Nearly three weeks after the Jets' plan for a Manhattan football stadium died in Albany, an appeals court yesterday upheld the team's deal to buy the development rights over the West Side railyard for $250 million.
The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court rejected a challenge by Madison Square Garden, the most vehement and well-heeled opponent of the stadium, ruling that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority made a rational decision to sell the rights to the Jets, and that the M.T.A. was not obligated to accept the offer from the Garden simply because it would have paid more money.
The decision might seem to be a hollow victory for the Jets, considering the June 6 decision in Albany that blocked state subsidies for the project. In revising its 2012 Olympics bid, the city has already moved past the proposed Jets stadium to plans for a new and far less contentious stadium in Queens for the Mets.
But the Jets and their most vociferous supporters in the construction industry have refused to throw in the towel on the West Side project. While many people at City Hall refer to the planned stadium in the past tense, the team and its supporters are exploring ways of raising $300 million to offset the money that the state refused to supply.
At a June 10 luncheon for the team's supporters in the construction unions at Shelly's New York restaurant in Midtown, Matt Higgins, a Jets vice president, sent a clear message: "We're not giving up," according to two union officials who were there. Much of the discussion revolved around raising money and assessing the chances of getting the City Council to rezone the railyard for a stadium, they said.
"If they get the site, we'll take another shot at this next year," said Stephen McInnis, political director for the carpenters union.
Both the unions and building contractors are looking at whether they could invest pension fund money in the stadium project if the Jets go forward, according to Mr. McInnis, as well as Louis J. Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers' Association and Vincent F. Pitta, a lawyer for several large unions in the city.
"There'll be thousands of jobs, and it'll be a huge injection into the economy," Mr. Pitta said.
The Jets were willing to invest a record-setting amount of money-about $1.6 billion - in what would be the most expensive stadium in the world. The project would also have required a $600 million investment by the city and the state, which would have been the largest public subsidy ever for a stadium.
But Woody Johnson, the owner of the Jets, has already spent more than $63 million and five years on plans to build a stadium in Manhattan. Next month, the team's intentions will become clear when the M.T.A. is expected to ask the team to sign a contract to buy the property. If the Jets want to preserve their right to build on the site, the team will then have to make a $50 million down payment to the agency and prepare to complete the transaction in early 2006. Otherwise the team will have to walk away from the agreement.
Peter S. Kalikow, the M.T.A. chairman, said the agency would review the matter in a closed session of its board next week.
But political uncertainties abound. There are several outstanding lawsuits challenging the project, and after the November city election the team may have fewer supporters on the City Council than it does now. Madison Square Garden and its parent, Cablevision, which declined to comment on the appellate court ruling, have no plans to go away.
In the meantime, the Jets are also talking to New Jersey officials and the Giants about a new stadium for both teams in the Meadowlands that would cost far less than the Manhattan proposal, requiring an estimated $400 million to $500 million each from the Jets and the Giants. One Jets supporter acknowledged that talk of a simmering New York option also gives the team leverage in its negotiations with New Jersey.