Lafayette Building Demolition

[kraig]

Where did anyone say it was the DEGC's responsibility?

It doesn't change the fact that the city is ultimately responsible for the building's current condition. They had the opportunity to fine, lien, and prosecute the building's owners.

Failing those attempts, they had an obligation as new owners of a foreclosed building to secure it for future marketing- it's destroying what could have been an asset that the taxpayers took back from private enterprise- so the city failed in it's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers- the real oweners of this foreclosed building.

I was simply explaining that the DEGC doesn't have the authority to prosecute the building's owners. As you just pointed out, that is the responsibility of various city departments. So there's no need to argue on that point. We both realize that the DEGC became involved after the City's departments did or did not take whatever action that should have been taken. Therefore, my point was that the DEGC is not able to, or authorized, to perform some type of do-over on behalf of the city departments. They, the DEGC, must make decisions based on the situation that exist when they become involved. I don't see where that's so hard to grasp.

[buildingsofdetroit]

A "harvester" of artifacts? You mean a looter.

No, I mean someone who pays for salvage rights.

[digitalvision]

This is not a population problem, this is a market demand problem.

Due to the craptastic economy in this state as well as poor image and management by government, there's no demand for those buildings. Where there is demand, people are going to the other business centers of the region because our state's economic policy for the most part encourages it. It is consistently cheaper in Michigan to build new than rehab, because building new is highly subsidized and land available cheap.

Focus all this back-and-forth energy on the demand part of the equation. That'll actually fix the problem.

[Lorax]

I was simply explaining that the DEGC doesn't have the authority to prosecute the building's owners. As you just pointed out, that is the responsibility of various city departments. So there's no need to argue on that point. We both realize that the DEGC became involved after the City's departments did or did not take whatever action that should have been taken. Therefore, my point was that the DEGC is not able to, or authorized, to perform some type of do-over on behalf of the city departments. They, the DEGC, must make decisions based on the situation that exist when they become involved. I don't see where that's so hard to grasp.

It's not hard to grasp, but it wasn't what I had posted earlier, either. In fact I've never even typed the acronym DEGC until yesterday.

Now that we're clear on that, we can agree then it was the city's responsibility to have secured, and provided a safe building for future development.

At this point, the DEGC needs to recuse itself from any involvement in the Lafayette.

Where are the consumer tax watch-dogs starting a lawsuit against Detroit for wasting public money on demolitions? That would be an interesting discussion.

[bailey]

Where are the consumer tax watch-dogs starting a lawsuit against Detroit for wasting public money on demolitions? That would be an interesting discussion.

Well, to get anywhere, you'd first need a consensus that the demolition is a "waste". There are 30 pages of posts on three or four threads debating that issue.

[kraig]

It's not hard to grasp, but it wasn't what I had posted earlier, either. In fact I've never even typed the acronym DEGC until yesterday.

Now that we're clear on that, we can agree then it was the city's responsibility to have secured, and provided a safe building for future development.

At this point, the DEGC needs to recuse itself from any involvement in the Lafayette.

Where are the consumer tax watch-dogs starting a lawsuit against Detroit for wasting public money on demolitions? That would be an interesting discussion.

It's common knowledge that the DDA/DEGC was responsible for the attempts at re-development, as well as, the demolition process. That's why I mentioned them.

[Lorax]

It's common knowledge that the DDA/DEGC was responsible for the attempts at re-development, as well as, the demolition process. That's why I mentioned them.

No problems. I never mentioned either agency in my posts regarding the Lafayette, other than my dismay at the situation being allowed to get to this point in the first place.

[Lorax]

Well, to get anywhere, you'd first need a consensus that the demolition is a "waste". There are 30 pages of posts on three or four threads debating that issue.

That isn't the debate, nor the topic here.

It has only come to this point due to the negligence of the city, since it had a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers not to waste taxpayer dollars on needless demolitions.

The Lafayette would not be in the condition it's in, had the city fined, liened, or prosecuted the Schwartz character who owned it in the first place.

That failing, [[as I have mentioned before) the city, as new owner of a foreclosed property, needed to hire security, block in the windows, whatever was necessary to secure the property for future development/resale.

Treating it as an asset instead of a liability would have been the prudent thing to do, and it wasn't done.

Thus, the city has been in the driver's seat with regard to the future of this building from the day the previous owner decided to let it fall into disrepair.

Now the city is spending stimulus [[our) money on demolishing it. I guess the only positive here, is that it's "stimulating" work for demolition contractors, thus providing jobs.

[ndavies]

That isn't the debate, nor the topic here.

It has only come to this point due to the negligence of the city, since it had a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers not to waste taxpayer dollars on needless demolitions.

The Lafayette would not be in the condition it's in, had the city fined, liened, or prosecuted the Schwartz character who owned it in the first place.

That failing, [[as I have mentioned before) the city, as new owner of a foreclosed property, needed to hire security, block in the windows, whatever was necessary to secure the property for future development/resale.

Treating it as an asset instead of a liability would have been the prudent thing to do, and it wasn't done.

Thus, the city has been in the driver's seat with regard to the future of this building from the day the previous owner decided to let it fall into disrepair.

Now the city is spending stimulus [[our) money on demolishing it. I guess the only positive here, is that it's "stimulating" work for demolition contractors, thus providing jobs.

Sorry that is just your opinion. And your opinion doesn't roll back time and put the buildings back into a usable state.

My opinion is I can't see why the city would waste valuable economic resources boarding up and mothballing an obsolete building, one that will never be used again, when it is far more cost effective to just tear the damn thing down.

I'm guessing that if you polled detroiters you would find far more people with my opinion than yours. More importantly, I would expect far more Detroit voters to believe it needs to go. They are the only ones that should matter to the people running the city.

This is exactly what this thread is about. You value an obsolete building. The people disagreeing with you don't want to waste money on a building that can't be saved.

[EastSider]

Treating it as an asset instead of a liability would have been the prudent thing to do, and it wasn't done.

Commercial property is an asset only when it is generating rent. Its extended vacancy, even through the bubble years of the last 13 or so, is evidence that it was not a sound investment even with the easy credit.

[ghettopalmetto]

My opinion is I can't see why the city would waste valuable economic resources boarding up and mothballing an obsolete building, one that will never be used again, when it is far more cost effective to just tear the damn thing down.

Where are the numbers that support this conclusion? Are they readily available for Xeroxing at the offices of DEGC? Or does one have to file a FOIA request?

[Lorax]

Sorry that is just your opinion. And your opinion doesn't roll back time and put the buildings back into a usable state.

My opinion is I can't see why the city would waste valuable economic resources boarding up and mothballing an obsolete building, one that will never be used again, when it is far more cost effective to just tear the damn thing down.

I'm guessing that if you polled detroiters you would find far more people with my opinion than yours. More importantly, I would expect far more Detroit voters to believe it needs to go. They are the only ones that should matter to the people running the city.

This is exactly what this thread is about. You value an obsolete building. The people disagreeing with you don't want to waste money on a building that can't be saved.

Well, it seems you've engendered the majority of citywide opinion on your side of this issue, so what do you do for an encore?

So, in your estimation, when the city gets a building back for taxes, and it's either still occupied, or just vacated, perfectly salvagable, that it should immediately be torn down?

I guess you would have pulled the plug on the Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby as well. We could name dozens more that you would have done the same with, I'm sure.

Your viewpoint is wasteful, backward, and a loser for all sides.

So you think spending a little to secure a building that in it's better condition, years ago, would have given it a fighting chance at restoration and reuse is worse than spending millions to waste a perfectly good building for an empty lot?

Don't we have enough empty lots already? What is that doing for development in Detroit- nothing.

You might stop making stupid statements, you'll always get an argument- especially from me.

[kraig]

"So you think spending a little to secure a building that in it's better condition, years ago, would have given it a fighting chance at restoration and reuse is worse than spending millions to waste a perfectly good building for an empty lot?"

Lorax, you're argument keeps going back to would have. For whatever reason, good or bad [[probably bad), the building is in the condition that it's in right now. That's the issue that the DEGC is dealing with.

If your viewpoint is going to focus on what action or inaction the City of Detroit took. You may want to contact City Council and get them to draft an ordinance that better compels the departments to secure vacant buildings that are acquired by the City. Or, present your thoughts to the Charter Commission once its put into place.

[Lorax]

Your snarkiness aside, I am responding to another poster's assertion that buildings should be immediately demolished upon receipt for back taxes by the City of Detroit, regardless of condition. This is an absurd position to take.

Here's a hypothetical:

The 1001 Woodward building, former 1st Federal Building- we can agree it's in very good condition now, although vacant. If the current owners default and it is foreclosed on, should the city have a demolition contract lined up for it within a few weeks? Or should it be mothballed and actively marketed for resale, even if it's sold way under market value, it gets it off the city's roll of dead buildings.

This is what the other poster was proposing for the Lafayette when it was repossessed. It was salvagable, and should have had the benefit of a good mothballing at much lower cost at the time, then spending nearly 2 million to tear it down today. A wasted asset, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

How many times do I need to reiterate this for it to sink in?

No one is arguing the current condition of the Lafayette.

Why is this such a hard separation for you to make?

[PQZ]

Treating it as an asset instead of a liability would have been the prudent thing to do, and it wasn't done....

Now the city is spending stimulus [[our) money on demolishing it. I guess the only positive here, is that it's "stimulating" work for demolition contractors, thus providing jobs.

And there in lies the rub.The prudent thing to do is to determine if the building is a liability or an asset. The default logic that every building is an asset is not prudent and will result in all the DDAs cash preserving builidngs and never rehabbing others. Thats like asking the veterinarian to spend all his time on taxidermy and not actually keeping animals alive.

The DDA has made every good faith effort to secure a redevelopment of the building. No redevelopment is feasible now or in the foreseeable future. The DDA has determined it to be a liability. Why should the the City continue to throw good money at preserving a building that is obsolete? Think Cobo here. If you are losing $15 million a year, it is not an asset, it is a liability.

And yes DannyPalmettoCakes, you can get off your lazy duff and ask the DDA for records pertaining to the building. They would be happy to supply them...or is that too difficult for you to do from out of state? -

There are very real challenges in prosecuting neglect cases of buildings.

1. BS&ED is woefully understaffed due to massive budget cuts over the last 40 years, New buidling inspection fees pay for the inspectors to go after neglect.
No new building = no fees collected = no budget for inspectors to target neglect.

2. State and federal law protects building owners from targeted harassment. If you are going to fine Howard Schwartz for each and every broken window, you need to show you are doing the same other buildings, including low income families that can't afford to repair their windows. The instant you go after Howard, his army of lawyers will find dozens, if not hundreds, of occupied homes / units within a mile radius and have the tickets tossed. This isn't theorym this is reality. Its happened numerous times with Howard.

3. Blight Court is woefully underfunded and cannot staff up to meet its obligations.

The cold hard facts are that the city is broke. Very very broke and it simply cannot afford to do the things it should do. Its nice to sit on a forum and pronounce grandly that the City ought to do this or that when playing with imaginary money.

How should the City pay for more inspections? Cut Saturday bus service? Stop the little streetlight repair they do now? Simply give up on grass cutting?

[Lorax]

I understand the city is broke, and that nothing is going to change without real leadership- ever.

This discussion has ranged from the hypothetical, the woulda, coulda, shoulda, and over and under.

We're both right in the assertion that a building needs to be assessed as an asset or a liability. The Lafayette was an asset years ago when it landed on the dead buildings list, and was salvagable. Now it's not, I agree with that. It was allowed to get to the point it is in now through negligence. Money existed at the early stages of it's vacancy to properly seal it up, now it's too damaged from water intrusion, vandalism, etc.

The Schwartz character should have been fined, liened, prosecuted, if necessary, and your assertion that you need to "evenly" hand out citations to residents as you would commercial owners is false.

If the Lafayette's cornice was in danger of killing people by falling, or windows falling out of their frames to the street below, there are laws on the books about culpability with regards to this.

Schwartz should have been hauled into court and sued. In any other city in America that would be the case. Detroit has become the wild-west with regard to the enforcement of laws on the books, and the citizens and built environment are paying the price.

BTW, the items you mentioned have already fallen by the wayside, grass cutting, streetlight repair, etc.

Regionalize what can be saved- the parks, Cobo, the library system, schools, even the police and fire departments. If the city is that broke, then it needs to cry UNCLE, and get it over with.

[kraig]

Your snarkiness aside, I am responding to another poster's assertion that buildings should be immediately demolished upon receipt for back taxes by the City of Detroit, regardless of condition. This is an absurd position to take.

Here's a hypothetical:

The 1001 Woodward building, former 1st Federal Building- we can agree it's in very good condition now, although vacant. If the current owners default and it is foreclosed on, should the city have a demolition contract lined up for it within a few weeks? Or should it be mothballed and actively marketed for resale, even if it's sold way under market value, it gets it off the city's roll of dead buildings.

This is what the other poster was proposing for the Lafayette when it was repossessed. It was salvagable, and should have had the benefit of a good mothballing at much lower cost at the time, then spending nearly 2 million to tear it down today. A wasted asset, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

How many times do I need to reiterate this for it to sink in?

No one is arguing the current condition of the Lafayette.

Why is this such a hard separation for you to make?

"should have had"

Would have, should have. You keep saying [[reiterate) the same thing just in different forms but then deny that that's what you're saying. I see where you're going, or not going, with this.

[Lorax]

"should have had"

Would have, should have. You keep saying [[reiterate) the same thing just in different forms but then deny that that's what you're saying. I see where you're going, or not going, with this.

I fail to see your point, or what you mean by this.

[bailey]

Regionalize what can be saved- the parks, Cobo, the library system, schools, even the police and fire departments. If the city is that broke, then it needs to cry UNCLE, and get it over with.

Little difficult to do that when every effort to do so is met by the grape throwing mob of "call em out-ers", bamn-ers, and shrine of the black madonna/black nationalists screaming about the theft and pillaging of Detroit's jewels and how regionalization is the modern day equivilent of a plantation worked by slaves.

[Lorax]

Little difficult to do that when every effort to do so is met by the grape throwing mob of "call em out-ers", bamn-ers, and shrine of the black madonna/black nationalists screaming about the theft and pillaging of Detroit's jewels and how regionalization is the modern day equivilent of a plantation worked by slaves.

LOL!!!

You're right, there are indemic problems with the factions in the city, and it's probably a dumb idea!

[staticstate]

what's the status on the pocket park development?

[digitalvision]

I wanted to highlight this because as long as this is the case, we will see NO progress in enforcement of any of this. Many times, the reasons for things are a bit different than what everyone assumes.

2. State and federal law protects building owners from targeted harassment. If you are going to fine Howard Schwartz for each and every broken window, you need to show you are doing the same other buildings, including low income families that can't afford to repair their windows. The instant you go after Howard, his army of lawyers will find dozens, if not hundreds, of occupied homes / units within a mile radius and have the tickets tossed. This isn't theorym this is reality. Its happened numerous times with Howard.

So basically, forget about any enforcement into the future if that's the case. It's not going to happen, anywhere in downtown, unless the law changes. And so, that's why the building owners do it - they know they CAN'T be gone after - the cities' hands are tied.

This is why cities like Warren do massive blight crackdowns - because if they don't do it in that manner, they could run across this same issue. Considering the city of Detroit has no money and won't be doing any such crackdowns in the forseeable future.. well it's pretty simple.

I have heard, from numerous pretty good sources [[and if someone has more info, great), that another major motivator of demolition is the specter of liability. Especially since the city is self-insured, if anything happens to an urban explorer or pedestrian, that's coming straight out of the cities' pocket.

So, for instance, the Lafayette is going to cost about a million and a half to drop. It's possible to see settlements easily of that amount - or multiple times that - if ANYTHING happens to anyone. In that way, it's a much larger liability. Even mothballed, we all know that kids or whomever is going to get in somehow - it's just the way things are. People go where they're forbidden to go by habit.

If the structure of the system is that there's no penalty for leaving the building to rot, you can walk away and the city will take it, and the insurance laws make it a very large risk to keep it up, even mothballed - there's no wonder so many buildings are coming down.

I still don't like demolition - but it seems as if the structure of the city [[and what it really looks like is the structure of the state) sets the cards against preservation for preservation's sake.

[cman710]

Political discussion aside for a moment, besides the fence being erected, has there been any action in terms of actual demolition?

[PQZ]

The Schwartz character should have been fined, liened, prosecuted, if necessary, and your assertion that you need to "evenly" hand out citations to residents as you would commercial owners is false.
.....
Schwartz should have been hauled into court and sued. In any other city in America that would be the case. Detroit has become the wild-west with regard to the enforcement of laws on the books, and the citizens and built environment are paying the price.

Case law time and time again in Michigan has ruled that if a building owner can prove that a City is disproportionately citing and fining a particular property, the property owner can sue for harassment. The City has lost millions of dollars in the past fighting this. Its why the nuisance abatement law was established - to allow law enforcement and other agencies to go after crack houses. Unfortunately the Lafayette does not qualify as a crack house.

This is not an assertion or abstract argument. These are factual statements about the reality of what faces policy makers and leaders every day, 24 hours a day seven days a week, 365.25 days a year.

The only way to go after Schwartz for his other, current properties downtown is to go after every commercial building. To do that requires taking dozens of inspectors away from their other duties for weeks at a time to execute the sweep and then later for weeks at a time when they all wind up in blight court and then district court and the supreme court. Again, just like in numerous cases in the past.

[Russix]

Political discussion aside for a moment, besides the fence being erected, has there been any action in terms of actual demolition?

The interior is being gutted. Anything that can be chopped off with hand tools and is small enough to be carried in a min-loader is being put into long dumpsters and then hauled away.