Neighbors want no part of NY Times building

Real Estate Weekly, Oct 3, 2001 by Elaine Misonzhnik

Speaking at the public hearing on the proposed New York Times tower at Times Square, officials from the newspaper and the city's real estate organizations cited the pressing need for an icon building to bolster New Yorkers' morale.

But a group of small business owners who stand to lose their properties in the deal argued that the developers' foremost interest lies not in contributing to the public good, but in the high revenues and government subsidies they would be able to gain from the project. In order to allow New York Times to go ahead with construction, the Economic Development Corporation would have to condemn the proposed site, which stretches from 40th to 42nd St. on Eighth Ave.

Speaking on behalf of the New York Times, Michael Golden, vice chairman of the New York Times Company, noted that "no greater contribution could be made [to the city at this time] than to start the construction of a major icon building."

"It will not only be a home for the Times," he said, "but will bring tenants to the area, which were not there before."

The meeting took place on Sept. 24 at the New Victory Theater.

Bruce C. Ratner, president of Forest City Ratner Companies, noted that "In addition to addressing the future needs of one of the city's most venerable institutions, (the building) will be a symbol. It will speak of power and the New York Times' future."

Ratner, along with Insignia/ESG representative Marianne Tai, also sited the city's urgent need for new office space as a major reason why the tower should be built.

"The New York City spec office building is an endangered species," said Tai. "If we needed those office buildings going into the slowdown, we now need them more than ever. Sept. 11 made this building critical to the economic health of the City."

A number of the city's private entities were at the hearing to voice their support, including the Durst Organization, Conde Nast Publications, and Tishman Construction.

Speaking on behalf of the Times Square Business Improvement District, Ellen Goldstein said the organization "wishes to comment on keeping the New York Times in the area."

"The Times is one of our most important employees," she said. "The 700,000 SF of new space created by this development might keep businesses in New York City."

But Howard Strauss, who spoke on behalf of a group of "outraged citizens," objected to the condemation of the site as "blatantly illegal." In order to give New York Times what it wanted, the city was going to invoke a 20-year-old law, which has long since stopped being applicable to the Times Square area, he claimed.

"The (eminent domain) law was passed two decades ago in order to create an area large enough to eliminate persistent crime and blight in the West 42nd Street area," he said. "But much has happened in the last 20 years since the law was passed. Urban blight has all but been eliminated, especially on this block. And should you ask Mayor Giuliani he would undoubtedly tell you that crime by and large no longer exists in the Times Square area."

Strauss also cited the fact that the condemnation law is generally reserved for developments that serve a public purpose and is invoked only in those cases where no other piece of land is available to the developers.

"When property is condemned it is our understanding that is should be used for public use and public use only," he noted. "And not for private use, where half will be used by the New York Times and the other half by Forest City Ratner, who have already made plans to lease the remaining space of 750,000 SF at more than 80 per SF."

Strauss was supported by Gary Barnett, Sam Broch, and William F. Wallace, all of whom own property on the block marked for the tower.

"In addition to their great enthusiasm," Wallace said in reference to Forest City Ratner, "they stand to gain any millions from the development. They not only ant my property, they want to take it at bargain prices.

Gary Barnett, who owns 15,000 SF at the site, said he believed the property should be developed, but "I would develop a 50-story building without any public funds." Part of the opponents' concern is due to the fact that should the project exceed the $85 million projected price, the City would pay the difference using public funds.

"Instead of purchasing text books, raising teachers' salaries, or satisfying any other public needs, the taxpayer is asked to satisfy the needs of Forest City Ratner and the New York Times," Strauss said. 'When you have finally decided this issue I urge you: don't support and be influenced by the greed and avarice of special interests."