Detroit targets Park Ave. Bldg. for demolition

[emu steve]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger [[me or Louis, the Detnews writer):

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ing-demolition

[animatedmartian]

Can't really blame the city either. It all falls on the dumbass landlord who either didn't decide to maintain the building or sell it to someone who would. At some point, these guys gotta realize that a bucket full of money isn't going to fall out of the sky for them so what's the use on keeping ownership of the building?

[ghettopalmetto]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

[313WX]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

Well, it is pretty dumb...

[mikeg19]

I'm not an attorney, but is it possible to seize a building from an absentee land owner? It doesn't state if back taxes are owed or not in the article.

But hey, screw it. Tear everything down. Bulldoze downtown.

[Honky Tonk]

Good ol' Mikey, making Detroit a better place for you and me. But mostly for him.

[emu steve]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

I will FREELY admit I don't have a clue as to the dynamics at play here.

It appears that the building is unsafe, owned by an investor who has just 'sat' on the property for decades, and now the city wants to take action...

Question:

What is the 'end game' here?

Is the city trying to 'force the hand' of the owner? Redevelop or sell or tear it down?

Does Ilitch want to buy it after it has been demolished? [Even though it is in the 'sports and entertainment district' I see it as a 'peripheral' parcel, not key, to his 'Columbia' development plans.]

Is the land worth more with the building demolished?

Anyone interested in re-developing the property?

I can't figure out what will happen here...

[Mackinaw]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

[animatedmartian]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

So what if the city pressures him to enforce the codes? He doesn't have to do anything even if the city threatens to demolish it. All he has to do [[and has been doing) is get a lawyer to argue that the city is wrong and he's within code.

[emu steve]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

I have a question about the parking space comment.

I assume that tearing down buildings and adding more parking spaces there isn't a big financial winner. [[actually a question).

My question: OTHER THAN when the Tigers [[or Lions) are playing is there a lot of demand for parking in the area essentially behind the Fox?

I was watching a SUNDAY Tiger game on Fox Sports Detroit [[actually it was Ilitch's B-Day) and they had a great panoramic view of the Comerica Park area extending say west of Cass.

The parking lots appeared to be full.

I thought, gee, this is all TIGERS GAME DAY parking. What does it look like on a Monday afternoon?

Then the questions are:

Is there a DEMAND for more parking spaces? Or are parking spaces the lesser of two equals, with the other, being a crumbling building with no apparent good options and heavy caring costs????

[animatedmartian]

I will FREELY admit I don't have a clue as to the dynamics at play here.

It appears that the building is unsafe, owned by an investor who has just 'sat' on the property for decades, and now the city wants to take action...

Question:

What is the 'end game' here?

Is the city trying to 'force the hand' of the owner? Redevelop or sell or tear it down?

Does Ilitch want to buy it after it has been demolished? [Even though it is in the 'sports and entertainment district' I see it as a 'peripheral' parcel, not key, to his 'Columbia' development plans.]

Is the land worth more with the building demolished?

Anyone interested in re-developing the property?

I can't figure out what will happen here...

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city. In fact, if the city were to gain ownership, then it'd become a liability and if some poor soul gets hit by a falling brick, the city has to take responsibility.

It doesn't matter if Ilitch plans to buy the land or not. The fact is that Park Avenue can't exist as a vacant/crumbling building. Either Sachs renovates it, sells it, or it gets demolished.

The reason that the city doesn't seize the building and auction it like a neighborhood houses is mostly because the downtown landowners have more money and can afford better lawyers. It takes upwards a a couple of months for the city to get a house if the owner puts up a fight. For a downtown high rise, it will take years if not decades while still at the taxpayer's expense. Otherwise, it'd be easy and the city would have done it many times.

Of course I'm upset that Detroit is losing another building, but Sachs is the one to blame for letting it get this way. The city is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

[Mackinaw]

So what if the city pressures him to enforce the codes? He doesn't have to do anything even if the city threatens to demolish it. All he has to do [[and has been doing) is get a lawyer to argue that the city is wrong and he's within code.

Not so. The city can file the appropriate lawsuit and have a judge or jury [[likely cannot make it to a jury) make the determination. I think you forgot about that last part.

The question is what to do next. If the City is doing good by its promise to create economic redevelopment and a great American downtown, preservation is the only option, or at least one that needs to be thoroughly and properly exhausted through a policy of finding interested developers, putting them on timetables and requiring them to secure the building, and making whatever tax abatements are necessary. The only other acceptable alternative is an RFP to demo and IMMEDIATELY commence the building of something new on the site.

EMU Steve, personally, that's irrelevant. The street and the landscape is ruined whether cars use the lots or not. It is not adequate justification even if the lot is full and it has those New Jersey-style crane apparatuses to stack the cars. Just not acceptable.

[motz]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

How much do you think it would take to rehab that building?

[Mackinaw]

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city. In fact, if the city were to gain ownership, then it'd become a liability and if some poor soul gets hit by a falling brick, the city has to take responsibility.

It doesn't matter if Ilitch plans to buy the land or not. The fact is that Park Avenue can't exist as a vacant/crumbling building. Either Sachs renovates it, sells it, or it gets demolished.

The reason that the city doesn't seize the building and auction it like a neighborhood houses is mostly because the downtown landowners have more money and can afford better lawyers. It takes upwards a a couple of months for the city to get a house if the owner puts up a fight. For a downtown high rise, it will take years if not decades while still at the taxpayer's expense. Otherwise, it'd be easy and the city would have done it many times.

Of course I'm upset that Detroit is losing another building, but Sachs is the one to blame for letting it get this way. The city is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

You really need to back this up with legal citations. Why would it take longer for the City to establish its right to have the building demolished than to establish its right to seize ownership, on account of the same reasons [[dangerous condition, i.e. blight in every sense of the word). Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it. It really is a question of the City's policy priorities. We can even add in a cost-benefit analysis, too. Is the cost of demolition more or less than the cost of reasonable compensation to Sachs? Maybe not, and certainly not when you take into account the cost of lost history and Kahn architecture.

[animatedmartian]

You really need to back this up with legal citations. Why would it take longer for the City to establish its right to have the building demolished than to establish its right to seize ownership, on account of the same reasons [[dangerous condition, i.e. blight in every sense of the word). Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it. It really is a question of the City's policy priorities. We can even add in a cost-benefit analysis, too. Is the cost of demolition more or less than the cost of reasonable compensation to Sachs? Maybe not, and certainly not when you take into account the cost of lost history and Kahn architecture.

Sachs can reject whatever amount of compensation the city offers him, can't he? I don't doubt that he'd want more than what the building is actually worth.

[animatedmartian]

Is there a DEMAND for more parking spaces? Or are parking spaces the lesser of two equals, with the other, being a crumbling building with no apparent good options and heavy caring costs????

Pretty much the latter. Owners get revenue from parking lots. They don't get revenue from vacant buildings. Mostly because taxes are lower on a parking lot than they are on a building.

It would actually be in the city's best interest to preserve the building and have it reused rather than turning it into a parking lot, but if at any point the building could just fall over into the street, well then public safety becomes more valuable than potential tax revenue.

[ghettopalmetto]

It would actually be in the city's best interest to preserve the building and have it reused rather than turning it into a parking lot, but if at any point the building could just fall over into the street, well then public safety becomes more valuable than potential tax revenue.

And that's why there are building codes and property maintenance codes. But enforcement of those codes doesn't jive with Detroit's dream of demolishing every single damned thing they can.

[animatedmartian]

And that's why there are building codes and property maintenance codes. But enforcement of those codes doesn't jive with Detroit's dream of demolishing every single damned thing they can.

Again, you forget that landlords can get lawyers and fight the city. Just like how anyone can fight a speeding ticket in court, so can a landlord on building codes.

[emu steve]

... Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it...

Is this really true? Could the city have bought dozens of buildings in downtown or Midtown [[e.g., the now demolished Temple Hotel? The two high rise buildings on Cass near the arena footprint, Hotel Americana?, etc etc.). Blighted but safe? Is the building discussed in this thread not blight but UNsafe?

Can Detroit seize any blighted building even if taxes are being paid?

I'd love to see some case law.

Believe me, I know nothing about this type of real estate law so I'm just asking...

EDIT:

I went to Wikipedia and read Kelo. This is what Wikipedia says about MI law:

Michigan

Michigan passed a restriction on the use of eminent domain in November 2006, Proposition 4, 80% to 20%.^[42] The text of the ballot initiative was as follows:^[43]

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes
The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
• Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
• Preserve existing rights of property owners.

***********

[313WX]

Is this really true?

Can Detroit seize any blighted building even if taxes are being paid?

I would assume there's some protocol [[though maybe not as extreme as outright forfeiture) in place to target property owners who aren't keeping their buildings up to code.

The problem with Detroit is that, because it's been so broke and dysfunctional for so long, it hasn't actually been enforcing these codes like it should. These owners are well aware that they can get away with not maintaining their properties, at least for a long time.

And even if these code violations were eventually taken to court, there's the risk of wasting a lot of money on litigation just to ultimately inherit a relatively undesirable and worthless property the city itself can't afford to take care of.

[Hypestyles]

too bad it couldn't have been turned into lofts. Ah well.

[Wesley Mouch]

How much do you think it would take to rehab that building?

25 years ago, it was $90-120/foot. So today I'd bet $200-300/foot would give you a ballpark. 100,000 s.f. = +/- $20-30m.

Anyone with better s.f. budgets for historic building reno?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

too bad it couldn't have been turned into lofts. Ah well.

I think a better way of putting it would be "too bad is isn't being turned into lofts." If it hadn't been left to become ruined by a slumlord, it certainly could be following along the path of the nearby Kales, Broderick and Whitney.

[emu steve]

I think a better way of putting it would be "too bad is isn't being turned into lofts." If it hadn't been left to become ruined by a slumlord, it certainly could be following along the path of the nearby Kales, Broderick and Whitney.

Bingo!!!

With the private markets being what they are, why didn't someone approach the owner and make him an 'irresistible' offer and redevelop it?

If anyone wants to offer me 125 - 150% of fair market value of my house or car, I'm selling...

People aren't fools, and especially folks in real estate.

If someone offered this owner an 'irresistible' offer I'd guess he'd say 'Yes'.

[poobert]

"The block is now slated to become “Columbia Park,” one of the new neighborhoods that will be part of the $650 million in planned development. Columbia Park will be bordered by Interstate 75 service drive to the north, Bagley to the south, Park to the east and Grand River to the west.
Columbia Park is described as “a fresh, modern neighborhood anchored by a new public green space” on the website DistrictDetroit.com. The driving force behind the new 45-block district is Olympia Development of Michigan, the real estate company owned by Michael and Marian Ilitch. Ilitch companies in the food, sports and entertainment industries include the Detroit Red Wings, Little Caesar Enterprises, Olympia Entertainment and Uptown Entertainment. Michael Ilitch owns the Detroit Tigers. Marian Ilitch owns the MotorCity Casino Hotel.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3AUVU6Yao"

Create a fake neighborhood where one already exists? People here really are stupid. I mean, this is just the backwoods. It's the central business district, not an outdoor mall.

Leaving in t-minus two months. Enjoy your vacant lots and "Columbia Park" courtesy of some flaccid old fuck, you sorry SOBs who are stuck here. Hell, put a Home Depot shed in the middle of the street and call it walkable. I'm sure them fancy city folk will be movin' here in no times.