urbanSTL

^ In addition, the question to the City becomes, "So do you want a last minute angel to step in or not?"

Arch, I agree that the Treasurer was put in a terrible spot by her predecessor, but I've been less than impressed with her communications strategy. And going on air to say that Vertical is endangering public safety is a big turn off.

roger wyoming II wrote:This is kind of an odd attack. The most recent RFP was not that long ago and smaller firms can't be everywhere at once.... it takes a lot of time and effort to put together a serious proposal. As far as I understand, the city and Vertical are meeting this week.... lets hope it goes well and that the city is open to what appears to be a serious but non-traditional proposal. Until then, I think it best that the parties keep quite.

It's not an odd attack. As I previously stated in fairness to VR, perhaps they thought some other developer was going to come to the building's rescue. Again, where were they one or two years ago when no developer came forward? A few months ago? Six months ago? It's a fair question.

A developer certainly can't be everywhere at once not even the big players, but VR, I'm sure, has had knowledge of the woeful building for a while.

Then there's this piece from the RFT article,

But Curt Schroeder, a managing partner for Vertical Realty Advisors, says that he and his business partners have a plan -- and the necessary financial commitment from their capital source -- to save the building from destruction and are trying hard to persuade the city to work with them.

"If it's 50 million, we have 50 million," Schroeder tells Daily RFT. "We have...the money to do the deal."

If the expectation is for the city officials to be above board, why shouldn't VR? There are a lot of unknowns on both sides of the fence - although I do believe Ms. Jones has been very forthcoming - despite her style of communication.

Where is VR's money? To keep this from appearing like a cat and mouse game of trickery, why won't VR identify the source of their $50-million investor(s) or funding source? These are legitimate questions. It's been down to the wire for a while now so identifying a legit source of funding would shift the dynamics of this tremendously towards VR's favor. Why should the city just take their word for it? The risks are too high for the city.

Maybe they'll be able to reach an amicable conclusion once the meeting is held. I personally don't want to see another open patch of land downtown. There's too many.

Now what developer had ever been required to publicly disclosed the source of their funding? Never, ever.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Now what developer had ever been required to publicly disclosed the source of their funding? Never, ever.

No one said REQUIRE!! Isn't this sort of a public-private deal being proposed by VR? If VR wants to make it work with the city (ie taxpayers) and the city is to be a "master lessee" with taxpayer money on the line then VR should consider going public with their funding source. Plus, it could help shift the dynamics to their advantage.

Transparency.

^ Sorry, but that's just silly. However you want to parse it, the money is either there or it isn't - there's zero benefit to making source of funding public. It's the terms of the lease that are at issue and I wish that the Treasurer's Office would be upfront with why it will or will not accept the terms. That's our publicly elected office, and it should be transparent. VR hasn't released their proposal because it's confidential per the Treasurer's Office/SLDC.

arch city wrote: It's not an odd attack. As I previously stated in fairness to VR, perhaps they thought some other developer was going to come to the building's rescue. Again, where were they one or two years ago when no developer came forward? A few months ago? Six months ago? It's a fair question.

A developer certainly can't be everywhere at once not even the big players, but VR, I'm sure, has had knowledge of the woeful building for a while.

Vertical has already said that it was working on other projects and it wasn't until this final urgent rfp that it decided to give it a stab. Kudos to them. But I don't see how this is terribly relevant to whether or not there is a viable deal at the table now.

arch city wrote: Then there's this piece from the RFT article,

But Curt Schroeder, a managing partner for Vertical Realty Advisors, says that he and his business partners have a plan -- and the necessary financial commitment from their capital source -- to save the building from destruction and are trying hard to persuade the city to work with them.

"If it's 50 million, we have 50 million," Schroeder tells Daily RFT. "We have...the money to do the deal."

If the expectation is for the city officials to be above board, why shouldn't VR? There are a lot of unknowns on both sides of the fence - although I do believe Ms. Jones has been very forthcoming - despite her style of communication.

Where is VR's money? To keep this from appearing like a cat and mouse game of trickery, why won't VR identify the source of their $50-million investor(s) or funding source? These are legitimate questions. It's been down to the wire for a while now so identifying a legit source of funding would shift the dynamics of this tremendously towards VR's favor. Why should the city just take their word for it? The risks are too high for the city.

Maybe they'll be able to reach an amicable conclusion once the meeting is held. I personally don't want to see another open patch of land downtown. There's too many.

I don't think the City is even doubting the money is there; rather, they question the obligations of the city under the proposal. Vertical has said the City has misunderstood the non-traditional structure, so hopefully this week's meeting will be able to alleviate those concerns. I really don't think much can be added at this point by parties speaking publicly until after the meeting. All I can ask is that the city be open to innovative structures new to the City and has sought qualified, outside legal counsel on the proposal. Hopefully Vertical indeed has come up with a sound proposal and if it is rejected, we should know precisely why.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Sorry, but that's just silly. However you want to parse it, the money is either there or it isn't - there's zero benefit to making source of funding public. It's the terms of the lease that are at issue and I wish that the Treasurer's Office would be upfront with why it will or will not accept the terms. That's our publicly elected office, and it should be transparent. VR hasn't released their proposal because it's confidential per the Treasurer's Office/SLDC.

Actually, it isn't silly. Again, from the perspective of transparency, if VR has the money, why do they need the city to back them as a master lessee? No other reno project in downtown St. Louis, to my knowledge, has done this. Why should the city become a master lessee when the city has made it very clear that it wants this building sold to a legitimate developer with no strings attached? Either VR has the money and outright capability to do it on their own or they don't. If not, then "boom" goes the building.

The city wants to sell and be done with it. They have made it clear from the start. No tricks or cat and mouse games. It's "silly" to not understand that this is what the city's position has been all along. Very transparent - if you ask me.

"As long as the City is not included in the financial structure, which would put taxpayers at risk for this development proposal, we are very happy to negotiate a deal," said Treasurer Tishaura Jones.

"The City will offer every incentive and available tool to make this deal happen, including tax increment financing," said St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. "But, we will not put the taxpayers at risk by guaranteeing the project's debt. I would not do that for Ballpark Village, and I will not do that for this project.I hate to see any historic building razed, but the overwhelming concern for public safety has to take precedence."

Source

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

just wanted to let you know that kmox edited the story to put back in the line about guaranteed rent that was in there and then taken out.... I was not hallucinating for once!

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/06/17/ ... -conintue/

"Hasan Adelani, senior associate at Vertical, says the company is lining up $50 million to makeover the building.

“Our financing is on the sidelines. It’s waiting,” he tells KMOX. “It’s just a matter of explanation and then a go or not a go.”

That explanation is of a plan which would have the city as “master lessee” of the building.

City Treasurer Chief of Staff Jared Boyd told KMOX News last week that such an arrangement would leave the city providing guaranteed rent in the event of vacancy. Meantime Mayor Slay, via news release, vowed that the city would not guarantee debt for the project.

Adelani says that Vertical would own Cupples 7 and, accordingly, be liable for the safety of the building. He also says “he (the Mayor) is right. We’re not asking for any guarantee on project debt. Not at all."

roger wyoming II wrote:Vertical has already said that it was working on other projects and it wasn't until this final urgent rfp that it decided to give it a stab. Kudos to them. But I don't see how this is terribly relevant to whether or not there is a viable deal at the table now.

Yeah, kudos to them. I agree. But they still waited almost til the stroke of midnight. Better late than never, but with all of these complexities, why didn't they take the same "stab" sooner? Nonetheless, I am glad they came forward and the city will hear them out.

roger wyoming II wrote:I don't think the City is even doubting the money is there; rather, they question the obligations of the city under the proposal. Vertical has said the City has misunderstood the non-traditional structure, so hopefully this week's meeting will be able to alleviate those concerns. I really don't think much can be added at this point by parties speaking publicly until after the meeting.

I could be mistaken, but I believe I read somewhere that Jones initially didn't believe VR had proper finances and plans in place - perhaps it was relative to VR's plan to include the city as the master lessee. If the city won't be the guaranteed master lessee - it seems as if VR won't get the financing.

roger wyoming II wrote:All I can ask is that the city be open to innovative structures new to the City and has sought qualified, outside legal counsel on the proposal. Hopefully Vertical indeed has come up with a sound proposal and if it is rejected, we should know precisely why.

I feel your passion and I agree. I just want to say, however, that if it is rejected, I think we would already know why.

roger wyoming II wrote:City Treasurer Chief of Staff Jared Boyd told KMOX News last week that such an arrangement would leave the city providing guaranteed rent in the event of vacancy. Meantime Mayor Slay, via news release, vowed that the city would not guarantee debt for the project.

I didn't know there was a "Chief of Staff" for a Treasury Office...is Jared Boyd related to Jeffery Boyd?

dredger wrote:If VR can show financing of a reasonable amount in hand to stabilize as well as incur liability of the structure, then oneous is back on the treasurers office to explain on how demo of a safe developable structure is to the benefits of its constiuents/taxpayers.

well, TJ was on teevee last night saying how she looses a bit of sleep each night worrying about the building collapsing. Report said that the City garage next to it was closed recently but not the I-64 off-ramp.

Huh. I asked Treasurer directly whether the garage was closed and got no answer. Was later told its open.

Seems odd no? Were 40 city employees parking in the garage? 40 employees surely don't work in the garage. Oh, and the building is obviously falling down, but the "19c wooden beams" comment is dumb.

Will we ever have reporters who ask what someone means instead of just parroting whatever is said?

vpr611 wrote:"evacuated 40 employees", wow that makes it sound serious</sarcasm> If its that much of a danger why not close the garage instead?

I know.... jut weird. Who are these employees? How can the garage be open without them? Is there no concern about the public? When I originally posted, I had just assumed that the garage had closed if all the employees were evacuated. This whole drama has been one weird trip.

If there is a collapse, it sounds like the Treasurer with full intent sold parking spaces to citizens on the expectation of collapse. That sounds like billions in wrongful death suits.

Unless her official actions have been dishonest and manipulative, of course.

This is embarrassing. Is gross lack of professionalism a ground for impeachment in St. Louis?