This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
March 14, 2006
New MSG to siphon off city tax dollars?
Talk of building a new Madison Square Garden inside the landmarked Farley Post Office building is making headlines again, with the New York Observer reporting that the real goal is for the developers behind the deal - and for Cablevision, owners of the Garden and the New York Knicks and Rangers - is to clear the way for development of the current MSG site, which was recently rezoned to hold as much as 5 million square feet of office space.
That rezoning, charges Brian Hatch of newyorkgames.org, is key to why the city is backing the arena-in-the-post-office plan. As part of the Hudson Yards redevelopment that was originally to accompany the now-dead New York Jets stadium plan, the MSG parcel was not only upzoned to allow for bigger buildings, but also incorporated into the official Hudson Yards district. This means that any property taxes (really payments in lieu of taxes, but whatever) would not go to the city treasury, but rather to pay off the cost of building a subway line extension through the new district - though as Hatch notes, it's "preposterous that the land above Penn Station - the busiest transit hub in the country - is undevelopable without a subway stop several blocks away."
The upshot is that instead of getting property-tax money to pay for all the services needed by another 5 million square feet of office workers, the city would divert the money to pay for a subway line to encourage development of more office space that would also pay property taxes into the subway fund so as to encourage... phew. This is already sounding as complicated as deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff's last West Side financing scheme. And it has the same drawback, in that all this new office space not only won't help fill the city treasury, it could end up just cannibalizing development from elsewhere in Manhattan. It makes you wonder what Sheldon Silver thinks of all this.
The Farley building, meanwhile, also sits within the Hudson Yards district, so that money would be redirected as well - provided, of course, that Cablevision doesn't demand to take its property-tax exemption with it across the street and pay nothing at all. (Your head hurt yet? Because mine sure does.)
None of this is a done deal yet, mind you, and the preservationists who were hoping the Farley could become a grand public space to replace the long-lost Penn Station - itself demolished to make way for the current MSG and its attendant office towers - are expected to oppose dropping a private sports arena into what was supposed to be the central atrium. As Municipal Art Society president Kent Barwick, himself a supporter of the MSG plan [UPDATE: Actually not - see comments], told the Observer: "We're either getting ready for a very big party or a very big fight."
I am going to throw this out again. Why not just use one of the tracks that runs from Penn to the West Side yard and turn it into a Sort of "S" train. (Shuttle for you non new yorkers that runs between only two stops). Seems like that would be cheap and easy. Or is it too simple....
Posted by Adam Schepp on March 14, 2006 09:22 PM
Your take on the new MSG is, as usual, insightful and newsy. But it also contains a glaring error in fact. The Municipal Art Society, and its President, Kent Barwick, have been big supporters of Moynihan Station for nearly two decades, but we cannot be labeled as supporters of the MSG plan. The quote you site does gets our position correct: ?We?re either getting ready for a very big party or a very big fight.? Since we haven?t seen final plans for the project, we leave open the possibility that the architects might come up with a brilliant way to construct a grand new train station named for Senator Moynihan within the landmarked Farley Post Office building, and also accommodate a new MSG. That would be cause for a party. But if the addition of MSG to the plan only serves to squeeze out the station ? the whole point in the first place ? we?ll be up for a very big fight. Got it?
Brian F Connolly, Vice President for Communications
The Municipal Art Society of New York
You're right, my apologies - I was thrown by a somewhat confusing quote from Kent Barwick in the Metro article I cited, where he said he'd "be happy to see MSG torn down." Thanks for the correction.
Posted by Neil on March 15, 2006 03:01 PM
Dolan shouldnt get anything. He does not deserve a new msg. All of new york should say no to a new msg. He is a horrible owner. Now he wants a new msg for free get out of here. Let the knicks move out of ny then.
Posted by dan on June 9, 2006 05:52 PM
The Moynihan Station Project is just as corrupt as any project MSG has offered up. The Building is named after James A. Farley a much more important figure historically compared to Danny Moynihan, no disrespect to Mr. Moynihan intended.
That is the truth, more over what connection does any Moynihan Station Project have in connection with the Historic Farley Post Office. James A. Farley was Athletic Commisioner of NY state and has a long standing relation with the MSG corp. in regards to the context of History....This is a Historic Landmark we are talking about. James A. Farley was the last great political Boss of NY, and presided over many great fights as athletic commisioner, which took place in the Old MSG.
I find it more true to the Historical Nature of the GPO to connect Farley to the New Garden, then a New Train Station. At least Farley's Legacy would be respected more instead of being trampled on by those who wish to throw Danny Moynihans name on it. Let them build Moynihan Station Up the Block and leave the Historic GPO and Farley alone, Farley helped to save the city from the depression for god's sake.