All Brooklyn news
Neighborhood Map
Bay Ridge
  • Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights
Brooklyn Heights
  • Downtown, DUMBO
Carroll Gardens
  • Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Boerum Hill
Fort Greene
  • Clinton Hill, Crown Heights
North Brooklyn
  • Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
Park Slope
  • Prospect Heights, Windsor Terrace, Greenwood Heights
GO Brooklyn
Dining Guide
Where to GO
Events calendar
Classifieds
The Brooklyn Wire
Not Just Nets
Police Blotter
Perspective
Parenting
Politics
Transit
Podcasts
Brooklyn Cyclones
Special sections
About The Paper
Mobile site
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds

The fix is in! City cuts big developer’s taxes in Brooklyn Bridge Park

The city has let One Brooklyn Bridge Park off the hook for $1 million in Brooklyn Bridge Park maintenance fees. The agency in charge declined to say why.
The Brooklyn Paper

The city quietly slashed the main source of revenue for Brooklyn Bridge Park, revealing only this week that a luxury condo that funds the park’s maintenance budget is now paying $1 million less — leaving a gaping hole in revenue at a time when planners are struggling to raise even more money for upkeep.

One Brooklyn Bridge Park, a high-rise within the park’s footprint, is supposed to pay $3 million annually, but the Department of Finance recently granted the condo’s developer a reduction in those payments.

The massive loss of revenue comes at a time when city officials are pushing for more housing to fund the park despite public opposition — and it raises the question of whether new high-rises will actually cover future expenses.

“This shows yet again that we need to come together to agree on a new, innovative funding stream that allows the park to reach its potential,” said State Sen. Daniel Squadron (D–Brooklyn Heights), a longtime opponent of condos in the park.

Park officials first became aware of the secret payment reduction in October, after the park’s 2011 budget had already been approved, said Brooklyn Bridge Park spokeswoman Ellen Ryan.

But the public — and even elected officials — first became aware of the cut on Tuesday, after it was mentioned at a board of directors meeting.

One Brooklyn Bridge Park, a former warehouse at 360 Furman St. that was converted into a condo and included inside the park footprint as a financing scheme, had brought in $1.8 million in fees and $1.25 million in ground rent to the park.

But the slashed the tenants’ fees to $800,000 this year after the condo’s developer, Robert A. Levine, requested an exemption, according to a Department of Finance spokesman.

Years ago, Levine got a steep tax break to build the high-rise within the park. At the time, he fought opposition to the sweetheart dealing, saying that the more he earned from his luxury tenants, the more he would put back into the park’s coffers.

Levine’s company did not return a call on Tuesday.

The million-dollar reduction raises doubts on how much future luxury developers will actually contribute to the park maintenance budget — even as the city is moving forward with housing as the primary funding method.

Last week, the city released an analysis of alternative revenue streams for the park’s eventual $16-million maintenance budget. The report was rubber-stamped by the park’s Committee on Alternatives to Housing on Tuesday, though it remains to be seen which revenue proposals will be implemented.

Bay Area Economics, the consultant hired by the city, studied nine revenue streams, including sponsorships, vendor fees and a park improvement district, which, like a business improvement district, would levy a small tax on property owners near the park.

All told, the consultant found only $7 million in revenue sources — a figure that suggests that housing is inevitable.

Some locals and elected officials called the study a sham, saying the city refused to consider property tax revenues from existing buildings. Specifically, the properties owned by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that could soon come on the market.

Squadron and a host of other officials urged the city to consider the so-called “Watchtower properties” — nearly 30 buildings that currently are not on the tax roles under federal laws that exempt religious groups from paying their fair share. He believes that those buildings could generate millions in property tax once they change hands.

The study could only disappoint Squadron and other opponents, given that the consultant was bound by two conditions: a) the 2002 agreement between the city and state that mandated that the $350-million park generate its own revenue for annual upkeep, and b) a requirement that the consultant not consider any revenue, such as property taxes, that otherwise would go into the city’s general fund.

But a contingent of residents and city and state politicians contend that Watchtower properties do actually fit within the study’s guidelines.

Councilman Steve Levin (D–Brooklyn Heights) said that Watchtower proposal isn’t an outrageous idea — it’s what was already done with One Brooklyn Bridge Park, ironically, a former Watchtower warehouse.

Once the building was rezoned and resold, the condo developer paid fees called “payments in lieu of taxes,” which are designated to the park, not the city’s cashbox.

“Just because the report excludes the Watchtower properties doesn’t mean the issue’s out of the way,” Levin said. “We need viable and responsible ways to fund this park, and I don’t quite understand why this suggestion continues to be rejected.”

Reader Feedback

Joe from Brooklyn Heights says:
This is typical political flim flam and screwing the taxpayers and the residents in Brooklyn Heights. This example makes it attractive for developers to build within the park and NOT pay into maintaining the park. I said it before I'll say it again. Developers are trying to get good cheap land to make a killing and leaving the neighborhood without a park while giving the Brooklyn Heights and other neighborhoods the shaft.
June 15, 2011, 2:26 am
frank from furter says:
They received a real estate tax reduction. This isn't brain surgery. With the decline in value of property many properties taxes were reduced...especially the large properties where the value dropped greatly.
It was the City that allowed the DEVELOPER to donate the land to the park. He owned the land and donated it. The City wasn't required to. So if you can find someone to buy the Watchtower, and then the city to allow the donation of the land, they can collect the pilots. But its the City foregoing revenue from land outside the park(but now inside the park) to pay for it. Sure it can be done...but the big if is finding someone to buy the Watchtower properties first.
June 15, 2011, 6:51 am
jj from brooklyn says:
This is a surprise?! Anyone who believes developers of this project are PRIMARILY concerned with the PARK component should get in line to buy an East River bridge. This is a project PRIMARILY designed to enrich RE developers. That we'll get ANY real park out of it is a fortunate afterthought.
June 15, 2011, 7:48 am
judahspechal from bed-stuy says:
The shock is that anyone's surprise at this move.
June 15, 2011, 10:20 am
Frank from Furter says:
not to remind every body but when this park was authorized it was required to be self sufficient. The City had just come out of one of its periodic financial crisises and was not going to commit to raise the parks departments budget. It had worked out well with the Hudson River Park that was funded by the residential(luxury?) buildings in Battery Park City. While Central Park and Prospect park have raised considerable private money, Prospect park if you look at who "donates" relies almost totally on Public funds. Central Park is different because it gets considerable monies from events.
You know if you could get the state to allow tolling the Bridge Bridge that would easily pay for the park without using city funds....
But if you want to use City park funds which park do you want to take money away from?
June 15, 2011, 3:05 pm
Paul from Park Slope says:
I'm very happy to finally read some real journalism with no snarky commentary here. The return of the professional approach? Let's hope so!
June 16, 2011, 2:32 pm
bklynlifer from cobble hill says:
This is all about Mayor Bloomberg INSISTING on getting his way, like a spoiled child. HE is the one who has put in the fix to make all the numbers come out to look like only luxury high rise condo's can "save" the park. Wrong on so many counts! But this guy is used to getting his way, by bullying or bribing. And we taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

BTW, what is the reason the BBPCorp didn't reveal the loss of $1 million in tax revenues? They only talked about it when Sen. Squadron's rep asked about it. Were they hoping no one would notice? Please, Brooklyn Paper, ask for their ACTUAL 2011 budget, so we find out what else they are not telling us.
June 18, 2011, 10:57 pm
Zosoid from Brooklyn says:
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Do you think the Bloomberg administration would secretly allow Brooklyn Bridge Park to get an $800,000 reduction in the amount it has to pay each year?

Not in a million years.

Public services like parks are being squeezed for every penny while developers receive every possible rebate, reduction and ripoff allowed.
June 20, 2011, 1:09 am
Frank from Furter says:
Its unfortunately true that PILOTS(payments in lieu of taxes-real estate taxes) under federal law, must exactly match what the real estate taxes would be for similar property. Ground leases however are free from this particular problem.
Real Estate taxes are tied to the value of the property. This is true.
Its not only parks that have been squeezed. Fire, Police, Schools, and Libraries to name a few are scheduled for massive cuts. Its the state that has cut the Millionaires tax for the end of this year- and the NY City budget- the same state people who refused to fund the park and want others to pay for the BBP too.... but let us never confuse the facts with ideology that says no residential development in the park with the reality of the story....
June 20, 2011, 10:06 am
Paul from NYC says:
To see existing Watchtower propertie as a source of funding once they change hands is looking too far into the future. It may be three, four or more years - at the earliest - that Watchtower would have its new digs ready. But then again, isn't this typical governmental money handling -- spend today and hope to pay for it with tomorrow's revenue.
July 6, 2011, 8:44 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links