Tags
It’s amazing what riles the masses and the pundits and what passes by with hardly a peep. From the 2012 State of the City address, we learn this:
We must also turn our attention to the Esquire property at the Mohasco site. On account of its advanced state of deterioration, the building has been found unsafe and requires demolition. The site must serve as a key driver for revitalization of that district.
Now, if you follow local political discourse, you know that the meme goes something like this: the city spends too much; the city needs to cut even the smallest of the most trivial of expenses — like tulips; and those who claim to have the best interests of the city at heart, make no small clamor on how we need to cut, cut and indeed, we need to look at every expense , no matter how small, in our budget. It is this focus on expenses, on costs, on spending that makes them supremely qualified to lecture us common folk on their financial wisdom and acumen. After all, in their view, public finance reduces to nothing more than a watchful eye on expenses and their reduction– that is the key to fiscal planning and management.
While this cast never met an expense they like, they also remain wholly disinterested in revenue, indeed, there is never a revenue source for which they care– which brings us back to Esquire and its demolition.
We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, millions of dollars over several years, and likely tens of millions over the decades to demolish stuff. Yet somehow, this expense which sucks life from the city through swiss-cheesing our neighborhoods, paving our neighborhoods with asphalt and ultimately trash, and in return, pressing tax rates higher through the reduction of taxable properties is applauded and heralded. In fact, demolition is viewed as ‘progress’ and no doubt, demolishing Esquire will be seen as ‘progress’.
Here’s how ‘progress’ works in the city: a building is demolished to great fanfare that we can now ‘develop’ it; to ‘develop” it, we turn to AIDA or some other ossified economic development entity or group to ‘market’ it; we then wait , and wait, and wait, and wait, for the ultimate ‘developer’ who will bring ‘industry’ back. Then more waiting, waiting, waiting, until we are distracted by tulips forgetting about how awesome it’s going to be once the site gets redeveloped.
Rinse. Repeat. Year after year.
Meanwhile, the demolition financial kabuki goes unabated because folks truly believe that the city gets a free ride on demolition as a “shared service” from the county or some other mythical accounting technique whereby no adverse effects impact city taxpayers.
The funny thing is that Esquire could possibly have been redeveloped without demolishing it whatsoever so the expense that we now incur could be wholly avoided if we could engage and encourage developers such as Murray Gould who expressed interest in the project until the Chalmers saga hit:
The overall tone and alleged increase in community and city opposition to the Chalmers project is very unsettling to me as the potential developer of the Esquire Novelties Building. It is also very troubling to read the overall tone that I believe is disrespectful of Mr. Kauffman’s efforts.
[snip]
Community and official support from the municipality is an absolute requirement for a developer to consider taking on the risk of’a project like Chalmers or Esquire Novelties. If that support is not clear, then it is simply too risky for the developer to proceed.
[snip]
I am very fortunate that I have choice in where I choose to work on historic rehabilitation projects I am very excited about the promise and challenge that goes with the rehabilitation of the Esquire Novelties property. However. that does not mean that J am wiI1ing to spend yearsofeffort and take a major financial risk if there is not community support. The recent events related to the Chalmers Building are causing me to seriously reconsider my decision. The vote by the City Council opposing the National Register nomination sends a very strong signal to me and others in the development community that the City of Amsterdam does not support this type of project.
At this point I am ceasing any further pre-development work on the Esquire Novelties project.
And there you have it– the loss of potential revenue, the loss of growth, the loss of “buzz” in building some interest in development in the city. Instead of revenue, we now have an expense to demolish the building. But to the financial wizards who watch every penny we spend, the loss of revenue coupled with the expense of demolition simply does not enter the calculation. This is what counts as ‘progress’ in rebuilding the city. I hate to say it but we could buy a lot of tulips, a lot of paper clips and even a Christmas light or two with the opportunity cost around Esquire. But then I’m old school on financials– I look at expenses and revenue.
It’s the mention of ‘revenue’ that makes me a financial pariah and heretic in the 12010.
What’s even funnier is that we turn away credible, successful developers to have AIDA or some other agency pursue developers to develop the site. That’s worked wonderfully to date, no?
Think about it from a business perspective: let’s say there is a restaurant called Cornholios. A customer walks through the door and wants to order the porterhouse steak advertised on the placard outside. The waiter rebukes the customer for their order (“you idiot, you want a porterhouse steak?!”) and, within earshot of the table, mocks the customer to the owner and other waitstaff for requesting the very thing offered by the restaurant.
Indignant, the customer leaves soon to publicize his awful experience in the physical and digital realm. As the owner receives word of the negative reviews of his restaurant, the owner wonders why sales are down and why his restaurant gets such a bad rap. Determined to reverse his fortunes, he takes to the street encouraging passers-by to partake in the delectable porterhouse steak offered on the menu. But customers are scarce until the owner, with minutes to closing time, spots a small group approaching the restaurant.
Desperate, the owner calls to them to come in for a delicious porterhouse steak– it’s on the house, a free meal, why not give it a try, he beseeches them. But, alas, fortune turns against him when he recognizes the former customer, so gruffly turned away on his last dining experience, now advising his fellow patrons on his steadfast resolve in avoiding this place and the wisdom in their doing likewise.
So off they stroll to the new eatery down the block, welcome to pay full price for a porterhouse at any place but the once and great Cornholios.
So … what you’re saying is Amsterdam needs TP for its bunghole?
Are you threatening me?
So….now this is funny and not serious? How many times has/will this scenario be repeated in the Rug/Doormat City? Who cares, as long as it sells newspapers….
Another great post Flippin’.
Thank you Dan
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.” – Dante Alighieri
What to do, what to do,
What I see in dealing with buildings like the esquire building, is that there are a ton of people with plans to rebuild them, reinvent them, resue them, turn them into “flex space, apartments, condos etc. The truth is though that while for 21 years of selling properties like the esquire building, there are very few investors that have the ability to see through the dirt and follow through with a plan. Basically the only person who I have seen accomplish the fete was Mr. Kaufman, in Cohoes.
I am not a demolitionist, I even liked the idea of the chalmers building project, but I do know the Esquire building very well, I had shown the building several years ago to several companies interested in using it for manufacturing and another who wanted to turn the two lower floors as retail.
Several issues plauged the building, The roof had been leaking for years, causing alot of issues, the least of which was a major vertical structural support which had rotted and could actually be moved in the horizontal, from side to side.
It is not often that these type of buildings can be used for manufacturing again, An elevator has many expenses that people do not realize, maintenance contracts, inspections, electric, man power to run them and the inefficencies that they create. Manufacturing on 5 floors is a nightmare moving material throughout the building in a cohesive manner and changes to the manufacturing process are not easily made in the restrictive floor plans. The buildings are far from energy efficent and the maintenance cost are not inexpensive.
In this case I would have to make the case that without the building, The Mohasco site would be a better place and more cost effective to build new manufactiring space or housing.
I would have to agree Bob. And I would further state that when the last gentleman looked at the property during the Kaufman saga, I would say that he saw that there were major problems with the building, the ones sighted above, and that is why he left the city, not because of what the mayor stated, which was the city’s unfriendliness. I have never thought that to be true, because I too knew the condition of the building back then, and the solution was to tear it down.
Demolition is only a solution when there are no other choices. What I hate to see is the destruction of property by all the blight and rot. The city has the means to control this issue and should be more diligent with code enforcement.
Mr. Gould loved that building and was moving forward with his plans for redevelopment until the Chalmers fiasco. At that time, the Esquire building could have been saved. The historic fact is documented in his letter to the Council. As stated, Mr. Gould left because of the treatment of Mr. Kaufman and the attitude of the Council. I requested funding to save the building three years ago by securing the roof, but those funds were not allocated and the building has now deteriorated to a state that is beyond repair.
Diane,
Just so I’m clear on your strategy: the city should cite itself for code violations on city owned properties for which the city, via the
negligencefinancial acumen of the common council, fails to fund things like a roof to prevent demolition and perhaps enable restoration. This would be the same council who chooses to underfund and indeed defund codes in terms of manpower and resources while allocating $1 million plus dollars in bonding for demolition. So this was a council that would rather city taxpayers pay over $1 million in demolition but zero dollars in redevelopment or repurposing.Clearly Mayor Thane’s fault, not the council’s. It’s never, ever the council’s actions– it simply can’t be.
Clearly.
As far as your claim that the city’s “unfriendliness is not true” when it comes to “outsiders” , that is absolutely priceless.
Bob,
As usual, you make some great points. On your “what to do, what to do”, I think you point out the following:
1) A market exists for repurposing and redevelopeling our former industrial buildings
2) Developers able to successfully redevelop properties in (1) are few and far between
3) A market exists for Chalmers-like development
I suggest the actions are:
1) Fund marketing and promotion around residential redevelopment of existing industrial and factory stock
2) Collaborate, engage and welcome outside developers
3) Repurpose, redevelop first; demolish last
What frustrates me is that we have a large inventory of properties which almost every other community realizes can be repurposed or redeveloped and rather than spend a single dollar to do so, we instead march ahead demolishing them, never to ask ourselves why.
In hard dollars, we spend zero dollars on repurposing and in hard numbers, we have repurposed, redeveloped zero properties.
And how many investors and developers have we brought to the city: zero.
That’s an appalling set of metrics.
I think at some point you have to fish or cut bait, but you have to make the decission after a well thought out process and then carry out your goal. There are a ton of buildings all over the united states that can be repurposed, what we have to define, if possible, is what makes ours more palatable or having a higher rate of success.
Mr. Gould has a well-documented portfolio of successful rehabilitation projects. His interest in the Esquire property was sincere and he spent months pursuing the project. His departure was very public and disappointing, but the ship has moved on. We are now owners of a building that needs demolition because of the issues Bob has sighted. The property is ideal for new development and we will vigorously seek a new venture, just as we will for the Chalmers site. My only wish would be for an effective Community and Economic Development Department to assist in this end.
http://www.portcitypreservation.com/aboutus.html
It is unfortunate that Mr. Gould chose to leave the city because he was and is a legitimate businessman with several successful projects under his belt. It is unfortunate that the Esquire Bldg was too far gone as I am sure that he would have done an excellent project. Reputation is everything and Mr. Kaufman’s shortfalls were well documented.
Diane,
Mr. Gould’s reasons for leaving are well documented, but as you seem to deem certain sources as more credible than even the horse’s mouth, please refer to the following from the Recorder, August 11, 2009:
“Even if AIDA hadn’t entered into an option agreement for Mohasco, Gould said Port City Preservation would still be removed from the project.”
“Regardless of that, I would be withdrawing not because we don’t like the project, not because we don’t think it could be done … it’s a foolish risk,” said Gould. “After what the council just did, I can’t take that risk and I wouldn’t take that risk.”
To rewrite this history now is ridiculous.
http://flippinamsterdam.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/calling-our-bluff/
Flippin,
I am the outsider and have found people to be friendly. When I would ask questions at city hall of the employees, they were always polite and willing to answer my questions. It has been that way for 11 years. Maybe because I was not looking for something for nothing and was realistic in my expectations, I was not disappointed.
As for the roof of the Esquire building it has been an issue for a number of years along with a very important column that could twirl on its own. Remember, when the mayor took office, there was money in the custodial acct for new roof or roof repair at city hall, but instead the mayor spent the thousands of dollars on redecorating city hall. So do not talk about a roof. When you buy a house the first thing you do is fix the roof.
We do have many buildings that can be repurposed. Many are not in the city’s hands, and when they do arrive there, they have been let go by their absentee property owner. We are a struggling community that has crumbling infrastructure which should be taken care of before the roof of an empty building. Ten years ago, maybe it could have been saved, but today it is not an option. However, the Esquire property plus the Mohasco site will make a very nice parcel for someone looking for a great location on the river. It can be residential or commercial.
Something else to remember, and Bob brought it up earlier, today’s companies want a single floor operation, not several stories. So that leaves the possibility of many of these structures coming down at some point in time. The other option is mixed use on several floors. Look at the Noteworthy offices on Church St. They have been well maintained and could be turned into residential/mixed use. Have there been any offers? That property is in the MLS, so if someone wanted to go that route, there is the perfect place.
I do see demo as the last resort. You also talk like nothing was done about marketing before Thane. AIDA managed to get the word out and had Edson rented and built out with no trouble. It may not be to the current mayor’s liking, but things were being done. Most of the demo bonding money, in recent memory has been for dilapidated housing from slum lords. For the past 8 years I have supported the hiring of an additional codes officer. We need three full time to handle the work load to keep things going routinely. One also needs a corp counsel that is willing to go to court after the slum lords. Current corp counsel has shown no interest for the past 3 and a half years, but now he is going to change?? I do not think so. He represents two of the city’s biggest slumlords, one of which is on Forest Ave. (Although I am sure he will say he does not represent them at the current time)
We have many problems in the city. For four years now the mayor has been sitting in on most, if not all of the AIDA meetings. We are an old industrial blue collar city. We have to work with what we have. If the bldgs are not what people want, then we find the money to tear them down and have a parcel ready for development. In the previous administration, Mike Chiarra knew exactly where all the vacant lots were and any other property potentials in an area. And instead of dumping city owned properties on the auction block, they should have been examined first by AIDA/URA to see if there was any potential for holding on to it. Several properties were sold that could have put together a nice parcel for future development. That was not done and we the public are paying the price.
By the way, The Clock Tower property has been repurposed with private money. It was a beautiful building that has been saved. The Guy Park School has now been turned into apts along with other schools. With the exception of the Academy St Apts, all are doing well and being well maintained. Unfortunately, with the economy the way it is, nothing is moving very fast. Frankly, I see the day when most of the east end will have to be demolished due to its condition. Some of those buildings are just rotting. The same goes for many along West Main St and some of the bldgs along willow. At what point do you just tear it down and move forward?? Or do you prefer for another Kaufman come in, strip the building and not live up to his agreement?? Look what he did in Broadalbin and in other parts of the state? He has bought property and just let it rot after stripping it of its valuable guts. That is not what we need.
And I will be very surprised that the Mohasco site is used for a state bldg, when they are consolidating their offices in ALB and letting their outlying properties go due to cost.
Diane,
Not sure where to start but here goes.
It’s well documented that outside investors such as Kaufman, Gould and the Buddhists did not get a friendly reception. I observed it first hand and I’ve written extensively on this blog about it so I have to push back on your assertion. My point was geared toward attracting investors and developers.
You again bring up the custodial budget which I’ve also disproven on this blog as nonsensical given that the custodial budget was on the order of $10K, well short of being close to the necessary amount to fix the roof at city hall. And again, where is the council as part of the budget committee to appropriate the required funds to fix said roof on city hall? Oh that’s right, they’re working to undermine city hall so they can relocate to the riverfront center. Hence allocating no money to fix the roof.
I think it’s been about 20 years since AIDA marketed Edson Street and Edson street is not residential development. I’ll change my mind on AIDA when someone can show me hard numbers on jobs created and their marketing plan and successes in the past 10 years. By mission and intent, AIDA has no directives to encourage residential development. Period. Indeed, since you buy Robert Purtell’s premise that current manufacturers want new, single floor compared to multi-story, that effectively eliminates any of our properties from manufacturing repurposing– which leaves residential, which leaves AIDA wholly unable to deal with it. Checkmate.
You say Esquire would make nice residential development but I thought no one wants to live in Amsterdam or at least in nice apartments. I’ll say no more as once again, I’ve addressed this paradox ad nauseum on the Chalmers saga.
You mention the Clock Tower which ironically, the city failed to secure the roof creating significant water damage to the building making it somewhat tenouous. I believe the city (not 100% sure of this) — gasp , public funds– helped repair the roof so the building did not implode. Regrettable I know as it would have been awesome to demolish the Clock Tower for the resident demolitionists.
If my choice is between Kaufman coming in to redevelop and repurpose versus your proposal to demolish the entirety of Main Street, I’ll side with Kaufman every time. My taxes are already stratospheric and I hope to be long gone by the time I have to pay for demolishing the rest of the city. I assume you will not use any public monies for demolition outside of city tax payers consistent with your ideology of not seeking handouts thereby driving tax rates even higher on the remaining city tax payers. Thanks , but no.
And by the way, I’m not too keen on Guy Park apartments given the crass commercialization with its parking lot in our “historic district”. It’s only a matter of time before the entire lot is paved so it can accommodate St Mary’s . I’ll bet you a cup of coffee at the soon-to-be-announced Stewart’s on the former Chalmers’ site that the entire lot will be paved within two years.
Yes the city did pay for the roof at Clock Tower according to owner Terry Barker. Talk about being negative, I guess you are just an unhappy puppy. See Tuesday’s Gazette……..the Noteworthy Bldg would make a great project. And again to both you and the mayor, the Esquire and Chalmers properties were two different projects with two different businessmen. For Mr. Gould to leave under his circumstances was very unfortunate. The city was not in discussions with Mr. Gould, only the individual that stripped the Chalmers bldg and never came up with the money.
At some point in time, in order for communities to move forward developers will come in and at their own expense redevelop and rebuild and sometimes that will require demolition. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Some things can be saved, some cannot.
As for Guy Park School the other side would have left it to rot. the parking lot does not bother me half as much as the removal of two one hundred year old trees. To the best of my knowledge that was never brought up in the planning process.
I guess the fact that businesses are moving to the 5S industrial parks because they can find space to build on one floor is not the issue. Our buildings are outdated and only so many of the dozens or so can be retrofitted. Find the best building for that and go for it. Kaufman along with the mayor and GD created their own problems for the Chalmers project. But it is gone and now done. I would hope that the planning and zoning boards are astute enough not to approve a Stewart’s on a piece of prime real estate.
“Talk about being negative,”
(spin + speciousness + misinformation) = -(facts + reason + observable reality)
Q.E.D.
Amen.
Oy vey