Ballpark Lofts I, II, and III - Cupples Sta. Bldgs. 7, 8, 9

urban_dilettante · PostJun 04, 2013#3012013-06-04T20:40+00:00

Here's a link to my unsatisfactory conversation with the Treasurer's office on their Facebook page (in response to their posting of the RFT article linked above):

stlien wrote: This is what bothers me the most - She acts as if she has to spend the money to demo. Why can't she use that money to stabilize? ...

I asked the same question and her response was (after much prodding) "because the Parking Commission allocated the funds for demolition".

She also keeps repeating that the Treasurer's office doesn't want to get into real estate, but they're apparently fine with purchasing the lot as long as there's no building on it, even if the building could be stabilized (exterior bracing, perhaps) for less than the cost of purchasing the land + razing the building. It all seems fishy to me. She did say that the estimates for stabilization were procured by the SLDC and although she claims that "all types of stabilization were considered" they should be contacted for specifics. So basically there's lots of deflection going on between the Treasurer's office, the SLDC, and the Parking Commission.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 04, 2013#3022013-06-04T21:04+00:00

And no one will stop up and own the city. I mean, I just want someone to say, "damn it, this is my city and I'm in control here." Not the St. Louis way, I guess. Whether Cupples 7 or other issues, we're sorely lacking in leadership.

urban_dilettante · PostJun 04, 2013#3032013-06-04T21:30+00:00

^ in this instance i get the impression that nobody–neither the Mayor nor the Treasurer–actually cares whether the building lives or dies. And as others have said, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are other interests advocating for demolition behind the scenes.

leeharveyawesome · PostJun 04, 2013#3042013-06-04T21:40+00:00

I'll bet you anything that the demolition company has friends/relatives at City Hall and everyone (except taxpayers and residents) gets a little piece of the action when they can find something to tear down. They're in cahoots!

dredger · PostJun 05, 2013#3052013-06-05T00:45+00:00

south compton wrote:
I sympathize with your point, but I really wonder how far $500k or even $5million would go toward stabilization. At a bare minimum to make stabilization work you will need to stop the water from getting in and reinforce all the walls, which I'm sure would cost several million dollars. Maybe that work gets the building a couple years on the shelf until a developer with a feasible and financable redevelopment plan steps forward. Or maybe after a couple of years, the building is once again crumbling and on the demolition list. That's a tough gamble to take using public $$$.

I'm not a big fan of the Treasurer's office's deal (especially the use of public $$ to buy the bank note). I also agree that it seems everyone is using Larry Williams as an excuse. The City should just threaten to condemn the property as a public nuisance/safety hazard, demolish the building and put a lien for the cost of the demolition on the property - that way the bank (i.e., the party who really should bear the risk) would need to either (a) step up and use its own money to stabilize the building to prevent demolition or (b) risk losing its investment if the City goes through with the demolition and forecloses on the lien.

I don't know and if someone could clarify for me. But I don't believe the property was ever foreclosed on by the bank. I believe this is for all intents and purposes because the bank has already written off the bank note as a total loss. So why foreclose and legally bear the risk? Sounds bad, but would probably do the same thing if i was making the business decision at the bank.

What I think is even as dissapointing, The bank must not have much confidence in the value of the land/location itself being more then $1.5 million, $850k note to treasurer plus demo cost $650K. The flip side, if the bank thought the land was worth more then you most likely have seen the demo already happen. So I doubt very much having the bank bear responsibility would have given any more favorable of an outcome.

The question, do the plan referencing in PD Building Blocks had financing backing behind it? Assume at this point, no.

urban_dilettante · PostJun 05, 2013#3062013-06-05T05:10+00:00

^ Re the financing (and the situation in general) I encourage everyone to check out the Treasurer's Facebook page

as well as the most recent comments from Hasan Adelani (of Vertical Realty) here (about 3/4 of the way down):

http://nextstl.com/preservation/countin ... evelopment

it sounds as though financing is probable, just not by the end of this week. so it depends on whether the city is gung-ho to get this building torn down, or willing to work with VR to get it redeveloped. my bet is, sadly, on the gung-ho but i hope i'm wrong.

leeharveyawesome · PostJun 05, 2013#3072013-06-05T11:49+00:00

Here's how "allocations" work with government. If your department or agency has been allocated monies the department or agency WILL find a way to use it or they risk not being allocated the same amount the following year. I've personally witnessed this in a large state capital I previously lived in. I mean, I was so flabbergasted at what I saw. They literally could have flushed the money down the toilet. The point was to spend what you've been allocated and hope for the same or more of an allocation the next legislative go around. Soooo...the Parking Commission has been allocated monies for demolition and there is simply nothing they can do to stop the planned demolition. Of course there isn't, because this is the way bureaucracies work. I'm telling you, it a sad state of affairs.

debaliviere · PostJun 05, 2013#3082013-06-05T14:05+00:00

More info from the RFT: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... _jones.php

DannyJ · PostJun 06, 2013#3092013-06-06T21:02+00:00

debaliviere wrote:More info from the RFT: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... _jones.php

bump

St. Louis Treasurer's office Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/stltreasurer?fref=ts

stlien · PostJun 07, 2013#3102013-06-07T01:10+00:00

Most recent story in the RFT - http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... _jones.php

Ed G makes an appearance.

deformative · PostJun 11, 2013#3112013-06-11T18:44+00:00

Going back and reading through all these conversations with the treasurer's office and the developer has left me feeling so desperate and physically anxious.

chaifetz10 · PostJun 11, 2013#3122013-06-11T18:57+00:00

^Agreed. Anyone have any news? I'm just waiting for the city to arrive with a wrecking ball any day now...

imran · PostJun 11, 2013#3132013-06-11T19:06+00:00

I wish the Mayor would break his silence and weigh in on the matter. I understand that the Treasurer's office does its own thing but how can one not support a possible deal that would create jobs and revenue, all while saving a piece of downtown history?

deformative · PostJun 11, 2013#3142013-06-11T19:20+00:00

Someone really should take ownership of the issue as the treasurer is going with "it's not our place to do anything."

pat · PostJun 11, 2013#3152013-06-11T19:58+00:00

Has anyone been following this on twitter? Its getting a bit testy.

Does anyone know the truth behind the scenes with the Treasurer and Vertical Realty?

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 11, 2013#3162013-06-11T20:05+00:00

As much as I understand, it's a difference in the interpretation of risk. For whatever reason, Vertical can't/won't buy the building from the bank and the city (Treasurer's Office) won't assume any risk as the building's owner, even for day, in order to get it in the hands of Vertical. The city doesn't want to own the building and accept any risk either.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 11, 2013#3172013-06-11T20:12+00:00

well it would be terrible if that is all that is keeping things from moving forward. M

flipz · PostJun 11, 2013#3182013-06-11T22:22+00:00

I wish that full and immediate transparency on city dealings was written into law.

urban_dilettante · PostJun 12, 2013#3192013-06-12T02:42+00:00

^ yep. i said to Ms. Jones on Facebook that i think we're not getting the entire story, that she needs to make more of an effort to elaborate on the details and keep us updated. i asked a series of pointed questions.

her response (paraphrasing): "you are getting the whole story. Vertical Realty is to blame, not us. i am disappointed that you think i'm not telling the truth." and, surprise surprise, she doesn't bother to acknowledge any of the other stuff that i wrote. she even straight-up accused VR of lying about agreeing to take ownership of the building. perhaps they are lying, but if so it shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate.

that said, i would like to know if Vertical ever revised the Term Sheet so that the city is not obligated to lease the building back after renovation. Ms. Jones claims the terms have not changed. I can understand why the city would not be on board with that if it's true.

Once again, here's a link to the Treasurer's Facebook page:

moorlander · PostJun 12, 2013#3202013-06-12T14:01+00:00

From what I'm hearing there is no hope for this building. Contact the city today. We need to make some noise!

ImprovSTL · PostJun 12, 2013#3212013-06-12T15:16+00:00

What happened to the Space Architects plan?

stlien · PostJun 12, 2013#3222013-06-12T16:26+00:00

moorlander wrote:From what I'm hearing there is no hope for this building. Contact the city today. We need to make some noise!

What are you hearing? Just what is being reported in the RFT?

moorlander · PostJun 12, 2013#3232013-06-12T18:08+00:00

No.

Let's just say StL is a small city. I'm sure most all of us know someone "in the know." Or at least know someone who knows someone. This aint 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon here.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 12, 2013#3242013-06-12T18:13+00:00

moorlander wrote:It's a small city. I'm sure most all of us know someone "in the know." Or at least know someone who knows someone. This aint 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon here.

I know a gal, many of you may know her, too, named twitter. She showed me a pic of the Spiritas demo folks onsite.

moorlander · PostJun 12, 2013#3252013-06-12T18:55+00:00

So my source was right. Tell that twitter person thanks for the pic.

btw, this whole situation is tough to swallow.

Ballpark Lofts I, II, and III - Cupples Sta. Bldgs. 7, 8, 9

Choose Display Mode