I read that New York City has the right to buy Battery Park City for $1, similar to the situation with Governors Island. Granted, the deal would have to be approved by Albany, with all the associated payoffs to the usual suspects etc. However, were such a deal actually to be consumated, is this good or bad for BPC sales. My (possibly naiive/plainly wrong) assumption is that it would be slightly... [more]
I read that New York City has the right to buy Battery Park City for $1, similar to the situation with Governors Island. Granted, the deal would have to be approved by Albany, with all the associated payoffs to the usual suspects etc. However, were such a deal actually to be consumated, is this good or bad for BPC sales.
My (possibly naiive/plainly wrong) assumption is that it would be slightly positive for the following reasons:
(1) The land lease provision would disappear, making properties more directly comparably with the Financial District, Tribeca etc
(2) Owners would start paying New York City real estate tax rather than PILOT. This could end up being quite a bit lower
(3) (A long shot this) the $30K deposit one pays to tbe BPCA when buying in BPC might be refunded. Then again the BPCA might be kept in largely the same form, in which case this is unlikely.
What think ye
[less]
Response by evnyc
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 1844
Member since: Aug 2008
Minor, where'd you read that? I looked rather seriously in BPC (love it there) a few months back, ended up passing on the place. At the time everyone was abuzz with the news that BPC might be purchased/taken over by NYC, but the general consensus was that this would never happen. BPCA is a cash cow for the city; it funds a number of affordable housing projects throughout the city. Because BPC was originally conceived as a Wall Street bedroom community, it was thought that the city could just fleece the finaciers who would be living there indefinitely, but it wound up being a family lot of non-finance families. From that perspective, removing the land lease issue would be a HUGE benefit to the current owners of landlease properties in BPC, but the City would lose its cash cow, so the actual probability of this happening is thought to be quite slim. Too bad, since the maintenance and taxes are so darn high.
It seems to me that BPC has enough reserves for NYC and NYS possibly to come together in order to raid them (somewhere Michael Milken is laughing at all this!)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by evnyc
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 1844
Member since: Aug 2008
Well, I think the NYT op-ed is quite a piece of partisan hack work.
"In addition, the development’s unused South Cove could be filled in for $20 million; the resulting land could be used for an iconic 2-million-square-foot building that would both mark the entrance to New York Harbor and net the city what we estimate would be $480 million in land value and $20 million per year in additional payments in lieu of taxes."
Filling in South Cove would happen pretty much over the 10,000 residents of BPC's collective dead bodies. Despite the authors' collective experience with BPC, it seems apparent that they haven't set foot in South Cove between May and October in a few decades, as it's quite heavily used. (Like the rest of BPC, it's too cold to hang out there in winter, but it remains popular with runners year-round, including myself.) If the entire point is to take over BPC in order to harness its cash-cow properties for the city's use, it won't be much benefit to the owners after all. And have you ever known NYC owners to go down without a fight? I doubt anyone would put up with the plan proposed in the article.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by RE2009
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 474
Member since: Apr 2009
ev- why did you pass on BPC?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by PMG
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 1322
Member since: Jan 2008
If the city buys the BPC authority, than the city owns the land, not the BPC unit owners. You still have a land lease. Regular NYC condo owners pay annual property tax to the city for city services. They don't pay a capital (lease) charge on top of annual property tax charges like BPC owners would be obliged to pay if the city bought the authority. I don't understand the OP's question.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by PMG
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 1322
Member since: Jan 2008
reasons to like BPC--its beautiful park-like, on the Hudson and eventually close to major transportation, shopping and office hub. reasons to dislike BPC--its darned expensive, remote and built in a flood zone on landfill. It will continue to feel very remote until the WTC is rebuilt, which could be a very extended period.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nina15
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 203
Member since: Sep 2009
Is it the same with roosevelt island?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by AMinorSatan
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12
Member since: Jan 2010
evnyc - Agreed that it is a hackish and partisan piece (from the NYT you say ?!) and that filling in South Cove would be unpopular (even though it's not really used for anything now). However, if the city were smart about this they could find a way to buy off at least the BPC owners by eliminating the land lease or sweetening the ground rent provisions etc.
That being said I'm sceptical that it will ever happen.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by AMinorSatan
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12
Member since: Jan 2010
nina15 - I think Roosevelt Island is land lease but not sure of the details
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc212
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 484
Member since: Jul 2008
>If the city buys the BPC authority, than the city owns the land, not the BPC unit owners
>reasons to dislike BPC--its darned expensive
-----
PMG, BPC isn't expensive AT ALL. Comparable units in the immediate non-land-lease neighborhoods would cost at least 20% more. Also, BPC unit owners do NOT own the land.
With this said, I think all of those potential risks you mention explain the lower $/PF in BPC (although I personally don't think the City can get away w/ such fee/tax increases, even if it were to take over).
BPC is really, really nice. And you pay very little for what you get in BPC because it is, after all, land-lease. This means that you, as a unit owner, aren't in the driver's seat.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Minor, where'd you read that? I looked rather seriously in BPC (love it there) a few months back, ended up passing on the place. At the time everyone was abuzz with the news that BPC might be purchased/taken over by NYC, but the general consensus was that this would never happen. BPCA is a cash cow for the city; it funds a number of affordable housing projects throughout the city. Because BPC was originally conceived as a Wall Street bedroom community, it was thought that the city could just fleece the finaciers who would be living there indefinitely, but it wound up being a family lot of non-finance families. From that perspective, removing the land lease issue would be a HUGE benefit to the current owners of landlease properties in BPC, but the City would lose its cash cow, so the actual probability of this happening is thought to be quite slim. Too bad, since the maintenance and taxes are so darn high.
evnyc, this is where I read it : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/opinion/22urstadt.html
I presume the buzz to which you refer was generated by this. There was previous ly a thought that NY state would try the same : http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_345/budgetplan.html
It seems to me that BPC has enough reserves for NYC and NYS possibly to come together in order to raid them (somewhere Michael Milken is laughing at all this!)
Well, I think the NYT op-ed is quite a piece of partisan hack work.
"In addition, the development’s unused South Cove could be filled in for $20 million; the resulting land could be used for an iconic 2-million-square-foot building that would both mark the entrance to New York Harbor and net the city what we estimate would be $480 million in land value and $20 million per year in additional payments in lieu of taxes."
Filling in South Cove would happen pretty much over the 10,000 residents of BPC's collective dead bodies. Despite the authors' collective experience with BPC, it seems apparent that they haven't set foot in South Cove between May and October in a few decades, as it's quite heavily used. (Like the rest of BPC, it's too cold to hang out there in winter, but it remains popular with runners year-round, including myself.) If the entire point is to take over BPC in order to harness its cash-cow properties for the city's use, it won't be much benefit to the owners after all. And have you ever known NYC owners to go down without a fight? I doubt anyone would put up with the plan proposed in the article.
ev- why did you pass on BPC?
If the city buys the BPC authority, than the city owns the land, not the BPC unit owners. You still have a land lease. Regular NYC condo owners pay annual property tax to the city for city services. They don't pay a capital (lease) charge on top of annual property tax charges like BPC owners would be obliged to pay if the city bought the authority. I don't understand the OP's question.
reasons to like BPC--its beautiful park-like, on the Hudson and eventually close to major transportation, shopping and office hub. reasons to dislike BPC--its darned expensive, remote and built in a flood zone on landfill. It will continue to feel very remote until the WTC is rebuilt, which could be a very extended period.
Is it the same with roosevelt island?
evnyc - Agreed that it is a hackish and partisan piece (from the NYT you say ?!) and that filling in South Cove would be unpopular (even though it's not really used for anything now). However, if the city were smart about this they could find a way to buy off at least the BPC owners by eliminating the land lease or sweetening the ground rent provisions etc.
That being said I'm sceptical that it will ever happen.
nina15 - I think Roosevelt Island is land lease but not sure of the details
>If the city buys the BPC authority, than the city owns the land, not the BPC unit owners
>reasons to dislike BPC--its darned expensive
-----
PMG, BPC isn't expensive AT ALL. Comparable units in the immediate non-land-lease neighborhoods would cost at least 20% more. Also, BPC unit owners do NOT own the land.
With this said, I think all of those potential risks you mention explain the lower $/PF in BPC (although I personally don't think the City can get away w/ such fee/tax increases, even if it were to take over).
BPC is really, really nice. And you pay very little for what you get in BPC because it is, after all, land-lease. This means that you, as a unit owner, aren't in the driver's seat.