Archive for the ‘NYC post 9/11 resources’ Category

Terms of Engagement After Sandy

November 12, 2012

Photo credit – Eliud Echevarria: FEMA News Photo.

Sandy and the surges of water that accompanied her didn’t discriminate in terms of which lives, homes and businesses they devastated. People of all income levels and companies of all sizes were hard hit. Thousands in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut remain without power, hampering the relief effort. All of this is to say: there’s a long road ahead and communities must work with decision-makers now to create a plan for allocating reconstruction financial resources.

After past disasters such as the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, Congress created federal assistance programs that became dominated by those that needed it least: large corporations and luxury housing developers. It’s safe to assume these interests, the typical beneficiaries of “disaster capitalism,” are trying to influence similar legislation after Sandy.

Post-September 11, 2001 federal resources helped firms that already had vast resources—such as Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley—or “small businesses” like boutique brokerage houses and law firms (see Good Jobs New York’s Database of Deals for more information). As recently reported by our Good Jobs First colleagues, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, most of Louisiana’s allocation of the federal Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds went to giant petrochemical companies not located in the hardest hit areas.

Here are some suggestions on how to do it right this time:

Do help small businesses get back on their feet quickly with a minimum of red tape. This includes helping them deal with private insurance carriers. Provide technical assistance that helps them firm up their operations by making them more sustainable.

Don’t prioritize luxury housing. Real estate interests made sure that 9/11 Liberty Bonds for Lower Manhattan had so few strings attached that they fueled housing for the fabulously wealthy and no new affordable housing construction.

Do focus on the needs of residents and small businesses most affected. Subsidies and/or other land-use policies shouldn’t displace existing or future generations from working and living in healthy, affordable neighborhoods. Private Activity Bonds after Hurricane Katrina were available to such a large geographic area that those who needed resources the most were left with little access to these funds.

Don’t ignore the needs of low-income workers. The 9/11 attacks had a huge direct impact on the financial sector of Lower Manhattan, but they also had a severe ripple effect on low-income workers; think of the baggage handlers at the airports, retail workers in Lower Manhattan or restaurant employees in Chinatown. Before Congress in 2007, Interfaith Worker Justice testified that after Katrina, loose regulations lowered wages and greatly undermined job standards.

Do subsidize projects that create high-road employment in both the construction industry and for permanent jobs. If recent reports are any indication, there are decades’ worth of employment opportunities. Many of the areas swept away or without heat and hot water are home to the poor and working class and between 70,000 and 80,000 residents of the New York City Housing Authority have been impacted by the storm. If these people don’t have decent -paying jobs to return to, it will have devastating long-term impacts on the economy

A message to Katrina victims from some community groups engaged in 9/11 rebuilding still rings true after Sandy: Officials at all levels of government, particularly in Congress, must consider four things before creating reconstruction subsidy programs:

1) Programs must be created using broadly democratic and transparent planning principles.

2) The allocation of funds must prioritize the creation of good jobs and building sustainable neighborhoods.

3) Programs must focus on fiscal stewardship by rebuilding infrastructure and public goods that will help existing businesses rebound and foster new ones.

4) Programs must incorporate clawback provisions to make sure that recipients (especially large firms) live up to those job-creation requirements. Some of the largest recipients of 9/11 funds had grants withheld or were forced to repay them after laying off workers.

Some might argue that these safeguards will slow the recovery from Sandy. We think the opposite is true: if loose rules allow big companies with the most lobbyists and consultants to hog the trough, the neighborhoods hit hardest will get short-changed and suffer longest.

UPDATED Hurricane Sandy Recovery Dollars–How to Make Them Count

November 2, 2012

Boat meets Metro-North Railroad in Westchester County, Photo credit: MTA Photos, Flicker

As New York, New Jersey and Connecticut begin the painstaking process of recovering from Hurricane Sandy, experts are estimating that the cost of cleaning up and rebuilding may top $50 billion. It’s likely— considering the dire state of roads, subways, bridges, commuter rail and other infrastructure–that the figure will escalate.

Using past disasters as an example, we can also expect that big business will seek to dominate the conversation and benefit most from the use of relief and rebuilding funds.

Billions of dollars in federal economic development aid was made available to New York after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Left out of much of the allocation and all of the decision-making were small businesses and low-income residents, especially in nearby areas of Chinatown and the Lower East Side. Much of the cash grants went to large business or wealthy “small” businesses like hedge funds and brokerages with few employees. Billions in Liberty Bonds went to building luxury housing in Lower Manhattan  and new headquarters for powerful financial firms like Goldman Sachs.  Good Jobs New York tracked these funds as part of our Reconstruction Watch project and in our Database of Deals.

How does this bode for an impending flood of rebuilding aid for the area? The answer is good and bad. Technology could be a great democratizer, and opportunities to educate taxpayers about proposals and get feedback are widely available. While acknowledging the existence of the digital divide, it has lessened dramatically since 9/11. Town halls, literal and virtual, are more accessible, (expect opinionated New Yorkers to chime in loudly once electricity is back online).  The bad part is that powerful business interests will be using their influence with policymakers to set the agenda while the rest of us are still preoccupied with recovering from the storm.

This week New York City announced two Hurricane Sandy recovery programs. A loan program capped at $10,000 for small firms and tax breaks for large firms spending more than half a million dollars on rebuilding. There are also “swing” spaces available in Brooklyn and The Bronx for displaced firms. Right out of the box, it looks like little has changed: small firms offered more debt and big firms with big checkbooks get tax breaks.

UPDATED Sunday, November 4: The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) alerted us to the following:

We will update this post as new details emerge. For more information and how to apply for these programs or to help visit the EDC’s Back to Business webpage.

Keeping in mind that these programs will most likely evolve and new ones created, we urge officials to use this tragic storm to make accountability, equity and transparency central to rebuilding our communities:

  • Prioritize small businesses over giant ones.
  • Hold public hearings and allow citizens to help shape how funds will be allocated.
  • Post data on the web about which companies are receiving aid, whether there are any conditions on that assistance and whether those conditions are met.
  • Use resources to leverage high-road job standards (good wages and benefits).
  • Require funds for rebuilding to be sustainable for the environment and for future storms.  Wise public investment now will pay off in the future.
  • Include stringent work-safety rules.
  • Include clawback – money-back guarantee – provisions. This is especially important when it comes to large firms, which often make extravagant job-creation promises and then fall short.
  • Existing transparency practices should be maintained, or even improved, for storm-related subsidies.

The allocation of discretionary economic subsidies has become more transparent in New York City in recent years (a fuller explanation is here), yet policies that include democratic planning principles is badly lacking in New York City and many surrounding areas. There is a long road of rebuilding ahead and public funds must be used efficiently. To help ensure this, leaders must bring community members to the table while decisions are being made.

If history is any gauge, the interests of big business have already landed on the table of decision makers. But there’s still time to create a future that gives priority to the creation of good jobs for people that need them and the rebuilding of sound infrastructure for all.

Some 9/11 Subsidy Recipients Fail to Meet Job Goals; New York State Recaptures Funds

September 1, 2011

Pie Chart 1: The Largest JCRP Recipients

As the 10th anniversary of September 11th attack on the World Trade Center approaches, it is a good time to review what happened with the subsidies that were allocated to large firms to help them deal with the effects of that tragedy. It turns out that some companies that received those subsidies, including Goldman Sachs, failed to meet their job retention or creation goals, and some have had to repay funds to New York State.

Good Jobs New York has just completed an analysis of the Job Creation and Retention Program (JCRP), which was created in the wake of 9/11 to encourage major employers in Lower Manhattan to remain there and to encourage others to relocate to the area. JCRP, which is administered by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and its subsidiary the Lower Manhattan Development (LMDC) Corporation, has awarded about $304 million in Community Development Block Grants to 91 companies. These funds come from a special $2.7 billion allocation for various rebuilding efforts in Lower Manhattan after 9/11.

Here are some of the highlights of our analysis:

  • Goldman Sachs which received $22.9 million of a $25 million JCRP grant, has not complied with its commitment to retain 8,100 jobs.  The state has not clawed back funds, but it will most likely not allocate the remaining $2.1 million the firm is due.
  • Approximately $13.4 million was recaptured from firms for not being in compliance with their agreements with the Empire State Development Corporation, (see Table 1).
  • Nine firms that were especially hard hit by the attack received a special allocation of $33 million in CDBG funds under the “New York Firms Suffering Disproportionate Loss of Workforce Program” (see table 2).

Table 1: Firms that had JCRP funds recaptured

As part of our analysis we obtained copies of 19 JCRP agreements between firms and ESDC. JCRP grants were allocated by the (ESDC) and/or its subsidiary, the (LMDC) but compliance falls under the ESDC. We have posted these documents here and have summarized their content in our Database of Deals along with summary information about the other recipients.

We also requested copies of the applications firms submitted for the JCRP funds, but some of them were unavailable because they had been destroyed, we were told, in a flood at ESDC offices. Missing applications included those of Goldman Sachs and American Express.

It is interesting that the applications submitted by HIP and Deloitte Consulting said the firms were under no immediate pressure to move but they received the grants anyway. Nearly all the applications we reviewed warned that the firms were considering moving their facilities to neighboring states; many said they might remain elsewhere in the city.

Goldman’s Subsidy Reach: Goldman Sachs, one of the largest beneficiaries of post 9/11 resources, has received $22.9 million of a promised $25 million grant. Goldman benefited tremendously from government incentives after 9/11, including Liberty Bonds and a special lease agreement with the Battery Park City Authority for its new office tower.  Details on Goldman’s subsidies are here. However, as of December 2010 Goldman was not in compliance with it job commitments. Employment was 8,100 in 2005 when its agreement was made but in 2010 the firm’s employment was 7,472. As of the end of 2010, ESDC had yet to recapture funds from Goldman Sachs but the firm will most likely not receive the remaining $2.1 million it was promised.

Whether Goldman Sachs needed subsidies to finance its move from one side of Lower Manhattan to the other no longer remains a mystery. Goldman’s agreement with the ESDC notes: “Goldman was not significantly impacted by the attacks of September 11th” and “The remainder of its facilities were not severely damaged or destroyed and no lives were lost.” However, the firm notes that it had to temporarily relocate employees and “experienced significant losses directly related to the overall economic impact of the attack…”

Banking on the Bank of New York: The largest JCRP grant of $40 million went to the Bank of New York. The Bank also benefited from a $90.8 million allocation of Liberty Bonds to FC Hanson for its building above Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. Details are available in our Database of Deals.

Deal with Deutsche: On 9/11 Deutsche Bank occupied two buildings impacted by the attack: 130 Liberty Street, directly across the street from the WTC and 4 World Trade Center. In return for keeping employees in Lower Manhattan, it received a $34.5 million JCRP grant. The redevelopment of the 130 Liberty Street site has hit several bumps, including the need for the negotiation skills of former US Senator George Mitchell to forge an agreement with the various interests (Deutsche Bank, New York State via the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and insurers). In the end, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation bought the building in 2004 and has spent approximately $277 million for acquisition, demolition and developing 130 Liberty Street with the expectation of turning the property over to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Demolition of 130 Liberty Street raised the ire of residents and local elected officials who were concerned that if it is not done properly, the contaminated building could be an environmentally hazardous project. In 2007 a fire killed two firefighters at the site.

Recaptures and Clawbacks

Chart 2: Percentages of JCRP allocations recaptured

Each JCRP agreement includes a clawback provision that requires firms to return part of the grant if it does not create the jobs promised or if it moves jobs and/or operations out of New York City. Penalties are generally strongest in the first and second years of the deal. GJNY has long pushed for strong clawback provisions in economic development deals and is pleased to see this first public evidence of recaptures by ESDC. However, as chart 2 indicates, the actual percentage of money clawed back is low in many cases.

 

Grants for Employees’ Loss of Life: Ten firms received $33 million from a special allocation of CDBG funds from the New York Firms Suffering Disproportionate Loss of Workforce program. The lion’s share has gone to Cantor Fitzgerald; after merging with another JCRP program recipient, the firm is eligible to receive approximately $6.8 million more in JCRP funds. To be eligible for the program, firms have to have had “suffered a loss of life equal to at least six permanent employees AND at least 20% of its permanent workforce OR at least 50 permanent employees located in New York City.” Learn more about the program on the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s website.

Table 2: Recipients of the Disproportionate Loss of Workforce program. *Note: Recipients of this program were required to provide jobs data only for 2004 and 2005. Information for those that provided jobs data beyond these years can be found in our Database of Deals.

Jobs Reporting

GJNY has long advocated for an accountable and equitable use of economic development funds and believes, like many fiscal watchdogs and CEOs alike, that subsidies do not persuade location decisions of large firms in the finance and real estate industries. For companies to move or expand operations and create jobs, access to workforce, transportation and infrastructure, and a cluster of like-minded businesses guide location decisions more than taxes.

With that caveat and due to weak transparency on the state level, GJNY finds that a concise figure of job impacts remains elusive. A December 2010 report to the U.S.  Department of Housing and Urban Development claims 30,000 jobs were created or retained by 40 JCRP recipients that benefited from the LMDC allocation. This job count corroborates data we received from ESDC that tallies job totals for both agencies, approximately doubling the jobs cited in the HUD report. (Prior to the creation of LMDC, the ESDC allocated JCRP grants.) We encourage New York State to emulate recent transparency efforts like those at the New York City Industrial Development Agency.

Grants continue: In early August of this year, ESDC announced a $3 million JCRP grant for Oppenheimer & Co. Because this grant was announced so recently it is not in our database. More information about the proposal is available here.

See more: Information on other CDBG-funded economic development programs created after 9/11 – including several thousand recipients of the Business Recovery Grant (BRG), Small Firm Attraction and Retention Grants (SFRAG) and the special $8 Billion allocation of Private Activity Bonds (aka “Liberty Bonds”) –  are available in the Database of Deals and our Reconstruction Watch section of our website. There you will also find descriptions of various incentives being offered in Lower Manhattan from the City and State commercial subsidy program known as “the Marshall Plan.” In addition, in August 2011 the New York City Independent Budget Office released a summary of Federal Aid to New York City after 9/11.

Reality Check Arrives at Ground Zero

July 3, 2008

In case you thought the rebuilding at the World Trade Center site was going along as planned, a long overdue and candid letter released this week from the Port Authority of NY & NJ is your dose of reality.

Since the attacks of 9/11, public officials (mostly former during Governor Pataki’s administration), created a mirage of productive activity at the 16 acres of Ground Zero. What the project needed from the get-go was fewer cooks and one stalwart chef in the kitchen.  Some of us had hoped Governor Spitzer would step up to the plate and ask tough questions like why there’s such a massive amount of subsidized office space planned, but he too caved and since his stay in the state capital was cut short, we’ll never know what long term impact his role might have had.

Now, Gov. Paterson has asked THE tough question about the redevelopment of the 16 acres at Ground Zero by requesting (gasp!) an assessment. Paterson’s willingness to confront the challenges of the rebuilding, (and one of the worst kept secrets in town) are a breath of fresh air and include: the unmanageable size of the project, the “unique interdependencies” (I guess that’s the nice way to say political interests), increased costs and the “doh!” moment was “lack of an effective decision making process.”

Of course the decision making process was ineffective – in large part because it was unaccountable. GJNY and others cautioned early on and regularly that unless transparency and accountability were improved in Lower Manhattan, the development could have a negative impact – mostly on low and moderate income residents and workers.  We weren’t wrong (unfortunately) as billions of dollars in Federal resources were allocated in Lower Manhattan to financial firms and luxury housing developers helping to make it one of the city’s ritziest neighborhoods.

The head of the Port Authority, Chris Ward, deserves credit for giving the Governor an honest critique of what has become an embarrassment.

Will tax breaks “Chase” Bear Stearns? [UPDATED]

March 21, 2008

The fallout of JPMorgan Chase’s take over of Bear Stearns is still unclear, but it will certainly be felt beyond the financial sector in New York City where both firms have their headquarters and where we have the added anxiety of $317 million in past corporate “retention” deals.

The inevitable layoffs associated with the plan are already being speculated about. Taxpayers should expect that city officials will hold the firms’ accountable for job promises. But don’t hold your breath.

Not surprisingly at GJNY we call these type of deals blatant corporate giveaways. But now that the subsidies are out of the bag, it’s worth noting their status. Yet, finding the answer isn’t so easy since the annual report released by the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA), the quasi-public entity that negotiates and oversees these deals, is notoriously inconsistent and excludes deals more than eight years old.

We resisted the temptation to throw up our hands in frustration and instead compiled figures from several years of annual reports. We’ve requested updated figures from the IDA and we’ll update this entry when we get them.

Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase) – approved for $211.8 million in 1988
Jobs in 1988: 5,000
Jobs retention promise: 4,500
Jobs creation promise: 1,450
Jobs in June 2003 (latest public figures): 3,983
Jobs in December 2006: 3,506
Subsidy used as of June 2003 (latest public figures): $44.5 million

Bear Stearns – approved for $11 million in tax breaks (and other subsidies worth up to $20 million) in 1991 in as part of a plan to move workers from Manhattan to Brooklyn

UPDATE: According to IDA officials the IDA merged the 1991 and 1997 deals.  As of June 2007, the firm had 7,667 jobs not the 9,284 we listed below from the annual report. The larger figure included consultants which the IDA does not counted towards the firm’s job compliance.

Jobs in 1991: unknown
Job retention promise: 1,435
Jobs creation promise: 229
Jobs in June 1999: 6424
Subsidy used: Because this deal has expired, presumably the firm has received all benefits.

Bear Stearns – approved for $75 million in 1997
Jobs in 1997: 5,700
Jobs retention promise: 5,700
Job creation promise: 13,300
Jobs in June 2007: 9,284 7,667
Subsidy used as of June 2007: $14 million

The subsidy silliness continued into the summer of 2007 when JPMorgan Chase was approved for at least $230 million in post 9/11 resources to move to former Deutsche Bank site (across the street from the World Trade Center) site from Midtown. It’s not surprising Chase is backing out of the Downtown deal since the Deutsche site is far less appealing than Bear Stearns’ spiffy Madison Avenue digs.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers