Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Flushing Commons & Sky View Parc lack financing

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

In last week's WSJ, the paper covered the city council vote on Flushing Commons and got the following interesting quote from an ebullient Mike Myer: "In Flushing, the council approved rezoning for Flushing Commons. The $850 million project includes 600 residential units, 185,000 square feet of offices, 235,000 square feet of retail space, 1,600 underground parking spots and a 1.5-acre public green space. In 2005, co-developers Rockefeller Group Development Corp. and TDC Development Corp. won the bid to build on the city-owned site, and have worked since on rezoning and a plan to compensate businesses that will be affected by construction. "It was a Herculean effort," said TDC President Michael Meyer before the vote. "We've gone through two real-estate cycles…Starting tomorrow, we'll go out and look for financing."

So, let's get this straight. The developer was awarded this bid and got city council approval without any guarantee that the project is financible in this current economic climate-and what happens in case of a default? Has EDC built into the disposition any fail/safe provisions that will allow the city to reclaim the property should TDC be unable to fulfill its obligations in a timely manner? But perhaps, the city planning to convey the property to the developer without any strings attached?

Now Mr. Myer, as clever and slippery a character as we have seen-full of false bonhomie- was asked repeatedly during the ULURP process about his organization's fiscal capabilities. And, according to those at the various hearings on the land use application, the ever shifty realtor did what he does best-he shucked and ducked. But that was land use-and now we are going to have to determine the procedures for disposing of the muni lot property-and questions of financial viability should be front and center.

In addition, there is the further potential that the developer will have its funding stream collapse in the middle of construction-after the parking structure is demolished-leaving only a Robert Moses style hole in the ground. Is the city protected in case of this eventuality? Even more so, are the Union Street and other Flushing merchants going to be indemnified-not by the city-but by the developer should this kind of parking disaster occur?

And what ever happened to the 17 stipulations that CB #7-and the Queens BP promulgated? Well, one thing we know for sure is that they have been disappeared in the course of the land use review. How do these entities feel about being totally ignored-after being used as "supporters" of Flushing Commons?" And, since they will be central to the borough board process, will they be looking to amend the disposition agreement to incorporate some of the stips that were agreed to?

And over at Sky View Parc...

From the NY Post:

The developer of the mam moth, $1 billion-plus Sky View Parc condo-retail complex in downtown Flushing is scrambling to borrow nearly $150 million so it can complete the first phase of the project -- drastically overbudget and behind schedule.

Sky View Parc was conceived as something new in Queens: a luxurious, 1,000-unit residential enclave designed to exploit Flushing's status as a thriving center of Asian and Asian-American life. Residents would enjoy a private elevated park and pool, and shoppers would flock to 795,000 square feet of big-box type stores.

But according to a summary for participants in a senior lenders' meeting on June 16, "total cost overruns" on Sky View Parc, which started work in 2007, were $160,802,000 as of last December -- compared to the original budget for the project's first phase, which a source estimated at $600 million.

Now, the project's general partner, Onex Real Estate Partners, is seeking to restructure a $519.3 million construction loan to extend the term by three years and to borrow an additional $144.6 million.

So far, several lenders have not yet agreed to a restructuring plan by Eurohypo Bank AG and Wells Fargo. While the original loan might have been exhausted, work continues, thanks to equity Onex pumped in -- but long-term restructuring is deemed critical.


Jerry Rotondi said...

I guess that EDC/TDC has told you both that you can shove your 17 stipulations...Chuck & Gene.

Too bad, you could have voted "NO" on the project and had the satisfaction of having done the right thing.

I, along with many others, am deeply disappointed.

It spoils your long standing record of concern for CB 7's residents.

Anonymous said...

You all keep on missing the diminutive fellow hiding behind the curtain...WELLINGTON CHEN!

Isn't he running the whole show W.P. & Flush-Com) from back stage?

Remember that photo of him next to the director of the Willets Point boondoggle Claire Shulman?

It looks as though they're thick as thieves!

Anonymous said...

Federal investigators need to be brought in on this.

I'm e-mailing President Obama's office as soon as I'm through posting and I'm advising everybody to do the same...flood the feds with calls too!

NYC is selling off a public municipal parking lot to a politically connected developer who doesn't have the financing in place to put a shovel in the ground.

So they've asked for approval to build Flushing Commons on spec!

Isn't that what got the USA into such hot financial water?

I know when I went to apply for my home mortgage, the bank wanted to know if I could afford to take on the debt.

I guess that all sound financial rules can be ignored when the building of the Wellingtowne colony is in progress.

Anonymous said...

BRING IN THE FEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

These two assholes new this was going to happen, it was all part of the deal. Ask Vallone and Co, Chuck and Gene have sold out a long time ago and are criminals that need to be investigated. Check their records and let it speak. Where does Chuck make most of his money? Where does Kelty make his "Other" money, come on people figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Just for fun, how many "Board Members" own real estate in or around the recent "Development" areas, Joe? Gene? Chuck? Marylin? AJ and Co??

Babs said...

Jerry - I don't understand - you want Flushing - specifically the Main Street area to stay the way it is NOW? Am I understanding you correctly?

Blabs said...

Babs is babblin' again, Jerry. Pay her no mind. She's jealous because hers isn't functioning normally! Jerry, I see nothing in your post that states that you want to see the area remain status quo. Babs said, "Am I understanding you correctly?" Perhaps if Babs had better reading comprehension skills and thought before she wrote, she wouldn't have had to ask!!!

Babs said...

Knucklehead - I am being sincere here - WHAT is it that you are all supposedly opposed to?

Main Street the way it is now sucks - the way it was in 1965 is great - but an episode of Star Trek this is not so we're can't go back in time.

Blabs said...

It's all about M E ! ! ! !

Blabs said...

It's all about M E ! ! ! !

Blabs said...

It's all about M E ! ! ! !

Wood Hee said...

This exchange is giving me lumber.

Jerry Rotondi said...

No I do not object to change "Babs".

Where did I indicate that in my post that I wanted Main Street to remain exactly as it is (or was in the past). It's a mess!

Change and sound growth have always a been part of NYC's history.

That's why I continue to prefer living here.

If I wanted to live like a fly in amber I would have moved long ago to Williamsburg, Virginia.

Growth makes our metropolis vital and well able to compete with other cities of the world.

What I, and numerous others object to, is giving away a profitable and necessary public parking facility with out any guarantee that Flushing Commons will be adequately financed or sucessfuly built.

Instead, let the city consider leasing the property to TDC for 99 years...perhaps.

That is SOP for most deals of this nature.

As you can see those "stipulations" that CB 7 insisted upon were meant to be broken.

What other broken promises can the community expect from EDC/TDC in the future if they're behavlng so shabbily from the get-go?

Once again, as guardians of the common good, both Chuck, Gene and the rest of CB 7 should have voted down this project as it was presented.

It needs change in size and scope and the method of conveyance of the property.

At least I stand behind my beliefs with out hiding behind a pseudonym like "Babs".

Any further questions from you?

Anonymous said...

Fuggettaboutit Jerry...
"Babs" is most likely Michael Meyers in drag!

Who's ridin' who these days anyway...Meyers on Chen or Chen on Meyers?


Anonymous said...

I think there's some mad Armenian lady out thee defending a countryman.

Jerry Rotondi said...


What does Municipal Lot #1
earn in parking fees and fines?

Those figures were never publicly presented, to the best of my knowledge, before a selling price for the property was discussed.

Does the NYC comptroller's office have any dat on this?

Jerry Rotondi said...

Error...I meant "data".

Anonymous said...


Enjoy your daily read of Queens Crap...Chucky!

We know you've got to follow all the posts to see waz up!

Anonymous said...

The lenders for Sky View Parc most likely are aware of the horrible multi-layer poor construction in the residential towers... there are also lawsuits pending and more to come. And to think Related signed on to market this junk!

Anonymous said...

No money for Flushing Commons? I think TDC/Rockefeller (AKA Wellington Chen) has some explaining to do.

No one in the ULURP process ever checked the finances? Where were you Johnny Liu? (oh, I forgot, blood is thicker than water)

How can TDC/Rockefeller (AKA Wellington Chen) be awarded this property with having the $$$?

If this in not illegal, it ought to be.

Babs said...

"What I, and numerous others object to, is giving away a profitable and necessary public parking facility with out any guarantee that Flushing Commons will be adequately financed or sucessfuly built."

Jerry - thank you for your reply -
I say there are no guarantees in life in general - and there won't be - so do it and let the cards fall where they lay.

BTW why you are being defensive perplexes me as I do not recall addressing you directly in the past.

Babs said...

"At least I stand behind my beliefs with out hiding behind a pseudonym like "Babs".

Excuse me but I don't see why I have to disclose myself to you or anyone else in a public forum - what difference does it make anyway ?

Would you prefer "Anonymous" like the majority in this forum?

Anonymous said...

They could always turn it into ANOTHER hotel for all of the rich Chinese that are flocking here because we were DUMB enough to hand them our jobs and our children's future.

Anonymous said...

Babs, you ignorant slut. It's let the cards fall where they MAY!!!

Babs said...


Let the cards fall "AS they may" or
let the cards fall WHERE they lay - BOTH are commonly used, BOTH are acceptable.

ESL classes I guess can't cover everything.

Jerry Rotondi said...

My last reply..."Babs":

I don't recall my being "defensive"...just very critical of an ill conceived project such as "Flushing Commons".

Without in place financing, this appears to be a speculative project that should not have been approved.

Anonymous said...

I think "Blabs" is that colorful local weirdo...Suzie? (from Bowne House?) what's her name?

Anonymous said...

my guess is that she's really
Frances S. ??? (another loose bolt).

Anonymous said...

I agree with one of the previous posters, Babs. You're an ignorant slut. Please show the denizens of the Queens Crap blogsite where "let the cards fall WHERE they LAY" is used. Betcha can't!!

Anonymous said...

Could "Babs" be the peculiar lazy Linda M. or somebody who ran for the city council years ago and lost miserably?