Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Why does a landlord put a fresh coat of paint on the walls?
You want a renter, you either make Capital improvements yourself or you give them a credit to do it themselves. That’s how it works in all retail leases and residential leases.
This is all BS and conjecture. The stadium is still going to be built on Etihad Island using all this threads hopes and dreams as the bedrock of its foundations.
FredMertz why can't they just increase the lease payment. Why does it have to be sold to get max value? If this is the initial proposal, the developer would put in a lower payment for negotiating purposes. Doubling the lease agreement to 20 million a year for 20-30 year lease would bring the state in 400-600 million and they would still have an asset.
Land that can’t be built on without capital improvements (steel platform and remediation) is 100% relevant. It’s exactly what I was describing.
So now your argument is that the State should sell the land and not lease the land? I thought your issue was that the City wasn't going to make enough money.
Stop moving goalposts
But the state doesn't want to sell it, they want to lease it.
If I own an acre in the forest, with no public utilities (water, electricity, gasline), and I sell it to you...I don't get to come back to you in 5 years when you've cleared and graded the land, built a beautiful home and connected the utilities and say, "WAIT A MINUTE!" This land is now worth more so pay me more than what we originally agreed on.
This piece of land is junk. It's going to take a massive capital expenditure to make it worth something. If the state is not wiling to do that - and frankly, there are questions as to whether that is even legal - then leasing the land sounds like a hell of a deal for them. It's found money.
This piece of land is junk. It's going to take a massive capital expenditure to make it worth something. If the state is not wiling to do that - and frankly, there are questions as to whether that is even legal - then leasing the land sounds like a hell of a deal for them. It's found money.
The state could turn around and put the land up for sale and then
FredMertz will argue they didn't get enough for it.His objection is that of a zealot. It's not rooted in anything factual.
Your responses have become oddly intense and immensely unappealing.
The state could turn around and put the land up for sale and then
His objection is that of a zealot. It's not rooted in anything factual.
I didn't say that. I just said they should get a fair market deal whether they sell or lease and that 500k a year did not seem fair, especially given that it prevents tax collection on a property that is likely to generate significant income for its owners. Whether or not they can collect taxes on the land dramatically changes the value proposition for the seller and should have a significant impact on the price they require.
If this is the initial proposal, the developer would put in a lower payment for negotiating purposes. Doubling the lease agreement to 20 million a year for 20-30 year lease would bring the state in 400-600 million and they would still have an asset.
I am totally respecting what you are trying to do here.
I think the disconnect is that early on, you were saying that $18 million (or $10 million) is not a fair purchase price and compared that to recent sales. But those other sales were on land that was basically ready for building. This land will take $100 million to be ready for building. So, when comparing purchase prices, it is fair to include whatever amount the tenant has to pay to make the property ready for building.
Agreed. However, given that they appear to require use of every square foot of the land (and perhaps then some) and a significant portion of the land is NOT active rail lines, would you agree that their cost to prepare the land for construction is likely much higher than it would be for most other projects? Someone could build quite a retail/apartment complex only on the land up to the rail line.
If it were a toxic site that had to be fully remediated for anyone to build anything on it, I would agree with you (and Ulrich) that remediating it would be a cost the state should expect to bear. But I don't think that's the case.
Also, the only source for that $75mm number is the developer proposal -- and the developer is certainly not incented to forecast those costs conservatively...
Moreover; 1. Even when ‘fixing’ the land. It’s still encumbered by a train depot below. 2. And you don’t own any additional air rights than the ones you use. (If there’s a future rezoning, the state can sell those air rights to a neighbor). 3. And it’s less valuable because you don’t own it till perpetuity (love using that word on this thread).
D
dummyrun
Guest
New York State Urban Development Corporation, d/b/a Empire State Development (“ESD”) on behalf of New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”), is releasing this Request for Expressions of Interest (“RFEI”) to determine interest from qualified parties in the sale or long-term lease (a “Disposition”) of the air space and related real estate interests above a limiting plane approximately 30 feet above a portion of the Intermodal Rail Facility at the Harlem River Yards in the South Bronx (the “Site”).
https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/rfp/HRY-RFEI.pdf
Funniest post in forum history
They want to keep the trains running. That can’t happen if sold.
NYCFC would pay $500k a year in rent for the space they use. There is other space that will be used. I would imagine there would have to be other rent in lieu of a sale.
