Stadium Discussion

[SanBartG]

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...

You’re still arguing in favor of an alternative that we have no reason to believe actually exists. You can leave it the lot as is, or lease to one of two parties (as of now) that want to lease space above the rail tracks and thus neither will pay property taxes.

As of today, those are you options. Your preferred third option is an option yet.

 

[Kjbert]

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.

Isn't a fair market deal whatever the market is willing to pay for it? That's the whole point of the RFP process. It's about as transparent a process as you get with government.

 

[Ulrich]

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

You didn’t BOLD it so I’ll just point out the next set of words - “of the air space”

The state has zero intention of selling the actual ground plane, only the air rights 30’ above which is why a platform has to be built. Otherwise Space X better develop levitating technology for buildings.

 

[Kjbert]

You’re still arguing in favor of an alternative that we have no reason to believe actually exists. You can leave it the lot as is, or lease to one of two parties (as of now) that want to lease space above the rail tracks and thus neither will pay property taxes.

As of today, those are you options. Your preferred third option is an option yet.

Exactly. He is arguing for the site to be sold. That would then entail a developer to totally eliminate the existing infrastructure. If the state still, for whatever reason, wants the use of the rail tracks, they are asking for proposals to build over the tracks only. That limits the population that would offer a proposal and apparently the development options.

 

[SanBartG]

You didn’t BOLD it so I’ll just point out the next set of words - “of the air space”

The state has zero intention of selling the actually ground plane, only the air rights 30’ above which is why a platform has to be built. Otherwise Space X better develop levitating technology for buildings.

Looks like the state has categorically denied FredMertz preferred option. FredMertz, does this change your perspective?

 

[dummyrun]

You didn’t BOLD it so I’ll just point out the next set of words - “of the air space”

The state has zero intention of selling the actually ground plane, only the air rights 30’ above which is why a platform has to be built. Otherwise Space X better develop levitating technology for buildings.

 

[Kjbert]

I'll provide an example in Manhattan that has generated interest the last few years.

St. Patrick's Cathedral is on incredibly expensive real estate. All of the buildings around St. Patrick's Cathedral are 10, 20, 30 stories taller. St. Patrick's is trying to sell or lease the air rights above it. How the hell they do that, I have no clue.

The point is - the underlying infrastructure isn't going anywhere. That limits the use of the air rights above the infrastructure and also lowers the value of those air rights.

 

[Ulrich]

dummyrun

Freelews? What am I missing?

 

[joe]

Freelews? What am I missing?

An I between the W and S

 

[NYCFC_Dan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/986639270277468160

In case it hasn’t been shared.

 

[Ulrich]

https://twitter.com/x/status/986639270277468160

In case it hasn’t been shared.

Nice view of the new ferry slip.

 

[mgarbowski]

30-year is 3%, so why use 2.5%?

Because he asked for 2.5%. I just did math.

 

[Ulrich]

So this Tweeter found the part of the proposal saying the stadium could be expanded down the road.

Not sure how much it could expand, but would guess at least 10k +/-

https://twitter.com/x/status/986643755515236353

 

[Joe_Cos]

I am not sure if I am helping or making the conversatio worse but with regards to the property and if its going to be sold or not. ESD is not going to sell the land. Per the parameters of the RFI issued by the ESD states. See page 7 of REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

Ownership and Taxes
The Site is owned by the State of New York acting through NYSDOT, and thus is exempt from current property tax assessments. Respondents should assume a payment in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) equal to full t axes less as-of-right incentives for private uses.

 

[regpar]

I'll provide an example in Manhattan that has generated interest the last few years.

St. Patrick's Cathedral is on incredibly expensive real estate. All of the buildings around St. Patrick's Cathedral are 10, 20, 30 stories taller. St. Patrick's is trying to sell or lease the air rights above it. How the hell they do that, I have no clue.

The point is - the underlying infrastructure isn't going anywhere. That limits the use of the air rights above the infrastructure and also lowers the value of those air rights.

In this example the air rights is just a height limit. So if a developer wants to build a building above the zones height limit; they will need to buy out the air rights to the surrounding properties that are below the height.

 

[QuazyPat]

So I don't feel like going back through all of these new pages to find the original post and quote it, but there is a pedestrian bridge over the Bronx kill from Randall's Island to the Bronx. It's under the Hellgate Bridge (it's a little out of the way from the stadium site).

 

[Fake Jew]

Nobody going to mention how nice this page is?

 

[canchon]

You didn’t BOLD it so I’ll just point out the next set of words - “of the air space”

The state has zero intention of selling the actual ground plane, only the air rights 30’ above which is why a platform has to be built. Otherwise Space X better develop levitating technology for buildings.

Etihad Floating Island CONFIRMED

 

[LionNYC]

Etihad Floating Island CONFIRMED

It's called Etihad Island - Floating Edition presented by Visit Abu Dhabi

 

[snugglefarts]

Etihad Island could be the name of the team party barge.