According to the RFEI, since the land is owned by the state, the site is exempt from property tax assessments. It says respondants should assume payment in-lieu taxes will be owed equal to "full taxes less as-of-right incentives for private uses" (whatever that means).
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
According to the RFEI, since the land is owned by the state, the site is exempt from property tax assessments. It says respondants should assume payment in-lieu taxes will be owed equal to "full taxes less as-of-right incentives for private uses" (whatever that means).
To add, this parcel of land cannot be economically feasible with just affordable housing, plus taxes on affordable housing is pithy. It could be an above-rate oasis that would generate a boatload of tax revenue, but the optics on that would bring out the pitchforks. Any pundit complaining about this on the city’s behalf isn’t looking at the alternatives, they’re myopically focused on NIMBY with hands held out begging.
What is a good deal here to you? Genuinely curious.
Also doesn't mean it's not the best realistic option.
Learned that from that site you linked.
Sure the city is impacted, with a very favorable project that brings all classes of New Yorkers to the area with a ton of community amenities and additional park space. And they get all of that for nothing. How is the city negatively impacted?
A deal where the state gets compensated for the land at a fair market value, either via lease or sale.
I don't know what that it, but it's hard to imagine that it's a revenue stream with a PV of $10mm.
There are private transactions of land that needs to be remediated or land that comes with use restrictions all the time. Determining a fair value should not be hard.
The state owns an asset that is being underutilized. The bogey is not the value it had been generating, but the value it could be generating.
What's stopping anybody who wants to put a better proposal on the table from doing so? If there's no formidable obstacle to that, and the NYCFC proposal ends up being the best available, the only comp is between doing nothing and letting the NYCFC deal go ahead, no?
Dare someone to turn that on for a day.
And that is why they do an RFEI/RFP, right - pick the best deal offered?
Because it doesn't matter what one might imagine. It only matters what someone offers.
If there's a surefire better offer, well, we can't be upset if the NYCFC-included deal gets busted.
The crux, I think, of most arguing against you here, is that it seems highly unlikely that someone else will come up with a financially viable alternative that results in a better outcome.
How I read all of this, anyway. As it is, I make no judgments as to the validity of either point.
I might research it all later, but probably not because I don't care all that much even if it weren't the best deal. What do I care who takes the "free" ride. That money has already been snatched from my pocket. Might as well go to something I'll get some use and enjoyment from.
I meant that to say I don't care who's giving the public subsidy, just that a public subsidy is being given.
Damn you for beating me to my point because I wanted to additionally point out that I am absent any altruistic concerns in this instance.
The problem, many times in the past, has been that municipalities don't take the "best" deal, they take the deal that makes the best headlines and photo opp.
You also kind of have to devalue the land by ~$100m upfront since that is estimated to be the cost to bring the site to a condition to which it can be built on, unless the state were to go ahead and do that themselves.
I would imagine that in and of itself would impact the potential bids that would be coming in for this site and result in less "good deal" options as you mention.
Just realize that we are obviously offering both here.
* "realize" in this instance means don't think too hard about it, and just let yourself hope the club gets a deal done, everything else be damned.
I never put a number on it. I honestly wouldn't know how and never claimed to. You said it was "an almost perfect comparable." Stand by it or not.
What's the source for the $100mm remediation number? I missed that. Sounds kind of high...
Whatever Alex Ring's contract is.
