Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[Detroitnerd]

So, the reports written up by the "engineers" about the building are:

Independently conducted?

Publicly available to any layman?

Relatively free of jargon?

To Detroiterd:
Yes, yes, and yes. Perhaps you could ask FOBC if they ever bothered to ask for copies of the reports. It seems they would have followed the issue closely as they knew about it and tried to sell information to the DDA.

And they were available to the public as soon as they were done? How were they made available to the public? Can you please direct me to a link or source where I can find similar information for the Lafayette Building right now?

[ghettopalmetto]

PQZ, I understand the need to be able to obtain financing to make the project work and to generate positive cash flow when completed. What I do not understand, and what DEGC fails to make clear, is how they can take conditions *at this one moment in time* and extrapolate that infinitely into the future to arrive at a conclusion of demolition. It's like saying, "Well, I don't have a date tonight, so I'm never going to get married. I might as well get that vasectomy."

The beef is not with making the numbers work [[now or in the future). The beef is that there is no clear, OBJECTIVE manner in which these decisions are made. No one is forcing DEGC's hand to demolish the Lafayette Building, just as their hand was unforced in the Tiger Stadium demolition.

[kraig]

PQZ, I understand the need to be able to obtain financing to make the project work and to generate positive cash flow when completed. What I do not understand, and what DEGC fails to make clear, is how they can take conditions *at this one moment in time* and extrapolate that infinitely into the future to arrive at a conclusion of demolition. It's like saying, "Well, I don't have a date tonight, so I'm never going to get married. I might as well get that vasectomy."

The beef is not with making the numbers work [[now or in the future). The beef is that there is no clear, OBJECTIVE manner in which these decisions are made. No one is forcing DEGC's hand to demolish the Lafayette Building, just as their hand was unforced in the Tiger Stadium demolition.

I once commented on a thread [[something about downtown businesses), that no matter how many times something is explained to you, you're not going to understand it.

You've proven that point a few times over on this thread.

By the way, stop using analogies. The ones that you're coming up with are beyond ridiculous.

[ghettopalmetto]

I once commented on a thread [[something about downtown businesses), that no matter how many times something is explained to you, you're not going to understand it.

You've proven that point a few times over on this thread.

By the way, stop using analogies. The ones that you're coming up with are beyond ridiculous.

Well gee, since you've put things in such concise, vague terms, and you obviously have tons more experience in renovating buildings than I do, I guess I'll just shut up, huh?

[Detroitnerd]

kraig is just being a bit defensive. I just think he's surprised that anybody has the commitment and tenacity to keep on debating him. Guess he's used to people just knuckling under after a while. But I'm enjoying the back and forth nonetheless.

So, where do I get the independent structural analysis of the Lafayette Building again?

[kraig]

kraig is just being a bit defensive. I just think he's surprised that anybody has the commitment and tenacity to keep on debating him. Guess he's used to people just knuckling under after a while. But I'm enjoying the back and forth nonetheless.

So, where do I get the independent structural analysis of the Lafayette Building again?

Any information that the DEGC has on the Lafayette building can be obtained through a Freedom Of Information Act request. Although, you may want to just call the DEGC and ask for it first.

Ghettopalmetto isn't really debating. He's just asking the same questions over and over and not understanding the answers. I wasn't even referring to me. I was referring to PQZ's responses, which have been extremely informative and detailed. If you read Ghettopalmetto's responses, it's quite clear that he either is incapable of understanding the responses or just refuses to acknowledge them.

Subsequently, he melts down into analogies that don't even come close to matching the situation or subjects that he's commenting on.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Any information that the DEGC has on the Lafayette building can be obtained through a Freedom Of Information Act request. Although, you may want to just call the DEGC and ask for it first.

A FOIA WAS filed with the DEGC and it didn't give the filer anything. A lawsuit could have been filed over the DEGC's refusal to turn over the goods, but that'd only piss of GJ more.

[kraig]

Well gee, since you've put things in such concise, vague terms, and you obviously have tons more experience in renovating buildings than I do, I guess I'll just shut up, huh?

I just have tons more experience in making sense, that's all. Please, keep posting, I can use a good laugh. And unlike Detroitnerd, you can be funny without even trying all the time.

[Detroitnerd]

A FOIA WAS filed with the DEGC and it didn't give the filer anything. A lawsuit could have been filed over the DEGC's refusal to turn over the goods, but that'd only piss of GJ more.

Am I to understand that these publicly available, independently conducted evaluations require a FOIA? And then may not be released? I'm confused now. PQZ had said quite the opposite.

[kraig]

A FOIA WAS filed with the DEGC and it didn't give the filer anything. A lawsuit could have been filed over the DEGC's refusal to turn over the goods, but that'd only piss of GJ more.

So, are you saying that you're afraid to piss off GJ? Why? What's he going to do? Tear the building down? Grow a pair. If you're not willing to do that, why even bother?

[kraig]

Am I to understand that these publicly available, independently conducted evaluations require a FOIA? And then may not be released? I'm confused now. PQZ had said quite the opposite.

Since any of us can post anything. Why not find out for yourself?

[Detroitnerd]

C'mon, kraig. If I've learned one thing writing for a living, it's that it's instructive to have people tell you "the truth" before you look at the primary resource. It helps you figure out who's trying to snow you.

[kraig]

C'mon, kraig. If I've learned one thing writing for a living, it's that it's instructive to have people tell you "the truth" before you look at the primary resource. It helps you figure out who's trying to snow you.

So, are you saying that you requested the information through a F.O.I.A and the DEGC refused to give it to you? C'mon Detroitnerd, if you write for a living, you should be well aware that you can sue for the info. Whoever your employer or client is should be more than happy to take that course of action.

[Detroitnerd]

No, kraig. I'm commenting on buildingsofdetroit's post, which I quoted. I have not filed a FOIA. Anyway, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not feeling particularly nasty today. Let's try to keep it light, OK?

[kraig]

No, kraig. I'm commenting on buildingsofdetroit's post, which I quoted. I have not filed a FOIA. Anyway, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not feeling particularly nasty today. Let's try to keep it light, OK?

That's cool with me. I was just responding to the post that had my name in it.

[ghettopalmetto]

DEGC doesn't even have the Lafayette Building listed on its "Current Projects" or "RFP" pages on its website. Frankly, I'm not even sure if that should be construed as a positive or a negative for preservation of the building.

[Detroitnerd]

That's cool with me. I was just responding to the post that had my name in it.

Oh, well, sometimes these discussions generate more heat than light, but I do enjoy getting a sense of people's personalities in here. Helps one in getting to know when we're really getting down to the nitty-gritty or whether it's just a case of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.

That said, am I to understand that there are no publicly available documents pertaining to the Lafayette, which has been slated for demolition?

[McIPor]

[quote=PQZ;48925]

BTW, the other two developers which were large firms who had done mulitple projects of similar scale, politely declined to investigate further. Both later in off the record discussion said they saw no way the building cousl be saved and were both mildly stunned by what they termed "excessive" public investment in the BC.

Thats interesting. Back in 2002, Acquest Realty did a proposal for the BC with Hilton Hotels, Barton Malow and McIntosh Poris. MPA did plans for the building that were then given to Kimberly Clark as the feasibility study for the building. Acquest didn't decline. They were dismissed. Acquest had done a very similar project in St Louis before that and probably would have carried the project through given the chance. They had the #'s working before some of the additional funding came to light for KC. PQZ, what do you say happened there?

[PQZ]

[quote=McIPor;49036]

Thats interesting. Back in 2002, Acquest Realty did a proposal for the BC with Hilton Hotels, Barton Malow and McIntosh Poris. MPA did plans for the building that were then given to Kimberly Clark as the feasibility study for the building. Acquest didn't decline. They were dismissed. Acquest had done a very similar project in St Louis before that and probably would have carried the project through given the chance. They had the #'s working before some of the additional funding came to light for KC. PQZ, what do you say happened there?

I'll tell you exactly what happened there.

Acquest Realty had been sniffing around the building and had approached the DDA in late 2001 / early 2002 with a financing concept that did not borrow money from private entities, but required the City to issue municipal bonds for the entire cost of the project minus tax credits. Acquest would then charge a fee for developing the property but have none of their own money in the project. Acquest was told bluntly that the City was not going to use that model. The City would NOT jeopardize its only recently above marginal bond rating by issuing the entirety of debt and taking the full responsibility of the debt. If the BC failed, it would impact the City's ability to issue debt. Acquest was told if they wanted to explore a differnt model, the DDA would be delighted to speak wioth them. At the same time KC was proposing a different model and had begun their own work and drawings. Acquest did not know about KC. KC did not know about Acquest. Why? because the confidentiality of both were respected.

When the DDA announced they would hold a required public preliminary hearing around entering into a formal memorandum of understanding with KC, Acquest requested another meeting and presented more advanced drawings and argued, again, for the model they had been told the City would not accept. They were turned down, this time more bluntly.

Acquest showed up at the public meeting and tried to argue their case in front of the board. The weekend prior to the public meeting, MPA and Acquest mislead the Detroit News into running a story that there were two developers trying to rehab the building. It was patently false. Acquest had been told their model was not acceptable nearly a year earlier and it was reiterated again, prior to the story running. It was a nice piece of PR for the two heroic smiling architects with their photos on the front page above the fold though.

Lets be very clear about something. Acquest's numbers worked for Acquest. They did not work for the City. Period. Acquest would have cleared nearly $8 million in developers fees without putting a single cent of their money on the line. Not. A. Penny. ALL the debt would have been on the City side. From an over all debt management strategy and risk managment perspective, that was a very very bad deal for the City. Of course, the architects and other contractors had a vested interest to spin that it was a good deal. They stood to gain in their fees charged. I feel sorry for the firms that may have done work for Acquest on an If-Come basis for them when Acquest already knew the deal structure was a non-starter.

The allegation that MPA documents were given to KC or their contractors is a specious and unsupported lie. KC had their own contracted architects in Chicago working from the digital scans of the building starting in early 2002 before any drawings from MPA made their way to the DDA. There was no need for them or anyone to crib later drawings from MPA or any other contractor.

The attempt by MPA to accuse the DDA of stealing drawings is laughable at best. The MPA drawings had the first floor retail space retained, had a very different layout in terms of check in and had a different layout of public space. in other words, where there was room to play with layout, the plans differed materially.

Where there was not a lot of room for variation, both plans contemplated the restoration of public space as required by historic tax credits and both had a mixture of hotel rooms and condos as dictated by the economics of the project. However, the number of condos & their layouts and the number of hotel rooms & their layouts were different, although the dictates of the building envelope were going to result in vague similarities no matter who drew them.

The kicker was when the representatives of MPA threatened to sue the DDA after the public meeting for the KC MOU if they were not selected as a subcontractor for the project.

Here's a tip for the kids watching at home. Falsely accusing a public body of theft and then attempting extortion is a dangerous stunt that will result in your firm being marginalized.

The basis for the MPA claim was that both plans had condos and hotel rooms and both plans restored the ballrooms - as any plan would. The MPA plan had no plans for the additions that were part of the KC plans and became part of the Ferchill plan and had a very differnt configuration of the first and second floors.

[PQZ]

A FOIA WAS filed with the DEGC and it didn't give the filer anything. A lawsuit could have been filed over the DEGC's refusal to turn over the goods, but that'd only piss of GJ more.

The DEGC is a private 501 [[ c ) and is exempt from FOIA requests. They also have no ability to spend public money on projects or grant tax abatements. The DDA, a public body that is subject to FOIA requests, is the public body that

1. Issued the contract for architectural, enviro and engeinnering
2. Approved the numerous expenditures for the building
3. Had fucntional control of the building and insured it
4. Issued debt and gfrants to the building.

You FOIAed the wrong entity. If you issuesd a FOIA to DEGC, they likely sent you the form letter that stated you FOIAed the wrong entity. It may have even detailed why it could not comply with your request. Did you even read it and try to understand it?

Instead of taking a few moments to understand the legal issues, which are not complex at all - anyone with a high school education should be able to sort them out in 15 minutes - the conclusion become that DEGC is some sort of sinister organization breaking the law and that they would have to be sued for records they do not have. The DDA has them re Book Cadillac.

Here's a tip, FOIAs must follow certain protocols and must be reasonable. They cannot be a blanket "Gimme all yer records". Agencies may also charge set fees for making copies of records as they can create undue or onerous burdens on agencies.

http://www.osc.gov/foia.htm

Reading Is Fundamental.

[ghettopalmetto]

The DEGC is a private 501 [[ c ) and is exempt from FOIA requests. They also have no ability to spend public money on projects or grant tax abatements. The DDA, a public body that is subject to FOIA requests, is the public body that

1. Issued the contract for architectural, enviro and engeinnering
2. Approved the numerous expenditures for the building
3. Had fucntional control of the building and insured it
4. Issued debt and gfrants to the building.

You FOIAed the wrong entity. If you issuesd a FOIA to DEGC, they likely sent you the form letter that stated you FOIAed the wrong entity. It may have even detailed why it could not comply with your request. Did you even read it and try to understand it?

Instead of taking a few moments to understand the legal issues, which are not complex at all - anyone with a high school education should be able to sort them out in 15 minutes - the conclusion become that DEGC is some sort of sinister organization breaking the law and that they would have to be sued for records they do not have.

Pray tell, if the DEGC is so innocent and seemingly powerless, why is it even necessary in the existence of the DDA?

[PQZ]

Because the state enabling legislation does not allow private non-profits to collect and expend public tax revenues. DDA can and are tightly reguilated by the state.

The DEGC is a private non-profit whose activities are limited to attraction and retention activities i.e. marketing. They can go to a trade show and recruit a business. They can discuss private matters with the business such as the firms financial records, the firms future investment plans and even proprietary information such as patents. All of this is done to protect the confidentiality of the company. Otherwise, if a software maker met with a public body and shared their plans for new software as a justification for asking for a tax abatement to build a new HQ, those software plans become public record.

The flip sideof the coin is that the DEGC cannot commit ANY public dollars. That can only be done by public agencies like the DDA, EDC, DBRA, TIFA or NDC. All of their investments are public, are discussed in public meetings and approved by City Counil. Often they need state approval as well. DEGC will meet with and vet the developer / client /investor and then direct them to the appropriate agency for support if viable.This way, the public investment is public and proprietary information is kept confidential. This structure is ubiquitous across the country at the state, regional, county and municipal level.

As a side note, the DEGC employs a staff that they then subcontract on a project by project basis to the various authorities.

An engineer may be hired by DEGC but the employee will work solely on DDA and EDC projects, so the entirely of their work is public record as the DEGC is being reimbursed for the wages by a line item in the project budgets. This is a very effective way to reduce staffing costs for the agencies. For example, the DDA had huge staffing needs for two years prior to the Superbowl for engineers and project managers to complete the streetscapes. Instead of overpaying for a private firm to do the work or hiring then terminating engineers, the DEGC was able to reassign engineering / project staff to the DDA projects from EDC projects that were wrapping up. Once the DDA Superbowl projects wrapped up, some of that staff began working on the East Riverfront.

Its perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and quite a clever way to reduce staff and overhead costs for projects while maintaining continuity. Its not nefarious, its not murky. Its effecient and straightforward.

[PQZ]

Pray tell, if the DEGC is so innocent and seemingly powerless, why is it even necessary in the existence of the DDA?

Oh, and nice way to dodge the issue of whether the person who supposedlyt FOAIed RE the Lafayette is capable of understanding what they did wrong.

"I didn't bother to think or read, so it must be the DEGCs fault"

[ghettopalmetto]

Because the state enabling legislation does not allow private non-profits to collect and expend public tax revenues. DDA can and are tightly reguilated by the state.

The DEGC is a private non-profit whose activities are limited to attraction and retention activities i.e. marketing. They can go to a trade show and recruit a business. They can discuss private matters with the business such as the firms financial records, the firms future investment plans and even proprietary information such as patents. All of this is done to protect the confidentiality of the company. Otherwise, if a software maker met with a public body and shared their plans for new software as a justification for asking for a tax abatement to build a new HQ, those software plans become public record.

The flip sideof the coin is that the DEGC cannot commit ANY public dollars. That can only be done by public agencies like the DDA, EDC, DBRA, TIFA or NDC. All of their investments are public, are discussed in public meetings and approved by City Counil. Often they need state approval as well. DEGC will meet with and vet the developer / client /investor and then direct them to the appropriate agency for support if viable.This way, the public investment is public and proprietary information is kept confidential. This structure is ubiquitous across the country at the state, regional, county and municipal level.

As a side note, the DEGC employs a staff that they then subcontract on a project by project basis to the various authorities.

An engineer may be hired by DEGC but the employee will work solely on DDA and EDC projects, so the entirely of their work is public record as the DEGC is being reimbursed for the wages by a line item in the project budgets. This is a very effective way to reduce staffing costs for the agencies. For example, the DDA had huge staffing needs for two years prior to the Superbowl for engineers and project managers to complete the streetscapes. Instead of overpaying for a private firm to do the work or hiring then terminating engineers, the DEGC was able to reassign engineering / project staff to the DDA projects from EDC projects that were wrapping up. Once the DDA Superbowl projects wrapped up, some of that staff began working on the East Riverfront.

Its perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and quite a clever way to reduce staff and overhead costs for projects while maintaining continuity. Its not nefarious, its not murky. Its effecient and straightforward.

My question was not whether or not DEGC is legitimate. My question was why these functions can't simply be handled by a publicly accountable agency like the DDA. It seems like you're telling us that DDA puts up the money, and DEGC handles everything else. Is this correct?

There is a reason to have a non-profit, quasi-public, unaccountable DEGC and it's not out of functional necessity. Maybe you would like to share that reason with us all.

[McIPor]

[quote=PQZ;49071]

I'll tell you exactly what happened there.

Acquest Realty had been sniffing around the building and had approached the DDA in late 2001 / early 2002 with a financing concept that did not borrow money from private entities, but required the City to issue municipal bonds for the entire cost of the project minus tax credits. Acquest would then charge a fee for developing the property but have none of their own money in the project. Acquest was told bluntly that the City was not going to use that model. The City would NOT jeopardize its only recently above marginal bond rating by issuing the entirety of debt and taking the full responsibility of the debt. If the BC failed, it would impact the City's ability to issue debt. Acquest was told if they wanted to explore a differnt model, the DDA would be delighted to speak wioth them. At the same time KC was proposing a different model and had begun their own work and drawings. Acquest did not know about KC. KC did not know about Acquest. Why? because the confidentiality of both were respected.

When the DDA announced they would hold a required public preliminary hearing around entering into a formal memorandum of understanding with KC, Acquest requested another meeting and presented more advanced drawings and argued, again, for the model they had been told the City would not accept. They were turned down, this time more bluntly.

Acquest showed up at the public meeting and tried to argue their case in front of the board. The weekend prior to the public meeting, MPA and Acquest mislead the Detroit News into running a story that there were two developers trying to rehab the building. It was patently false. Acquest had been told their model was not acceptable nearly a year earlier and it was reiterated again, prior to the story running. It was a nice piece of PR for the two heroic smiling architects with their photos on the front page above the fold though.

Lets be very clear about something. Acquest's numbers worked for Acquest. They did not work for the City. Period. Acquest would have cleared nearly $8 million in developers fees without putting a single cent of their money on the line. Not. A. Penny. ALL the debt would have been on the City side. From an over all debt management strategy and risk managment perspective, that was a very very bad deal for the City. Of course, the architects and other contractors had a vested interest to spin that it was a good deal. They stood to gain in their fees charged. I feel sorry for the firms that may have done work for Acquest on an If-Come basis for them when Acquest already knew the deal structure was a non-starter.

The allegation that MPA documents were given to KC or their contractors is a specious and unsupported lie. KC had their own contracted architects in Chicago working from the digital scans of the building starting in early 2002 before any drawings from MPA made their way to the DDA. There was no need for them or anyone to crib later drawings from MPA or any other contractor.

The attempt by MPA to accuse the DDA of stealing drawings is laughable at best. The MPA drawings had the first floor retail space retained, had a very different layout in terms of check in and had a different layout of public space. in other words, where there was room to play with layout, the plans differed materially.

Where there was not a lot of room for variation, both plans contemplated the restoration of public space as required by historic tax credits and both had a mixture of hotel rooms and condos as dictated by the economics of the project. However, the number of condos & their layouts and the number of hotel rooms & their layouts were different, although the dictates of the building envelope were going to result in vague similarities no matter who drew them.

The kicker was when the representatives of MPA threatened to sue the DDA after the public meeting for the KC MOU if they were not selected as a subcontractor for the project.

Here's a tip for the kids watching at home. Falsely accusing a public body of theft and then attempting extortion is a dangerous stunt that will result in your firm being marginalized.

The basis for the MPA claim was that both plans had condos and hotel rooms and both plans restored the ballrooms - as any plan would. The MPA plan had no plans for the additions that were part of the KC plans and became part of the Ferchill plan and had a very differnt configuration of the first and second floors.

At the time, as you stated nothing was public. To the best of MPA's knowledge, there were two development teams competing to develop the building. MPA and Acquest had met with Walt Watkins and Brian Holdwick. Walts response to MPA's plans was, "Great, we don't have to do a feasibility study now."

A few weeks later, Doug McIntosh attended a public meeting where to his surprise, his plans were on the wall for KC. When asked about it, he received no explanation. To the best of his knowledge at the time, KC had not yet done any plans of its own. Plans being copyrighted and protected as intellectual property, MPA had a copyright attorney make one call to inquire about the use of its property without permission. No threats of lawsuits or extortion were ever made.

Interesting to hear you mention retribution taken to "marginalize" the firm though. The lesson of your tip unfortunately is don't ever question the DEGC or you will be marginalized. Not what you would like to see from a public agency.