« AY project cost rises to $4.9 billion; ESDC promises arena 2012, one tower; maintains ten-year timeframe while saying delay wouldn't be material | Main | Atlantic Yards, Metaphorically Speaking »
June 24, 2009
Atlantic Yards Report Two Times
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder looks at two pieces from The Times, one from yesterday's paper, and the other from 15 years ago. [Unlike a fine wine, The Times is not getting better with age.]
The Times gets conclusory: "There will... soon be a Barclays Center"
WTF?
There may soon be a Barclays Center. And certainly the MTA's passage of the deal today with Forest City Ratner, coupled with the Empire State Development Corporation's preliminary approval of a new AY plan, make it more likely than before.
However, when the Atlantic Yards arena was announced in 2003, it was supposed to open in 2006. Every year the goalposts move. A little skepticism--or at least a little hedging--is in order, especially since FCR is the parent New York Times Company's business partner in the Times Tower.
New York Times editorial (in 1994): "It is wiser to walk away than stumble into a giveaway"
The Finance Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was told Monday by CFO Gary Dellaverson that they had to go ahead with a sweeter Vanderbilt Yard deal for Forest City Ratner because it would be hard to get development on the property in this economy.
He also acknowledged that FCR's deadlines for tax-exempt bonds were driving the breakneck schedule.
Other than Nicole Gelinas in the New York Post, no one's editorialized about the deal, which is expected to be approved tomorrow (though not without some dissent). The New York Times's news coverage seemed especially tailored to downplay the controversy.
Once upon a time, however, the Times crusaded against a somewhat parallel effort to lowball a land deal and said it was better to wait than to rush.
NoLandGrab: We know that The Times would never let its business dealings influence its editorial page, so we're sure that it's just coincidence that their crusading against the sale of the old New York Coliseum site to developer Mortimer Zuckerman had nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Zuckerman was and is the publisher of the rival Daily News, just as the paper's silence on the giveaway to developer Bruce Ratner surely has nothing to do with the fact that Ratner is The Times's development partner.
Posted by eric at June 24, 2009 10:21 AM