Community ends up with nothing after wide-scale condemnation

From the Wall Street Journal:

It was supposed to be a breakthrough victory for Harlem residents and a model on how to settle raging land-use disputes.

But more than 2½ years after Columbia University brokered an agreement with community groups — exchanging a lucrative package of benefits for the area's blessing of the university's expansion into West Harlem — local officials and residents are complaining that the fruits of the deal remain a mystery.

Political squabbling over control of the benefits has left nearly $3 million in Columbia-donated funds idling in a bank. The group administering the largest chunk of benefits, the West Harlem Local Development Corp., doesn't have an office, a website or a staff. The corporation hasn't made public any reports of its activities.

As required, Columbia has directed funds to pay for an agreement compliance officer hired by the state and a tenants attorney to advise residents on evictions. But no one has been retained.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who enforces the state's charities law, has subpoenaed the nonprofit corporation, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars but never registered with his office.

Barron under scrutiny for developer deal

From the Daily News:

Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron steered $3 million from a big developer to a community group run by a longtime political aide, the Daily News has learned.

Barron threw his support behind the Related Companies' plan for the massive Gateway II shopping complex in East New York after the firm signed a secret benefits agreement pledging the cash to a coalition run by Andre (A.T.) Mitchell, Barron's former aide.

The Daily News reported Wednesday that Barron and his wife, Assemblywoman Inez Barron, also pumped $350,000 in taxpayer money to Mitchell's nonprofit Man Up! Inc., which helps inmates reenter society.

Liu looks to reform CBA process

From the Wall Street Journal:

A task force commissioned by City Comptroller John Liu is poised to call for a major change in the way that the city determines what amenities—such as affordable housing and parks—to extract from real-estate developers in exchange for approving their plans.

Those decisions are among the most controversial parts of the city's rough-and-tumble land-use approval process and are often criticized for the inconsistent way in which they are made. A draft report by the task force, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, recommends that new groups made up of community representatives—and monitored by the comptroller—negotiate benefit deals with developers involving major rezoning decisions.

Currently there's no formalized way in which these deals are made. Rather a collection of interest groups typically participate, including elected officials, community organizations and others, with the ultimate decision on the zoning being made by the City Council.

Under the comptroller's proposal, the City Council would still get to vote on the zoning decision. But the negotiations with the developer for parks, affordable housing, job training or other benefits would be removed from the council because they would be completed months before the zoning vote.

The draft, issued by the task force this week, has immediately stoked concerns among city officials, some real-estate executives and others that the new negotiations would add cost and time onto an already-lengthy development process and give new power to the comptroller. Mr. Liu's office cautioned that the report on so-called Community Benefits Agreements is not final and is subject to change.

The report calls for a new structure in which a set of members representing the community would hire a consultant and negotiate with the developer a set of payments for benefits such as schools, open space, job training and affordable housing. A consultant would oversee the negotiations, which would take place before the start of the city's seven-month rezoning process, in which the City Council would have final say over proposed developments.

The report calls for a new law to codify the program. But such a measure would likely face strong headwinds since it would have to be approved by the City Council. A city official said the Bloomberg administration would oppose the recommendations as drafted, saying it would hinder investment and marginalize the roles of elected officials and community boards. Council Speaker Christine Quinn has expressed concerns about the legality of the proposals, according to a person familiar with her position.

Who determines the "set of members representing the community"? And why no talk about the enforcement of these agreements, which ALWAYS seem to be only optional advisory recommendations for developers to follow? Why do we have these stupid agreements anyway? If you bribe "community representatives" and the council, you get to build whatever the hell you want! So what is the purpose of zoning anyway? To assure bribes?

Christine Quinn is concerned about the "legality of the proposals" but not of all the other shady shit she and the mayor do on a daily basis?

Columbia's CBA is really just a giant slush fund

From the NY Post:

A $76 million windfall intended to help Harlem residents is in limbo -- and may never be paid -- because the politician-backed nonprofit in charge of distributing the money is in disarray, The Post has learned.

Although it formed four years ago, the West Harlem Local Development Corp. lacks a mission statement, has yet to get tax-exempt status from the IRS and doesn't even have a phone number.

The group already has received $500,000 from Columbia University -- part of a 16-year payout designed to assuage community fears over the school's expansion -- yet hasn't spent a cent on the neighborhood.

At least five people have quit the nonprofit, alleging that it was becoming a "slush fund" for Manhattan politicians.

The delay "threatens to undermine" the agreement and leave Harlem with nothing, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer charged in a scathing letter to the group.

The organization hasn't set up any guidelines for doling out the cash and ensuring accountability, yet its four-member executive committee is itching to write checks without "a formal application process, without public notices, without protocols for selection, without advice from a community advisory committee," Stringer said in the letter, addressed to then-West Harlem President Julio Batista.

Bar association wants City to can community benefits agreements

From the NY Times:

Over the years the Bloomberg administration’s view of community benefits agreements has evolved from warm support in connection with a number of projects, including Yankee Stadium, to adamant opposition. In the case of the armory, the city said that community groups had been given ample opportunity to shape the document soliciting redevelopment proposals and that no benefits agreement was warranted.

Now, in a report that is likely to have considerable influence on policy makers, the New York City Bar Association has urged the city to stop allowing community benefits agreements to be part of the zoning approval process. The report warns, among other things, that the agreements could create an opportunity for corruption.

“It is our recommendation that the city announce that it will not consider C.B.A.’s in making its determinations in the land-use process,” the bar association said in the report last month. The report, which was in the works long before the armory proposal was defeated, also urged the city to declare that it would no longer play a role in “encouraging, monitoring or enforcing the agreements.” The report acknowledged that there was no way to prevent developers from making deals with community groups. But it said the city should get involved, if at all, only when the developer was seeking a public subsidy.

John C. Liu, the city comptroller, has formed a task force to examine community benefit agreements and other issues related to subsidized economic development projects. He said he understood why the bar association wanted to rid the zoning process of the agreements, but he said its approach was idealistic rather than practical. “My emphasis is on what kind of mechanisms exist to make sure that the promised benefits are delivered,” he said.

CB4 welcomes 120 more units

From the Times Newsweekly:

A local developer’s request to rezone two stretches of land in Corona headlined the Wednesday, Apr. 6 Community Board 4 meeting, held at the VFW Flanders Field Post 150, at which the builder’s attorney was on hand to detail the community benefits of the proposed modification.

Jeffrey A. Chester spoke on behalf of Anthony Argento about plans to build three separate residential buildings containing a combined 120 units along 94th Street and Corona Avenue.

The speaker informed board members that the project would revitalize a downtrodden neighborhood rife with graffiti, litter and various forms of criminal activity.

“It’s going to be nicer than your typical development,” promised Chester. “We want to make sure the buildings are constructed with architectural integrity … something the community can be proud of.”

Specifically, community board members were asked to endorse the changing of a M1-1 District to an R7B District property in order to allow the lot to match the existing residential character of the areas surrounding it.

Attendees were further informed of Argento’s commitment to add at least 75 underground parking spaces for the future inhabitants of the dwellings, along with flowers and greenery that would be planted around the edifices and on street sides.

Chester acknowledged the unique configuration of the lot in question, but assured listeners that ample entrances would be provided for large trucks to enter the gated property in case of an emergency.

Along the 91st Place portion of the area, Argento’s representative proposed turning the existing R7B commercial overlay into a C2-3 District that would prevent a future influx of car dealerships and other similar businesses in that particular pocket. The commercial locations currently in the area, he mentioned, would be allowed to remain.

When asked by board member Judith D’Andrea whether the developer intends to address the growing need for additional classroom space, Chester communicated that Argento has already leased the biggest portion of his parcel to Newtown High School.

Chairperson of the Postal Committee Stephen Castro, on the other hand, expressed his concerns about safety and asked that 24-hour security be provided by the land owner, along with a sufficient amount of lighting around the perimeter of all three buildings.

Both board members and other attendees at the April session were receptive to the rezoning application, including former City Council Member Helen Sears, who vouched for Argento as a “responsible” individual who “cares for the area.”

She predicted that the undertaking would beautify the community and ultimately help foster the creation of local jobs.

Argento, it was noted, is well known for owning and operating soundstages over the past 25 years in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

Resident Maria Alvarez Castro sang a similar tune by adding: “I’m here to support the project. This will bring light to the neighborhood; it will bring back small businesses.”

The board later voted unanimously to approve the rezoning and subsequent building construction, which won’t immediately commence, according to Chester, since credit and financing for construction projects is very difficult to find during the nation’s ongoing recession.

“We started this in 2005. We are not putting a shovel in the ground tomorrow given what the economy is like today,” shared the attorney.

The community board’s public hearing will reportedly be followed by testimony that will be given at an upcoming Queens Borough Board meeting. Subsequent approvals would then have to be granted by the Department of City Planning and the City Council.

Okay, so the board is saying they still need more school space, which makes me wonder why DOE didn't buy this property for a new school instead of putting yet another one in Maspeth and busing the Corona kids there. Doesn't it make more sense to build the schools where the kids live? The guy says he isn't even ready to build anything and won't for some time. Why waste the opportunity to get a decent sized parcel? Why didn't Nick Comaianni suggest this?

Meanwhile the CB members, geniuses that they are, went ahead and green lighted a proposal that will further overburden the already overcrowded schools. No real community benefit except that there will be new buildings. Corona has been inundated with new buildings over the past few years and looks more like a dump now than ever. But these will be different. After all, the developer said so!

Great job.

Johnny trying to fix CBAs by consulting with real estate industry - and no one else

From the NY Observer:

City Comptroller John Liu has formed his Task Force on Public Benefit Agreements, selecting four co-chairs who hail from backgrounds of labor, the real estate industry, housing and small business. The chairs are Jack Ahern, president of the Central Labor Council; Barry Gosin, CEO of brokerage Newmark Knight Frank; Priscilla Almodovar, a former top state housing finance official and an executive at JPMorgan Chase; and Joyce Moy, professor of Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship at the City University of New York.

The purpose of the effort, which saw its first meeting Friday, is to recommend a more formalized process of creating "community benefits agreements," in which developers seeking public approvals strike deals with a collection of community groups and labor.

Okaaayy...so if they want helpful suggestions on this process, why wouldn't they put representatives of actual community or civic groups on the board? Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people with real estate interests and not community interests, which I suppose is intentional.

At least you know what to expect from Johnny. He never disappoints or surprises.

Bar association comes out against community bribery

From the NY Observer:

The Association of the Bar of New York City doesn't seem to think all that highly of the process of landlords cutting formal, non-standardized deals with community groups—known as Community Benefits Agreements—to win approvals for planned developments.

CBAs proliferated in recent years, particularly in the late real estate boom, as community groups and elected officials rushed to try to wrest concessions and mitigations from developers who may or may not be financially prepared to shower a bounty on the community. The use of CBAs has been criticized, in part because of the somewhat arbitrary manner in which they are formed (there is no standard for which groups end up being signatories in a CBA or participate in the negotiations with a developer, for instance), and the offerings from developers may not necessarily benefit the larger public interest, but rather just assuage a certain small constituency that happens to be negotiating the CBA.

CBAs have popped up at Atlantic Yards, Columbia University's planned West Harlem expansion, and recently at the Kingsbridge Armory development in the Bronx, which was voted down by the City Council after the requirement of a "living" wage became a make-or-break for the elected officials involved.

The well-researched Bar Association's report piles on more criticism and suggests that the tit-for-tat linking of a council land-use approval with a CBA is improper, if not illegal, given that developers are effectively buying zoning changes by paying certain community groups.