Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bloomberg Bubble Pops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bloomberg Bubble Pops

    October 29, 2009
    Development, Engine of Bloomberg’s Plan, Stalled in Downturn




    By RUSS BUETTNER and RAY RIVERA

    Over the past seven years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has presided over a historic re-envisioning of New York City, one that loosened the reins on development across the boroughs and pushed more than 100 rezoning measures through a City Council that stamped them all into law.

    His administration poured $16 billion into financing to foster commercial development and affordable housing and created quasi-local organizations to promote its initiatives and blunt neighborhood opposition.

    And when the economy was burning white hot, as it did for several years, the mayor’s plan appeared to be bold and forward-looking, a prescient decision to remake portions of the city in order to lure companies, create jobs and increase economic vitality.

    But that vitality is missing in some sections of New York today, where developments spurred in part by easy credit and in part by city initiatives are now stalled or in danger of collapse.

    No question, the upheaval in the real estate world was primarily caused by a recession that Mr. Bloomberg had no role in starting and no power to stop. But Mr. Bloomberg has campaigned as a business visionary, better suited than most to lead in tough times, and any review of his term needs to confront his embrace of development as a stimulus tool.

    Administration officials say their development initiatives created jobs and housing and revitalized moribund areas, like downtown Jamaica, Queens. Across the city, residential construction doubled under Mr. Bloomberg, to more than 30,000 units a year from 2004 through 2008, before slowing this year.

    Construction spending has also doubled since he took office, reaching a high of $32 billion in 2008, according to the New York City Building Congress. The organization projects a 20 percent drop this year.

    And if the skyline seems little changed despite the rezoning of some 8,400 blocks, the impact can still be seen in old, outlying factory neighborhoods where new housing has risen, or in places like Flushing, Queens, and the Bronx, where signature new baseball stadiums were built.

    But things have not gone according to plan in neighborhoods like Downtown Brooklyn, which was rezoned to foster development of new office towers to compete with New Jersey. None have gone up and other projects have stalled. Developers knocked down a shopping mall to make way for the grand City Point development: new apartments, a retail boulevard, a tower of commercial space. It has yet to materialize.

    Daniel L. Doctoroff, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s deputy mayor for economic development, said it was naïve to view the initiatives in the short term.

    “It’s always tempting to sit there and say, ‘Here we are, we’re at the depth of a recession, and therefore, look at all this stuff, it didn’t make sense,’ ” he said. “That is the kind of thinking that has proven time and time again to be completely fallacious when you look at New York City history.”

    Ron Shiffman, a former city planning commissioner, said a flaw in the mayor’s approach was its failure to do enough to reap public benefits from a real estate industry he had so readily fostered.

    “He didn’t steer the boom,” Mr. Shiffman said. “He did not direct it in such a way that it benefited a more diverse set of populations in the city of New York, and more diverse income groups. It was basically developer-driven.”
    Remapping The Future

    The administration’s economic development policies started with a simple concept: New York must grow to compete with other cities.

    Development became the means toward that end. Create incentives for developers, the wisdom held, and good things will happen for New York as a whole. Companies will rush to glorious new towers in reinvented neighborhoods, diversifying the city’s economy in the process.

    Many mayors have favored the real estate industry, whose campaign contributions are often generous. Mr. Bloomberg lobbied forcefully for developers even though he did not need their money.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/ny...evelop.html?hp

  • #2
    Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

    Originally posted by don View Post
    October 29, 2009
    Development, Engine of Bloomberg’s Plan, Stalled in Downturn




    By RUSS BUETTNER and RAY RIVERA

    Over the past seven years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has presided over a historic re-envisioning of New York City, one that loosened the reins on development across the boroughs and pushed more than 100 rezoning measures through a City Council that stamped them all into law.

    His administration poured $16 billion into financing to foster commercial development and affordable housing and created quasi-local organizations to promote its initiatives and blunt neighborhood opposition.

    And when the economy was burning white hot, as it did for several years, the mayor’s plan appeared to be bold and forward-looking, a prescient decision to remake portions of the city in order to lure companies, create jobs and increase economic vitality.

    But that vitality is missing in some sections of New York today, where developments spurred in part by easy credit and in part by city initiatives are now stalled or in danger of collapse.

    No question, the upheaval in the real estate world was primarily caused by a recession that Mr. Bloomberg had no role in starting and no power to stop. But Mr. Bloomberg has campaigned as a business visionary, better suited than most to lead in tough times, and any review of his term needs to confront his embrace of development as a stimulus tool.

    Administration officials say their development initiatives created jobs and housing and revitalized moribund areas, like downtown Jamaica, Queens. Across the city, residential construction doubled under Mr. Bloomberg, to more than 30,000 units a year from 2004 through 2008, before slowing this year.

    Construction spending has also doubled since he took office, reaching a high of $32 billion in 2008, according to the New York City Building Congress. The organization projects a 20 percent drop this year.

    And if the skyline seems little changed despite the rezoning of some 8,400 blocks, the impact can still be seen in old, outlying factory neighborhoods where new housing has risen, or in places like Flushing, Queens, and the Bronx, where signature new baseball stadiums were built.

    But things have not gone according to plan in neighborhoods like Downtown Brooklyn, which was rezoned to foster development of new office towers to compete with New Jersey. None have gone up and other projects have stalled. Developers knocked down a shopping mall to make way for the grand City Point development: new apartments, a retail boulevard, a tower of commercial space. It has yet to materialize.

    Daniel L. Doctoroff, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s deputy mayor for economic development, said it was naïve to view the initiatives in the short term.

    “It’s always tempting to sit there and say, ‘Here we are, we’re at the depth of a recession, and therefore, look at all this stuff, it didn’t make sense,’ ” he said. “That is the kind of thinking that has proven time and time again to be completely fallacious when you look at New York City history.”

    Ron Shiffman, a former city planning commissioner, said a flaw in the mayor’s approach was its failure to do enough to reap public benefits from a real estate industry he had so readily fostered.

    “He didn’t steer the boom,” Mr. Shiffman said. “He did not direct it in such a way that it benefited a more diverse set of populations in the city of New York, and more diverse income groups. It was basically developer-driven.”
    Remapping The Future

    The administration’s economic development policies started with a simple concept: New York must grow to compete with other cities.

    Development became the means toward that end. Create incentives for developers, the wisdom held, and good things will happen for New York as a whole. Companies will rush to glorious new towers in reinvented neighborhoods, diversifying the city’s economy in the process.

    Many mayors have favored the real estate industry, whose campaign contributions are often generous. Mr. Bloomberg lobbied forcefully for developers even though he did not need their money.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/ny...evelop.html?hp
    The main strategy of city planning should be to DRIVE LAND PRICES DOWN in order to make developments affordable. This is herasy to the jerks now running city planning departments, but this is exactly what cities need: affordable land.

    I would drive-OUT the preservationists, drive-out the high-density planners, drive-out the vested interests in high land prices, and dump the salmon habitat bunch. I would invite developers of all projects to the city, and I would ask: "Show us your projects and what you can do TO HELP PEOPLE LIVE HERE."

    From what it sounds like, I think I would love the mayor of New York City. He and I are on the same wavelength.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

      Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
      The main strategy of city planning should be to DRIVE LAND PRICES DOWN in order to make developments affordable. This is herasy to the jerks now running city planning departments, but this is exactly what cities need: affordable land.

      I would drive-OUT the preservationists, drive-out the high-density planners, drive-out the vested interests in high land prices, and dump the salmon habitat bunch. I would invite developers of all projects to the city, and I would ask: "Show us your projects and what you can do TO HELP PEOPLE LIVE HERE."

      From what it sounds like, I think I would love the mayor of New York City. He and I are on the same wavelength.

      What an utterly naïve concept. Land prices reflect demand; that is, people want to live there. They want to live there for economic opportunity. If there is none, there is no there in the proverbial there.

      Bloomberg in no way wants to drive down property prices. In fact, since so much of the tax base is dependent on real estate taxes, quite the opposite. He just wants to help developers develop land, and let them take their profits, a pittance of which will help support a trivial amount of "affordable housing".

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

        Wouldn't the best role for a mayor and city planning department be to guide the private sector into producing projects which would provide for affordable housing, not to mention affordable retail space at street level? And the best way to do that would be to have the city provide cheap land for development, and to provide for a general stream-lining of the entire development process--- a radical idea in this day and age, sad to say.

        Govn't should be the guider and encourager, and the private sector should be the do-er. Simple!

        The entire approach should be to de-value land costs and to make development affordable in cities and around cities, both. The public should never have to be in a bidding-war for land.
        Last edited by Starving Steve; October 28, 2009, 09:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

          yea, they tried that cheap land thing in Los Angeles and even ripped out public transportation infrastructure to help out the developers.

          Los Angeles is now a cess pool with great weather.

          New York is still the center of planet earth, if you'd need to pick a single city.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

            Originally posted by Chomsky View Post
            Land prices reflect demand; that is, people want to live there. They want to live there for economic opportunity.
            Not quite correct! See the following -- and follow the links

            http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpos...82&postcount=1

            And Michael Hudson's Land Tax Plan Also available here

            Also this video of Michael Hudson

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

              Originally posted by fliped42
              There is politcs in an election year like the above article or there is the truth. The truth is that the city council in 2007 pulled the 421-a tax abatement program which benefited develpoments below 96th street in manhattan. 421-a's were critical abatements that allowed developers in most cases to pencil out profitable developments in one of the most expensive cities to build in the country. This law was in effect in since the 70's and was relied upon by developers when they calculated their aquisition prices. During the boom years their was populist backlach against greedy developers who were selling condos at $2,000 per square foot and more recieving a governmnet subsidy without providing affordable housing. So they changed the rules and put in a September 2007 deadline to be in constuction with a completed foundation to qualify under the old rules. The new rules included substantially more low income apartments per development which a) changed the economics and 2) prevented land bought at the higher 2000's prices from penciling out as rentals for financing purposes. The unintended result was everyone in 2007 rushed to get in the ground prior to the deadline. More supply was forced into constrution then would have been normally built as to preserve the 421-a benefits (Think cas for clunkers bringing pulling future purchases from the future into the present). More holes were dug and foundations poured in that year then I can ever remember seeing. It takes 24 - months -36 months to go from digging to a finished high rise. The real estate capital stack is developer equity in first, mezzanine financing in second, bank financing in third. So the developers put thier own equity in to get the entitlements to build and complete their drawings. Went out and got mezz financing to digg the hole and pour the foundations and were planning on getting bank financing to complete the project. But a funny thing happened in that plan the banks stopped lending in 2008 due to the credit crisis. So voila lots of government action driven unfinanceable foundations and structures, bad mezzanine debt and stalled projects and an oversupply of finished condos in redevelopment areas that you can now blame the Mayor for during an election year.
              http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/aba...awsuits/83828/
              Great post, Flip.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                Of course public housing helps local businesses remain competitive. But since virtually all the housing in New York (and everywhere else in the US) is privately owned, it is subject to market forces that drive its price either upward or downward, depending on demand.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                  "An over-supply of finished condos in NYC and more on the way,"

                  EXCELLENT! This is why I would vote FOR the Mayor of New York City if I lived there. Lower land prices make living costs affordable, and that is WONDERFUL. So it sounds like the Mayor and the City Planning Department in New York are great.

                  Contrast this ENLIGHTENED approach to city planning in NYC to what we have in Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia, San Francisco, California, LA, London in the UK, and elsewhere: preservation of salmon habitat, preservation of rare species, greenbelts, development restrictions, permit freezes, an elitist agenda, an anti-automobile agenda, an anti-people agenda, anti-growth policies, anti-servicing policies --- all of which have led to a shortage of developable land, consequent outrageous land costs, consequent outrageous housing costs, density squeezes, complete destruction of the urban economy, and finally out-migration of people and the complete death of the city.

                  So, a big thumbs-up to the Mayor of New York City! Finally, someone sees-the-light in urban planning.
                  Last edited by Starving Steve; October 29, 2009, 01:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                    Just what are you running off at the mouth about?

                    The prices for those condos won't be any lower than market rates. The developers will take steep losses based on their bubble-inspired expectations for these properties, but there's no way any of these condos will be in the realm of "affordable".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                      Originally posted by fliped42
                      Althought the housing is privately owned there is very little free market rental property in NYC. Of all housing in NYC 76% is rental. Of the rental 68.3% is either rent stabilized, rent controlled, mitchell-lama or housing projects. All four of these types of housing are all government controlled as to what a landlord can charge so only 31% of all rental housing in NYC is free market. Please refer to my post in Time to short the commercial real estate market I posted a C&W report refer to page 97. Also a recent landmark decision against Tischman was upheld and states that if a property recieves any government subsidy all rents must be regulated under rent stabilization. In NYC if a rent is over $2,000 per month it can be deregulated and the landlord can charge market rent. As a result of this decision an estimated 100,000 free market apartments will go back into rent stabilization further decreasing the free market housing available and landlords will be liable for overcharge damages which could be substantial.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/ny...4stuytown.html
                      http://www.reuters.com/article/compa...23879320091022

                      As for the Condos they may be rented by the banks if they get forclosed and many developers will rent the vacant units while they weather the condo storm which will further drive down rental rates for non condo finish rental units. Condos are much nicer to rent but people will not pay more rent for them they will just occupy them quicker at the same rent they can get in a rental building. Since most Condos have a tax abatment this poses the question of whether the rental tenant will be stabilized or not. Or they will be liquidated at auction at affordable sales prices very few developers have deep enough pockets to carry a vacant condo building for very long. They tend to give the keys back to the debt holders who reposition and liquidate.

                      What percent of apartments in Manhattan below 135th St. and the newly developed neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens (where the condo explosion occurred) are under some form of rent control? I bet far, far fewer than the 69% citywide. It is that group of properties to which the overbuilt condo nightmares must be compared, not to some city average.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                        I would have thought it should be apparent to all now that land prices have become more a function of credit availability and lending standards, than of peoples' desire to live in a certain neighborhood.

                        If you want to make homeownership affordable, and allow people to relocate to be close to their jobs, or move to good school districts then stricter lending standards and tighter credit availability is the answer.

                        This country is suffocating under the weight of debt-service payments as a result of being on a borrowing binge for 20 years.

                        High home prices reduce living standards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                          Yes, part of the reason for outrageous housing costs ( and outrageous land costs ) are the easy-money policies of the Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke Federal Reserve Bank. But the other part of the reason for outrageous housing and land prices are the overly restrictive planning policies of city planning departments with their anti-people, anti-growth, anti-sprawl, anti-jobs, anti-middle class agenda, anti-car, anti-cheap energy agendas.

                          Finally, New York City "sees the light": Let the city develop and grow. Build affordable housing projects and drive-down costs by flooding the markets with dwellings. Create new land for growth by demolishing urban blight, and let the city breathe-free once again.

                          London, San Francisco, Vancouver: Are you re-thinking your mis-guided policies???????? :rolleyes:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bloomberg Bubble Pops

                            Originally posted by fliped42
                            In New York City any multifamily building over 4 families is rent stabilized untill the rent reaches over $2,000 per month. Above 135th street, Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx most multifamily housing was built in the 30's through the 60's and were over four families. I believe the number of stabilized buildings is higher in the boroughs due to the fact that the rents are typically below $2,000 and the stock is older. Their are 3,000,000 + housing units in New York as per the below article with very credible sources the condo inventory including shadow inventory is 17,000. Although certain areas are more overbuilt and will suffer longer then others and rents are going down due to economic factors including the glut it will not be a huge long term factor in driving up or down rental prices citywide. Condo prices will go up or down depending on the amount of stimulus (ie low rate mortgage money and tax credits) the amount of people qualifying for loans and the affordability of the monthly payment as compared to the rental rates after acounting for the tax benefits of owning vs renting IMHO.

                            http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...LBIZ/308099970

                            Thanks fliped, that's exactly what I was aiming at. The parts of NYC that people most want to live in are the least regulated under rent-control (or rent-stabilization). That is, market forces determine the property values in an overwhelming majority these properties. While prices of all real estate in these areas are highly sensitive to macroeconomic forces (credit bubble, stimulus, lack thereof, etc.), location, location, location still matters a great deal.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X