I think it is safe to say that Lowell Kern speaks for all our members, particularly those of us who live in Ms. Quinn's district.- T McM

June 15, 2004

Christine Quinn, Councilmember
New York City Council
224 West 30th Street
Suite 1206
New York , New York 1000

Re: New York Stadium and Convention Center

Dear Councilmember Quinn:

As we discussed after the committee hearing yesterday, I want to thank you again for taking to the time to hear my point of view on the stadium issue. It is also important to me to reiterate up front that anything in my testimony, whether it be something I said in my statement in the Council chamber or in my written testimony, that could be interpreted as an attack on you was not intended to be personal. I thought the notices posted in our building prior to the June 3 hearing were out of line, but you have since explained to me that, although these notices were on your official letterhead, they were actually posted by the LTTA without your knowledge.

Sitting at the hearing yesterday, in addition to your well-known opposition to the stadium plan as it now exists, I heard representatives of my other elected officials – Senator Duane and Assemblyman Gottfried – testify against this proposal. I also heard officials from Community Board 4, who are also supposed to represent my interests, assail the plan. Indeed, one of the most absurd statements (to me) at yesterday’s hearing came from one of the gentlemen from CB4, who stated that stadiums only have a lifespan of 30 years and that alone was a good enough reason to discount all of the analyses submitted by the Jets on the issue. If that is the case, that stadiums only have a lifespan of 30 years, then the Council shouldn’t be discussing a new stadium on the west side, but instead, a replacement for the city-owned Shea Stadium, which is 40 years old this year and has never been updated, and the city-owned Yankee Stadium, which was renovated 28 years ago. Of course, we should also advise our brethren in Chicago and Boston that Wrigley Field and Fenway Park , two American institutions, that these buildings must be condemned immediately. This, I guess, is just the nature of local politics, and my first real foray into this arena left me with a lousy taste in my mouth.

Repeatedly yesterday, opponents of the stadium repeated the mantra that they were “for the Olympics, for rezoning, for open access to the waterfront, for growth, for development, for the extension of the No. 7 train, for the Javits Center expansion, for building over the rail yards.” They were simply opposed to the building of a football stadium. Yet I failed to hear one concrete idea put forth that would allow all of this development and not cost the city and the state significantly more than the conservative estimate of $600 million that the Jets say it will cost, or even $1 billion the final total may run closer to. I heard complaints about the impact the stadium will have on the sewer system and how the stadium will burn energy that will cause cancer, even though (a) the environmental impact statement will not be released until next Monday; and (b) the stadium, as described in the Jets plan, will be a “green” stadium, generating its own energy, principally from the wind turbines at the top of the stadium which contribute to its distinctive look. And, of course, there were the anecdotal complaints about traffic, none of which addressed the actual studies commissioned by the Jets. Further, none of these complaints addressed the fact that any development of the area, which nobody opposes, of course, is going to put an additional strain on the city’s resources and increase traffic in the neighborhood in any case.

On the traffic issue itself, none of the opponents of the issue raised an issue I asked at the first meeting I attended that the Jets hosted for the public regarding the stadium. Specifically, over time, after the Jets moved to the swamps of Jersey , the composition of their season ticket base presumably changed, as Long Island based fans gave up their tickets and New Jersey based fans acquired those tickets. My understanding of the traffic analysis that has been done looks at the presumed patterns of current season ticket holders. However, a move to Manhattan is likely to change the composition of the season ticket base again, and, to the best of my knowledge, the impact of this change has never been taken into account in looking at prospective traffic patterns.

However, to me, the biggest issue remains that a football stadium built in an isolated location, such as Willets Point, even assuming that the Jets are willing to pony up $800 million to relocate to Queens , is not a good expenditure of city and state funds. A building standing in isolation, without connection to any other facility or use, is likely to be used for a maximum of 30 dates per year, and that is assuming that events such as the Super Bowl and the NCAA Final Four can be persuaded that Willets Point is as attractive a site as West Midtown. The rest of the year, the building will sit empty. Governmental expenditures may not be much different in an alternate site (as the costs for the platform over the rail yards would be replaced by the costs of acquiring land under eminent domain procedures, among other things). Yet the value of the facility would be greatly diminished.

As I testified yesterday, the only way that the building of this stadium with governmental funds makes any sense to me at all is if the building is a true multi-purpose facility. The use that is most desperately needed in the city that a stadium-sized facility could fulfill is to provide much needed convention space in Manhattan . The location of the proposed stadium, over the rail yards just south of the Javits Center , suits this purpose perfectly. And, considering

the enormous amount of money the Jets have offered to put up for this stadium (if we are going to assume that $600 million from the city and state really means $1 billion, we have to assume that $800 million from the Jets means at least that same $1billion dollars, not even taking into account the fact that the Jets have offered a guarantee against cost-overruns), I don’t believe there is a better way to achieve the Javits expansion.

With regard to the Olympics, I think there is another point that everyone is overlooking, including the Olympians who testified yesterday. Right now, New York is considered a long shot for the 2012 Summer Games, behind three European cities. However, were the stadium to be built, following the pattern of the International Olympic Committee to alternate continents with each Olympiad, New York would have to be considered the overwhelming favorite for the 2016 Summer Games. In terms of city planning, those four years mean very little, especially when you consider that we are debating in 2004 a stadium that wouldn’t even open until 2009.

Finally, in a city where Cablevision can get away without paying real estate taxes for Madison Square Garden yet can run misleading television ads against the illusory possibility of competition (how does an 80,000 seat stadium compete with a 20,000 seat arena?), I simply don’t see how any vision for development of the far west side can be accomplished with as great a private investment for a comparable public investment as the current plan for the Sports and Convention Center. The city is still going to have to pay for a platform over the rail yards in order to induce any private investment in the first place. Moreover, common sense dictates that no private investor is going to offer the city $800 million dollars, with a guarantee against cost overruns, without expecting significant concessions from the city and the state in the form of tax concessions and rebates (like the Dolans have) at a minimum. Yes, the issues of proportionate affordable housing and increased traffic in the neighborhood are real issues and need to be worked out. But these are issues that can be dealt with and in the scheme of things, are not big enough to derail a plan as comprehensive and far-reaching as the plan currently being considered. Please don’t lose sight of what is at stake here. As my written testimony made clear, I believe the development of an entire neighborhood, the last remaining outpost in Manhattan , is at stake. To squander this opportunity is to condemn the far west side to another generation of nothingness.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lowell D. Kern

Below is response from Christine Quinn's office

Mr. Kern,      

The Councilmember read your letter regarding the Hudson Yards proposal. Councilmember Quinn agrees that proposed stadium is an important issue not only for the residents of the West Side , but for all the people of Manhattan and New York City . She shares the same beliefs that New York City is in need of both economic and responsible physical growth. However, the Councilmember is in firm disagreement with the idea that a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan fits the criteria of responsible building. Squeezing a stadium into the already overly crowded and congested West Side is damaging not only to the area residents and surrounding Manhattan communities, but also to the city as a whole.      

She appreciates your opinion and dialogue (especially because you are her neighbor) and thanks you for sharing your feelings on the proposed stadium.  Councilmember Quinn welcomes any further questions or comments you may have. You can me at 212-564-7757, or continue your correspondence through e-mail to the Councilmember.      

Thank you,   Danielle