Before
the: Committee on Economic Development
New York City Council
June 3,
2004
How Will The Proposed West Side Stadium Complex Impact Our
City?
Statement on Behalf of
Manhattan Community Board No.4
by
Walter
Mankoff, Chair
Good afternoon
Chairman Sanders and Committee members. My name is Walter Mankoff. I am the
Chair of Manhattan Community Board No. 4. We welcome this opportunity to speak
about the City's ill-advised plan to put a stadium on the West Side of
Manhattan. Given the methodical attempt by the City and State to use the State
ownership or control of the areas west of 11th Avenue to evade public and
legislative review of this project, this will be one the few opportunities for
the public to be heard on this vital matter
Our District extends from 14th
Street to 60th Streets and from either Eighth Avenue or Sixth Avenue to the
Hudson River. We encompass the well-established residential and business
communities of Clinton/Hell's Kitchen and Chelsea. The site for the proposed
Olympic and football stadium lies at our district's heart, but its impact will
be felt far beyond our boundaries.
Community Board 4
has consistently opposed stadiums on the West Side, ever since they were first
proposed many years ago. But the latest version, a 75,000 seat football stadium
pretending to do double duty as a convention center, disturbs us the most.
Our carefully
considered position was arrived at after two years of study and discussion with
those who live and work in our area. Unlike NIMBY positions which enjoy little
support away from the focal point of a project, an ever growing list of highly
respected organizations and experts share our views and are making their
position public.
Press opponents of
a West Side stadium include the New York Times (editorial 1/26/04), Newsday
(editorial, 2/12/04), New York Observer (editorial 3/4/04) and various
columnists and op-ed articles. Significantly, many of the strongest opponents
are sportswriters
The stadium is
opposed by many local elected officials including Council member Quinn, Assembly
member Gottfried, State Senator Thomas Duane and Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum
and Congressman Gerald Nadler.
Negative opinions
have been forthcoming from fiscal analysts at the Independent Budget Office, the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Center for an Urban Future, the University of
Pennsylvania and countless other planning and development experts. Lastly, the
NY Times reported that the Regional Plan Association staff had prepared a
blistering critique of the heavily subsidized stadium, which the group's study
paper suggested would "deter rather than attract the large-scale redevelopment"
that the West Side needs and that the RPA had agreed to delay the release of the
report following intense lobbying by Deputy Mayor Doctoroff (New York Times,
5/6/04).
Before proceeding,
let me summarize the reasons for our opposition. A West Side Stadium
will:
" Cause severe
environmental and traffic impacts endangering crucial NYC industries such as
theaters and restaurants.
" Cost outrageous sums requiring use of City funds
as backing for securities. May impair funding essential for education, schools,
health care, affordable housing and crucial infrastructure repairs.
"
Discourage badly needed residential and commercial development in vicinity of
stadium.
" Force unacceptably high levels of building density and height in
other parts of the neighborhood to make up for lack of real development on the
stadium site.
" Force potential development away from lower Manhattan, other
parts of the borough or from other boroughs to provide sufficient development in
the West Side to provide income needed to back up bonds. May probably delay
Second Avenue subway.
Community Board 4
does not oppose the City's bid for the Olympics, and we support an expansion of
the Javits Convention Center. We are opposed only to the proposed Olympic
"legacy" to the West Side - a permanent football stadium. We believe that the
long-term benefits of the stadium to our community are illusory, and that even
if those benefits are realized, the stadium will do more harm than
good.
Our City needs
more housing, an expanded Javits Convention Center to draw business and create
jobs, and balanced commercial development. The West Side rail yards, four entire
city blocks on the Hudson River, is a development opportunity that can play a
crucial role in achieving these goals. It should not be squandered on a football
stadium.
Ask yourselves:
what does a football stadium do for us? But before you do that, ask yourselves
whether you'll even have the chance to weigh in on that question. Because the
site is owned by the MTA, and the proposed stadium would apparently be part of
the Javits expansion, which is also a state project, the western rail yards have
been carved out of the zoning plan being developed by the Department of City
Planning. If that strategy prevails, and we certainly hope it doesn't, neither
the stadium nor its financing will be subject to public review through the
City's land use review procedure, and today's hearing could be the last the City
Council hears about the development of this vast and valuable
property.
But this need not
be. The stadium plan is unworkable without the major rezoning of the 59 square
block area of Hudson Yards. Only rezoning can provide the open plaza and the
mid-block boulevard that are signature parts of this plan, and only rezoning can
provide the rushed funding and construction of the No. 7 line extension we are
told we need immediately. And here, the City Council cannot be deprived of its
rightful role. We urge the Council to use its zoning power to demand proper
public and legislative review of the entire project including the stadium and
Javits Center expansion.
But let's assume
that you do have the opportunity to evaluate the stadium. We believe that a
football stadium is bad planning, and bad development risk management for the
City's plans for growth. A stadium is bad planning because it will only
aggravate the area's crushing traffic problems. The Broadway theaters seat
240,000 people a week, the Madison Square Garden Arena seats 20,000 for concert
events. At times it feels like they're all trying to find parking in our
neighborhood - parking that will disappear when the parking lots are taken for
new development. And the City wants to add 75,000 football fans? And the huge
crowds for other stadium events?
And while traffic
will be awful when the stadium is in use, the surrounding streets will be active
only when the stadium is in use and dead when it's not. Even the Department of
City Planning has recognized this as a concern, and has talked of measures to
enliven the building's perimeter. But how much can really be done? The latest
proposed adornments to the stadium site range from a flea market to a sports
bar. These are supposedly to attract Class A office buildings and upscale
apartments to the vicinity. Using this huge, valuable site to build one stadium
is bad development risk management because it puts an awful lot of eggs in a
single basket.
Remember, the
proposed stadium is only one part of the City's proposal for the development of
the Hell's Kitchen/Hudson Yards area. That proposal calls for substantial new
residential and commercial communities that will fuel the City's competitiveness
in the regional and global economies for 40 years to come. So much bulk, in
fact, that the plan may never be achieved. Without the stadium, that bulk could
be spread across the rail yards in a much more rational manner, and development
could occur in more realistic sizes and a more realistic time frame.
A stadium will be
obsolete in 20 to 30 years. What happens then to the City's 40-year plan?
The
public is being asked to invest in a deck over the rail yards, an extension of
the No. 7 subway line, and attractive but very expensive public space. Yet we
will be relying, to a very large extent, on a single user - the New York Jets -
to determine the ultimate success or failure of that investment. And, improper
as it may seem, The City is relying entirely on cost/benefit studies arranged
for and paid for by the Jets. And we may be compromising the City's ability to
complete other important projects, such as the Second Avenue subway, the
redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, and commercial development plans in other
parts of the City.
Many examples are
offered of other cities that have built stadiums next to residential areas
(Seattle) or stadiums as part of convention centers (St. Louis). But none of
those others cities come close to New York for complexity - they're surrounded
by freeways, and distant from commercial and population densities like ours.
The Jets have
offered the St Louis domed stadium adjoining the Convention Center as a model of
what can be done in New York. From a cost standpoint alone there is no
comparison. The Ernst and Young study done for the Jets in March 2004 indicates
a 1995 cost for the domed stadium in St. Louis at $260 million. In 2004 dollars
the cost would be about $330 million. The Jets stadium has a basic cost of $1.4
billion or about 4.5 times the inflation-adjusted St. Louis cost. And the New
York cost does not include any payment to the MTA for use of its land, a factor
that might easily bring the New York cost to well in excess of $2 billion.
Relying on
enormous projects by single developers has not worked well in our city. Take the
example of the Times Square Redevelopment. The original plan, way back in the
'80s, was that a single developer would develop all the buildings. A collapsing
real estate market and a series of lawsuits meant that nothing happened for 10
years. Eventually, the development risk was spread among a variety of
developers, serving a variety of constituencies, and rebuilding
occurred.
The City, NYC 2012
and the Jets can paint a dazzling picture of what this stadium could look like.
But dazzle doesn't get projects built in this City.
We should learn
from the experience, and model, of Battery Park City, where the public invested
in an infrastructure that allowed a variety of developments to occur -
developments that, over time - a long time - created a successful residential
and commercial community, and a revenue stream that will continue to flow long
after the infrastructure is paid for.
Letter to NYC2012, re West Side stadium proposal
April 12, 2004
Jay
L. Kriegel
Executive Director
NYC2012
1 Liberty Plaza, 34th
Floor
New York, NY 10006
Dear
Mr. Kriegel:
We
were disappointed by NYC2012's original bid book which states misleadingly that
care has been taken to ensure that "proposed venues are typically located in
communities that view them favorably." This has certainly not been the case in
our community. Our board, neighborhood and civic organizations and all of the
area's local elected officials have been unwaveringly opposed to a stadium on
the West Side of Manhattan. Many of those opposed to the stadium have joined us
in signing this letter.
We
support bringing the Olympic Games to New York in 2012 and we would be willing
to host appropriate venues in our community, but we cannot support any plan that
contemplates a sports stadium over Manhattan's western rail yards.
A
West Side Stadium would frustrate our community's long-term planning goals of
balanced and sustainable growth and affordable housing. It would rob us of an
opportunity to make productive use of a prime waterfront development site that
could help support the City's financial needs. It would obstruct the natural
southern expansion of the Javits Convention Center. It would wall off three
blocks of the Hudson River waterfront from the public forever. And because it
would be located in one of the most congested parts of the City, it would cause
traffic nightmares. That is why a growing chorus of voices from throughout the
City - including New York City's Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, the New York
Times, Newsday and the Observer - has expressed opposition to a West Side
stadium. More recently the public at large is joining the opinion leaders in
opposing the stadium. Witness the Quinnipiac poll results released last week
that showed 60 percent of registered voters opposed to a West Side stadium if
tax dollars are used and 53 percent opposed even if tax dollars are not
involved.
The
financing plan for the development - which the administration says is
"integrally linked" to the stadium - is fuzzy at best. With an untried
combination of commercial credit and bonds lent against future real estate tax
revenues on development that may not take place in the time envisioned, the
stadium is part of a risky financial scheme that would provide an enormous
taxpayer subsidy for a sports franchise.
NYC2012's most recent submission to the International Olympic Committee
claims that "NYC2012 has encountered no organized opposition to bringing the
Olympic Games to New York." While the 2012 Olympics have not faced organized
opposition, the West Side Stadium has.
The
West Side Stadium is the Achilles' heel of our City's Olympic bid. Its enormous
cost makes New York's Olympic budget the most expensive in world history - a
certain concern for International Olympic Committee President Jacque Rogge, who
has made controlling "the Games' cost and complexity" one of his highest
priorities. And, perhaps most importantly, it is likely to prompt litigation
from many quarters that will cause a fatal delay and negative publicity for the
City's bid.
It
is not too late. The IOC will not make its final decision until next summer.
There are other potential locations for the stadium, which we know you have
studied. Your bid book states that "should any localized opposition become
problematic in the coming years, NYC2012 will be able to alter its Olympic plan
by making recourse to an extensive array of alternative sites." But a thorough,
community-friendly planning process takes time and forethought. Please act soon,
for the good of our community, our city, and the success of our city's Olympic
bid.
This
letter was approved at the meeting of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 on April
7, 2004 by a vote of 29 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstaining and 1 present, but not
eligible to vote, and is supported by the local elected officials and community
organizations whose signatures appear below.
Sincerely,
Walter Mankoff
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Richard Gottfired
Assemblymember
75th Assembly District
Gale
Brewer
Council Member
6th Council District
Sarah Desmond
Executive Director
Housing Conservation Coordinators
Joseph Restuccia
Executive Director
Clinton Housing Development
Company
Kathleen Treat
President
Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood
Association
Chuck Spence
West 44th Street Better Block
Association
President
West
45th Street Block Association
Marilyn Rockefellow
Representative
West
47th/48th Streets Block Association
Elke Fears
President
William Borock
President
Council of Chelsea Block Associations
(400 W. 20th St. B.A.; 300 W. 20th St. B.A.; 400 W. 24/25 St. B.A.; 200 W. 15th
St. B.A.; 200 W. 16th St. B.A.; and 300 W. 21/22/23 St. B.A.)
cc:
Governor George Pataki
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
New York City
Councilmembers
C. Virginia Fields, Manhattan Borough President
Helen
Marshall, Queens Borough President
Other elected officials
Manhattan
Community Boards
Queen Community Board Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8
Deputy
Mayor Dan Doctoroff
Mark Ricks, Mayor's Office
Brenda Levin,
NYC2012
NYC Dept. of City Planning
Brian McLaughlin, NYC Central Labor
Council
International Olympic Committee
United States Olympic
Committee