That is, have all kinds of showy public meetings and get your project in the media but not really provide the city decision makers with the information they need – and then probably show up with it last minute if at all. The latest example – straight from the bad developer playbook – is the 100 State St. project. When developers get away with this, they usually make the argument of there were xx meetings and its all been discussed to death, but usually many of those meetings are held in a vacuum of information and that causes delay and then they complain that it takes too long. And alders fall for it over and over – and vote for projects so they aren’t anti-development/anti-business. I think it is high time that we stop this from happening. It’s a pattern I hope is not repeated here.
Here’s the e-mail from Stuart Levitan, re-requesting information – of course, the meeting is on Monday and that means the info will be late or missing. (email addresses eliminated)
From: Stu Levitan
Date: January 26, 2012 6:56:24 AM CST
To: George Austin
Cc: “Scanlon, Amy”, EFGehrig, “Rummel, Marsha”, christina slattery, Robin Taylor, Michael Rosenblood, “Monks, Anne”, “Ald. Mike Verveer”, “Fruhling, William”, “Murphy, Brad”, “Cover, Steven”
Subject: Fw: State Street Redevelopment ProjectDear George
You will recall that on November 7, 2011, I sent you the attached email concerning information the Landmarks Commission needs to understand and evaluate the proposal from the Block 100 Foundation. The information I requested was consistent with the elements which the ordinance requires us to consider when evaluating an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a designated landmark.
To date, you have not responded to my letter. While you do partially answer some of the questions in your letter of intent, you fail to address several of them, calling at least one question “irrelevant” to our task.
I do not believe the questions I raised more than two months ago are irrelevant. I believe they are natural and proper, and seek information the Commission needs to fulfill its responsibility under sec. 33.19 (1) (c) and (5)(c) of the MGO.
Your proposed project would dramatically and permanently change the nature of upper State Street. It has naturally been the subject of great public interest and debate. You are entitled to the timely consideration of your application. However, the Commission is entitled to have all the information it needs to make an informed decision.
To date, you have not provided all the information the Commission needs to make just such an informed decision. I hope you will provide that information promptly, so the Commission will be able to act on your application on January 30. I believe the information is already within your possession, and will not require any research or analysis on your part.
At the public hearing Monday, the Commission is happy to offer you and your team a reasonable amount of time, beyond the normal limits, to make your presentation. Please let me know how much time you think you need.
And please feel free to contact me with any questions concerning the letter of November 7, and this follow-up.
Very truly yours,
Stuart Levitan
Chair, Landmarks Commission
Here’s the original letter, sent in November.
George Austin
Overture Foundation
Block 100 FoundationNovember 7, 2011
Dear George
In the five weeks since you worked with local media for the promotional unveiling of the State Street Redevelopment project, members and staff of the Landmarks Commission have sought to understand your proposal in the absence of any direct information. So we are glad you will finally be coming to the Commission (meeting jointly with the Urban Design Commission) to make your first informational presentation on Nov. 14. I write to let you know about certain information we will need in evaluating your proposal.
As you are aware, in determining whether to issue the Certificates of Appropriateness you will need to demolish the designated city landmarks at 125 State Street and 120 W. Mifflin Street, the Commission will apply the terms of sec. 33.19(5)(c), and other ordinances incorporated by reference. In addition to the subjective tests of 33.19(5)(c)3. a.-e. and g., 33.19(5)(c )3.f. has an objective standard concerning the economics of the project and the actions by applicants, as follows:
f. Whether the building or structure is in such a deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore it, provided that any hardship or difficulty claimed by the owner which is self-created or which is the result of any failure to maintain the property in good repair cannot qualify as a basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.Also, sec. 33.19(1)(c) declares that among the purposes and intents of the Landmarks Ordinance are:
(c) Stabilize and improve property values.
(f) Strengthen the economy of the cityIn light of the ordinance, I note that records in the city assessor’s office list Central Focus LLC as the owner of the six properties involved in the proposed development. I also note these records indicate that Central Focus LLC spent several million dollars more than the properties were assessed at in assembling the parcel over the past decade or so.
Accordingly, in evaluating your proposal against the standards of 33.19(5)(c)3.f. and 33.19(1)(c) and (f), the Commission will need to know the nature and details of the relationship between Central Focus LLC and the Overture and/or Block 100 Foundations. In addition, please provide the following information about all six properties involved in the project:
1. Purchase price;
2. Assessment as of the date purchased;
3. Whether the property had been listed for sale at time of initial Central Focus LLC inquiry/offer;
4. Whether the building was occupied at time of purchase;
5. If the building is currently vacant, the date of vacancy;
6. Any engineering studies that have been done on the condition and structural integrity of the subject buildings;
7. The actions Central Focus LLC has taken to maintain the various buildings in good repair;
8. The change in assessments on the subject block since Central Focus LLC began assembling parcel;
9. The projected assessments of the four remaining properties upon completion of the project;
10. The projected rents at the four remaining properties upon completion of redevelopment.Thank you for your timely response to this request. I expect commissioners and staff will have additional questions about other aspects of proposal, as well.
Also, please provide to Amy Scanlon copies of the material you will be using on the 14th by noon on Wednesday, Nov. 9, so it can be distributed with the packet for that meeting.
I look forward to your presentation on the 14th, and at subsequent meetings. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this letter, or other aspects concerning commission consideration of the project.
Very truly yours,
Stu Levitan
Chair, Landmarks CommissionCc: Landmarks Commissioners
Amy Scanlon
Anne Monks
Ald. Verveer
