Factual errors are to be expected when The Times editorial board weighs in on the West Side Stadium project. Remember the #2 train miraculously appearing on the East Side?

Or how about the editorial of February 9th, so chock full of errors that former Senator George J. Mitchell, whose integrity was put into question, was moved to write a stinging letter rebutting The Times editorial on a factual basis.

In the very first sentence here, The Times characterizes the Jets initial proposal as "...a take-it-or-take-it offer of $100 million.." As I recall, the Jets offered $100 million, the MTA asked for $300 million, and the two sides went into negotiations. Nothing nefarious there. But the Times sees goblins all about.

The Times, as I recall, picked up a prime piece of real estate at far below market value for their new headquarters. I wonder if there was any zeal at West 43rd Street to investigate that deal.

And while we're on the subject, why is The Times not covering the MSG tax story? It may have seemed tit-for-tat by the Jets in the beginning, but it is taking on a life of its own, as yesterday stadium opposition leader Christine Quinn added her name to the City Council measure requesting the rescinding of that obscene tax break by the state. It's in the other papers, but you won't know about it if you read the New York Times.

And finally, why is The Times so damn naive about the possible hidden motives of Cablevision? Consider this:

• Cablevision owns Madison Square Garden, a facility that is too small and ill-configured to ever host major events, no matter how much renovating you do. They even lost the annual Horse Show, as the presenters complained about the lack of size of the facility.
• The Hudson River train yards are currently zoned in such a way that a stadium is totally acceptable.
• Madison Square Garden currently sits on one of the most valuable parcels of land in the world.
• Madison Square Garden has a history of hop-scotching about this city. It started in Madison Square, had a couple of incarnations in that area, then moved to the heart of Hell's Kitchen for a large chunk of the 20th Century, before ending up in its current location, sitting atop the ashes of that majestic New York icon, Pennsylvania Station.
• With all this in mind, what is to stop Cablevision, if it gets its hands on the rail yards, from simply building a new Madison Square Garden there, configured to seat up to 45,000, then selling the current Garden to developers for a huge profit?
  

Just asking.

-Tom McMorrow, Jr.

EDITORIAL

A Real Political Football

ust weeks ago, the New York Jets made a take-it-or-take-it offer of $100 million for rights to build a stadium over the railyards on Manhattan's Far West Side. The rights belong to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the region's beleaguered mass transit system. The offer was only a fraction of the appraised value, and you'd have thought Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki - who understand the M.T.A.'s problems but have not been particularly helpful about solutions - would have been outraged. But both men seem more interested in getting that stadium built than in protecting the commuting public.

The M.T.A. was forced to open the bidding, and the Jets have now offered a package of $720 million. That should be reason enough to ask why top elected officials weren't more aggressive earlier. But even now, it is still far from clear that the deal is a fair one for the authority and the city.

The team's bid includes $440 million from a half dozen developers who would use part of the development rights to build other projects, mainly housing. But that part of the offer is contingent on rezoning the proposed stadium site for residential use and allowing transfer of the rights to the surrounding area. That is far from a sure thing, given competing plans for residential projects on the Far West Side.

Further, the Jets are still expecting at least $600 million in city and state assistance to build a platform over the yards and a roof for the stadium. That's an enormous amount of public money for a team playing in one of the most lucrative sports markets on the globe. The Jets have also been assured of getting the zoning needed for the stadium and that the team won't have to pay the freight if there turn out to be environmental problems at the site that need to be fixed. These sweeteners, which considerably detract from the value of the team's offer, were not available to other bidders.

Small wonder, then, that there were only three bids. The only one other than the Jets' that has a fighting chance came from the stadium project's archenemy, Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden. If nothing else, the company deserves credit for helping the M.T.A. see the light and encouraging the public to ask questions about the entire stadium deal.

Cablevision made its initial offer of $600 million - including the cost of constructing a platform - last month. That helped to prompt the authority's chairman, Peter Kalikow, to look beyond the Jets. But the bidding took place on grounds that were far from even - only the Jets were assured they would have no problems with zoning or environmental concerns. The authority, beset with crushing debt, an aging and ailing subway system in the city and the need to finance its multibillion-dollar capital plan, missed what could have been a golden opportunity.

Mr. Bloomberg's desire to jump-start development on the Far West Side is laudable, but we still doubt the stadium can accomplish that. There's no need for the M.T.A. board to rush to select a bid, as planned, at the end of the month. Finding a best price and highest use for the site may yet be possible, but only if the process is made truly open and fair.