Guest Post: The Brooklyn Bridge Park No Longer Needs the Money – What Now?

The following is a guest post from People for Green Space Foundation Inc. The opinions expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of BHB, its publisher or its editorial staff.

Exciting news…
The Brooklyn Bridge Park hit the real estate lottery. We may have needed the towers on Pier 6 to fund the park a decade ago, but real estate prices have exploded from ~$750/sqft to ~$1,800/sqft today. The park benefits as its largest source of recurring revenue is property taxes on the development within its bounds, already including more than 650 apartments, 200 hotel rooms, 400,000 square feet of office and prime retail space in Empire Stores alone, and countless concessions and restaurants. We have already built a city within Brooklyn’s park… which will more than fund the park’s operations in perpetuity.

Actual Developer Rendering of Piers 5 and 6 Within Park

Misleading Park Financials to Justify Pier 6
Unfortunately, the park corporation hid its large real estate windfall in its financial presentation to justify the development of Pier 6 to its board and the public. The park corporation only presented one year of projected financials for the completed park, and the year presented is misleading as the park’s “recurring” revenue is artificially depressed by tax breaks that will start expiring shortly thereafter, increasing taxes paid to the park in the process.

(source: 8/6/14 park presentation; People for Green Space comment in red)

The reality is that park revenue and profits grow rapidly over time. Our analysis (available on SavePier6.org) shows that the park will generate more than $1 billion in cumulative profits over the next 50 years, far more than enough to pay off the one-time pier expense over this period (especially noting that the park already has $87 million in one-time revenue for this purpose). The implication: the park is already overfunded before any development of Pier 6!

RELATED: BHB Exclusive: Q & A with Martin Hale & Lori Schomp of People for Green Space

Further, we believe that the tax estimates – both in our analysis and in the park figures on which our analysis is based– have not kept up with the increase in real estate value. For instance, the park corporation assumes an absurdly low $3/sqft in property taxes for Empire Stores on commercial space renting for “high $40s” to “$150 per square foot” (source: The Real Deal, 11/5/13), even before this year’s big rise in property value and even if one makes assumptions on tax breaks (that will expire).
The park also ignores the value of “profit sharing” arrangements with developers. Due to the large rise in real estate value in the last year and the way the contract was bid, we have been told by a developer involved in bidding that the park participation for the John ST project is already in the money. We have no way to verify this information as the park refuses to provide any information on these developer arrangements.

A New “Low” in Park Transparency
Last Friday, the park corporation rejected calls from the Community Advisory Council (CAC), a list of elected officials and the Brooklyn Heights Association, among others, for projected financial information to justify the development of Pier 6 within the park.
Excerpt from letter from elected officials dated 10/6/14:

The park is a public asset, and the park corporation is a public entity, and the public deserves a transparent understanding of what is being done in their name. In addition, the guiding principles of the park call for “full public participation and full public review throughout the planning, development and management processes.” Withholding key financial information hampers the public’s ability to participate in the planning process and to provide a meaningful review.

Real Issues
There has been an amazing transformation of Downtown Brooklyn in the last decade. Proper planning should reflect this sea change and should be based on current circumstances, not the decade-old data in the park plan.

Take traffic as an example. Massive amounts of traffic are funneled to the bridges and tunnel to Manhattan. Furman/Columbia Streets are shortcuts to these bridges. Any traffic issue causes gridlock, making it impossible to get in or out of the park. Add the millions of square feet of park development under construction, the development boom along the waterfront and the tens of millions of square feet of development in immediately adjacent Downtown Brooklyn. And, to top it off, put out the welcome sign to this wonderful park, now only half built. This is a recipe for disaster. With the BQE hanging above and limited intersections off Furman Street, a fix seems a pipe dream.

The main entrance to the park at Atlantic Avenue is already dangerous to cross. Are we to believe the park has a magic fix when all the proposed construction will make it so much worse? After years of trying, the park has yet to fix the traffic issues on the loop road around Piers 5 and 6. The new plan is to make the loop road one way, to among other things, allow traffic to bypass the line of cars at the public garage. However, by building the towers on Pier 6 in the park entrance, two additional building entrances (aka loading/unloading zones) as well as another garage are being added smack in the middle of this trouble spot. Does it make sense to add lines of cars, taxis and Fresh Direct trucks to the line of cars waiting for the parking garage? In addition to Port Authority shipping traffic? All of this traffic right in the middle of the park and its main southern entrance from Atlantic Avenue.

Then, what about the overcrowding in PS8? Pre-K has already been eliminated, and the DOE is already talking about limiting enrollment next year. Most of the buildings in the park are not yet finished, and the development boom in the area continues.

The Park has priceless vistas of 400 years of NYC history. Does it make sense to add a 350 feet tower of glass and steel right in the middle? In the middle of a historic and low rise neighborhood? Right between Governors Island and the Brooklyn Bridge?

And, why put massive housing density in a flood zone (as if Sandy taught us nothing)?

And, finally, does it make sense to put condo towers in a public park? Especially when the park doesn’t need the money?

The list is endless. The proper planning is non-existent.

Bottom Line
The park corporation made a sworn commitment to minimize housing in Brooklyn’s park:
BBPDC has committed to building the minimum development necessary to cover the park’s maintenance and operations needs. Accordingly, the plan analyzed in the FEIS and described in the GPP represents the maximum build-out that would occur as part of the Project. If, once requests for proposals are issued for the development components, it becomes clear that market conditions will allow for less development to support the park’s needs, the development program will be reduced accordingly. (Source: Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, 2006)
Now that the park no longer needs additional money to fund its operations, no more housing should be built. The drastic improvement in park financials presents an opportunity set that did not exist even a few years ago. We can reclaim the private parcels for needed public park space and can create a grand entrance befitting this great park.

This is about a park and the future needs of Downtown Brooklyn. We can now do better!
We are happy to share our analysis, and welcome questions and ideas to make the park better. Email us at savepier6@gmail.com


Actual Developer Rendering of Pier 6

30+ Stories Within the Park

Surrounding a Playground

Violating Almost All of 13 Guiding Principles
(Including Preservation of View Planes)

New Waterfront Skyline Within the Park

Does this look, even feel, like a park?

Share this Story:

,

  • Visiting Lawyer

    BBP bylaws spell out a basic Duty of Care for directors. By covering up, and refusing to disclose financial information, both board members and Regina Meyer appear to be violating this basic fiduciary duty. Indemnification of directors is carved out in part in cases where there are “acts or omissions in bad faith or intentional misconduct”. It seems clear to me that Ms. Meyer and the directors risk personal liability if they don’t take seriously the well researched and well reasoned argument above. It would be a shame if they were found liable in a lawsuit without D&O insurance.

  • R K Dillon

    I can’t take your analysis very seriously if you’ve paid as much attention to the details of the action as you have to the spelling of Ms. Myer’s name.

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    Flood zone shaded in purple.

  • Felix Unger

    Can’t wait for more condos! With beautiful park views and location! Sign me up! Real estate prices and related taxes won’t be high forever, build up that BBP reserve for the next major flood. Hooray!

  • Solovely

    … seems so sad that the park corp is resisting a reasonable analysis of all future revenues once tax abatements expire, both residential and commercial… the original plan was to minimize development in the park, so it could be a park… we need park space in our growing borough; this location isn’t any old lot to “put a condo building on.” Parks are different. This decision and lose of park space, will last in perpetuity.

    Also, we need our so-called park space to ‘feel’ like park space, not somebody’s backyard… with condos towering above.

    We will follow the park leadership and the park’s board of directors.. in time, our financial analysis – regarding the massive future revenues – will no longer be hidden in future projections but rather (finally!) disclosed in audits – the corp will no be able to hide behind, or claim, “false unknowns”… we will remember their leadership…

    financial transparency is a wonderful thing for the community, and it also helps leaders protect themselves.. and their decisions… our analysis is out there, for the future… our predictions, our assumptions, are transparent.

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    Sorry but am I the only one pro more apartments?

    I don’t know about you but I’m happy that there will be more people enjoying Brooklyn heights and reducing the tax burden for all of us.

  • ujh

    The only way to change the development scheme is for the letter-sending politicians to negotiate with Mayor de Blasio, who is behind the development of Pier 6, instead of sending letters for public consumption.

  • Solovely

    … we will prepare an inventory of all the places more condos are being built both within BH and immediately adjacent… there are lots more apts on their way!

    also, excess monies from the park appear to flow to NY State, so it won’t do anything for your tax burden… plus, since the folks living in these proposed structures will have their taxes go into PILOTs; people living in these buildings in the park actually use city services (roads, police, fire.. anything that is city general fund service) they aren’t paying for… so it is actually a city tax subsidy

    its just the neighborhood that loses.. by not having more park space to keep our neighborhood wonderful… even as it becomes a denser place to live…

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    You realize the irony of complaining about a lack of park space…..next to one of the biggest parks in Brooklyn right…..? the promenade is huge area, losing this small space is no big deal……unless of course you live in one of the buildings where the light etc is being blocked…..or you have a thing against subsidized housing…..your choice.

  • Solovely

    Park size is relative to its intended use; bbp is intended to be a recreational park and given that aspiration, its roughly 65 acres of actual park space is relativity small, especially given projections for population growth and the millions of park visitors. Also, again, Brooklyn as a borough had very little park acreage, as I have cited before per a WSJ source, but this fact is easily checked elsewhere as well.

    I am a public health student, parks are important to healthy communities and parks and affordable housing are both important policy objectives. Equality happens through general fund budgeting processes.

  • MonroeOrange

    yes you are the only one….more apartments with no additional schools built and no hospital in the vicinity will be a burden for all of us.

    You ever play Sim City? you need more police, fire dept, hospital and schools when you increase the population. Combine that with the fact that these building are being built in a flood area, spells trouble and more burdens for all of us.

  • David on Middagh

    R K Dillon, I want to thank you for explaining the difference between “stationary” and “stationery” in that perceptive comment of yours on DNAinfo. All of us who are able must take up the mantle of orthography, lest the proud standards at last be drowned in a Zone-A flood of democratic discourse—and our sopping mantle become too heavy to raise from the muck, and permanently Myered there.

  • StoptheChop

    except the Mayor not only refuses to negotiate– he refuses to even meet with our other elected officials to discuss this!

  • Andrew Porter

    The future is here. Here is a Brooklyn Eagle post about a Festival of Lights in DUMBO which was overwhelmed by people trying to see it, resulting in dangerous overcrowding in nearby subway stations and streets:

    http://tinyurl.com/odskx7u

  • Andrew Porter

    Do you really think that the more people there are to pay taxes, the lower they’ll be for everyone else? By that reasoning, if we tear down all the local brownstones and build 80-story condo towers, we’ll be getting rebates!

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    You wont be getting rebates but yes the burden will go down.

    Like I said looks like I am the only one who doesn’t mind this building going ahead………cant believe that so many snobs living here in Brooklyn heights that are against affordable subsided housing, lol oh you mean there are protests about the $1m+ apartments being built in DUMBO…..must have missed them :P

  • Solovely

    again, try and understand the tax structure of this park. your conclusion about lowering tax burden is not correct, nor your other conclusions for that matter. Dumbo is not a park.

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    lol well BPP was a wharf….before it was a park. The point still stands more home owners, lower per capita tax burden.

    Admit it….you guys are anti-poor people, simple as that. No one would be complaining if it was all rich apartments.

    Half of you probably haven’t even set foot in BPP apart from when it first opened, certainly never set foot onto the basketball courts and apart from seeing it from the promenade once in a while you’ll never even walk through the space the building “in the park” again will take up ever again.

    BPP is a huge area, losing this much space for the additional affordable housing is a great tradeoff.

    Its all about NIMBY….no matter how you want to dress up your arguments.

  • Callahan

    looks awesome

  • jspechal

    I am totally for this project. These folks are completely ignoring the housing crisis. With your argument, please do not complain in the future about outsiders coming overcrowd BBP. Iwould be shocked if you guys block this project

  • clarknt67

    I cannot get upset about this. I have lived in the Heights 20 years and there is nothing to “save” here. Pier 6 and the Furman Atlantic intersection was always an eyesore and a waste of prime space that had potential to be enjoyed by many. I cannot either get upset about a park being overfunded in the 21st century. The park is indeed crowded with people enjoying it but not over crowded.

  • clarknt67

    And I agree having visited many times, it is a huge park. Lots and lots of space even on the busiest days to enjoy the place.

  • Bill

    “Take traffic as an example. Massive amounts of traffic are funneled to the bridges and tunnel to Manhattan. Furman/Columbia Streets are shortcuts to these bridges. Any traffic issue causes gridlock, making it impossible to get in or out of the park. Add the millions of square feet of park development under construction, the development boom along the waterfront and the tens of millions of square feet of development in immediately adjacent Downtown Brooklyn. And, to top it off, put out the welcome sign to this wonderful park, now only half built. This is a recipe for disaster. With the BQE hanging above and limited intersections off Furman Street, a fix seems a pipe dream.”

    -If traffic is an issue to you in NYC, then I suggest you move elsewhere or, I don’t know, walk or take one of the myriad of subway lines only a 15 minute walk away. And besides, traffic slows cars and trucks down making those streets safer for everyone using the park.

    “Then, what about the overcrowding in PS8? Pre-K has already been eliminated, and the DOE is already talking about limiting enrollment next year. Most of the buildings in the park are not yet finished, and the development boom in the area continues.”

    -Excuse me if I’m wrong, but how is it BBP or the developers job to build additional school capacity?

    “The Park has priceless vistas of 400 years of NYC history. Does it make sense to add a 350 feet tower of glass and steel right in the middle? In the middle of a historic and low rise neighborhood? Right between Governors Island and the Brooklyn Bridge?”

    -400 years ago Henry Hudson had just barely shown up in the harbor. Does it make sense to add millions of people and a 1776 foot tower right in the middle of the Native Americans’ views?

    “And, why put massive housing density in a flood zone (as if Sandy taught us nothing)?”

    -Because the park was built for resilience, of course the new development would have proper emergency protocols and will be designed to weather flooding and storms. Why put massive housing and commercial density in a flood zone in Lower Manhattan then?

    All of this reeks of NIMBYism. Where was the uproar about One Brooklyn Bridge Park? The John Street building in DUMBO? These two building wouldn’t even block that many views, just from drivers on the BQE, and certainly not anyone visiting the park. And what are these “13 Guiding Principles?”

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    No, Bill, it reeks of political war chests built on real estate greed.

  • Bill

    I’ll let DCP decide if it has any regard to city planning, thanks. But you know, lets just be on the safe side and tear down the whole park while we’re at it and revert into run down warehouses, because obviously putting residential buildings in a park turned out to be a terrible idea. And this has nothing to do with LICH.

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    Closing LICH was a real estate deal, too. The amount of building of new residences in the park and all over this area makes closing of the area’s hospital even more criminal. The two are absolutely related.

  • StoptheChop

    When the Brownstone Brooklyn community began advocating to have a park along the (no longer used for shipping) piers, over 15 years ago, the 13 Guiding Principles comprised the– well, guiding– document that the original plans were intended to follow (including stuff like not over building structures within the park, if they weren’t necessary, and also caring about issue like height– which Toll Brothers is now ignoring, with Park support, for Pierhouse).

    And of course, the OBBP building long predated the park, by decades.

    And the John St building is only 12 stories high.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com ClaudeScales

    To be fair, there was considerable opposition to building the structures on the two sites landward of Pier 6 long before the “affordable” component was announced.

  • Solovely

    Dean, let’s get coffee! Let’s chat and not talk past each other… your posts don’t directly respond to my arguments.. and it seems I am not understanding yours! I would love to meet you! we certainly seek to engage our entire community/viewpoints … that’s the reason we wrote the blog… we are happy to learn from you. Gratefully, Lori savepier6@gmail.com

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    Thank you, Solovely — looking forward to the inventory of new residences/condos being built in the area. Should be very useful.