urbanSTL

Treasurer Tishaura Jones responds to Cupples 7 controversy. http://t.co/cK63kU07R6 … via @StLouisAmerican

Her column seems to contradict parts of the STLToday story. For instance, the cost to stabilize. Her cost to stabilize: ~$7.5 million. Reed Realty: ~$3 million.

When I asked her about that (via Twitter) she said "Reed's total estimate to stabilize was $6-8 mil."

What i do not understand, and no one has mentioned, is why after denying Blue Urban demolition a year ago, and going to court hold up the opinion of the preservation board, is the city not only granting demolition, but now we are paying for it with public money.

safety concern is not the answer, this place is in no worse shape than a year ago, and all parties knew that.

The counter suit from the original owners may be driving this new interest in quick demo.

Mark Groth wrote:http://preservationresearch.com/2013/06 ... cupples-7/

Remember this when it is time to elect a new treasurer and mayor. Looks like ole Virvus Jones is still calling the shots. This is going to be really tough to watch. These politicians just don't get it and it is very troubling.

I love St. Louis even though I am accustomed to mediocrity in city government. So I shouldn't have been surprised to see Virvus, Jr. (I'm sorry- I mean Ms. Jones) win the treasurer's race last year. What was her top qualification? "At least I'm not Larry Williams?" Yep, that's it, I'm afraid.

Supposedly the city is still willing to entertain Vertical's offer, yet demolition crews are already staging and utilities are being disconnected? Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of anything that comes out of Ms. Jones' mouth at this point, unless she promises the inevitable demolition of this building, which I'll readily believe.

Finally, I still believe that the Preservation Board is a joke. Yes, I know they've spared this building before. But we all know that the Preservation Board is only interested in the preservation of self when the vultures in city government begin to swirl around the carcass of a building they want to demolish. If they want it gone, it'll be gone.

Not sure if anyone read this, but this is the Treasurer's response to the whole demolition issue in the American...

http://www.stlamerican.com/business/loc ... 963f4.html

Let me be perfectly clear. If it were my choice, the Treasurer’s Office wouldn’t be involved in this deal at all. But, because there is a contract, I am obligated by law to execute that contract and everything that comes with it.

The contract states that after the demolition permit is issued, the Treasurer’s Office will purchase the note from the bank for $850,000 and in turn receive a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The office will then be responsible for demolishing the building and preparing it for future use (approximately $650,000).

I for one would be interested if the contract requires any sort of demolition or if it is just the purchase of the building.

beer city wrote: safety concern is not the answer, this place is in no worse shape than a year ago, and all parties knew that.

Honestly, what is the basis for your statement. Have you personally inspected the building? Or you a structural engineering? Do you have access to documentation?

It is being reported that the second developer is pulling out after coming to the conclusion that it will take $1 million to stabilize the bricks and $2 million to stabilize foundation. I believe we are finally seeing some hard numbers.

Unfortunately, Vertical might have the will but the cash equation is much more difficult not to mention other concerns. Heck, the reality might be Vertical's insurance brokers might not be willing to underwrite any liability policies for taking ownership. Their banker might say no dice to a line of credit or bank note until hard numbers on stabilization costs are in hand. Would you finance a $3 million stabilization that might run up to $6 million, a number been thrown arond. Their are a lot of realities of owning commercial property and can only manage that the realities get harder to deal with when you have a structure with a missing roof and a lot of interior deterioration.

dredger wrote:

beer city wrote: safety concern is not the answer, this place is in no worse shape than a year ago, and all parties knew that.

Honestly, what is the basis for your statement. Have you personally inspected the building? Or you a structural engineering? Do you have access to documentation?

its speculative, but I do know this

huge hole in roof has been there for 8 years, everyone knew that the structure was severely damaged going back to the MW proposal, everyone knew it was built on Chouteau Pond and the footings would require work, as this was a problem in the other buildings.

When things are that bad at 7 years, they do not get a whole lot worse at 8

dredger wrote: It is being reported that the second developer is pulling out after coming to the conclusion that it will take $1 million to stabilize the bricks and $2 million to stabilize foundation. I believe we are finally seeing some hard numbers.

Unfortunately, Vertical might have the will but the cash equation is much more difficult not to mention other concerns. Heck, the reality might be Vertical's insurance brokers might not be willing to underwrite any liability policies for taking ownership. Their banker might say no dice to a line of credit or bank note until hard numbers on stabilization costs are in hand. Would you finance a $3 million stabilization that might run up to $6 million, a number been thrown arond. Their are a lot of realities of owning commercial property and can only manage that the realities get harder to deal with when you have a structure with a missing roof and a lot of interior deterioration.

i would like to know why Ms. Jones has been spouting "$4-10 million for stabilization!" religiously and now we hear $3 million (from the STL Today article).

and according to all comments that I've seen from Hasan Adelani, Vertical has the cash. Ms. Jones keeps referring to the original term sheet from Vertical which apparently wanted the city to lease the building back after renovation. Mr. Adelani later wrote that they are willing to stabilize, renovate, and own the building (which, i suppose, doesn't necessarily imply that they've withdrawn the leasing requirement). Ms. Jones called him a liar.

i would just like an honest goddamned account of what is going on. since these are all city dealings, all the documents–even the term sheet that Vertical submitted–should be public record, correct? i've asked Ms. Jones to make these documents available on-line and she conveniently ignored that part of my comment (she seems to like questions/comments that she can respond to with canned PR snippets). seems to me that would clear everything up. also seems to me somebody doesn't want things cleared up. and that's why i think something shady is going on. i will say, though, that it seems Vertical has been choosing their words carefully as well, so i'm not convinced we're getting the truth from them either.

urban_dilettante wrote:

dredger wrote: It is being reported that the second developer is pulling out after coming to the conclusion that it will take $1 million to stabilize the bricks and $2 million to stabilize foundation. I believe we are finally seeing some hard numbers.

Unfortunately, Vertical might have the will but the cash equation is much more difficult not to mention other concerns. Heck, the reality might be Vertical's insurance brokers might not be willing to underwrite any liability policies for taking ownership. Their banker might say no dice to a line of credit or bank note until hard numbers on stabilization costs are in hand. Would you finance a $3 million stabilization that might run up to $6 million, a number been thrown arond. Their are a lot of realities of owning commercial property and can only manage that the realities get harder to deal with when you have a structure with a missing roof and a lot of interior deterioration.

i would like to know why Ms. Jones has been spouting "$4-10 million for stabilization!" religiously and now we hear $3 million (from the STL Today article).

and according to all comments that I've seen from Hasan Adelani, Vertical has the cash. Ms. Jones keeps referring to the original term sheet from Vertical which apparently wanted the city to lease the building back after renovation. Mr. Adelani later wrote that they are willing to stabilize, renovate, and own the building (which, i suppose, doesn't necessarily imply that they've withdrawn the leasing requirement). Ms. Jones called him a liar.

i would just like an honest goddamned account of what is going on. since these are all city dealings, all the documents–even the term sheet that Vertical submitted–should be public record, correct? i've asked Ms. Jones to make these documents available on-line and she conveniently ignored that part of my comment (she seems to like questions/comments that she can respond to with canned PR snippets). seems to me that would clear everything up. also seems to me somebody doesn't want things cleared up. and that's why i think something shady is going on. i will say, though, that it seems Vertical has been choosing their words carefully as well, so i'm not convinced we're getting the truth from them either.

Right. I believe that both sides are scheming. Vertical has the public on its side so I believe that they are trying to pressure the city into some deal.

^ as in a complex financing package? or complex in that it requires the city to take some financial responsibility but will pay off in the long run?

It would have beneficial if both sides would have voiced their opinions in a closed door meeting rather than social media.

urban_dilettante wrote: i would like to know why Ms. Jones has been spouting "$4-10 million for stabilization!" religiously and now we hear $3 million (from the STL Today article).

Probably to make the building sound like it's too expensive to repair. But borrowing costs can vary greatly from developer to developer. For instance, an out of state developer with no experience in the particular market could have a higher interest rate than a local developer. The out of state dev may have a 15% interest rate vs a local dev with 7.5%.

urban_dilettante wrote:and according to all comments that I've seen from Hasan Adelani, Vertical has the cash. Ms. Jones keeps referring to the original term sheet from Vertical which apparently wanted the city to lease the building back after renovation. Mr. Adelani later wrote that they are willing to stabilize, renovate, and own the building (which, i suppose, doesn't necessarily imply that they've withdrawn the leasing requirement). Ms. Jones called him a liar.

i would just like an honest goddamned account of what is going on. since these are all city dealings, all the documents–even the term sheet that Vertical submitted–should be public record, correct? i've asked Ms. Jones to make these documents available on-line and she conveniently ignored that part of my comment (she seems to like questions/comments that she can respond to with canned PR snippets). seems to me that would clear everything up. also seems to me somebody doesn't want things cleared up. and that's why i think something shady is going on. i will say, though, that it seems Vertical has been choosing their words carefully as well, so i'm not convinced we're getting the truth from them either.

That's a good point. Everything should be public. It sounds like Vertical doesn't want to discuss publicly. Maybe that's why they are choosing their words carefully. What's interesting is the name calling from the city's side.

flipz wrote: Right. I believe that both sides are scheming. Vertical has the public on its side so I believe that they are trying to pressure the city into some deal.

Can Vertical really pressure the city into a deal? It sounds as if the ball is in the city's court and they can demo when they want. Also, I don't think a private developer has the public more on their side vs an elected city official. It looks like people are on the side of saving the building, not necessarily Vertical's or the City's. But this is still interesting to watch play out. I wonder what other local developers think about this.

Where does it say they will get guaranteed rent from the city?

What's the point of having the city as a master lessee?