Progressive Democrat Issue 118: NY CITY FOCUS: The City Budget
The Mayor's Budget contains some very, very unpalatable things. We need to urge the City Council to reject the budget as long as some of the worst expenditures are in there.
I hope to revisit this later if I get the chance, but for now let's look at just one of the unpalatable expenditures. Let's start with $205 million budgeted to support Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. This is money that each and every New York City Taxpayer is being asked to spend so that a private developer can make gobs and gobs of money. Now SOME of that money will go to infrastructure, but some is nothing buy a gift to a wealthy developer. There are two reasons why this $205 million is problematic and should be rejected.
Reason 1: $100 million of this $205 million is slated for land acquisition costs on behalf of Forest City Ratner. It should be remembered that $100 million is precisely the amount Forest City Ratner bid to acquire the site, so the mayor has proposed that NYC taxpayers purchase the land for Bruce Ratner. In the words of our City Councilman, David Yassky, "There's no justification to spend public money like this. Government money should be spent on transportation infrastructure, schools and traffic calming - not subsidies for a private company.” We should support David Yassky’s sentiments that the city should NOT be spending its money to purchase land for a private development agency. The remaining $105 million is slated for infrastructure improvements associated with the area.
Reason 2: A perhaps more fundamental reason why the City Council should reject the $205 million budgeted for Forest City Ratner’s project is the fact that this project was approved without a business plan being filed. The Empire State Development Corporation was forced to reveal that they had approved Forest City Ratner’s project sans business plan only when Assemblyman Jim Brennan sued the ESDC to see the business plan. We are being asked to fund a project that has no business plan. Approval of a plan of this scale without a business plan is a colossally irresponsible action and the City Council should not sink any taxpayer money into a project that has not properly filed a business plan. Even the $105 million that the city has budgeted for infrastructure improvements associated with the site should not be spent as long as a business plan has not been filed.
For these reasons, Mayor Bloomberg’s budget should be rejected by the City Council pending removal of the $205 million budgeted for Ratner’s plan. Why should we be buying the land for Ratner's profit, and why should we be spending ANY amount of money on a project that has no business plan? Imagine going to a bank and asking for even a loan (let alone a gift of money!) for your business if you had not business plan!
You can contact your City Council member here.
Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.
I hope to revisit this later if I get the chance, but for now let's look at just one of the unpalatable expenditures. Let's start with $205 million budgeted to support Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. This is money that each and every New York City Taxpayer is being asked to spend so that a private developer can make gobs and gobs of money. Now SOME of that money will go to infrastructure, but some is nothing buy a gift to a wealthy developer. There are two reasons why this $205 million is problematic and should be rejected.
Reason 1: $100 million of this $205 million is slated for land acquisition costs on behalf of Forest City Ratner. It should be remembered that $100 million is precisely the amount Forest City Ratner bid to acquire the site, so the mayor has proposed that NYC taxpayers purchase the land for Bruce Ratner. In the words of our City Councilman, David Yassky, "There's no justification to spend public money like this. Government money should be spent on transportation infrastructure, schools and traffic calming - not subsidies for a private company.” We should support David Yassky’s sentiments that the city should NOT be spending its money to purchase land for a private development agency. The remaining $105 million is slated for infrastructure improvements associated with the area.
Reason 2: A perhaps more fundamental reason why the City Council should reject the $205 million budgeted for Forest City Ratner’s project is the fact that this project was approved without a business plan being filed. The Empire State Development Corporation was forced to reveal that they had approved Forest City Ratner’s project sans business plan only when Assemblyman Jim Brennan sued the ESDC to see the business plan. We are being asked to fund a project that has no business plan. Approval of a plan of this scale without a business plan is a colossally irresponsible action and the City Council should not sink any taxpayer money into a project that has not properly filed a business plan. Even the $105 million that the city has budgeted for infrastructure improvements associated with the site should not be spent as long as a business plan has not been filed.
For these reasons, Mayor Bloomberg’s budget should be rejected by the City Council pending removal of the $205 million budgeted for Ratner’s plan. Why should we be buying the land for Ratner's profit, and why should we be spending ANY amount of money on a project that has no business plan? Imagine going to a bank and asking for even a loan (let alone a gift of money!) for your business if you had not business plan!
You can contact your City Council member here.
Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.
posted by mole333 | 10:59 AM
|
1 comments
1 Comments:
Not to mention that Ratner right-hand man Jim Stuckey has made a habit of talking about how "generous" Forest City Ratner has been with footprint homeowners whom FCRC has bought out -- he has frequently claimed that they have paid "above market" for properties (even though there's no such thing -- what one pays is "the market").
Well, of course they've been generous! They were using our money!
Post a Comment
<< Home