From the NY Observer:
Confronted Thursday with an Independent Budget Office report that alleges the centerpiece Nets arena is a net-money loser for the city—which is incentivizing the project with $169 million in discretionary subsidy—Mr. Bloomberg loudly hailed the project, implicitly comparing the private development to the city's finest public assets.
“I don’t know what the IBO studies would have shown back when they tried to establish the value of Central Park or Prospect Park or anything else,” he told reporters. “These are the kinds of projects you have to do because without that we don’t have a future, and we’re going to get this one done.”
From the Forum West:
“We believe the residents of Maspeth would benefit from more and better access to public parkland,” wrote Benepe. “While we could not justify the forcible acquisition of the site through condemnation, we would consider purchasing the land if the current owners are now willing sellers.”
Existing public parks: So valuable you can't put price tags on them.
Eminent domain to create new ones: Unjustifiable. Prohibited by the Bloomberg Doctrine.
Eminent domain to benefit private arena developer: Without it, we don't have a future.
And one parting shot from DDDB:
This is what happens when former reporters take up spokesman work—they look silly.
Dave Lombino used to report on Atlantic Yards, and other things, for the NY Sun, now he is a spokesman for NYC Economic Development Corporation. The Times has his response to the IBO study concluding that the Atlantic Yards arena is money loser for NYC:
...In addition, our investment was based on benefits that aren’t easily quantified, like job creation, affordable housing, school construction and open space — and all of this on a site that is now an open railyard without any public benefit,” he said. “That’s not in the report.” (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps that is not in the report because the site is not an open rail yard and the part that is a railyard has a benefit, just as the LIRR and its riders. Lombino knows better than that. He used to report, often skeptically, on the project.
Here is Lombino writing for The Sun in 2006 clearly acknowledging that the site is much more than an "open railyard." Maybe he just forgot.
Furthermore, why on earth would a fiscal analysis study non-quantifiable, illusory "benefits."