Here. Shed a tear for the Yankees before I start ranting about them.

This from Newsday, Balking at stadium deal:

The New York City Industrial Development Agency and state Assemb. Richard Brodsky agree on little when it comes to the new Yankee Stadium deal. Here's where they differ:

Luxury suite: City officials say the luxury suite at the new stadium has been cited in public records since 2006, specifically the lease agreement between the Yankees and the development authority. Brodsky claims it was "secretly acquired" and he only discovered it this summer after a public hearing. The box seats about 12 people and was envisioned for the use of the mayor to entertain dignitaries and reward city employees for exemplary service. City officials also have the right to purchase 180 seats at face value before they go on sale.

Jobs: NYCIDA has stated that more than 900 part-time workers will be the equivalent of an additional 550 to 770 full-time workers at the stadium. Brodsky has said the NYCIDA's records show an additional 15 full-time workers.

Threat to leave: When citing its reasons for allowing public-backed financing of the stadium, the NYCIDA cited the likelihood the Yankees would "relocate outside the city" if a new stadium deal wasn't struck. Brodsky said an investigation by his oversight committee found no evidence of a Yankee threat to leave. The closest thing to a fresh threat to leave were 1993 news clippings supplied by the NYCIDA in which such threats were discussed, Brodsky said.

NYC is going to get rimmed by this Wall Street bailout. There's no other way to describe this. We not only lost something in the order of 30 to 40 billion dollars in bonuses ALONE, we've lost over 11,000 jobs since the Lehman meltdown.

Fascinating piece in The New York Times this morning on the shifting balance of power in the state, as the smart money, literally, moves to Democrats.

Anticipating a Democratic takeover of the New York State Senate this fall, real estate executives have begun courting Senate Democratic leaders, hoping to fend off what they expect will be aggressive efforts by tenant groups to revamp rent regulations next year.

The effort represents a significant new approach for real estate interests, which for years have been closely allied with the Senate’s Republican majority. But after controlling the Senate for four decades, the Republicans now hold a bare one-seat majority and many strategists believe the Democrats are in a strong position to gain control of the chamber in November.

Looking to block or water down an array of pro-tenant measures, including the repeal of vacancy decontrol, that have won support in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, real estate industry executives have stepped up their campaign donations to the Senate Democratic leadership, a review of campaign-contribution records shows. They are also continuing to contribute to Republicans.

Upsides and downsides: on the one hand, this is a clear sign of confidence by an interest known for cool-headed evaluations in who is going to be running the Senate come January, and it's not Angry Old Man Skelos. On the other, Democrats need to stick to the agenda that's going to win them in the election.

Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies and statistics and his adage applies to unemployment measurement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes six unemployment metrics monthly, each referred to in ascending order of inclusiveness of the unemployed as U-1, U-2, etc.

The measure reported by the media as the unemployment rate that severely undercounts the unemployed is referred to as U-3. The U-3 rate is obtained by dividing the narrowest definition of the unemployed by the work force.
The U-3 definition does not include whom the BLS calls discouraged and marginal workers, those who want a job but have given up the search because market conditions and personal experience indicate the process is futile.

U-6 Unemployment counts the marginal and discouraged plus those seeking full time employment but can only find part time work. The Federal Reserve tracks what it defines as the Augmented Unemployment rate, which I’ve read is equivalent to U-6 less part time workers. I couldn’t find any Augmented Unemployment releases on the Fed site and despite major data inclusion differences, some bloggers have used U-6 and the Fed’s stat interchangeably.

If you wanted to buy some land to develop for your own profit, would you expect taxpayers to pay the entire bill for you? Well, if you are a law school buddy of Pataki, that is exactly the sweet deal you could get while Pataki was Governor...and the exact deal Bruce Ratner seems to have gotten with you and me footing the bill.

This comes via Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.

According to the March 9th 2007 Daily News New York City is spending $100 million to buy the property on or near the 22-acre Atlantic Yards site for developer Forest City Ratner.

Of the $205 million proposed to support the project in the Mayor's preliminary budget, $100 million is slated for land acquisition costs and $105 million for roads, utilities and other infrastructure needs, according to EDC officials.

The state is chipping in an additional $100 million.

David Yassky was pretty angry upon hearing this:

"There's no justification to spend public money like this," said Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights). "Government money should be spent on transportation infrastructure, schools and traffic calming - not subsidies for a private company.

Does sloppy bookkeeping and oversight encourage confidence? Not in my mind. Yet the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) continues its shoddy oversight of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yard's project. Keep in mind that the ESDC has up to now been nothing but a rubber stamp for everything the Axis of crony capitalism (Ratner and his political pawns) has wanted. Now they file an inadequate and incomplete financial projection for Ratner's overdevelopment plan that basically tells the taxpayers very little about what it will actually cost them in the long run. This comes from the number one organization that has been fighting Ratner's corrupt plan from the start, DDDB:

Financial projections released today by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) purporting to show Forest City Ratner's (FCRC) projected profit for the proposed "Atlantic Yards" project appear to raise more questions than they answer - and to severely understate the developer's profit.

The financial documents, which were released only after State Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery sued the ESDC for the information, fail to provide sufficient details or underlying assumptions, including information on "sources and uses" typically provided for a project receiving significant amounts of public funding. In some cases, the documents omit information altogether, for example, assigning no projected value to the project's planned hotel. The true value of the assets, once built, would appear to be much higher than the values outlined; several elements of the plan appear to be estimated below market value, let alone future value.

The first phase of what is likely to be a groundbreaking (no pun intended)...or maybe landmark (uh, oh...another pun)...okay, precedent setting eminent domain lawsuit has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Ratner/Pataki/Bloomberg axis of crony capitalism. The case is "Goldstein vs. Pataki" though it is understood that "Pataki" is nothing more than a cardboard cutout that Ratner is hiding behind, so I consider the case "Goldstein vs. Ratner." The defense had filed a motion to dismiss, but the presiding judge has found ample grounds for the lawsuit to procede:

In his report, Judge Levy found that the plaintiffs' case was certainly appropriate for the federal courts, and that contrary to defendants' arguments, was ripe to be heard. "Clearly, the proposed condemnations, and the consequent disposition of plaintiffs from their homes and businesses, pose a significant threat of harm," wrote Levy in dismissing the defendants' claims that the case was not yet ripe for federal court. He added that the "Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint raises serious and difficult questions regarding the exercise of eminent domain under emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence."

A Brooklyn reader sends me his open letter to incoming Governor Eliot Spitzer regarding his concerns about Ratner's gigantic plan for Central Brooklyn creating a new target for terrorists:

It is clear that the State run Atlantic Yards Development Project is headed for quick approval by the PACB. Once that occurs, rapidly followed by Governor Pataki’s exit, you will become the highest elected official responsible for the outcome of the project. Given that PACB’s decision will be based on materials prepared by the ESDC, which you have long criticized, it is equally clear that knowledge of the full impact of this project will not be available when they make that decision.

Unconscionably the ESDC has chosen to ignore all too many of the documented concerns of the communities surrounding this project. One area of profound consequence they have refused to address regards issues of public safety and security. Since the attacks of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina this has become a major focus of attention at all levels of government, yet any such consideration here was disregarded.

Beyond having just been overwhelmingly elected as Governor, this issue matters in terms of your current position as Attorney General. The decision of the ESDC to omit safety and security concerns, apart from violating common sense, also violates recent federal court decisions. For this reason it is likely that the state will be drawn into unnecessary litigation regarding the ESDC’s decision to prepare its Final Environmental Impact Statement as if concentrating three known terrorist targets at a single location will have no consequences and therefore need not be acknowledged.

Even as the Empire State Development Corporation's loving (and somewhat corrupt?) endorsement of Ratner's plan for central Brooklyn tries to recover from the delay caused by local musician Raul Rothblatt, a new and potentially far more challenging delay may be thrown at them.

NY Assembly members Joan Millman, Jim Brennan and Anette Robinson have co-signed a letter dated November 22nd, 2006 calling on Sheldon Silver to put the brakes on Ratner's plan until several changes are made and guarantees put into place. Their letter is an excellent enumeration of what is wrong with Ratner's plan. Scan of the letter below:

Errors in the Empire State Development Corporation's report on Ratner's plan to ruin Brooklyn have led to a delay in final approval of the project, probably allowing Eliot Spitzer to have more of a say if he chooses. Pataki has been fast tracking his buddy's plan in the fears that Spitzer, who agrees in principle with Ratner's plan, may decide that the process has been too corrupt and the plan too expensive for the state. But this little glitch will mean Spitzer can play more of a role in the process if he chooses.

From Erik Einquest at Newyorkbusiness.com:

New York state approval of the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn will likely be pushed back to 2007 because of a technical error by the Empire State Development Corp.

The ESDC failed to incorporate some public comments into the final environmental impact statement that its board certified last week. The document will have to be reprinted and certified again at Monday's meeting of the board...

Gov. George Pataki, whose term ends Dec. 31, is an enthusiastic supporter of the project. Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer has also said he favors the project, but has expressed a desire to look more closely at its financing...

Affordable Housing is the mantra that we keep hearing from the pro-Ratner camp, where people are willing to overlook the insane scale of the project, the sewage overflow problems, traffic problems, corruption and cronyism surrounding the process, and the lack of community input for the promise of affordable housing. I am very much for affordable housing, but it has almost become a code word in Brooklyn for pro-Ratner. But I have always felt that Ratner's promise of affordable housing always seemed hollow. Where are the guarantees that he will keep his promise? How long will that housing be affordable to the average Brooklynite? And what does Ratner really mean by "affordable?"

Well, we are getting a hint that my feelings that Ratner's promises aren't trustworthy are founded.

One way to judge Ratner's proposals (as well as the three other proposals Pataki and Bloomberg have been ignoring!) is comparing it to other projects in NYC. Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) is doing just that and finds that according to Manhattan standards, only 17% of Ratner's proposed housing would be "affordable." Remember, we were told as much as 50% would be "affordable."