Alternatives Considered to Housing in BBP
Last night the Parks Committee met to consider the twelve proposed alternatives to housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park, picking nine to deliver to the Park’s board of directors. Brooklyn Heights Blog lists the nine alternatives, which include advertising or sponsorship, increased parking revenues, fee-based recreation, capturing tax revenue from the old Jehovah’s Witness buildings, and…
Last night the Parks Committee met to consider the twelve proposed alternatives to housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park, picking nine to deliver to the Park’s board of directors. Brooklyn Heights Blog lists the nine alternatives, which include advertising or sponsorship, increased parking revenues, fee-based recreation, capturing tax revenue from the old Jehovah’s Witness buildings, and philanthropy. The Brooklyn Paper also follows up on the meeting and talks about the turned-down proposal of collecting tax revenue from property near the park. As the paper says, “The idea was rejected because some of the tax money, like all tax money, would also go to the city’s general fund, and the committee isn’t allowed to consider options that involve city funds.” The final report in supporting the park’s $16-million annual maintenance budget will be drafted mid-February.
Park Okays Nine Alternatives a BBP [Brooklyn Heights Blog]
Sqaudron’s BBP Finance Plan Rejected [Brooklyn Paper]
Photo by oceaneyze
not kidding
ML, well, I did say slightly. But I seriously doubt Squadron and Millman would participate in a sham.
“I like the idea of making that screen thing (just a proposal I believe) that would cover the BQE the worlds largest electronic billboard.”
I pray to god you are kidding.
Glad to see my suggestion from the last post on this topic in the number 1 position as an alernative to housing as a source of park maintenance funding.
“What about naming rights as a source of annual revenue? Is it being considered? What did Barclays pay at AY, something like $400M over 20 years? Must be at least half a million workers in lower Manhattan looking at the Brooklyn Bridge Park waterfront everyday. I like the idea of making that screen thing (just a proposal I believe) that would cover the BQE the worlds largest electronic billboard. Cha-ching!”
“The credit crisis made it possible for this analysis to go forward without concern that it would stall the planned development.”
-exactly, I agree.
it is just an exercise to look like alternatives are being sincerely considered. Once the market picks up, those towers will shoot up.
A string of comments (in corresponding order):
Yes, Monday’s meeting was made public at the last minute but the public wasn’t allowed to speak anyway. The public hearings on the issue were announced fairly well in advance.
I think blofeld is more on target than Ringo, at least as far as timing goes for a JW deal. I am also inclined to agree with blofeld’s assessment of Chelsea Piers.
I gotta admire stargazer’s idealism but as BHScott points out, it was agreed from the outset that the park would be self-sustaining (although housing as a revenue model came fairly late in the game).
Ringo, I suggest you look at the agreement for 360 Furman Street, if you want a better sense of how the payments in lieu of taxes will work. Of course, any new development might be structured slightly differently.
Slightly different take on ML’s comment: The administration wanted to take control of the park and needed Squadron’s support, so there was a sincere quid pro quo. The credit crisis made it possible for this analysis to go forward without concern that it would stall the planned development.
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/52/dtg_bbpalternatives_2010_12_24_bk.html
this says City dropping objections to using future watchtower revenue
Ringo its payment in lieu of taxes and ground rent on the property that is leased to them to build it. So payment is due on day 1. 360 furhman is paying the in lieu taxes in full even though many apartments are unsold. there is however a key payment made every time an apartment is sold.(remember 360 Furhman st 1BBP owned the land when it was “donated’ to the park).
which BBP exec didn’t know this?
the bottom line is that the building bubble is over for the time being and that is why the city fathers are looking for alternative revenue streams. It has nothing to do with the public’s dislike of the highrises. Bloomberg could care less.
However the dough has to be raised somehow so perhaps we will have tolls on the portion of the BQE running past the park. Cars do seem to be the cash cow that this administration turns to time and again.