The NYC2012 Legacy: $6 Billion New Taxes 10000
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2012 Contra-Bid Book The NYC2012 Legacy: $6 Billion New Taxes 10,000 more cars No Second Ave. Subway Expected Displacement Objecting to a Manhattan Stadium, partial list U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler State Senator Thomas Duane State Senator Eric Schneiderman State Senator Liz Krueger State Assemblymember Richard N. Gottfried State Assemblymember Scott Stringer State Assemblymember Debra Glick City Councilmember Christine Quinn City Councilmember Gale Brewer City Councilmember Bill Perkins Former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer Former NYC City Comptroller Alan Hevesi Manhattan Community Board 4 Manhattan Community Board 2 Manhattan Community Board 3 Manhattan Neighborhood Council (153 community organizations) Clinton Special District Coalition West 15th Street Block Association West 16th Street Block Association West 45th Street Block Association West 46th Street Block Association West 51st Street Block Association Coalition of Chelsea Block Associations Hell’s Kitchen Neighborhood Association Manhattan Plaza Tenants Association (1,800 residents) Soho Alliance Transportation Alternatives B.L.O.C. 19 Association Coalition for a Livable West Side Committee for Environmentally Sound Development Housing Conservation Coordinators Chelsea Owners & Tenants for Neighborhood Preservation Metropolitan Council on Housing Ludlow Street Block Association (East Side) Chelsea Housing Coalition Trees Not Trucks East Side Tenants Coalition Other elected officials, while not necessarily voicing specific opposition to a stadium, have questioned the wisdom of prioritizing the #7 subway extension over more deserving transportation capital projects (i.e., Second Avenue subway). Those include: Assemblymember Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the New York State Assembly Betsy Gotbaum, NYC Public Advocate William C. Thompson, Comptroller, City of New York Gifford Miller, Speaker of the New York City Council C. Virginia Fields, Manhattan Borough President Carolyn Maloney, U.S. House of Representatives Alan J. Gerson, City Councilmember Senator Martin Connor, State Senate Minority Leader Assemblymember Pete Grannis Assemblymember Steven Sanders Eva Moskowitz, City Councilmember The Clinton Special District Coalition 305 W. 45th Street #6-D, New York, NY 10036 • tel: (212) 581-9022 • fax: (212) 974-2976 http://hellskitchen.net • email: [email protected] October 29, 2002 Dear USOC Member: We write because we must; we have no alternative other than asking you to reject the application of New York City for the 2012 Olympic Games. You and other members of the USOC will meet on November 2nd to decide whether New York or San Francisco gets the USA nod to enter into international competition of the 2012 Olympics. As you consider your decision, we are aware that many New York residents are now calling and faxing the USOC to oppose a Manhattan stadium. We can only hope the USOC will share those sentiments with its members. You will soon see the fake parade filmed by NYC2012 two weeks ago (implying that pedestrians on their way to work somehow supported the Olympic bid) and you will hear an impassioned plea from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. You will hear from NYC Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff and NYC2012 President Jay Kriegel as they continue to misrepresent the cost and impact of the plan to bring the Olympics to NYC, and in the process build a stadium in Manhattan. But as you consider which city to designate, we understand your concern to be with proposed sports venues, the perceived internationalization and diversity of the U.S. host city, and the viability of the plans. We ask you to also consider the impact a 2012 Olympics would have on the affected communities, the legacy of displacement and other adverse impacts, and the lack of real public enthusiasm. New York City has a long history of public activism, and this issue is no stranger to controversy. We suggest that NYC2012 would have had a better reception if their bid was based in an altruistic concern for the overall welfare of New York City and not based on real estate machinations. NYC2012 would have been welcome if they had worked with affected communities rather than coming in and telling us what they were going to do whether we liked it or not. After all, how do you negotiate a smaller stadium? NYC2012 might have been more welcome if it had made its plans, including financial reports and recent Executive Summary, open to the public. After much criticism, its Bid Book was 'deposited' in a few dusty reference rooms, but never released to the public until we scanned it in and put it on the internet. Reporters were begging for the secretive "Bear Stearns Report" detailing the alleged viability of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) scheme. NYC2012 never released it, and again it was made available, only in the last few weeks, from a leak rather than any attempt by NYC2012 to fully reveal its plans. This attitude is reflected in their dismissal of community concerns that those opposed to the stadium are “a small minority,” “obstructionist,” or “citizens against virtually everything.” We simply live here. We can't give you a sleek 600 page full color Bid Book designed to extol good feelings and impressions of glory, but we can try to correct misstatements by NYC2012, omissions by the press and certainly a Bronx Cheer to any plan that includes a Manhattan Stadium. New Yorkers are not aware of the scope and cost of the proposed NYC bid, partly because the media has failed to publish the details. A recent New York Newsday poll indicated 73.5% of respondents preferred San Francisco for the Olympics. Another independent poll by the Quinnipiac College Polling Institute indicated that while New Yorkers were receptive to a region-wide Olympics, they opposed (71%) using taxpayer dollars for any stadium on Manhattan’s west side. The Quinnipiac College Polling Institute press release quoting Director Maurice Carroll stated, "'Let the games begin,' New Yorkers say. But don't build a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan. And whatever you do, don't use our tax dollars to pay for it." We ask you to give serious consideration to our objections. 1. NYC2012 says the west side of Manhattan is a "Wasteland" even though only three tenths of one percent (0.3%) of the buildings are vacant. They claim the property values of the west side are less than those of Park Avenue -- even though the threat of a stadium for the last several years has itself stinted normal development. While the area is not Park Avenue, it is an active mixed-use community where many buildings have been transformed from industrial uses to back office uses for legal firms, printers, photographers, arts-related industries, showrooms, car dealerships, etc. To state or imply that the area is bombed-out, abandoned, poverty-striken or otherwise 'blighted' is a complete fabrication by NYC2012. Indeed, a recent report by New York City Planning Department stated: "... this [1997-2000] analysis indicated that the study area continued to grow as a services-based economy ... identified the trend of reusing large floor plate manufacturing buildings for new arts-related (studios, galleries) and computer businesses. For example, the Starrett-Lehigh building originally built for manufacturing uses was repositioned during the late 1990's into a high-technology commercial building." .. and .. "The services sector had the strongest growth within the study area reflecting the area’s transition to arts-related and commercial businesses. The printing industry is amongst the last of the industrial uses within this area and these businesses have been in decline, in part due to changes in the industry and due to the competition for space from other users." The USOC should not buy into the notion that because property values on the west side are less than those of Midtown, or because they claim the area is economically unproductive, therefore the area needs to be redeveloped. Indeed, the area is in transformation and its uses are shifting, but there is a demand for a variety of uses. Any city will have a mix of areas. Here, the west side should continue to be a mixed-use area home to companies that provide services to larger corporate customers in Midtown. A city still needs it support infrastructure. Development is already occurring in the area, but (compared to the plan proposed by NYC2012) more rational and sustainable, and certainly it is happening in the context of the private marketplace without the encumbrance of a tax scheme that may actually hinder growth. 2. NYC2012 falsely claims only 152 people live in the affected areas -- although U.S. Census figures show the population in the affected area is much higher, much higher. See the enclosed listing of U.S. Census figures. 3. NYC2012 claims it can build a stadium (in conjunction with the New York Jets) and it won't impact traffic-burdened Manhattan -- although the New York Jets' own traffic studies predict another 10,000 cars for events at the stadium, even with a subway extension. When all the parking lots cited by the New York Jets get developed, where will cars park? Many of those lots serve events at the Javits Convention Center, at Madison Square Garden and the city in general. 4. NYC2012 claims it really isn't a stadium; it's merely an extension of the Javits Convention Center. They claim "everybody" agrees the size of the Javits Center must be doubled. That is everybody except the management of the Javits Centers which has called for a much more moderate expansion that does not include a pseudo-stadium. 5. NYC2012 claims it will be all privately financed - even though their suppressed studies show they will seek tax dollars from the Federal Government that could kill or delay the long-needed and widely desired Second Avenue subway. It could force property owners and tenants throughout all of New York City to pay much higher taxes.