Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

News

Questions to Ask in Public About Riverspace: So Ask Them

Riverspace is having a meeting on June 5 to present its plans for rebuilding the downtown. There has been some discussion about the Riverspace project on that Nyacksocialscene email group, some thoughtful some not, and I put out this piece to identify issues that I think need to be discussed in connection with this project.

I invite your comment, and I hope people attend this meeting at the Riverspace theater, which is at 7:00 PM.

>
> June 4, 2008
>
> All:
>
> This week, on June 5, 2008, the leadership of Riverspace Theater is going
> to make a presentation of the designs for its proposed rebuilding project
> for the downtown block. VIPs and other worthies who have seen the plans
> say they are stunning,incredible, superlative [or, pick your adjective].
>
> The basic design apparently creates cross-streets intersecting in the
> middle of the block, with Artopee way either eliminated or made into a
> continuation of Burd Street with real active streetscape, stores, etc.
>
> A new cross-street will cut across from a about Park Ave and I think
> continue on what is now a walkway in front of the Nyack Plaza. On this
> new grid, with some architect’s skill, you get new theaters, apartments,
> parking, parks, more or less the whole magilla, which would be a blessing.
> It includes a “green wall” that avoids blocking off the senior center.
>
> The existing downtown and the buildings on Depew were done, per the time
> and mindset of 1960s (white liberal) “urban renewal” in possibly the worst
> possible design and overall plan architecturally for a small village Like
> Nyack. Other things being equal (which may or may not bethe case here),
> no one in their right mind should object to a project (privately financed)
> to rebuild the downtown with an inspired architectural design. see fn1.
>
>
> The problem is that things are not “equal”. There are a couple of people,
> particularly Mr. Nugent and Mr. Weber, who have raised some critcal & real
> points about the whole Riverspace project. If you are reading this, you
> have probably read their emails. In one way or another, they object to
> the real estate “angle” on the Riverspace. In a nutshell, they want to
> know whether the real estate project is realy designed to serve the art
> project, or whether the art project is a pretext for the real estate deal.
> If this is too tame a rendition, you can read their emails directly. It is
> true that these issues concern many people. They raise real issues. fn2.
>
> The important question is how do we have a constructive public debate on
> issues, without the public discussion being a dysfunctional free for all.
>
> The underlying objection of one group of people who have protested the
> Riverspace downtown project is that it is a real estate project which is
> using the theater and arts project as an pretext to do big development,
> who will pay for it, how will it get screwed up, and what can folks do.
> And, finally, is there a way to make that vision work, not get FUBAR’d.
>
> How do you get at those issues?
>
>
> I.
> One way to see if that claim has merit is to look at the Board of the new
> Riverspace entity, which recently spun off from the Friends of the Nyacks,
> but is a non-profit corporation. How so? A board of an arts
> organization which is dedicated to bringing BAM-quality (Brooklyn Academy
> of Music) arts center to Nyack should be loaded with heavies in the arts,
> finance and real estate who could exercise their heft to get things done,
> attract money for programming and physical (real estate) development. The
> measure of how ambitious the people putting the Riverspace project forward
> to the Village of Nyack are to create a BAM quality arts center would be
> if they had worked in the last two years to create a BAM quality board.
>
> Getting a top quality arts facility off the ground requires that kind of
> talent; it requires that people of that kind of talent are WILLING to get
> on board and use their much demanded skills, money and connections to make
> the creation of a top flight regional arts center a priority of
> Riverspace.
>
> I do not know much about the Riverspace Board, but people at the June 5,
> 2008 meeting should find out who is on the Board, and what efforts have
> been made to attract the big-time talent and leadership that RS will need.
>
> This is at least a preliminary litmus test: who runs the show; how
> powerful, enlightened, etc are they, & what is the arts part game plan.
>
>
> II.
>
> The second thing that may help us understand whether real estate or art is
> central in the game plan of the Riverspace backers is to look for the
> current plans or efforts being put in place to insure that the ARTS PART
> gets the attention and funding it needs now, now 10 years from now when
> the real estate is done (assuming the project does not go bankrupt first).
>
> [I do not want to imply that the arts part and real estate necessarily
> conflict, & they can be complinmentary (i.e, the existing old movie house
> sucks for any real sophisticated theater use, too many seats etc.]
>
> One thing that concerns me about any near-term undertaking by Rivespace to
> do a rebuild of the downtown lot, in the name of Riverspace, is that any
> such project may create a risk that the real immediate needs of the
> Riverspace ARTS activities will be damaged, maybe to the point of being
> destroyed. At all the public meetings that I have attended the statement
> is made that the RS theater cannot continue to operate on a volunteer
> basis. I think virtually everyone working at RS is working for free.
>
> They say, and it has to be true, that the theater cannot continue in that
> volunteers-only mode, because that is not sustainable. Assume this is so.
>
> Then the next question is two-fold: how will a real estate development
> of such magnitude — which probably could not break ground for 5 years,
> given the complex background issues of finance, legal ownership structure,
> tax arrangements, village board and land use approval, all aggravated by a
> a newco non-profit with no track record to build the entire downtown! —
> possibly generate any funds that would arrive in time to help Riverspace
> get over its first birthing pains and become a viable arts institution.
>
> The question needs to be posed, but the answer has to be: the real estate
> development, if and when it gets going cannot provide any short term aid
> to Riverspace, and it could take years AFTER it is built for profits to be
> generated by the real estate development to help fund theater arts.
>
> This raises a real question whether the real estate development is geared
> to the arts center in name only, or if it realistically will provide $$$
> to Riverspace NOW, as well as over the next 2 to 5 years while Riverspace
> is growing and WHEN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR SUBSIDY WILL BE CENTRAL TO RS.
>
> Everyone should ask on June 5, 2008: what is going to keep the ARTS PART
> up and running while the focus on activity is on rebuilding downtown and
> that activity takes xx% of everyone’s attention, and is the top priority.
>
> That seems to me the important question to ask now: if the real estate
> project BOTH diverts attention and resources from the current needs of the
> RS theater, and is targeted only to provide financial support YEARS from
> now, what exactly is the board or leadership of Riverspace doing NOW to
> get other monies into Riverspace to support programming and to support a
> staff that at some point is going to have to be paid real salaries, or RS
> will simply die. And we are not talking mere “survival”: we should be
> talking about establishing a reputation that rivals the best, like BAM.
>
> The whole idea of Riverspace was to have it be a big deal in the arts
> world, as well as to provide a resource for local community activities.
>
> That means that Riverspace has to have an energetic, and funded Plan B to
> generate grant money, to support creative programs, and to pay staff.
>
> It would seem to me that these kinds of “show me the money” activities
> need to have a prominent place in the agenda that Riverspace presents to
> the public, and it must be independent of the mega-development real estate
> [lanning, because that activity will suck up money like a 10-ton sump pump
> in a three part bathtub called Nyack, South Nyack and Upper Nyack.
>
> [This image may seem odd, but it reflects the fact that the leadership of
> Riverspace apparently believes that a lot of the financing for the big
> real estate development will come from a bond floated by the 3 Nyacks.]
>
> That prospect has been one of the hot button issues in the emails and in
> the criticism of what is going on, and the button needs to be pushed sort
> of hard, so that we see what the Riverspace backers have to say about it.
>
> so, these are good questions for the Riverspace Board. If you want to
> rebuild the downtown, what are you doing to keep the RS theater alive and
> growing to seek the status of BAM while you do your brick & mortar stuff.
>
>
>
> III.
>
> The third set of questions to ask relate to the “not for profit” plan to
> build not only a new theater, but to build the entire downtown block under
> the “ownership” of a not for profit entity, now a stand-alone from FON.
>
> These questions focus on legal structures and financing, and get a little
> complicated (given the many possible options) but these discussions are
> going to be some of the most important ones about Riverspace, and they
> need to start getting off the ground sooner rather than later. Most
> importantly, it should not be assumed that these questions have been all
> answered, or can be answered by stating: a non-profit will do all of it.
>
> That is way too simple; it may work in the end, but that has to be talked
> about and the many other options to realize this downtown plan need to be
> considered. I hope the following will identify some of the other options.
>
> So, to start, there are a lot of issues about the not for profit program
> for this project, and each raises different issues, so let me list some:
>
> A. The Village needs tax ratables which enable the Village to earn its
> income by taxing real estate. This is key: if you take a major
> development like the proposed downtown rebuilding plan OFF the tax rolls,
> you may take literally millions of dollars of tax revenues out of future
> budgets of the local municipalities, including Orangetown and the Village.
> Taxes are the Village’s primary income, paying for programs; street
> lights, streetscapes, cops, garbage collection etc. You need a lot of it;
> you cannot give it away willy-nilly; you need to plan to increse it in
> some way OTHER THAN INCREASING TAX RATES ON EXISTING PROPERTIES, AND THE
> WAY TO DO THAT IS TO BUILD NEW THINGS THAT CREATE NEW TAX REVENUES.
>
> [I put that in caps, but you can write in BOLD or underline it as well; it
> is the first principal of rational smart development in a municipality.]
>
> Future administration of municipalities will be MORE not less expensive,
> and the loss of those monies could bepotentially very damaging to Village
> and Town finances. Giving up millions of dollars over decades may not be
> a good idea for the Village and alternatives which avoid that may be
> wiser.
>
> It is not enough to say; some tax substitute will be arranged. The talk
> to date about the real estate development is that its net profits will go
> 100% to fund the theater. Sounds good, but if you are giving up $XXXX in
> tax money that is not being collected, a large part of those net profits
> will really reflect lost tax revenues, so “taxes” will still foot the
> bill.
>
> One set of questions to ask — down the road if not this week — should
> center on whether the financial models that project net profits to spend
> on the theater can be calculated and shown to work if these commercial
> real estate improvements pay full taxes. That should be possible, and the
> numbers should be out in front for everyone to review and to talk about.
>
> That leads to another question is : why must the real estate part of this
> be a non-profit undertaking, when part or all of the project could be bid
> out to private parties, who would FINANCE the construction by themselves,
> earn money as profit (AND take the risk of loss). It is not obvious that
> a fresh out of the box non-profit entity is the right party to do a major
> real estate development. I do some construction litigation; it is a very
> dangerous art. People go broke building big projects. In Nyack, the
> Clarmont went through a bankruptcy before it came to its current owners.
> The old Helen Hayes theater was a big hole in the ground sucking money
> from the community, before it evolved to its most recent state, which
> looks like a big yellow brick waiting for more money to be spent to finish
> it, [& which surely has or will bankrupt the guy who agreed to build it.]
>
> Questions need to be asked about how the final projected plan gets done:
> is it really necessary that the whole thing be done by one small group; is
> it possible that different parts could be broken out and given to separate
> builders, to build at their own cost, earn money or lose money, and leave
> the properties on the tax rolls, so that Nyack (and Orangetown) get taxes.
>
> For instance, if you adopted the overall Riverspace plan, you might get a
> private building to rebuild parts of the plan, like the apartments or a
> big corner with M&T keeping the rights to the main corner retail spaces.
>
> From other projects, I know that New York law allows a Village like Nyack
> to give out long term leases for the airspace (and subspace) at its
> parking lots, to let private contractors build apartments or offices etc..
> Under those General Municpal Law provisions, after the end of the 50 or 75
> year lease, the improvements go back to the Village; the builder pays
> rents, and the improvements are on the tax rolls so that taxes get paid.
>
> The possibility of structuring part of the buildout this way should be
> considered. The attraction of this kind of arrangement is that the
> Village gets to set the specficiations for the building. Because the
> Village owns the big parking lots, it could determine the specifications
> for future development with the specific terms of RFPs (meaning Requests
> for Proposals, which is how contractors bid on municipal projects). I
> think (but do not know) the RFPs might include a requirement to help fund
> the theaters, just like the non-profits program plans to do (or part of
> the new tax revenue, might be used to subsidize some of the Art projects.
>
> In addition, from working on possible ways to build a parking lot in the
> downtown of Nyack, I also know that there are companies that build such
> parking lots at their own cost, to the specifications of a municipality;
> they take long-term leases, and they can pay rents to the Village under
> the leases. The attraction of this kind of building is that public monies
> are not needed to fund the construction. These companies have the funds
> and financial sophisticaion to project future use and revenues. They then
> cut a deal with the municipality for their share of those reveneues, over
> time, that lets them recoup costs, and make a profit. That way the
> parking facility is built, and operated at private expense, without an
> outlay of public money, but the Village gets the parking facility to use.
> Typically the parking fackilities built this way, revert to the Village at
> the end of the 50 or 75 year lease, which is negotiated at the beginning.
>
> But most importantly, the heavy lifting of finance and construction, and
> (probably) management are done by the contractor party, which means that
> the Village does not have to fund the project, or pretend to have the
> expertise to build and manage such a facility. [A big background issue is
> that we do not have a Village government that is competenent to do this
> kind of development work, as shown by the fiasco of the new muni-meters.]
>
> There is a lot going on with these questions, and I suspect that not much
> of this will get discussed at the Riverspace meeting on June 5, 2008. But
> these kinds of issues need to be aired as early as possible and discussed
> as possible ways to build the dream downtown that the architects imagine.
>
> IV.
>
> OK, I will stop. If you got this far, you are genuinely interested in
> these issues about the Riverspace development, and you realize that it is
> not going to be easy to discuss and to resolve these issues without an
> effort to look behind the first round of presentations that we are likely
> to see. I personally hope the Riverspace project finds legs and rational
> hands to lead it to success, in a time frame and with legal and financial
> plans that will not come back to bite Nyack in the ass, or, in the worst
> case scenario, leave us with a demolished downtown and nothing in its
> place, like you got in the 60s when the first “urban renewal” was done so
> badly, or more recently, when the Village took over the old Helen Hayes
> theater, and, after a very long time, has yet to show that it managed that
> property in a rational way or created something new and viable downtown.
>
>
> V.
>
> Come to the June 5, 2008 meeting, hear what is said, and do what you can
> to insure that we have a full, fair, rational and non-nutso public debate.
>
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> Joseph Adams
>
>
> ************************
>
> footnote 1: The Depew Avenue buildings, i.e. Nyack Plaza (the big
> mid-block building) and the group of block buildings south of DePew
> Avenue, provide needed affordable housing in Nyack that needs to be
> protected. It is vulnerable to market forces, gentrification and a “mark
> to market” rent setup, which is ameliorated, but not permanently so, with housing
> subsidies. It really is obvious that the 1960s rebuilding was a disaster
> in terms of design, both for the downtown and for the subsidized housing
> on Depew. So we should not mourn its loss on the downtown block, but the
> Village needs to protect and to preserve the subsidized housing built on
> Depew Ave.
>
> footnote 2: Also, it is completely dishonest to try to discredit them by
> saying they are not registered voters. Nyack, like China, is a one-party
> place, so if you do not belong to the party or agree with them, voting is
> sort of an existential luxury not likely to have impact on public events.


Nyack Farmer's Market


HudsonLinkNyack.com


has customized Hudson Link bus schedules including departure and arrival times for Metro North trains between Tarrytown and Grand Central on routes H07 / H07X.

HudsonLinkNyack.com is a web app to ease your cross river commute from Nyack News And Views.

You May Also Like

The Villages

This week in the Villages: Rocklanders show their pride in the face of anti-LGBTQ graffiti. Meanwhile, the search continues for a young activist and...

The Villages

This week in the Villages: We take a deeper look into the mysterious disappearance of local activist Jordan Taylor, who was last seen January...

The Villages

This week in the Villages: We make a few New Year’s resolutions for improving our coverage in 2023, Plus, other local news, a weather...

Advertisement