New York
A Pier Deal Is Full of Developer Perks, but Is It Good for the City?
Developers hoping to snap up big city real estate often persuade local officials to shower them with taxpayer-funded incentives to seal the deal and prevent them from taking their business elsewhere.
But a new film studio set to go up on a Midtown Manhattan pier stands out as an especially sweet deal, at an especially difficult time for New York.
The administration of Mayor Eric Adams has said the project is a significant win for the future of the city and for taxpayers, but it involves subsidies that, to some residents and experts, seem unnecessarily generous.
The city will contribute tens of millions of dollars to fixing and maintaining the pier, something it does not automatically do in such projects, and it will exempt the development from any form of property taxes. It has also set a much lower rent for the location than tenants at neighboring piers pay.
Timothy J. Bartik, a senior economist at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, a research group in Michigan, said that New York City’s concessions for the project were “very high,” and on par with offers typically used to attract major employers like car- and battery-manufacturing plants.
The pier project revives an age-old debate in New York City and beyond about the pros and cons of offering hefty incentives to attract development and businesses; the opaque and often overstated projections of economic impact; and whether such concessions are necessary in the first place. The core question is whether such generosity is vital to keeping a city competitive or does more harm in the long term, straining budgets and essential services.
City officials said the studio project and another recent initiative that includes similar incentives, for a professional soccer stadium in a mixed-use development in Queens, are essential to New York as it emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic. The first project will provide jobs; the second will also produce affordable housing, which the city desperately needs.
At the pier, the incentives were also meant to ensure the project moved forward as quickly as possible, officials said, arguing that the new studio would help keep New York’s film industry competitive.
“We feel very good about these deals, you know,” Andrew Kimball, the president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, said in an interview.
But, Mr. Bartik said, with the studio expected to create 400 jobs, the city’s concessions — including reduced rent and tax exemptions — work out to about $215,000 per worker over the first 15 years of a possible 99-year lease. Incentives of that size are common in economic-development deals nationwide, he added, but the median amount per worker is about $50,000.
“This is a very high bid that only seems justified if you think this project is absolutely critical to the future of the film industry in New York,” Mr. Bartik said.
The film-production industry, which receives major subsidies in New York, has grown rapidly in the city over the past decade, with new studios opening in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, some involving major players like Netflix and Robert De Niro.
Yet, a group of local, state and federal officials, joined by community leaders, are questioning the studio deal, saying the location — Pier 94, near West 52nd Street in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood — is prime real estate that should not require concessions to be developed.
These critics pointed out that the same real estate group now developing the site promised previous city administrations it would build there years ago and never did. And they questioned the decision by the Adams administration to let the company, Vornado Realty Trust, develop an entirely new project in an arrangement that was not subject to competitive bidding.
“From an economic development standpoint, it’s a giveaway,” said Jeffrey LeFrancois, the chair of Manhattan Community Board 4, which covers a stretch of the West Side that includes the pier. “Given that Vornado has already had the ability to do this the past 13 years and done nothing, it’s outrageous that they are taking this pier from taxpayers for pennies on the dollar.”
Mr. LeFrancois said the terms were particularly friendly because Vornado, which primarily operates office buildings in New York City, has been eager to find new revenue sources as companies jettison physical offices. “Subsides are a part of doing business,” he said, “but the loss the city has decided to take here is beyond the standard, given the 99-year lease term.”
The two projects on city-owned property further cement the Adams administration’s alignment with the real estate industry: “I am real estate,” Mr. Adams, a small-time landlord, said during his run for mayor.
The relationship is mutually beneficial: Developers get to build on city land, and the mayor gets to point to new projects as evidence that he is leading New York out of the pandemic.
In Queens, the mayor has touted a plan to redevelop a swath of the borough that will include the new soccer stadium and what officials have described as the largest construction of entirely affordable housing since the Mitchell-Lama developments of the 1970s. Like other stadiums in the city, the new one will not pay property taxes, although the team that will play there, the New York City Football Club, will pay some rent.
That puts the deal a notch above previous stadium deals the city has made, said Sean Campion, the director of housing and economic development studies at the Citizens Budget Commission.
But economists who study stadium subsidies tend to agree that the costs of such deals typically exceed the benefits, and in January, the city’s Independent Budget Office said the cost of waiving property taxes on the soccer stadium would be at least $516 million in lost revenue over the team’s 49-year lease. (Mr. Kimball called the report “devoid of reality,” because it assumed another developer would have wanted or been able to build on the land.)
At the pier, the city pledged $73.5 million for repairing and maintaining the property until 2060 and set a starting rent of $4 per square foot, or about $900,000 a year. Annual rent would peak at $2.8 million in 86 years. Vornado, which would share some of the studio’s revenue with the city, would take over responsibility for the pier in 2060.
In comparison, tenants like Chelsea Piers and the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum that occupy piers operated by the Hudson River Park Trust, which is controlled by the state and city governments, are required to maintain their piers themselves. The museum spends about $1 million a year on its location, Pier 86, and sometimes millions more if repairs are needed, a museum official said.
Chelsea Piers has spent $80 million since 2010 to maintain its piers, the company said, and it pays the trust about $9 million a year in rent — more than twice per square foot what Vornado’s base rent will be. Chelsea Piers’ annual rent is expected to reach about $31.4 million in 2065.
“Given its prime location on Manhattan’s West Side waterfront, it is unclear whether or not the cost per square foot is sufficient,” a group of elected officials, including Representative Jerrold Nadler and Mark Levine, the Manhattan borough president, wrote of the pier deal in a recent later to the city’s Economic Development Corporation.
Vornado is a publicly traded company whose stock has been battered since early 2020, and the project could ultimately involve Hudson Pacific Properties, which owns film studios on the West Coast and in England, and the private equity firm Blackstone as partners.
Vornado also holds the lease at the adjacent Pier 92, which, like Pier 94, extends into the Hudson. More than a decade ago, Vornado promised to double the size of an exhibition center already at the location.
The company never followed through, leading to tense arguments between officials in previous administrations and Vornado executives, according to two people familiar with the discussions who described them on condition of anonymity. Under the current deal, the studio would be built on Pier 94 and the city would take back Pier 92, which was deemed unsafe in 2019 because of structural problems.
Mr. Kimball said the rent paid by the studio would be comparable to what Steiner Studios, the largest studio in the United States outside Hollywood, pays for its recent expansion in the Sunset Park area of Brooklyn. The piles at Pier 94 are in immediate need of repair, making it necessary for the city to cover those costs to move the project forward, he said.
A Vornado spokesman said in a statement that the studio project would also create public amenities, including public restrooms and open spaces, and 1,300 construction jobs, and would “solidify New York City’s position as a leading market for content production and studio space.”
Mr. Kimball suggested it was unfair to compare the Vornado pier deal with deals at the Hudson River Park Trust’s piers. “In economic development, there’s no cookie cutter,” he said.
New York
New Yorkers Have Little Data but Big Feelings About Congestion Pricing
It’s too soon to know whether New York City’s new congestion pricing plan has succeeded in reducing traffic in Manhattan. And it will be a while before we know if the new fees will raise the billions of dollars proponents have promised. But even before the hard data arrives, New Yorkers (and those who commute to New York) have had lot to say.
Some public transit commuters report buses miraculously arriving on time or (gasp) early. Drivers are either steaming mad — or agog at traffic-free bridges. Many pedestrians say they are suddenly less anxious about crossing the street. And some former congestion pricing haters are startled to find themselves reconsidering.
The first-in-the-nation plan took effect this week after years of contentious debate. Most drivers now pay $9 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. Money collected from the toll is supposed to be used to improve public transportation.
Congestion pricing arrived at the same time as a stretch of brutally cold weather in New York, so it’s still unclear what has been keeping people out of their cars and off the streets.
But Ilena Robbins, 37, believes congestion pricing has already been transformative.
It is not hyperbole to say that crossing Canal Street, a notoriously clogged east-west thoroughfare with four — and in some places six — lanes, used to make her fear for her life.
Ms. Robbins, who grew up in Manhattan but now lives in Queens, compared navigating the intersection where she works, at Canal and Lafayette Streets, to a game of Frogger — at least in the old days.
“It would stress me out just getting lunch,” she said. Thursday was her first day there post-congestion pricing. “I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I was able to cross safely, and cars weren’t honking. It was like a whole other world.”
Asad Dandia owns and operates a walking tour company, New York Narratives, and conducted his first post-congestion pricing walking tour at noon on Thursday, leading 20 students through Lower Manhattan.
“It was much easier to cross the street,” said Mr. Dandia, a 32-year-old native of Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. “Definitely quieter. Definitely calmer.”
Mr. Dandia, who also teaches a New York City history course at CUNY Guttman Community College, added that he saw great potential in congestion pricing. “I think it could lead to a renaissance — a street renaissance.”
Even people who don’t study the streets for a living were swept up in the excitement.
Annie Kaur usually posts videos about fashion on her TikTok account. But from her apartment on the 32nd floor of a building that overlooks Third Avenue, Ms. Kaur, a 27-year-old management consultant, noticed how few cars were on the road during rush hour on Tuesday.
At 5:04 p.m., she filmed a video from her window and posted the clip with the caption, “There’s usually so much traffic during this time of the day!”
By Friday, the video had over three million views — more than any of her other posts.
“It definitely did surprise me,” she said. “This is not my usual content.”
There were also over 3,000 comments, some cranky: “If u have this view u can afford the tolls,” one viewer wrote.
Ms. Kaur said congestion pricing doesn’t really affect her much, except if she takes a cab or Uber at night, when that feels safer than riding the subway.
But her perch gives her an interesting perspective. “I’ve seen a lot of traffic,” she said. “I’ve seen gridlock — just, crazy, stopped.”
On the day that she filmed, she said, the traffic seemed about 25 percent lighter. But, she hedged: “It could just be because it was after the holidays. And it was less than 20 degrees. It was freezing, you know?”
Regardless, down on the streets, some people were ecstatic.
Ramit Sethi, an author and entrepreneur, posted in all caps on social media that his ride on Thursday was “the fastest trip I’ve ever taken to the airport from NYC!!! Thank you congestion pricing!!!”
In an email, Mr. Sethi, 42, reported that his Lyft driver got him from downtown Manhattan to Newark Liberty International Airport in just 23 minutes. “No honking, zero congestion around the Holland Tunnel, no need to leave an extra half-hour early to account for traffic,” he said.
And some drivers admitted they have been forced to change their tune.
On Tuesday, a social media user named Ali Lyles posted a video on TikTok in which he compared being charged a toll as he crossed a bridge to “being robbed without a gun.”
Just a short time later, he posted another video, acknowledging that he had saved half an hour from his commute. “There wasn’t no traffic, bruh,” he said. “I might actually like congestion pricing!”
Marc Jacoby, 64, had a similar experience. He drives from the West Village to the Bronx or Westchester four to five times a week to teach music to people with special needs. He drives instead of taking public transportation because, he said, he carries so much equipment: “Guitars. Puppets. Percussion instruments. Flutes. Whistles. Sometimes toys.”
Before now, Mr. Jacoby had only negative impressions of congestion pricing.
“If someone asked me, two weeks ago, I would say this is going to be a disaster,” he said. “But I was wrong about that. And I’m happy to admit that I was wrong.”
At 42nd Street and the West Side Highway on Thursday at 1 p.m., the consistently clogged streets near the Intrepid Museum and Circle Line Cruises were clear. Mr. Jacoby described the scene as “actually unbelievable.”
There are discounts for low-income vehicle owners, but Mr. Jacoby believes the fee should be set on a sliding scale.
“When Big Brother scans your license plate, they should tie it to your state tax return,” he said. A driver making a half-million dollars a year, he suggested, should pay $50. “And when they see me, maybe I should pay $5 or $9.”
Some people don’t want to pay at all.
On Wednesday, Scott LoBaido, a Staten Island-based artist and activist, posted a video to social media showing himself using duct tape to cover up his license plate and suggesting others do the same, as a way to avoid the toll.
Later in the day, Mr. LoBaido, whose work includes paintings of Donald Trump hugging the Empire State Building in front of an American flag, was arrested after he staged a one-man protest near Columbus Circle.
Still, there was so much congestion pricing buzz — positive, negative or neutral — that even brands and people in other cities were chiming in.
Shake Shack announced a temporary “Congestion Pricing Combo” starting Jan. 13: a burger and fries for $9 — “toll not included.”
And Lauren Walker, a resident of Washington, D.C., wondered if cities should go even further: “My opinion on congestion pricing,” she joked on the social media site Bluesky, “is that it should cost 10,000 dollars to honk your car horn.”
New York
Large Blaze Ravages Bronx Apartment Building, Leaving Many Displaced
Dozens of families were looking for shelter after a large fire broke out at an apartment building in the Bronx early Friday, injuring at least seven people, the Fire Department said. There were no fatalities or life-threatening injuries, according to officials.
About 250 firefighters and emergency medical responders rushed to a six-story residential building on Wallace Avenue near Arnow Avenue after a fire was reported there just before 2 a.m., the Fire Department said. The blaze on the top floor was elevated to a five-alarm fire about an hour later, it said.
Several dozen firefighters were still gathered outside the building at around 10 a.m. Many windows on the top floor were blown out and some had shards of glass hanging in place that resembled jagged teeth. Smoke continued to climb from the building as a firefighter on a ladder hosed the roof.
The fire was brought under control shortly before 2 p.m., according to fire officials.
The seven people who were injured included five firefighters, the department said in an email. One person was treated at the scene but declined to be taken to a hospital.
A spokeswoman for the Police Department said earlier that some people had suffered smoke inhalation injuries.
Robert S. Tucker, the fire commissioner, said during a news conference that it was a miracle that there had been no serious injuries or fatalities. Officials said that all of the apartments on the building’s top floor were destroyed.
Firefighters blasted water at the smoke and flames pouring out of the upper floors and roof, according to videos posted online by the Fire Department and television news outlets. Heavy winds had fueled the blaze, the department said.
The cause of the fire was under investigation, officials said.
The Red Cross was at the scene helping residents that were displaced by the fire, and a temporary shelter had been set up at the Bennington School on Adee Avenue nearby. Doreen Thomann-Howe, the chief executive of the American Red Cross Greater New York Region, said during the news conference that 66 families had already registered to receive assistance, including lodging. She said she expected that number to increase.
Juan Cabrera and his family were among those seeking help at the Bennington School. Mr. Cabrera said that he and his family had not heard a fire alarm but had instead heard glass breaking as residents climbed out of windows. He said he had also heard people race across the hall one flight above him while others screamed “Get out!”
Mr. Cabrera, 47, said he had smelled smoke and woke up his daughter, Rose, 13. He and his wife, Aurora Tavera, grabbed their IDs, passports and cellphones, and the family left the building.
“I felt desperate,” Ms. Taverna, 32, said.
“Thank God we are still alive,” said Mr. Cabrera, who works as a school aide and custodian and has lived in the building for five years. “The material stuff you can get back, but we have our family,” he said.
Louis Montalvo, 55, was also among those seeking help. He said firefighters banged on his door at around 3 a.m. and that he had smelled smoke.
“I am grateful to be around,” Mr. Montalvo said, as he stood outside of the temporary shelter. He was still wearing his felt pajama pants, which had snowmen printed on them.
Vanessa L. Gibson, the Bronx borough president, said she was “so grateful” there had been no fatalities from the fire.
The last major apartment fire in the Bronx occurred in 2022, and resulted in 17 deaths, which experts said were entirely preventable. Self-closing doors in the building did not work properly, allowing smoke to escape the apartment where the fire started and rapidly fill the structure’s 19 stories.
New York
New York’s Chinese Dissidents Thought He Was an Ally. He Was a Spy.
The Chinese government’s paranoia about overseas dissidents can seem strange, considering the enormous differences in power between exiled protesters who organize marches in America and their mighty homeland, a geopolitical and economic superpower whose citizens they have almost no ability to mobilize. But to those familiar with the Chinese Communist Party, the government’s obsession with dissidents, no matter where in the world they are, is unsurprising. “Regardless of how the overseas dissident community is dismissed outside of China, its very existence represents a symbol of hope for many within China,” Wang Dan, a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests who spent years in prison before being exiled to the United States in 1998, told me. “For the Chinese Communist Party, the hope for change among the people is itself a threat. Therefore, they spare no effort in suppressing and discrediting the overseas dissident community — to extinguish this hope in the hearts of people at home.”
To understand the party’s fears about the risks posed by dissidents abroad, it helps to know the history of revolutions in China. “Historically, the groups that have overthrown the incumbent government or regime in China have often spent a lot of time overseas and organized there,” says Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University. The leader Sun Yat-sen, who played an important role in the 1911 revolution that dethroned the Qing dynasty and led eventually to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, spent several periods of his life abroad, during which he engaged in effective fund-raising and political coordination. The Communist Party’s own rise to power in 1949 was partly advanced by contributions from leaders who were living overseas. “They are very sensitive to that potential,” Weiss says.
“What the Chinese government and the circle of elites that are running China right now fear the most is not the United States, with all of its military power, but elements of unrest within their own society that could potentially topple the Chinese Communist Party,” says Adam Kozy, a cybersecurity consultant who worked on Chinese cyberespionage cases when he was at the F.B.I. Specifically, Chinese authorities worry about a list of threats — collectively referred to as the “five poisons” — that pose a risk to the stability of Communist rule: the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, followers of the Falun Gong movement, supporters of Taiwanese independence and those who advocate for democracy in China. As a result, the Chinese government invests great effort in combating these threats, which involves collecting intelligence about overseas dissident groups and dampening their influence both within China and on the international stage.
Controlling dissidents, regardless of where they are, is essential to China’s goal of projecting power to its own citizens and to the world, according to Charles Kable, who served as an assistant director in the F.B.I.’s national security branch before retiring from the bureau at the end of 2022. “If you have a dissident out there who is looking back at China and pointing out problems that make the entire Chinese political apparatus look bad, it will not stand,” Kable says.
The leadership’s worries about such individuals were evident to the F.B.I. right before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Kable told me, describing how the Chinese worked to ensure that the running of the Olympic flame through San Francisco would not be disrupted by protesters. “And so, you had the M.S.S. and its collaborators deployed in San Francisco just to make sure that the five poisons didn’t get in there and disrupt the optic of what was to be the best Olympics in history,” Kable says. During the run, whose route was changed at the last minute to avoid protesters, Chinese authorities “had their proxies in the community line the streets and also stand back from the streets, looking around to see who might be looking to cause trouble.”
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades