium.
Eh. There's always going to be a giveaway by the city. And there will always be concessions by the developer - public housing, parks, facilities use.
My point is that if you cry wolf every time someone builds a freaking stadium on public land, you can't be taken seriously anymore. I would like to see how that dimwit from the Village Voice would like this property developed. The city doesn't even own this land. It would be like Bank Of America knocking down their tower and building a new one and people complaining there isn't anything in it for the city.
