They say that confession is good for the soul, so we read with interest the confessions of William J. Stern, The Truth About Times Square, published by the Institute for Justice at http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2676&Itemid=249 A good read, that.
Mr Stern should know whereof he speaks. In the 1980s he was Chairman of the infamous New York State Urban Development Corporation, a public body originally created to eliminate slums and build low-income housing, that in the event turned out to be the rapacious, predatory entity behind New York’s notorious abuses of the power of eminent domain, taking private property for the benefit of favored, private [re]developers for their financial gain. By now, this may sound like old stuff that is familiar to all with an interest in the process of redevelopment. But Mr. Stern adds another dimension to this story by presenting it to us through the eyes of an insider. And quite a tale it is.
To make a long story short, the original Times Square redevelopment project was a creature of government central planning, whose rationale was to eliminate the porn sleaze that afflicted 42nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues, and through the use of eminent domain replace it with a grandiose complex of office towers. But it didn’t work out that way. Why? Two reasons: first, the area was crime-ridden with the NYPD in those days doing little or nothing to take the streets back from from the criminals, and second, the grandiose visions of government central planners did not match what the market wanted.
By 1992 the handwriting was in the wall. See David W. Dunlap, Long Delay Likely in Rebuilding Times Square, N.Y. Times, Aug. 3, 1992, at p. A1. Though the facile excuse was that the economy experienced problems, that was not the real reason for the project’s failure. Thomas J. Lueck, Miscalculation in Times Square: A Bulldoze-and-Build Plan Is not Enough, N.Y. Times, Aug. 10, 1992, at p. A15, noted the “real estate glut” but concluded that:
“But the failure of the 15-year government campaign to redevelop Times Square may rest more squarely on the government’s attempt to use bulldoze-and-build urban renewal policies at a time when large-scale development has become a more intricate art.”
In Mr. Stern’s words:
“Despite all the posturing and scheming, planning and skullduggery, the [original redevelopment] plan withered, [the selected redeveloper] never started work on the four office towers, which never went up; the garment wholesale mart never opened, the hotel never appeared, the subway renovation never happened and the nonprofit theaters never materialized.”
Translation: for all the brave talk about redevelopment planning, the central planners didn’t know what they were doing. The upshot of this ham-handed government effort was captured by the title of another New York Times article: James Bennett, Taking the Deuce: Midtown Gets a Ghost Town on 42nd Street, N.Y. Times, Aug. 9, 1992, at p. 20. And a ghost town it remained until the private market was permitted to take the initiative and build what the new entrepreneurs wanted, not what government planners thought they should build.
The Times Square area was eventually revived, but not because of the UDC plans, but rather because of a stepped up law enforcement effort by the NYPD that made the streets safe, and increased interest by individual entrepreneurs attracted to the area as a result.
To get the whole story, do read Mr. Stern’s article. Like we said, it’s a good read.
And by the way, we learned from the Stern report what happened in the wake of the infamous Rosenthal & Rosenthal case (see 605 F.Supp. 612 (1985)). In that case, the owners challenged the taking of their land on the grounds that the boundaries of the Times Square redevelopment project were corruptly drawn to include their building, for the financial benefit of the favored redeveloper. The court was unimpressed and shrugged off those allegations by observing that even if true, the project still met the criteria of “public use,” and the motivation of the condemnor could not be considered. So what happened then? We learn from the Stern report that seven years later the Rosenthal & Rosenthal building was sitting empty and unoccupied.
Your tax money at work